• Genre:
• Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich (1686 - 1750), Russian statesman, historian. Graduated from the Engineering and Artillery School in Moscow. He participated in the Northern War of 1700-21, carried out various military-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 - Astrakhan governor. In 1730 he actively opposed the leaders (the Supreme Privy Council). Tatishchev prepared the first Russian publication of historical sources, introducing into scientific circulation the texts of Russian Truth and the Code of Law 1550 with a detailed commentary, laid the foundation for the development of ethnography and source study in Russia. Compiled the first Russian encyclopedic dictionary ("Russian Lexicon"). He created a generalizing work on Russian 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 written and accessible, 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 lies in the fact that the history of Russia is presented here IN ALL ITS COMPLETENESS - in aspects not only of military-political, but also of religious, cultural and everyday life! Adaptation from Late Slavic - O. Kolesnikov (2000-2002)
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich (1686 - 1750), Russian statesman, historian. Graduated from the Engineering and Artillery School in Moscow. He participated in the Northern War of 1700-21, carried out various military-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 - Astrakhan governor. In 1730 he actively opposed the leaders (the Supreme Privy Council). Tatishchev prepared the first Russian publication of historical sources, introducing into scientific circulation the texts of Russian Truth and the Code of Law 1550 with a detailed commentary, laid the foundation for the development of ethnography and source study in Russia. Compiled the first Russian encyclopedic dictionary (Lexicon of the Russian). He created a generalizing work on Russian 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 Russian History is one of the most significant works in the entire history of Russian historiography. Monumental, brilliantly written and accessible, 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 lies in the fact that the history of Russia is presented here IN ALL ITS COMPLETENESS - in aspects not only of military-political, but also of religious, cultural and everyday life!

"I put this history in order"

On April 19, 1686, the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born. His "History of Russia" can be considered the first attempt to create a generalizing scientific work about the past of our Fatherland.

Portrait of Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750). Unknown artist of the 19th century after the original of the 18th century

Multifaceted talents Vasily Tatishchev manifested themselves in military service, diplomatic activity, mining management and in the administrative field. However, the main work of his life was the creation of the "History of Russia".

Chick of Petrov's nest

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born on April 19 (29), 1686 in a family that descended from the Smolensk princes. However, in the 17th century, this branch of a noble family was already seedy, and the ancestors of the future historian, although they served at the Moscow court, did not have high ranks. His grandfather, Alexei Stepanovich, rose to the rank of steward, at one time he was a voivode in Yaroslavl. Father, Nikita Alekseevich, in turn, also became a steward.

The life of a Russian nobleman of the 17th - first half of the 18th century, up to the famous Manifesto on the Liberty of the Nobility, which followed in 1762, was a continuous series of various services: military campaigns, administrative assignments, diplomatic trips, etc. In this sense, Vasily Nikitich can be called typical and bright representative of his class.

Tatishchev's official career began at the age of seven, when he was assigned to court service - a steward at the court of Tsar Ivan Alekseevich, brother Peter the Great... Since 1704, he was in active military service and participated in many battles of the Northern War - in the siege and capture of Narva, in the Battle of Poltava.

In 1711, Vasily Tatishchev passed the Prut campaign, which was unsuccessful for the Russian army, almost ending in captivity for Peter I... However, at the same time the sovereign began to single out a young officer. He was entrusted with diplomatic missions: in 1714 - to Prussia, in 1717 - to Gdansk, in 1718 - to the Aland Congress, where the issue of concluding peace with Sweden was decided.

The first edition of the "History of Russia" by V.N. Tatishcheva

In 1720-1723, Tatishchev spends a lot of time in the Urals and Siberia, managing local factories. Then, after a short stay at the court of Peter the Great, he went to Sweden, where he performed a diplomatic mission for about two years, getting acquainted with various industries, as well as with archives and scientific works. Then again a series of administrative appointments: service at the Moscow Mint (1727–1733), management of the Ural factories (1734–1737), leadership of the Orenburg expedition (1737–1739), the Kalmyk Commission (1739–1741), governorship in Astrakhan (1741–1745 ).

