V.N. Tatishchev is the founder of historical science in Russia. Vasily Tatishchev - the father of Russian historiography

The problems of Russian history and Russian historiography, of course, could not pass by the attention of a man who, in the words of A.S. Pushkin, was himself world history. Peter I certainly wanted to have a full-fledged "History of Russia", corresponding to the modern level scientific knowledge. For its compilation, several Russian scribes were planted in turn. However, things somehow didn’t work out - the task turned out to be beyond the capacity of the domestic Herodotus and Thucydides, whose mental abilities were described by their short-lived descendant in one expressive line: “The mind is immature, the fruit of a short-lived science.” In the end, the tsar had to turn for Russian history to the same place where he used to turn for everything else - to Europe. A year before his death, on February 28, 1724, Peter I signed a decree stating: "To establish an academy in which they would study languages, as well as other sciences and noble arts and translate books."

Not even a decade and a half had passed since Peter's death, when Russia received a full-fledged historical work. And the most remarkable thing was that the Academy, with its visiting learned adjuncts and privatdozents, had nothing to do with it. The initiative in this matter and the main part of the work was undertaken by one person, moreover, who had no direct relation to historical science. His name was Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. He, in fairness, can be considered the father of Russian historiography.

Tatishchev is interesting not only as a historian, but also as a type of practical figure, brought up in the huge Petrovsky workshop. According to Klyuchevsky’s apt definition, he is an example of a person “who was imbued with the spirit of reform, who assimilated its best aspirations and served the fatherland well, but meanwhile did not receive any extraordinary talents from nature, a person who did not rise high above the level of ordinary average people.” His figure opens a number of brilliant dilettantes of Russian science and culture of the 18th century.

In 1704, at the age of eighteen, Tatishchev joined the army as an artilleryman. In Peter's time, a person rarely ended his service where he began it. During the forty years of his official activity, Tatishchev was a mining engineer, the manager of the coin business in Moscow and the Astrakhan governor. Having retired from business in 1745, he lived until his death (1750) in his estate near Moscow, the village of Boldino. All this time he was under trial on charges of extortion. The acquittal was handed down a few days before his death.

Being engaged in mining, Tatishchev collected geographical information about the areas where it was supposed to develop ore deposits or build factories. Russian geography, in the natural course of thought, carried him away to Russian history. Gradually, the collection and study of ancient Russian monuments, written and material, turned into a true passion for him. Tatishchev became probably the most prominent reader of contemporary Russia. He did not miss a single Russian and foreign book on history and instructed to make extracts and translations from Latin and Greek authors. Later, he admitted that, starting to write his "History", he had at hand more than a thousand books.

Tatishchev perfectly understood the importance of foreign sources for ancient history Russia and skillfully used them. But over time, it was not they who gave special value to his work, but a unique ancient Russian monument, about which we have an idea only thanks to Tatishchev’s extensive extracts from it. This is the Joachim Chronicle attributed to the Novgorod hierarch Bishop Joachim Korsunian, a contemporary of Prince Vladimir I Svyatoslavich. It was known to Tatishchev from a late list of the middle of the 17th century, but it preserved an ancient Slavic tradition that was not included in other chronicles. Acquaintance with her led Tatishchev to the conclusion that "Nestor the chronicler of the first princes of Russia was not very well informed."

Indeed, who was not embarrassed by this sudden beginning of Russian history, dated in the Tale of Bygone Years in 859: “Imakh tribute to the Varangians in Slovenes”? Why "Imahu", since when "Imahu" - all these questions hang in the air. Following the Varangians on the historical stage, like the "god from the machine" in the ancient Greek tragedy, Rurik appears with his brothers and Russia. According to the Chronicle of Joachim, it turns out that Nestor begins at the end of a very long and very intriguing story.

In time immemorial, Prince Sloven lived in Illyria with his people, the Slovenes. Once removed from their homes, he led the Slovenes to the north, where he founded the Great City. Sloven became the founder of the dynasty, which at the time of Rurik's calling consisted of 14 generations of princes. Under Prince Burivoi, Rurik's great-grandfather, the Slovenes entered into long war with the Varangians. Having suffered a heavy defeat on the Kyumen River, which for centuries served as the border of Novgorod and Finnish lands, Burivoy fled from the Great City, whose inhabitants became Varangian tributaries.

But the Varangians did not long own the Great City. Burdened by the tribute imposed on them, the Slovenes asked Burivoi for his son Gostomysl as prince. When he appeared, the Slovenes rebelled and drove the Varangians away.

During the long and glorious reign of Gostomysl, peace and order were established on Slovenian soil. But by the end of his life, internal troubles and external danger began to threaten the Great City again, because Gostomysl did not have an heir: four of his sons died in wars, and he married three daughters to neighboring princes. Worried by heavy thoughts, Gostomysl turned to the Magi in Kolmogard for advice. They prophesied that he would be succeeded by the prince of his blood. Gostomysl did not believe the prediction: he was so old that his wives no longer bore him children. But soon he had a wonderful dream. He saw that a great and fruitful tree had grown from the womb of his middle daughter Umila; it covered the whole Great City under its crown, and all the people of this land were satisfied with its fruits. Waking up, Gostomysl called the Magi to interpret his dream, and heard from them that Umila would give birth to his heir.

Gostomysl's doubts on this, however, did not subside. After all, he already had a grandson from his eldest daughter, and if the question arose of the transfer of inheritance through the female line, it was natural to offer the princely table to him, and not to him. younger brother. Gostomysl nevertheless decided to rely on the will of the gods and told the people about his prophetic dream. But many Slovenians did not believe him and did not want to forget about the rights of their eldest grandson. The death of Gostomysl caused civil strife. And only having taken a sip of dashing, the Slovenes remembered Gostomysl's dream and invited Umila's son, Rurik, to reign.

In presenting his understanding of the Varangian issue, Tatishchev relied on previous experiences in Russian history - Synopsis (published in 1674) and. Following the spirit of the first, he gave the calling of princes the character of naturalness - the Slavs called not a stranger, but the grandson of their prince. From Bayer, Tatishchev borrowed a critical method of dealing with sources and the very formulation of the problem: the ethnicity of the Varangians-Rus and their habitat. But having entered the area of ​​ancient Russian history under the leadership of Synopsis and Bayer, Tatishchev then acted independently. He did not go to look for the homeland of the first Russian princes, either in Prussia or in Scandinavia. The Varangian (Russian) husband of Umila was, in his opinion, a Finnish prince. To prove his words, Tatishchev cited a lot of historical and philological evidence of the long-standing existence of the root "rus" in the toponymy of Finland and the southeastern Baltic. And yet, the shadow of Bayer hovers over his historical research: the history of the Varangians-Rus in the pre-Rurik period turned out to be in no way connected with the history of the Slavs by Tatishchev. No wonder Klyuchevsky called him a Russian historiographer, clinging to the eternally rushing forward European thought.

Tatishchev's work fell under an even more severe judgment than the one that persecuted him himself - the judgment of history. In 1739, Tatishchev brought the manuscript of his essay to St. Petersburg and gave it to his acquaintances and influential people in the then scientific world for reading, in the hope of positive reviews. However, in his own words, some reviewers reproached him for the lack of a philosophical outlook and eloquence, while others were outraged for the encroachment on the authenticity of the Nestor Chronicle. During the life of Tatishchev, "History" was never published.

Soon after his death, a fire destroyed the Boldin archive. From Tatishchev's manuscripts, only what was in the wrong hands survived. According to these faulty lists, published in 1769-1774, Russian readers got acquainted for the first time with the Russian History. In its full and closest form to the original, "History" appeared only in 1848.

Attacks on Tatishchev, however, did not stop. The Chronicle of Joachim, introduced by him into scientific circulation, was considered almost a hoax for a long time. K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, expressing the general opinion of historians of the middle of the 19th century, even wrote that Tatishchev should not be referred to (however, later he revised his views and treated the works of the first Russian historiographer with due respect: ““History” Tatishchev, a monument to many years of conscientious work, erected under the most unfavorable conditions, remained misunderstood and unappreciated for a long time ... Now none of the scientists doubts Tatishchev’s conscientiousness”). Then the skepticism of historians was transferred to the information itself, reported by the Joachim Chronicle. But in recent years, the credibility of them on the part of historians has increased significantly. Now we can already speak of the Joachim Chronicle as a source of paramount importance, especially in terms of the “pre-Rurik” era.

P.S.
Thanks to the daughter of V.N. Tatishchev became the great-great-grandfather of the poet F.I. Tyutcheva (on the maternal side).

PASSION FOR TATISCHEV

V.V. Fomin

Lipetsk State Pedagogical University Russia, 398020, Lipetsk, st. Lenina, d. 2 e-mail: [email protected] SPIN: 1914-6761

The article is devoted to the analysis of works that deny the source basis of the unique news contained in V.N. Tatishchev, and the works of S.N. Azbelev and other scientists. S.N. Azbelev convincingly showed the dishonesty of the "skeptical" work of A.P. Tolochko, since there are no convincing arguments in favor of the fact that Tatishchev was a forger.

Keywords: S.N. Azbelev, historiography, V.N. Tatishchev, chronicles.

DISPUTES OVER TATISHCHEV

Vyacheslav Fomin Lipetsk state pedagogical university 2 Lenin Street, Lipetsk, 398020, Russia e-mail: [email protected]

The article analyzes scholarly works that challenge the source basis of unique data contained in the History of Russia by V.N. Tatishchev and the opposing works of S.N. Azbelev and other scientists. S.N. Azbelev has demonstrated that "skepticism" of A.P. Tolochko is unsubstantiated because no convincing arguments exist that V.N. Tatishchev was a falsifier.

Keywords: S.N. Azbelev, historiography, V.N. Tatishchev, chronicles.

