“I put this story in order”

On April 19, 1686, the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born. His “Russian History” 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 19th century artist based on an 18th century original

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 “Russian History”.

Petrov's nest chick

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born on April 19 (29), 1686 in a family that traced its origins to the Smolensk princes. However, in the 17th century, this branch of the 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, and at one time was a governor 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 centuries, right up to the famous Manifesto on the freedom 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 a typical and prominent representative of his class.

Tatishchev's career began at the age of seven, when he was assigned to court service - as 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 went through the Prut campaign, which was unsuccessful for the Russian army, and almost ended in captivity for Peter I. However, at the same time the sovereign began to single out the young officer. He was entrusted with diplomatic missions: in 1714 - to Prussia, in 1717 - to Gdansk, in 1718 - to the Åland Congress, where the issue of concluding peace with Sweden was decided.

The first edition of “Russian History” by V.N. Tatishcheva

In 1720–1723, Tatishchev spent 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 carried out a diplomatic mission for about two years, getting acquainted with various industries, as well as 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 disposition and was a stern administrator. It is not surprising that he often had conflicts with both superiors and subordinates. The historian spent the last years of his life (1746–1750) on his Boldino estate while under investigation. For him, this period became a kind of “Boldino autumn,” the autumn of life, when he could devote most of his time to scientific works and cherished plans that he realized throughout his life.

The main life credo of Vasily Nikitich, as a true son of the Petrine era, was constant activity. One of his contemporaries, who observed him in his old age, wrote:

“This old man was remarkable for his Socratic appearance, his pampered body, which he maintained for many years with great moderation, and the fact that his mind was constantly occupied. If he doesn’t write, doesn’t read, doesn’t talk about business, he’s constantly throwing bones from one hand to the other.”

History with geography

At first, Tatishchev’s scientific studies were part of his official duties, which was commonplace in Peter’s time.

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

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

In the “Preface” to “Russian History”, Vasily Nikitich explained that “due to the lack of detailed Russian geography” the order to compile it was given to him by Field Marshal General Jacob Bruce, who himself lacked the time for this work.

“He, as a commander and benefactor, could not refuse, he accepted it from him in 1719 and thought that it would not be difficult to compose this from the news communicated to me from him, immediately, according to the plan prescribed from him, [it] began. Moreover, at the very beginning I saw , that it is impossible to start and produce one from an ancient state without sufficient ancient history and a new one without perfect knowledge of all the circumstances, for it was first necessary to know about the name, what language it is, what it means and from what reason it came about.

In addition, it is necessary to know what kind of people lived in that region since ancient times, how far the borders at that time extended, who the rulers were, when and in what way it was brought to Russia,” Tatishchev wrote.

In St. Petersburg, the future historian received from the tsar’s personal library the “ancient Nestor 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 language - to analyze texts, deducing scientific knowledge about the past with the help of criticism.

One of Tatishchev’s merits was the systematic work on collecting handwritten sources, primarily lists of Russian chronicles, the importance of which for the reconstruction of the early period of the history of our country he was fully aware of. In addition, the scientist was the first to introduce into scientific circulation such important monuments of Russian law as “Russian Truth” and “Code of Code of 1550”. Tatishchev’s attention to legislation was not accidental. It is laws, in his opinion, that always promote change and social development.

Ideological basis

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

“All actions,” he believed, “come from intelligence or stupidity. However, I do not classify stupidity as a special being, but this word is only a lack or impoverishment of the mind, as strong as cold, an impoverishment of warmth, and is not a special being or matter.”

“Worldwide enlightenment” is the main path of human development. On this path, Tatishchev especially noted three events: “the acquisition of letters, through which they acquired a way to forever preserve what was written in memory”; “The coming of Christ the Savior to earth, by which the knowledge of the Creator and the position of the creature towards God, oneself and one’s neighbor were completely revealed”; “the acquisition of embossed books and free use by all, through which the world received very great enlightenment, for through this free sciences grew and useful books multiplied.” Thus, for Tatishchev, divine revelation, the appearance of writing and the invention of printing were phenomena of the same order.

IN CITIES OR SMALL STATES, “WHERE ALL HOUSE OWNERS CAN SOON GET TOGETHER,” “DEMOCRACY WILL BE USED TO BENEFIT.” But “great states cannot be governed otherwise than by autocracy”

Politically, Vasily Nikitich was a convinced monarchist, a supporter of autocratic rule in Russia. He justified its necessity by the geographical factor fashionable among thinkers of the 18th century. Tatishchev’s special essay “Arbitrary and consonant reasoning and opinion of the assembled Russian nobility on state government” reveals this issue in detail. According to the scientist, there are three main forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

“Each region elects from these different governments, considering the position of the place, the space of possession and the condition of the people,” Tatishchev wrote.