Vasily Nikitich had a cool temper, the administrator was stern. It is not surprising that he often had conflicts with both bosses and subordinates. The last years of his life (1746-1750), the historian spent in his estate Boldino, being under investigation. For him, this period became a kind of "Boldin autumn", the fall of life, when it was possible to devote all the main time to scientific works, cherished ideas that he implemented throughout his life.

The main credo of Vasily Nikitich, as a true son of the Peter the Great era, was constant activity. One of his contemporaries, observing him already in his old years, wrote:

“This old man was remarkable for his Socratic appearance, for his pampered body, which he maintained for many years with great moderation, and for the fact that his mind was constantly occupied. If he does not write, does not read, does not talk about business, then he constantly throws the bones from one hand to the other. "

History with geography

At first, Tatishchev's scientific studies were part of his official duties, which was common in the time of Peter the Great.

“Peter the Great ordered Count Bruce to compose practical planimetry, which he put on me in 1716, and that was enough,” Vasily Nikitich recalled at the end of his life. And in 1719 the sovereign "deigned to intend" to define Tatishchev "to the survey of the entire state and the composition of a detailed Russian geography with land maps."

Preparation for this work, which, however, did not materialize due to the appointment to the Ural factories, led our hero to the idea of ​​the need to deal with Russian history - in order to better understand geography.

In the "Preview" to the "History of the Russian" Vasily Nikitich explained that "due to the lack of detailed Russian geography" the commission to compose it was given to him by the Field Marshal Jacob Bruce, who himself lacked time for this work.

“He, like a commander and a benefactor, could not refuse, he accepted it from him in 1719 and thought that it was not difficult to compose this from the news given to me from him, immediately, according to the plan prescribed from him, [this] began. that it is impossible to start and produce a new one from an ancient state without a sufficient ancient history and a new one without perfect with all the circumstances, because it was necessary first to know about the name-name, what language it means, what it means and from what reason it came about.

Besides, one should know what kind of people lived in that region since ancient times, how far the borders at which time stretched, who were the owners, when and by what occasion they came to Russia, "wrote Tatishchev.

In St. Petersburg, the future historian received from the Tsar's personal library "the ancient Nestorov Chronicle", which he copied and took with him to the Urals and Siberia in 1720. It was this period that Tatishchev later designated as the beginning of his work on Russian history. Here, in the depths of Russia, he "found another chronicle of the same Nestor." Significant discrepancies with Tatishchev's list made him think about the need to collect chronicle sources in order to "bring them together." In modern terms - to analyze texts, deriving scientific knowledge about the past with the help of criticism.

One of Tatishchev's merits was the systematic work on the collection of handwritten sources, primarily lists of Russian chronicles, the significance of which for the reconstruction of the early period of the history of our country he fully realized. In addition, the scientist was the first to introduce into scientific circulation such important monuments of Russian law as "Russian Truth" and "Code of Laws of 1550". Tatishchev's attention to legislation was not accidental. It is the laws, in his opinion, that always contribute to changes and social development.

Ideological basis

Tatishchev, as befits a true son of Peter's time, incorporated the ideas of rational philosophy and early enlightenment into his concept of the historical process.

“All deeds,” he believed, “come from intelligence or stupidity. However, I don’t put stupidity as a special art, but this word is just a lack or impoverishment of the mind, as cold as a cold depletion of warmth, and not a special art or matter. "

"Universal reasoning" - this is the main path of the development of mankind. On this path, Tatishchev especially noted three events: "the acquisition of letters, through which they acquired a way to preserve what is eternally written in memory"; “The coming of Christ the Savior to earth, by which the knowledge of the Creator and the office of the creature to God, to ourselves and to our neighbors were completely revealed”; "The acquisition of the stamping of books and the free use of all, through which the world received a very great enlightenment, for through this free sciences have grown and useful books have multiplied." Thus, for Tatishchev, divine revelation, the emergence of writing and the invention of printing were phenomena of the same order.