In 2008, my review of the monograph by S.N. Azbelev, whose work has long and fruitfully worked for national history: “Oral history in the monuments of Novgorod and Novgorod land» (St. Petersburg, 2007). In this work, the largest specialist in the field of studying sources and Russian history, the material devoted to the Joachim Chronicle and V.N. Tatishchev, who published it for the first time. Representatives historical science, however, not only they are well aware of the hackneyed "song" of skeptics who doubt (intentionally, or due to a simple delusion, often passing as they grow professionally) literally in everything related to their native history, and, of course, accusing opponents of

credulity, about the unreliability of the Joachim Chronicle, tk. she, according to them, is a falsification of Tatishchev himself.

Azbelev gave a very worthy answer to such a polyphonic-collective unbeliever in his monograph. As the author of these lines then concluded, the researcher, “arguing in the best traditions of Russian source studies, characteristic of S.M. Solovyov, P.A. Lavrovsky, A.A. Shakhmatova, V.L. Yanin, who opposed the unjustified skeptical attitude towards the Joachim Chronicle (Shakhmatov considered it as an important link in the oldest chronicle) and the accusation of Tatishchev of its forgery, and focusing on the fact that the results obtained by Yanin during the large-scale archaeological excavations of Novgorod confirm the authenticity of unique information Joachim Chronicle (first of all, a detailed account of the baptism of the Novgorodians, told by an eyewitness) ... comes to the conclusion that the chronicle is based on oral sources "and that it, being the original text of the first bishop of Novgorod Joachim (d. 1030), reached Tatishchev in manuscript XVII century, while not avoiding, "probably, some kind of external influence", which "does not give grounds to doubt the authenticity of this monument" (see for more details: Fomin 2008: 170).

But our "skeptics", of course, see nothing and hear nothing, therefore, there is a need to continue the conversation begun by Azbelev. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the first to express their doubts about the viability of Tatishchev as a historian were the German Normanists who worked at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences: G.F. Miller and A.L. Schlozer (moreover, the latter expressed polar assessments of his work, but it sounded the loudest, being aimed at a huge audience - the entire scientific and enlightened world early XIX c., is precisely negative). And they expressed it because Tatishchev, firstly, demonstrated brilliant results in studying the past of his Motherland and demonstrated it in a generalizing work, and neither Miller nor Schlozer, who considered only themselves professional historians, could boast of such results and the presence of such work.

Secondly, their attitude towards Tatishchev was also dictated by the fact that he denied the Normanism of the Varangians in the “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times”, as well as in the “Concise Chronicle of the Great Russian Sovereigns from Gostomysl to the Ruin of the Tatars.”, “The Russian Lexicon historical, geographical, political and civil "and" A conversation between two friends about the benefits of science and schools ", led Rurik "not from Sweden, nor Norway, but from Finland" ("Finnish princes owned Russia for some time and Rurik from these", "Rurik elected according to the testament of Gostomysl from the Varangians of the Rus, due to circumstances the Finnish prince", "they took Prince Rurik from the Varangians, or Finns ...", "Rurik in Finland is the sovereign by inheritance, and in Russia by election", etc. When explaining this, interpreting the name "Varangians" in a broad sense, that "the Varangians, according to the chronicler Nesterov, are the Swedes and Norwegians; the Finns are called the Varangians Rus, i.e. black Varangians", and that under the Varangians "they meant Finns and Swedes, sometimes Denmark and Norway were imprisoned" (Tatishchev 1962: 289-292, 3 72, approx. 17 and 19 on p. 115, approx. 26 on p. 117, approx. 15 on p. 226, approx. 33 on p. 228, approx.

№1 _______________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT _______________________2016

54 on p. 231, approx. 1 and 6 on p. 307, approx. 28 on p. 309; Tatishchev 1964: 82, 102; Tatishchev 1968: 220, 282; Tatishchev 1979: 96, 205-206).

Miller spoke unflatteringly about the "History of the Russian", denying it, according to the fair remark of S.L. Peshtich, “scientific dignity”, in the article “On the first Russian chronicler, the Monk Nestor, on his chronicle, and on the successors of it”, published in 1755 in “Monthly writings for the benefit and amusement of employees”. For, he condescendingly summed up, “whoever reads history only for his own amusement will be truly satisfied with these works of his ... and whoever wishes to proceed further can cope with Nestor himself and with his successors,” i. contrasted Tatishchev’s work with the chronicles (however, this article, as G.N. Moiseeva showed, is a reprint of the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of the “original” edition of the Russian History sent to the St. had to compose "the history of the whole Russian Empire”, but who had not composed it for more than a third of a century, was also borrowed by Tatishchev’s opinion “on the significance of Russian chronicles as historical sources and his conclusion about the“ most important ”lists of the Nestor Chronicle”).

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750)

№1 _______________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT ______________________2016

And in 1773, he was genuinely indignant, attributing to the Russians a sense of national superiority that was completely unusual for them, that he led the Varangians out of Finland: how could Tatishchev work on his essay for thirty years and work through a large number of sources (antique, Russian) and German historiography , "to cling to the opinion of his fellow citizens so offensive" (Miller 1996: 6; Miller 2006: 98-99; Pekarsky 1870: 346; Peshtich 1965: 218; Moiseeva 1967: 134-136; Moiseeva 1971: 143, 163-164, 171; Fomin 2006: 65-66; Fomin 2010: 236-238). At the same time, we must not forget that in 1768 Miller will begin to publish the work of the great Russian historian. And this fact indicates that by that time he had grown professionally very much, and therefore he fully realized his significance for science.

In 1764, in the “Plan of Lessons” (January), presented to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, A.L. Schlozer undertook for three years to "perform" "continuation on German Russian history from the founding of the state to the suppression of the Rurik dynasty, according to Russian chronicles (but without comparing them with foreign writers) with the help of the works of Tatishchev and ... Lomonosov ”(this plan will never be realized). And in “Thoughts on the Method of Processing Russian History” (June), sent to the same address, he undertook to begin “abridgement of the historical works of the late Tatishchev in German” (also not done), while saying: “The father of Russian history deserves to give him this justice. The following year, while still in Russia, he proposed to I.I. Taubert to publish Russian History, emphasizing again that Tatishchev is "the father of Russian history, and the world should know that a Russian, and not a German, was the first creator of a complete course of Russian history" (Schlozer 1875: 289, 321-322; Winter 1960: 188 ).

However, in 1768, Schlozer, having already moved to Vaterland, in his book “Probe russischer Annalen” (“Experience in the Study of Russian Chronicles”) sharply reduced the tone of his discussions about Tatishchev. So, saying that "this learned man, who made a huge contribution to the history of ancient Russia, tells in detail, reliably and critically about the annals, manuscripts and successors of Nestor" and that his still unpublished works - "a glorious monument to the amazing diligence of the author - will serve those who is content with only a general knowledge of ancient Russian history,” immediately crossed out everything in essence: “However, conscientious, critical. the historian, who does not take a single line on faith and demands evidence and proof for every word, is of no use to her. Tatishchev collected all the news in one heap, without saying from which manuscript this or that news was taken. He chose one of the ten lists, keeping silent about the rest, which, perhaps, were obscure to him ... Foreign sources, very valuable for a researcher of Russian history, are completely absent from him: Tatishchev did not understand either the old academic or new languages ​​and was forced to make do with translations into Russian. ”, and that he also lacked foreign literature (Schlozer 1768: 24, 150-151). But Tatishchev knew Latin, ancient Greek, German, Polish, was familiar with the Turkic, Finno-Ugric and Romance languages ​​(Kuzmin 1981: 337).

In 1802, in his memoirs and "Nestor", which for a long time became a guide to ancient Russian history and its historiography for foreign and domestic researchers, Schlozer finally expressed his negative attitude towards Tatishchev: contemptuously calling him "clerk" - Schreiber - and saying that “it cannot be said that his work was useless ... although he was completely unlearned, did not know a word of Latin and did not even understand any of the newest languages, turning off German,” and firmly believing that the history of Russia begins only “from the advent of Rurik and the founding of the Russian kingdom, ”in the reflections of the Russian historian on the past of Eastern Europe before the 9th century, most of all appreciated by him, he saw only“ a stupid mixture of Sarmatians, Scythians, Amazons, Vandals, etc. ” (“this is a useless part”) or, as I deigned to put it, “Tatishchev’s nonsense.”

At the same time, he accuses his brilliant predecessor, and with him other Russian historians (first of all, M.V. Lomonosov), of patriotic sentiments, allegedly killing historians in them (“poorly understood love for the fatherland suppresses any critical and impartial processing of history. and becomes ridiculous"): "His work, which did not require scientific training, deserved all respect; but suddenly this man got lost: he was unbearable that the history of Russia is so young and should begin with Rurik in the 9th century. He wanted to go higher!" (Schlozer 1875: 51, 53; Schlozer 1809: 67, 119120, 392, 418-419, 427-430, 433, note ** on p. 325). Although in 1768 Schlozer looked at the beginning of Russian history through the eyes of Tatishchev: “Russian chroniclers lead their narrative from the foundation of the monarchy, but the history of Russia originates long before that moment. The chroniclers know little about the peoples who inhabited the territory of Russia before the Slavs” (Schlozer 1768: 125-126, 129). Derogatoryly speaking about whom he previously characterized as the “father of Russian history”, the German scholar at the same time began to talk about the “false” Joachim Chronicle and its “nonsense”, and considered this chronicle an ugly work of an “ignorant monk” (Schlozer 1809 : XXVIII, ei, horn, 19-21, 371, 381, 425)1.

In the same spirit, because he was guided by the opinion of Schlozer, the great N.M. Karamzin, presenting Tatishchev as a man who "often allowed himself to invent ancient legends and manuscripts", i.e. directly accused him of falsification (he "invented speeches", "invented a letter"). Of course, following his idol, he categorically denied the dignity of the Joachim Chronicle as a source, because it is “fiction”, Tatishchev’s “intricate, albeit unsuccessful guess” (“imaginary Joachim or Tatishchev”), and also noted that with the truth about Scandinavian Varangians, and in these words the voice of Schlozer was also clearly heard, “all learned historians agree, except for Tatishchev and Lomonosov” (Karamzin 1989. Note *** on p. 23, note 105, 347, 385, 396, 463; Karamzin: 1829: Note 165).

