"Russian history from the most ancient times": labor involuntarily. Russian history - free download all books in the series
"Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" - the famous historical work of the authorship of Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. This work became one of the most significant books of Russian historiography, marking the beginning of a new stage in the development of Russian historical literature, thanks to which the transition from annals to critical analysis and presentation based on sources took place. 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 into a noble family, originating from the Rurik family. He graduated from the Engineering School in Moscow, and then went to get higher education in Europe. And not to Holland or France, as many of his contemporaries did, but to Germany, which was not very popular in those days.
As a diplomat, he went through the 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 full of errors, which affected diplomacy between countries. So, Tatishchev decided to restore the historical truth and write a short essay on the history and historical borders of Russia.
He collected a huge number of books in his library, most of which were not published, and realized how unexplored the history of Russia at that time was. 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 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 the history of the 17th century. Relatively complete can only be called the first and second parts of the work, which contain most of the author's notes that supplement 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. A number of the first baptisms in Rus' are mentioned (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
State employment and the lack of historical training prevented Tatishchev from working on The History of Russia from the Most Ancient Times. Of course, his work turned out to be not perfect and not irreproachable, but he became the first Russian scientist who paid such considerable attention to the study of his 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". For many years it has become a reference book for all those interested in history. Thanks to this work, the study of Russian history has moved to a new level.
In Soviet times, Tatishchev's work was both criticized and highly appreciated: due to a lack of knowledge and skills in working with sources, many of them were misinterpreted or completely lost.
At the same time, despite the fact that Tatishchev's work cannot be called irreproachable, one cannot fail to note its great importance for historical science.
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 "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 authorized persons had access. 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 of Nestor from a schismatic. How surprised he was when he saw that it is completely different from before!
He thought, as I did at first, that there was only one Nestor and one chronicle. Tatishchev gradually 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 said that Nestor was ignorant of Russian history, because this Koenigsberg text odiously contradicted all chronicle texts known to Tatishchev.
The main point is that before the discovery of Peter, all existing chronicles gave a completely different picture of the emergence of Rus', 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 Rus'-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” Rus', 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 Rus', not subject to the encouragers and Danes. The inter-Russian war for Kyiv began. I note that until now many Russian historians 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 absurd only in the version of history invented by Peter (he was helped by hired German historians), which completely denied any Russian history of Kiev, Galicia, "Hungarian" Rus-Ruthenia and even Polabskaya Rus - the Russian homeland of Rurik himself (the peoples of encouragement, Luticians , Rug-Russians, Lusatian Serbs, etc.).
Peter ordered to consider that Rus' 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 the “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 the TRUE history of Rus' in his research, he seemed to be able, according to the vague hints of August Ludwig Schlozer, to find the genealogy of the Russian Kyiv princes before 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 of the Russian authorities to hide this history. 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 says somewhat emotionally: “It was after the order of Peter I, who transformed Muscovy into the Russian state, that the elite of Muscovy began to think about the need to create an integral history of their own state. But only with the advent of Catherine II, a European-educated person, on the Russian throne, the ruling elite managed to drive the plot of Moscow history into a predetermined pro-imperial course, stealing its legitimate name "Rus" from Kievan Rus, attributing this name to the Finno-Tatar ethnos 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 Codes" flooded the Russian historical science by the thousands, and individual historical primary sources disappeared without a trace. And we are forced to believe this trick and this lie.”
The emotional approach of the Ukrainian historian, who sees in the creation of these myths the destruction of the statehood of his Ukrainian people and Kyiv itself as the capital of something sovereign, is understandable. If we remain scientifically impartial, then the historical science of the 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 history from the mythical views of “how one would like to see it” to someone. How Catherine II falsified the history of the GDL-Belarus is a topic for another publication.
Vasily Tatishchev
The great-granddaughter of V.N. Tatishchev E.P. Yankova, according to which her grandson D.D. they joked with him and said: “Well, where can any Karamzin compete with Tatishchev and Shcherbatov.” The future author of The History of the Russian State by this time not only carefully studied Tatishchev’s work, but also gave him a not entirely flattering assessment (Pantheon of Russian authors // Bulletin of Europe. 1802. No. 20), which had a significant impact on scientific reputation of Tatishchev. Recognizing the tireless energy of his predecessor in the search for handwritten and printed sources, his active mind and passionate desire for historical sciences, Karamzin, however, noted that "this hardworking husband" could not "dress everything in head of his own ”and instead of history, he left to his descendants only materials for it, supplying the annalistic code prepared by him with not always convincing comments.
