Home » Russian language

"Russian History from the Most Ancient Times": work involuntarily. Russian history from the most ancient times Russian history from the most ancient times

Biography of Vasily Tatishchev

Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich- famous Russian historian, born on April 16, 1686 on the estate of his father, Nikita Alekseevich Tatishchev, in the Pskov district; studied at the Moscow artillery and engineering school under the leadership of Bruce, participated in) and in the Prussian campaign; in 1713-14 he was abroad, in Berlin, Breslau and Dresden, to improve his science.

In 1717, Tatishchev was again abroad, in Danzig, where Peter I sent him to seek inclusion in the indemnity of an ancient image, which was rumored to have been painted by St. Methodius; but the city magistrate did not yield to the image, and T. proved to Peter that the legend was untrue. From both of his trips abroad, Tatishchev took a lot of books. Upon his return, T. was with Bruce, the president of the Berg and Manufacturing College, and went with him to the Åland Congress.

The idea made to Peter the Great about the need for a detailed geography of Russia gave impetus to the compilation of “Russian History” by Tatishchev, whom Bruce pointed out to Peter in 1719 as the executor of such work. T., sent to the Urals, could not immediately present the work plan to the tsar, but Peter did not forget about this matter and in 1724 reminded Tatishchev about it. Getting down to business, T. felt the need for historical information and therefore, pushing geography into the background, began collecting materials for history.

Another plan of Tatishchev, closely related to it, dates back to the time of the beginning of these works: in 1719, he submitted a proposal to the Tsar, in which he pointed out the need for demarcation in Russia. In T.’s thoughts, both plans were connected; in a letter to Cherkasov in 1725, he says that he was assigned “to survey the entire state and compose a detailed geography with land maps.”

In 1720, a new order tore Tatishchev away from his historical and geographical works. He was sent “in the Siberian province on Kungur and in other places where convenient places were searched, to build factories and smelt silver and copper from ores.” He had to operate in a country that was little known, uncultured, and had long served as an arena for all sorts of abuses. Having traveled around the region entrusted to him, Tatishchev settled not in Kungur, but in the Uktus plant, where he founded a department, called at first the mining office, and then the Siberian highest mining authorities.

During Vasily Tatishchev’s first stay at the Ural factories, he managed to do quite a lot: he moved the Uktus plant to the river. Iset and there laid the foundation for present-day Yekaterinburg; obtained permission to allow merchants to go to the Irbit fair and through Verkhoturye, as well as to establish a post office between Vyatka and Kungur; opened two primary schools at the factories, two for teaching mining; procured the establishment of a special judge for factories; compiled instructions for protecting forests, etc.

Tatishchev’s measures displeased Demidov, who saw his activities being undermined by the establishment of state-owned factories. Genik was sent to the Urals to investigate the disputes, finding that T. acted fairly in everything. T. was acquitted, at the beginning of 1724 he presented himself to Peter, was promoted to advisor to the Berg College and appointed to the Siberian Ober-Berg Amt. Soon afterwards he was sent to Sweden for the needs of mining and to carry out diplomatic assignments.

Vasily Tatishchev stayed in Sweden from December 1724 to April 1726, inspected factories and mines, collected many drawings and plans, hired a lapidary master who launched the lapidary business in Yekaterinburg, collected information about the trade of the Stockholm port and the Swedish coinage system, became acquainted with many local scientists, etc. Returning from a trip to Sweden and Denmark, Tatishchev spent some time compiling a report and, although not yet expelled from Bergamt, was not, however, sent to Siberia.

In 1727, Tatishchev was appointed a member of the mint office, to which the mints were then subordinate; The events of 1730 found him in this position.

Regarding them, Tatishchev drew up a note, which was signed by 300 people from the nobility. He argued that Russia, as a vast country, is most suited to monarchical government, but that still, “to help” the empress should establish a Senate of 21 members and an assembly of 100 members, and elect the highest places by ballot; Here, various measures were proposed to alleviate the situation of different classes of the population. Due to the reluctance of the guard to agree to changes in the political system, this entire project remained in vain, but the new government, seeing Vasily Tatishchev as an enemy of the supreme leaders, treated him favorably: he was the chief master of ceremonies on the day of the coronation. Having become the chief judge of the coin office, T. began to actively take care of improving the Russian monetary system.

