Advice from Kiev residents to Boris. Boris's carelessness. Boris's oversight or timidity. George is a faithful slave. Boris of Rostov died. Plan for Gleb. Smyadyn. Gleb of Murom died. Svyatoslav Drevlyansky died. The Varangians are beaten. Retribution to the Novgorodians. War between brothers. Boris, looking for the Pechenegs and not finding them, since they had gone beyond the Don, returned, and, having received the news of his father’s death, was very sad and disbanded most of the troops. When he came to Olta, then the Kyivians again sent him to ask him to go immediately to Kyiv, and not disband the army, and gathered as many disbanded as possible, declaring to him that Svyatopolk, having violated the covenant of his fathers, wants to own Kiev. Boris, not accepting the advice of those faithful to his father and to him, refused and said: “It will not happen to me to raise my hand against my elder brother, for although my father died, this will be my father’s place.” Having heard that, his army and many others dispersed, and only his servants remained in the place. Svyatopolk was filled with lawlessness, accepting Cain’s plan, he sent him with flattery to Boris, saying: “I want to have love with you and not only what your father has determined for you, but I will add to it.” Seeking to bring him to safety until he finds a way to destroy him, for he knew that the people of Kiev loved Boris. And at night, secretly leaving Kyiv for Vyshgorod, calling Putesha the mayor and the Vyshgorod boyars, he asked them: “Are you kind to me with all your heart?” And Putesha and the Vyshgorod residents answered: “We want to lay down our heads for you.” He told them: “Kill Boris so that no one finds out.” They immediately promised him to fulfill his command. And soon, having chosen, they sent people capable of this, who came at night to Olta (212) and approached Borisov’s tent, since it had no guards, and, hearing blessed Boris singing matins, hid. Then someone from Borisov’s slaves came and told him that they had come from Svyatopolk and wanted to destroy you. He, standing up, without arming himself, as was necessary, began to sing the psalm: “Lord! how my enemies have multiplied! Many are rebelling against me." And having prayed, he lay down again on his bed. Then the killers attacked him like cruel animals, surrounding the tent in a circle. Borisov's servant, a Ugrin by birth, and named George, whom he loved very much and placed a golden hryvnia on him, stood in front of him and, seeing those attacking the prince, fell on Boris himself, not wanting to let him be killed. The killers stabbed George and beat many of Borisov’s servants. For George, since the killers could not quickly remove the hryvnia from his neck, they cut off his head and so they took off the hryvnia and threw his head away, because of this they could not find his body. Boris, having been pierced by the lawless people and wrapped in a tent, was brought to Vyshgorod on a cart, and he was still alive. The accursed Svyatopolk found out about this, sent two Varangians, ordered to finish him off, who, coming and seeing him alive, one of them, taking out a sword, stabbed him under the heart. And so Blessed Boris died; he received the crown in the month of July, 24 days. His body was laid secretly near the Church of St. Basil. The accursed murderers, Puteshin's accomplices, having come to Svyatopolk, as worthy of great praise, having received victory over the enemies, filled with villainy, they congratulated him and glorified their courage (213), for which they received many gifts from Svyatopolk. The names of these criminals are: Putesha, Talets, Elovich and Lyashko. Although Svyatopolk was delighted at the murder of Boris, a lot of danger and anxiety remained in his thoughts, so that Gleb, as Borisov’s half-brother, would not come at him with an army that other brothers could help, and began to think about how to kill Gleb. Having accepted Cain’s thought, he immediately sent a message to him, saying: “As soon as you can, come here as quickly as possible, our father is very sick and wants to see you.” Gleb, not knowing about his father’s death, took several people and rode at speed, but near the bank of the Volga his horse stumbled and injured his leg. He, despising his illness, quickly rode to Smolensk and, without hesitating here, sailed along the Dnieper from Smolensk, and stood over Smyadyn in a nasad (ship). Then Yaroslav received news in Novgorod from Pereslava, his sister, about the death of his father and the murder of Boris, and sent to Gleb with the news not to go to Kyiv, announcing to him about the death of his father and the murder of Boris from Svyatopolk. Hearing this, Gleb cried out in a great voice with tears, crying for his father, and also for his brother. And although his servants diligently persuaded him to return and not give himself up in fear, and if he wanted to avenge the death of his brother, then he would, agreeing with his brothers, gather troops and go against Svyatopolk. But he was in such grave grief and sadness that he could not endure it and said: “The will of God will be with me, whatever he wants, he will do. But I would rather die with my father and brother than to live in grave sorrow and anxiety, for my spirit cannot endure, nor