- Genre:
- Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich (1686 - 1750), Russian statesman, historian. He graduated from the Moscow Engineering and Artillery School. Participated in the Northern War of 1700-21, carried out various military and diplomatic assignments of Tsar Peter I. In 1720-22 and 1734-37 he managed state-owned factories in the Urals, founded Yekaterinburg; in 1741-45 he was governor of Astrakhan. In 1730 he actively opposed the leaders (Supreme Privy Council). Tatishchev prepared the first Russian publication of historical sources, introducing into scientific circulation the texts of Russian Truth and Sudebnik 1550 with a detailed commentary, laid the foundation for the development of ethnography and source studies in Russia. Compiled the first Russian encyclopedic dictionary ("Russian Lexicon"). He created a generalizing work on national history, written on the basis of numerous Russian and foreign sources, - "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" (books 1-5, M., 1768-1848). Tatishchev's "History of Russia" is one of the most significant works in the entire history of the existence of Russian historiography. Monumental, brilliantly and accessiblely written, this book covers the history of our country from ancient times - and up to the reign of Fyodor Mikhailovich Romanov. The special value of Tatishchev's work is that the history of Russia is presented here IN ITS ENTIRE COMPLETENESS - in aspects not only military-political, but - religious, cultural and domestic! Adaptation from Late Slavic - O. Kolesnikov (2000-2002)
- | | (0)
- Genre:
- Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich (1686 - 1750), Russian statesman, historian. He graduated from the Moscow Engineering and Artillery School. Participated in the Northern War of 1700-21, carried out various military and diplomatic assignments of Tsar Peter I. In 1720-22 and 1734-37 he managed state-owned factories in the Urals, founded Yekaterinburg; in 1741-45 he was governor of Astrakhan. In 1730 he actively opposed the leaders (Supreme Privy Council). Tatishchev prepared the first Russian publication of historical sources, introducing into scientific circulation the texts of Russian Truth and Sudebnik 1550 with a detailed commentary, laid the foundation for the development of ethnography and source studies in Russia. Compiled the first Russian encyclopedic dictionary ("Russian Lexicon"). He created a generalizing work on national history, written on the basis of numerous Russian and foreign sources, - "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" (books 1-5, M., 1768-1848). Russian History by Tatishchev is one of the most significant works in the entire history of Russian historiography. Monumental, brilliantly and accessiblely written, this book covers the history of our country from ancient times - and up to the reign of Fyodor Mikhailovich Romanov. The special value of Tatishchev's work is that the history of Russia is presented here IN ITS ENTIRE COMPLETENESS - in aspects not only military-political, but - religious, cultural and domestic!
"Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" - the famous historical work by Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. This work has become one of the most significant books Russian historiography, initiating a new stage in the development of Russian historical literature, thanks to which the transition from chronicle to critical analysis and presentation based on sources. At the same time, few people know that the author of "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" did not dream of writing this work at all. He created it under the pressure of circumstances.
Who was the author of "History of Russia"?
Tatishchev was born in 1686 in noble family originating from the Rurik family. He graduated from the Engineering School in Moscow, and then went to receive higher education to Europe. And not to Holland or France, as many of his contemporaries did, but to Germany, which was not very popular in those days.
Passed as a diplomat northern war, and after it he managed factories in the Urals and founded Yekaterinburg.
Tatishchev was the first to introduce into scientific circulation such important texts as Russkaya Pravda and Sudebnik, thereby giving rise to the development of ethnography and source studies in Russia.
But perhaps the most ambitious work of Tatishchev was "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times", which summarized all the numerous Russian and foreign documentary sources known at that time, describing the history of Russia from the moment of its foundation to the reign of Fyodor Romanov.
Tatishchev was not a historian and wrote such a significant work only out of state necessity. foreign books about Russia were filled with errors, which affected diplomacy between countries. So, Tatishchev decided to restore historical truth and write short essay about the history and historical borders of Russia.
He collected in his library great amount books, most of which were not published, and realized how unexplored the history of Russia at that time. Members of the Academy of Sciences helped him translate the texts of the books.
The structure of the "History of Russia from the most ancient times"
About work. "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" by Tatishchev has become one of the most significant works in Russian historiography. It describes the development of the country not only in the military or political aspects but also in religious, domestic and cultural terms.