In 1731, T. began to have misunderstandings with, which led to him being put on trial on charges of bribery. In 1734, Tatishchev was released from trial and again assigned to the Urals, “to multiply factories.” He was also entrusted with drawing up the mining charter. While T. remained at the factories, his activities brought a lot of benefit to both the factories and the region: under him the number of factories increased to 40; New mines were constantly opening, and T. considered it possible to set up 36 more factories, which opened only a few decades later. Among the new mines, the most important place was occupied by Mount Grace, indicated by T.

Vasily Tatishchev used the right to interfere in the management of private factories very widely and yet more than once aroused criticism and complaints against himself. In general, he was not a supporter of private factories, not so much out of personal gain, but out of the consciousness that the state needs metals, and that by extracting them itself, it receives more benefits than by entrusting this business to private people. In 1737, Biron, wanting to remove Tatishchev from mining, appointed him to the Orenburg expedition to finally pacify Bashkiria and the control devices of the Bashkirs. Here he managed to carry out several humane measures: for example, he arranged for the delivery of yasak to be entrusted not to yasachniks and tselovalniks, but to the Bashkir elders.

In January 1739, he arrived in St. Petersburg, where a whole commission was set up to consider complaints against him. He was accused of “attacks and bribes,” lack of diligence, etc. It is possible to assume that there was some truth in these attacks, but T.’s position would have been better if he had gotten along with Biron. The commission arrested T. in the Peter and Paul Fortress and in September 1740 sentenced him to deprivation of his ranks. The sentence, however, was not carried out. In this difficult year for T., he wrote his instructions to his son - the famous “Spiritual”. The fall of Biron again brought forward T.: he was released from punishment and in 1741 he was appointed to Tsaritsyn to manage the Astrakhan province, mainly to stop the unrest among the Kalmyks.

The lack of necessary military forces and the intrigues of the Kalmyk rulers prevented T. from achieving anything lasting. When she ascended the throne, T. hoped to free himself from the Kalmyk commission, but he did not succeed: he was left in place until 1745, when, due to disagreements with the governor, he was dismissed from office. Having arrived in his village of Boldino near Moscow, Tatishchev did not leave her until his death. Here he finished his story, which he brought to St. Petersburg in 1732, but for which he did not meet with sympathy. Extensive correspondence conducted by T. from the village has reached us.

On the eve of his death, he went to church and ordered the artisans to appear there with shovels. After the liturgy, he went with the priest to the cemetery and ordered to dig his own grave next to his ancestors. When leaving, he asked the priest to come the next day to give him communion. At home he found a courier who brought a decree that forgave him, and... He returned the order, saying that he was dying. The next day he took communion, said goodbye to everyone and died (July 15, 1750).

The main work of Vasily Tatishchev could only be published under Catherine 2. All of T.'s literary activities, including works on history and geography, pursued journalistic goals: the benefit of society was his main goal. T. was a conscious utilitarian. His worldview is set out in his “Conversation between two friends about the benefits of sciences and schools.” The main idea of ​​this worldview was the fashionable idea of ​​natural law, natural morality, and natural religion, which T. borrowed from Pufendorf and Walch. The highest goal or “true well-being,” according to this view, lies in the complete balance of mental forces, in “peace of soul and conscience,” achieved through the development of the mind by “useful” science; Tatishchev attributed medicine, economics, law and philosophy to the latter.

Tatishchev came to the main work of his life due to the confluence of a number of circumstances. Realizing the harm caused by the lack of a detailed geography of Russia and seeing the connection between geography and history, he found it necessary to first collect and consider all historical information about Russia. Since the foreign manuals turned out to be full of errors, Tatishchev turned to primary sources and began to study chronicles and other materials. At first he had in mind to write a historical work, but then, finding that it was inconvenient to refer to chronicles that had not yet been published, he decided to write in purely chronicle order.

In 1739, T. brought the work to St. Petersburg, on which he had worked for 20 years, and transferred it to the Academy of Sciences for storage, continuing to work on it subsequently, smoothing out the language and adding new sources. Having no special training, T. could not produce impeccable scientific work, but in his historical works his vital attitude to scientific issues and the associated breadth of outlook are valuable. T. constantly connected the present with the past: he explained the meaning of Moscow legislation by the customs of judicial practice and memories of the morals of the 17th century; on the basis of personal acquaintance with foreigners, he understood ancient Russian ethnography; explained ancient names from the lexicons of living languages.

