V N Tatishchev Russian history writing archives. V.N

“Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” is a famous historical work by Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. This work became one of the most significant books of Russian historiography, marking the beginning of a new stage in the development of Russian historical literature, thanks to which the transition from chronicle to critical analysis and presentation based on sources was accomplished. At the same time, few people know that the author of “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” did not at all dream of writing this work. He created it under the pressure of circumstances.

Who was the author of “Russian History”?

Tatishchev was born in 1686 into a noble family, originating from the Rurik family. He graduated from the Engineering School in Moscow, and then went to receive higher education to Europe. And not to Holland or France, as many of his contemporaries did, but to Germany, which was not very popular in those days.

He went through the Northern War as a diplomat, and after it he managed factories in the Urals and founded Yekaterinburg.

Tatishchev was the first to introduce such important texts as “Russian Truth” and “Code of Code” into scientific circulation, thereby giving rise to the development of ethnography and source studies in Russia.

But, perhaps, Tatishchev’s most ambitious work was “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times,” which summarized all the numerous Russian and foreign documentary sources known at that time, describing the history of Russia from its founding to the reign of Fyodor Romanov.

Tatishchev was not a historian and wrote such a significant work only out of state necessity. Foreign books about Russia were filled with errors, which affected diplomacy between countries. So, Tatishchev decided to restore the historical truth and write a short essay about the history and historical borders of Russia.

He collected a huge number of books in his library, most of which were unpublished, and realized how unstudied the history of Russia at that time was. Members of the Academy of Sciences helped him translate the texts of the books.

Structure of “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times”

About work. “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” by Tatishchev became one of the most significant works in Russian historiography. It describes the development of the country not only in military or political aspects, but also in religious, everyday and cultural terms.

The work is divided into four parts; there are also separate sketches dedicated to the history of the 17th century. Only the first and second parts of the work, which contain most of the author’s notes that complement the text, can be called relatively complete. The third and fourth parts are devoid of notes, which suggests that work on them was not completed.

The first part of “The History of Russia from the Most Ancient Times” describes the history from the formation of tribes to the unification of lands by Rurik. The presentation is carried out on behalf of the Slavs, who later became “Russians”. The customs, geography of settlement and religious beliefs of the first Slavs are described. A whole series of first baptisms in Rus' are mentioned (after all, the story begins in ancient, pagan times). Tatishchev adheres to Nestor’s account, describing the calling of the Varangians and the fight against the hostile Khazars.

The subsequent parts tell about the history of Russia before the Time of Troubles and are divided into approximately equal time periods.

Scientific significance of Tatishchev’s work

Government employment and lack of historical training prevented Tatishchev from working on “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times.” Of course, his work was not ideal and not flawless, but he became the first Russian scientist to pay such considerable attention to the issue of studying his native history. Thanks to him, previously unknown documents were published, and such a science as historiography appeared.

Opinions about Tatishchev's work

Contemporaries highly appreciated “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times.” For many years it became a reference book for everyone interested in history. Thanks to this work, the study of Russian history moved to a new level.

In Soviet times, Tatishchev’s work was subject to both criticism and praise: due to a lack of knowledge and ability to work with sources, many of them were misinterpreted or completely lost.

At the same time, despite the fact that Tatishchev’s work cannot be called impeccable, one cannot fail to note its enormous significance for historical science.

V.N. Tatishchev "Russian History"

According to V. Tatishchev, history is memories of “former deeds and adventures, good and evil.”

His main work is “Russian History”. Historical events are brought up to 1577. Tatishchev worked on “History” for about 30 years, but the first edition was completed in the late 1730s. he was forced to rework because... it drew comments from members of the Academy of Sciences. The author hoped to bring the story to the accession of Mikhail Fedorovich, but did not have time to do this. About the events of the 17th century. Only preparatory materials have survived.

The main work of V.N. Tatishcheva

In fairness, it should be noted that the work of V.N. Tatishchev was subjected to very severe criticism starting from the 18th century. And to this day there is no final agreement on his work among historians. The main subject of dispute is the so-called “Tatishchev news”, chronicle sources that have not reached us, which the author used. Some historians believe that these sources were invented by Tatishchev himself. Most likely, it is no longer possible to confirm or refute such statements, therefore in our article we will proceed only from those facts that exist irrefutably: the personality of V.N. Tatishcheva; his activities, including government activities; his philosophical views; his historical work “Russian History” and the opinion of the historian S. M. Solovyov: Tatishchev’s merit to historical science is that he was the first to begin historical research in Russia on a scientific basis.

