Russian history from the most ancient times with tireless labors, thirty years later, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan governor, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times": A Reluctant Work Is

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

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

Related Posts:

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

• Genre:
• Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich (1686 – 1750), Russian statesman, historian. He graduated from the Engineering and Artillery School in Moscow. He took part in the Northern War of 1700-21, carried out various military and diplomatic assignments of Tsar Peter I. In 1720-22 and 1734-37 he managed state-owned factories in the Urals, founded Yekaterinburg; in 1741-45 - Astrakhan governor. In 1730 he actively opposed the supreme leaders (Supreme Privy Council). Tatishchev prepared the first Russian publication of historical sources, introducing into scientific circulation the texts of Russian Pravda and Code of Laws of 1550 with a detailed commentary, and laid the foundation for the development of ethnography and source studies in Russia. Compiled the first Russian encyclopedic dictionary ("Russian Lexicon"). He created a general work on Russian history, written on the basis of numerous Russian and foreign sources, “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” (books 1-5, M., 1768-1848). “Russian History” by 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)
• | | (0)

• Genre:
• Tatishchev Vasily Nikitich (1686 – 1750), Russian statesman, historian. He graduated from the Engineering and Artillery School in Moscow. He took part in the Northern War of 1700-21, carried out various military and diplomatic assignments of Tsar Peter I. In 1720-22 and 1734-37 he managed state-owned factories in the Urals, founded Yekaterinburg; in 1741-45 - Astrakhan governor. In 1730 he actively opposed the supreme leaders (Supreme Privy Council). Tatishchev prepared the first Russian publication of historical sources, introducing into scientific circulation the texts of Russian Pravda and Code of Laws of 1550 with a detailed commentary, and laid the foundation for the development of ethnography and source studies in Russia. Compiled the first Russian encyclopedic dictionary (“Russian Lexicon”). He created a general work on Russian history, written on the basis of numerous Russian and foreign sources, “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” (books 1-5, M., 1768-1848). “Russian History” by 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything was justified “on demand”:

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

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

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

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

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

“I put this story in order”

On April 19, 1686, the outstanding Russian historian Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born. His “Russian History” can be considered the first attempt to create a generalizing scientific work about the past of our Fatherland

Portrait of Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686–1750). Unknown 19th century artist based on an 18th century original

Multifaceted talents Vasily Tatishchev manifested themselves in military service, diplomatic activity, mining management and in the administrative field. However, the main work of his life was the creation of “Russian History”.

Petrov's nest chick

Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev was born on April 19 (29), 1686 in a family that traced its origins to the Smolensk princes. However, in the 17th century, this branch of the noble family was already seedy, and the ancestors of the future historian, although they served at the Moscow court, did not have high ranks. His grandfather, Alexey Stepanovich, rose to the rank of steward, and at one time was a governor in Yaroslavl. Father, Nikita Alekseevich, in turn, also became a steward.

The life of a Russian nobleman of the 17th - first half of the 18th centuries, right up to the famous Manifesto on the freedom of the nobility, which followed in 1762, was a continuous series of various services: military campaigns, administrative assignments, diplomatic trips, etc. In this sense, Vasily Nikitich can be called a typical and prominent representative of his class.

Tatishchev's career began at the age of seven, when he was assigned to court service - as a steward at the court of Tsar Ivan Alekseevich, brother Peter the Great. Since 1704, he was in active military service and participated in many battles of the Northern War - in the siege and capture of Narva, in the Battle of Poltava.

In 1711, Vasily Tatishchev went through the Prut campaign, which was unsuccessful for the Russian army, and almost ended in captivity for Peter I. However, at the same time the sovereign began to single out the young officer. He was entrusted with diplomatic missions: in 1714 - to Prussia, in 1717 - to Gdansk, in 1718 - to the Åland Congress, where the issue of concluding peace with Sweden was decided.

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

In 1720–1723, Tatishchev spent a lot of time in the Urals and Siberia, managing local factories. Then, after a short stay at the court of Peter the Great, he went to Sweden, where he carried out a diplomatic mission for about two years, getting acquainted with various industries, as well as archives and scientific works. Then again a series of administrative appointments: service at the Moscow Mint (1727–1733), management of the Ural factories (1734–1737), leadership of the Orenburg expedition (1737–1739), the Kalmyk Commission (1739–1741), governorship in Astrakhan (1741–1745) ).