In cities or small states, “where all the owners of houses can soon gather,” “democracy will be put to good use.” In states consisting of several cities and with an enlightened population, which “is diligent in upholding the laws without coercion,” aristocratic rule may also be useful. But the “great states” (Tatishchev names Spain, France, Russia, Turkey, Persia, India, China among them) “cannot be governed otherwise than by autocracy.”

In a special chapter of “Russian History” entitled “On the Ancient Russian Government and Others as an Example,” Tatishchev stated:

“Everyone can see how much more beneficial monarchical rule is to our state than others, through which the wealth, strength and glory of the state is increased, and through which it is diminished and destroyed.”

"Russian History"

Tatishchev's main work - a complete history of Russia - was created over three decades. Two main editions of it are known. The first was generally completed by 1739, when the author arrived in St. Petersburg with the manuscript to discuss it in scientific circles. Tatishchev himself reported this:

“I have put this story in order and explained some passages with notes.”

Work on the second edition continued 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 process and rewrite the chronicle information, creating his own version of the chronicle. In this regard, Tatishchev is often called “the last chronicler,” and not always in a positive sense.

For example, Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov, a major historian and part-time 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 development of material for future history, but the same chronicle in the new Tatishchev code.”

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

At the same time, Tatishchev’s work is distinguished from the traditional chronicle work by its solid source base, which he specifically speaks about in the “Preface” to “Russian History.” In addition to ancient Russian chronicles and acts, the “History” also uses the works of ancient and Byzantine historians, Polish chronicles, and the works of medieval European and Eastern authors. Tatishchev demonstrates familiarity with the ideas of European philosophers and political thinkers such as Christian Wolf, Samuel Pufendorf, Hugo Grotius and others.

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

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

Tatishchev managed to bring the account of events up to 1577. For the later history of the Fatherland, only preparatory materials remained. They are also of a certain value, since when compiling a story about the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and Fyodor Alekseevich, Tatishchev used, among other things, sources that have not reached us, in particular the essay Alexey Likhachev- close third tsar from the Romanov dynasty.

"Tatishchevskie news"

Tatishchev’s refusal to present simply a weather list of chronicles and other news and his creation of his own version of the chronicle corpus gave rise to the problem of the so-called “Tatishchev news.” We are talking about facts and events described by our hero, but absent from the sources that have survived to this day. It is known that Vasily Nikitich’s library 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 - the founders of the city - on the oldest square in Ekaterinburg

Some believe that Tatishchev could not have invented these “news” and simply copied them from ancient manuscripts, which were subsequently lost. An optimistic assessment of the “Tatishchev news” can be found, for example, in the outstanding Soviet historian academician Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov.

“By a happy accident,” he emphasized, “Tatishchev used precisely those materials that have not survived to our time, and in this regard, his work has incomparably greater advantages as a primary source than the work of Karamzin, 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”. Tatishchev was also criticized for inventing events Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. The greatest expert on Russian historiography of the 18th century Sergey Leonidovich Peshtich expressed doubt that Tatishchev “had sources that had not reached us.”

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

The modern Ukrainian historian Aleksey Tolochko speaks quite sharply on this matter, devoting an extensive monograph to the “Tatishchev news”.

“As a collection of sources, it [“Russian History”. – A.S.] does not represent anything valuable, the researcher concludes, but as a collection of hoaxes it seems to be a truly outstanding text. It is this aspect of Tatishchev’s activity that allows us to evaluate him not as a chronicler, but as a thoughtful, subtle and insightful historian. Not only gifted with extraordinary powers of observation and intuition, but also very well equipped technically.”

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

The fate of the legacy

Tatishchev never had a chance to see his works, and the most important of them - “Russian History” - published. Meanwhile, long-term connections with the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, where Tatishchev sent manuscripts of his works, contributed to the fact that his work was in the field of view of the domestic scientific community. Used the manuscript of Tatishchev’s “Russian History” Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov, and a clear trace of its influence is visible in his historical works. Such historians of the 18th century also worked with it as Fedor Emin And Mikhail Shcherbatov.

Lomonosov's opponent, a German historian who worked at one time in Russia, August Ludwig Schlozer planned to publish Tatishchev’s “History”, thinking of making it the basis of his own generalizing work. He intended to insert blank sheets of paper into his copy of this publication, where he would add additions from Russian and foreign sources over time.