The work is divided into four parts, there are also separate sketches dedicated to History XVII century. Only the first and second parts of the work, which contain most author's notes supplementing the text. The third and fourth parts are devoid of notes, which makes it possible to believe that the work on them has not been completed.
The first part of the "History of Russia from the Most Ancient Times" describes the history from the formation of tribes to the unification of the lands by Rurik. The presentation is conducted on behalf of the Slavs, who later became "Rus". The customs, geography of settlement and religious beliefs of the first Slavs are described. Mentioned whole line the first baptisms in Russia (after all, the narrative begins from ancient, pagan times). Tatishchev adheres to Nestor's presentation, describing the calling of the Varangians and the struggle against the hostile Khazars.
The subsequent parts tell about the history of Russia before the Time of Troubles and are divided into approximately equal time intervals.
The scientific significance of Tatishchev's work
Government employment and absence historical preparation prevented Tatishchev from working on "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times." Of course, his work turned out to be not perfect and irreproachable, but he became the first Russian scientist who paid such considerable attention to the issue of studying native history. Thanks to him, previously unknown documents were published, such a science as historiography appeared.
Opinions on Tatishchev's work
Contemporaries highly appreciated "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times". On the long years she became table book for all those interested in history. Thanks to this work, the study of Russian history has moved to a new level.
AT Soviet time Tatishchev's work was subjected to both criticism and highly appreciated: due to lack of knowledge and skills to work with sources, many of them were misinterpreted or completely lost.
At the same time, despite the fact that Tatishchev’s work cannot be called impeccable, one cannot fail to note her of great importance for historical science.
Biography of Vasily Tatishchev
Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich- a famous Russian historian, was born on April 16, 1686 on the estate of his father, Nikita Alekseevich Tatishchev, in the Pskov district; studied at the Moscow artillery and engineering school under the direction of Bruce, participated in), in and in the Prussian campaign; in 1713-14 he was abroad, in Berlin, Breslau and Dresden, for improvement in the sciences.
In 1717, Tatishchev was again abroad, in Danzig, where Peter I sent him to apply for the inclusion of an old image in the indemnity, about which there was a rumor that it was painted by St. Methodius; but the magistrate of the city did not yield to the image, and T. proved to Peter the infidelity of the legend. From both of his trips abroad, Tatishchev took out a lot of books. Upon his return, T. was with Bruce, the president of the Berg and Manufactory College, and went with him to the Aland Congress.
The idea made to Peter the Great about the need for a detailed geography of Russia gave impetus to the compilation of the "Russian History" by Tatishchev, whom Bruce pointed out to Peter in 1719 as the performer similar work. T., sent to the Urals, could not immediately present the plan of work to the tsar, but Peter did not forget about this matter and in 1724 reminded Tatishchev of it. Having set to work, T. felt the need for historical information and therefore, pushing geography into the background, began to collect materials for history.
At the time of the beginning of these works, another, closely related plan of Tatishchev dates back: in 1719, he submitted a presentation to the tsar, in which he pointed out the need for a delimitation in Russia. In T.'s thoughts, both plans were connected; in a letter to Cherkasov in 1725, he says that he was determined "to survey the entire state and compose detailed geography with land maps."
In 1720, a new assignment tore Tatishchev away from his historical and geographical work. He was sent "in the Siberian province on Kungur and in other places where convenient places are searched, to build factories and smelt silver and copper from ores." He had to operate in a country little known, uncultured, which has long served as an arena for all sorts of abuses. Having traveled around the region entrusted to him, Tatishchev settled not in Kungur, but in the Uktussky plant, where he founded a department, called at the beginning the mining office, and then the Siberian higher mining authorities.
During the first stay of Vasily Tatishchev on Ural factories he managed to do quite a lot: he moved the Uktus plant to the river. Iset and there laid the foundation for the present Yekaterinburg; he obtained permission to allow merchants to enter the Irbit fair and through Verkhoturye, as well as post offices between Vyatka and Kungur; opened two primary schools at the factories, two for training mining; procured the establishment of a special judge for factories; compiled instructions for protecting forests, etc.
Tatishchev's measures aroused the displeasure of Demidov, who saw the undermining of his activities in the establishment of state-owned factories. To investigate disputes, Genik was sent to the Urals, who found that T. acted fairly in everything. T. was acquitted, at the beginning of 1724 he presented himself to Peter, was promoted to councilor of the Berg College and appointed to the Siberian Oberberg Amt. Soon afterwards he was sent to Sweden for the needs of mining and for the execution of diplomatic missions.