IN CITIES OR SMALL STATES, "WHERE ALL HOUSEHOLDERS CAN GO SOON", "DEMOCRACY WILL USE USE". But "great states cannot rule otherwise than by autocracy"

In political terms, Vasily Nikitich was a staunch monarchist, a supporter of autocratic rule in Russia. He substantiated its necessity by the geographic factor fashionable among the thinkers of the 18th century. A special essay by Tatishchev "Arbitrary and concordant reasoning and the opinion of the assembled Russian gentry about state rule" reveals this issue in detail. According to the scientist, there are three main forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

"From these different governments, each region elects, considering the position of the place, the space of ownership and the state of the people," Tatishchev wrote.

In cities or small states, "where all homeowners can soon get together," "democracy will be used to good use." In states of several cities and with an enlightened population that “is bound to keep the laws without coercion,” aristocratic rule can also be useful. But the "great states" (Tatishchev names Spain, France, Russia, Turkey, Persia, India, China among them) "cannot rule otherwise than by autocracy."

In a special chapter of the "History of Russia" entitled "On the ancient government of Rus and others as an example" Tatishchev argued:

"Everyone can see how much the monarchical government is more useful to our other state, through which the wealth, power and glory of the state is increased, and through the other it is diminished and lost."

"Russian history"

Tatishchev's main work - the complete history of Russia - was created over three decades. Its two main editions are known. The first was generally completed by 1739, when the author arrived in St. Petersburg with the manuscript for discussion in scholarly circles. This was reported by Tatishchev himself:

"I put this story in order and explained some places with notes."

Work on the second edition went on in the 1740s until the death of the author.

At first, Vasily Nikitich intended to give a weather list of various historical news, accurately indicating the chronicle or other source, and then commenting on them. Thus, a kind of "Collection of ancient Russian chroniclers" should have appeared. However, later he began to rework, rewrite the annalistic information, creating his own version of the annalistic set. In this regard, Tatishchev is often called the "last chronicler", and not always in a positive sense.

For instance, Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov, a prominent historian and concurrently leader of the Cadet Party, which was the most influential liberal political force in pre-revolutionary Russia, argued that Tatishchev created "not history and not even a preliminary scientific elaboration of material for future history, but the same chronicle in the new Tatishchev code."

Portrait of Emperor Peter I (detail). Hood. A.P. Antropov. Peter I was the initiator of the work of V.N. Tatishchev on the compilation of Russian geography and history

At the same time, Tatishchev's work is distinguished from the traditional chronicle work by a solid source base, about which he specifically speaks in the "Pre-publication" to the "Russian History". In the "History", in addition to ancient Russian chronicles and acts, the works of ancient and Byzantine historians, Polish chronicles, works of medieval European and Eastern authors were also used. Tatishchev demonstrates familiarity with the ideas of European philosophers and political thinkers such as Christian Wolf, Samuel Pufendorf, Hugo Grotius other.

To write history, according to Tatishchev, it is necessary “to read a lot of books, both our own and foreign,” to have “free meaning, for which the science of logic uses a lot” and, finally, to master the art of rhetoric, that is, eloquence.

Tatishchev specifically stipulated the impossibility of studying history without knowledge and attracting information from related and auxiliary scientific disciplines. He especially emphasized the importance of chronology, geography and genealogy, "the demon of which history cannot be clear and intelligible."

Tatishchev was able to bring the account of events to 1577. For a later time in the history of the Fatherland, only preparatory materials remained. They are also of a certain value, since when composing a story about the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and Fyodor Alekseevich, Tatishchev used, among other things, sources that have not come down to us, in particular the essay Alexei Likhachev- an approximate third king from the Romanov dynasty.

