Lectures on Russian history. Sergei Platonov - a complete course of lectures on Russian history. About the book “Lectures on Russian History” by S. F. Platonov

INTRODUCTION

Introduction (concise presentation)

History existed in ancient times, although at that time it was not considered a science. An acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example, will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way when they classified history as an area of art. By history they understood an artistic account of memorable events and persons. The task of the historian was to convey to listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure, a number of moral edifications. Art also pursued the same goals.

With such a view of history as to an artistic story about memorable events, ancient historians also adhered to the corresponding methods of presentation. In their narration they strived for truth and accuracy, but they did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); he believes in some, because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, even without believing in them, he includes in his story, because they seduce him with their artistic interest. Not only that, but the ancient historian, true to his artistic goals, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we do not doubt, puts into the mouths of his heroes speeches composed by himself, but he considers himself right due to the fact that he correctly conveys in a fictitious form the actual intentions and thoughts of historical persons.

Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history was to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and entertainment, not to mention other conditions that prevented historians from successfully distinguishing truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate knowledge already in ancient times required the historian pragmatism. Already in Herodotus we see a manifestation of this pragmatism, that is, the desire to connect facts with a causal connection, not only to tell them, but also to explain their origin from the past.

So, at first, history is determined, as an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and persons.

Views of history that demanded from it, in addition to artistic impressions, practical applicability, also go back to ancient times. Even the ancients said that history is a teacher of life(magistra vitae). Historians were expected to provide an account of the past life of mankind that would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future, and would serve as a practical guide for public figures and a moral school for other people. This view of history held in full force in the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he directly brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other, he turned history into a “tablet of revelations and rules” of a practical nature. One writer of the 17th century. (De Rocoles) said that “history fulfills the duties inherent in moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect can be preferable to it, since, giving the same rules, it also adds examples to them.” On the first page of Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” you will find an expression of the idea that history must be known in order “to establish order, to reconcile the benefits of people and to give them the happiness possible on earth.”

With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new definitions of historical science began to emerge. In an effort to explain the essence and meaning of human life, thinkers turned to the study of history either in order to find in it a solution to their problem, or in order to confirm their abstract constructions with historical data. In accordance with various philosophical systems, the goals and meaning of history itself were determined in one way or another. Here are some of these definitions: Bossuet (1627–1704) and Laurent (1810–1887) understood history as a depiction of those world events in which the ways of Providence, guiding human life for its own purposes, were expressed with particular vividness. The Italian Vico (1668–1744) considered the task of history as a science to be the depiction of those identical conditions that all peoples are destined to experience. The famous philosopher Hegel (1770–1831) saw in history an image of the process by which the “absolute spirit” achieved its self-knowledge (Hegel explained the entire world life as the development of this “absolute spirit”). It would not be a mistake to say that all these philosophies demand essentially the same thing from history: history should depict not all the facts of the past life of mankind, but only the main ones, revealing its general meaning.

This view was a step forward in the development of historical thought - a simple story about the past in general, or a random set of facts from different times and places to prove an edifying thought was no longer satisfactory. There was a desire to unite the presentation with a guiding idea, to systematize historical material. However, philosophical history is rightly reproached for taking the guiding ideas of historical presentation outside of history and systematizing facts arbitrarily. As a result, history did not become an independent science, but became a servant of philosophy.

History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when idealism developed from Germany, in contrast to French rationalism: in contrast to French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, national antiquity was actively studied, and the conviction began to dominate that the life of human societies occurs naturally, in such a natural order. sequence, which cannot be broken or changed either by chance or by the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main interest in history began to be the study not of random external phenomena and not the activities of outstanding personalities, but the study public life at different stages of its development. History began to be understood as science of laws historical life human societies.

This definition has been formulated differently by historians and thinkers. The famous Guizot (1787–1874), for example, understood history as the doctrine of world and national civilization (understanding civilization in the sense of the development of civil society). The philosopher Schelling (1775–1854) considered national history a means of understanding the “national spirit.” From here arose the widespread definition of history as path to national self-awareness. Further attempts arose to understand history as a science that should reveal the general laws of the development of social life without applying them to a certain place, time and people. But these attempts, in essence, assigned to history the tasks of another science - sociology. History is a science that studies specific facts in the conditions of time and place, and its main goal is the systematic depiction of the development and changes in the life of individual historical societies and all of humanity.

Such a task requires a lot to be successfully completed. In order to give a scientifically accurate and artistically integral picture of any era of national life or the complete history of a people, it is necessary: 1) to collect historical materials, 2) to investigate their reliability, 3) to accurately restore individual historical facts, 4) to indicate between them pragmatic connection and 5) reduce them into a general scientific overview or into an artistic picture. The ways in which historians achieve these particular goals are called scientific critical techniques. These techniques are being improved with the development of historical science, but so far neither these techniques nor the science of history itself have reached their full development. Historians have not yet collected and studied all the material subject to their knowledge, and this gives reason to say that history is a science that has not yet achieved the results that other, more accurate sciences have achieved. And, however, no one denies that history is a science with a broad future.

Since the study of the facts of world history began to be approached with the consciousness that human life develops naturally and is subject to eternal and unchanging relationships and rules, since then the ideal of the historian has been the disclosure of these constant laws and relationships. Behind the simple analysis of historical phenomena, which aimed to indicate their causal sequence, a broader field opened up - historical synthesis, which has the goal of recreating the general course of world history as a whole, indicating in its course such laws of the sequence of development that would be justified not only in the past, but also in the future of humanity.

This broad ideal cannot directly guide Russian historian. He studies only one fact of world historical life - the life of his nationality. The state of Russian historiography is still such that sometimes it imposes on the Russian historian the obligation to simply collect facts and give them an initial scientific treatment. And only where the facts have already been collected and illuminated can we rise to certain historical generalizations, we can notice the general course of this or that historical process, we can even, on the basis of a number of particular generalizations, make a bold attempt - to give a schematic representation of the sequence in which the main facts of our historical life. But the Russian historian cannot go further than such a general scheme without leaving the boundaries of his science. In order to understand the essence and significance of this or that fact in the history of Rus', he can look for analogies in universal history; With the results obtained, he can serve the general historian and lay his own stone in the foundation of a general historical synthesis. But this is where his connection with general history and influence on it is limited. The ultimate goal of Russian historiography always remains the construction of a system of local historical process.