Vasily Tatishchev stayed in Sweden from December 1724 to April 1726; with many local scientists, etc. Returning from a trip to Sweden and Denmark, Tatishchev spent some time compiling a report and, although not yet expelled from Bergamt, was, however, not sent to Siberia.
In 1727, Tatishchev was appointed a member of the mint office, to which the mints were then subordinate; the events of 1730 found him in this position.
Regarding them, Tatishchev drew up a note, which was signed by 300 people from the nobility. He argued that Russia, as a vast country, most of all corresponds to monarchical government, but that, nevertheless, "to help" the empress, it would be necessary to establish a Senate of 21 members and an assembly of 100 members under her, and on top places elect by ballot; various measures were proposed here to alleviate the situation different classes population. Due to the unwillingness of the guard to agree to changes in state system, this whole project was in vain, but the new government, seeing Vasily Tatishchev as an enemy of the leaders, treated him favorably: he was the chief master of ceremonies on the day of the coronation. Having become the chief judge of the coin office, T. began to actively take care of improving the Russian monetary system.
In 1731, T. began to have misunderstandings with, which led to the fact that he was put on trial on charges of bribery. In 1734, Tatishchev was released from court and again assigned to the Urals, "for breeding plants." He was also entrusted with the drafting of the mining charter. While T. remained at the factories, his activities brought a lot of benefits to both the factories and the region: under him, the number of factories increased to 40; new mines were constantly opened, and T. considered it possible to arrange another 36 factories, which opened only a few decades later. Between the new mines the most important place occupied by the indicated T. Mount Grace.
Vasily Tatishchev used the right to interfere in the management of private factories very widely and thus more than once aroused reproaches and complaints against himself. In general, he was not a supporter of private factories, not so much out of personal self-interest, but out of the consciousness that the state needs metals, and that by mining them itself, it receives more benefits than entrusting this business to private people. In 1737, Biron, wanting to remove Tatishchev from mining, appointed him to the Orenburg expedition to finally pacify Bashkiria and the control devices of the Bashkirs. Here he managed to carry out several humane measures: for example, he procured that the delivery of yasak was entrusted not to the yasaks and kissers, but to the Bashkir foremen.
In January 1739, he arrived in St. Petersburg, where a whole commission was set up to consider complaints against him. He was accused of "attacks and bribes", not diligence, etc. It is possible to assume that there was some truth in these attacks, but T.'s position would be better if he got along with Biron. The Commission placed T. under arrest in Peter and Paul Fortress and in September 1740 sentenced him to deprivation of rank. The sentence, however, was not carried out. In this difficult year for T., he wrote his instruction to his son - the well-known "Spiritual". The fall of Biron again put forward T .: he was released from punishment and in 1741 was appointed to Tsaritsyn to manage Astrakhan province, mainly to stop the unrest among the Kalmyks.
The lack of the necessary military forces and the intrigues of the Kalmyk rulers prevented T. from achieving anything lasting. When she ascended the throne, T. hoped to free herself from the Kalmyk commission, but he did not succeed: he was left in place until 1745, when he, due to disagreements with the governor, was dismissed from his post. Arriving in his village near Moscow Boldino, Tatishchev no longer left her to his death. Here he finished his story, which he brought to St. Petersburg in 1732, but for which he did not meet with sympathy. An extensive correspondence conducted by T. from the village has come down to us.
On the eve of his death, he went to the church and ordered the workmen with shovels to appear there. After the liturgy, he went with the priest to the cemetery and ordered that a grave be dug for himself near his ancestors. Leaving, he asked the priest to come the next day to partake of him. At home, he found a courier who brought a decree that forgave him, and. He returned the order, saying that he was dying. The next day he took communion, said goodbye to everyone and died (July 15, 1750).
The main work of Vasily Tatishchev could only be published under Catherine II. All literary activity T., including works on history and geography, pursued journalistic tasks: the benefit of society was its main goal. T. was a conscious utilitarian. His worldview is set forth in his "Conversation of two friends about the benefits of science and schools." The main idea of this worldview was a fashionable idea at that time natural law, natural morality, natural religion, borrowed by T. from Pufendorf and Walch. higher purpose or "true well-being", according to this view, lies in the complete balance of spiritual forces, in "peace of soul and conscience", achieved through the development of the mind by "useful" science; Tatishchev attributed medicine, economy, law teaching and philosophy to the latter.
