Vasily Tatishchev
V.N. Tatishchev’s great-granddaughter E.P. Yankova, from whose words her grandson D.D. Blagovo compiled the famous memoirs “Grandmother’s Stories,” recalled that when N.M. Karamzin decided to write Russian history, many over They joked with him and said: “Well, where can some Karamzin compete with Tatishchev and Shcherbatovy?” By this time, the future author of the “History of the Russian State” had not only carefully studied Tatishchev’s work, but also gave it a not entirely flattering assessment (Pantheon of Russian Authors // Bulletin of Europe. 1802. No. 20), which had a significant impact on scientific research. Tatishchev's reputation. 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 “do everything in his head” and instead of history, he left for descendants only materials for it, providing the chronicle corpus he prepared with not always convincing comments.
Even contemporaries who read it in manuscript complained about the lack of “order and structure” in Russian History. Tatishchev himself, in the preface to the work, explained his position as follows: “I am not composing an eloquent composition that is new and not for the amusement of the readers, but I have collected from old writers in their very order and dialect, as they laid down, but about sweet speech and criticism I wasn’t diligent."
Later, the historian S. M. Solovyov, who had great respect for Tatishchev, would see his merit precisely in the fact that the chronicle code he prepared, equipped with geographical, ethnographic, chronological notes, “showed the way and gave the means to his compatriots to study Russian history " Modern scientists, having elevated Tatischev to the rank of “father of Russian historiography,” continue to ask the question: who wrote “Russian History” - the first Russian historian or the last chronicler?
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev collected materials for “History” for thirty years. And almost all this time he was in service. In 1693, at the age of seven, Vasily Tatishchev was taken as a steward to the court of Praskovya Fedorovna, the wife of Tsar Ivan Alekseevich and a distant relative of the Tatishchevs. He would serve in the army for sixteen years, mainly in the artillery, and would take part in the battle of Narva, the Battle of Poltava, and the Prut campaign. Inspector of the Ural metallurgical plants (1720-1722), member of the Moscow Mint Office (1727-1733), governor of the Ural region (1734-1737), head of the Orenburg expedition (1737-1739) and the Kalmyk Collegium (1739-1741), Governor of the Astrakhan Territory (1741-1745) - this is not a complete list of Tatischev’s positions. And although during his trips abroad to Prussia, Saxony, Sweden and England he had the opportunity to learn about fortification, mining and coin making, most often he had to acquire new professional skills on the spot. However, for the 18th century, which believed that an enlightened person, with diligence, could cope with any task, this was a common occurrence.
The “beginning” of Tatishchev’s historical research was also associated with his official activities - as an assistant to Field Marshal Count Y. V. Bruce, who in 1716 decided to compose a detailed geography of the Russian state with land maps of all destinies and information about all cities. Due to the lack of time for desk studies, Bruce entrusted the main responsibilities for compiling geography to his assistant. Having started work, Tatishchev immediately realized that without ancient history it was “impossible” to compose geography, and therefore he soon left geography and began to “be diligent about the collection of this history.”
In Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Siberia, Astra-Khan - 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 “supreme leaders” D. M. Golitsyn. Buying books in Russia and abroad, Tatishchev compiled his own extensive library, numbering about a thousand volumes.
In 1745, five years before his death, Vasily Nikitich, 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 “Russian History” in order.
Tatishchev tried to publish his work back in 1739, introducing the manuscript to members of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and acquaintances, including Novgorod Archbishop Ambrose. 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, and still others even accused the author of betraying the Orthodox faith. Having failed to achieve a positive decision in Russia, Tatishchev made attempts to publish “History” in England. It was for this purpose, as researchers believe, that he donated the manuscript of the Rostov Chronicle to the English royal collection. However, despite all his efforts, Tatishchev was not able to see his work published.
The publication of “Russian History,” divided by the author into four books, took eighty years. The first three books were published by Moscow University based on lists provided by Tatishchev’s son, Evgraf Vasilyevich. Work on preparing the manuscript for printing was carried out under the supervision of the historian G. F. Miller, who corrected, in particular, the scribes’ errors in writing geographical names and ethnographic realities. Having decided to begin publication as quickly 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, published in St. Petersburg, appeared only in 1784, and the last, fifth, part of the “History” (or the fourth, according to Tatishchev’s chronological division) was published by the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities in 1848 from a manuscript discovered M.P. Pogodin.
“Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” is a somewhat journalistic work. 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 argued that Ancient Rus' did not leave behind its own written monuments. The “history” was extended only to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, although Tatishchev had plenty of materials from later times, including the Peter the Great era. In the preface, the historian explained why he did not dare to continue his work chronologically: “In the present history, great vices will appear in many noble families, which, if written, would incite them or their heirs to malice, and bypassing them would destroy the truth and clarity of history or turn the blame onto those who judged, if it was not in agreement with conscience; For this reason I leave it for others to write.”
Plan
Introduction
1 Work on “History”
2 Plan
Introduction
3 Sources for the first part of the “History”
4 Tatishchevskie news
5 The problem of “minus text” of Tatishchev’s work
6 Sources for the second to fourth parts of the “History”
6.1 Armchair manuscript
6.2 The schismatic chronicle
6.3 Königsberg Manuscript
6.4 Golitsyn manuscript
6.5 Kirillovsky manuscript
6.6 Novgorod manuscript
6.7 Pskov manuscript
6.8 Krekshinsky manuscript
6.9 Nikon Manuscript
6.10 Nizhny Novgorod manuscript
6.11 Yaroslavl manuscript
6.12 Rostov manuscript
6.13 Manuscripts of Volynsky, Khrushchev 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, thirty years later, with tireless labor, 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 “History”
Tatishchev came to the main work of his life as a result of a confluence of a number of circumstances. Realizing 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 first collect and consider all historical information about Russia. Since the foreign manuals turned out to be full of errors, Tatishchev turned to primary sources and began to study chronicles and other materials. At first he had in mind to write a historical work (“in a historical order” - that is, an author’s analytical work 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 implicitly outlined).
As Tatishchev writes, he collected more than a thousand books in his library, but could not use most of them, because he spoke only German and Polish. At the same time, with the help of the Academy of Sciences, he used 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 organized public readings while continuing to work above it and subsequently, “smoothing out 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 was “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 produce impeccable scientific work, but in his historical works, his vital attitude to scientific issues and the associated breadth of outlook are valuable.
Among Tatishchev's more private scientific achievements are the discovery and publication of Russian Pravda and 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 mores of the 17th century; Based on personal acquaintance with foreigners, he understood ancient Russian ethnography and 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 expanded and deepened his historical understanding.
The author's employment with public service did not allow him to devote much time to studying history. Only from April 1746, when Tatishchev was under investigation and living 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. 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 distributed across chapters; the second, in its final edition, 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 Herodotus’ “History” (chapter 12).
· Excerpts from the book. VII “Geography” of Strabo (chapter 13).
· From Pliny the Elder (chapter 14).
· From Claudius Ptolemy (chapter 15).
· From Constantine Porphyrogenitus (chap. 16).
· From the books of northern writers, Bayer’s work (chapter 17).
The Sarmatian theory occupies a special place in Tatishchev’s ethnogeographical ideas. Tatishchev’s etymological “method” illustrates the reasoning from Chapter 28: the historian notes that in Finnish the Russians are called Venelain, the Finns - Sumalain, the Germans - Saxolain, the Swedes - Roxolain, and identifies the common element “Alain”, that is, the people. He identifies the same common element in the names of the tribes known from ancient sources: Alans, Roxalans, Raklans, 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 mountains; demons, that is, barefoot; sunsets - from sunset; zenkhs, that is, grooms; hemp - from hemp; tolistobogs, that is, thick-sided; tolistosagi, that is, thick-bottomed; maters, that is, seasoned; plesii, that is, bald; sabos, or dog sabos; defense, that is, harrow; sapotrenes - prudent; svardeni, that is, svarodei (making swaras), etc.