By the way, recently works have appeared that reconsider Tatishchev’s creative heritage, and his works have begun to be republished. Is there really something relevant for us in them? Imagine, yes! These are questions about the protection of state interests in the field of mining, vocational education, a view of our history and modern geopolitics...

At the same time, we must not forget that many of our famous scientists (for example, Arsenyev, Przhevalsky and many others) served the fatherland not only as geographers, paleontologists and surveyors, they also carried out secret diplomatic missions, about which we do not know for certain . This also applies to Tatishchev: he repeatedly carried out secret assignments from the head of Russian military intelligence, Bruce, and personal assignments from Peter I.

Biography of V.N. Tatishcheva

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born in 1686 in the village of Boldino, Dmitrov district, Moscow province, into the family of an impoverished and humble nobleman, although descended from the Rurikovichs. Both Tatishchev brothers (Ivan and Vasily) served as stewards (the steward was responsible for serving the master’s meal) at the court of Tsar Ivan Alekseevich until his death in 1696.

In 1706, both brothers were enrolled in the Azov Dragoon Regiment and in the same year they were promoted to lieutenants. As part of the dragoon regiment of Automon Ivanov, they went to Ukraine, where they took part in military operations. In the battle of Poltava, Vasily Tatishchev was wounded, and in 1711 he took part in the Prut campaign.

In 1712-1716. Tatishchev improved his education in Germany. He visited Berlin, Dresden, Breslau, where he studied mainly engineering and artillery, maintained contact with Feldzeichmeister General J. V. Bruce and carried out his instructions.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev

In 1716, Tatishchev was promoted to lieutenant engineer of the artillery, then was in the army near Königsberg and Danzig, where he was engaged in the organization of artillery facilities.

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.

Monument to V. Tatishchev in Perm. Sculptor A. A. Uralsky

Through his efforts, two elementary schools and two schools for teaching mining were opened at the factories. He also worked here on the problem of forest conservation and the creation of a shorter road from the Uktussky plant to the Utkinskaya pier on Chusovaya.

V. Tatishchev at the Ural plant

Here Tatishchev had a conflict with the Russian businessman A. Demidov, an expert in the mining industry, an enterprising figure who knew how to deftly maneuver among court nobles and achieve exceptional privileges for himself, including the rank of full state councilor. 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, G.V. de Gennin (a Russian military man and engineer of German or Dutch origin) was sent to the Urals. 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.

Soon he was sent to Sweden on mining issues and to carry out diplomatic missions, where he stayed from 1724 to 1726. Tatishchev inspected factories and mines, collected drawings and plans, brought a lapidary to Yekaterinburg, collected information about the trade of the Stockholm port and the Swedish monetary system, met many local scientists, etc.

In 1727, he was appointed a member of the mint office, to which the mints were then subordinate.

Monument to Tatishchev and William de Gennin in Yekaterinburg. Sculptor P. Chusovitin

In 1730, with the accession of Anna Ioannovna to the throne, the era of Bironovism began. You can read more about this on our website: . Tatishchev did not have a good relationship with Biron, and in 1731 he was put on trial on charges of bribery. In 1734, after his release, Tatishchev was assigned to the Urals “to multiply factories.” He was entrusted with drawing up a mining charter.

Under him, the number of factories increased to 40; New mines were constantly opening. Important place occupied Mount Blagodat, indicated by Tatishchev, with a large deposit of magnetic iron ore.

Tatishchev was an opponent of private factories; he believed that state-owned enterprises were more profitable for the state. By doing this, he caused “fire on himself” from industrialists.

Biron tried his best to free Tatishchev from mining. In 1737, he appointed him to the Orenburg expedition to pacify Bashkiria and control the Bashkirs. But here, too, Tatishchev showed his originality: he ensured that the yasak (tribute) was delivered by the Bashkir elders, and not by the yasachniks or tselovalniks. And again complaints rained down on him. In 1739, Tatishchev came to St. Petersburg for a commission to consider complaints against him. He was accused of “attacks and bribes,” failure to perform and other sins. Tatishchev was arrested and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, sentenced to deprivation of ranks. But the sentence was not carried out. During this difficult year for him, he wrote his instructions to his son: “Spiritual.”

V.N. Tatishchev was released after the fall of Biron's power, and already in 1741 he was appointed governor of Astrakhan. His main task was to stop the unrest among the Kalmyks. Until 1745, Tatishchev was engaged in this thankless task. Ungrateful - because to implement it there was not enough military forces or cooperation on the part of the Kalmyk authorities.