And the verdict of Schlozer-Karamzin was enthusiastically repeated by dozens of Russian specialists, often without even bothering to look into Tatishchev's work (as well as into Lomonosov's writings). In 1836, the famous historian N.G.

№1 ______________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT ____________________2016

Ustryalov, for example, talked about Tatishchev's useless talk about the Scythians and Sarmatians, that he brought upon himself, "almost a solid" suspicion of forgery, because. Nestor preferred the “absurd nonsense” of the Joachim Chronicle to reliable legends, that his “Russian History”, “in our time, with the strict requirements of historical criticism, has almost no value, despite the fact that it contains evidence of very important, not found in other sources” that the attempts of Russian writers who preceded Karamzin, who dealt with history “in passing, partly out of boredom, partly by order”, are now only curious as infantile babble; they don’t have a single bright thought, not a single bright look” and that only Schletser was his “reliable guide” (Ustryalov 1836: 911).

Fortunately, in science there are always scientists who double-check the opinions of their predecessors, including the most eminent ones. Such a revision of the historiographic baggage is natural and inevitable, because the path to truth is always fraught with small and large mistakes and misconceptions, which must be abandoned in time. With regard to the anti-Tatishchev position of his numerous compatriots, the first to do this in 1839 was the Normanist A.F. Fedotov. Naming the German scientists G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A.L. Schlozer "by our first teachers", "the founders of our historical criticism", he noted that the Norman theory, supported by these and other "glorious names", for a long time turned "as if into a law", "into a dogma both for researchers and for readers of Russian history "(although after the objections of G. Evers, set forth "on the basis of the rules of criticism of the most severe ... some provisions of the champions of the Scandinavian homeland of our Russia decisively lose their probative force"), and that the opinions of Tatishchev and Lomonosov were cited, as Schlozer did, "only in mockery, as an example of unlearned fantasy. According to Fedotov, Tatishchev’s work, despite his criticism by Karamzin, is “a remarkable phenomenon, especially when we consider both the time at which he wrote and the means he could use,” and that he, “according to some of his concepts and historical beliefs , stood above his age, ahead of him ”(Fedotov 1839: I-II, 7, 9-10, 14-92, 96, 105-107, note * on p. 42, note * on p. 50).

A much more detailed and more detailed answer to Tatishchev's unkindness was given in 1843 by N.A. Ivanov. After analyzing Schlozer's claims to the Russian historian, "hitherto recurring" in literature, he noted that the German scientist, "too hasty in his critical reviews of our writers, called Tatishchev a true Russian Dlugosh, i.e., according to his own interpretation, shameless a liar, a deceiver, a storyteller." Schlozer, the author continued, this "relentless judge of other people's mistakes", suffering from "an inveterate disease of predilection. quite often he condemned at random, sometimes deliberately quoting falsely. This has long been proven, and only unaccountable prejudice hitherto stubbornly rejects clear evidence. Saying that Schlozer's judgments about Tatishchev are "flagrant falsehood", "blasphemy" ("dislike" for him breaks "outward in every line"), Ivanov confirms this fact with concrete examples.

At the same time, he emphasized that Miller borrowed information about the annals from Tatishchev, who, "despite the limited means, not afraid of any obstacles, not embarrassed by anyone's suspicions," "performed a feat that none of his peers dared." So, he was the first to talk about Nestor, that he had predecessors, as well as successors who edited his work. On the whole, as summed up by this historian, who fearlessly spoke out against the untruth, which for decades was considered a common truth, because it was consecrated by the authorities of Schlozer and Karamzin, the direction Tatishchev followed was “more significant and more important than the discontinuous, side researches of Bayer”, and that Schlozer, “Possessing a huge store of various information”, repeats a lot, including his mistakes, from Tatishchev - “writes with Tatishchev’s pointer!”, At the same time, “wastefully endowing him with reproaches” (Ivanov 1843: 23-31, 33, 36-43 , 45-46, 48, 52-64, 137-145, 206, 209, 243-247, 250251).

Finally, in 1855, S.M. Solovyov, who, specifically referring to the study of Tatishchev’s creative heritage, summed up: “But if Tatishchev himself frankly says which books he had and which he knows only by name, telling in detail which of them were with which of the famous people, then, seeing such conscientiousness, do we have the right to accuse him of distortions, forgeries, etc.? If he were an unscrupulous writer, he would write that he had everything in his hands, read everything, knew everything. We have every right in his code of annals to accept one thing, to reject the other, but we have no right to blame Tatishchev himself for the incorrectness of some of the news. It is not clear how later writers looked at the story of Tatishchev, who allowed themselves to expose him as an inventor of false news. Apparently, they neglected the first volume, did not pay attention either to the nature or to the goals of the work, and, having taken up the second volume directly, they looked at its content, as something like the History of Shcherbatov, Elagin, Emin.

“We,” the historian continued further, “for our part, must pronounce a completely opposite sentence about Tatishchev: his importance lies precisely in the fact that he was the first to begin processing Russian history, as it should have begun; the first gave the idea of ​​how to get down to business; the first showed what Russian history is, what means exist for studying it; Tatishchev collected the materials and left them inviolable, did not distort them with his extreme understanding, but offered this extreme understanding of his at a distance, in notes, without touching the text. His merit, Solovyov developed his thought further, “consists in the fact that he was the first to start the business the way it should have started: he collected materials, criticized them, brought together chronicle reports, provided them with geographical, ethnographic and chronological notes, pointed out many important issues , which served as topics for later research, collected the news of ancient and new writers about the ancient state "of Russia," in a word, showed the way and gave the means to his compatriots to engage in Russian history, "and that he, and Lomonosov with him," belongs to the most honorable place in the history of Russian science in the era of initial labors" (Solov'ev 1901: 1333, 1346-1347, 1350-1351).

No. 1 ______________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT ______________________ 2016

It was the work of Solovyov, with the growth of his authority in historical science, that largely led to the attenuation of the presentation of far-fetched claims against Tatishchev. But at the same time, it retained and cultivated a dislike for him as a historian, an idea of ​​him and his Russian contemporaries as something primitive and therefore not deserving of attention. So, for example, P.N. Milyukov in 1897 in the book “The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought”, unrestrainedly praising the Germans striving for the “discovery of the truth”, especially G.Z. Bayer and A.L. Shlozer, opposed them by V.N. Tatishcheva, M.V. Lomonosov, M.M. Shcherbatov and I.N. Boltin, scornfully, almost squeamishly, attributing them to the "antediluvian world of Russian historiography ... a world little known and little interesting to anyone." And this opinion was absorbed by future professional historians, for for a long time Milyukov's work served as a historiographical manual for universities (Milyukov 1913: 31-35, 50, 71-95, 103, 108, 119, 122, 124131, 146-147; Historiography 1961 : 416; Peshtich 1961: 27).

In Soviet times, Tatishchev's authority as a historian was seriously encroached upon by S.L. Peshtich, in the 40-60s. dedicated, according to A.G. Kuzmin, "destroying Tatishchev" candidate and doctoral (in its most important part) dissertations, directly accusing him of ""falsifications" in order to please his views, which are characterized as "monarchical", "serfdom", etc. ". Therefore, Peshtich argued, at least for the first centuries of Russian history, his work cannot be used as a source without special serious verification: the first edition, which have much in common with the author's additions in the second edition, should be attributed not to sources that have not come down to us, but to the editorial work of Tatishchev. However, such an assessment was not enough for Peshtich, and he accused Tatishchev, for his coverage of the Kiev events of April 1113, of anti-Semitism (this concept, Kuzmin notes with irony, “appears only at the end of the 19th century!”), However, not only him : “The anti-Semitic sharpness of the story about the decision of Vladimir Monomakh to expel Jews from Russia. With a deliberately distorted description of the events of 1113, Tatishchev tried to historically substantiate the reactionary legislation of tsarism in national question. .The relevance of Tatishchev's falsification is proved by the wide use of his description of the events in Kyiv in the works of Emin, Catherine II, Boltin. (D.S. Likhachev had no doubt that “the myth about the “special” sources of V.N. Tatishchev’s “Russian History” was exposed by S.L. Peshtich”).

In 1972 E.M. Dobrushkin, in his Ph. city, which decided to expel the "Kids" from the borders of Russia, was invented by the historian). A little later, with the same persistence, he imposed on science the idea that “the task of the researcher is to establish that in V.N. Tatishchev is really borrowed from sources, and what came out from under his pen. Kuzmin,

№1 ______________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT _____________________2016

speaking about the bias of S.L. Peshtich, S.N. Valka, E.M. Dobrushkina, A.L. Mongaita, with whom they approached Tatishchev, noted that they had common methodological and factual errors.

First, they compare, following the example of N.M. Karamzin, Tatishchev's "History" with the Lavrentiev and Ipatiev Chronicles, which he had never seen. Secondly, they misunderstand both the sources underlying the Russian History and the essence and nature of chronicle writing. Representing the latter as “a single centralized tradition up to the 12th century”, they do not even raise the question of the extent to which chronicle monuments of the pre-Mongolian era have come down to us, and do not allow the idea of ​​the existence of different chronicle traditions, “many of which died or preserved in separate fragments. Tatishchev, on the other hand, used materials that had been preserved for centuries on the periphery and contained, as it were, unorthodox records and news.