4. Tatishchevskie news
A special source study problem is posed by the so-called “Tatishchev news”, which contains information that is not in the chronicles known to us. These are texts of varying length, from one or two added words to large integral 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 identified (“Rostov”, “Golitsyn”, “Raskolnichy”, “Chronicle of Simon the Bishop”). In most cases, the source of original news is not indicated by Tatishchev at all.
A special place in the array of “Tatishchev news” is occupied by the Joakim Chronicle - an inserted text, equipped with a special introduction by Tatishchev and representing a brief retelling of a special chronicle telling about the most ancient period of the history of Rus' (IX-X centuries). Tatishchev considered the author of the Joachim Chronicle to be the first Novgorod bishop Joachim Korsunyanin, 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 the chronicles. 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 resolutely declared the Raskolnichy Chronicle “imaginary.” Based on a critical analysis, Karamzin identified a whole series of specific Tatishchev news and quite consistently refuted them in the notes, without using them in the main text of the “History of the Russian State” (the exception is the news of the papal embassy to Roman Galitsky in 1204, which penetrated into 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 going back to chronicles that have not reached us. At the same time, the historian’s conscientious errors 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. as follows:
“Tatishchev’s integrity, previously questioned due to 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 the chronicles from data that seemed reliable to him. Citing chronicle legends in a corpus, often without indicating sources, Tatishchev ultimately gave, in essence, not history, but a new chronicle corpus, unsystematic and rather clumsy.”
In the 20th century, supporters of the reliability of Tatishchev’s news were A. A. Shakhmatov, M. N. Tikhomirov and especially B. A. Rybakov. This latter proposed a very large-scale concept, which assigned a special role in the formation of Tatishchev’s corpus of the lost “Schismatic 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 (to whom belongs the honor of a detailed study of the manuscript of the first edition of Tatishchev’s work, written in the “ancient dialect”), Y. 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 references to Tatishchev’s 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 similar (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 a Ukrainian manuscript of the 17th century (a chronicle of the “Khlebnikov type”, close to Golitsyn), then A. V. Gorovenko considers the Raskolnichy Chronicle a Tatishchev hoax and sharply polemicizes with his Ukrainian colleague, refuting his textual argument. Supporters of the reliability of "Tatishchev's news" also subjected A.P. Tolochko's monograph to sharp criticism, although from completely different positions.
+: works of publicists +: works of writers
The compiler of the first edition of the PVL is considered to be +: Nestor
The compiler of the second edition of the PVL is considered to be: +: Sylvester
In the XYI century it was written:
+: “The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow” A.M. Kurbsky
In the XYI century it was written: +: Facial vault
In the XYI century it was written: +: Degree book
“The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow” A.M. Kurbsky was created in: +: ХYI century.
“Scythian History” by A.I. Lyzlova was created in: +: XYII century.
The first printed (typographical) historical work in Rus' +:Synopsis
L1: “The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow”
R1: A.M. Kurbsky
L2: "Scythian history"
R2: A.I. Lyzlov
L3: "Story…"
R3: Fedor Griboyedov
R4: Nestor
“The Core of Russian History” was created: +: A.I. Mankiev
“The History of Emperor Peter the Great from His Birth to the Battle of Poltava” was created: +: F. Prokopovich
“Discourse on the Causes of the Swean War” was created by: +: P.P. Shafirov
“Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” was created by: +: V.N. Tatishchev
“Ancient Russian History” and “Brief Russian Chronicler” were created by:
+: M.V. Lomonosov
Correspondence between the title of the work and its author:
L1: “The history of Emperor Peter the Great from his birth to the Battle of Poltava”
R1: P.P.Prokopovich
L2: “Russian history from the most ancient times”
R2: V.N. Tatishchev
L3: “Brief Russian Chronicler”
R3: M.V. Lomonosov
L4: “Discourse on the causes of the Sveian War”
R4: P.P. Shafirov
L5: “The Core of Russian History”