Tatishchev came to the main work of his life as a result of a combination of a number of circumstances. Realizing the harm from the lack of a detailed geography of Russia and seeing the connection between geography and history, he found it necessary to collect and consider first all historical information About Russia. Since the foreign manuals turned out to be full of errors, Tatishchev turned to the primary sources, began to study the annals and other materials. At first he meant to give historical essay, but then, finding that it was inconvenient to refer to annals that had not yet been published, he decided to write in a purely annalistic order.
In 1739, T. brought to St. Petersburg the work on which he had worked for 20 years, and transferred it to the Academy of Sciences for storage, continuing to work on it and subsequently, smoothing out the language and adding new sources. Not having special training, T. couldn't give a flawless treatise, but in his historical works a vital attitude to questions of science and the breadth of outlook connected with it are valuable. T. constantly connected the present with the past: he explained the meaning of Moscow legislation by the customs of judicial practice and memories of the mores of the 17th century; on the basis of personal acquaintance with foreigners, he understood ancient Russian ethnography; explained ancient names from the lexicons of living languages.
As a result of this connection between the present and the past, Tatishchev was in no way distracted by his work from his main task; on the contrary, these studies broadened and deepened his historical understanding. The conscientiousness of Tatishchev, previously questioned because of his so-called (see Chronicles), is currently beyond any doubt. He did not invent any news or sources, but sometimes unsuccessfully corrected proper names, translated them into his own language, substituted his interpretations or compiled news similar to chronicles from data that seemed to him reliable.
Leading chronicle legends in the vault, often without reference to sources, T. gave, in the end, in essence, not history, but a new annalistic code, unsystematic and rather clumsy. The first two parts of the first volume of "History" were published for the first time in 1768 - 69 in Moscow, G.F. Miller, under the title "History of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors after 30 years, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan Governor V.N.T." Volume II was published in 1773, Volume III - in 1774, Volume IV - in 1784, and Volume V was found by M.P. Pogodin only in 1843 and published by the Society of Russian History and Antiquities in 1848.
Tatishchev put the material in order before the time of death Basil III; he also prepared, but did not finally edit the material until 1558; he also had a number of handwritten materials for later eras but no later than 1613. Part preparatory work T. is kept in Miller's briefcases. In addition to the history of T. and the conversation mentioned above, he compiled a large number of essays of a journalistic nature: "Spiritual", "A reminder of the sent schedule of high and lower state and zemstvo governments", "Discourse on the revision of the total" and others.
"Dukhovnaya" (published in 1775) gives detailed instructions covering the whole life and activity of a person (landowner). She talks about education, oh different kinds service, about relations with superiors and subordinates, about family life, management of the estate and economy, etc. The "Reminder" sets out Tatishchev's views on public law, and in the "Reasoning" written about the revision of 1742, measures are indicated to increase state revenues. Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev - a typical "", with a vast mind, the ability to move from one subject to another, sincerely striving for the good of the fatherland, having his own definite worldview and firmly and steadily pursuing it, if not always in life, then, in any case, in all his scientific works.
Wed ON THE. Popov "Tatishchev and his time" (Moscow, 1861); P. Pekarsky "New news about V. N. T." (III vol., "Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences", St. Petersburg, 1864); "On the publication of the works of V. N. T. and materials for his biography" (A. A. Kunik, 1883, ed. Imperial Academy Sciences); K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (St. Petersburg, 1882); Senigov "Historical and critical studies on Novgorod Chronicle and about Russian history Tatishchev" (Moscow, 1888; review by S.F. Platonov, "Bibliographer", 1888, No. 11); edition of "Dukhovnaya" T. (Kazan, 1885); D. Korsakov "From the life of Russian figures of the XVIII century" (ib., 1891); N. Popov "Scientists and literary works T." (St. Petersburg, 1886); P.N. Milyukov "The main currents of Russian historical thought"(Moscow, 1897).