As a result of this connection between the present and the past, Tatishchev was not at all distracted by his work from his main task; on the contrary, these studies expanded and deepened his historical understanding. Tatishchev's integrity, previously questioned because of his so-called (see Chronicles), is now beyond all doubt. He did not invent any news or sources, but sometimes unsuccessfully corrected his own names, translated them into his own language, substituted his own interpretations, or compiled news similar to the chronicles from data that seemed reliable to him.

Citing chronicle legends in a corpus, often without indicating sources, T. gave, in the end, essentially not history, but a new chronicle corpus, unsystematic and rather clumsy. The first two parts of volume I of "History" were published for the first time in 1768 - 69 in Moscow, G.F. Miller, under the title “Russian History from the most ancient times, through tireless labor, 30 years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan Governor V.N.T.” Volume II was published in 1773, volume III in 1774, volume IV in 1784, and volume V was found by M.P. Pogodin only in 1843 and published by the Society of Russian History and Antiquities in 1848.

Tatishchev put the material in order until the death of Vasily III; He also prepared the material, but did not finally edit it until 1558; He also had a number of handwritten materials for later eras, but no further than 1613. Part of T.'s preparatory work is stored in Miller's portfolios. In addition to the history of T. and the above-mentioned conversation, he composed a large number of essays of a journalistic nature: “Spiritual”, “Reminder on the sent schedule of high and low state and zemstvo governments”, “Discourse on the universal audit” and others.

“Spiritual” (published in 1775) gives detailed instructions covering the entire life and activity of a person (landowner). It treats about education, about different types of service, about relationships with superiors and subordinates, about family life, managing estates and households, etc. The “Reminder” sets out Tatishchev’s views on state law, and in the “Discussion” written about The revision of 1742 indicates measures to increase state revenues. Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev is a typical "", with an extensive mind, the ability to move from one subject to another, sincerely striving for the good of the fatherland, having his own specific worldview and firmly and steadily pursuing it, if not always in life, then, in any case, in all his scientific works.

Wed. N.A. Popov "Tatishchev and his time" (Moscow, 1861); P. Pekarsky "New news about V.N.T." (III volume, "Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences", St. Petersburg, 1864); “On the publication of V.N.T.’s works and materials for his biography” (A.A. Kunika, 1883, ed. of the Imperial Academy of Sciences); K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (St. Petersburg, 1882); Senigov “Historical and critical studies of the Novgorod Chronicle and the Russian history of Tatishchev” (Moscow, 1888; review by S.F. Platonov, “Bibliographer”, 1888, No. 11); publication "Spiritual" T. (Kazan, 1885); D. Korsakov “From the life of Russian figures of the 18th century” (ib., 1891); N. Popov "Scientists and literary works of T." (St. Petersburg, 1886); P.N. Miliukov "The Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought" (Moscow, 1897).

We present to the reader's attention one of the most important works of Russian historiography of the second quarter of the 18th century, a major work by the Russian Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev, on which the historian worked for 15-20 years. Tatishchev came to the main work of his life due to the confluence of a number of circumstances. Realizing the harm caused by the lack of a detailed geography of Russia and seeing the connection between geography and history, he found it necessary to first collect and consider all historical information about Russia. Since foreign manuals turned out to be full of errors, the historian turned to primary sources, studied chronicles and other materials. The book is addressed to a wide range of readers interested in the history of Russia.

Contents

  • Book one. Part one
  • Book one. Part two
  • Book two
  • Book three
  • Book Four
  • Book five, or according to the author, part four of the ancient Russian chronicle

This work by Vasily Tatishchev has not yet been translated into text format. You can view it as a scanned document using the link below.