R5: A.I. Mankiev
Forefather (father) Russian historical science usually considers:
+: V.N. Tatishcheva
+: A.L. Schletser
In the 18th century A historian of German origin worked in Russia: +: G.Z. Bayer
In the 18th century A historian of German origin worked in Russia: +: G.F. Miller
Attempts to restore the original text of the PVL and transfer scientific methods of criticizing sources to Russia were made by: +: A.L. Schletser
Job “On the Damage to Morals in Russia” belongs to:+: M.M. Shcherbatov
The work of M.M. Shcherbatov “On the damage to morals in Russia” was written in: +: ХYIII century
I.I. Golikov is a representative:
+: merchant (early bourgeois) direction Published by N.I. Novikov’s “Ancient Russian Vivliofika” was:
+: archival historical magazine
: Correspondence between the title of the work and its author:
L1 : “History of the Russian State”
R1: N.M. Karamzin
L2: “Brief Russian Chronicler”
R2: M.V. Lomonosov
L3: “Acts of Peter the Great, the wise transformer of Russia”
R3: I.I. Golikov
L4: “On the damage to morals in Russia”
R4: M.M. Shcherbatov
The Decembrists were representatives +: radical educational direction
is our first historian and last chronicler" (A.S. Pushkin)
+: Karamzin
Highly appreciated the work of N.M. Karamzin, the creator of a kind of “Karamziniad”: +: M.P. Pogodin+: second third of the 19th century
The works “The Accession to the Throne of Emperor Nicholas I” and “The Life of Count Speransky” were written: +: M.A. Corfu
+: N.I. Kostomarov
L1: N.M. Karamzin
R1: “History of the Russian State”
L2: N.I. Kostomarov
R2: “Russian history in the biographies of its most important figures"
L3: M.P. Pogodin
R3: “The fight, not to the stomach, but to the death, against new historical heresies”
L4: S.M. Soloviev
R4: “History of Russia since ancient times” in 29 volumes
+: N.K. Schilder
Books on the history of Russian emperors at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. wrote:
+: S.S. Tatishchev
Books on the history of Russian emperors, as well as reference books on the capital’s necropolises, were compiled at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries:
+: Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich (Romanov)
+: N.K. Mikhailovsky
“Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 19th – 19th centuries.” written by: +: S.F. Platonov
"Essays on the history of Russian culture" - +: P.N. Miliukov
“Russian History Course” was created by:+: V.O. Klyuchevsky
“Methodology of History” written+: A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky
A professional Marxist historian was: +: M.N. Pokrovsky
“Russian History from Ancient Times” and “Russian History in the Most Concise Essay” were written by a Marxist historian +: M.N. Pokrovsky
“Russian history from a sociological point of view” and “Russian history in comparative historical coverage” in 12 volumes are written: +: N.A. Rozhkov
Correspondence
L1: “Russian history course”
R1: V.O. Klyuchevsky
L2: “Russian history in the most concise outline”
R2: M.N. Pokrovsky
L3: “Essays on the history of Russian culture”
R3: P.N. Miliukov
L4: “Russian history from a sociological point of view”
R4: A.N. Rozhkov
L5: “Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the XYI – XYII centuries.”
R5: S.F. Platonov-
Life activities of Russian historians:
1: S.M. Soloviev
2: I.I. Golikov
3: M.T. Kachenovsky
4: V.N. Tatishchev
Chronological sequence
1: A.I. Mankiev
2: A.N. Radishchev
3: N.M. Karamzin
4: M.P. Pogodin
5: A.N. Rozhkov
Chronological sequence
1: P.P. Shafirov
2: M.M. Shcherbatov
3: N.A. Field
4: V.O. Klyuchevsky
5: B.D. Grekov
Chronological sequence
1: F. Prokopovich
2: I.N. Boltin
3: K.A. Aksakov
4: D.I. Ilovaisky
5: B.A. Rybakov
Chronological sequence
1: G.F. Miller
2: K.D. Kavelin
3: A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky
4: A.M. Pankratova
5: Yu.N. Afanasiev
Chronological sequence
1: G.Z. Bayer
2: N.M. Karamzin
3: B.N. Chicherin
4: S.F. Platonov
5: A.A. Zimin
Chronological sequence
1: A.L. Schletser
2: M.T. Kachenovsky
3: N.I. Kostomarov
4: G.V. Plekhanov
5: L.N. Gumilev
Chronological sequence
1: M.V. Lomonosov
2: N.G. Ustryalov
3: N.K. Schilder
4: M.N. Pokrovsky
5: M.V. Nechkina
He left a series of aphorisms on Russian history: +: V.O. Klyuchevsky
A representative of the Moscow historical school, who studied the reforms of Peter I and began preparing a detailed biographical chronicle of Peter the Great:
+: M.M. Theological
Representative of the Moscow historical school, leader of the Cadet Party, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the first Provisional Government: +: P.N. Miliukov
“Revelations of the diplomatic history of the 18th century.” written: +: K. Marx