Vasily Nikitich had a cool disposition and was a stern administrator. It is not surprising that he often had conflicts with both superiors and subordinates. The historian spent the last years of his life (1746–1750) on his Boldino estate while under investigation. For him, this period became a kind of “Boldino autumn,” the autumn of life, when he could devote most of his time to scientific works and cherished plans that he realized throughout his life.

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

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

History with geography

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, one must know what kind of people lived in that region from ancient times, how far the borders extended at which time, who the rulers were, when and by what occasion they were introduced to Russia,” wrote Tatishchev.

In St. Petersburg, the future historian received from the tsar’s personal library the “ancient Nestor Chronicle,” which he copied and took with him to the Urals and Siberia in 1720. It was this period that Tatishchev later designated as the beginning of his work on Russian history. Here, in the depths of Russia, he “found another chronicle of the same Nestor.” Significant discrepancies with the list Tatishchev had made him think about the need to collect chronicle sources in order to “bring them together.” In modern language - to analyze texts, deducing scientific knowledge about the past with the help of criticism.

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

Ideological basis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Russian History"

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

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

Work on the second edition continued in the 1740s until the death of the author.

At first, Vasily Nikitich intended to give a weather list of various historical news, accurately indicating the chronicle or other source, and then commenting on them. Thus, a kind of “Collection of ancient Russian chroniclers” should have appeared. However, later he began to process and rewrite the chronicle information, creating his own version of the chronicle. In this regard, Tatishchev is often called “the last chronicler,” and not always in a positive sense.

For example, Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov, a major historian and part-time leader of the Kadet Party, which was the most influential liberal political force in pre-revolutionary Russia, argued that Tatishchev created “not history and not even a preliminary scientific development of material for future history, but the same chronicle in the new Tatishchev code.”

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

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

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

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

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

"Tatishchevskie news"

Tatishchev’s refusal to present simply a weather list of chronicles and other news and his creation of his own version of the chronicle corpus gave rise to the problem of the so-called “Tatishchev news.” We are talking about facts and events described by our hero, but absent from the sources that have survived to this day. It is known that Vasily Nikitich’s library with many valuable handwritten materials burned down. And therefore, historians have been arguing for many years about the reliability of individual fragments of Tatishchev’s text.

Monument to V.N. Tatishchev and V.I. de Gennin - the founders of the city - on the oldest square in Ekaterinburg

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

“By a happy accident,” he emphasized, “Tatishchev used precisely those materials that have not survived to our time, and in this regard, his work has incomparably greater advantages as a primary source than the work of Karamzin, almost entirely (with the exception of the Trinity Parchment Chronicle) based on sources preserved in our archives."

Other historians do not believe in “happy accidents”. Tatishchev was also criticized for inventing events Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. The greatest expert on Russian historiography of the 18th century Sergey Leonidovich Peshtich expressed doubt that Tatishchev “had sources that had not reached us.”

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

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

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

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

The fate of the legacy

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

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

The first publisher of Russian History was academician Gerard Friedrich Miller, a tireless worker in the field of Russian history. In the printing house of Moscow University, under his “supervision”, the first three volumes were published in 1768–1774. The fourth volume was published in St. Petersburg in 1784, after Miller’s death. Finally, in 1848, through the efforts of M.P. Pogodin and O.M. Bodyansky’s fifth book “History” was also published.

In Soviet times, in the 1960s, an academic edition of “Russian History” was published, taking into account discrepancies in various editions and with detailed comments from leading scientists. In the 1990s, on its basis, the Ladomir publishing house prepared the collected works of V.N. Tatishchev in eight volumes. Tatishchev's works not only on history, but also on other topics (pedagogy, mining, coin circulation), as well as his letters, were published several times.

People have written and will continue to write about Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev. After all, the importance of his personality and activities is difficult to overestimate - he is a pioneer, a pioneer. Before him, there were practically no people in Russia who had attempted to create historical works on a scientific basis, and therefore he could not rely on the experience of his predecessors.