The first publisher of Russian History was academician Gerard Friedrich Miller, a tireless worker in the field of Russian history. In the printing house of Moscow University, under his “supervision”, the first three volumes were published 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’s fifth book “History” was also published.

In Soviet times, in the 1960s, an academic edition of “Russian History” was published, taking into account discrepancies in various editions and with detailed comments from leading scientists. In the 1990s, on its basis, the Ladomir publishing house prepared the collected works of 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 several times.

People have written and will continue to write about Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. After all, the importance of his personality and activities is difficult to overestimate - he is a pioneer, a pioneer. Before him, there were practically no people in Russia who had 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:

“Tatishchev’s merit lies in the fact that he was the first to start the matter the way it should have been started: he collected materials, subjected them to criticism, compiled chronicle news, provided them with geographical, ethnographic and chronological notes, pointed out many important issues that served as topics for later research, collected news from ancient and new writers about the ancient state of the country, which later received the name Russia - in a word, he showed the way and gave the means to his compatriots to study Russian history.”

Alexander Samarin, Doctor of Historical Sciences

YUHT A.I. State activities V.N. Tatishchev in the 20s - early 30s of the 18th century. M., 1985
KUZMIN A.G. Tatishchev. M., 1987 (series “ZhZL”)

The year of the 250th anniversary of the great historian Karamzin also marks the round birthday of his predecessor Tatishchev, about which modern historians, as in Karamzin’s time, argue fiercely until they become hoarse.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born 330 years ago, on April 29, 1686. A participant in the Battle of Poltava and a younger contemporary of the first Russian emperor, he was definitely one of the “chicks of Petrov’s nest” mentioned by Pushkin. And at the same time, he managed to get ahead of his turbulent time, when the very difficult reign of Peter the Great was replaced by the motley and changeable “era of palace coups.” For he found himself in many of his hobbies, and in the writing of history, too, along with the reign, which he, having died in 1750, did not see - with the time of Catherine II, an exceptionally enlightened empress.

And it is not for nothing that his “Russian History from Ancient Times” began to appear in print precisely in the years of Catherine, starting in 1768. The ideas of an enlightened reorganization of the world permeate Tatishchev’s entire biography, and from there his passionate interest in the past, which manifested itself already in 1710, when a young artilleryman in the vicinity of Korosten inspected the hill known as “Igor’s grave”; According to legend, it was there that the Kyiv prince, who fell at the hands of the Drevlyans, was buried.

Vasily Nikitich began his passion for history on the advice of the famous Jacob Bruce at the end of the 1710s, but he took up his favorite work closely and systematically only after finding himself in disgrace 5 years before his death, in 1745. In his Boldino estate near Moscow, “Tatishchev was considered to be on trial, and a soldier of the Senate company was constantly standing at his door” - these are the conditions in which, as described by the historian Konstantin Bestuzhev-Ryumin, the founder of the scientific study of our history wrote so well.

Like many other discoverers, Tatishchev had a lot of things not only “for the first time and again,” but also at the junction of eras and research styles. He had no predecessors at all, and it is not at all surprising that for many years he cherished history as a favorite hobby, which he can do, even with his truly workaholic efficiency, only in fits and starts.

This statesman was known to his contemporaries only for his rather high positions: he managed to be the head of mining factories in the Urals, and the governor of the Orenburg region, and the governor of Astrakhan.

So was Tatishchev really a scientist-historian? The caustic Klyuchevsky called him a “practical businessman” who became “the first collector of materials for the complete history of Russia.” That is, Vasily Nikitich got stuck with Vasily Osipovich somewhere in the dressing room of scientific history, but did not get into the steam room. In fact, all the signs of the erudition of Tatishchev’s studies are beyond doubt: the study of the past from sources, and a good knowledge of foreign languages, which he spoke in the amount of ten, and the first work for Russian historians in foreign libraries and archives - this is exactly what our polyglot did during his official journey to Sweden in 1724-1726, after which he was the first to call Rus' Gardariki, and Novgorod - Holmgard.

And to Peter the Great in Danzig in 1716, he was able to very convincingly explain that the local magistrate was disingenuous, trying to “divorce” the tsar for a huge sum of 50 thousand rubles at that time and pass off a certain painting there as “The Last Judgment” as a work by the very enlightener of the Slavs Methodius.