Introduction
Russian History (full title of the first edition: "Russian History from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan Governor Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev") is a major historical work of the Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev, one of major works Russian historiography second quarter XVIII century, a significant stage in its transition from the medieval chronicle to the critical style of narration.
1. Work on the "History"
Tatishchev came to the main work of his life as a result of a combination of a number of circumstances. Realizing the harm from the lack of a detailed geography of Russia and seeing the connection between geography and history, he found it necessary to collect and consider first all historical information about Russia. Since the foreign manuals turned out to be full of errors, Tatishchev turned to the primary sources, began to study the annals and other materials. At first, he had in mind to give a historical essay (“in a historical order” - that is, an author’s analytical essay in the style of the New Age), but then, finding that it was inconvenient to refer to annals that had not yet been published, he decided to write in a purely “chronicle order” ( on the model of chronicles: in the form of a chronicle of dated events, the connections between which are outlined implicitly).
As Tatishchev writes, he collected more than a thousand books in his library, but he could not use most of them, because he knew only German and Polish. At the same time, with the help of the Academy of Sciences, he used the translations of some ancient authors made by Kondratovich.
In 1739, Tatishchev brought to St. Petersburg a work on which he worked, according to him, for 15-20 years (associating the beginning of work with the so-called Cabinet Manuscript and the personalities of Peter I and J. V. Bruce), and arranged public readings, continuing to work over it and subsequently, “smoothing the language” (the first edition, preserved for the second part in the list of 1746, was written in a language stylized as the Old Russian language of chronicles, the second “translated” into XVIII language century) and adding new sources. At the same time, the author managed to carry out such a “translation” only for the second part.
Without special training, Tatishchev could not give an impeccable scientific work, but in his historical works, a vital attitude to questions of science and the breadth of outlook associated with this are valuable.
Among the more private scientific merits of Tatishchev is the discovery and publication of the Russian Truth, the Sudebnik of Ivan the Terrible (1550). Tatishchev constantly connected the present with the past: he explained the meaning of Moscow legislation by the customs of judicial practice and memories of the mores of the 17th century; on the basis of personal acquaintance with foreigners, he understood ancient Russian ethnography, explained ancient names from the lexicons of living languages. As a result of this connection between the present and the past, Tatishchev did not in the least distract himself from his main task with his work. On the contrary, these studies broadened and deepened his historical understanding.
The author's employment in the civil service did not allow him to devote much time to studying history. Only from April 1746, when Tatishchev was under investigation and lived in his village of Boldino, was he able to increase his activity. However, his death on July 15, 1750 interrupted this work.
The "History" consists of four parts; some sketches on the history of the 17th century have also been preserved.
Part 1. History from ancient times to Rurik.
Part 2. Chronicle from 860 to 1238.
Part 3. Chronicle from 1238 to 1462.
Part 4. A continuous chronicle from 1462 to 1558, and then a series of extracts about the history of the Time of Troubles.
Only the first and second parts are relatively completed by the author and include a significant number of notes. In the first part, the notes are divided into chapters, the second in the final version contains 650 notes. There are no notes in the third and fourth parts, except for the chapters on the Time of Troubles, which contain some references to sources.
3. Sources of the first part of the "History"
The first part includes information from ancient times to Rurik.
Excerpts from the "History" of Herodotus (ch.12).
Excerpts from the book. VII "Geography" of Strabo (ch.13).
From Pliny the Elder (ch. 14).
From Claudius Ptolemy (chap. 15).
From Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Ch. 16).
From the books of northern writers, Bayer's work (ch. 17).
The Sarmatian theory occupies a special place in Tatishchev's ethnogeographical ideas. The etymological "method" of Tatishchev illustrates the reasoning from Chapter 28: the historian notes that on Finnish the Russians are called venelain, the Finns - sumaline, the Germans - saxoline, the Swedes - roxoline, and highlights the common element "aline", that is, the people. He singles out the same common element in the names of tribes known from ancient sources: Alans, Roxalans, Rakalans, Alanors, and concludes that the language of the Finns is close to the language of the Sarmatians. The idea of the kinship of the Finno-Ugric peoples already existed by the time of Tatishchev.