In 1745, Tatishchev was relieved of this position and settled permanently on his Boldino estate near Moscow. It was here that he devoted the last five years of his life to working on his main work, “Russian History.” V.N. died Tatishchev in 1750

Interesting fact. Tatishchev knew about the date of his death: he ordered his grave to be dug in advance, asked the priest to give him communion the next day, after that he said goodbye to everyone and died. The day before his death, the courier brought him a decree stating his forgiveness and the Order of Alexander Nevsky. But Tatishchev did not accept the order, explaining that he was dying.

V.N. was buried Tatishchev at the Rozhdestvensky churchyard (in the modern Solnechnogorsk district of the Moscow region).

Grave of V.N. Tatishcheva - a historical monument

V.N. Tatishchev is the great-great-grandfather of the poet F.I. Tyutcheva.

Philosophical views of V.N. Tatishcheva

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev, who is rightfully considered an outstanding historian, “the father of Russian historiography,” was one of the “chicks of Petrov’s nest.” “Everything that I have - rank, honor, property and, most importantly above all - reason, I have everything solely by the grace of His Majesty, for if he had not sent me to foreign lands, had not used me for noble affairs, and had not encouraged me with mercy, then I couldn’t get anything,” - this is how he himself assessed the influence of Emperor Peter I on his life.

Monument to V. Tatishchev in Tolyatti

According to the convictions of V.N. Tatishchev was a loyal supporter of autocracy - he remained so even after the death of Peter I. When in 1730 the niece of Peter I, the Duchess of Courland Anna Ioannovna, was elevated to the throne with the condition that the country would be governed by the Supreme Privy Council, Tatishchev was categorically against limiting imperial power. Anna Ioannovna surrounded herself with German nobles, who began to manage all affairs in the state, and Tatishchev opposed the dominance of the Germans.

In 1741, as a result of a palace coup, the daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth, came to power. But Tatishchev’s social views, his independent character, and freedom of judgment were not to the liking of this empress either.
The seriously ill Tatishchev devoted the last five years of his life to working on the history of his fatherland.

Historian at work

He understood life as continuous activity for the sake of public and state benefit. In any place, he performed the most difficult work in the best possible way. Tatishchev highly valued intelligence and knowledge. Leading an essentially wandering life, he collected a huge library of ancient chronicles and books in different languages. The range of his scientific interests was very wide, but his main affection was history.

V.N. Tatishchev “Russian History”

This is the first scientific generalizing work on Russian history in Russia. In terms of the type of arrangement of material, his “History” resembles ancient Russian chronicles: the events in it are presented in a strict chronological sequence. But Tatishchev did not just rewrite the chronicles - he conveyed their contents to a language more accessible to his contemporaries, supplemented them with other materials, and in special comments gave his own assessment of the events. This was not only the scientific value of his work, but also its novelty.
Tatishchev believed that knowledge of history helps a person not to repeat the mistakes of his ancestors and to improve morally. He was convinced that historical science should be based on facts gleaned from sources. A historian, like an architect for the construction of a building, must select from a pile of materials everything suitable for history, and be able to distinguish reliable documents from those that are not trustworthy. He collected and used a huge number of sources. It was he who found and published many valuable documents: the code of laws of Kievan Rus “Russian Truth” and the “Code of Laws” of Ivan IV. And his work became the only source from which one can find out the contents of many historical monuments that were subsequently destroyed or lost.

Sculpture of Tatishchev in VUiT (Tolyatti)

Tatishchev in his “History” paid a lot of attention to the origin, mutual connections and geographical distribution of the peoples who inhabited our country. This marked the beginning of the development in Russia ethnography And historical geography.
For the first time in Russian historiography, he divided the history of Russia into several main periods: from the 9th to the 12th centuries. - autocracy (one prince ruled, power was inherited by his sons); from the 12th century - the rivalry of princes for power, the weakening of the state as a result of princely civil strife, and this allowed the Mongol-Tatars to conquer Rus'. Then the restoration of autocracy by Ivan III and its strengthening by Ivan IV. New weakening of the state in the Time of Troubles, but he was able to defend his independence. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, autocracy was again restored and reached its peak under Peter the Great. Tatishchev was convinced that an autocratic monarchy was the only form of government necessary for Russia. But “Russian History” (Volume I) was published only 20 years after the death of the historian. Volume II came out only 100 years later.
The famous Russian historian S. M. Solovyov wrote: “... Important his lies precisely in the fact that he was the first to begin processing Russian history as it should have been started; the first gave an idea of ​​​​how to get down to business; the first to show what Russian history is and what means exist for studying it.”
Tatishchev's scientific activity is an example of selfless service to science and education: he considered his scientific work as fulfilling a duty to the fatherland, the honor and glory of which were above all for him.