Contemporaries who read it in manuscript complained about the lack of "order and warehouse" in the Russian History. Tatishchev himself, in the preface to the work, explained his position as follows: “I am not composing an eloquent composition new and not for the amusement of readers, but I collected from old writers in their very order and dialect, as they put it, but about sweet speech and criticism didn't belong."
Later, the historian S. M. Solovyov, who treated Tatishchev with great respect, will see his merit in precisely this, that the annalistic code prepared by him, supplied with geographical, ethnographic, chronological notes, “showed the way and gave means to his compatriots to engage in Russian history ". Modern scholars, having elevated Tati-shchev to the rank of the "father of Russian historiography", continue to ask the question: who wrote the "Russian History" - the first Russian historian or the last chronicler?
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev collected materials for the "History" for thirty years. And almost all this time he was in the service. In 1693, seven years old, Vasily Tatishchev was taken as a steward to the court of Praskovya Fyodorovna, the wife of Tsar Ivan Alekseevich and a distant relative of the Tatishchevs. For sixteen years he will serve in the army, mainly in the artillery, take part in the battle of Narva, in the Battle of Poltava, in the Prut campaign. Inspector of the Ural Metallurgical Plants (1720-1722), member of the Moscow Coin Office (1727-1733), governor of the Ural Territory (1734-1737), head of the Orenburg expedition (1737-1739) and the Kalmyk Collegium (1739-1741), governor of the Astrakhan region (1741-1745) - this is not a complete list of Tati-shchev's posts. And although during trips abroad to Prussia, Saxony, Sweden and England, he had the opportunity to learn fortification, mining and coinage, most often he had to acquire new professional skills on the spot. However, for the 18th century, which believed that an enlightened person, with effort, could cope with any business, this was a common occurrence.
The “start” of Tatishchev’s historical research was also associated with his official activities - as an assistant to Field Marshal Count Y.V. cities. Due to lack of time for desk studies, Bruce assigned the main duties of compiling geography to his assistant. Having started work, Tatishchev immediately realized that “it is impossible to compose geography” without ancient history, and therefore he soon left geography and began “to diligently study the collection of this history.”
In Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Siberia, Astrakhan - wherever Tatishchev found himself on official business, he did not miss the opportunity to rummage through the archives. He knew many personal libraries, in particular the book collection of the leader of the "Verkhovniks" D. M. Golitsyn. Buying books in Russia and abroad, Tatishchev also compiled his own extensive library, which numbered about a thousand volumes.
In 1745, five years before his death, Vasily Niki-tich, by decree of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, was dismissed from service and exiled to his estate Boldino, Dmitrovsky district, Moscow province. The last years of the disgraced Astrakhan governor were devoted to putting the Russian History in order.
Tatishchev tried to print his work back in 1739, introducing the manuscript to members of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and acquaintances, including Archbishop Ambrose of Novgorod. The court of contemporaries turned out to be strict, but not unanimous. Some found that Tatishchev's work was too short, others - that it was too lengthy, others even accused the author of betraying the Orthodox faith. Having failed to achieve a positive decision in Russia, Tatishchev made attempts to publish the History in England. It is for this, as researchers believe, that he presented the manuscript of the Rostov Chronicle to the English royal collection. However, despite all efforts, Tatishchev did not have a chance to see his work published.
The publication of "History of Russia", divided by the author into four books, dragged on for eighty years. The first three books were published by Moscow University according to the lists provided by Tatishchev's son, Evgraf Vasilyevich. The work on preparing the manuscript for publication was carried out under the supervision of the historian G. F. Miller, who corrected, in particular, the errors of scribes in writing geographical names and ethnographic realities. Deciding to start publishing as soon as possible, Miller, at the request of Moscow University, divided Tatishchev's first book into two parts, published in 1768 and 1769. The next two books appeared in 1773 and 1774. The fourth book, printed in St. Petersburg, appeared only in 1784, and the last, fifth, part of the "History" (or the fourth, according to the chronological division of Tatishchev) was published by the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities in 1848 according to a manuscript discovered M.P. Pogodin.
“Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” is a nonfiction work to some extent. Both in the extensive preface and in the text of the essay, the author set himself the task of defending Russian history from the attacks of "European" scientists who claimed that Ancient Rus' did not leave behind its own written monuments. "History" was brought only to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, although Tatishchev had enough materials of later times, including the era of Peter the Great. In the preface, the historian explained why he did not dare to continue his work chronologically: “In the present history, great vices will appear for many noble families, which, if written, will incite them or their heirs to malice, and bypassing them will destroy the truth and clarity of history. or turn the blame on those who judged, if it was not in agreement with conscience; For this reason I leave it to others to compose.”