The best description of Tatishchev’s contribution to Russian historiography was given by another great historian - Sergei Mikhailovich Soloviev:

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

Alexander Samarin, Doctor of Historical Sciences

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

Founder of the Siberian archaeological school: +: A.P. Okladnikov

The organizer and director of the Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences was: +: A.P. Okladnikov

The beginning of the revision of the past during the years of “perestroika” was associated with:

+: works of publicists +: works of writers

The compiler of the first edition of the PVL is considered to be +: Nestor

The compiler of the second edition of the PVL is considered to be: +: Sylvester

In the XYI century it was written:

+: “The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow” A.M. Kurbsky

In the XYI century it was written: +: Facial vault

In the XYI century it was written: +: Degree book

“The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow” A.M. Kurbsky was created in: +: ХYI century.

“Scythian History” by A.I. Lyzlova was created in: +: XYII century.

The first printed (typographical) historical work in Rus' +:Synopsis

L1: “The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow”

R1: A.M. Kurbsky

L2: "Scythian history"

R2: A.I. Lyzlov

L3: "Story…"

R3: Fedor Griboyedov

R4: Nestor

“The Core of Russian History” was created: +: A.I. Mankiev

“The History of Emperor Peter the Great from His Birth to the Battle of Poltava” was created: +: F. Prokopovich

“Discourse on the Causes of the Swean War” was created by: +: P.P. Shafirov

“Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” was created by: +: V.N. Tatishchev

“Ancient Russian History” and “Brief Russian Chronicler” were created by:

+: M.V. Lomonosov

Correspondence between the title of the work and its author:

L1: “The history of Emperor Peter the Great from his birth to the Battle of Poltava”

R1: P.P.Prokopovich

L2: “Russian history from the most ancient times”

R2: V.N. Tatishchev

L3: “Brief Russian Chronicler”

R3: M.V. Lomonosov

L4: “Discourse on the causes of the Sveian War”

R4: P.P. Shafirov

L5: “The Core of Russian History”

R5: A.I. Mankiev

Forefather (father) Russian historical science usually considers:

+: V.N. Tatishcheva

+: A.L. Schletser

In the 18th century A historian of German origin worked in Russia: +: G.Z. Bayer

In the 18th century A historian of German origin worked in Russia: +: G.F. Miller

Attempts to restore the original text of the PVL and transfer scientific methods of criticizing sources to Russia were made by: +: A.L. Schletser

Job “On the Damage to Morals in Russia” belongs to:+: M.M. Shcherbatov

The work of M.M. Shcherbatov “On the damage to morals in Russia” was written in: +: ХYIII century

I.I. Golikov is a representative:

+: merchant (early bourgeois) direction Published by N.I. Novikov’s “Ancient Russian Vivliofika” was:

+: archival historical magazine

: Correspondence between the title of the work and its author:

L1 : "History of Russian Goverment"

R1: N.M. Karamzin

L2: “Brief Russian Chronicler”

R2: M.V. Lomonosov

L3: “Acts of Peter the Great, the wise transformer of Russia”

R3: I.I. Golikov

L4: “On the damage to morals in Russia”

R4: M.M. Shcherbatov

The Decembrists were representatives +: radical educational direction

is our first historian and last chronicler" (A.S. Pushkin)

+: Karamzin

Highly appreciated the work of N.M. Karamzin, the creator of a kind of “Karamziniad”: +: M.P. Pogodin+: second third of the 19th century

The works “The Accession to the Throne of Emperor Nicholas I” and “The Life of Count Speransky” were written: +: M.A. Corfu

+: N.I. Kostomarov

L1: N.M. Karamzin

R1: “History of the Russian State”

L2: N.I. Kostomarov

R2: “Russian history in the biographies of its most important figures"

L3: M.P. Pogodin

R3: “The fight, not to the stomach, but to the death, against new historical heresies”

L4: S.M. Soloviev

R4: “History of Russia since ancient times” in 29 volumes

+: N.K. Schilder

Books on the history of Russian emperors at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. wrote:

+: S.S. Tatishchev

Books on the history of Russian emperors, as well as reference books on the capital’s necropolises, were compiled at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries:

+: Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich (Romanov)