Finally, Tatishchev very convincingly explained why history is a real full-fledged science, in contrast to “star casting,” that is, astrology, or “hand reading,” or palmistry. And this science is fundamentally deeply moral: “history is nothing other than the recollection of past deeds and adventures, good and evil, therefore everything that we have learned and remember before ancient or recent times through hearing, seeing or feeling is the most real history, which teaches us, either from our own or from other people’s deeds, to be diligent about good and to beware of evil.”

The first Russian writer of scientific history knew very well what professional skills that persist to this day should look like. What is required of a “history writer” is “well-readness and a solid memory, and also a clear mind,” but also knowledge of “all philosophy.” The historian is not only obliged to write from sources, but also to be able to select them, “so that just as a builder can distinguish suitable materials from unsuitable materials, rotten from healthy ones, so the writer of history must diligently examine so that fables are not mistaken for the truth and what is written is not mistaken for the real thing.” .

One must always treat the works of predecessors with partiality, because “even about the best ancient writer it is not unnecessary to know scientific criticism.” It is especially worth condemning the falsifiers of history, and you don’t need to look for them for a long time, they live nearby: “The Poles, boasting about themselves with antiquity and courage, are not ashamed to make up fables, and at the same time they do not skimp on attracting others to this.”

But all these Tatishchev arguments are from the field of theory, but did he himself follow these principles in “Russian History”? This is where the reasons for heated discussions lie. If we try to start reading Tatishchev from the very beginning, we will find part one of his work, outlining our history before Rurik. The narrative, to be sure, is legendary; to put it more critically, those same fables. True, this was the European science of that time: Tatishchev’s acquaintance, the secretary of the Swedish College of Antiquities, Bjerner, convinced him that “the Russians had already appeared around the 5th century.” Is it worth blaming our first historian for not bringing this date, which is pleasing to the eye, up to date?

The main debate about Tatishchev comes from his sources: some historians see that he used chronicle news that has not reached us and is therefore valuable to mother history. Others, starting with Karamzin, believe that Vasily Nikitich introduced texts he himself composed into his “consolidated chronicle”; Some of his critics even think that he was such a skilled master of such falsifications that he deserves the honorary title of “historian of the modern, conceptual, innovative.”

Closer to the truth are the third group, to which Academician D.S. belonged. Likhachev, who believe that historical research in the 18th century was characterized by a literary component. The historian strictly could not distinguish between the testimony of sources and his own opinion; he could provide inaccurate references and confuse reconstructions with facts. Is this why Tatishchev preferred to call himself not a historiographer, but rather a “historical writer”?

But no matter how the discussions about Tatishchev, which are still relevant to this day, continue, his figure as a pioneer of Russian history cannot be doubted, just as his words about the relevance of historical science are burningly modern: “No person, no settlement, industry, science, or any “The government, and especially one person on his own, cannot be perfect, wise and useful without knowledge of it.”

Vasily Tatishchev was born on April 19, 1686 in the Pskov district. The Tatishchevs came from the Rurikovich family, or more precisely, from the younger branch of the Smolensk princes. The family lost its princely title. Since 1678, Vasily Nikitich’s father was listed in the government service as a Moscow “tenant” and at first did not have any land holdings, but in 1680 he managed to obtain the estate of a deceased distant relative in the Pskov district.

In 1693, the sons of Nikita Alekseevich, ten-year-old Ivan and seven-year-old Vasily, were granted stolniks and served at the court of Tsar Ivan Alekseevich until his death in 1696. Subsequently, the brothers probably lived on their father's estate until the beginning of 1704. On June 25, 1705, the brothers wrote a fairy tale in the Rank Order, in which they downplayed their age, thanks to which they defended the exemption from service until 1706.

In 1706 they were enrolled in the Azov Dragoon Regiment. On August 12, 1706, both brothers, promoted to lieutenant, as part of the newly formed dragoon regiment of Avtonom Ivanov, left Moscow for Ukraine, where they took part in military operations. V.N. Tatishchev also fought in the battle of Poltava, where he was wounded, in his own words, “beside the sovereign.”

In 1711 Tatishchev took part in the Prut campaign.

In 1712-1716, like many young nobles, Tatishchev improved his education abroad, but not in France and Holland, like the majority, but in Germany. He visited Berlin, Dresden, Breslau, and acquired many expensive books on all branches of knowledge. It is known that Tatishchev studied mainly engineering and artillery, kept in touch with General Feldzeichmeister Yakov Vilimovich Bruce and carried out his instructions. In between trips abroad, Tatishchev was involved in the affairs of the estate. In the summer of 1714, he married the young widow Avdotya Vasilievna Andreevskaya.