"Tatishchevskie Izvestia"

Tatishchev's refusal from the idea of ​​simply presenting a weather list of annals and other news and his creation of his own version of the annalistic set gave rise to the problem of the so-called "Tatishchev news." We are talking about the facts and events described by our hero, but missing in the sources that have survived to this day. At the same time, it is known that the library of Vasily Nikitich with many valuable handwritten materials burned down. And therefore, historians have been arguing for many years about the reliability of individual fragments of Tatishchev's text.

Monument to V.N. Tatishchev and V.I. de Gennin - founders of the city - on the oldest square of Yekaterinburg

Some believe that Tatishchev could not invent these "news" and simply copied them from ancient manuscripts, which were later lost. An optimistic assessment of the "Tatishchevskie Izvestia" can be found, for example, from the outstanding Soviet historian, Academician Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov.

“By a happy coincidence,” he stressed, “Tatishchev used precisely those materials that have not survived to our time, and in this respect his work has incomparably greater advantages as a primary source than Karamzin’s work, almost entirely (with the exception of the Trinity parchment chronicle) based on sources preserved in our archives. "

Other historians do not believe in "happy accidents". For inventing events, Tatishchev also criticized Nikolay Mikhailovich Karamzin... The largest connoisseur of Russian historiography of the 18th century Sergey Leonidovich Peshtich expressed doubt that Tatishchev "had sources that have not come down to us."

“In general terms, the possibility of such an assumption cannot be abstractly denied, of course. But there is no factual basis to reduce the entire huge fund of the so-called "Tatishchevskaya Izvestia" to sources that have hopelessly disappeared from the scientific horizon, "he wrote 50 years ago.

The modern Ukrainian historian Aleksey Tolochko speaks out quite sharply on this score, who has dedicated an extensive monograph to the "Tatishchevskie Izvestia".

“As a collection of sources, she [Russian History. - A. S.] does not represent anything valuable, the researcher concludes, but as a collection of hoaxes it appears to be a truly outstanding text. It is this aspect of Tatishchev's activity that makes it possible to evaluate him not as a chronicler, but as a thoughtful, subtle and perceptive historian. Not only gifted with outstanding observation and intuition, but also very well equipped technically. "

It seems that the dispute about the authenticity of "Tatishchev's news", the degree of their reliability or falsification belongs to the category of "eternal topics." And the position in this dispute of this or that scientist is determined rather by the level of his source study “optimism” or “pessimism”, and sometimes by his own ideas about “how everything really happened”. However, there is no doubt that the presence of "Tatishchev's news" for more than two centuries has attracted additional attention to the "History of Russia".

The fate of the legacy

Tatishchev never had a chance to see his works, and the most important of them - "Russian History" - published. Meanwhile, many years of ties with the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, where Tatishchev sent the manuscripts of his works, contributed to the fact that his work was in the field of view of the domestic scientific community. The manuscript of Tatischev's History of Russia was used by Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov, and his historical writings show a clear trace of her influence. Such historians of the 18th century as Fedor Emin and Mikhail Shcherbatov.

Lomonosov's opponent, a German historian who worked at one time in Russia, August Ludwig Schletzer planned to publish Tatishchev's "History", thinking to put it in the basis of his own generalizing work. In his copy of this edition, he intended to insert blank sheets of paper, where they would eventually fit in with additions from Russian and foreign sources.

Academician Gerard Friedrich Miller, a tireless worker in the field of Russian history, became the first publisher of the History of Russia. The first three volumes were published in the printing house of Moscow University under his "supervision" in 1768-1774. The fourth volume was published in St. Petersburg in 1784, after Miller's death. Finally, in 1848, through the efforts of M.P. Pogodin and O.M. Bodyansky published the fifth book of "History".