Thirdly, the scientist pointed out, is Tatishchev’s lack of a serious motive for alleged falsifications (in this case it is necessary to recall the words of M.N. Tikhomirov, uttered in 1962: “If we take the point of view of those historians who accuse Tatishchev of a deliberate forgery, then it remains completely incomprehensible why Tatishchev needed to belittle the value” of the Joachim Chronicle “with references to the fact that it was written in a new bad letter and Novgorod dialect. Why was it necessary for him to note the close similarity of the news" of this chronicle "with the news of Polish authors, whom Tatishchev repeatedly accuses of fables").

And if, as Kuzmin rightly summed up in 1981, “the subjective conscientiousness of the historian can no longer be in doubt, then the question of the methods of his work needs even more careful study”, that “the principle of historicism, characteristic of Tatishchev in all his undertakings, led it ultimately to the creation of capital labor by national history", allowed him, in the absence of predecessors, to find a lot of "such that science was accepted only a long time later." Moreover, as the researcher emphasized, the entire first volume of the Russian History, which, if we recall the conclusion of S.M. Solovyov, “neglected” by his critics, “was devoted to the analysis of sources and all sorts of auxiliary investigations necessary to resolve the main issues. It is precisely in the presence of such a volume that Tatishchev's work positively differs not only from Karamzin's exposition, but even from Solovyov's. In the 19th century, there was no work at all equal to Tatishchev’s in this regard” (Tikhomirov 1962: 51; Peshtich 1961: 222-262; Peshtich 1965: 155-163; Dobrushkin 1977: 96; Kuzmin 1972: 79-89: Kuzmin 1981: 338340 , 343-344; Zhuravel 2004: 138-142).

But the subjective conscientiousness of Tatishchev the historian haunts many. And today the Ukrainian historian A.P. Tolochko, who assured in 2005 “that Tatishchev did not have any sources unknown modern science. All information exceeding the volume of known chronicles should be attributed to the author's activity of Tatishchev himself. And who, which is very significant, immediately found imitators in our historical science. So, in 2006 Nizhny Novgorod

№1 ______________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT _____________________2016

scientist A.A. Kuznetsov, narrating about the activities of Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich of Vladimir, eliminates, as he himself says, “a number of stereotypes of historical science based on ... unreasonable involvement of V.N. Tatishchev", who "experienced antipathy towards this prince and deliberately transferred it to the pages of his work" (led by Tolochko's conclusion that Konstantin Vsevolodovich was the "favorite character" of our first historian, Kuznetsov writes that he "justified", "whitewashed" Konstantin and "ink" of Yuri).

Kuznetsov characterizes the unique news of Tatishchev as “speculation”, “fantasies”, “hoaxes”, “author's arbitrariness”, claims that he “judged about the past, trusting later sources, distorting their data, based on the realities of his turbulent XVIII century”, “ invented” facts and “changed the meaning of incomprehensible source information by a strong-willed decision” (i.e., essentially repeats the clichés thrown at Tatishchev by Peshtich and Tolochko). Reproaching "individual" predecessors that they "do not bother to critically analyze Tatishchev's "information" and easily trust him, Kuznetsov admires Tolochko's "witty and brilliant excursion" into Tatishchev's creative laboratory, the reconstruction of his source base, and the demonstration of" an array of his author's thoughts under the guise of source news”, proof that “that the work of a historian of the 18th century is unique news. does not contain”, and thanks the Ukrainian colleague for “profound remarks”, which “greatly helped” the author when working on the monograph (Kuznetsov 2006: 9, 47-48, 88, 93, 96-97, 103-109, 114-115, 131, 210-212, 220, 223-224, 273-276, 479-480, 501-502, 505-506, 509, 514).

In parallel with such unbridled apologetics for the next “subverter” Tatishchev, our science is “unwinding” the ideas of the Ukrainian scientist under the guise of their criticism. Indicative in this regard is the article by the Moscow researcher P.S. Stefanovich, which is more like a very extensive review of Tolochko's work "Russian History" by Vasily Tatishchev: sources and news "(M., Kyiv, 2005), but where instead of a truly academic analysis, something completely different is given. As the author himself writes, “of course, the purpose of my criticism is not to belittle the merits of the book of a modern historian, but to achieve clarity and objectivity in assessing the work of one of those who stood at the origins of Russian historical science” (quite strange and an ambiguously formulated goal, besides, Tatishchev himself was not even given the floor.There is no hint - either out of ignorance, or by a biased default - that there are already numerous refutations of Tolochko's views in science, expressed by him in the monograph and previous articles ).

And what kind of “clarity” and “objectivity” did Stefanovich fight for in 2007 on the pages of the well-known academic journal? Yes, for the same ones carried out by Tolochko. Moreover, he does this completely unfounded, instilling in readers the opinion that he “convincingly showed” that Tatishchev “in a number of cases deliberately gave false references to sources”, that after Tolochko’s work, unique information with references to the “manuscripts” of A.P. Volynsky, P.M. Eropkina, A.F. Khrushchev, the Joachim Chronicle “cannot be regarded as reliable”, that, as Tolochko “well shows”, “there is no doubt that Tatishchev could

№1 _____________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT _____________________2016

think out and supplement the news of his sources himself and even simply compose new texts ”(for example, the Joachim Chronicle, and the article of 1203 with“ constitutional draft" Roman Mstislavich is "pure invention of Tatishchev").

At the same time, Stefanovich covers up his unanimity with Tolochko with ritual reservations supposedly supposed to show that the reviewer himself, of course, stands above the “fight” and is impartial (some of his statements and conclusions, “including those of a principled nature, seem too categorical or insufficiently substantiated”, he, “I think, is still not quite right” that Tatishchev is called “a hoaxer, a liar and a falsifier, from my point of view, it’s just as wrong as considering him a chronicler or a pimp”). Irresistibly striving for "clarity" and "objectivity", Stefanovich does not skimp on laudatory epithets about Tolochko: that he, conducting a "subtle analysis", "writes in a bright, original manner, and a free, somewhat ironic style does not prevent him from remaining on a high scientific level of discussion of the problem”, that “without a doubt, we have a talented and interesting research in front of us”, that he significantly expanded the number of “revelations”, that “thanks to the work of Tolochko - a sharp and awakening research thought - we have made significant progress on the path of studying “Tatishchev’s news ” and at the same time came closer to understanding the “creative laboratory” of the historian of the first half of XVIII in.". After that, with youthful optimism, he completes his panegyric, “until this path is far from traveled, and it can be said with confidence that many more discoveries and surprises await scientists here” (Stefanovich 2007: 88-96).

It is not difficult to guess what "discoveries" and even "surprises" await us. And this easily predictable result cannot be attributed to science because of such ease, and the very method of fitting the solution of the problem to the answer that someone needs, as noted above, is alien to her. And those scientists who cherish the truth, and not the noisy "revelations", behind which there are still interests that are not in science, cannot agree with such a result. So, the inconsistency of attributing to Tolochko Tatishchev the authorship of the Romanov project of 1203, for some reason called Tolochko, the author is perplexed, “constitution”, showed in 2000 V.P. Bogdanov (Bogdanov 2000: 215-222). In 2005-2006 A.V. Maiorov, referring to archaeological material, proved in a number of publications published in Belarus and Russia that in the hands of Tatishchev was the Polotsk Chronicle, which has not come down to us, in which Tolochko also sees Tatishchev's invention (Maiorov 2006: 321-343). In 2006-2007 S.N. Azbelev, dwelling on attempts to discredit Tatishchev the historian, rightly emphasized that "not belonging to the category of serious publications, they require, however, mentions due to their aggressiveness." And he attributed Tolochko’s “verbose fawning” to this category, stating that there are “too many errors and inaccuracies in his works, and there are tendentious distortions in the characteristics of the materials used,” and that these works can “significantly damage the scientific reputation of the author, especially with his defiantly dismissive attitude towards scientists of the past and contemporaries, whose bad habits, according to A.P. Tolochko, were manifested in the use of the Joachim Chronicle" (Azbelev 2006: 250-284; Azbelev 2007: 6-34).

No. 1 ______________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT ______________________ 2016

In 2006, Tolochko A.V. brilliantly revealed the essence of hoaxes and forgeries. Zhuravel. Describing this representative of Ukrainian science as Herostratus, for whom Tatishchev is “only a means of self-affirmation, an “explanatory device” in justifying the right to his own mystification,” he concludes that his work “only looks scientific, and has a very indirect relation to science,” and on concrete facts he showed "that Tatishchev really had those unique sources that he speaks of" (in that, for example, chronological inaccuracies in his "History of the Russian" convince). At the same time, Zhuravel, saying that one should openly call a spade a spade, noted that “Peshtich’s crime is not that he publicly branded Tatishchev as a forger, but that he did it without proper reason; the evidence he noticed separately, which in itself did not yet constitute a crime, he considered sufficient for a verdict. And therefore, his very actions constitute a crime and are called "slander".

Another conclusion of the author also looks absolutely appropriate: it is necessary “to re-raise the question of the responsibility of the scientist for his words” and of the responsibility of those who embark on the topic of “Tatishchev’s news”, because it is "very difficult and multifaceted and obviously unbearable for novice researchers," namely, the latter, having little knowledge of the annals, "made up the bulk of active" skeptics "!". Peshtich was the same: his judgments about Tatishchev were formed in the 30s, when he was still a student ”(Zhuravel rightly noted the same about E.M. Dobrushkin. And in 2004, he, on specific facts of a chronological nature showing the groundlessness of the claims of Peshtich and Dobrushkin to Tatishchev, he correctly concluded that the prosecutor's tone in relation to the latter "is just an indicator that the historiography of the twentieth century failed to achieve that level of understanding of things that is characteristic of the late Tatishchev", which, in contrast from him “Dobrushkin invented a lot in the truest sense of the word” and that “the situation with the facts of the critics of V.N. Tatishchev is very, very unimportant”) (Zhuravel 2004: 135-142; Zhuravel: 524-544).