my body endure such grave illnesses” (214). Svyatopolk, having learned that Gleb was sailing in a nasad along the Dnieper, sent to meet him to kill him. The damned messengers met Gleb at Smyadyn, suddenly surrounded Gleb’s fort, and, drawing their weapons, attacked. Glebov’s servants were in fear; almost all of them fled. And Horaser, sent by Svyatopolkov, ordered Gleb to be slaughtered. The cook Glebov, who was with him, named Torchin, took out a knife and stabbed Gleb to death on the 5th day. And they threw his body down in an empty place, and themselves returned to Svyatopolk. When they arrived, they told him that they had fulfilled the commandment. He, hearing this, was more lifted up in heart, not knowing about the words of David: “Why do you boast in strong malice, plotting iniquity all day long.” Gleb, killed and defeated on the banks of the Dnieper between two logs, was found after a long time, brought to Vyshgorod and laid near his brother Boris in the church of St. Basil (215). Svyatopolk, seeing the two brothers killed, was not pleased with this, but set the intention to destroy everyone else; He immediately sent against Svyatoslav the Drevlyansky and ordered him to be killed, since he had his inheritance closest to Kyiv. Svyatoslav, having found out, fled to the Hungarians, but the messengers, having caught up with him in the Hungarian mountains, killed him (216). The accursed Svyatopolk, having killed three brothers, established himself on the throne in Kyiv, looked for a way to destroy others who were unsafe for him. And for this purpose, he generously presented the nobles of Kiev and other principalities with skins and kunas (that is, animal skins and money) and distributed a lot of property. Yaroslav, being in Novgorod, before he learned about his father’s death, brought the Varangians, as was said before (217). And they did a lot of violence and insults to the Novgorodians. The Novgorodians, having gathered, beat many Varangians in the Poramonov courtyard, for which, being angry, Yaroslav left the city on Rakoma (218) to a country house with an army and, having hidden his anger at the Novgorodians, sent from himself to the Novgorodians to say: “Although I want these beaten It’s a great pity and, being angry, I can no longer raise them, and I won’t do any good to take revenge, but now I need to think about something useful with you; For this reason, I ask you to come to me for advice.” Therefore, soon up to 1000 noble Novgorodians came to him, among them those who were most guilty of beating the Varangians. He, having thus deceived them, unexpectedly ordered the attacking Varangians to kill everyone. And hardly anyone escaped from them. And that same night he received news from his sister that his father had died, and Svyatopolk had killed Boris and taken possession of Kiev himself, and he was very saddened by this. Therefore, the execution of the Novgorodians unfortunately gave him many reasons. Having learned that Gleb had gone to Kyiv, he sent to him hastily to return, as mentioned above, and deciding that it was simply not useful for him to leave this Svyatopolk’s atrocity and was rather dangerous, so as not to allow him to destroy other brothers, and then himself to be expelled, and especially because he insulted the Novgorodians so cruelly, for this reason he had more reason to fear. But having changed his anger towards the Novgorodians, he himself went to Novgorod and, having called all the nobles to the field, held a council, telling them with tears: “Oh, my dear ones, I know that it is not unsatisfactory for you that I yesterday, being in a rage from the great offense committed, he beat your brothers and relatives. And now I really regret it, but I can’t help. Especially now they would be very useful to me, since my father died, and Svyatopolk, against his father’s will, took possession of Kiev and is beating our brethren. He may do more evil if he is not restrained from doing so by force, for which reason I am thinking of going against him and avenging his insult, and defending the rest of my brethren, if you do not deny it.” The Novgorodians, seeing Yaroslav in such grief, answered unanimously: “Although our brothers were beaten, and this is not without sorrow for us, but having left it for you, we ourselves are all ready with you, and there will be so many more of us.” And Yaroslav gathered 1,000 Varangians and 40,000 other Novgorodians. Then he also received news of the murder of Gleb. He, having announced this to the Novgorodians, said: “You see how much I need to go to Svyatopolk. And if he is defeated and killed, I am innocent of it, since it was not me, but he who began to beat his brothers, and may God be the avenger of the blood of his brothers. If I allow him to beat or expel others, then I and you cannot be safe.” All Novgorodians agreed on this. And so, calling on God for help, he went to Svyatopolk. Svyatopolk, having heard about the coming of Yaroslav, prepared with a great army, Russians and Pechenegs, went out against him to Lyubich on this side, and Yaroslav from the other side of the Dnieper, which had then come in autumn.
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 (chap. 14).
From Claudius Ptolemy (ch. 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.