The work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” was written: +: V.I. Lenin
Promoted Marxism in Russia, polemicized with the populists
+: G.V. Plekhanov
Representative of the Marxist trend in Russia, author of the work “Russian Worker in the Revolutionary Movement”: +: G.V. Plekhanov
The Chairman of the Socialist (Communist) Academy of Social Sciences was: +: M.N. Pokrovsky
The first rector of the Institute of Red Professorship was +: M.N. Pokrovsky
M.N. Pokrovsky was:
+: Chairman of the Socialist (Communist) Academy of Social Sciences
N.M. Lukin appeared:
+: first director of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences
B.D. GB.D. Grekov wrote:
+: “Kievan Rus” and “Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the mid-XYII century.”
Grekov was +: director of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1937-1953
A. Barbusse wrote: +: biography of I.V. Stalin
A.M. Pankratova was:
+: specialist in the history of the proletariat and the history of the workers' revolutionary movement in Russia
P.N. Savitsky (Peter Vostokov) was:
+: representative of the Eurasian trend in foreign Russian historiography
G.V. Vernadsky was:
+: leader and ideologist of the Eurasian trend in foreign Russian historiography
+: L.I. Brezhnev
Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, researcher of archeology, history, oral and written monuments of Ancient Rus' +: B.A. Rybakov
N.N. Pokrovsky and Lev Krasnopevtsev
+: participants in the “university case” of 1957
Rector of the Historical and Archival Institute Yu.N. Afanasiev:
+: most consistently advocated during the years of “perestroika” for a radical renewal of Soviet historical science
According to the PVL, Apostle Andrew:
+: illuminated the Kyiv lands
The idea of uniting Rus' on a contractual basis is typical for: +: Code of 1448
+: Moscow chroniclers
The idea of an all-Russian chronicle was put forward: +: Tver chroniclers
The idea of Rus' being chosen by God was developed in: +:Theories “Moscow–Third Rome”
The thesis about Moscow as the center of true Christianity was developed in:
+: Theories “Moscow – Third Rome”
+: Roman emperors
Historical works of the 16th century. associated Moscow statehood with:
+: Byzantine emperors
“The Message of Monomakh’s Crown” and “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” linked Moscow statehood with: +: Roman emperors
Russian statehood was connected with the world empires of the past:
+: “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir”
He adhered to the Norman theory of the origin of Rus': +: G.Z. Bayer
He adhered to the Norman theory of the origin of Rus': +: A.L. Schletser
He adhered to the Norman theory of the origin of Rus' +: G.F. Miller
He adhered to the anti-Norman theory of the origin of Rus' +: M.V. Lomonosov
The statement that the historian “must appear without a fatherland, without faith, without a sovereign” belongs to: +: G.F. Miller
In the works of I.N. Boltin contains criticism:
+: works by M.M. Shcherbatova+: works by N.G. Leclerc
Theoretical (methodological) issues of historical science in the XYIII century. did: +: I.N. Boltin
The phrase “Moscow owes its greatness to the khans” belongs+ to: N.M. Karamzin
The patriarchal (tribal) theory of social development was developed by:
I.F.G. Evers
The concept of Norman feudalism and family feudalism in the “History of the Russian People” was put forward by: +: N.A. Field
The principle of historicism and the idea of the state as the highest form of social organization were adopted by historians of the 19th century. from philosophy: +: Hegelianism
The theory of official nationality (“Uvarov triad”) included the following component: +: Orthodoxy+: autocracy+: nationality
The exclusivity of the Russian historical path (“the theory of parallel threads”) was defended by: +: M.P. Pogodin
Work by M.P. Pogodin “The fight, not to the stomach, but to death, against new historical heresies” is directed against +: N.I. Kostomarova
He defined his views as a “system of pragmatic Russian history”:
+: N.G. Ustryalov
Petrine reforms were characterized as a “revolution from above” in “History of Russia since Ancient Times”: +: S.M. Soloviev
+: Ivan the Terrible
For representatives of the public school, one of the most significant figures in Russian history was: +: Peter I
The theory of "enslavement of classes" was developed +: public school
Slavophil thinker who developed philosophical and religious problems and the general scheme of world history, contrasting Orthodoxy and Catholicism: +: A.S. Khomyakov
Representative of the Slavophiles, whose concept is defined as “retrospective utopia” (“retrospective utopianism”): +: I.V. Kireyevsky