We offer to help recognize the text of this book and open it to thousands of readers. You can do this yourself or hire a professional. Please check in advance whether this book has been taken for recognition by writing to

(1686 – 1750), Russian statesman, historian. He graduated from the Engineering and Artillery School in Moscow. He took part in the Northern War of 1700-21, carried out various military-diplomatic assignments of Tsar Peter I. In 1720-22 and 1734-37 he managed state-owned factories in the Urals, founded Yekaterinburg; in 1741-45 - Astrakhan governor. In 1730 he actively opposed the supreme leaders (Supreme Privy Council). Tatishchev prepared the first Russian publication of historical sources, introducing into scientific circulation the texts of Russian Pravda and Code of Laws of 1550 with detailed commentary, and laid the foundation for the development of ethnography and source studies in Russia. Compiled the first Russian encyclopedic dictionary (“Russian Lexicon”). He created a generalizing work on Russian history, written on the basis of numerous Russian and foreign sources, “” (books 1-5, M., 1768-1848).
“” Tatishchev is one of the most significant works in the entire history of Russian historiography. Monumental, brilliantly and accessiblely written, this book covers the history of our country from ancient times - and right up to the reign of Fyodor Mikhailovich Romanov. The special value of Tatishchev’s work is that the history of Russia is presented here IN ITS COMPLETENESS - in aspects not only military-political, but religious, cultural and everyday!
Adaptation from Late Slavic - O. Kolesnikov (2000-2002)
Russian History (Russian doref. Russian History; full title of the first edition: “Russian History from the most ancient times, with tireless labor thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan Governor Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev”) - a major historical work of the Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev , one of the most important works of Russian historiography of the second quarter of the 18th century, a significant stage in its transition from the medieval chronicle to the critical style of narration.
The “History” consists of four parts; some sketches on the history of the 17th century have also been preserved.

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

Related Posts:

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

] Author: Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. Popular science publication.
(Moscow: AST Publishing House; JSC NPP Ermak, 2005. - Series “Classical Thought”)
Scan, processing, Djv format: Timofey Marchenko, 2011

  • CONTENT:
    RUSSIAN HISTORY
    PART ONE
    Pre-notification about general and Russian history (5).
    Chapter 1. On the antiquity of the writing of the Slavs (29).
    Chapter 2. About the former idolatry (35).
    Chapter 3. About the baptism of the Slavs and Rus' (44).
    Chapter 4. About the history of Joachim, Bishop of Novgorod (51).
    Chapter 5. About Nestor and his chronicle (71).
    Chapter 6. About the chroniclers who followed Nestor (75).
    Chapter 7. About the lists or manuscripts used for this collection (78).
    Chapter 8. About the calculation of time and the beginning of the year (82).
    Chapter 9. On the origin, division and mixing of peoples (86).
    Chapter 10. Reasons for the difference in the names of peoples (89).
    Chapter 11. Scythian name and habitat (92).
    Chapter 12. The tale of Herodotus of Heliokarnassus about the Scythians, Sarmatians and others (101).
    Chapter 13. Strabo's tale from his seventh book (124).
    Chapter 14. The Legend of Pliny Secundus the Elder (145).
    Chapter 15. The legend of Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria (169).
    Chapter 16. From Constantine Porphyrogenitus about Russia and the borders and peoples close to it, selected by Sigfried Bayer (183).
    Chapter 17. From the books of northern writers, composed by Sigfried Bayer (224).
    Chapter 18. Remains of the Scythians, Turks and Tatars (265).
    Chapter 19. Differences between the Scythians and Sarmatians (281).
    Chapter 20. Sarmatov name, origin and habitat (285).
    Chapter 21. Sarmatians according to Russian and Polish histories (292).
    Chapter 22. The remaining Sarmatians (296).
    Chapter 23. About the Getae, Goths and Gepids (304).
    Chapter 24. About the Cimbri, or Cymbrians, and Kimmers (310).
    Chapter 25. About the Bulgarians and the Khvalis, who among the ancients were Argypeans and Issedons (324).
    Chapter 26. About the Pechenegs, Cumans and Torques (332).
    Chapter 27. Ugrians and Obras, according to foreign Huns and Avars, among the ancient Essedons (336).
    Chapter 28. Alans, Roxalans, Raclalans, Alanors and Litalans (344).
    Chapter 29. Byarms, or Perms, Gordoriki, Ostergardi, Hunigardi, Ulmiogardia and Golmogardia (347).
    Chapter 30. Rus', Rutens, Roxania, Roxalania and Russia (352).
    Chapter 31. Varangians, what kind of people and where they were (358).
    Chapter 32. The author of Theophilus Sigefr Bayer about the Varangians (363).
    Chapter 33. The Slavs are named from what, where and when (393).
    Chapter 34. About the residence in antiquity and the transition of the Slavs under different names (402).
    Chapter 35. Ienets, or Genets, Getae, Dacians, Istrians (411).
    Chapter 36. About the Bulgarians and Kazars (422).
    Chapter 37. Eastern Slavs (427).
    Chapter 38. Southern Slavs (429).
    Chapter 39. Western Slavs (437).
    Chapter 40. Northern Slavs (445).
    Chapter 41. Slavic language and differences in dialects (449).
    Chapter 42. On the increase and decrease of the Slavs and the language (452).
    Chapter 43. About geography in general and about Russian (455).
    Chapter 44. Ancient division of Russia (468).
    Chapter 45. About the ancient Russian government and others as an example (480).
    Chapter 46. On the genealogy of Russian sovereigns (500).
    Chapter 47. About hierarchy (511).
    Chapter 48. About the rituals and superstitions of the ancients (522).
    Notes (540).