It is interesting that many skeptics (Peshtich, Lurie, Tolochko) do not at all accuse Tatishchev of scientific dishonesty and invariably emphasize that in Tatishchev’s time there were no modern concepts of scientific ethics and strict rules for the design of historical research. “Tatishchevskie News”, no matter how one treats it, does not represent a conscious mystification of the reader, but rather reflects the outstanding independent research, by no means simple-minded “chronicle-writing” activity of the historian. Additional news is, as a rule, logical links missing from the sources, reconstructed by the author, illustrations of his political and educational concepts. The discussion around the “Tatishchev news” continues.
5. The problem of “minus text” of Tatishchev’s work
The formulation of the problem, as well as the term itself, belong to A.V. Gorovenko. This researcher calls “minus-text” news that Tatishchev does not have, although it is available in the Ipatiev and Khlebnikov Chronicles (in this terminology, additional Tatishchev news, respectively, represents “plus-text”). The main body of the Tatishchev text between 1113 and 1198. goes back to the chronicle of the same type as the well-known Ipatievskaya and Khlebnikovskaya. If Tatishchev's source was of better quality than the two chronicles of the same type that have come down to us, then why does Tatishchev's text contain not only additions, but also large gaps, as well as a huge number of defective readings, including a number of rather comic ones? There is no answer to this question yet from supporters of the reliability of Tatishchev’s news.
6. Sources of the second to fourth parts of the “History”
Tatishchev's chronicle sources are characterized by him in Chapter. 7 parts of the first “History”.
The first edition of this text has also been preserved, which has a number of differences, as well as characteristics of the sources, preserved only in the German translation.
6.1. Armchair manuscript
In the first edition of the list of sources (1739) it is not mentioned at all. According to Tatishchev’s description, he received it in 1720 from the library of Peter I and became the basis of the entire collection, this is a chronicle “with faces”, brought to 1239, but the ending is lost. Briefly outlines the events before Yuri Dolgoruky, then in more detail.
According to Tikhomirov, this chronicle is lost. According to Peshtic and V.A. Petrov, this is the Laptev volume of the Face Vault, brought up to 1252. It was also assumed that we are talking about the same illustrated copy of the Radzivilov Chronicle (see below).
Tolochko is inclined to doubt its existence or suggest that the phrase “with faces” does not mean that the vault is illustrated, but the presence in it of descriptions of the appearance of the characters included by Tatishchev in “History”.
Russian historian, geographer, economist and statesman, founder of Stavropol (now Togliatti), Yekaterinburg and Perm.
Childhood and youth
Vasily Tatishchev was born in Pskov into a noble noble family. 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. Both Tatishchev brothers (Ivan and Vasily) served as stewards (the steward was responsible for serving the master's meal) at the tsar's court until his death in 1696. After that, Tatishchev left the court. The documents do not contain evidence of Tatishchev’s studies at school. In 1704, the young man was enlisted in the Azov Dragoon Regiment and served in the army for 16 years, leaving it on the eve of the end of the Northern War with the Swedes. Participated in the capture of Narva, in the Prut campaign of Peter I against the Turks. In 1712-1716. Tatishchev improved his education in Germany. He visited Berlin, Dresden, Breslavl, where he studied mainly engineering and artillery, and kept in touch with General Feldzeichmeister Ya.V. Bruce and carried out his instructions.
Development of the Urals
At the beginning of 1720, Tatishchev received an appointment to the Urals. His task was to identify sites for the construction of iron ore plants. Having explored the indicated places, he settled in the Uktus plant, where he founded the Mining Office, which was later renamed the Siberian Higher Mining Authority. On the Iset River, he laid the foundation for present-day Yekaterinburg, indicated the place for the construction of a copper smelter near the village of Yegoshikha - this was the beginning of the city of Perm. In the region, he launched activities to build schools and libraries, which after his death existed without fundamental changes for 158 years.
Tatishchev had a conflict with an entrepreneur, an expert in mining. He saw the construction and establishment of state-owned factories as an undermining of his activities. To investigate the dispute that arose between Tatishchev and Demidov, military officer and engineer G.V. was sent to the Urals. de Gennin. He found that Tatishchev acted fairly in everything. According to a report sent to Peter I, Tatishchev was acquitted and promoted to advisor to the Berg College.
From 1724 to 1726 Tatishchev spent time in Sweden, where he inspected factories and mines, collected drawings and plans, brought a lapidary to Yekaterinburg, met many local scientists, etc. In 1727, he was appointed a member of the coin office, which then subordinated the mints. Tatishchev began work on a General Geographical Description of all of Siberia, which, due to lack of materials, he left unfinished, writing only 13 chapters and an outline of the book. The conflict with Biron’s proteges and the discontent of local influential persons who took advantage of Tatishchev’s individual abuses of power led to his recall and then putting him on trial. In 1734, Tatishchev was released from trial and again appointed to the Urals as head of state-owned mining factories “for the reproduction of factories.” From July 1737 to March 1739 headed the Orenburg expedition.