The construction of this system also resolves another, more practical task that lies with the Russian historian. There is an old belief that national history is the path to national self-awareness. Indeed, knowledge of the past helps to understand the present and explains the tasks of the future. A people familiar with their history lives consciously, is sensitive to the reality around them and knows how to understand it. The task, in this case one might say, the duty of national historiography is to show society its past in its true light. At the same time, there is no need to introduce any preconceived points of view into historiography; a subjective idea is not a scientific idea, and only scientific work can be useful to public self-consciousness. Remaining in the strictly scientific sphere, highlighting those dominant principles of social life that characterized the various stages of Russian historical life, the researcher will reveal to society the most important moments of its historical existence and thereby achieve his goal. He will give society reasonable knowledge, and the application of this knowledge no longer depends on him.

Thus, both abstract considerations and practical goals pose the same task to Russian historical science - a systematic depiction of Russian historical life, a general diagram of the historical process that led our nationality to its present state.

Essay on Russian historiography

When did the systematic depiction of the events of Russian historical life begin and when did Russian history become a science? Even in Kievan Rus, along with the emergence of citizenship, in the 11th century. Our first chronicles appeared. These were lists of facts, important and unimportant, historical and non-historical, interspersed with literary legends. From our point of view, the most ancient chronicles do not represent historical work; not to mention the content - and the chronicler’s very techniques do not meet modern requirements. The beginnings of historiography appeared in our country in the 16th century, when historical legends and chronicles began to be collated and brought together into one whole for the first time. In the 16th century Moscow Rus' took shape and was formed. Having united into a single body, under the authority of a single Moscow prince, the Russians tried to explain to themselves their origins, their political ideas, and their relationship to the states around them.

And so in 1512 (apparently by Elder Philotheus) it was compiled chronograph, i.e., a review of world history. Most of it contained translations from Greek, and Russian and Slavic historical legends were added only as additions. This chronograph is brief, but provides a sufficient supply of historical information; After it, completely Russian chronographs appear, representing a reworking of the first. Together with them they arise in the 16th century. chronicle collections compiled from ancient chronicles, but representing not collections of mechanically compared facts, but works connected by one common idea. The first such work was "Degree book" which received this name because it was divided into “generations” or “degrees”, as they were then called. She conveyed in a chronological, sequential, i.e., “gradual” order the activities of Russian metropolitans and princes, starting with Rurik. Metropolitan Cyprian was mistakenly considered the author of this book; it was processed by Metropolitan Macarius and his successor Athanasius under Ivan the Terrible, i.e. in the 16th century. The basis of the “Degree Book” is a tendency, both general and specific. The common feature is seen in the desire to show that the power of the Moscow princes is not accidental, but successive, on the one hand, from the southern Russian, Kyiv princes, on the other, from the Byzantine kings. A particular tendency is reflected in the respect with which spiritual authority is invariably narrated. “The Degree Book” can be called a historical work due to the well-known system of presentation. At the beginning of the 16th century. another historical work was compiled - "Resurrection Chronicle" more interesting due to the abundance of material. It was based on all the previous chronicles, the “Sofia Temporary” and others, so there are indeed a lot of facts in this chronicle, but they are held together purely mechanically. Nevertheless, the “Resurrection Chronicle” seems to us the most valuable historical work of all, contemporary or earlier, since it was compiled without any tendency and contains a lot of information that we do not find anywhere else. Due to its simplicity, it might not have been liked, the artlessness of the presentation might have seemed poor to connoisseurs of rhetorical devices, and so it was subjected to revision and additions and, by the middle of the 16th century, a new set was compiled, called "Nikon Chronicle". In this collection we see a lot of information borrowed from Greek chronographs on the history of Greek and Slavic countries, while the chronicle about Russian events, especially about later centuries, although detailed, is not entirely reliable - the accuracy of the presentation suffered from literary processing: correcting the ingenuous the style of previous chronicles, unwittingly distorted the meaning of some events.

In 1674, the first textbook of Russian history appeared in Kyiv - "Synopsis" by Innocent Gisel, very widespread in the era of Peter the Great (it is often found now). If, next to all these revisions of chronicles, we remember a number of literary tales about individual historical facts and eras (for example, the Legend of Prince Kurbsky, the story of the Time of Troubles), then we will embrace the entire stock of historical works with which Rus' lived until the era of Peter the Great, before the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Peter was very concerned about compiling the history of Russia and entrusted this task to various persons. But only after his death did the scientific development of historical material begin, and the first figures in this field were learned Germans, members of the St. Petersburg Academy; Of these, first of all we should mention Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer(1694–1738). He began by studying the tribes that inhabited Russia in ancient times, especially the Varangians, but did not go further than that. Bayer left behind many works, of which two rather major works were written in Latin and now no longer have much significance for the history of Russia - this "Northern Geography" And "Research on the Varangians"(they were translated into Russian only in 1767). The work was much more fruitful Gerard Friedrich Miller(1705–1783), who lived in Russia under Empresses Anna, Elizabeth and Catherine II and was already so fluent in Russian that he wrote his works in Russian. He traveled a lot around Russia (he lived for 10 years, from 1733 to 1743, in Siberia) and studied it well. In the literary historical field he acted as the publisher of a Russian magazine "Monthly Essays"(1755–1765) and a collection in German “Sammlung Russischer Gescihchte”. Miller's main merit was collecting materials on Russian history; his manuscripts (the so-called Miller portfolios) served and continue to serve as a rich source for publishers and researchers. And Miller’s research was important - he was one of the first scientists who became interested in the later eras of our history, his works are dedicated to them: “Experience modern history Russia" and "News about Russian nobles". Finally, he was the first scientific archivist in Russia and put in order the Moscow archive of the Foreign Collegium, the director of which he died (1783). Among the academicians of the 18th century. took a prominent place in his works on Russian history Lomonosov, who wrote an educational book on Russian history and one volume of “Ancient Russian History” (1766). His works on history were due to polemics with German academicians. The latter separated Varangian Rus' from the Normans and attributed the origin of citizenship in Rus', which before the arrival of the Varangians was a wild country, to Norman influence; Lomonosov recognized the Varangians as Slavs and thus considered Russian culture to be original.

