Russian history from the most ancient times, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev, with vigilant labors thirty years later. V.N
> Alphabetical catalog Download all volumes in DjvuRussian history from the most ancient times with vigilant labors thirty years later collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev
Download Download Download Download Download Download- The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book one. Part one
- The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book one. Part two
- The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. book two
- The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book Three
- The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book Four
- The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. The fifth book, or according to the author, the fourth part of the ancient Russian chronicle
Russian history from the most ancient times with vigilant labors thirty years later collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev
DownloadThe history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book one. Part two
DownloadThe history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. book two
DownloadThe history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book Three
DownloadThe history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book Four
DownloadThe history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book five, or part four according to the author
Download Download all volumes from BitTorrent (PDF) History of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich TatishchevRussian history from the most ancient times with vigilant labors thirty years later collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book one. Part two
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. book two
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book Three
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book Four
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book five, or part four according to the author
Download all volumes from BitTorrent (DjVU) History of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich TatishchevRussian history from the most ancient times with vigilant labors thirty years later collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book one. Part two
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. book two
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book Three
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book Four
The history of Russia from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Governor of Astrakhan, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Book five, or part four according to the author
A major historical work by the Russian historian V.N. Tatishchev, one of the most important works of Russian historiography of the second quarter of the 18th century, a significant stage in its transition from the medieval chronicle to the critical style of narration.
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.
"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 dynasty. 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 workState 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 workContemporaries 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.
Russian historian, geographer, economist and statesman, founder of Stavropol (now Tolyatti), Yekaterinburg and Perm.
Childhood and youth
Vasily Tatishchev was born in Pskov into a noble family. The Tatishchevs descended from the Rurikovich family, more precisely, from the younger branch of the princes of Smolensk. The family lost the princely title. Since 1678, Vasily Nikitich’s father was listed in the sovereign’s service as a Moscow “tenant” and at first did not have any land holdings, but in 1680 he managed to get the estate of a deceased distant relative in the Pskov district. Both Tatishchev brothers (Ivan and Vasily) served as stolniks (the steward served the master's meal) at the tsar's court until his death in 1696. After that, Tatishchev left the court. The documents do not contain evidence of Tatishchev's studies at school. In 1704, the young man was enrolled in the Azov Dragoon Regiment and served in the army for 16 years, leaving it on the eve of the end of the Northern War with the Swedes. Participated in the capture of Narva, in the Prut campaign of Peter I against the Turks. 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 Ya.V. Bruce and carried out his instructions.
Development of the Urals
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. In the region, he launched the construction of schools and libraries, which, after his death, existed without fundamental changes for 158 years.
Tatishchev had a conflict with an entrepreneur, an expert in mining. 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, a military and engineer G.V. was sent to the Urals. de Gennin. 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.
From 1724 to 1726 Tatishchev spent time in Sweden, where he inspected factories and mines, collected drawings and plans, brought a lapidary master to Yekaterinburg, met many local scientists, etc. In 1727 he was appointed a member of the mint office, which then subordinated mints. Tatishchev began work on the General geographical description of all Siberia, which, due to the lack of materials, he left unfinished, writing only 13 chapters and a plan for the book. The conflict with Biron's henchmen and the dissatisfaction of local influential people who used individual abuses of power by Tatishchev led to his recall, and then to trial. In 1734, Tatishchev was released from court and again appointed to the Urals as the head of state-owned mining factories "for the reproduction of factories." July 1737 to March 1739 led the Orenburg expedition.
In January 1739, Tatishchev arrived in St. Petersburg, where a whole commission was set up to consider complaints against him. He was accused of "attacks and bribes", non-performance, etc. The commission arrested Tatishchev in the 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 Tatishchev, he wrote his instruction to his son - the famous "Dukhovnaya".
Writing "History of the Russian"
The fall of Biron again put forward Tatishchev: he was released from punishment and in 1741 was appointed to Astrakhan to manage the Astrakhan province, mainly to stop the unrest among the Kalmyks. The lack of necessary military forces and the intrigues of the Kalmyk rulers prevented Tatishchev from achieving anything lasting. When she ascended the throne, Tatishchev hoped to free himself from the Kalmyk commission, but he did not succeed: he was left in place until 1745, when he was dismissed from office due to disagreements with the governor. Arriving in his village near Moscow Boldino, Tatishchev no longer left her to death. Here he finished his famous Russian History.
Work on writing a work on native history began in the early 1720s. and actually became the main business of life. Taking up the writing of the work, Tatishchev set himself several tasks. Firstly, to identify, collect and systematize the material and present it in accordance with the chronicle text. Secondly, to explain the meaning of the collected material and to establish a causal relationship of events, to compare Russian history with Western, Byzantine and Eastern.
Tatishchev's work on writing the "History of the Russian" was rather slow. Starting to study and collect materials in 1721, in November 1739, the scientist submitted to the Academy of Sciences the “Foreshadowing of Russian histories”, written in an ancient dialect. Arriving in St. Petersburg in 1739, Tatishchev showed his "Russian History" to many, but the work was not approved. Resistance was offered by the clergy and foreign scientists. He was accused of freethinking. Then Tatishchev sent his "History of Russia" to the Archbishop of Novgorod Ambrose, asking him "to read and correct." The archbishop did not find “anything contrary to the truth” in Tatishchev’s work, but he asked him to shorten the controversial points. Discouraged by the attacks from the Church and not feeling supported by the Academy of Sciences, Tatishchev did not dare to protest openly. Not only the questions of church history raised by him served as a pretext for the rejection of labor, but also the dominance of foreign scientists in the Academy of Sciences, mostly Germans by origin.