In January 1739, Tatishchev arrived in St. Petersburg, where a whole commission was set up to consider complaints against him. He was accused of “attacks and bribes,” failure to perform, etc. 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. During this difficult year for Tatishchev, he wrote his instructions to his son - the famous “Spiritual”.
Writing "Russian History"
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 she ascended the throne, Tatishchev hoped to free himself from the Kalmyk commission, but he did not succeed: he was left in place until 1745, when he was dismissed from office due to disagreements with the governor. Having arrived in his village of Boldino near Moscow, Tatishchev did not leave her until his death. Here he finished his famous “Russian History”.
Work on writing a work on native history began in the early 1720s. and actually became the main business of life. Having taken up writing the work, Tatishchev set himself several tasks. Firstly, to identify, collect and systematize the material and present it in accordance with the chronicle text. Secondly, explain the meaning of the collected material and establish the causal relationship of events, compare Russian history with Western, Byzantine and Eastern history.
Tatishchev’s work on writing “Russian History” proceeded rather slowly. Having begun to study and collect materials in 1721, the scientist in November 1739 presented to the Academy of Sciences “An Introduction to Russian Histories,” written in an ancient dialect. Arriving in St. Petersburg in 1739, Tatishchev showed his “Russian History” to many, but the work did not meet with approval. Resistance was provided by the clergy and foreign scientists. He was accused of freethinking. Then Tatishchev sent his “Russian History” to the Novgorod Archbishop Ambrose, asking him “to read and correct it.” The archbishop did not find “anything contrary to the truth” in Tatishchev’s work, but asked him to reduce controversial issues. Discouraged by attacks from the church and not feeling support from the Academy of Sciences, Tatishchev did not dare to protest openly. Not only the questions of church history that he raised served as a reason for rejecting the work, but also the dominance in the Academy of Sciences of foreign scientists, mainly Germans by origin.
V.N. Tatishchev turned to P.I. for help. Rychkov, a prominent historian, geographer, and economist of that time. Rychkov reacted with great interest to the work of Vasily Nikitich. Having retired to his Boldino estate after numerous wanderings and exiles, Tatishchev continues to work purposefully on writing “Russian History”. By the end of the 1740s. refers to Tatishchev’s decision to begin negotiations with the Academy of Sciences about the publication of his work. The majority of members of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences were favorably disposed. This is explained by the change in the general situation in the country. Elizaveta Petrovna came to power. National science in her person gained state support. His work was first published during the reign of Catherine II.
Structure and summary of “Russian History”
“Russian History” by Tatishchev consists of five books, which include four parts. Tatishchev's first book is divided into two parts. The first part is entirely devoted to the characteristics and history of the various peoples who inhabited the East European Plain in ancient times. The second part of the book is devoted to the ancient history of Rus'. Its scope covers 860-1238. Particular attention is paid to the issue of the role of the Varangian influence on the development and formation of the ancient Russian state. In the second, third and fourth parts of “Russian History” Tatishchev conducts his narrative in chronological order. The second part of the work has the most finished appearance. The fact is that Tatishchev not only wrote it in an ancient dialect, but also translated it into his contemporary language. This, unfortunately, was not done with subsequent material. This part is also significant because in addition to it, Tatishchev compiled notes, where he gives comments on the text, which make up approximately a fifth of what was written. Tatishchev never brought the fourth part of his work to the planned time frame (1613), finishing the narrative in 1577. Although materials about later events were found in Tatishchev’s personal archive, for example, about the reign of Fyodor Ioanovich, Vasily Ioanovich Shuisky, Alexei Mikhailovich etc.
Source base of “Russian History”
Tatishchev collected and kept the manuscripts he needed for his work. This is “The History of Kurbsky about the Kazan Campaign...; Popov, Archimandrite of the Trinity Monastery, from the reign of Tsar John II to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich; About Pozharsky and Minin, about 54 Polish times...; Siberian history...; Stories written in Tatar”, etc. The scientist had many sources, not in a single copy or version (in particular, Tatishchev had the story of the Kazan campaign not only under the authorship of A. Kurbsky, but also as a work by an unknown author). Tatishchev did not copy and rewrite ancient sources, but strived for their critical understanding. Many documents used by Tatishchev in his work on “Russian History” did not reach subsequent generations of scientists and, most likely, were forever lost to science. Tatishchev processed the works of foreign authors containing information on Russian history. in his classification of historical sources used by Tatishchev in his work, he singled out chronicles, ancient legends, writings of various historical figures, biographies, as well as “marriages and coronations.”