The named academicians, collecting materials and studying individual issues of our history, did not have time to give a general overview of it, the need for which was felt by Russian educated people. Attempts to provide such an overview have emerged outside the academic environment.

The first attempt belongs to V. N. Tatishchev(1686–1750). While dealing with geographic issues proper, he saw that it was impossible to resolve them without knowledge of history, and, being a comprehensively educated person, he began to collect information on Russian history himself and began compiling it. For many years he wrote his historical work, revised it more than once, but only after his death, in 1768, did its publication begin. Within 6 years, 4 volumes were published, the 5th volume was accidentally found in our century and published by the Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. In these 5 volumes, Tatishchev brought his story to troubled era XVII century In the first volume we get acquainted with the author’s own views on Russian history and with the sources he used in compiling it; we find a whole series of scientific sketches about ancient peoples - the Varangians, Slavs, etc. Tatishchev often resorted to the works of others; so, for example, he used Bayer’s study “On the Varangians” and directly included it in his work. This story is now, of course, outdated, but it has not lost its scientific significance, since (in the 18th century) Tatishchev had sources that now do not exist, and therefore, many of the facts he cited can no longer be restored. This aroused suspicion as to whether some of the sources he referred to existed, and Tatishchev began to be accused of dishonesty. They especially did not trust the “Joachim Chronicle” he cited. However, a study of this chronicle showed that Tatishchev simply failed to treat it critically and included it entirely, with all its fables, in his history. Strictly speaking, Tatishchev’s work is nothing more than a detailed collection of chronicle data presented in chronological order; His heavy language and lack of literary treatment made him uninteresting to his contemporaries.

The first popular book on Russian history was written by Catherine II, but her work "Notes on Russian history" brought to the end of the 13th century, it has no scientific significance and is interesting only as the first attempt to tell society its past in easy language. Much more important scientifically was the Prince’s “Russian History” M. Shcherbatova(1733–1790), which Karamzin later used. Shcherbatov was not a man of a strong philosophical mind, but he had read a lot about educational literature. literature XVIII V. and formed entirely under her influence, which was reflected in his work, into which many preconceived thoughts were introduced. He did not have time to understand historical information to such an extent that he sometimes forced his heroes to die twice. But, despite such major shortcomings, the history of Shcherbatov has scientific significance due to many applications containing historical documents. Diplomatic papers from the 16th and 17th centuries are especially interesting. His work was brought to a troubled era.

It happened that under Catherine II a certain Frenchman Leclerc, completely ignorant of the Russian political system, the people, or their way of life, he wrote the insignificant “L"histoire de la Russie,” and there were so many slander in it that it aroused general indignation. I. N. Boltin(1735–1792), a lover of Russian history, compiled a series of notes in which he discovered Leclerc’s ignorance and published them in two volumes. In them, he partly hurt Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov was offended and wrote Objection. Boltin responded with printed letters and began criticizing Shcherbatov’s “History.” Boltin's works, which reveal his historical talent, are interesting due to the novelty of his views. Boltin is sometimes not entirely accurately called “the first Slavophile,” because he noted many dark sides in the blind imitation of the West, an imitation that became noticeable in our country after Peter, and wanted Russia to more closely preserve the good principles of the last century. Boltin himself is interesting as a historical phenomenon. It served as the best proof that in the 18th century. in society, even among non-history specialists, there was a keen interest in the past of their homeland. Boltin shared his views and interests N. I. Novikov(1744–1818), a famous advocate of Russian education, who collected “Ancient Russian Vivliofika” (20 volumes), an extensive collection of historical documents and research (1788–1791). At the same time, the merchant Golikov (1735–1801) acted as a collector of historical materials, publishing a collection of historical data about Peter the Great entitled "Acts of Peter the Great"(1st ed. 1788–1790, 2nd 1837). Thus, along with attempts to give a general history of Russia, there also arises the desire to prepare materials for such a history. In addition to the private initiative, the Academy of Sciences itself is working in this direction, publishing chronicles for general information.

But in all that we have listed, there was still little scientificity in our sense: there were no strict critical techniques, not to mention the absence of integral historical ideas.

For the first time, a number of scientific and critical techniques were introduced into the study of Russian history by a foreign scientist Schletser(1735–1809). Having become acquainted with the Russian chronicles, he was delighted with them: he had never seen such a wealth of information or such poetic language among any people. Having already left Russia and being a professor at the University of Göttingen, he worked tirelessly on those extracts from the chronicles that he managed to take out of Russia. The result of this work was the famous work published under the title "Nestor"(1805 in German, 1809–1819 in Russian). This is a whole series of historical sketches about the Russian chronicle. In the preface the author gives brief overview what has been done on Russian history. He finds the state of science in Russia sad, treats Russian historians with disdain, and considers his book almost the only valid work on Russian history. And indeed, his work far left behind all others in terms of the degree of scientific consciousness and techniques of the author. These techniques created in our country a kind of school of Schletser’s students, the first scientific researchers, like M.P. Pogodin. After Schletser, rigorous historical research became possible in our country, for which, however, favorable conditions were created in another environment, headed by Miller. Among the people he collected in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium, Stritter, Malinovsky, and Bantysh-Kamensky were especially outstanding. They created the first school of learned archivists, by whom the Archive was put in complete order and who, in addition to the external grouping of archival material, carried out a number of serious scientific research on the basis of this material. Thus, little by little, the conditions matured that created the possibility of a serious history in our country.

At the beginning of the 19th century. finally, the first complete look at the Russian historical past was created in the famous “History of the Russian State” N. M. Karamzina(1766–1826). Possessing an integral worldview, literary talent and the techniques of a good scholarly critic, Karamzin saw one most important process in the entire Russian historical life - the creation of national state power. A number of talented figures led Rus' to this power, of which the two main ones - Ivan III and Peter the Great - with their activities marked transitional moments in our history and stood at the boundaries of its main eras - ancient (before Ivan III), middle (before Peter the Great) and new (until the beginning of the 19th century). Karamzin presented his system of Russian history in a language that was fascinating for his time, and he based his story on numerous studies, which to this day retain his History of important scientific significance.