Publisher's abstract:“Russian History” by Tatishchev is one of the most significant works in the entire history of Russian historiography. Monumentally, brilliantly and accessiblely written, this book covers the history of our country from ancient times - and right up to the reign of Fyodor Mikhailovich Romanov. The special value of Tatishchev’s work is that the history of Russia is presented here IN ALL ITS COMPLETENESS - in aspects not only military-political, but religious, cultural and everyday!

Tatishchev came to the main work of his life as a result of a confluence of a number of circumstances. Realizing the harm caused by the lack of a detailed geography of Russia and seeing the connection between geography and history, he found it necessary to first collect and consider all historical information about Russia. Since the foreign manuals turned out to be full of errors, Tatishchev turned to primary sources and began to study chronicles and other materials. At first he had in mind to write a historical work (“in a historical order” - that is, an author’s analytical work in the style of the New Age), but then, finding that it was inconvenient to refer to chronicles that had not yet been published, he decided to write in a purely “chronicle order” ( on the model of chronicles: in the form of a chronicle of dated events, the connections between which are implicitly outlined).

As Tatishchev writes, he collected more than a thousand books in his library, but could not use most of them, because he spoke only German and Polish. At the same time, with the help of the Academy of Sciences, he used translations of some ancient authors made by Kondratovich.

  • Excerpts from Herodotus' "History" (chapter 12).
  • Excerpts from the book. VII “Geography” by Strabo (chapter 13).
  • From Pliny the Elder (chap. 14).
  • From Claudius Ptolemy (ch. 15).
  • From Constantine Porphyrogenitus (chap. 16).
  • From the books of northern writers, Bayer's work (chapter 17).

The Sarmatian theory occupies a special place in Tatishchev’s ethnogeographical ideas. Tatishchev’s etymological “method” illustrates the reasoning from Chapter 28: the historian notes that in Finnish the Russians are called Venelain, the Finns - Sumalain, the Germans - Saxolain, the Swedes - Roxolain, and identifies the common element “Alain”, that is, the people. He identifies the same common element in the names of the tribes known from ancient sources: Alans, Roxalans, Raklans, Alanors, and concludes that the language of the Finns is close to the language of the Sarmatians. The idea of ​​the kinship of the Finno-Ugric peoples already existed by the time of Tatishchev.

Another group of etymologies is associated with the search for Slavic tribes in ancient sources. In particular, only Ptolemy, according to Tatishchev’s assumptions (chapter 20), mentions the following Slavic names: agorites and pagorites - from mountains; demons, that is, barefoot; sunsets - from sunset; zenkhs, that is, grooms; hemp - from hemp; tolistobogs, that is, thick-sided; tolistosagi, that is, thick-bottomed; maters, that is, seasoned; plesii, that is, bald; sabos, or dog sabos; defense, that is, harrow; sapotrenes - prudent; svardeni, that is, svarodei (making swaras), etc.