In Soviet times, in the 1960s, an academic edition of the History of Russia was published, taking into account the discrepancies in various editions and with detailed comments by leading scientists. In the 1990s, on its basis, the Ladomir publishing house prepared a collection of works by V.N. Tatishchev in eight volumes. Tatishchev's works not only on history, but also on other topics (pedagogy, mining, coin circulation), as well as his letters, were published many times.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev has been and will continue to be written about. After all, the importance of his personality and activity can hardly be overestimated - he is a pioneer, a pioneer. Before him, there were practically no people in Russia who attempted to create historical works on a scientific basis, and therefore he could not rely on the experience of his predecessors.

The best description of Tatishchev's contribution to Russian historiography was given by another great historian - Sergei Mikhailovich Soloviev:

“The merit of Tatishchev lies in the fact that he was the first to start the business the way it should have begun: he collected materials, subjected them to criticism, brought together the annals, provided them with geographical, ethnographic and chronological notes, pointed out many important questions that served as topics for later research, collected the news of ancient and new writers about the ancient state of the country, which after the name of Russia, - in a word, showed the way and gave means to his compatriots to study Russian history. "

Alexander Samarin, Doctor of Historical Sciences

YUKHT A.I. State activity of V.N. Tatishchev in the 20s - early 30s of the 18th century. M., 1985
A. G. Kuzmin Tatishchev. M., 1987 (series "ZhZL")

Introduction

Russian History (the full title of the first edition: "Russian History from the most ancient times, by tireless 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 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 storytelling.

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. Aware of the harm caused by 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 mistakes, Tatishchev turned to primary sources, began to study the chronicles and other materials. At first, he meant to give a historical essay ("in historical order" - that is, the author's analytical essay in the style of the New Time), 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 the 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 a work to St. Petersburg, on which he worked, according to him, for 15-20 years (linking the beginning of work with the so-called Cabinet manuscript and the personalities of Peter I and Ya.V. Bruce), and arranged public readings, continuing to work above it and subsequently, “smoothing out the language” (the first edition, preserved for the second part in the 1746 list, was written in a language stylized as the ancient Russian language of chronicles, the second “translated” into the language of the 18th century) and adding new sources. Moreover, 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 the issues of science and the breadth of outlook combined with this are valuable.

Among the more private scientific merits of Tatishchev - the discovery and publication of the Russian Truth, the Code of Laws 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 customs 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 not at all distracted by his work from his main task. 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 Boldino, he was able to increase his activity. However, his death on July 15, 1750 interrupted this work.

The History consists of four parts, and 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. Continuous chronicle from 1462 to 1558, and then a number of extracts about the history of the Time of Troubles.

Only the first and second parts are relatively complete by the author and include a significant number of footnotes. In the first part, the notes are divided into chapters, the second in the final version contains 650 notes. In the third and fourth parts, there are no notes, 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, the work of Bayer (ch. 17).

Sarmatian theory occupies a special place in Tatishchev's ethnogeographic ideas. Tatishchev's etymological "method" illustrates the reasoning from Chapter 28: the historian notes that in Finnish the Russians are called Venelain, the Finns are called sumalayn, the Germans are called Saxoline, the Swedes are called Roxoline, and highlights the common element "alain", that is, people. He distinguishes 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 (Chapter 20), mentions the following Slavic names: agorites and pagorites - from the mountains; demons, that is, barefoot; sunsets - from sunset; Zenhi, that is, suitors; hemp - from hemp; thick-sided, that is, thick-sided; tolistosagi, that is, fat-ass; mothers, that is, hardened; plesy, that is, bald; sabos, or dogs; defenses, that is, harrow; sapotrens - careful; swarden, that is, svarodei (making swaras), etc.

4. Tatishchevskie Izvestia

A special source study problem is the so-called "Tatishchevskie Izvestia", 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, complete stories, including lengthy speeches of princes and boyars. Sometimes Tatishchev comments on this news in the notes, refers to chronicles unknown to modern science or not reliably identifiable (Rostov, Golitsyn, Raskolnichya, Chronicle of Bishop Simon). In most cases, Tatishchev does not indicate the source of the original news at all.