But the one-sidedness of Karamzin’s main view, which limited the historian’s task to depicting only the destinies of the state, and not society with its culture, legal and economic relations, was soon noticed by his contemporaries. Journalist of the 30s of the XIX century. N. A. Polevoy(1796–1846) reproached him for the fact that, having called his work “The History of the Russian State,” he ignored the “History of the Russian People.” It was with these words that Polevoy entitled his work, in which he thought to depict the fate of Russian society. He replaced Karamzin’s system with his own system, but it was not entirely successful, since he was an amateur in the field of historical knowledge. Fascinated by the historical works of the West, he tried to purely mechanically apply their conclusions and terms to Russian facts, for example, to find the feudal system in ancient Rus'. This explains the weakness of his attempt; it is clear that Polevoy’s work could not replace Karamzin’s work: it did not have a coherent system at all.

The St. Petersburg professor spoke out against Karamzin less sharply and with more caution. Ustryalov(1805–1870), who wrote in 1836 "Discourse on the system of pragmatic Russian history." He demanded that history be a picture of gradual development public life, depicting the transitions of citizenship from one state to another. But he also still believes in the power of the individual in history and, along with the depiction of people’s life, he also demands biographies of its heroes. Ustryalov himself, however, refused to give a definite general point of view on our history and noted that the time for this had not yet come.

Thus, dissatisfaction with Karamzin’s work, which was felt both in the scientific world and in society, did not correct the Karamzin system and did not replace it with another. Above the phenomena of Russian history, as their connecting principle, Karamzin’s artistic picture remained and no scientific system was created. Ustryalov was right when he said that the time had not yet come for such a system. The best professors of Russian history who lived in an era close to Karamzin, Pogodin And Kachenovsky(1775–1842), were still far from one common point of view; the latter took shape only when educated circles in our society began to take an active interest in Russian history. Pogodin and Kachenovsky were brought up on the learned methods of Schletser and under his influence, which had a particularly strong effect on Pogodin. Pogodin in many ways continued Schletser’s research and, studying the most ancient periods of our history, did not go beyond particular conclusions and minor generalizations, with which, however, he was sometimes able to captivate his listeners, who were not accustomed to a strictly scientific and independent presentation of the subject. Kachenovsky took up Russian history when he had already acquired a lot of knowledge and experience in other branches of historical knowledge. Following the development of classical history in the West, which at that time was brought to a new path of research by Niebuhr, Kachenovsky was carried away by the denial with which they began to treat the most ancient data on the history of, for example, Rome. Kachenovsky transferred this denial to Russian history: he considered all information relating to the first centuries of Russian history unreliable; reliable facts, in his opinion, began only from the time written documents of civil life appeared in our country. Kachenovsky's skepticism had followers: under his influence the so-called skeptical school, not rich in conclusions, but strong in a new, skeptical approach to scientific material. This school owned several articles compiled under the leadership of Kachenovsky. With the undoubted talent of Pogodin and Kachenovsky, both of them developed, although large, but specific issues of Russian history; Both of them were strong in critical methods, but neither one nor the other rose to the level of a sensible historical worldview: while giving a method, they did not give results that could be reached with the help of this method.

Only in the 30s of the 19th century did Russian society develop an integral historical worldview, but it developed not on a scientific, but on a metaphysical basis. In the first half of the 19th century. Russian educated people turned with greater and greater interest to history, both domestic and Western European. Foreign campaigns 1813–1814 introduced our youth to the philosophy and political life of Western Europe. The study of the life and ideas of the West gave rise, on the one hand, to the political movement of the Decembrists, and on the other, to a circle of people who were interested in more abstract philosophy than politics. This circle grew entirely on the basis of German metaphysical philosophy at the beginning of our century. This philosophy was distinguished by the harmony of its logical constructions and the optimism of its conclusions. In German metaphysics, as in German romanticism, there was a protest against the dry rationalism of French philosophy of the 18th century. Germany contrasted the revolutionary cosmopolitanism of France with the beginning of nationality and revealed it in the attractive images of folk poetry and in a number of metaphysical systems. These systems became known to educated Russian people and fascinated them. Russian educated people saw a whole revelation in German philosophy. Germany was for them “the Jerusalem of modern humanity,” as Belinsky called it. The study of the most important metaphysical systems of Schelling and Hegel united several talented representatives of Russian society into a close circle and forced them to turn to the study of their (Russian) national past. The result of this study were two completely opposite systems of Russian history, built on the same metaphysical basis. In Germany at this time the dominant philosophical systems were those of Schelling and Hegel. According to Schelling, every historical people must realize some absolute idea of goodness, truth, beauty. Revealing this idea to the world is the historical calling of the people. By fulfilling it, the people take a step forward in the field of world civilization; having performed it, he leaves the historical stage. Those peoples whose existence is not inspired by the idea of the unconditional are non-historical peoples; they are condemned to spiritual slavery to other nations. Hegel also gives the same division of peoples into historical and non-historical, but he, developing almost the same principle, went even further. He gave big picture world progress. All world life, according to Hegel, was the development of the absolute spirit, which strives for self-knowledge in the history of various peoples, but finally achieves it in the German-Roman civilization. The cultural peoples of the Ancient East, the ancient world and Romanesque Europe were placed by Hegel in a certain order, which represented a ladder along which the world spirit ascended. At the top of this ladder stood the Germans, and to them Hegel prophesied eternal world supremacy. There were no Slavs on this staircase at all. He considered them to be an unhistorical race and thus condemned them to spiritual slavery to German civilization. Thus, Schelling demanded for his people only world citizenship, and Hegel - world supremacy. But, despite such a difference in views, both philosophers equally influenced Russian minds in the sense that they aroused the desire to look back at Russian historical life, to find that absolute idea that was revealed in Russian life, to determine the place and purpose of the Russian people in the course of world progress. And it was here, in the application of the principles of German metaphysics to Russian reality, that the Russian people diverged among themselves. Some of them, Westerners, believed that the German-Protestant civilization was last word world progress. For them, ancient Rus', which did not know Western, German civilization and did not have its own, was an ahistorical country, devoid of progress, condemned to eternal stagnation, an “Asian” country, as Belinsky called it (in an article about Kotoshikhin). Peter brought her out of centuries-old Asian inertia, who, having introduced Russia to German civilization, created for her the possibility of progress and history. In all of Russian history, therefore, only the era of Peter the Great can have historical significance. She is the main point in Russian life; it separates Asian Rus' from European Rus'. Before Peter there was complete desert, complete nothingness; there is no meaning in ancient Russian history, since ancient Rus' does not have its own culture.