Our story about V.N. We would like to end Tatishchev with an excerpt from an article from the Togliatti city newspaper “Free City”, which presents well-known and little-known results of V.N. Tatishcheva.

It is common knowledge
Under his leadership, the state (state) mining industry of the Urals was founded: more than a hundred ore mines and metallurgical plants were built.
He modernized the assay business in Russia, created and mechanized the Moscow Mint, and began the industrial minting of copper and silver coins.
He founded (personally compiled and edited the drawings) the cities of Orsk, Orenburg, Yekaterinburg and our Stavropol (now Tolyatti). Reconstructed Samara, Perm and Astrakhan.
He organized vocational schools at state-owned factories, the first national schools for Kalmyks and Tatars. Compiled the first Russian-Kalmyk-Tatar dictionary.
Collected, systematized and translated from Church Slavonic into Russian the first chronicles and state documents of the Moscow Kingdom of the Middle Ages. Based on them, he wrote the first “Russian History”.
Prepared scientific works and memos on philosophy, economics, state building, pedagogy, history, geography, philology, ethnology, paleontology, archeology, numismatics.

Little known
He is the author of the foundations of the first Constitution of (monarchical) Russia. By the way, it operated in the country for 50 days!
Found and organized the first archaeological excavations
capital of the Golden Horde - Sarai.
Personally drew the first detailed (large-scale)
map of Samara Luka and most of the Yaik River (Ural).
He compiled a geographical atlas and a “General Geographical Description of Siberia,” and introduced into use the name Ural Mountains, previously called the Stone Belt.
Prepared the Åland Congress (the first negotiations on an armistice with Sweden).
He drew up projects for shipping canals: between the Volga and Don, between the Siberian and European rivers of Russia.
He had a brilliant command of ten (!) languages: he fluently read and spoke French, German, English, Swedish and Polish, knew several Turkic languages, Church Slavonic and Greek. Participated in improving the Russian alphabet.

While studying pharmacology, he experimented a lot and created new medications based on extracts from coniferous trees.

Autograph of V.N. Tatishcheva

(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.

Only parts are relatively completed by V. N. Tatishchev and include a significant number of notes. In the first part, the notes are distributed among the chapters; the second, in its final edition, contains 650 notes. There are no notes in any part, except for the chapters on the Time of Troubles, which contain some references to sources.

Related Posts:

• Putin, Macron, Qishan and Abe at the plenary session...

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 he 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.

• Excerpts from Herodotus' "History" (chapter 12).
• Excerpts from the book. VII “Geography” by 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.

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 (“Rostovskaya”, “Golitsynskaya”, “Raskolnichya”, “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 Joachim Chronicle - an inserted text, equipped with a special introduction by Tatishchev and representing brief retelling 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 Schlözer and especially Karamzin. This latter considered the Joachim Chronicle to be Tatishchev’s “joke” (that is, 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).

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.

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.

Sources for parts two to four 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.

Armchair manuscript

In the first edition, the list of sources 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”.

Schismatic Chronicle

According to Tatishchev, he received it in Siberia from a schismatic in 1721; it was a copy of an ancient manuscript on parchment, ending in 1197 and containing the name of Nestor in the title. Taking into account modern terminology, in 1721 Tatishchev was not actually in Siberia, but in the Urals. The manuscript, if it existed at all, is lost.

According to optimists, this is an unknown edition of the Kyiv Chronicle. In particular, B. A. Rybakov identified many unique news from this chronicle (186 news for the 12th century) and traced them mainly to the “Chronicle of Peter Borislavich”.

According to A.P. Tolochko, the proportionality of the volumes of Tatishchev’s additional news and the text of the Ipatiev Chronicle is deeply logical and is explained by the peculiarity of Tatishchev’s creative manner: his additions recreated the causal relationship between events.

Tolochko argues that a number of readings of “Russian History” for the 12th century cannot go back to Ermolaev’s list, but reflect another list of the Ipatiev Chronicle, close to Khlebnikov’s. Tolochko declares this hypothetical list to be the Schismatic Chronicle, claiming that all Tatishchev’s information indicating the antiquity of this manuscript is a hoax. According to Tolochko, the second chronicle of the Khlebnikov type, actually used by Tatishchev and passed off as “Raskolnicha,” was actually in the library of Prince D. M. Golitsyn along with the Ermolaev Chronicle and the “Chronicle” of Feodosius Sofonovich, and all these three manuscripts were of Ukrainian origin and contained in the title the name of Nestor as a chronicler. However, without exception, all textual observations of Tolochko, which allegedly pointed to Tatishchev’s use of the “second chronicle of the Khdebnikov type,” were consistently refuted

Königsberg Manuscript

A copy of the Königsberg Chronicle, now known as the Radzivilov Chronicle, was made for Peter I. This copy is kept in the NA Library (7/31/22).