Another group of etymologies is associated with the search for Slavic tribes in ancient sources. In particular, only Ptolemy, according to Tatishchev's assumptions (Ch. 20), mentions the following Slavic names: agorites and pagorites - from the mountains; demons, that is, barefoot; sunsets - from sunset; zenkhi, that is, suitors; hemp - from hemp; tolstobogi, that is, thick-sided; tolistosagi, that is, thick-assed; mothers, that is, hardened; plesii, that is, bald; sabos, or dog; defenses, that is, harrows; sapotrens - prudent; svardeny, i.e. svarodei (making swaras), etc.
4. Tatishchev news
A special source problem is the so-called "Tatishchev news", containing information that is not in the annals known to us. These are texts of various sizes, from one or two added words to large whole stories, including lengthy speeches of princes and boyars. Sometimes Tatishchev comments on these news in notes, refers to chronicles unknown modern science or not reliably identifiable ("Rostovskaya", "Golitsynskaya", "Schismatic", "Chronicle of Simon Bishop"). In most cases, the source of the original news is not indicated at all by Tatishchev.
A special place in the array of "Tatishchev's news" is occupied by the Ioakimov Chronicle - an insert text, equipped with a special introduction by Tatishchev and representing a brief retelling of a special chronicle telling about ancient period history of Russia (IX-X centuries). Tatishchev considered the first Bishop of Novgorod, Joachim Korsunian, a contemporary of the Baptism of Russia, to be the author of the Joachim Chronicle.
In historiography, the attitude to Tatishchev's news has always been different. Historians of the second half of the 18th century (Shcherbatov, Boltin) reproduced his information without checking the annals. A skeptical attitude towards them is associated with the names of Schlozer and especially Karamzin. This latter considered the Joachim Chronicle to be Tatishchev's "joke" (i.e., a clumsy hoax), and the Schismatic Chronicle resolutely declared it to be "imaginary." On the basis of a critical analysis, Karamzin took a number of specific Tatishchev news and fairly consistently refuted them in the notes, without using the History of the Russian State in the main text (the exception is the news about the papal embassy to Roman Galitsky under 1204, which penetrated into the main text of the second volume due to special circumstances).
In the second half of the 19th century, S. M. Solovyov and many other authors began to "rehabilitate" Tatishchev, systematically drawing on his news as dating back to chronicles that have not come down to us. At the same time, conscientious errors of the historian were also taken into account. The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron characterizes the state of the issue on turn of XIX and XX centuries. in the following way:
“Tatishchev’s conscientiousness, previously questioned because of his so-called Joachim Chronicle now stands above all doubt. He did not invent any news or sources, but sometimes unsuccessfully corrected his own names, translated them into his own language, substituted his own interpretations, or compiled news similar to chronicles from data that seemed to him reliable. Citing chronicle legends in a code, often without indicating the sources, Tatishchev in the end gave, in essence, not history, but a new chronicle code, unsystematic and rather clumsy.
In the 20th century, A. A. Shakhmatov, M. N. Tikhomirov, and especially B. A. Rybakov were supporters of the authenticity of Tatishchev’s news. This latter proposed a very ambitious concept that diverted special role in the formation of the Tatishchev collection of the lost "Schismatic Chronicle" (with the reconstruction of political views and even the biography of its alleged author). Skeptical hypotheses regarding most of the “Tatishchev news” were put forward by M. S. Grushevsky, A. E. Presnyakov, S. L. Peshtich (who has the honor of a detailed study of the manuscript of the first edition of Tatishchev’s work, written in the “ancient dialect”), Ya. S. Lurie . In 2005, the Ukrainian historian A.P. Tolochko published a voluminous monograph, in which he refutes the reliability of all, without exception, "Tatishchev's news" and claims that references to sources from Tatishchev are consistently mystified. From the point of view of A.P. Tolochko, almost all the sources REALLY used by Tatishchev have been preserved and are well known to modern researchers. A close (and even more uncompromising) position is taken by the Russian historian A. V. Gorovenko. If A.P. Tolochko recognizes the reality of Tatishchev’s Raskolnich’s chronicle, although he declares it to be a Ukrainian manuscript of the 17th century (annals of the “Khlebnikov type”, close to Golitsyn’s), then A.V. Gorovenko considers the Raskolnich’s chronicle to be a Tatishchev hoax and sharply argues with his Ukrainian colleague, refuting his textual argument. Supporters of the reliability of "Tatishchev's news" also subjected the monograph of A.P. Tolochko to sharp criticism, although from a completely different position.