Lectures on Russian history S. F. Platonov

(No ratings yet)

Title: Lectures on Russian history

About the book “Lectures on Russian History” by S. F. Platonov

S.F. Platonov is a Russian historian, member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, author of many works on history. He worked as a teacher at many prestigious universities. For a long time he headed the Women's Pedagogical Institute. He was active and led a number of movements. He was famous at the royal court. An entry about professors was discovered in the diary of Nicholas II. They also contained a note about S.F. Platonov. One of the professor’s most famous works is “Lectures on Russian History.” 100 years after it was written, the work remains relevant. The author constantly made adjustments to it, supplementing it with facts that he could find in earlier works of historians.

S.F. Platonov in his book “Lectures on Russian History” described Russian history, relying on various sources. This is the tenth edition, revised and corrected. The main material was taken from a work printed at the Senate Printing House. The book is written in a fairly easy, accessible form, so it will be of interest to many. Thanks to this work, you can plunge into history from ancient times. The author described events up to the reign of Alexander III, so the work is recommended for reading to a wide range of readers.

The book “Lectures on Russian History” will introduce you to a number of events that took place in Russian history. The author describes them impartially; some may think that the facts are presented rather dryly, lacking the beauty of the style. However, this is the main feature of this work. S. Platonov does not make any judgments about this or that event, he simply sets out the events of past days. This book contains only facts that will help you understand how the history of the Russian people developed. During the course of the story, you can find many significant dates, get acquainted with the kings and dynasties that ruled the empire for centuries. The reader will learn how the Russian state took shape, what personalities influenced the outcome of important events. The author does not make assumptions, he appeals with facts, which is why his work is valuable even now. It is supplemented with information, but in essence remains virtually unchanged.

S.F. Platonov created a real masterpiece that is still relevant today. The book “Lectures on Russian History” will be of interest to schoolchildren, students, and history teachers. In it you can find a huge amount of information that was not distorted under pressure from the authorities.

On our website about books lifeinbooks.net you can download for free without registration or read online book“Lectures on Russian history” by S. F. Platonov in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot of pleasant moments and real pleasure from reading. You can buy the full version from our partner. Also, here you will find the latest news from the literary world, learn the biography of your favorite authors. For beginning writers there is a separate section with useful tips and recommendations, interesting articles, thanks to which you yourself can try your hand at literary crafts.

In particular, in the eighth edition, the revision affected mainly those parts of the book that are devoted to the history of the Moscow principality in the 14th-15th centuries. and the history of the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II. To strengthen the factual side of the presentation in these parts of the course, I used some excerpts from my “Textbook of Russian History” with appropriate changes to the text, just as in previous editions insertions were made from the same in the section on the history of Kievan Rus before the 12th century. In addition, in the eighth edition the characteristics of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich were re-stated. The ninth edition has made the necessary, generally minor, corrections. The text has been revised for the tenth edition.

Nevertheless, even in its present form, the Lectures are still far from the desired correctness. Live teaching and scientific work have a continuous influence on the lecturer, changing not only the details, but sometimes the very type of his presentation. In the "Lectures" you can see only the factual material on which the author's courses are usually based. Of course, there are still some oversights and errors in the printed transmission of this material; Likewise, the structure of presentation in the “Lectures” quite often does not correspond to the structure of oral presentation that I have adhered to in recent years.

It is only with these reservations that I decide to publish this edition of the Lectures.

These “Lectures” owe their first appearance in print to the energy and work of my students at the Military Law Academy, I. A. Blinov and R. R. von Raupach. They collected and put in order all those “lithographed notes” that were published by students in different years of my teaching. Although some parts of these “notes” were compiled from the texts I submitted, however, in general, the first editions of the “Lectures” were not distinguished by either internal integrity or external decoration, representing a collection of educational notes of different times and different quality. Through the works of I. A. Blinov, the fourth edition of the Lectures acquired a much more serviceable appearance, and for the next editions the text of the Lectures was revised by me personally. CONTENTS Historicity of the heritage of S.F. Platonov - a short historical and biographical essay Introduction (concise presentation) Essay on Russian historiography Review of sources of Russian history PART ONE Preliminary historical information The most ancient history of our country Russian Slavs and their neighbors The original life of the Russian Slavs Kievan Rus The formation of the Principality of Kiev General remarks about the first times of the Principality of Kiev Baptism Rus' Consequences of the adoption of Christianity by Russia Kievan Rus in the 11th-12th centuries Colonization of Suzdal-Vladimir Rus' The influence of Tatar power on appanage Rus' Appanage life of Suzdal-Vladimir Rus' Novgorod Pskov Lithuania Moscow principality until the middle of the 15th century The time of Grand Duke Ivan III PART TWO The time of Ivan the Terrible Moscow state before the Troubles Political contradiction in Moscow life of the 16th century Social contradiction in Moscow life of the 16th century Troubles in the Moscow state The first period of the Troubles: the struggle for the Moscow throne The second period of the Troubles: the destruction of state order The third period of the Troubles: an attempt to restore order The election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom The time of Tsar Michael (1613-1645) The time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) The internal activities of the government of Alexei Mikhailovich Church affairs under Alexei Mikhailovich The cultural turning point under Alexei Mikhailovich The personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich The main moments in the history of Southern and Western Rus' in the 16th-17th centuries The time of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682) PART THREE Views of science and Russian society on Peter the Great The situation of Moscow politics and life at the end of the 17th century The time of Peter the Great Childhood and adolescence of Peter (1672-1689) Years 1689-1699 Foreign policy of Peter since 1700 Internal activities of Peter since 1700 The attitude of contemporaries to the activities of Peter Family relationships Peter The historical significance of Peter's activities The time from the death of Peter the Great to the accession to the throne of Elizabeth (1725-1741) Palace events from 1725 to 1741 Administration and politics from 1725 to 1741 The time of Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761) Administration and politics of the time of Elizabeth Peter III and the coup of 1762 The time of Catherine II (1762-1796) The legislative activity of Catherine II The foreign policy of Catherine II The historical significance of the activities of Catherine II The time of Paul I (1796-1801) The time of Alexander I (1801-1825) The time of Nicholas I (1825-1855) Brief overview of the time of Emperor Alexander II and the great reforms

PLATONOV S.