A special place in the massif of "Tatishchev's news" is occupied by the Joachim Chronicle - an inserted text, supplied with a special introduction by Tatishchev and representing a short retelling of a special chronicle telling about the most ancient period of the history of Russia (IX-X centuries). Tatishchev believed that the author of the Joachim Chronicle was the first Novgorod bishop Joachim Korsunian, a contemporary of the Baptism of Rus.

In historiography, the attitude towards Tatishchev's news has always been different. Historians of the second half of the 18th century (Shcherbatov, Boltin) reproduced his information without checking it from the annals. A skeptical attitude towards them is associated with the names of Schlötser and especially Karamzin. This latter considered the Joachim Chronicle to be Tatishchev's "joke" (that is, an awkward hoax), and decisively declared the Raskolnichy Chronicle 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 footnotes, without using in the main text of the "History of the Russian State" (the exception is the news of the papal embassy to Roman Galitsky under 1204, which penetrated the main text of the second volume due to a special set of 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, the historian's conscientious errors were also taken into account. The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary characterizes the state of the issue at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. in the following way:

“The conscientiousness of Tatischev, which was previously questioned by his so-called Joachim's Chronicle, currently stands above all doubts. He did not invent any news or sources, but sometimes he unsuccessfully corrected his own names, translated them into his own language, substituted his own interpretations or compiled news similar to the chronicles from data that seemed to him reliable. Citing chronicle legends in a collection, often without indicating the sources, Tatishchev ultimately gave in essence not a history, but a new collection of chronicles, unsystematic and rather awkward. "

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 that assigned a special role in the formation of Tatishchev's collection of the lost "Raskolnichya Chronicle" (with the reconstruction of political views and even the biography of its alleged author). Skeptical hypotheses regarding the majority of "Tatishchev's news" were put forward by M. S. Grushevsky, A. E. Presnyakov, S. L. Peshtich (who owes 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 "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 survived 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 Raskolnichy Chronicle, although he declares it to be a Ukrainian manuscript of the 17th century (a chronicle of the "Khlebnikov type", close to Golitsinsky), then A.V. Gorovenko considers the Raskolnichy Chronicle to be Tatishchev's hoax and sharply polemicizes with his Ukrainian colleague, refuting his textual argumentation. Supporters of the reliability of the "Tatishchevskie Izvestia" also sharply criticized the monograph by A.P. Tolochko, albeit from completely different positions.

It is interesting that many skeptics (Peshtich, Lurie, Tolochko) do not accuse Tatishchev of scientific dishonesty at all and invariably emphasize that during Tatishchev's time there were no modern concepts of scientific ethics and strict rules for the design of historical research. "Tatishchevskie Izvestia", no matter how you relate to them, is not at all a conscious mystification of the reader, but rather reflects the outstanding independent research, by no means artless "chronicle" activity of the historian. Additional news is, as a rule, logical links that are absent in the sources, reconstructed by the author, illustrations of his political and educational concepts. The discussion around "Tatishchevskie Izvestia" continues.

5. The problem of the "minus-text" of Tatishchev's work

The statement of the problem, like the term itself, belongs to A.V. Gorovenko. This researcher calls news that Tatishchev lacks, although there are in the Ipatiev and Khlebnikov chronicles (in this terminology, additional Tatishchev news, respectively, is a plus-text). The main body of Tatishchev's text between 1113 and 1198. goes back to the chronicle of the same type as the well-known Ipatiev and Khlebnikovs. If Tatishchev's source was of better quality than the two surviving chronicles of the same type, 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 on the part of supporters of the reliability of Tatishchev's news.

6. Sources of the second-fourth parts of the "History"

The annalistic sources of Tatishchev are characterized by him in Ch. 7 of the first part of "History".

The first edition of this text has also survived, which has a number of differences, as well as a description of the sources, which has survived only in the German translation.