Tatishchevskie news

A special source study problem is posed by the so-called “Tatishchev news”, which contains information that is not in the chronicles known to us. These are texts of varying length, from one or two added words to large integral stories, including lengthy speeches of princes and boyars. Sometimes Tatishchev comments on these news in notes, refers to chronicles unknown to modern science or not reliably identified (“Rostov”, “Golitsyn”, “Raskolnichy”, “Chronicle of Simon the Bishop”). In most cases, the source of original news is not indicated by Tatishchev at all.

A special place in the array of “Tatishchev news” is occupied by the Joachim Chronicle - an inserted text, equipped with a special introduction by Tatishchev and representing a brief retelling of a special chronicle telling about the most ancient period of the history of Rus' (IX-X centuries). Tatishchev considered the author of the Joachim Chronicle to be the first Novgorod bishop Joachim Korsunyanin, a contemporary of the Baptism of Rus.

In historiography, the attitude towards Tatishchev's news has always been different. Historians of the second half of the 18th century (Shcherbatov, Boltin) reproduced his information without checking the chronicles. A skeptical attitude towards them is associated with the names of Schlözer and especially Karamzin. This latter considered the Joachim Chronicle to be Tatishchev’s “joke” (that is, a clumsy hoax), and resolutely declared the Raskolnichy Chronicle “imaginary.” Based on a critical analysis, Karamzin identified a whole series of specific Tatishchev news and quite consistently refuted them in the notes, without using them in the main text of the “History of the Russian State” (the exception is the news of the papal embassy to Roman Galitsky in 1204, which penetrated into the main text of the second volume due to a special set of circumstances).

It is interesting that many skeptics (Peshtich, Lurie, Tolochko) do not at all accuse Tatishchev of scientific dishonesty and invariably emphasize that in Tatishchev’s time there were no modern concepts of scientific ethics and strict rules for the design of historical research. “Tatishchevskie News”, no matter how one treats it, does not represent a conscious mystification of the reader, but rather reflects the outstanding independent research, by no means simple-minded “chronicle-writing” activity of the historian. Additional news is, as a rule, logical links missing from the sources, reconstructed by the author, illustrations of his political and educational concepts. The discussion around the “Tatishchev news” continues.

The problem of “minus text” of Tatishchev’s work

The formulation of the problem, as well as the term itself, belong to A.V. Gorovenko. This researcher calls “minus-text” news that Tatishchev does not have, although it is available in the Ipatiev and Khlebnikov Chronicles (in this terminology, additional Tatishchev news, respectively, represents “plus-text”). The main body of the Tatishchev text between 1113 and 1198. goes back to the chronicle of the same type as the well-known Ipatievskaya and Khlebnikovskaya. If Tatishchev's source was of better quality than the two chronicles of the same type that have come down to us, then why does Tatishchev's text contain not only additions, but also large gaps, as well as a huge number of defective readings, including a number of rather comic ones? There is no answer to this question yet from supporters of the reliability of Tatishchev’s news.

Sources for parts two to four of the History

Tatishchev's chronicle sources are characterized by him in Chapter. 7 parts of the first “History”.

The first edition of this text has also been preserved, which has a number of differences, as well as characteristics of the sources, preserved only in the German translation.

Armchair manuscript

In the first edition, the list of sources is not mentioned at all. According to Tatishchev’s description, he received it in 1720 from the library of Peter I and became the basis of the entire collection, this is a chronicle “with faces”, brought to 1239, but the ending is lost. Briefly outlines the events before Yuri Dolgoruky, then in more detail.

According to Tikhomirov, this chronicle is lost. According to Peshtic and V.A. Petrov, this is the Laptev volume of the Face Vault, brought up to 1252. It was also assumed that we are talking about the same illustrated copy of the Radzivilov Chronicle (see below).

Tolochko is inclined to doubt its existence or suggest that the phrase “with faces” does not mean that the vault is illustrated, but the presence in it of descriptions of the appearance of the characters included by Tatishchev in “History”.

Schismatic Chronicle

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

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

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

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

Königsberg Manuscript

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

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

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

Golitsyn manuscript

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

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

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

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

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

Kirillovsky manuscript

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

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

Novgorod manuscript

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

Pskov manuscript

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

Krekshinsky manuscript

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

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

Nikon's manuscript

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

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

Nizhny Novgorod manuscript

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

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

Yaroslavl manuscript

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

Manuscripts of Volynsky, Khrushchev and Eropkin

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

History of the 17th century

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

Editions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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