Introduction (concise presentation)

It would be appropriate to begin our studies of Russian history by defining
what exactly should be understood by the words historical knowledge, historical
science. Having understood how history is understood in general, we will understand that we
should be understood as the history of one particular people, and consciously
Let's start studying Russian history.
History existed in ancient times, although it was not considered then
science. Acquaintance with ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, for example,
will show you that the Greeks were right in their own way in relating history to the field
arts By history they understood an artistic story about memorable
events and persons. The task of the historian was to convey
listeners and readers, along with aesthetic pleasure and a number of moral
edification. Art also pursued the same goals.
With this view of history, as an artistic story about
memorable events, ancient historians adhered to the corresponding techniques
presentation. In their narration they strived for truth and accuracy, but
They did not have a strict objective measure of truth. The deeply truthful
Herodotus, for example, has many fables (about Egypt, about the Scythians, etc.); in some he
believes because he does not know the limits of the natural, while others, even not believing in
them, includes them in his story, because they seduce him with their
artistic interest. Not only this, the ancient historian, faithful to his
artistic tasks, considered it possible to decorate the narrative with conscious
fiction. Thucydides, whose veracity we have no doubt about, puts into his mouth
his heroes speeches composed by himself, but he considers himself right due to
that which faithfully conveys in fictitious form real intentions and
thoughts of historical figures.
Thus, the desire for accuracy and truth in history was before
to some extent limited by the desire for artistry and
entertainment, not to mention other conditions that prevented historians from
successfully distinguish truth from fable. Despite this, the desire for accurate
knowledge already in ancient times requires pragmatism from the historian. Already at Herodotus we
We are seeing a manifestation of this pragmatism, i.e. desire to connect facts
causal connection, not only to tell them, but also to explain them from the past
origin.
So, at first, history is defined as
an artistic and pragmatic story about memorable events and persons.
Such views on history also go back to ancient times,
which required from her, in addition to artistic impressions, practical
applicability. The ancients said that history is the teacher of life
(magistra vitae). This kind of account of past life was expected from historians
humanity, which would explain the events of the present and the tasks of the future,
would serve as a practical guide for public figures and
a moral school for other people. This view of history in full force
lasted through the Middle Ages and has survived to our times; on the one hand, he is straight
brought history closer to moral philosophy, on the other hand, turned history into
"tablet of revelations and rules" of a practical nature. One writer XVII
V. (De Rocoles) said that “history fulfills the duties inherent in
moral philosophy, and even in a certain respect may be preferred to it,
since, giving the same rules, she also adds examples to them." On
on the first page of Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State”
expression of the idea that history must be known in order “to establish
order, to reconcile the benefits of people and give them the happiness possible on earth."
With the development of Western European philosophical thought, new
definitions of historical science. Trying to explain the essence and meaning of life
humanity, thinkers turned to the study of history or in order to find in
her solution to her problem, or in order to confirm with historical data
their abstract constructions. According to various philosophical systems,
One way or another, the goals and meaning of the story itself were determined. Here are some of
similar definitions: Bossuet [correctly - Bossuet. -- Ed.] (1627--1704) and
Laurent (1810-1887) understood history as a depiction of those world events in
which with particular brightness expressed the ways of Providence, guiding
human life for their own purposes. Italian Vico (1668--1744) task
history, as a science, considered the depiction of those identical states that
destined to be experienced by all peoples. Famous philosopher Hegel (1770--1831) in
history saw an image of the process by which the “absolute spirit” reached
of his self-knowledge (Hegel explained throughout the world how the development of this
"absolute spirit") It will not be wrong to say that all these philosophies require
from history is essentially the same thing: history should not depict everything
facts of the past life of mankind, but only the basic ones, revealing its general
meaning.
This view was a step forward in the development of historical thought - a simple
a story about the past in general, or a random collection of facts from different times and
the place for proof of edifying thought was no longer satisfactory.
There was a desire to unite the presentation with a guiding idea,
systematization of historical material. However, philosophical history
rightly reproached for the fact that it is the guiding ideas of historical presentation
took outside of history and systematized the facts arbitrarily. This is not the story
became an independent science, and turned into a servant of philosophy.
History became a science only at the beginning of the 19th century, when from Germany to
as a counterbalance to French rationalism, idealism developed: in contrast to
French cosmopolitanism, the ideas of nationalism spread, actively
national antiquities were studied and the belief that life
human societies occurs naturally, in this order of natural
sequence that cannot be broken or changed either
by chance or by the efforts of individuals. From this point of view, the main
the study of non-random external phenomena and
not the activities of outstanding personalities, but the study of social life in
different stages of its development. History began to be understood as a science of laws
historical life of human societies.
This definition has been formulated differently by historians and thinkers. Famous
Guizot (1787-1874), for example, understood history as the doctrine of world and
national civilization (understanding civilization in the sense of the development of civil
dormitories). The philosopher Schelling (1775-1854) considered national history
a means of understanding the “national spirit”. From here grew the widespread
definition of history as a path to national self-awareness. Came next
attempts to understand history as a science that should reveal general laws
development of social life outside of their application to a certain place, time and
to the people. But these attempts, in essence, assigned history the tasks of another science.
-- sociology. History is a science that studies specific facts in conditions
precisely time and place, and its main goal is recognized to be systematic
depiction of the development and changes in the life of individual historical societies and
of all humanity.
Such a task requires a lot to be successfully completed. In order to
give a scientifically accurate and artistically complete picture of any era of folk
life or complete history of a people, it is necessary: 1) collect historical
materials, 2) investigate their reliability, 3) restore exactly individual
historical facts, 4) indicate the pragmatic connection between them and 5) reduce
them into a general scientific overview or into an artistic picture. The ways in which
historians achieve these particular goals and are called scientific critical
techniques. These techniques are being improved with the development of historical science, but before
Until now, neither these techniques nor the science of history itself have reached their full potential.
development. Historians have not yet collected and studied all the material that is subject to
their knowledge, and this gives reason to say that history is a science that has not achieved
even those results that other, more precise, sciences have achieved. And yet
no one denies that history is a science with a broad future.
Since the study of the facts of world history began to be approached with
by the consciousness that human life develops naturally, is subordinated
eternal and unchanging relations and rules - since then the ideal of the historian
became the revelation of these constant laws and relationships. For simple analysis
historical phenomena that were intended to indicate their causal sequence,
a wider field has opened up - a historical synthesis aimed at recreating
the general course of world history as a whole, indicate such laws in its course
sequences of development that would have been justified not only in the past,
but also in the future of humanity.
This broad ideal cannot directly guide the Russian
historian. He studies only one fact of world historical life - life
of your nationality. The state of Russian historiography is still such that
sometimes imposes on the Russian historian the obligation to simply collect facts and
give them initial scientific treatment. And only where the facts are already
collected and illuminated, we can rise to some historical
generalizations, we can notice the general course of this or that historical
process, we can even make a bold
attempt - to give a schematic representation of the sequence in which
The basic facts of our historical life developed. But then such a general
The Russian historian cannot follow the scheme without leaving the boundaries of his science. For
in order to understand the essence and significance of this or that fact in the history of Rus',
he can look for analogies in universal history; with the results obtained he can
serve the universal historian, lay your own stone in the foundation
general historical synthesis. But this is where its connection with the general
history and influence on it. The ultimate goal of Russian historiography is always
What remains is the construction of a system of local historical process.
The construction of this system allows for another, more practical
the task that lies with the Russian historian. There is an old belief that
national history is the path to national identity. Really,
knowledge of the past helps to understand the present and explains the tasks of the future.
A people familiar with its history lives consciously, sensitive to its surroundings.
reality and knows how to understand it. The task, in this case it is possible
to put it simply, the duty of national historiography is to
show society his past in its true light. In this case, there is no need to enter into
historiography any preconceived points of view; subjective idea
is not a scientific idea, but only scientific work can be useful to the public
self-awareness. Remaining in the strictly scientific sphere, highlighting those dominant
the beginnings of social life, which characterized the various stages
Russian historical life, the researcher will reveal to society the most important
moments of his historical existence and thereby achieve his goal. He will give
society has rational knowledge, and the application of this knowledge no longer depends on it.
Thus, both abstract considerations and practical goals set the Russian
historical science has the same task - a systematic depiction of Russian
historical life, the general outline of the historical process that led
our nationality to its present state.