Continues until 1206, but the end is mixed. This description is quite consistent with the original.

According to A.P. Tolochko, even in cases where Tatishchev refers to clearly identifiable chronicles (for example, the Radzivilovskaya), he makes obvious mistakes.

Golitsyn manuscript

According to the textual analysis of S. L. Peshtich and A. Tolochko, this is the Ermolaev copy of the Ipatiev Chronicle, which in the 1720s was in the library of D. M. Golitsyn, where Tatishchev met him. According to another opinion (M. N. Tikhomirov, B. A. Rybakov), this is a special edition of the Kyiv Chronicle, close to the Raskolnichi and different from the edition of all copies of the Ipatiev Chronicle.

An important argument in favor of Tatishchev’s integrity is the fact that all known manuscripts of the Ipatiev Chronicle contain both the Kyiv and Galician-Volyn Chronicles. However, as N.M. Karamzin noted, Tatishchev knew only the Kiev, but not the Galician-Volyn chronicle.

Tatishchev notes that the Golitsyn manuscript was completed in 1198, and 19 years later some additions were made out of order. In the first surviving version of the description of the chronicles, Tatishchev says that this manuscript contained something from Stryikovsky. This phrase was removed from the final version.

According to modern ideas, the gap between the end of the Kyiv and the beginning of the Galician-Volyn chronicle was 5-6 years. However, in the margins of the Ermolaevsky list there is an indication of a gap of 19 years, and a reference to the similarity with the text of Stryikovsky.

According to Tolochko, Tatishchev accepted the text of the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle in the Ermolaevsky list as a work dependent on the Polish historian Stryikovsky (for both texts contained praise for Roman Mstislavich), and did not consider it necessary to get acquainted with it in detail and make a copy. Later, he did not have the opportunity to turn to D. M. Golitsyn’s library.

Kirillovsky manuscript

Started with the translation of the Chronograph from the creation of the world, continued until Ivan the Terrible.

According to Tikhomirov, this is the Degree Book, according to Peshtic, accepted by Tolochko - the second part of the Lviv Chronicle.

Novgorod manuscript

According to Tatishchev, it is called Vremnik, includes the Law of the Yaroslavs and has an inscription about its composition in 1444; taken by a historian from a schismatic in the forest and given to the Academy of Sciences Library. Now known as the Academic copy of the Novgorod First Chronicle, junior edition, which actually contains the Russian Truth. According to B. M. Kloss, the Tolstoy copy of the same chronicle was created by a scribe in the library of D. M. Golitsyn in the late 1720s.

Pskov manuscript

This manuscript combines the texts of the Novgorod Fifth (with some additions) and the Pskov First Chronicle and was preserved in the Library of AN 31.4.22 with Tatishchev’s notes; the Pskov text ends in 1547. . According to Tatishchev, it ends in 1468. The Pskov news was not used by Tatishchev.

Krekshinsky manuscript

According to Tatishchev’s description, it continues until 1525, includes genealogies, and differs from the Novgorod one in the composition of news and in dating.

According to Peshtic, this is a list of the Russian Vremennik and the Resurrection Chronicle. According to Ya. S. Lurie, this is the Novgorod edition of the Degree Book. According to Tolochko, this is the Chronicle of Krivoborsky, known as the Chertkovsky list of the Vladimir chronicler and published in volume XXX PSRL.

Nikon's manuscript

According to Tatishchev, this is the “Chronicle of the Resurrection Monastery,” signed by the hand of Patriarch Nikon and continued until 1630. Its beginning is similar to Raskolnichy and Koenigsberg, and before 1180 it is close to Golitsyn.

It is known that the texts of parts 3 and 4 of the “History” were based on the Academic XV copy of the Nikon Chronicle (entered into the Library of the Academy of Sciences from the collection of Feofan Prokopovich in 1741), a copy of which, on behalf of Tatishchev, was made between 1739 and 1741, while the manuscript was divided into two volumes, it contains notes from Tatishchev.

Nizhny Novgorod manuscript

According to Tatishchev’s description, it ends in 1347, and is at least 300 years old. Tatishchev reported about his discovery in a letter dated September 12, 1741.