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 by the Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev, one of the most important works of Russian historiography the second quarter of the 18th 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 chronicles 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 Y. 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 the language of the 18th 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 in Finnish the Russians are called Venelain, the Finns - Sumalain, the Germans - Saxoline, the Swedes - Roxoline, and highlights the common element "Alain", 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 to 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 the most ancient period in the history of Rus' (IX-X centuries). Tatishchev considered the first Bishop of Novgorod, Joachim Korsunian, a contemporary of the Baptism of Rus', 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 rather 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 at the turn of the 19th and 20th 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 the end, 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 large-scale concept, which assigned a 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 authenticity 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 hoax of Tatishchev 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 were no modern concepts of 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 they 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 of this text has also been preserved, which has a number of differences, as well as a description of the sources, which has been 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”.
V.N. Tatishchev "Russian History"
According to V. Tatishchev, history is memories of "former deeds and adventures, good and evil."
His main work is Russian History. Historical events are brought in it until 1577. Tatishchev worked on the "History" for about 30 years, but the first edition in the late 1730s. he was forced to rework, tk. it evoked comments from members of the Academy of Sciences. The author hoped to bring the story to the accession of Mikhail Fedorovich, but did not have time to do this. about the events of the 17th century. only preparatory materials have been preserved.
The main work of V.N. Tatishcheva
In fairness, it should be noted that the work of V.N. Tatishchev was subjected to very severe criticism, starting from the 18th century. And to this day there is no final agreement on his work among historians. The main subject of the dispute is the so-called "Tatishchev News", chronicle sources that have not come down to us, which the author used. Some historians believe that these sources were invented by Tatishchev himself. Most likely, it is no longer possible to either confirm or refute such statements, therefore in our article we will proceed only from those facts that exist irrefutably: the personality of V.N. Tatishchev; its activities, including public ones; his philosophical views; his historical work "Russian History" and the opinion of the historian S. M. Solovyov: Tatishchev's merit to historical science is that he was the first to start historical research in Russia on a scientific basis.
By the way, works have recently appeared in which Tatishchev's creative heritage is being reviewed, and his works have been republished. Do they have something relevant for us? Imagine yes! These are questions about protecting state interests in the field of mining, vocational education, a look at our history and modern geopolitics…
At the same time, we must not forget that many of our famous scientists (for example, Arsenyev, Przhevalsky and many others) served the fatherland not only as geographers, paleontologists and surveyors, they also performed secret diplomatic missions, which we do not know for sure. . This also applies to Tatishchev: he repeatedly performed secret assignments for the head of Russian military intelligence, Bruce, and personal assignments for Peter I.
Biography of V.N. Tatishcheva
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born in 1686 in the village of Boldino, Dmitrovsky district, Moscow province, in the family of an impoverished and humble nobleman, although he was descended from the Rurikids. Both Tatishchev brothers (Ivan and Vasily) served as stolniks (the steward served the master's meal) at the court of Tsar Ivan Alekseevich until his death in 1696.
In 1706, both brothers were enrolled in the Azov Dragoon Regiment and in the same year were promoted to lieutenants. As part of the dragoon regiment of Avtomon Ivanov, they went to Ukraine, where they took part in hostilities. In the battle of Poltava, Vasily Tatishchev was wounded, and in 1711 he participated in the Prut campaign.
In 1712-1716. Tatishchev improved his education in Germany. He visited Berlin, Dresden, Breslavl, where he studied mainly engineering and artillery, kept in touch with Feldzeugmeister General J. V. Bruce and carried out his instructions.
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev
In 1716, Tatishchev was promoted to artillery lieutenant engineer, then was in the army near Koenigsberg and Danzig, where he was engaged in the organization of artillery facilities.
At the beginning of 1720, Tatishchev was assigned to the Urals. His task was to identify sites for the construction of iron ore plants. Having explored these places, he settled in the Uktus plant, where he founded the Mining Office, which was later renamed the Siberian Higher Mining Administration. On the Iset River, he laid the foundation for the current Yekaterinburg, indicated a place for the construction of a copper smelter near the village of Egoshikha - this was the beginning of the city of Perm.
Monument to V. Tatishchev in Perm. Sculptor A. A. Uralsky
At the factories, through his efforts, two primary schools and two schools for teaching mining were opened. He also dealt with the problem of saving forests here and the creation of a shorter road from the Uktussky plant to the Utkinskaya pier on Chusovaya.