Essay on Russian historiography
When did the systematic depiction of Russian events begin?
historical life and when did Russian history become a science? Still in Kievskaya
Rus', along with the emergence of citizenship, in the 11th century. appeared with us
first chronicles. These were lists of facts, important and unimportant, historical and
not historical, interspersed with literary legends. From our point
From our point of view, the most ancient chronicles do not constitute historical work; Not
speaking about the content - and the very techniques of the chronicler do not correspond to the current ones
requirements. The beginnings of historiography appeared in our country in the 16th century, when
historical tales and chronicles began to be compared and brought together for the first time
whole. In the 16th century Moscow Rus' took shape and was formed. Uniting in
a single body, under the authority of a single Moscow prince, the Russians tried
explain to yourself your origins, your political ideas, and your
relations with the states around them.
And so in 1512 (apparently by Elder Philotheus) a chronograph was compiled,
those. review of world history. Most of it contained
translations from Greek and only as additions Russian and
Slavic historical tales. This chronograph is brief, but gives sufficient
stock of historical information; behind it appear completely Russian chronographs,
representing a processing of the first. Together with them they arise in the 16th century.
chronicle collections compiled according to ancient chronicles, but not representing
collections of mechanically compared facts, and works related by one
general idea. The first such work was "The Degree Book", which received
such a name because it was divided into “generations” or “degrees”,
as they were called then. She transmitted in chronological, sequential,
those. "gradual" order of activity of Russian metropolitans and princes,
starting with Rurik. Metropolitan Cyprian was mistakenly considered the author of this book;
it was processed by Metropolitans Macarius and his successor Athanasius
under Ivan the Terrible, i.e. in the 16th century The basis of the "Degree Book" lies
the trend is both general and specific. The general one is seen in the desire to show that
the power of the Moscow princes is not accidental, but successive, with one
on the one hand, from the southern Russian, Kyiv princes, on the other hand, from the Byzantine kings.
The private tendency was reflected in the respect with which
talks about spiritual power. The "degree book" may be called
historical work due to the well-known system of presentation. At the beginning of the 16th century. was
another historical work was compiled - "The Resurrection Chronicle", more
interesting due to the abundance of material. All previous chronicles formed its basis,
"Sofia Vremennik" and others, so the facts in this chronicle are really
a lot, but they are fastened purely mechanically. Nevertheless, "Voskresenskaya
chronicle" seems to us to be the most valuable historical work from
everyone, contemporary or earlier, since it was compiled without any
trends and contains a lot of information that we don’t find anywhere else.
Because of its simplicity, one might not like it; the artlessness of its presentation might
seem wretched to experts in rhetorical devices, and so she was subjected to
revisions and additions and compiled, by the middle of the 16th century, a new code,
called the Nikon Chronicle. In this collection we see a lot of information,
borrowed from Greek chronographs, according to the history of Greek and Slavic
countries, the chronicle is about Russian events, especially about later centuries, although
detailed, but not entirely reliable - the accuracy of the presentation suffered from
literary revision: correcting the ingenuous style of previous chronicles,
they unwittingly distorted the meaning of some events.
In 1674, the first textbook of Russian history appeared in Kyiv -
"Synopsis" of Innocent Gisel, very widespread in the era of Peter
Great (he often appears even now). If next to all these
by processing chronicles we will remember a number of literary tales about
individual historical facts and eras (for example, the Legend of Prince Kurbsky,
tales of troubled times), then let us embrace the entire stock of historical works, with
which Rus' survived until the era of Peter the Great, until the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in
Petersburg. Peter was very concerned about compiling the history of Russia and entrusted this
matter to different persons. But only after his death did scientific development begin
historical material and the first figures in this field were scientists
Germans, members of the St. Petersburg Academy; Of these, first of all we should mention
Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694--1738). He began by studying the tribes that inhabited
Russia in ancient times, especially the Varangians, but did not go further than that. Bayer left
I left behind a lot of works, of which two are quite major works
written in Latin and now no longer have much meaning for
history of Russia are "Northern Geography" and "Research on the Varangians" (their
translated into Russian only in 1767). The work was much more fruitful
Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705--1783), who lived in Russia under the empresses
Anna, Elizabeth and Catherine II and already spoke Russian so well,
that he wrote his works in Russian. He traveled a lot around Russia
(lived for 10 years, from 1733 to 1743, in Siberia) and studied it well. On
In the literary historical field, he acted as the publisher of a Russian magazine
"Monthly Works" (1755--1765) and the collection in German "Sammlung
Russischer Gescihchte". Miller's main merit was collecting materials
on Russian history; his manuscripts (the so-called Miller portfolios) also served
serve as a rich resource for publishers and researchers. And research
Miller mattered - he was one of the first scientists to become interested
later eras of our history, his works are dedicated to them: “The experience of the latest
history of Russia" and "News about the Russian nobles". Finally, he was the first
learned archivist in Russia and put in order the Moscow archive of the Foreign
collegium, the director of which he died (1783). Among the academicians of the 18th century.
[M.] also occupied a prominent place with his works on Russian history. V.] Lomonosov,