It is interesting that many skeptics (Peshtich, Lurie, Tolochko) do not at all accuse Tatishchev of scientific dishonesty and invariably emphasize that at the time of Tatishchev there was no modern concepts about scientific ethics and strict rules for the design of historical research. "Tatishchev's news", no matter how you treat them, is not at all a conscious mystification of the reader, but rather reflects the outstanding independent research, by no means unsophisticated "chronicle" activity of the historian. Additional news is, as a rule, logical links missing in the sources, reconstructed by the author, illustrations of his political and educational concepts. The discussion around "Tatishchev news" continues.
5. The problem of the "minus text" of Tatishchev's work
The formulation of the problem, as well as the term itself, belong to A. V. Gorovenko. This researcher calls "minus-text" news that Tatishchev does not have, although there are in the Ipatiev and Khlebnikov chronicles (in this terminology, additional Tatishchev news, respectively, are "plus-text"). The main body of the Tatishchev text between 1113 and 1198. goes back to the annals of the same type as well-known to us Ipatievskaya and Khlebnikovskaya. If Tatishchev's source was of better quality than the two chronicles of the same type that have come down to us, then why does Tatishchev's text contain not only additions, but also large gaps, as well as a huge number of defective readings, including a number of rather comic ones? There is still no answer to this question from the side of the supporters of the authenticity of Tatishchev's news.
6. Sources of the second-fourth parts of the "History"
The chronicle sources of Tatishchev are characterized by him in ch. 7 parts of the first "History".
The first edition has also been preserved. given text, which has a number of differences, as well as a description of the sources, preserved only in the German translation.
6.1. Cabinet manuscript
In the first edition of the list of sources (1739) is not mentioned at all. According to Tatishchev’s description, he received it in 1720 from the library of Peter I and became the basis of the entire collection, this chronicle “with faces”, brought to 1239, but the ending is lost. Briefly outlines the events before Yuri Dolgoruky, then in more detail.
According to Tikhomirov, this chronicle has been lost. According to Peshtich and V. A. Petrov, this is the Laptev volume of the Facial Code, brought to 1252. It was also assumed that we are talking about the same illustrated copy of the Radzivilov Chronicle (see below).
Tolochko is inclined to doubt its existence or to assume that the phrase “with faces” does not mean the illustration of the code, but the presence in it of descriptions of the appearance of the characters included by Tatishchev in the “History”.
More tragic was the fate of the works of Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750), which became generally, as it were, “lost”. The talented historian worked for Russia for many years, but was rejected, and his books were destroyed by the Power. By 1747, he created a huge work: "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times." This work was found by the authorities to be “unnecessary” and destroyed. Tatishchev had access not only to state and church archives, but also to the archives of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia.
His book had links to many primary sources, but this book was not published during the author's lifetime. Even more than that - Tatishchev was forbidden to publish the book, declaring his "political free-thinking and heresy." And then all Tatishchev's manuscripts disappeared. All primary sources used by V.N. Tatishchev from 1720 to 1745, by the 80s of the 18th century, were concentrated in the archives behind seven locks, in the caches of Catherine II, where only proxies. Here are the words of the German August Ludwig Schlozer, who worked in Russia from 1761 to 1767: “In 1720, Tatishchev was sent [by Peter I] to Siberia ... Here he found a very ancient list Nestor. How surprised he was when he saw that he was completely different from before!
He thought, as I did at first, that there was only one Nestor and one chronicle. Tatishchev little by little collected a dozen lists, according to them and other options reported to him, he made the eleventh ... ". It is appropriate to recall that Tatishchev had previously studied the supposedly Radzivilov text of The Tale of Bygone Years acquired during the capture by Peter I in Koenigsberg (we talked about it above), in which, at the suggestion of Peter, sheets were pasted concerning the appearance of Rurik in Ladoga, and pages about the conduct of the family of princes of Russia from the biblical Adam. Then Tatishchev stated that Nestor was ignorant of Russian history, because this Koenigsberg text odiously contradicted all chronicle texts known to Tatishchev.