V. Tatishchev at the Ural plant
Here Tatishchev had a conflict with the Russian businessman A. Demidov, an expert in the mining industry, an enterprising figure who knew how to deftly maneuver among the nobles of the court and seek exclusive privileges for himself, including the rank of real state councilor. In the construction and establishment of state-owned factories, he saw the undermining of his activities. To investigate the dispute that arose between Tatishchev and Demidov, G. V. de Gennin (a Russian military man and engineer of German or Dutch origin) was sent to the Urals. He found that Tatishchev acted fairly in everything. According to a report sent to Peter I, Tatishchev was acquitted and promoted to adviser to the Berg Collegium.
Soon he was sent to Sweden on mining issues and to fulfill diplomatic missions, where he stayed from 1724 to 1726. Tatishchev inspected factories and mines, collected drawings and plans, brought a cutting master to Yekaterinburg, collected information about the trade of the Stockholm port and about the Swedish monetary system, met many local scientists, etc.
In 1727 he was appointed a member of the mint office, which then subordinated the mints.
Monument to Tatishchev and Wilhelm de Gennin in Yekaterinburg. Sculptor P. Chusovitin
In 1730, with the accession to the throne of Anna Ioannovna, the era of Bironovism begins. You can read more about this on our website:. Tatishchev did not have a relationship with Biron, and in 1731 he was put on trial on charges of bribery. In 1734, after his release, Tatishchev was assigned to the Urals "to breed factories." He was entrusted with the drafting of the mining charter.
Under him, the number of factories increased to 40; new mines were constantly being discovered. An important place was occupied by Mount Blagodat indicated by Tatishchev with a large deposit of magnetic iron ore.
Tatishchev was an opponent of private factories, he believed that state-owned enterprises were more profitable for the state. By this he called "fire on himself" from the industrialists.
Biron did his best to free Tatishchev from mining. In 1737, he appointed him to the Orenburg expedition to pacify Bashkiria and control the Bashkirs. But even here Tatishchev showed his originality: he ensured that the yasak (tribute) was delivered by the Bashkir foremen, and not by the yasaks or kissers. And again, complaints rained down on him. In 1739, Tatishchev came to St. Petersburg for a commission to consider complaints against him. He was accused of "attacks and bribes", non-performance and other sins. Tatishchev was arrested and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, sentenced to deprivation of rank. But the sentence was not carried out. In this difficult year for him, he wrote his instruction to his son: "Spiritual."
V.N. Tatishchev was released after the fall of Biron's power, and already in 1741 he was appointed governor of Astrakhan. His main task was to stop the unrest among the Kalmyks. Until 1745, Tatishchev was engaged in this thankless task. Ungrateful, because neither the military forces nor the interaction of the Kalmyk authorities were enough to carry it out.
In 1745, Tatishchev was relieved of this post and settled permanently in his Boldino estate near Moscow. It was here that he devoted the last five years of his life to working on his main work, The History of Russia. V.N. died. Tatishchev in 1750
Interesting fact. Tatishchev knew about the date of his death: he ordered in advance to dig a grave for himself, asked the priest to take communion the next day, after that he said goodbye to everyone and died. The day before his death, the courier brought him a decree, which spoke of his forgiveness, and the Order of Alexander Nevsky. But Tatishchev did not accept the order, explaining that he was dying.
Buried V.N. Tatishchev on the Christmas churchyard (in the modern Solnechnogorsk district of the Moscow region).
Grave of V.N. Tatishchev - a historical monument
V.N. Tatishchev is the great-great-grandfather of the poet F.I. Tyutchev.
Philosophical views of V.N. Tatishcheva
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev, who is rightfully considered an outstanding historian, "the father of Russian historiography", was one of the "chicks of Petrov's nest". “All that I have - ranks, honor, property, and most importantly over everything - reason, I only have everything by the grace of His Majesty, for if he had not sent me to foreign lands, did not use me for noble deeds, but did not encourage me with mercy, then I would I couldn’t get anything of that, ”this is how he himself assessed the influence of Emperor Peter I on his life.
Monument to V. Tatishchev in Togliatti
According to V.N. Tatishchev was a loyal supporter of autocracy - he remained such even after the death of Peter I. When in 1730 the niece of Peter I, the Duchess of Courland Anna Ioannovna, was enthroned on the throne with the condition that the country would be governed by the Supreme Privy Council, Tatishchev was categorically against limiting imperial power. Anna Ioannovna surrounded herself with German nobles, who began to manage all the affairs in the state, and Tatishchev opposed the dominance of the Germans.
In 1741, as a result of a palace coup, the daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth, came to power. But Tatishchev's social views, his independent character, freedom of judgment were not to the liking of this empress either.
The last five years of the life of a seriously ill Tatishchev devoted to work on the history of the fatherland.