In April 1716, Tatishchev attended the “general review” of Peter’s army, after which, at the request of Bruce, he was transferred from cavalry to artillery. On May 16, 1716, Tatishchev passed the exam and was promoted to lieutenant engineer of the artillery.

In 1717, Tatishchev was in the active army near Konigsberg and Danzig, putting in order the rather neglected artillery economy. After the arrival of Peter I near Danzig on September 18, 1717, Tatishchev intervened in the story with an indemnity of 200 thousand rubles, which the local magistrate had not been able to pay for a whole year. Peter I became interested in the painting “The Last Judgment” that was available in the city, which the burgomaster attributed to the brush of the Slavic educator Methodius and offered to the tsar as an indemnity, valued at 100 thousand rubles. Peter I was ready to accept the painting, valuing it at 50 thousand, but Tatishchev managed to dissuade the tsar from the unprofitable deal, quite reasonably challenging the authorship of Methodius.

In 1718, Tatishchev participated in organizing negotiations with the Swedes on the Åland Islands. It was Tatishchev who surveyed the islands at the end of January - beginning of February 1718 and chose the village of Vargad to hold a peace congress; here Russian and Swedish diplomats met for the first time on May 10. For a number of reasons, months-long negotiations did not result in the signing of a peace treaty. The Russian delegation left Vargad on September 15, Tatishchev left a little earlier.

Upon returning to St. Petersburg, Tatishchev continued to serve under the command of Bruce, who, with the establishment of the Berg College on December 12, 1718, was placed at the head of this institution. In 1719, Bruce turned to Peter I, justifying the need for “land surveying” of the entire state and compiling a detailed geography of Russia. Tatishchev was to become the performer of this work. However, at the beginning of 1720, Tatishchev was assigned to the Urals and from that time on he had practically no opportunity to study geography. In addition, already at the preparatory stage for compiling geography, Tatishchev saw the need for historical information, quickly became interested in the new topic and subsequently collected materials not for geography, but for history.

In 1720, a new order tore Tatishchev away from his historical and geographical works. He was sent “in the Siberian province on Kungur and in other places where convenient places were searched, to build factories and smelt silver and copper from ores.” He had to operate in a little-known, uncultured country that had long served as an arena for all sorts of abuses.

Having traveled around the region entrusted to him, Tatishchev settled not in Kungur, but in the Uktus plant, where he founded a department, first called the Mining Chancellery, and then the Siberian Higher Mining Authority. During Tatishchev’s first stay at the Ural factories, he managed to do quite a lot: he moved the Uktus plant to the Iset River and there laid the foundation for what is now Yekaterinburg, chose a place for the construction of a copper smelter near the village of Yegoshikha, thereby laying the foundation for the city of Perm, and obtained permission to let merchants through to Irbitskaya fair and through Verkhoturye, as well as postal establishments between Vyatka and Kungur.

He opened two elementary schools at the factories, two for teaching mining, secured the establishment of a special judge for the factories, drew up instructions for the protection of forests, paved a new, shorter road from the Uktus plant to the Utkinskaya pier on Chusovaya, etc.

Tatishchev’s measures displeased Demidov, who saw his activities being undermined by the establishment of state-owned factories. G.V. de Gennin was sent to the Urals to investigate the disputes, finding that Tatishchev acted fairly in everything. He was acquitted, at the beginning of 1724 he presented himself to Peter, was promoted to advisor to the Berg College and appointed to the Siberian Oberbergamt.

Soon after that he was sent to Sweden for the needs of mining and to carry out diplomatic assignments. Tatishchev stayed in Sweden from December 1724 to April 1726, inspected factories and mines, collected many drawings and plans, hired a lapidary master who launched the lapidary business in Yekaterinburg, collected information about the trade of the Stockholm port and the Swedish coinage system, met many local scientists, etc.

Returning from a trip to Sweden and Denmark, Tatishchev spent some time compiling a report, and although he had not yet been expelled from Bergamt, he was not sent to Siberia. In 1727, he was appointed a member of the mint office, to which the mints were then subordinate.

He was sent to the Urals for the second time in the fall of 1734 as head of state-owned mining factories. From July 1737 to March 1739 he headed the Orenburg expedition.

In December 1734, Tatishchev learned about the suspicious behavior of Yegor Stoletov, exiled to Nerchinsk in connection with the case of Prince Dolgorukov, who was once close to Mons: he was reported that, citing ill health, he was not present in the church at the matins on the name day of Empress Anna Ioannovna. Tatishchev saw a political motive in this and diligently began an investigation using torture. At first, his zeal was not appreciated, but in the end, Stoletov, under torture, confessed to plotting a conspiracy on the throne), incriminated many more people along with himself, was transferred to the secret chancellery, there he was tortured almost to death and ultimately executed.