Main essence in the fact that before the discovery of Peter, all existing chronicles gave a completely different picture of the emergence of Russia, and Tatishchev completely believed it, since it was confirmed by all sources. Namely: it was not Rurik who created Kievan Rus at all - Kyiv, even before Rurik, became Russian from Galician Rus. And that earlier became Russia from Russia-Ruthenia - a colony of the Slavs of Polabya, located on the territory of present-day Hungary and Austria, its capital was the city of Keve (this “Hungarian” Russia, which existed until the 12th century, is reflected in all European chronicles, including the Polish Chronicle ").
Rurik, in the Sami Ladoga, created only another new Russian colony (he built Novgorod as a continuation of the Old Town of Polabian Rus - now Oldenburg in Germany). And when Askold and Dir, sent by him, came to Kyiv, they saw that the Russian princes were already ruling there - but a different Russia, not subject to the encouragers and Danes. The inter-Russian war for Kyiv began. Note that so far many Russian historians they are perplexed or consider it a mistake of the annals that the princes of Kyiv answered the envoys of Rurik that the Russian princes were already ruling here. This seems ridiculous only in the version of the story invented by Peter (he was helped by hired German historians), which completely denied any Russian history of Kyiv, Galicia, "Hungarian" Rus-Ruthenia, and even Polabian Rus - the Russian homeland of Rurik himself (the peoples of encouragement, Luticians, Rug-Russians, Lusatian Serbs, etc.).
Peter ordered to consider that Russia was born in Muscovy: this gave "rights" to all the lands, one way or another connected in history with Russia. Tatishchev, on the other hand, found in his research an “objectionable fact” of the existence of many Russ in Europe long before Rurik landed in Ladoga, at the same time showing that at that time there was no “Rus” on the territory of Muscovy. Including Tatishchev, recreating in his research TRUE STORY Russia, it seems, was able, according to the vague hints of August Ludwig Schlozer, to find the pedigree of Russians Kyiv princes to Rurik. Which had nothing to do with Rurik - as well as with Peter's Muscovy, but it had something to do with Central Europe and the then existing Russian kingdoms and principalities (there were several of them).
All this helps to understand Tatishchev's bewilderment when he got acquainted with the list of "The Tale of Bygone Years" "found" by Peter. And then the bewilderment became even greater - turning into a protest. In Siberia, Tatishchev found other ancient lists of The Tale of Bygone Years, devoid of Peter's corrections. And his opinion here completely changed: he discovered that Peter was engaged in the falsification of history, falsified the Koenigsberg text of "The Tale ...", which absolutely did not correspond to the lists of this text found by Tatishchev in Siberia. From that time on, Tatishchev fell into disgrace, and all his studies of history became "seditious" for the State.
The whole "sedition" of Tatishchev lies in the fact that he honestly wrote about the Finnish and Horde history of Russia and honestly resented the attempts Russian authorities hide this story. Doesn't it seem very strange that even Tatishchev's "primary sources" have not come down to us? But all of them were, classified, in the hands of Catherine II. This should not be surprising, such "oddities" accompany Russian history everywhere. Vladimir Belinsky somewhat emotionally says: “it was after the order of Peter I, who transformed Muscovy into Russian state, the elite of Muscovy began to think about the need to create holistic history own state. But only with the appearance on the Russian throne of Catherine II, European educated person, the ruling elite managed to drive the plot of Moscow history into a given pro-imperial course, stealing from Kievan Rus its legal name is "Rus", attributing this name to the Finno-Tatar ethnos of Muscovy.
Everything was justified "as required":
1. Falsely ennobled Alexander, the so-called Nevsky;
2. They made up a myth about Moscow, hiding the truth about its Tatar-Mongol ancestors;
3. The most faithful defender of the unity of the Golden Horde, Dmitry Donskoy, was turned into a defender of the "independence of Muscovy";
4. And so on and so forth… " Chronicle vaults"Thousands have flooded Russian historical science, and single historical primary sources have disappeared without a trace. And we are forced to believe this trick and this lie."
understandable emotional approach Ukrainian historian who sees in the creation of these myths the destruction of his statehood Ukrainian people and Kyiv itself as the capital of something sovereign. If we remain scientifically impartial, then historical Science CIS countries is obliged to recognize the fact of the odious falsification of history by the Commission of Catherine II. Moreover, if this is still rejected by someone in Russia out of obsolete imperial considerations, then this has nothing to do with science. We need to separate our real story from mythical views of "how one would like to see her" to someone. How Catherine II falsified the history of the GDL-Belarus is a topic for another publication.