According to M. N. Tikhomirov, this is the Alatyr list of the Resurrection Chronicle, which is incomplete her text. According to modern data, the manuscript dates back to the third quarter of the 16th century and was actually completed before 1347.

Yaroslavl manuscript

Purchased from a peddler in the square and donated to the English Royal Society. Has many additions from the death of Dmitry Donskoy. According to Tolochko, identical to Rostovsky, who is mentioned in the notes.

Manuscripts of Volynsky, Khrushchev and Eropkin

According to A.P. Tolochko, several manuscripts from Volynsky’s library have survived, including a number of chronicles of the 17th-18th centuries, but the required texts are not there. The texts of the Eropkin Chronicle are close to “Tales of the Beginning of Moscow”. The Khrushchev Manuscript is a copy of the Khrushchev Degree Book with a number of additions from the 17th century.

History of the 17th century

In the “Pre-Notice” to the first part, Tatishchev mentions a number of other sources dating back to the history of the 17th century, most of which have been preserved and are identified. However, among them are:

Editions

The first two parts of volume I of “History” were published for the first time in - . in Moscow by G.F. Miller (volume I part, facsimile in pdf and volume I part II, facsimile in pdf). Volume II was published in the city (volume II, facsimile in pdf), volume III - in 1774 (volume III, facsimile in pdf) (volumes II-III of this edition include the second part of the “History”), volume IV (third part of the “History”) - in 1784 (Volume IV, facsimile in pdf), and the manuscript of the fourth part of the “History” was found by M.P. Pogodin only in 1843 and published as Volume V of the General. ist. and other Russians. in 1848 (Volume V, facsimile in pdf).

Moreover, only the first and second parts were basically completed by the author. The third and fourth parts underwent only initial processing and were based primarily on the Nikon Chronicle with individual additions.

Even before publication, Tatishchev’s work was known to a number of contemporary historians. Some of Tatishchev’s preparatory work was kept in Miller’s briefcases after his death. In addition, a number of Tatishchev’s materials were used by the publishers of the Radzivilov Chronicle in 1767 to supplement its text.

The complete academic edition of Tatishchev's History (including the previously unpublished first edition) was published in 1962-1968 and republished in 1994. In this edition, volume I included the first part, volumes II-III - the second published edition of the second part, volume IV - the first edition of the second part, volume V - the third part, volume VI - the fourth part, volume VII - some preparatory materials. The volumes contain discrepancies, commentaries, as well as an archaeographic review of Tatishchev’s manuscripts, prepared by S. N. Valk.

Published in 2003 by AST Publishing House and available online (Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3), the three-volume edition of “History” was prepared in a spelling close to modern. The preparatory materials (published earlier in Volume VII) in this edition are called the fifth part of “History”.

• Tatishchev V.N. Collected works. In 8 vols. M.-L., Science. 1962-1979. (reprint: M., Ladomir. 1994)
  • T.1. Part 1. 1962. 500 pp. (includes articles by A. I. Andreev “Works of V. N. Tatishchev on the history of Russia”, pp. 5-38; M. N. Tikhomirov “On Russian sources of “Russian History”, pp. 39-53 ; S. N. Valka “On the manuscripts of the first part of “Russian History” by V. N. Tatishchev, pp. 54-75)
  • T.2. Part 2. Ch. 1-18. 1963. 352 pp.
  • T.3. Part 2. Ch.19-37. 1964. 340 pp.
  • T.4. First edition of part 2 of “Russian History”. 1964. 556 pp.
  • T.5. Part 3. Ch.38-56. 1965. 344 pp.
  • T.6. Part 4. 1966. 438 pp.
  • T.7. 1968. 484 pp.
  • T.8. Small works. 1979.
• Tatishchev V.N. Notes. Letters. (Series “Scientific Heritage”. Vol. 14). M., Science. 1990. 440 pp. ( includes correspondence related to work on the History)