Tatishchev was also involved in religious affairs. On April 20, 1738, Toigilda Zhulyakov was executed for the fact that, having converted to Christianity, he then returned back to Islam. The text of the sentence read: “According to Her Imperial Majesty and by the determination of His Excellency Privy Councilor Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev, you, Tatar Toygild, were ordered to be sentenced because, having been baptized into the faith of the Greek confession, you accepted the Mahometan law and thereby not only fell into a godless crime, but as if the dog returned to his vomit and despised his oath promise given at baptism, he inflicted great opposition and abuse on God and his righteous law - to the fear of others, who were brought into the Christian faith out of Mahometanism, at the meeting of all baptized Tatars it was ordered execute by death - burn.” V.N. Tatishchev himself was not present at the execution, because he was in Samara at that moment.

For converting back to Islam, Kisyabik Bayryasov was executed by burning at the stake. According to a certificate from the Yekaterinburg police, the first time she fled on September 18, 1737 with the courtyard girl of the widow of the drinking farmer Pyotr Perevalov, the second time - on September 23 of the same year with the courtyard wife of the secretary of the Office of the Main Board of Factories Ivan Zorin. She fled for the third time in September 1738.

In 1739, on April 29, Soimonov’s letter was received in Yekaterinburg. On April 30, the death sentence “by decree of Major General L. Ya. Soimonov” was approved in the Chancellery. On May 1, Ugrimov notified General Soimonov in a letter: “Now, by the power of your Excellency, the order with her on the same April 30th has already been carried out.”

The political crisis of 1730 caught him in this position. Regarding the accession of Anna Ioannovna, Tatishchev drew up a note signed by 300 people. from the nobility. He argued that Russia, as a vast country, is most suited to monarchical government, but that still, “to help,” the empress should have established a senate of 21 members and an assembly of 100 members, and elected to the highest places by ballot. Here, various measures were proposed to alleviate the situation of different classes of the population.

As a result of absolutist agitation, the guard did not want changes in the political system, and this entire project remained in vain; but the new government, seeing Tatishchev as an enemy of the supreme leaders, treated him favorably: he was the chief master of ceremonies on the day of Anna Ioannovna’s coronation. Having become the chief judge of the coin office, Tatishchev began to actively take care of improving the Russian monetary system.

In 1731, Tatishchev began to have misunderstandings with Biron, which led to him being put on trial on charges of bribery. In 1734, Tatishchev was released from trial and again assigned to the Urals, “to multiply factories.” Personally participated in the torture of prisoners according to “the word and deed of the sovereign.” He was also entrusted with drawing up the mining charter.

While Tatishchev remained at the factories, his activities brought a lot of benefit to both the factories and the region: under him the number of factories increased to 40; New mines were constantly opening, and Tatishchev considered it possible to establish 36 more factories, which opened only a few decades later. Among the new mines, the most important place was occupied by Mount Blagodat, indicated by Tatishchev.

Tatishchev used the right to interfere in the management of private factories very widely, and yet more than once aroused criticism and complaints against himself. In general, he was not a supporter of private factories, not so much out of personal gain, but out of the consciousness that the state needs metals, and that by extracting them itself, it receives more benefits than by entrusting this business to private people.

In 1737, Biron, wanting to remove Tatishchev from mining, appointed him to the Orenburg expedition for the final pacification of Bashkiria) and the management of the Bashkirs. Here he managed to carry out several humane measures: for example, he arranged for the delivery of yasak to be entrusted not to yasachniks and tselovalniks, but to the Bashkir elders.

In January 1739, Tatishchev arrived in St. Petersburg, where a whole commission was set up to consider complaints against him. He was accused of “attacks and bribes,” failure to perform, etc. It is possible to assume that there was some truth in these attacks, but Tatishchev’s position would have been better if he had gotten along with Biron.

The commission arrested Tatishchev in the Peter and Paul Fortress and in September 1740 sentenced him to deprivation of his ranks. The sentence, however, was not carried out. In this difficult year for Tatishchev, he wrote his instructions to his son - the famous “Spiritual”.

The fall of Biron again brought forward Tatishchev: he was released from punishment and in 1741 he was appointed to Astrakhan to manage the Astrakhan province, mainly to stop the unrest among the Kalmyks. The lack of the necessary military forces and the intrigues of the Kalmyk rulers prevented Tatishchev from achieving anything lasting.