+: N.K. Mikhailovsky

“Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the 19th – 19th centuries.” written by: +: S.F. Platonov

"Essays on the history of Russian culture" - +: P.N. Miliukov

“Russian History Course” was created by:+: V.O. Klyuchevsky

“Methodology of History” written+: A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky

A professional Marxist historian was: +: M.N. Pokrovsky

“Russian History from Ancient Times” and “Russian History in the Most Concise Essay” were written by a Marxist historian +: M.N. Pokrovsky

“Russian history from a sociological point of view” and “Russian history in comparative historical coverage” in 12 volumes are written: +: N.A. Rozhkov

Correspondence

L1: “Russian history course”

R1: V.O. Klyuchevsky

L2: “Russian history in the most condensed outline”

R2: M.N. Pokrovsky

L3: “Essays on the history of Russian culture”

R3: P.N. Miliukov

L4: “Russian history from a sociological point of view”

R4: A.N. Rozhkov

L5: “Essays on the history of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State of the XYI – XYII centuries.”

R5: S.F. Platonov-

Life activities of Russian historians:

1: S.M. Soloviev

2: I.I. Golikov

3: M.T. Kachenovsky

4: V.N. Tatishchev

Chronological sequence

1: A.I. Mankiev

2: A.N. Radishchev

3: N.M. Karamzin

4: M.P. Pogodin

5: A.N. Rozhkov

Chronological sequence

1: P.P. Shafirov

2: M.M. Shcherbatov

3: N.A. Field

4: V.O. Klyuchevsky

5: B.D. Grekov

Chronological sequence

1: F. Prokopovich

2: I.N. Boltin

3: K.A. Aksakov

4: D.I. Ilovaisky

5: B.A. Rybakov

Chronological sequence

1: G.F. Miller

2: K.D. Kavelin

3: A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky

4: A.M. Pankratova

5: Yu.N. Afanasiev

Chronological sequence

1: G.Z. Bayer

2: N.M. Karamzin

3: B.N. Chicherin

4: S.F. Platonov

5: A.A. Zimin

Chronological sequence

1: A.L. Schletser

2: M.T. Kachenovsky

3: N.I. Kostomarov

4: G.V. Plekhanov

5: L.N. Gumilev

Chronological sequence

1: M.V. Lomonosov

2: N.G. Ustryalov

3: N.K. Schilder

4: M.N. Pokrovsky

5: M.V. Nechkina

He left a series of aphorisms on Russian history: +: V.O. Klyuchevsky

A representative of the Moscow historical school, who studied the reforms of Peter I and began preparing a detailed biographical chronicle of Peter the Great:

+: M.M. Theological

Representative of the Moscow historical school, leader of the Cadet Party, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the first Provisional Government: +: P.N. Miliukov

“Revelations of the diplomatic history of the 18th century.” written: +: K. Marx

The work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” was written: +: V.I. Lenin

Promoted Marxism in Russia, polemicized with the populists

+: G.V. Plekhanov

Representative of the Marxist trend in Russia, author of the work “The Russian Worker in the Revolutionary Movement”: +: G.V. Plekhanov

The Chairman of the Socialist (Communist) Academy of Social Sciences was: +: M.N. Pokrovsky

The first rector of the Institute of Red Professorship was +: M.N. Pokrovsky

M.N. Pokrovsky was:

+: Chairman of the Socialist (Communist) Academy of Social Sciences

N.M. Lukin appeared:

+: first director of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences

B.D. GB.D. Grekov wrote:

+: “Kievan Rus” and “Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the mid-XYII century.”

Grekov appeared +: director of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1937-1953

A. Barbusse wrote: +: biography of I.V. Stalin

A.M. Pankratova was:

+: specialist in the history of the proletariat and the history of the workers' revolutionary movement in Russia

P.N. Savitsky (Peter Vostokov) was:

+: representative of the Eurasian trend in foreign Russian historiography

G.V. Vernadsky was:

+: leader and ideologist of the Eurasian trend in foreign Russian historiography

+: L.I. Brezhnev

Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, researcher of archeology, history, oral and written monuments of Ancient Rus' +: B.A. Rybakov