A representative of the Slavophiles, who developed the concept of “Land and State”, the idea of the non-state character and “inner truth” of the Russian people: +: K.S. Aksakov
The creator of the historical and sociological concept of the Slavophiles, who affirmed the idea of the priority of Orthodox Christianity and communal principles:
+: Yu.F. Samarin
The idea of the struggle between the federal (specific veche) and autocratic (monarchical) principles is characteristic of: +: N.I. Kostomarova
Researcher of the national character of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples:
+: N.I. Kostomarov
+: N.G. Chernyshevsky
Attention to the history of the popular masses and popular movements is clearly expressed in the works: +: A.P. Shchapova
Attention to the history of the popular masses and popular movements is clearly expressed in the works: +: A.I. Herzen
+: D.I. Ilovaisky
The history of Russia from a conservative (monarchical) position was covered at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. in the works: +: N.K. Schilder
They developed the theory of progress, the “subjective method”, criticized Marxism: +: representatives of populist historiography
The largest specialist on the history of the Time of Troubles in Russia at the end of the 19th century - beginning of the 19th century. was: +: S.F. Platonov
The largest specialist in the field of historical methodology in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. was: +: A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky
Colonization as the main fact of Russian history was considered + V.O.Klyuchevsky
The first period of Russian history was characterized as “Dnieper, city, trading Rus'”: +: V.O. Klyuchevsky
He defined the Decembrist uprising as “a historical accident, overgrown with literature”: +: V.O. Klyuchevsky
Representative of the Moscow historical school, who developed problems of historical geography and history of the Lithuanian state: +: M.K. Lyubavsky
The thesis about low population density as one of the main reasons for Russia’s backwardness was developed in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture”: +: P.N. Miliukov
The concept of backwardness and the delayed nature of the historical development of Russia in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” was put forward by: +: P.N. Miliukov
The thesis about the lack of independence of Russian culture and the large role in its development of foreign borrowings in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” was defended by: +: P.N. Miliukov
Representative of the Moscow historical school, who created the “theory of mental types” and attached great importance to psychological factors in history:
+: N.A. Rozhkov
The theory of socio-economic formations and class struggle as the driving force of history was developed: +: Marxism
In his work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” he identified four conditions for the existence of a feudal (corvee) economic system: +: V.I. Lenin
He defined the new period of Russian history (from about the 19th century) as the process of creating bourgeois connections: +: V.I. Lenin
He distinguished three periods in the history of the revolutionary liberation movement in Russia: +: V.I. Lenin
The idea of merchant capitalism as the most important engine of the Russian historical process is characteristic of the concept: +: M.N. Pokrovsky
The state of the first Romanovs was defined as “merchant capital in a monomach cap” +: M.N. Pokrovsky
He considered the unification of Rus' around Moscow to be a matter of “impending commercial capitalism”: +: M.N. Pokrovsky
He considered the annexation of new peoples and territories to Russia as “absolute evil”:+: M.N. Pokrovsky
The phrase: “History is politics thrown back into the past” reflects the position:
+: M.N. Pokrovsky
The focus of Russian Marxist historiography of the 20s. there were problems: +: socio-economic history
The focus of Russian Marxist historiography of the 20s. there were problems: +: class struggle
The term “patriotic war” (1812) was rejected by Russian historiography as nationalistic in: +: 1920s
A nihilistic assessment of pre-revolutionary Russian history prevailed in Russia: +: 1920s
Kievan Rus was characterized as a slave state
+: I.I. Smirnov
Feudalism and serfdom as two different formations +: S.M. Dubrovsky
“Nationalization” and “denationalization” trends in Soviet historiography of the 20s. concerned the interpretation: +: stories of imperialism
The theory of the dual (dual) nature of the October Revolution was developed by:
+: S.A. Piontkovsky