6.1. Cabinet manuscript

In the first edition of the list of sources (1739), it 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 is a chronicle "with faces", brought to 1239, but the ending is lost. Briefly describes 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 Litsevoy vault, brought to 1252. It was also assumed that we are talking about the same illustrated copy of the Radziwill Chronicle (see below).

Tolochko is inclined to doubt its existence or to suggest that the phrase “with faces” does not mean the illustrated set, but the presence in it of descriptions of the appearance of the characters included by Tatishchev in “History”.

(1686 - 1750), Russian statesman, historian. Graduated from the Engineering and Artillery School in Moscow. He participated in the Northern War of 1700-21, carried out various military-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 - Astrakhan governor. In 1730 he actively opposed the leaders (the Supreme Privy Council). Tatishchev prepared the first Russian publication of historical sources, introducing into scientific circulation the texts of Russian Truth and the Code of Law 1550 with a detailed commentary, laid the foundation for the development of ethnography and source study in Russia. Compiled the first Russian encyclopedic dictionary (Lexicon of the Russian). He created a generalizing work on Russian history, written on the basis of numerous Russian and foreign sources - "" (books 1-5, M., 1768-1848).
“” Tatishcheva is one of the most significant works in the entire history of the existence of Russian historiography. Monumental, brilliantly written and accessible, 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 lies in the fact that the history of Russia is presented here IN ALL ITS COMPLETENESS - in aspects not only of military-political, but also of religious, cultural and everyday life!
Adaptation from Late Slavic - O. Kolesnikov (2000-2002)
Russian history (Russian pre-reph. Russian history; full title of the first edition: "Russian history from the earliest times, by tireless 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 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, and some sketches on the history of the 17th century have also been preserved.

History from ancient times to Rurik. Tatishchev speaks on behalf of the Slavs or Wends, who "adopted the name of the Russians." “The Slavs first lived in Syria and Phenicia,” from there they migrated to Paphlagonia to the shores of the Black Sea, and then, after the Trojan War, settled in the Balkans as far as Italy (Venice). At the same time, Galatians and Thracians are revered as Slavs. Among the Slavic gods, Tatishchev calls Triglav, Sventovit, Chernobog and a number of others. Regarding the spread of Christianity among the Slavs, he mentions a number of baptisms: from the Apostle Andrew; Baptism of Bulgarians; from Cyril and Methodius; Oskold's baptism in 867; from Princess Olga in 945; from Prince Vladimir in 988. Tatishchev also retells the chronicle of Nestor about the vocation of the Varangians and the fight against the Kozars.
–
– .
– .
–
– .
– .
– .
– .
– .
– .
– .

V.N. Tatishchev. Russian history.

Adaptation from Late Slavic - O. Kolesnikov (2000-2002)

PART ONE

Notification of the history of general and proper Russian

I. What is history. History is a Greek word that means the same thing that we have events or deeds; and although some believe that since events or deeds are always deeds perpetrated by people, it means that natural or supernatural adventures should not be considered, but, having carefully examined, everyone will understand that there can be no adventure so that it cannot be called an act, for nothing itself It cannot happen by itself and without a reason or external action. The reasons for any adventure are different, both from God and from a person, but that's enough about that, I won't go into more detail. To anyone interested in the explanation of this, I advise you to familiarize yourself with "Physics" and "Moral" by Mr. Wolf1.