Other writings
In addition to the main work of V.N. Tatishchev left a large number of works of a journalistic nature: “Spiritual”, “Reminder on the sent schedule of high and low state and zemstvo governments”, “Discussion on the universal audit” and others. “Spiritual” (ed. 1775) gives detailed instructions covering the entire life and activity of a person (landowner). She talks about education, different types of service, relationships with superiors and subordinates, family life, estate and household management, and the like. The “Reminder” sets out Tatishchev’s views on state law, and the “Discourse,” written on the occasion of the 1742 audit, indicates measures to increase state revenues.
An unfinished explanatory dictionary (up to the word “Klyuchnik”) “Lexicon of Russian Historical, Geographical, Political and Civil” (1744-1746) covers a wide range of concepts: geographical names, military affairs and navy, administrative and management system, religious issues and the church , science and education, the peoples of Russia, legislation and court, classes and estates, trade and means of production, industry, construction and architecture, money and monetary circulation. First published in 1793 (M.: Mining School, 1793. Parts 1-3).
Historical significance of the works
Vasily Tatishchev is rightly called one of the fathers of Russian historical science; he is the author of the first “Russian History from Ancient Times,” which is one of the most significant works for the entire existence of Russian historiography.
Tatishchev used “Russian History” as the basis for his works, I.N. Boltin and others. Thanks to Tatishchev, such historical sources as “Russian Truth”, Code of Laws of 1550, and “State Book” have reached us. They were published after Tatishchev's death thanks to Miller's efforts. With his research, Tatishchev laid the foundation for the formation of historical geography, ethnography, cartography and a number of other auxiliary historical disciplines. In the course of his scientific and practical activities, Tatishchev became increasingly aware of the need for historical knowledge for the development of Russia and sought to convince “the powers that be” of this. According to N.L. Rubinstein, “Russian History” by V.N. Tatishcheva “summed up the previous period of Russian historiography... for a whole century ahead.”
(1686 – 1750), Russian statesman, historian. He graduated from the Engineering and Artillery School in Moscow. He took part in the Northern War of 1700-21, carried out various military and diplomatic assignments of Tsar Peter I. In 1720-22 and 1734-37 he managed state-owned factories in the Urals, founded Yekaterinburg; in 1741-45 - Astrakhan governor. In 1730 he actively opposed the supreme leaders (Supreme Privy Council). Tatishchev prepared the first Russian publication of historical sources, introducing into scientific circulation the texts of Russian Pravda and Code of Laws of 1550 with a detailed commentary, and laid the foundation for the development of ethnography and source studies in Russia. Compiled the first Russian encyclopedic dictionary (“Russian Lexicon”). He created a general work on Russian history, written on the basis of numerous Russian and foreign sources, “” (books 1-5, M., 1768-1848).
“” Tatishchev is one of the most significant works in the entire history of Russian historiography. Monumental, brilliantly and accessiblely written, this book covers the history of our country from ancient times - and right up to the reign of Fyodor Mikhailovich Romanov. The special value of Tatishchev’s work is that the history of Russia is presented here IN ITS COMPLETENESS - in aspects not only military-political, but religious, cultural and everyday!
Adaptation from Late Slavic - O. Kolesnikov (2000-2002)
Russian History (Russian doref. Russian History; full title of the first edition: “Russian History from the most ancient times, with tireless labor thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan Governor Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev”) - a major historical work of the Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev , one of the most important works of Russian historiography of the second quarter of the 18th century, a significant stage in its transition from the medieval chronicle to the critical style of narration.
The “History” consists of four parts; some sketches on the history of the 17th century have also been preserved.
History from ancient times to Rurik. Tatishchev speaks on behalf of the Slavs or Wends, who “took the name of the Russians.” “The Slavs first lived in Syria and Phenicia,” from there they migrated to Paphlagonia to the shores of the Black Sea, and then, after the Trojan War, settled in the Balkans all the way to Italy (Venice). At the same time, the Galatians and Thracians are revered as Slavs. Among the Slavic gods Tatishchev names Triglav, Sventovit, Chernobog and a number of others. Regarding the spread of Christianity among the Slavs, he mentions a number of baptisms: from the Apostle Andrew; Bulgarian baptism; from Cyril and Methodius; Oskold's baptism in 867; from Princess Olga in 945; from Prince Vladimir in 988. Tatishchev also retells Nestor’s chronicle about the calling of the Varangians and the fight against the Kozars.
–
– .
– .
–
– .
– .
– .
– .
– .
– .
– .