In a letter to I.V. The editorial board of the magazine “Proletarian Revolution” contains criticism of Stalin +: A.G. Slutsky
The idea of the victorious path of development of the party and the irreconcilable struggle within social democracy is clearly expressed in:
+: “A short course on the history of the CPSU (b)”
Collections “Against the historical concept of M.N. Pokrovsky" and "Against the anti-Marxist concept of M.N. Pokrovsky" came out +: late 1930s
Books “Kievan Rus” and “Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the middle of the 19th century.” written: +: B.D. Grekov
The thesis about the feudal nature of Ancient Rus' was most consistently defended in the 1920s - 1930s. +: B.D. Grekov
Specialist in the history of the proletariat and the history of the workers' revolutionary movement in Russia: +: A.M. Pankratova
Creator of the original theory of ethnogenesis, which takes into account the role of cosmic energy, the Earth's biosphere, and passionarity when studying ethnic history +: L.N. Gumilev
During the years of “perestroika” he most consistently advocated for a radical renewal of Soviet historical science: +: Yu.N. Afanasiev
The concept of “phenomenon of Soviet historiography” was introduced into scientific circulation:
+: Yu.N. Afanasyev
The annexation of new territories and Asian peoples to Russia as “voluntary entry” was interpreted in Russian historiography in:
+: 1970-1980s
Filling in the “blank spots” in history is typical for:
+: perestroika period
The state of methodological pluralism is typical in Russian historiography for: +: present tense
More tragic was the fate of the works of Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750), which became, as it were, “lost.” A talented historian worked for Russia for many years, but was rejected, and his books were destroyed by the authorities. By 1747, he created a huge work: “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times.” This work was found “unnecessary” by the authorities 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 references to many primary sources, but this book was not published during the author's lifetime. Even more than that, Tatishchev was banned from publishing the book, declaring his “political freethinking 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 archives behind seven castles, in the hiding places of Catherine II, where only trusted 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... Then 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 little by little collected a dozen lists, based on them and other options communicated to him, he compiled the eleventh...” Here it is appropriate to remember that Tatishchev had previously studied the allegedly “Radzivilovsky” text of “The Tale of Bygone Years” acquired during the capture of Peter I in Konigsberg (we talked about it above), into which, at the suggestion of Peter, were pasted sheets concerning the appearance of Rurik in Ladoga, and pages about the history of the family of the princes of Russia from the biblical Adam. Then Tatishchev declared that Nestor was ignorant of Russian history, for this Konigsberg text odiously contradicted all the chronicle texts. , known to Tatishchev.
The main point is that before the discovery of Peter, all the 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: Kievan Rus was not created by Rurik at all - Kyiv, even before Rurik, became Russian from Galician Rus. And that previously became Russia from Rus-Ruthenia - a colony of the Slavs of Polabia, 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 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, whom he sent, came to Kyiv, they saw that Russian princes were already ruling there - but of another Rus', which did not submit to the Obodrites and Danes. The inter-Russian war for Kyiv began. I note that many Russian historians are still perplexed or consider it a mistake in the chronicles that the princes of Kyiv answered Rurik’s envoys that 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 Kyiv, Galicia, “Hungarian” Rus'-Ruthenia and even Polabian Rus' - the Russian homeland of Rurik himself (the peoples of the Obodrites, Lutichians , Rugov-Russians, Lusatian Serbs, etc.).
Peter ordered to consider that Rus' was born precisely in Muscovy: this gave “rights” to all lands that were in one way or another connected in history with Russia. Tatishchev found in his research the “objectionable fact” of the existence of many Rus in Europe long before Rurik’s landing in Ladoga, while simultaneously 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 Russian kingdoms and principalities that existed at that time (there were several of them).