In 2007 S.V. Rybakov, demonstrating the greatness of Tatishchev the historian, recalled the well-known for a long time to everyone: “Authors who questioned scientific character Tatishchev’s source studies or the sources themselves, did not quite correctly understand the nature and real role of Old Russian chronicle writing, presenting it as much more centralized than it really was, believing that all Old Russian chronicle writing was associated with some single primary source. It is now recognized, he further states, “that from ancient times in Russia there were various chronicle traditions, including peripheral ones that did not coincide with the “canons” of the most famous chronicles” (Rybakov 2007: 166). On the whole, as historiographical experience demonstrates, the "valiant" attacks on Tatishchev, the "anti-Tatishchev" complex in general, are a kind of sign of scientific dishonesty and, to some extent, scientific inconsistency. Criticism of sources and scientific research is an indispensable rule in the work of a scientist, but it

№1 _____________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT ____________________2016

should be really criticism, and not criticism that compromises historical science.

Historical science is also compromised by the, of course, the incorrectness with which the "anti-Tatishchevites" "refute" the opinions of specialists whose works in the field of source studies and Tatishchev's work are an example of a professional attitude to business. So, P.S. Stefanovich in 2006, arguing that the originality of the historian's news about the capture of Przemysl prince Volodar in 1122 "should be associated not with some authentic, but not preserved sources, but with the peculiar way of narration and the method of presenting one's own interpretations inherent in the author of the first scientific " Russian history"", i.e., to put it simply, he declared this originality to be an invention of Tatishchev, concluded, without citing and, understandably, without refuting their argumentation, that, "of course, the defense of the "good name" of the "last Russian chronicler" in the spirit of B .BUT. Rybakov and A.G. Kuzmina is simply naive.” At the same time, his own “observations on the research method and manner of presentation by V.N. Tatishchev,” Stefanovich has no doubt, “may be useful in the further (by and large, just begun) study of both the unique Tatishchev news and the early stages of the development of Russian historical science” (Stefanovich 2008: 87, 89).

Criticism, and at the same time hatred and deadly for that time accusation of V.N. Tatishchev fully learned during his lifetime, which, by the way, did not allow him to see his work published. In the "Pre-Announcement" he recalls how in 1739 in St. Petersburg, "demanding for this help and reasoning, so that he could fill in something, and explain indistinctly", he introduced many people to the manuscript of the "History of the Russian" and heard different opinions about it: “To another, this, to another, was disliked, that one wanted to write more extensively and clearly, then the other advised to shorten it or leave it completely. Yes, it was unsatisfactory. Some came with a heavy rebuke, allegedly I refuted the Orthodox faith and the law (as those madmen pronounced) ... ". And turning to opponents, including future ones, the historian correctly described their task both in criticizing his “Russian History” and in serving historical science: better composed”, “but I hope more, if one of these is excellent in the sciences, for the benefit of the fatherland as much as I, having jealousy, seeing my shortcomings, he himself will correct the errors, explain the darkness, and supplement the shortcomings and bring them to a better state, to myself, more thanksgiving than I require, to acquire.

Tatishchev clearly outlined his credo as a historian and as a source specialist in the same “Foreshadowing”, where, as can be judged by their sentences, lovers of talking down to him either did not look in, or could not (or did not want to) see anything there: “.What in the present history, great vices will appear for many noble families, which, if written, will incite them or their heirs to malice, and bypassing them will destroy the truth and clarity of history or turn that blame on those who judged, if it were not in accordance with conscience, for that I leave it to others to compose. Speaking about his manner of working with sources, he explained that “if the adverb and the order of them were changed, it would be dangerous that the probabilities would not

No. 1 ______________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT ______________________ 2016

ruin. For this, I judged it best to write in the order and dialect that are found in the ancients, collecting from all the most complete and detailed in the order of years, as they wrote, without changing or subtracting anything from them (my italics. - V.F.), except not belonging to the secular chronicle, like the lives of saints, miracles, phenomena, etc., which are more abundant in church books, but I also attached some of them in order at the end, so I didn’t add anything (my italics. - V.F.), unless it is necessary to put the word necessary for understanding, and then he distinguished it by a capacious one. And at the end of the “Foreshadowing”, the scientist emphasized two important circumstances: “... I remember that it is impossible to please the morals and reasoning of all people” and “that all deeds come from the mind or stupidity” (Tatishchev 1962: 85-86, 89- 92).

The historian, of course, should not please anyone in anything, and he is also not free from all sorts of mistakes and shortcomings, especially when it comes to Tatishchev, who did everything in Russian historical science for the first time and thereby her created. But it is worth talking about this without bias and aggressiveness, with the manifestation of the utmost tact and, of course, deep knowledge and understanding of the very subject of the conversation.

Returning to one of the arguments of S.N. Azbelev, it should be recalled that V.L. Yanin, on the basis of archaeological material, confirmed the complete authenticity of the story of the Joachim Chronicle that in Novgorod baptism met with powerful resistance from the pagans, suppressed by the governors of Vladimir Putyata and Dobrynya (the scientist sees them as an independent story written by an eyewitness of events). He revealed traces of a fire, which is dated by the dendrochrological method of 989 and "which destroyed all structures over a large area": ​​"coastal quarters in the Nerevsky and, possibly, in the Lyudin end." But it was this story that was primarily perceived as a fake. As N.M. Karamzin, “of all the legends of the imaginary Joachim, the most curious is about the introduction of the Christian faith in Novgorod; it’s a pity that she is a fiction based solely on an old proverb: Baptize putyata with a sword, and Dobrynya with a sword! (Karamzin 1989: Note 463; Yanin 1984: 53-56).

But everything, as archaeological data show, was different, and the Chronicle of Joachim, despite its very complex nature, is a valuable source, which, of course, with an attentive and conscientious attitude towards itself, can provide very important information. In general, if we turn again to the observations of S.M. Solovyov, and his words are becoming more and more relevant, we owe Tatishchev “the preservation of news from such lists of the annals, which, perhaps, are lost to us forever; the importance of this news for science is becoming more palpable day by day” (Soloviev 1901: 1347). However, what science feels, “skeptics” cannot feel.

And to our dear hero of the day, defender of both the Fatherland and its history, - Sergey Nikolayevich Azbelev - I wish you good health and new successes in the scientific field. And I am very proud that I personally know this wonderful person and scientist.

№1 ___________________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT ______________________________2016

LITERATURE

Azbelev 2006 - Azbelev S.N. Oral history of Veliky Novgorod. Veliky Novgorod, 2006. Azbelev 2007 - Azbelev S.N. Oral history in the monuments of Novgorod and the Novgorod land. SPb., 2007.

Bogdanov 2000 - Bogdanov V.P. Romanovsky project of 1203: a monument of ancient Russian political thought or an invention of V.N. Tatishchev // Collection of the Russian Historical Society. T. 3 (151). Antifomenko. M., 2000.

Winter 1960 - Winter E. Unknown materials about A.L. Schlozer // Historical archive. 1960.

Dobrushkin 1977 - Dobrushkin E.M. On the methodology for studying "Tatishchev news" // Source study of national history. Sat. articles 1976. M., 1977.

Zhuravel 2004 - Zhuravel A.V. Once again about "Tatishchev news" (chronological aspect) // Domestic culture and historical thought of the XVIII-XX centuries / Sat. articles and materials. Issue. 3. Bryansk, 2004.

Zhuravel 2006 - Zhuravel A.V. New Herostratus, or At the origins of "modern history" // Collection of the Russian Historical Society. T. 10 (158). Russia and Crimea. M., 2006.

Ivanov 1843 - Ivanov N.A. The general concept of chronographs and a description of some lists of them stored in the libraries of St. Petersburg and Moscow. Kazan, 1843.

Historiography 1961 - Historiography of the history of the USSR. From ancient times to the Great October Socialist Revolution / Ed. V.E. Illeritsky and I.A. Kudryavtsev. M., 1961. Karamzin 1829 - Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. T. XII. SPb., 1829.

Karamzin 1989 - Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. T. I. M., 1989.

Kuznetsov 2006 - Kuznetsov A.A. Prince of Vladimir Georgy Vsevolodovich in the history of Russia in the first third of the 13th century. Features of the refraction of sources in historiography. Nizhny Novgorod, 2006.

Kuzmin 1972 - Kuzmin A.G. Article 1113 in the "History of the Russian" V.N. Tatishchev // Bulletin of Moscow State University. 1972. No. 5.

Kuzmin 1981 - Kuzmin A.G. Tatishchev. M., 1981.

Mayorov 2006 - Mayorov A.V. About the Polotsk chronicle V.N. Tatishchev // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences. T. 57. St. Petersburg, 2006.

Miller 1996 - Miller G.F. About the first Russian chronicler, the Monk Nestor, about his chronicle and about the successors of this // Miller G.F. Works on the history of Russia. Selected / Compiled, article by A.B. Kamensky / Notes by A.B. Kamensky and O.M. Medushevsky. M., 1996.

Miller 2006 - Miller G.F. About the peoples who lived in Russia since ancient times // Miller G.F. Selected works / Comp., article, note. S.S. Ilizarov. M., 2006.

Milyukov 1913 - Milyukov P.N. The main currents of Russian historical thought. Ed. 3rd. SPb.,

Moiseeva 1967 - Moiseeva G.N. From the history of the study of Russian chronicles in the 18th century (Gerard-Friedrich Miller) // Russian Literature. 1967. No. 1.

Moiseeva 1971 - Moiseeva G.N. Lomonosov and ancient Russian literature. L., 1971.

Pekarsky 1870 - Pekarsky P.P. History of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. T. I. St. Petersburg, 1870.

Pestic 1961 - Pestic SL. Russian historiography of the 18th century. Ch. I. L., 1961.

Pestic 1965 - Pestic SL. Russian historiography of the 18th century. Part II. L., 1965.

Rybakov 2007 - Rybakov S.V. Tatishchev in the mirror of Russian historiography // Questions of history. 2007. No. 4.