When Elizaveta Petrovna ascended the throne, Tatishchev hoped to free himself from the Kalmyk commission, but he did not succeed: he was left in place until 1745, when he was dismissed from office due to disagreements with the governor. Having arrived in his village of Boldino near Moscow, Tatishchev never left her until his death. Here he finished his story, which he brought to St. Petersburg in 1732, but for which he did not meet with sympathy. Extensive correspondence has been preserved, which Tatishchev conducted from the village.

On the eve of his death, Tatishchev went to church and ordered the artisans to appear there with shovels. After the liturgy, he went with the priest to the cemetery and ordered to dig a grave for himself near his ancestors. When he left, he asked the priest to come and give him communion the next day. At home he found a courier who brought a decree forgiving him and the Order of Alexander Nevsky. He returned the order, saying that he was dying.

Vasily Nkitovich Tatishchev died on July 15, 1750 in Boldino. He was buried in the Rozhdestvensky cemetery.

The second edition of Russian History, which is Tatishchev’s main work, was published 18 years after his death, under Catherine II - in 1768. The first edition of Russian History, written in the “ancient dialect,” was first published only in 1964. At the same time, today we know under the name Tatishchev only Tatishchev’s “drafts” published by his worst enemies - the German historians at court. Accordingly, what remains of the author in them is a big question.

V.N. Tatishchev. Russian history.

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

PART ONE

Advice on the history of general and Russian history

I. What is history? History is a Greek word that means the same as ours. events or deeds; and although some believe that since events or deeds are always deeds committed by people, it means that natural or supernatural adventures should not be considered, but, having carefully examined, everyone will understand that there cannot be an adventure that cannot be called an act, for nothing itself cannot happen by itself and without a cause or external action. The reasons for every adventure are different, both from God and from man, but enough about that, I won’t go into more detail. Whoever is interested in an explanation of this, I advise you to familiarize yourself with “Physics” and “Morality” by Mr. Wolf1.

Divine. Church. Civil. Natural. What history contains in itself is impossible to say briefly, because the circumstances and intentions of writers are different in this regard. So, it happens depending on the circumstances: 1) History is sacred or holy, but it is better to say divine; 2) Ecclesiastics, or church; 3) Politics or civil, but we are more accustomed to calling it secular; 4) Sciences and scientists. And some others, not so well known. Of these, the first represents divine works, as Moses and other prophets and apostles described. Adjacent to it is the natural or natural history, about actions produced by the forces invested during creation by God. Natural describes everything that happens in the elements, that is, fire, air, water and earth, as well as on earth - in animals, plants and the underground. In the church - about dogmas, statutes, orders, the application of any circumstances in the church, as well as about heresies, debates, affirmations of the right in faith and the refutation of wrong heretical or schismatic opinions and arguments, and also church rituals and orders in worship. The secular includes quite a lot, 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 learned people, as well as the books they published and other such things, from which universal benefit comes.

II. The benefits of history. There is no need to talk about the benefits of history, which everyone can see and feel. However, since some have the habit of examining and reasoning about things clearly and in detail, repeatedly, to the extent that their meaning is damaged, putting what is useful into harm’s way, and what is harmful into being useful, and therefore making mistakes in actions and deeds, it is not without regret that I hear similar reasoning about the uselessness of history happened, and therefore I decided that it would be useful to briefly explain this.

First, let us consider that history is nothing more than the recollection of past deeds and adventures, good and evil, therefore everything that we have known and remembered before ancient or recent times through hearing, vision or sensation is the real history that we or from his own, or from other people’s deeds, teaches to be diligent about good, and to beware of evil. For example, when I remember that yesterday I saw a fisherman catching fish and thereby acquiring considerable benefit for himself, then, of course, I have in my mind some compulsion in the same way to be diligent about the same acquisition; or as I saw yesterday a thief or other villain condemned to heavy punishment or death, then, of course, the fear of such a deed, which exposes me to destruction, will deter me. In the same way, all the ancient stories and events we read are sometimes imagined so sensitively to us, as if we ourselves had seen and felt them.

Therefore, we can briefly say that no person, no settlement, industry, science, nor any government, much less one person on his own, without knowledge of it, can be perfect, wise and useful. For example, taking the 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 be called wise if he does not know the ancient deeds of God declared to us in the holy scriptures , as well as when, with whom, about what in dogma or confession there was debate, by whom what was approved or refuted, for which purpose the ancient church applied some statutes or orders, set aside them, and introduced new ones. Consequently, they simply need divine and ecclesiastical history, and also civil history, as Guetius2, the glorious French theologian, sufficiently demonstrated.