All this helps to understand Tatishchev’s bewilderment when he became acquainted with the list of “The Tale of Bygone Years” “found” by Peter. And then the bewilderment became even greater - turning into protest. In Siberia, Tatishchev found other ancient copies of The Tale of Bygone Years, devoid of Peter’s edits. And his opinion completely changed here: he discovered that Peter was falsifying history, falsifying 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 was honestly indignant at the attempts of the Russian authorities to hide this history. Doesn’t it seem very strange that even Tatishchev’s “primary sources” have not reached 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 a holistic 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 given pro-imperial direction, stealing from Kievan Rus its rightful name “Rus”, attributing this name to the Finno-Tatar ethnic group of Muscovy.
Everything was justified “on demand”:
1. They falsely ennobled Alexander, the so-called Nevsky;
2. They created 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 on... Thousands of “chronicles” have filled Russian historical science, and individual historical primary sources have disappeared without a trace. And we are forced to believe this trick and these lies.”
The emotional approach of the Ukrainian historian is understandable, seeing in the creation of these myths the destruction of the statehood of his Ukrainian people and Kyiv itself as the capital of something sovereign. 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 for outdated imperial reasons, then this has nothing to do with science. We need to distinguish our real history from mythical views of how someone “would like to see it.” How Catherine II falsified the history of the Grand Duchy of Belarus is the topic of another publication.
“Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” is a famous historical work by Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. This work became one of the most significant books in Russian historiography, marking the beginning of a new stage in the development of Russian historical literature, thanks to which the transition from chronicle to critical analysis and presentation based on sources was accomplished. At the same time, few people know that the author of “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” did not at all dream of writing this work. He created it under the pressure of circumstances.
Who was the author of “Russian History”?
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 receive 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.
He went through the Northern War as a diplomat, and after it he managed factories in the Urals and founded Yekaterinburg.
Tatishchev was the first to introduce such important texts as “Russian Truth” and “Code of Code” into scientific circulation, thereby giving rise to the development of ethnography and source studies in Russia.
But, perhaps, Tatishchev’s most ambitious work 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 its founding to the reign of Fyodor Romanov.
Tatishchev was not a historian and wrote such a significant work only out of state necessity. Foreign books about Russia were filled with errors, which affected diplomacy between countries. So, Tatishchev decided to restore the historical truth and write a short essay about the history and historical borders of Russia.
He collected a huge number of books in his library, most of which were unpublished, and realized how unstudied the history of Russia at that time was. Members of the Academy of Sciences helped him translate the texts of the books.
Structure of “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times”
About work. “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” by Tatishchev became 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, everyday and cultural terms.
The work is divided into four parts; there are also separate sketches dedicated to the history of the 17th century. Only the first and second parts of the work, which contain most of the author’s notes supplementing the text, can be called relatively complete. The third and fourth parts are devoid of notes, which suggests that work on them was not 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 lands by Rurik. The presentation is carried out on behalf of the Slavs, who later became “Russians”. The customs, geography of settlement and religious beliefs of the first Slavs are described. A whole series of first baptisms in Rus' are mentioned (after all, the story begins in ancient, pagan times). Tatishchev adheres to Nestor’s account, describing the calling of the Varangians and the fight 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 periods.
Scientific significance of Tatishchev’s work
Government employment and lack of historical training prevented Tatishchev from working on “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times.” Of course, his work was not ideal and not flawless, but he became the first Russian scientist to pay such considerable attention to the issue of studying his native history. Thanks to him, previously unknown documents were published, and such a science as historiography appeared.
Opinions about Tatishchev's work
Contemporaries highly appreciated “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times.” For many years it became a reference book for everyone interested in history. Thanks to this work, the study of Russian history moved to a new level.
In Soviet times, Tatishchev's work was subject to both criticism and praise: due to a lack of knowledge and ability to work with sources, many of them were misinterpreted or completely lost.
At the same time, despite the fact that Tatishchev’s work cannot be called impeccable, one cannot fail to note its enormous significance for historical science.