Tatishchev transferred the noted features of his views to the field of special historical research. The study of Russian history was an integral part of his general worldview.
Tatishchev's historical works can be grouped as follows:
- 1) works of a general nature;
- 2) comments on the texts of historical monuments;
- 3) historical reviews in economic notes;
- 4) research in historical geography.
The historical concept given by him is the outline of history
autocracy, represented in the images of individual monarchs.
Tatishchev's largest general work, “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times,” was published (and very imperfectly and incompletely) after his death. This historical work differs in many ways from both the chronicle collections and the books of Griboyedov, Mankiev and others. V. N. Tatishchev systematized the chronicle and documentary material at his disposal, in a new way, in the light of the worldview of his time, he gave an explanation of the historical process , subjecting the sources to critical analysis.
“Russian History” is preceded by the Introduction, or “Pre-Notice” contained in the first volume, where the author expressed his views on the tasks and methods of historical research, the nature of critical source studies, etc. Such an Introduction with the formulation of historical problems and source study methodology already distinguishes Tatishchev’s work from earlier works of Russian historiography.
Defining the subject of history, Tatishchev points to the origin of the word “history” from the Greek term meaning “action”. However, according to Tatishchev, such word production does not provide grounds for reducing the tasks of history to the study of only human “deeds” (i.e., actions, deeds). The concept of “action” also includes “adventure” (i.e., event). In this regard, the historian raised the question of the causality of the act, considering the “cause” of any “adventure” (event) to be an “external action” (external influence), originating from God or from man. Thus, history, according to Tatishchev, should study both the actions of people and events, and their causes, which should be sought in the will of man or in God's providence. What we have before us is a pragmatic explanation of the historical process as a chain of phenomena externally influencing each other.
In the "Pre-Notice" Tatishchev outlined (in accordance with the thoughts expressed earlier in "A Conversation between Two Friends about the Benefits of Science and Schools") his understanding of the world-historical process as the history of "adventures" and "deeds" that occur "from intelligence or stupidity" . By “mind” the historian meant a natural property that turns into “mind” as a result of enlightenment, and by “stupidity” - “a lack or impoverishment of the mind.” As in “Conversation...”, Tatishchev presents us with three phenomena in world history that are important for the “enlightenment of the mind”: the invention of writing, the coming of Christ, and the introduction of printing.
V.N. Tatishchev distinguishes the history of “sakra”, or “holy” (“holy scripture”); "church"; "civil" or "politics"; history of "sciences and scientists". He connected the historical process with the successes of enlightenment, the achievements of the human mind, and identified the history of science as a special branch of historical knowledge.
Justifying the applied purpose (“benefits”) of history, Tatishchev argued that knowledge of history provides experience that helps practical activity in various fields. The scientist also spoke about different types of historical works from the point of view of chronology: one can begin history from the “creation of the world,” but one can take as a starting point any important moment of the past, highlighting, for example, “ancient,” “middle,” and “ new." Finally, the type of historical work also depends on the order in which the material is presented: by year ("chronograph or chronicle"), by the reign of sovereigns ("archontology, or legend about sovereigns"), etc. Such a classification of works according to their objectives, the nature of the selection of material and the method of presentation was a new phenomenon in Russian historiography.
The discussions about the qualities that are necessary for a historian and about the training that he must have are very interesting. V.N. Tatishchev gives two points of view on this issue: some believe that in order to write history, it is enough to diligently read the materials, have a good memory and have a good style; others point out that a historian needs to be a philosophically educated person. V. II. Tatishchev states that, to a certain extent, both are necessary. When starting his work, a historian must acquire the necessary minimum of historical information and read the required number of books (Russian and foreign). However, this is not enough; it is necessary to comprehend the collected facts.
V. II. Tatishchev compares the historian with a homely owner who, when starting to build a house (historical work), must not only collect suitable supplies for this (historical material), preserving them for the time being in the “storage” (his memory) in order to use them when It is necessary, but also obligatory, to use this material meaningfully, wisely, otherwise the constructed building will be fragile. The assertion that a historian must be both a collector of facts and an interpreter of them reflected Tatishchev’s inherent rationalism. He tried to comprehend the problems of source study, identify the foundations of historical criticism, and put forward criteria for assessing the reliability of historical sources. And in this case, Tatishchev resorts to a figurative form of presentation, comparing the historian with the builder of a building: just as a builder must be able to “sort out the supplies that are good from the unusable, the rotten from the healthy,” so “the writer of history needs to diligently examine the fables for the net... not accept..."