N.N. Pokrovsky and Lev Krasnopevtsev

+: participants in the “university case” of 1957

Rector of the Historical and Archival Institute Yu.N. Afanasiev:

+: most consistently advocated during the years of “perestroika” for a radical renewal of Soviet historical science

According to the PVL, Apostle Andrew:

+: illuminated the Kyiv lands

The idea of ​​uniting Rus' on a contractual basis is typical for: +: Code of 1448

+: Moscow chroniclers

The idea of ​​an all-Russian chronicle was put forward: +: Tver chroniclers

The idea of ​​Rus' being chosen by God was developed in: +:Theories “Moscow–Third Rome”

The thesis about Moscow as the center of true Christianity was developed in:

+: Theories “Moscow – Third Rome”

+: Roman emperors

Historical works of the 16th century. associated Moscow statehood with:

+: Byzantine emperors

“The Message of Monomakh’s Crown” and “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” linked Moscow statehood with: +: Roman emperors

Russian statehood was connected with the world empires of the past:

+: “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir”

He adhered to the Norman theory of the origin of Rus': +: G.Z. Bayer

He adhered to the Norman theory of the origin of Rus': +: A.L. Schletser

He adhered to the Norman theory of the origin of Rus' +: G.F. Miller

He adhered to the anti-Norman theory of the origin of Rus' +: M.V. Lomonosov

The statement that the historian “must appear without a fatherland, without faith, without a sovereign” belongs to: +: G.F. Miller

In the works of I.N. Boltin contains criticism:

+: works by M.M. Shcherbatova+: works by N.G. Leclerc

Theoretical (methodological) issues of historical science in the XYIII century. did: +: I.N. Boltin

The phrase “Moscow owes its greatness to the khans” belongs+ to: N.M. Karamzin

The patriarchal (tribal) theory of social development was developed by:

I.F.G. Evers

The concept of Norman feudalism and family feudalism in the “History of the Russian People” was put forward by: +: N.A. Field

The principle of historicism and the idea of ​​the state as the highest form of social organization were adopted by historians of the 19th century. from philosophy: +: Hegelianism

The theory of official nationality (“Uvarov triad”) included the following component: +: Orthodoxy+: autocracy+: nationality

The exclusivity of the Russian historical path (“the theory of parallel threads”) was defended by: +: M.P. Pogodin

Work by M.P. Pogodin “The fight, not to the stomach, but to death, against new historical heresies” is directed against +: N.I. Kostomarova

He defined his views as a “system of pragmatic Russian history”:

+: N.G. Ustryalov

Peter’s reforms were characterized as a “revolution from above” in “History of Russia since Ancient Times”: +: S.M. Soloviev

+: Ivan the Terrible

For representatives of the public school, one of the most significant figures in Russian history was: +: Peter I

The theory of "enslavement of classes" was developed +: public school

Slavophil thinker who developed philosophical and religious problems and the general scheme of world history, contrasting Orthodoxy and Catholicism: +: A.S. Khomyakov

Representative of the Slavophiles, whose concept is defined as “retrospective utopia” (“retrospective utopianism”): +: I.V. Kireyevsky

A representative of the Slavophiles, who developed the concept of “Land and State”, the idea of ​​​​the non-state character and “inner truth” of the Russian people: +: K.S. Aksakov

The creator of the historical and sociological concept of the Slavophiles, who affirmed the idea of ​​​​the priority of Orthodox Christianity and communal principles:

+: Yu.F. Samarin

The idea of ​​the struggle between the federal (specific veche) and autocratic (monarchical) principles is characteristic of: +: N.I. Kostomarova

Researcher of the national character of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples:

+: N.I. Kostomarov

+: N.G. Chernyshevsky

Attention to the history of the popular masses and popular movements is clearly expressed in the works: +: A.P. Shchapova

Attention to the history of the popular masses and popular movements is clearly expressed in the works: +: A.I. Herzen

+: D.I. Ilovaisky

The history of Russia from a conservative (monarchical) position was covered at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. in the works: +: N.K. Schilder

They developed the theory of progress, the “subjective method”, criticized Marxism: +: representatives of populist historiography

The largest specialist on the history of the Time of Troubles in Russia at the end of the 19th century - beginning of the 19th century. was: +: S.F. Platonov