Solovyov 1901 - Solovyov S.M. Writers of Russian history of the XVIII century // Collected works of S.M. Solovyov. SPb., 1901.

Stefanovich 2007 - Stefanovich P.S. "Russian History" V.N. Tatishchev: controversy

continue // Patriotic history. 2007. No. 3.

№1 ________________________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT ________________________________2016

Stefanovich 2008 - Stefanovich P.S. Volodar Przemysl in captivity by the Poles (1122): source, fact, legend, fiction // Ancient Russia. Questions of medieval studies. 2008. No. 4 (26).

Tatishchev 1962 - Tatishchev V.N. History of Russia since the most ancient times. T. I. M.; L., 1962.

Tatishchev 1964 - Tatishchev V.N. History of Russia since the most ancient times. T. IV. M.; L.,

Tatishchev 1968 - Tatishchev V.N. History of Russia since the most ancient times. T. VII. L., 1968.

Tatishchev 1979 - Tatishchev V.N. Selected works. L., 1979.

Tikhomirov 1962 - Tikhomirov M.N. On the Russian sources of the "History of the Russian" // Tatishchev V.N. History of Russia since the most ancient times. T. I. M.; L., 1962.

Ustryalov 1863 - Ustryalov N.G. On the system of pragmatic Russian history. SPb., 1836.

Fedotov 1839 - Fedotov A.F. On the most important works on critical Russian history. M.,

Fomin 2006 - Fomin V.V. Lomonosov: Genius of Russian history. M., 2006.

Fomin 2008 - Fomin V.V. S.N. Azbelev. Oral history in the monuments of Novgorod and the Novgorod land. SPB., Publishing house "Dmitry Bulanin" // Questions of history. 2008. No. 3.

Fomin 2010 - Fomin V.V. Lomonosovophobia of Russian Normanists // Varyago-Russian question in historiography / Sat. articles and monographs / Compiled. and ed. V.V. Fomin. M., 2010.

Schlozer 1809 - Schlozer A.L. Nestor. Part I. St. Petersburg, 1809.

Schlozer 1875 - Schlozer AL. Public and private life of August Ludwig Schlozer, described by himself. SPb., 1875.

Yanin 1984 - Yanin VL. Chronicle stories about the baptism of Novgorodians (about a possible source of the Joachim Chronicle) // Russian city (Research and materials). Issue. 7. M., 1984.

Schlozer 1768 - Schlozer A.L. Probe russischer Annalen. Bremen, Gottingen, 1768.

Azbelev 2006 - Azbelev S.N. Ustnaja istorija Velikogo Novgoroda, Veliky Novgorod, 2006 .

Azbelev 2007 - Azbelev S.N. Ustnaja istorija v pamjatnikah Novgoroda i Novgorodskoj zemli , St. Petersburg, 2007.

Bogdanov 2000 - Bogdanov V.P. Romanovskij project 1203 g.: pamjatnik drevnerusskoj politicheskoj mysli or vydumka V.N. Tatishheva, in: Sbornik Russkogo istoricheskogo obshhestva. T. 3 (151). Antifomenko, Moscow, 2000.

Dobrushkin 1977 - Dobrushkin E.M. O metodike izuchenija "tatishhevskih izvestij", in: Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoj istorii. Sb. statej 1976 , Moscow, 1977 .

Fedotov 1839 - Fedotov A.F. O glavnejshih trudah po chasti kriticheskoj russkoj istorii, Moscow, 1839.

Fomin 2006 - Fomin V.V. Lomonosov: Genij russkoj istorii, Moscow, 2006.

Fomin 2008 - Fomin V.V. S.N. Azbelev. Ustnaja istorija v pamjatnikah Novgoroda i Novgorodskoj zemli. SPB., Publishing house "Dmitrij Bulanin", in: Voprosy istorii, 2008, No. 3.

Fomin 2010 - Fomin V.V. Lomonosovofobija rossijskih normanistov, in: Varjago-russkij vopros v istoriografii / Sb. statej i monografij / Composer. i red. V.V. Fomin, Moscow, 2010.

Istoriografija 1961 - Istoriografija istorii SSSR. S drevnejshih vremen do Velikoj Oktjabr’skoj socialisticheskoj revoljucii / Pod red. V.E. Illerickogo i I.A. Kudrjavceva, Moscow, 1961.

Ivanov 1843 - Ivanov N.A. Obshhee ponjatie o hronografah i opisanie nekotoryh spiskov ih, hranjashhihsja v bibliotekah s.peterburgskih i moskovskih , Kazan, 1843 .

Janin 1984 - Janin V.L. Letopisnye rasskazy o kreshhenii novgorodcev (o vozmozhnom istochnike Ioakimovskoj letopisi), in: Russkij gorod (Issledovanija i materialy). Vyp. 7, Moscow, 1984.

Karamzin 1829 - Karamzin N.M. Historija gosudarstva Rossijskogo. T.XII, St. Petersburg, 1829.

Karamzin 1989 - Karamzin N.M. Historija gosudarstva Rossijskogo. T.I, Moscow, 1989.

Kuz'min 1972 - Kuz "min A.G. Stat'ja 1113 g. v "Istorii Rossijskoj" V.N. Tatishheva, in: Vestnik MGU, 1972, No. 5.

Kuz'min 1981 - Kuz "min A.G. Tatishchev, Moscow, 1981.

Kuznecov 2006 - Kuznecov A.A. Vladimirskij knjaz' Georgij Vsevolodovich v istorii Rusi pervoj treti XIII v. Osobennosti prelomlenija istoch-nikov v istoriografii, Nizhny Novgorod, 2006 .

Majorov 2006 - Majorov A.V. O Polockoj letopisi V.N. Tatishheva, in: Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury Instituta russkoj literatury Ros-sijskoj Akademii nauk. T. 57, St. Petersburg, 2006.

Miljukov 1913 - Miljukov P.N. Main techenija russkoj istoricheskoj mysli. Izd. 3rd, St. Petersburg, 1913.

Miller 1996 - Miller G.F. O pervom letopisatele rossijskom prepodobnom Nestore, o ego letopisi i o prodolzhateljah onyja, in: Miller G.F. Sochinenia po istorii Rossii. Izbrannoe / Sostavl., stat’ja A.B. Kamenskogo / Primechanija A.B. Kamenskogo i O.M. Medushevskoj, Moscow, 1996.

Miller 2006 - Miller G.F. O narodah izdrevle v Rossii obitavshih, in: Miller G.F. Izbrannye trudy / Sost., stat'ja, primech. S.S. Ilizarova, Moscow, 2006.

Moiseeva 1967 - Moiseeva G.N. Iz istorii izuchenija russkih letopisej v XVIII veke (Gerard-Fridrih Miller) , in: Russkaja literatura , 1967, No. 1 .

Moiseeva 1971 - Moiseeva G.N. Lomonosov i drevnerusskaja literatura , Leningrad, 1971 .

Pekarskij 1870 - Pekarskij P.P. Istorija imperatorskoj Akademii nauk v Peterburge. T. I, St. Petersburg, 1870.

Peshtich 1961 - Peshtich S.L. Russkaja istoriografija XVIII century. Ch. I , Leningrad, 1961 .

Peshtich 1965 - Peshtich S.L. Russkaja istoriografija XVIII century. Ch. II , Leningrad, 1965 .

Rybakov 2007 - Rybakov S.V. Tatishchev v zerkale russkoj istoriografii, in: Voprosy istorii, 2007, No. 4.

Schlozer 1768 - Schlozer A.L. Probe russischer Annalen, Bremen, Gottingen, 1768.

Shlecer 1809 - Shlecer A.L. Nestor. Ch. I, St. Petersburg, 1809.

№1 _______________________________ HISTORICAL FORMAT ______________________________________2016

Shlecer 1875 - Shlecer A.L. Obshhestvennaja i chastnaja zhizn’ Avgusta Ljudviga Shlecera, im samim opisannaja, St. Petersburg, 1875.

Solov'ev 1901 - Solov "ev S.M. Pisateli russkoj istorii XVIII century, in: Sobranie sochinenij S.M. Solov'eva, St. Petersburg, 1901.

Stefanovich 2007 - Stefanovich P.S. "Historija Rossijskaja" V.N. Tatishheva: spory prodolzhajutsja ["History Russian" of V.N. Tatishchev: disputes continue], in: Otechestvennaja istorija, 2007, No. 3.

Stefanovich 2008 - Stefanovich P.S. Volodar' Peremyshl'skij v plenu u poljakov (1122 g.): istochnik, fakt, legenda, vymysel, in: Drevnjaja Rus'. Voprosy medievistiki, 2008, no. 4 (26) .

Tatishev 1962 - Tatishev V.N. Istorija Rossijskaja s samyh drevnejshih vremen. T. I, Moscow; Leningrad, 1962.

Tatishev 1964 - Tatishev V.N. Istorija Rossijskaja s samyh drevnejshih vremen. T. IV, Moscow; Leningrad, 1964.

Tatishev 1968 - Tatishev V.N. Istorija Rossijskaja s samyh drevnejshih vremen. T. VII , Leningrad, 1968 .

Tatishev 1979 - Tatishev V.N. Izbrannye proizvedenija , Leningrad, 1979 .

Tihomirov 1962 - Tihomirov M.N. O russkih istochnikah "Istorii Rossijskoj", in: Tatishev V.N. Istorija Rossijskaja s samyh drevnejshih vremen. T. I, Moscow; Leningrad, 1962.

Ustrjalov 1863 - Ustrjalov N.G. O sisteme pragmaticheskoj russkoj istorii, St. Petersburg, 1836.

Vinter 1960 - Vinter Je. Unknown material about A.L. Shlecere, in: Is-toricheskij arhiv, 1960, No. 6.

Zhuravel' 2004 - Zhuravel" A.V. Eshhe raz o "tatishhevskih izvestijah" (hronologicheskij aspekt) , in: Otechestvennaja kul'tura i istoricheskaja mysl' XVIII-XX vekov / Sb. statej i materialov. Vyp. 3 , Bryansk, 2004 .