Analyzing the methods of selecting and criticizing sources, Tatishchev points out that the historian should mainly use the testimony of participants in the events, then the stories of contemporaries, and, finally, records compiled on the basis of data obtained from participants or contemporaries of the events. He considers sources of domestic origin to be more trustworthy than notes from foreigners who did not always speak Russian. But at the same time, Tatishchev speaks of the need for a critical approach to Russian sources, the authors of which could be possessed by “the passion of pride or self-praise.”
Tatishchev’s reasoning contains many sound and correct observations, although the criteria for source analysis he puts forward are based primarily on his general idea of the historical process, where “ministers or noble rulers, generals, etc.” act, whose information, reflected in the sources, seems to him the most reliable .
In the “Pre-Notice” Tatishchev lists the sources involved in the research: chronicles, the Degree Book of the Royal Genealogy, Synopsis, various legends and stories, documentary material (drawn from the archives of Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia), etc. Some monuments are accompanied by critical remarks: according to Tatishchev, the Degree Book represents “pure archontology,” i.e. biographies of kings, the chronograph is “aged... many faults” (contains incorrect dates), the Synopsis contains “many fables and inconclusive inclusions.”
In connection with issues of source study, it should be emphasized that the scientist pointed out the importance of studying auxiliary historical disciplines. Among them, he names “chronology, or chronology” (knowledge of chronology systems), “theography” and “genealogy, or genealogy of sovereigns.” Interest in the latter discipline is characteristic specifically of noble historiography. Medieval genealogy laid not only a solid source base, but also gave later scientists the opportunity to use its techniques to compile various kinds of genealogies: paintings and tables.
With the development of historical science, interest also appeared in genealogy as an essential component of historical research. The first Russian historians recognized its scientific significance. V.N. Tatishchev was the first to substantiate the importance of the main “auxiliary” historical disciplines. He pointed out that to successfully write a historical essay, you need knowledge of: 1) chronology - “you really need to know when things were done”; 2) geography - “shows the position of places where something previously fell and now exists”; 3) genealogy - “you need to know who was born from whom, who had children, with whom they were married, from which one can understand the correct inheritances and harassment.” Thus, in Tatishchev’s view, genealogy is one of three sciences with the help of which a historian can solve the problems facing him. In addition, Tatishchev’s interest in genealogy was dictated by the desire to historically trace the ruling position of the monarchy and the nobility as its support.
The material from "Russian History" is divided into four books, or five parts. This structure differs from that proposed by Tatishchev in “Pre-Notice” (four parts) and reflects his views on the periodization of Russian history.
Part one (according to the printed edition - book 1, parts 1-2) is devoted to events before 860, i.e. to the chronicle story about the calling of Rurik and his brothers; part two (according to the printed edition - books 2 and 3) - the time from the reign of Rurik to the Tatar-Mongol invasion (1237); part three (according to the printed edition - book 4) - until the time of Ivan III; the author wanted to devote part four (but to the printed edition - book 5) to the time from the reign of Ivan III to the accession to the throne of Mikhail Fedorovich; in fact, the events were considered only up to 1577. Unused author's material was preserved only in fragments.
Tatishchev’s periodization is based on the history of autocracy in Russia, outlined in his political project of 1730.
The first book of "Russian History" (in two parts) differs in its structure and content from the subsequent ones. It consists of a number of chapters devoted to the study of individual problems in the ancient history of the Eastern Slavs. The following books resemble a consolidated chronicle (built on the basis of news taken from various chronicle lists), in which the political history of Rus' is presented in chronological order.
The content of the first book begins with the question “about the antiquity of writing” among the Slavs. Citing news from various ancient authors, Tatishchev tries to interpret them in the sense that “the Slavs long before Christ and the Slavic Russians actually had writing before Vladimir...”. Interest in ancient Slavic writing is associated with Tatishchev’s general ideas that the invention of writing is one of the most important factors in the historical process. Tatishchev considers the role of Christianity to be another factor determining the development of education. The following chapters, based on data from both Russian and foreign monuments, are devoted to the issue of the spread of Christianity in Rus'. At the same time, the author criticizes the information from sources, sometimes resorting to rather arbitrary methods; in particular, he believed that the chronicle news about two persons (Askold and Dir) should in fact refer to one “husband” - Askold Tirar.
The first book of "Russian History" contains an analysis of ancient Russian chronicles. Tatishchev considered the earliest monument of the chronicle type to be one text he acquired, the author of which was allegedly a Novgorod bishop of the 10th century. Joachim. According to a number of historians, in fact, the so-called Joachim Chronicle is, apparently, a monument of the late 17th century, compiled at the direction of the Novgorod archbishop of that time, also named Joachim. Analyzing the chronicle of Nestor ("The Tale of Bygone Years") and his successors, Tatishchev makes a number of interesting critical comments, for example, that before Nestor there were other historians in Rus'. He raises the question (although he does not solve it) about the need to separate the text belonging to Nestor from the texts of subsequent editors who worked on “The Tale of Bygone Years” (“some foolish ones dared to introduce something into the middle of his chronicle, and destroyed others...” ).