Notes

1. Gorovenko A.V. Sword of Roman Galitsky. Prince Roman Mstislavich in history, epic and legends. - St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2011. "P. 294-303.
2. Y. S. Lurie. The history of Russia in chronicles and the perception of modern times
3. Tolochko A. “Russian History” by Vasily Tatishchev: sources and news. - Moscow: New Literary Review; Kyiv: Kritika, 2005. 544 p. Series: Historia Rossica. ISBN 5-86793-346-6, ISBN 966-7679-62-4. Discussion of the book: http://magazines.russ.ru/km/2005/1/gri37.html Magazine room | Critical Mass, 2005 N1 | Faina Grimberg - Alexey Tolochko. “Russian History” by Vasily Tatishchev
4. Gorovenko A.V. Sword of Roman Galitsky. Prince Roman Mstislavich in history, epic and legends. - St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2011. “Tatishchevsky News” is dedicated to the four final chapters of the second part: p. 261-332.
5. Gorovenko A.V. Sword of Roman Galitsky. Prince Roman Mstislavich in history, epic and legends. - St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2011. P. 421-426 (Addendum 6. Did Tatishchev have a “second list” of the Ipatiev Chronicle? The origin of articles 6652 and 6654 of Tatishchev’s “chronicle code”). pp. 426-434 (Addendum 7. Farewell to the Raskolnichy Chronicle. On textual evidence of Tatishchev’s use of the second chronicle of the Khlebnikov type, presented by A.P. Tolochko).
6. A. V. Zhuravel. “A liar, a chatterbox and a laugher,” or Another murder of Tatishchev
7. See, for example: S. L. Peshtic. Russian historiography of the 18th century. L., 1965. Part 1. P. 261.
8. Gorovenko A.V. Sword of Roman Galitsky. Prince Roman Mstislavich in history, epic and legends. - St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2011. P. 313-320
9. Tolochko 2005, p.53; Tatishchev V.N. Collection. op. T.1. M.-L., 1962. P.47, 446
10. Gorovenko A.V. Sword of Roman Galitsky. Prince Roman Mstislavich in history, epic and legends. - St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2011. - p. 307.
11. Tolochko 2005, p.285-286
12. Tolochko 2005, pp. 166-169
13. Tolochko 2005, p.153
14. Tolochko 2005, p. 103, 142-143, 159-166
15. however, A.P. Tolochko discovered a Polish translation of the Ipatiev Chronicle (“Annales S. Nestoris”), made at the beginning of the 18th century by Metropolitan Lev Kishka, where the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle is also missing (Tolochko 2005, pp. 116-134)
16. Tatishchev V.N. Collection. op. T.7. M., 1968. P.58
17. PSRL, vol. II. M., 1998. Discrepancies from the Ermolaevsky list, p. 83 of separate pagination
18. Tolochko 2005, pp. 108, 115
19. Tatishchev V.N. Collection. op. T.1. M., 1962. P.47
20. Tolochko 2005, p.58
21. Tolochko 2005, p.60; for a description of the manuscript, see Pskov Chronicles. PSRL. T. V. Issue. 1. M., 2003. P. XX, L-LI
22. Tatishchev V.N. Collection. op. In 8 volumes. T.3. M., 1964. P.309
23. Tolochko 2005, p.65-68
24. Tatishchev V.N. Notes. Letters. M., 1990. P.281
25. Tolochko 2005, p.170-177
26. Tolochko 2005, p.180-182
27. Tolochko 2005, p.185-190

More tragic was the fate of the works of Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750), which became, as it were, “lost.” A talented historian worked for Russia for many years, but was rejected, and his books were destroyed by the authorities. By 1747, he created a huge work: “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times.” This work was found “unnecessary” by the authorities and destroyed. Tatishchev had access not only to state and church archives, but also to the archives of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia.

His book had references to many primary sources, but this book was not published during the author's lifetime. Even more than that, Tatishchev was banned from publishing the book, declaring his “political freethinking and heresy.” And then all Tatishchev’s manuscripts disappeared. All primary sources used by V.N. Tatishchev from 1720 to 1745, by the 80s of the 18th century were concentrated in the archives behind seven castles, in the hiding places of Catherine II, where only trusted persons had access. Here are the words of the German August Ludwig Schlozer, who worked in Russia from 1761 to 1767: “In 1720, Tatishchev was sent [by Peter I] to Siberia... Then he found a very ancient list of Nestor from a schismatic. How surprised he was when he saw that it is completely different from before!

He thought, as I did at first, that there was only one Nestor and one chronicle. Tatishchev little by little collected a dozen lists, based on them and other options communicated to him, he compiled the eleventh...” Here it is appropriate to remember that Tatishchev had previously studied the allegedly “Radzivilovsky” text of “The Tale of Bygone Years” acquired during the capture of Peter I in Konigsberg (we talked about it above), into which, at the suggestion of Peter, were pasted sheets concerning the appearance of Rurik in Ladoga, and pages about the history of the family of the princes of Russia from the biblical Adam. Then Tatishchev declared that Nestor was ignorant of Russian history, for this Koenigsberg text odiously contradicted all the chronicle texts , known to Tatishchev.