Divine. Church. Civil. Natural... What history contains in itself, it is impossible to say briefly about it, because the circumstances and intentions of writers are different in this respect. So, it happens according to the circumstances: 1) The history is sacred or holy, but it is better to say divine; 2) Ecclesiastes, or ecclesiastical; 3) Politics or civil, but we are more accustomed to calling secular; 4) Sciences and scientists. And some others, not so famous. Of these, the first represents the works of God, as Moses and other prophets and apostles described. Natural or natural history, about the actions produced by the forces invested in creation from God, is adjacent to it. Natural describes everything that happens in the elements, that is, fire, air, water and earth, as well as on earth - in animals, plants and underground. In the church - about dogmas, statutes, orders, the application of any circumstances in the church, as well as about heresies, debates, assertions of righteousness in faith and refutation of wrong heretical or schismatic opinions and arguments, and besides, church rites and orders in worship. A lot is included in the secular, but mainly all human deeds, good and praiseworthy or vicious and evil. In the fourth, about the beginning and origin of various scientific names, sciences and scientists of people, as well as the books published by them and so on, from which the general benefit comes.

II. The benefits of history... There is no need to speculate about the benefits of history, which everyone can see and feel. However, since some have a habit of clearly and thoroughly examining and discussing things about things, repeatedly, from damage to their meaning, useful harmful, and supplying harmful, and therefore sinning in actions and deeds, it is not without regret to hear such arguments about the uselessness of history happened, and therefore I reasoned that it would be useful to explain briefly.

First, let us consider that history is nothing more than a remembrance of past deeds and adventures, good and bad, because everything that we have learned and remembered through hearing, vision or sensation through hearing, vision or sensation is a real story, which is either from us or from his own, or from other people's deeds teaches about good to diligent, and to beware of evil. For example, as I remember that yesterday I saw a fisherman catching fish and gaining considerable benefit to himself, then, of course, I have in my thoughts a certain compulsion to be diligent in the same way about the same acquisition; or as I saw yesterday a thief or other villain, condemned to a heavy punishment or death, then, of course, fear of such a deed, which exposes me to destruction, will hold me back. In the same way, all the ancient stories and events we read are sometimes so sensitively imagined to us, as if we ourselves saw and felt it.

Therefore, we can briefly say that no person, not a single settlement, industry, science, nor any government, and even more so one person in himself, without this knowledge, is perfect, wise and useful. For example, taking about sciences.

Theology Needs History... The first and highest is theology, that is, knowledge about God, his wisdom, omnipotence, which alone leads us to future bliss, etc. But no theologian can call himself wise if he does not know the ancient divine deeds declared to us in holy scripture , as well as when, with whom, about what in the dogmas or confession, the debate was, by whom what was approved or refuted, for which the ancient church applied some statutes or orders, set aside and new ones were introduced. Consequently, they need divine and ecclesiastical history, and, moreover, a civic history, which Guetius2, the glorious French theologian, has sufficiently shown.

The lawyer uses history... The second science is jurisprudence, which teaches the decency and duty of everyone before God, before oneself and others, consequently, the acquisition of peace of mind and body. But no lawyer can be called wise if he does not know the previous interpretations and debates about the laws of natural and civil. And how can a judge judge the right of a case, if he does not know the ancient and new laws and the reasons for their application? For this he needs to know the history of laws.

The third is medicine or medicine, which consists in preserving the health of a person, and returning what was lost, or at least preventing developmental diseases. This science depends entirely on history, because it should receive knowledge from the ancients, from what what disease happens, what medicines and how it is treated, what medicine has what power and effect, which no one would have known by his own test and inquiry for a hundred years. and doing experiments on the sick is such a danger that it can destroy his soul and body, although this often happens with some ignoramuses. I do not mention many other parts of philosophy, but briefly we can say that all philosophy is based on history and is supported by it, for everything that we have with the ancients, right or erroneous and vicious opinions, we find, is the essence of history for our knowledge and reasons for correction.

The political part. Janus... Politics, on the other hand, consists of three different parts: internal management, or economy, external reasoning and military actions. All these three require no less than history and cannot be perfect without it, because in economic management you need to know what harm happened from what, in what way they were averted or reduced, what benefits and through what were acquired and preserved, according to which about the present and the future is wise to reason is possible. Because of this wisdom, the ancient Latins portrayed their king Janus with two faces, because he knew in detail about the past and wisely reasoned about the future from examples.