The largest specialist in the field of historical methodology in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. was: +: A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky

Colonization as the main fact of Russian history was considered + V.O.Klyuchevsky

The first period of Russian history was characterized as “Dnieper, city, trading Rus'”: +: V.O. Klyuchevsky

He defined the Decembrist uprising as “a historical accident, overgrown with literature”: +: V.O. Klyuchevsky

Representative of the Moscow historical school, who developed problems of historical geography and history of the Lithuanian state: +: M.K. Lyubavsky

The thesis about low population density as one of the main reasons for Russia’s backwardness was developed in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture”: +: P.N. Miliukov

The concept of backwardness and the delayed nature of the historical development of Russia in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” was put forward by: +: P.N. Miliukov

The thesis about the lack of independence of Russian culture and the large role in its development of foreign borrowings in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” was defended by: +: P.N. Miliukov

Representative of the Moscow historical school, who created the “theory of mental types” and attached great importance to psychological factors in history:

+: N.A. Rozhkov

The theory of socio-economic formations and class struggle as the driving force of history was developed: +: Marxism

In his work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” he identified four conditions for the existence of a feudal (corvee) economic system: +: V.I. Lenin

He defined the new period of Russian history (from about the 19th century) as the process of creating bourgeois connections: +: V.I. Lenin

He distinguished three periods in the history of the revolutionary liberation movement in Russia: +: V.I. Lenin

The idea of ​​merchant capitalism as the most important engine of the Russian historical process is characteristic of the concept: +: M.N. Pokrovsky

The state of the first Romanovs was defined as “merchant capital in a monomach cap” +: M.N. Pokrovsky

He considered the unification of Rus' around Moscow to be a matter of “impending commercial capitalism”: +: M.N. Pokrovsky

He considered the annexation of new peoples and territories to Russia as “absolute evil”:+: M.N. Pokrovsky

The phrase: “History is politics thrown back into the past” reflects the position:

+: M.N. Pokrovsky

The focus of Russian Marxist historiography of the 20s. there were problems: +: socio-economic history

The focus of Russian Marxist historiography of the 20s. there were problems: +: class struggle

The term “patriotic war” (1812) was rejected by Russian historiography as nationalistic in: +: 1920s

A nihilistic assessment of pre-revolutionary Russian history prevailed in Russia: +: 1920s

Kievan Rus was characterized as a slave state

+: I.I. Smirnov

Feudalism and serfdom as two different formations +: S.M. Dubrovsky

“Nationalization” and “denationalization” trends in Soviet historiography of the 20s. concerned the interpretation: +: history of imperialism

The theory of the dual (dual) nature of the October Revolution was developed by:

+: S.A. Piontkovsky

In a letter to I.V. The editorial board of the magazine “Proletarian Revolution” contains criticism of Stalin +: A.G. Slutsky

The idea of ​​the victorious path of development of the party and the irreconcilable struggle within social democracy is clearly expressed in:

+: “A short course on the history of the CPSU (b)”

Collections “Against the historical concept of M.N. Pokrovsky" and "Against the anti-Marxist concept of M.N. Pokrovsky" came out +: late 1930s

Books “Kievan Rus” and “Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the middle of the 19th century.” written: +: B.D. Grekov

The thesis about the feudal nature of Ancient Rus' was most consistently defended in the 1920s - 1930s. +: B.D. Grekov

Specialist in the history of the proletariat and the history of the workers' revolutionary movement in Russia: +: A.M. Pankratova

Creator of the original theory of ethnogenesis, which takes into account the role of cosmic energy, the Earth's biosphere, and passionarity when studying ethnic history +: L.N. Gumilev

During the years of “perestroika” he most consistently advocated for a radical renewal of Soviet historical science: +: Yu.N. Afanasiev

The concept of “phenomenon of Soviet historiography” was introduced into scientific circulation:

+: Yu.N. Afanasyev

The annexation of new territories and Asian peoples to Russia as “voluntary entry” was interpreted in Russian historiography in:

+: 1970-1980s

Filling in the “blank spots” in history is typical for:

+: perestroika period

The state of methodological pluralism is typical in Russian historiography for: +: present tense