Tatishchev then proceeds to describe the manuscripts ("manuscripts") used in his "Russian History". The description ends with a call to every “hardworking” researcher who has made new discoveries to report them to the Academy of Sciences, “so that in another edition they can supplement or forward...”. This puts forward the task of further collecting manuscripts, which should serve as a source study foundation for subsequent scientific works.
Much attention is paid to the question of the origins of various ancient peoples of Eastern Europe. Trying to understand the abundance of their names preserved by sources (Greek, Roman, etc.), Tatishchev gives several explanations for this: sometimes “foreign-language” writers, “after listening indistinctly” to the name, “wrote [it] incorrectly”; sometimes “neighbors give names to regions and peoples themselves, which others or those same peoples do not know about.” In a number of cases, foreign writers could not convey the names of foreign peoples due to the lack of corresponding letters in their own language. Peoples changed their names during migrations. All these and other explanations of the historian, despite their well-known naivety, indicate his critical approach to the problem raised.
Tatishchev accompanies the narration of the specific history of the ancient peoples (Scythians, Sarmatians, Getae, Goths, etc.) with excerpts from the works of Herodotus (5th century BC), Strabo (1st century BC - 1st century AD). BC), Pliny the Elder (1st century AD), Ptolemy (2nd century), Constantine Porphyrogenitus (10th century), and also uses the works of the German historian G. Z. Bayer.
V.P. Tatishchev proves the antiquity of the Slavs, who, even before they received their name from “glory,” had already proven themselves with glorious deeds. “Of all the Slavic regions,” the historian wrote, “the Russian sovereigns showed their glory most by spreading and multiplying the Slavic language”; “there were many Slavs throughout Rus' before Rurik, but by the coming of Rurik from the Varangians, the Slavic race and language were humiliated”; the name Rus or Ros in Greek sources “was known long before Rurik...”. And only Princess Olga, who came from a family of Slavic princes, “raised the Slavic people and brought the language into common use.” Thus, recognizing the Norman origin of the princely dynasty among the Eastern Slavs, Tatishchev believed that it was established when the Slavs had already passed a certain path of social development.
In the chapter “On the Ancient Russian Government and Others as an Example” of the first book, the historian poses a number of theoretical questions about society and the state, which he solves, as in “A Conversation between Two Friends about the Benefits of Science and Schools,” on the basis of the concept of “natural law.” Tatishchev derives the idea of the principles of community and power from the natural need of a person in a family: “... the first community in the human race was established when a free husband and wife, for their common benefit, agreed to a combination or copulation such that the main lesson is to multiply their race.” . On a family basis, a “paternal government” and a “tribal community” arise. With the proliferation of humanity, a third form of community life appears, based on a contract - the “household community”, where the masters have power over the slaves. Tatishchev calls the listed forms of social organization “single-household” or “master’s”. He emphasizes that these organizations could not exist on their own for long. As a result of the evil qualities of human nature, crimes were born, and the need for protection from them arose. At the same time, the economic needs of people increased, they were satisfied through a certain social division of labor: people “of different trades and crafts ... copulated so that everyone could freely get what they needed in the vicinity, and satisfy others with their craft.” This is how cities arose that needed a common government - “citizenship” (or “politaya”): “several such towns agreed to form a union into a single society.”
Further, Tatishchev dwells on the forms of the state, proving the advantage of absolutism for Russia compared to other types of government. Much attention is paid to the titles of various rulers: Greek "basileus" ("basileus"), Roman "reke" (geh)- Latin "dux" (dux) German "Fürst" (Jurst), Slavic “king” and “prince”, etc.
Subsequent books of "Russian History" contain a presentation of historical events in accordance with the data of the chronicle and are of less interest for the characterization of Tatishchev the historian. Valuable observations of a geographical, ethnographic and terminological nature are given in the notes to these books.
V.P. Tatishchev (as mentioned above) prepared for publication under the title “Ancient Russian Laws” the Russian Pravda (short edition), extracted from a list of the 15th century. Novgorod Chronicle, and Code of Laws of Ivan IV with additional decrees. A painstaking study of Tatishchev's manuscripts carried out
A.I. Andreev, convinces that he worked on the notes to the Russian Truth and Code of Laws of 1550 for about 15 years. These works of the historian were published many years after his death.