Historian at work
He understood life as a continuous activity in the name of public and state good. In any place, the most difficult work he performed in the best possible way. Tatishchev highly valued intelligence and knowledge. Leading an essentially wandering life, he collected a huge library of ancient chronicles and books in different languages. The range of his scientific interests was very wide, but history was his main attachment.
V.N. Tatishchev "Russian History"
This is the first scientific generalizing work on Russian history in Russia. By the type of arrangement of the material, his "History" resembles the ancient Russian chronicles: the events in it are set out in a strict chronological sequence. But Tatishchev did not just rewrite the chronicles - he conveyed their content in a language more accessible to his contemporaries, supplemented them with other materials and, in special comments, gave his own assessment of events. This was not only the scientific value of his work, but also novelty.
Tatishchev believed that knowledge of history helps a person not to repeat the mistakes of his ancestors and improve morally. He was convinced that historical science should be based on facts gleaned from sources. A historian, like an architect for the construction of a building, must select from a pile of materials everything suitable for history, be able to distinguish reliable documents from those that do not deserve trust. He collected and used a huge number of sources. It was he who found and published many valuable documents: the code of laws of Kievan Rus "Russkaya Pravda" and "Sudebnik" of Ivan IV. And his work became the only source from which you can find out the content of many historical monuments, subsequently destroyed or lost.
Sculpture of Tatishchev in VUiT (Tolyatti)
Tatishchev in his "History" paid much attention to the origin, interconnection and geographical distribution of the peoples who inhabited our country. This was the beginning of the development in Russia ethnography And historical geography.
For the first time in Russian historiography, he divided the history of Russia into several main periods: from the 9th to the 12th centuries. - autocracy (one prince ruled, power was inherited by his sons); from the 12th century —the rivalry of princes for power, the weakening of the state as a result of princely civil strife, and this allowed the Mongol-Tatars to conquer Rus'. Then the restoration of autocracy by Ivan III and its strengthening by Ivan IV. A new weakening of the state in the Time of Troubles, but he was able to defend his independence. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, autocracy was again restored and flourished under Peter the Great. Tatishchev was convinced that an autocratic monarchy was the only form of government necessary for Russia. But "History of Russia" (I volume) was published only 20 years after the death of the historian. Volume II came out only 100 years later.
The well-known Russian historian S. M. Solovyov wrote: “... His importance lies precisely in the fact that he was the first to begin processing Russian history, as it should have begun; the first gave the idea of how to get down to business; he was the first to show what Russian history is, what means exist for studying it.
The scientific activity of Tatishchev is an example of disinterested service to science and education: he considered his scientific work as fulfilling his duty to the fatherland, whose honor and glory were above all for him.
Our story about V.N. Tatishchev, we want to finish with an excerpt from an article in the Togliatti city newspaper “Free City”, which cites the well-known and little-known results of V.N. Tatishchev.
It's common knowledge
Under his leadership, the state (state) mining industry of the Urals was founded: more than a hundred ore mines and metallurgical plants were built.
He modernized assaying in Russia, created and mechanized the Moscow Mint and began the industrial minting of copper and silver coins.
He founded (personally compiled and corrected the drawings) the cities of Orsk, Orenburg, Yekaterinburg and our Stavropol (now Togliatti). Reconstructed Samara, Perm and Astrakhan.
He organized vocational schools at state-owned factories, the first national schools for Kalmyks and Tatars. Compiled the first Russian-Kalmyk-Tatar dictionary.
He collected, systematized and translated from Church Slavonic into Russian the first annals and state documents of the Moscow kingdom of the Middle Ages. Based on them, he wrote the first "History of Russia".
Prepared scientific papers and memos on philosophy, economics, state building, pedagogy, history, geography, philology, ethnology, paleontology, archeology, numismatics.
little known
He is the author of the foundations of the first Constitution of (monarchist) Russia. By the way, it operated in the country for 50 days!
He found and organized the first archaeological excavations
the capital of the Golden Horde - Saray.
Personally drew the first detailed (large-scale)
a map of the Samara Luka and most of the Yaik (Ural) River.
He compiled a geographical atlas and a "General geographical description of Siberia", introduced the name of the Ural Mountains, previously called the Stone Belt.
Prepared the Åland Congress (the first truce negotiations with Sweden).
He made projects of navigable canals: between the Volga and the Don, between the Siberian and European rivers of Russia.
He brilliantly spoke ten (!) languages: he was fluent in French, German, English, Swedish and Polish, he knew several Turkic languages, Church Slavonic and Greek. Participated in the improvement of the Russian alphabet.
Being engaged in pharmacology, he experimented a lot and created new drugs based on extracts from coniferous trees.
Autograph V.N. Tatishcheva