Lawyer uses history. The second science is jurisprudence, which teaches the good behavior and duties of everyone before God, before themselves and others, and therefore, 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 natural and civil laws. And how can a judge judge the right case if he does not know the ancient and new laws and reasons for their applications? To do this, he needs to know the history of laws.

The third is medicine or medicine, which consists of preserving a person’s health, and returning what was lost, or at least preventing developmental diseases. This science depends entirely on history, for he must receive from the ancients knowledge of what causes which disease, what medicines and how it is treated, what medicine has what power and effect, which no one in a hundred years could know by his own testing and inquiry, and there is such a danger in doing experiments on patients that it can destroy them soul and body, although this often happens with some ignorant people. I don’t 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 find in the ancients, right or wrong and vicious opinions, is the essence of history for our knowledge and reasons for correction.

Political part. Janus. Politics 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 harms happened from what before, in what way were averted or reduced, what benefits were acquired and preserved through what means, according to which about the present and It is possible to reason wisely in the future. Because of this wisdom, the ancient Latins depicted their king Janus with two faces, because he knew in detail about the past and wisely reasoned about the future from examples.

According to S. M. Solovyov, Tatishchev, along with M. V. Lomonosov, “owns the most memorable place in the history of Russian science in the era of initial labors.” However, the importance of Tatishchev as a historian was not immediately recognized. For a long time, his works were underestimated, and even subjected to harsh criticism. The historian was accused of fabrications and forgeries, and his references to manuscripts unknown to researchers were announced

subsequent generations, fictional. Tatishchev's views on history were attributed exclusively to Western European influence, and therefore their originality and independence were denied. It has often been argued that German historians are members of the Academy of Sciences, first of all

A.L. Schlozer, “two heads taller” than Tatishchev. Meanwhile, Schlözer himself, assessing Tatishchev’s “Russian History,” wrote: “He is the father of Russian history, and the world should know that it was a Russian, and not a German, who was the first creator of Russian history.”

The negative attitude towards Tatishchev’s works is explained by several reasons. Of all Tatishchev’s works, only one was published during his lifetime (in Sweden in Latin and in England in English) - “The Tale of the Mammoth Beast,” the first article on mammoths in world literature. The manuscript of “Russian History” lay in the Academy of Sciences for almost 30 years, the first four volumes were published in 1760-1780, and the fifth in 1848. During this time, historical science has gone far ahead, and, according to Academician M. N. Tikhomirov , Tatishchev’s works “already seemed outdated, uncritical, and young Russian historians of that time saw in them only a heap of sources.” Another reason for the rejection of the works of Tatishchev the historian is the heaviness of the style. They are written in the language of the first half of the 18th century, contain a huge array of excerpts from chronicles in Old Russian, and therefore are not easy to read. The unconventionality of many of Tatishchev’s conclusions and provisions was perceived ambiguously by contemporaries, which could not but cause criticism from conservative circles.

In the 19th century the attitude towards Tatishchev and his writings was also not unambiguous. N.M. Karamzin expressed reproaches against him. The assessment of S. M. Solovyov was completely different, according to whom “Tatishchev’s merit lies in the fact that he was the first to start the matter the way it should have been started: he collected materials, subjected them to criticism, compiled chronicle news, provided them with geographical, ethnographic and chronological notes , pointed out many important questions that served as topics for later research, a brother of the news of ancient and modern writers about the ancient state of the country, which later received the name Russia - in a word, he showed the way and means for his compatriots to study Russian history."

The significance of Tatishchev in the development of Russian historiography was revealed only in the second half of the 20th century.

Through the efforts of A. I. Andreev, S. N. Valka, M. II. Iroshpikov, A.G. Kuzmin, S.L. Ieshtich, M.N. Tikhomirov, L.V. Cherepnin, A.I. Yukht and other historians introduced all the main works of Tatishchev into scientific circulation, his life and work were studied. In the 1960s. For the first time, the academic collected works of the scientist were published (in the 1990s, a reprint edition), later his selected works (M., 1979), notes and letters (M., 1990). At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. a bibliography of Tatishchev’s works and literature about him has been published (M., 1995), a description of his personal archive fund (M., 2001), and iconography of Vasily Nikitich (M., 2001). Tatishchev readings are held in Moscow, Astrakhan, and Yekaterinburg. All this made it possible to fully appreciate Tatishchev’s contribution to the development of Russian social thought and culture.