The main point The fact is that before the discovery of Peter, all the existing chronicles gave a completely different picture of the emergence of Rus', and Tatishchev completely believed it, since it was confirmed by all sources. Namely: Kievan Rus was not created by Rurik at all - Kyiv, even before Rurik, became Russian from Galician Rus. And that previously became Russia from Rus-Ruthenia - a colony of the Slavs of Polabia, located on the territory of present-day Hungary and Austria, its capital was the city of Keve (this “Hungarian” Rus', which existed until the 12th century, is reflected in all European chronicles, including the “Polish Chronicle” ").

Rurik, in Sami Ladoga, created only another new Russian colony (he built Novgorod as a continuation of the Old Town of Polabian Rus' - now Oldenburg in Germany). And when Askold and Dir, whom he sent, came to Kyiv, they saw that Russian princes were already ruling there - but of another Rus', which did not submit to the Obodrites and Danes. The inter-Russian war for Kyiv began. I note that many Russian historians are still perplexed or consider it a mistake in the chronicles that the princes of Kyiv answered Rurik’s envoys that Russian princes were already ruling here. This seems absurd only in the version of history invented by Peter (he was helped by hired German historians), which completely denied any Russian history of Kiev, Galicia, “Hungarian” Rus'-Ruthenia and even Polabian Rus' - the Russian homeland of Rurik himself (the peoples of the Obodrites, Lutichians , Rugov-Russians, Lusatian Serbs, etc.).

Peter ordered to consider that Rus' was born precisely in Muscovy: this gave “rights” to all lands that were in one way or another connected in history with Russia. Tatishchev found in his research the “objectionable fact” of the existence of many Rus in Europe long before Rurik’s landing in Ladoga, while simultaneously showing that at that time there was no “Rus” on the territory of Muscovy. Including Tatishchev, recreating the TRUE history of Rus' in his research, he seemed to be able, according to the vague hints of August Ludwig Schlozer, to find the genealogy of the Russian Kyiv princes before Rurik. Which had nothing to do with Rurik - as well as with Peter’s Muscovy, but it had something to do with Central Europe and the Russian kingdoms and principalities that existed at that time (there were several of them).

All this helps to understand Tatishchev’s bewilderment when he became acquainted with the list of “The Tale of Bygone Years” “found” by Peter. And then the bewilderment became even greater - turning into protest. In Siberia, Tatishchev found other ancient copies of The Tale of Bygone Years, devoid of Peter’s edits. And his opinion completely changed here: he discovered that Peter was falsifying history, falsifying the Koenigsberg text of “The Tale ...”, which absolutely did not correspond to the lists of this text found by Tatishchev in Siberia. From that time on, Tatishchev fell into disgrace, and all his studies of history became “seditious” for the State.

The whole “sedition” of Tatishchev lies in the fact that he honestly wrote about the Finnish and Horde history of Russia and was honestly indignant at the attempts of the Russian authorities to hide this history. Doesn’t it seem very strange that even Tatishchev’s “primary sources” have not reached us? But all of them were, classified, in the hands of Catherine II. This should not be surprising; such “oddities” accompany Russian history everywhere. Vladimir Belinsky says somewhat emotionally: “it was after the order of Peter I, who transformed Muscovy into the Russian state, that the Muscovy elite began to think about the need to create a holistic history of their own state. But only with the advent of Catherine II, a European-educated person, on the Russian throne, the ruling elite managed to drive the plot of Moscow history into a given pro-imperial direction, stealing from Kievan Rus its rightful name “Rus”, attributing this name to the Finno-Tatar ethnic group of Muscovy.

Everything was justified “on demand”:

1. They falsely ennobled Alexander, the so-called Nevsky;

2. They created a myth about Moscow, hiding the truth about its Tatar-Mongol ancestors;

3. The most faithful defender of the unity of the Golden Horde, Dmitry Donskoy, was turned into a defender of the “independence of Muscovy”;

4. And so on, and so on... Thousands of “chronicles” have filled Russian historical science, and individual historical primary sources have disappeared without a trace. And we are forced to believe this trick and these lies.”

The emotional approach of the Ukrainian historian is understandable, seeing in the creation of these myths the destruction of the statehood of his Ukrainian people and Kyiv itself as the capital of something sovereign. If we remain scientifically impartial, then the historical Science of the CIS countries is obliged to recognize the fact of the odious falsification of history by the Commission of Catherine II. Moreover, if this is still rejected by someone in Russia for outdated imperial reasons, then this has nothing to do with science. We need to distinguish our real history from mythical views of how someone “would like to see it.” How Catherine II falsified the history of the Grand Duchy of Belarus is the topic of another publication.