Zhuravel' 2006 - Zhuravel" A.V. Novyj Gerostrat, or U istokov "modernoj istorii", in: Sbornik Russkogo istoricheskogo obshhestva. T. 10 (158) Rossija i Krym, Moscow, 2006.

Fomin Vyacheslav Vasilyevich - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of National History of the Lipetsk State Pedagogical University(Lipetsk, Russia). Fomin Vyacheslav - Doctor of historical sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of national history of the Lipetsk state pedagogical university (Lipetsk, Russia).

The basis of the historical concept of V.N. Tatishchev is the history of autocracy (previously, a similar concept was proposed by diplomat A.I. Mankiev, but his manuscript "The Core of Russian History" was not known to Tatishchev). The economic prosperity and power of Russia, according to Tatishchev, coincided with "autocracy". Violation of the principle of "autocracy" led to the weakening of the country and foreign invasions. New in Tatishchev was the natural-legal substantiation of the monarchical scheme of the Russian historical process.

Tatishchev was one of the first to raise the question of dividing history into periods. Tatishchev put the principle of the formation and development of autocratic power as the basis for the periodization of Russian history. The periodization of Russian history looked like this:

1. Ancient history.

2. 862-1132: the beginning of Russian history, which was based on the domination of autocracy.

3. 1132-1462: violation of autocracy.

4. 1462 - XVIII century - restoration of autocracy.

Regarding the Slavs, he wrote that the name Slavs was first found in the sources of the 6th century. n. e., but it did not follow from this that it did not exist in more ancient times. The Slavic people, according to Tatishchev, were ancient, like all other tribes. In the Slavs, he saw the descendants of the biblical Afet, and not the biblical Mosoch, as Polish authors believed. Among the Greeks, the Slavs were known under the names Alazoni and Amazoni. Tatishchev knew the version of the Polish chroniclers Matvey Stryikovsky and Martin Belsky about the resettlement of the Slavs from the Middle East and Western Asia to the northern coast of the Mediterranean. The immediate ancestors of the Slavs, according to Tatishchev, were the Scythians. He also ranked the Goths, Dacians, Enets, Volga Bulgars and even the Khazars among the Slavs.

For many centuries, the Slavs had autocratic sovereigns. The process of formation of the ancient Russian state from the Black Sea to the Danube was under the control of the East Slavic princes Scyth and Slaven. The last of them moved north and founded the city of Slavensk (Novgorod). Slaven's great-great-grandson named Burivoy repeatedly defeated the Varangians, but at some point military luck turned away from him, after which the Varangians captured a number of Slavic cities and imposed tribute on the "Slavs, Russia and Chud." His son Gostomysl managed to repay the defeat of Burivoy. Under his leadership, the Varangians were defeated and expelled. Before his death, Gostomysl had a dream that his middle daughter Umila, who married a Varangian prince, will give birth to the future ruler of Russia - Rurik. Gostomysl invited the people to call their grandson, the son of Umila, to the princes. The death of Gostomysl led to civil strife. In order to restore order, the Slavs called for the reign of Rurik, the grandson of Gostomysl. Tatishchev rejected the legends about the origin of Russian rulers from Emperor Augustus.

Prince Rurik asserted autocratic power for himself, and since then the grand prince's table has been inherited. This ensured the prosperity of Russia during the times of Vladimir I, Yaroslav I and Vladimir Monomakh. Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich failed to keep the subject princes. A disordered aristocracy arose. The absence of central authority and the debauchery of the junior princes contributed to the subordination of Russia to the Mongols. Novgorod, Polotsk and Pskov, in their turn, established a democratic system. Lithuania renounced allegiance to the great Russian princes.

Ivan III restored autocracy. Thanks to this, Russia not only got rid of dependence on the Golden Horde, but also conquered Kazan and Astrakhan. The betrayal of some boyars prevented Ivan the Terrible from holding Livonia and part of Lithuania. The serf measures of Boris Godunov were the direct cause of the Troubles. The triumph of the aristocracy in the form of the Seven Boyars after the death of Ivan IV and the removal of Vasily Shuisky led the state to ruin. Harmful to the country, aristocratic rule was abolished with the establishment of the Romanov dynasty. Peter the Great finally destroyed the threat of boyar ambitions.

Russian historiography is characterized by polemical polyphony in assessing the scientific heritage of V.N. Tatishchev. At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th century, a condescending attitude towards the historical works of Tatishchev dominated, except for the fact that A.L. Schlozer called Tatishchev "the father of Russian history." The situation began to improve when S.M. Solovyov acknowledged that Tatishchev was the first to give his compatriots the means to study Russian history. In Soviet historiography, Tatishchev received generally complimentary assessments as a researcher who summed up the previous period of Russian historiography and gave direction to Russian historical science for a whole century ahead: “Tatishchev began. He built a majestic building Russian history without any predecessors. And it is all the more amazing how much he found that science was accepted only a long time later. It is currently recognized that V.N. Tatishchev presented the most complete rationalistic concept of the history of Russia for his time, which determined the main idea of ​​the subsequent conceptual constructions of the historiography of the 18th - early 19th centuries. With various variations, Tatishchev's conservative concept of Russian history lasted until the middle of the 19th century.

LECTURE: GERMAN HISTORIANS OF THE 18TH CENTURY

Vasily Tatishchev deservedly took an honorable place among the great minds of Russia. To call him ordinary simply does not turn the tongue. He founded the cities of Tolyatti, Yekaterinburg and Perm, led the development of the Urals. For 64 years of his life he wrote several works, the main of which is "Russian History". The importance of his books is evidenced by the fact that they are published today. He was a man of his time, who left behind a rich legacy.

Young years

Tatishchev was born on April 29, 1686 in a family estate in the Pskov district. His family was descended from the Rurikovichs. But this relationship was distant, they were not supposed to have a princely title. His father was not a rich man, and the estate went to him after the death of a distant relative. The Tatishchev family constantly served the state, and Vasily was no exception. With his brother Ivan, at the age of seven, he was sent to serve at the court of Tsar Ivan Alekseevich as a steward (a servant whose main duty was to serve at the table during a meal). ABOUT early years Tatishchev G. Z. Yulyumin wrote the book "Youth of Tatishchev"

Historians do not have an unambiguous opinion about what exactly he did after the death of the king in 1696. It is known for certain that in 1706 both brothers entered the military service and took part in hostilities in Ukraine in the rank of lieutenants of the dragoon regiment. Later, Tatishchev took part in the battle of Poltava and the Prut campaign.

Carrying out the orders of the king

Peter the Great noticed a smart and energetic young man. He instructed Tatishchev to go abroad to study engineering and artillery sciences. In addition to the main mission of travel, Tatishchev carried out secret orders from Peter the Great and Jacob Bruce. These people had a great influence on the life of Vasily and were similar to him in their education and broad outlook. Tatishchev visited Berlin, Dresden and Bereslavl. He brought to Russia many books on engineering and artillery, which at that time were very difficult to obtain. In 1714, he married Avdotya Vasilievna, whose marriage ended in 1728, but brought two children - the son of Efgraf and the daughter of Evpropaksia. On the line of his daughter, he became the great-great-grandfather of the poet Fyodor Tyutchev.

His trips abroad ceased in 1716. At the behest of Bruce, he transferred to the artillery troops. A few weeks later, he had already passed the exam and became a lieutenant engineer. The year 1717 passed for him in the army leading fighting near Königsberg and Danzig. His main responsibility was the repair and maintenance of artillery facilities. After unsuccessful negotiations with the Swedes in 1718, among the organizers of which was Tatishchev, he returned to Russia.

Jacob Bruce in 1719 proved to Peter the Great that it was necessary to draw up a detailed geographical description of the Russian territory. This duty was assigned to Tatishchev. It was during this period that he actively became interested in the history of Russia. It was not possible to complete the mapping, already in 1720 he received a new appointment.

Management of the development of the Urals

The Russian state needed a large amount of metal. Tatishchev, with his experience, knowledge and diligence, suited the role of manager of all the Ural factories like no other. On the spot, he developed a vigorous activity in the exploration of minerals, the construction of new factories or the transfer of old ones to a more suitable place. He also founded the first schools in the Urals and wrote job description about the cutting down of forests. At that time, they did not think about the safety of trees, and this once again speaks of his foresight. It was at this time that he founded the city of Yekaterinburg and a plant near the village of Egoshikha, which served as the beginning for the city of Perm.

Changes in the region were not to everyone's liking. The most ardent hater was Akinfiy Demidov, the owner of many private factories. He did not want to follow the rules set for everyone and saw state-owned factories as a threat to his business. He did not even pay a tax to the state in the form of tithes. At the same time, he was on good terms with Peter the Great, so he counted on concessions. His subordinates interfered in every possible way with the work of civil servants. Disputes with Demidov took a lot of time and nerves. In the end, due to the slander of the Demidovs, Wilhelm de Gennin arrived from Moscow, who figured out the situation and honestly reported everything to Peter the Great. The confrontation ended with the recovery of 6,000 rubles from Demidov for false slander.

Death of Peter

In 1723 Tatishchev was sent to Sweden to collect information about mining. In addition, he was entrusted with hiring craftsmen for Russia and finding places to train students. And the matter did not go without secret instructions, he was ordered to collect all the information that could relate to Russia. The death of Peter the Great found him abroad and seriously unsettled him. He lost a patron, which affected his future career. His travel funding was severely cut, despite reports that indicated what he could purchase for the state. Upon returning home, he pointed out the need for changes in the monetary business, which determined his immediate future.

In 1727, he received membership in the mint, which ran all the mints. Three years later, after the death of Peter II, he became its chairman. But soon he was charged with bribery and suspended from work. This is associated with the intrigues of Biron, who at that time was the favorite of Empress Anna Ioannovna. During this period, Tatishchev did not give up, continuing to work on the "History of Russia" and other works, he studied science.