V.N. Tatishchev turned to P.I. for help. Rychkov, a prominent historian, geographer, and economist of that time. Rychkov reacted with great interest to the work of Vasily Nikitich. Having retired to his estate Boldino after numerous wanderings and exiles, Tatishchev continues to purposefully work on writing the Russian History. By the end of the 1740s. refers to Tatishchev's decision to start negotiations with the Academy of Sciences on the publication of his work. Most of the members of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences were sympathetic. This is due to the change in the general situation in the country. Elizaveta Petrovna came to power. National science in her person received state support. His work was first published already during the reign of Catherine II.
The structure and summary of the "History of the Russian"
"History of Russia" Tatishchev consists of five books, which include four parts. The first book by Tatishchev is divided into two parts. The first part is entirely devoted to the characteristics and history of the various peoples who inhabited the East European Plain in antiquity. The second part of the book is devoted to the ancient history of Rus'. Its framework covers 860-1238. Particular attention is paid to the question of the role of the Varangian influence on the development and formation of the Old Russian state. In the second, third and fourth parts of the Russian History, Tatishchev tells his story in chronological order. The second part of the work has the most finished look. The fact is that Tatishchev not only wrote it in the ancient dialect, but also translated it into his modern language. This, unfortunately, was not done with the subsequent material. This part is also significant in that in addition to it, Tatishchev compiled notes, where he gives comments on the text, which make up approximately one fifth of what was written. Tatishchev did not bring the fourth part of his work to the planned time frame (1613), finishing the narrative in 1577. Although materials about later events were found in Tatishchev’s personal archive, for example, about the reign of Fyodor Ioanovich, Vasily Ioanovich Shuisky, Alexei Mikhailovich and etc.
Source base of the "History of the Russian"
Tatishchev collected and kept the manuscripts he needed for his work. This is the “History of Kurbsky about the Kazan campaign ...; Popov, Archimandrite of the Trinity Monastery, from the reign of Tsar John II to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich; About Pozharsky and Minin, about 54 Polish times...; Siberian history...; Stories written in Tatar ”, etc. The scientist had many sources not in a single copy and version (in particular, Tatishchev had a story about the Kazan campaign not only under the authorship of A. Kurbsky, but also as a work of an unknown author). Tatishchev did not copy and rewrite ancient sources, but sought to critically comprehend them. Many of the documents used by Tatishchev in his work on the Russian History did not reach subsequent generations of scientists and, most likely, have been lost to science forever. Tatishchev processed the works of foreign authors containing information on Russian history. in his classification of historical sources used by Tatishchev in his work, he singled out chronicles, ancient legends, writings of various historical figures, biographies, as well as “marriages and crownings”.
Other writings
In addition to the main work of V.N. Tatishchev left a large number of essays of a journalistic nature: "Spiritual", "Reminder on the sent schedule of high and lower state and zemstvo governments", "Discourse on the revision of the total" and others. "Dukhovnaya" (ed. 1775) gives detailed instructions embracing the whole life and activity of a person (landowner). She talks about upbringing, about different types of service, about relations with superiors and subordinates, about family life, managing estates and households, and the like. The "Reminder" outlines Tatishchev's views on state law, and the "Discourse", written on the revision of 1742, indicates measures to increase state revenues.
The incomplete explanatory dictionary (up to the word "Keyman") "The Lexicon of Russian Historical, Geographical, Political and Civil" (1744-1746) covers a wide range of concepts: geographical names, military affairs and the fleet, the administrative and management system, religious issues and the church , science and education, the peoples of Russia, legislation and courts, classes and estates, trade and means of production, industry, construction and architecture, money and money circulation. First published in 1793 (M.: Mining College, 1793. Parts 1-3).
Historical significance of the works
Vasily Tatishchev is rightly called one of the fathers of Russian historical science, he is the author of the first "Russian History from Ancient Times", which is one of the most significant works of the entire existence of Russian historiography.
Tatishchev's "Russian History" was used as the basis for his works, I.N. Boltin and others. Thanks to Tatishchev, such historical sources as Russkaya Pravda, Sudebnik 1550, and Power Book have come down to us. They were published after Tatishchev's death thanks to Miller's efforts. With his research, Tatishchev initiated the formation of historical geography, ethnography, cartography and a number of other auxiliary historical disciplines. In the course of his scientific and practical activities, Tatishchev became increasingly aware of the need for historical knowledge for the development of Russia and sought to convince "those in power" of this. According to N.L. Rubinstein, "Russian History" V.N. Tatishcheva "summed up the previous period of Russian historiography ... for a whole century ahead."
Plan
Introduction
1 Work on the "History"
2 Plan
Introduction
3 Sources of the first part of the "History"
4 Tatishchev news
5 The problem of the "minus text" of Tatishchev's work
6 Sources of the second-fourth parts of the "History"
6.1 Cabinet manuscript
6.2 Schismatic chronicle
6.3 Königsberg manuscript
6.4 Golitsyn manuscript
6.5 Cyrillic manuscript
6.6 Novgorod manuscript
6.7 Pskov manuscript
6.8 Krekshinsky manuscript
6.9 Nikon's manuscript
6.10 Nizhny Novgorod manuscript
6.11 Yaroslavl manuscript
6.12 Rostov manuscript
6.13 Manuscripts of Volynsky, Khrushchov and Eropkin
6.14 Orenburg manuscript
7 History of the 17th century
8 Editions
9 Research
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 (ch.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 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 "Tatishchev's news" without exception and claims that Tatishchev's references to sources 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.
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 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 , 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.