Recent Appointments

The investigation ended unexpectedly in 1734, when he was appointed to his usual role of head of all state mining plants in the Urals. During the three years that he spent in this post, new factories, several cities and roads appeared. But Biron, who conceived a scam with the privatization of state-owned factories, contributed to the fact that in 1737 Tatishchev was appointed head of the Orenburg expedition.

Its purpose was to establish ties with the peoples Central Asia with the aim of joining them to Russia. But even in such a difficult matter, Vasily Nikitich showed himself only from the best side. He brought order among his subordinates, punishing people who abused their powers. In addition, he founded several schools, a hospital and a large library. But after he fired Baron Shemberg and confronted Biron about Mount Grace, a bunch of accusations rained down on him. This led to the removal of Vasily Nikitich from all cases and taking him under house arrest. According to some sources, he was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

The arrest continued until 1740, when, after the death of Empress Anna Ivanovna, Biron lost his position. Tatishchev first headed the Kalmyk Commission, designed to reconcile the Kazakh peoples. And then he became the governor of Astrakhan. For all the complexity of the tasks, he was extremely little supported by finances and troops. This led to a serious deterioration in health. Despite all efforts, the appointment ended as usual. That is, the court because of the large number of accusations and excommunication in 1745.

He spent his last days on his estate, devoting himself entirely to science. There is a story that Tatishchev knew in advance that he was dying. Two days before his death, he ordered the artisans to dig a grave and asked the priest to come for communion. Then a messenger galloped up to him with an excuse for all cases and the Order of Alexander Nevsky, which he returned, saying that he no longer needed it. And only after the rite of communion, saying goodbye to his family, he died. Despite its beauty, this story, attributed to the grandson of Vasily Nikitich, is most likely a fiction.

It is impossible to retell the biography of Vasily Tatishchev in one article. Many books have been written about his life, and his person is ambiguous and controversial. It is impossible to put a label on him, calling him simply an official or an engineer. If you collect everything he did, the list will be very large. It was he who became the first real Russian historian and did this not according to the appointment of his superiors, but at the behest of his soul.

Ilya Kolesnikov

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 in it until 1577. Tatishchev worked on the "History" for about 30 years, but the first edition in the late 1730s. he was forced to rework, tk. it evoked 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 been preserved.

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 the dispute is the so-called "Tatishchev News", chronicle sources that have not come down to us, which the author used. Some historians believe that these sources were invented by Tatishchev himself. Most likely, it is no longer possible to either confirm or refute such statements, therefore in our article we will proceed only from those facts that exist irrefutably: the personality of V.N. Tatishchev; its activities, including public ones; 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 start historical research in Russia on a scientific basis.

By the way, works have recently appeared in which Tatishchev's creative heritage is being reviewed, and his works have been republished. Do they have something relevant for us? Imagine yes! These are questions about protecting state interests in the field of mining, vocational education, a look at our history and modern geopolitics…

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

Biography of V.N. Tatishcheva

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born in 1686 in the village of Boldino, Dmitrovsky district, Moscow province, in the family of an impoverished and humble nobleman, although he was descended from the Rurikids. Both Tatishchev brothers (Ivan and Vasily) served as stolniks (the steward served 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 were promoted to lieutenants. As part of the dragoon regiment of Avtomon Ivanov, they went to Ukraine, where they took part in hostilities. In the battle of Poltava, Vasily Tatishchev was wounded, and in 1711 he participated in the Prut campaign.

In 1712-1716. Tatishchev improved his education in Germany. He visited Berlin, Dresden, Breslavl, where he studied mainly engineering and artillery, kept in touch with Feldzeugmeister General J. V. Bruce and carried out his instructions.

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev

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

At the beginning of 1720, Tatishchev was assigned to the Urals. His task was to identify sites for the construction of iron ore plants. Having explored these places, he settled in the Uktus plant, where he founded the Mining Office, which was later renamed the Siberian Higher Mining Administration. On the Iset River, he laid the foundation for the current Yekaterinburg, indicated a place for the construction of a copper smelter near the village of Egoshikha - this was the beginning of the city of Perm.

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

At the factories, through his efforts, two primary schools and two schools for teaching mining. He also dealt with the problem of saving forests here 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 the nobles of the court and seek exclusive privileges for himself, including the rank of real state councilor. In the construction and establishment of state-owned factories, he saw the 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 adviser to the Berg Collegium.

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

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

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

In 1730, with the accession to the throne of Anna Ioannovna, the era of Bironovism begins. You can read more about this on our website:. Tatishchev did not have a 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 breed factories." He was entrusted with the drafting of the mining charter.

Under him, the number of factories increased to 40; new mines were constantly being discovered. An important place was occupied by Mount Blagodat indicated by Tatishchev with large deposit magnetic iron.

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

Biron did his best to free Tatishchev from mining. In 1737, he appointed him to the Orenburg expedition to pacify Bashkiria and control the Bashkirs. But even here Tatishchev showed his originality: he ensured that the yasak (tribute) was delivered by the Bashkir foremen, and not by the yasaks or kissers. 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", non-performance and other sins. Tatishchev was arrested and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, sentenced to deprivation of rank. But the sentence was not carried out. In this difficult year for him, he wrote his instruction 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 neither the military forces nor the interaction of the Kalmyk authorities were enough to carry it out.

In 1745, Tatishchev was relieved of this post and settled permanently in his Boldino estate near Moscow. It is here that five recent years he devoted his life to working on his main work, The History of Russia. V.N. died. Tatishchev in 1750

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

Buried V.N. Tatishchev on the Christmas churchyard (in the modern Solnechnogorsk district of the Moscow region).

Grave of V.N. Tatishchev - a historical monument

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

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". “All that I have - ranks, honor, property, and most importantly over everything - reason, I only have everything by the grace of His Majesty, for if he had not sent me to foreign lands, did not use me for noble deeds, but did not encourage me with mercy, then I would I couldn’t get anything of that, ”this is how he himself assessed the influence of Emperor Peter I on his life.

Monument to V. Tatishchev in Togliatti

According to V.N. Tatishchev was a loyal supporter of autocracy - he remained such even after the death of Peter I. When in 1730 the niece of Peter I, the Duchess of Courland Anna Ioannovna, was enthroned on 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 the 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, freedom of judgment were not to the liking of this empress either.
The last five years of the life of a seriously ill Tatishchev devoted to work on the history of the fatherland.

Historian at work

He understood life as a continuous activity in the name of public and state good. In any place, the most difficult work he performed 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 history was his main attachment.

V.N. Tatishchev "Russian History"

This is the first scientific generalizing work on Russian history in Russia. By the type of arrangement of the material, his "History" resembles the ancient Russian chronicles: the events in it are set out in a strict chronological sequence. But Tatishchev did not just rewrite the chronicles - he conveyed their content to a language that was more accessible to his contemporaries, supplemented them with other materials, and in special comments gave his own assessment of events. This was not only the scientific value of his work, but also novelty.
Tatishchev believed that knowledge of history helps a person not to repeat the mistakes of his ancestors and 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, be able to distinguish reliable documents from those that do not deserve trust. He collected and used a huge number of sources. It was he who found and published many valuable documents: a code of laws Kievan Rus"Russkaya Pravda" and "Sudebnik" of Ivan IV. And his work became the only source from which you can find out the contents of many historical monuments, subsequently destroyed or lost.

Sculpture of Tatishchev in VUiT (Tolyatti)

Tatishchev in his "History" paid much attention to the origin, interconnection and geographical distribution of the peoples who inhabited our country. This was 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 Russia. Then the restoration of autocracy by Ivan III and its strengthening by Ivan IV. A 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 flourished under Peter the Great. Tatishchev was convinced that an autocratic monarchy was the only form of government necessary for Russia. But "History of Russia" (I volume) was published only 20 years after the death of the historian. Volume II came out only 100 years later.
The well-known Russian historian S. M. Solovyov wrote: “... His importance lies precisely in the fact that he was the first to begin processing Russian history, as it should have begun; the first gave the idea of ​​how to get down to business; he was the first to show what Russian history is, what means exist for studying it.
The scientific activity of Tatishchev is an example of disinterested service to science and education: he considered his scientific work as fulfilling his duty to the fatherland, whose honor and glory were above all for him.

Our story about V.N. Tatishchev, we want to finish with an excerpt from an article in the Togliatti city newspaper "Free City", which cites the well-known and little-known results of V.N. Tatishchev.

It's 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 assaying in Russia, created and mechanized the Moscow Mint and began the industrial minting of copper and silver coins.
He founded (personally compiled and corrected the drawings) the cities of Orsk, Orenburg, Yekaterinburg and our Stavropol (now Togliatti). 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.
He collected, systematized and translated from Church Slavonic into Russian the first annals and state documents of the Moscow kingdom of the Middle Ages. Based on them, he wrote the first "History of Russia".
Prepared scientific papers 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 (monarchist) Russia. By the way, it operated in the country for 50 days!
He found and organized the first archaeological excavations
the capital of the Golden Horde - Saray.
Personally drew the first detailed (large-scale)
a map of the Samara Luka and most of the Yaik (Ural) River.
He compiled a geographical atlas and a "General geographical description of Siberia", introduced the name of the Ural Mountains, previously called the Stone Belt.
Prepared the Åland Congress (the first truce negotiations with Sweden).
He made projects of navigable canals: between the Volga and the Don, between the Siberian and European rivers of Russia.
He was brilliant in ten (!) languages: he was fluent in French, German, English, Swedish and Polish, he knew several Turkic languages, Church Slavonic and Greek. Participated in the improvement of the Russian alphabet.

Being engaged in pharmacology, he experimented a lot and created new drugs based on extracts from coniferous trees.

Autograph V.N. Tatishcheva