who wrote an educational book on Russian history and one volume of "Ancient Russian
history" (1766). His works on history were due to polemics with
academicians - Germans. The latter led Varangian Rus' away from the Normans and
Norman influence was credited with the origin of citizenship in Rus',
which, before the arrival of the Varangians, was considered a wild country; Lomonosov
recognized the Varangians as Slavs and thus considered Russian culture
original.
The named academicians, collecting materials and researching individual issues
our history, did not have time to give a general overview of it, the necessity of which
was felt by Russian educated people. Attempts to provide such an overview
appeared outside the academic environment.
The first attempt belongs to V.N. Tatishchev (1686-- 1750). While studying
actually geographical questions, he saw that it was impossible to resolve them
without knowledge of history, and, being a comprehensively educated person, became
collect information on Russian history and began compiling it. For
he wrote his historical work for many years, revised it more than once,
but it was only after his death, in 1768, that its publication began. Within 6 years
4 volumes were published, the 5th volume was accidentally found in our century and published
"Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities." In these 5 volumes
Tatishchev brought his story to the troubled era of the 17th century. In the first volume we
we get acquainted with the author’s own views on Russian history and sources,
which he used in its compilation; we find a whole range of scientific
sketches about ancient peoples - Varangians, Slavs, etc. Tatishchev often
resorted to the works of others; so, for example, he used the study "About
Varangians" by Bayer and directly included it in his work. This story is now
Of course, it is outdated, but it has not lost its scientific significance, since (in the 18th century
c.) Tatishchev possessed such sources that do not exist now, and therefore,
many of the facts he cited can no longer be restored. It got me excited
suspicion whether some of the sources he referred to existed, and
Tatishchev began to be accused of dishonesty. They especially didn’t trust
the “Joachim Chronicle” cited by him. However, the study of this chronicle
showed that Tatishchev only failed to treat it critically and included
her entirely, with all her fables, into her story. Strictly speaking, labor
Tatishchev is nothing more than a detailed collection of chronicle data,
presented in chronological order; his heavy tongue and lack
literary treatment made it uninteresting to his contemporaries.
The first popular book on Russian history was written by Catherine
II, but her work “Notes on Russian History”, completed
XIII century, has no scientific significance and is interesting only as a first attempt
tell society in easy language his past. Much more important in scientific
relation was “Russian History” by Prince M. [M.] Shcherbatov (1733--1790),
which Karamzin later used. Shcherbatov was not a man
a strong philosophical mind, but well-read in the educational literature of the 18th century
V. and formed entirely under her influence, which was reflected in his work, in
which introduced a lot of preconceived thoughts. According to historical information, he is up to
I didn’t have time to figure it out to such an extent that I sometimes forced my heroes
die 2 times. But despite such major shortcomings, history
Shcherbatov has scientific significance due to many applications, including
historical documents. Particularly interesting are the diplomatic papers of the XVI and
XVII centuries His work was brought to a troubled era.
It happened that under Catherine II a certain Frenchman Leclerc, who was not at all
who knew neither the Russian political system, nor the people, nor their way of life, wrote
the insignificant "L"histoire de la Russie", and there were so many slander in it that
she aroused general indignation. I. N. Boltin (1735--1792), amateur
Russian history, compiled a number of notes in which he discovered ignorance
Leclerc and which he published in two volumes. In them, he partly hurt Shcherbatov.
Shcherbatov was offended and wrote an objection. Boltin responded with printed letters and
began to criticize Shcherbatov's "History". Boltin's works, revealing in
He has historical talent and is interesting because of the novelty of his views. Boltin not quite
is definitely sometimes called the “first Slavophile”, because he noted many dark
parties in blind imitation of the West, an imitation that has become noticeable in our country
after Peter, and wished that Russia would more closely preserve the good beginnings of the past
century. Boltin himself is interesting as a historical phenomenon. He served the best
proof that in the 18th century. in society, even among non-specialists
history, there was a keen interest in the past of his homeland. Views and interests
Boltin was shared by N.I. Novikov (1744-1818), a famous zealot for Russian
education, collected "Ancient Russian Vivliofika" (20 volumes), extensive
collection of historical documents and research (1788--1791). Simultaneously with
The merchant [I.] acted as a collector of historical materials. I.] Golikov
(1735--1801), who published a collection of historical data about Peter the Great under
entitled "The Acts of Peter the Great" (1st ed. 1788-1790, 2nd 1837). So
Thus, along with attempts to give a general history of Russia, the
the desire to prepare materials for such a story. In addition to the initiative
private, the Academy of Sciences itself is working in this direction, publishing chronicles
for general information about them.
But in all that we have listed, there was still little scientificity in our
sense: there were no strict critical techniques, not to mention
lack of integral historical ideas.
For the first time, a number of scientific-critical techniques were introduced into the study of Russian history
foreign scientist Schletser (1735-- 1809). Getting to know the Russians
chronicles, he was delighted with them: he had never seen
such a wealth of information, such poetic language. Having already left Russia and
as a professor at the University of Göttingen, he worked tirelessly on
those extracts from the chronicles that he managed to take out of Russia.
The result of this work was the famous work published under the title
"Nestor" (1805 in German, 1809-1819 in Russian). This is a whole series
historical sketches about the Russian chronicle. In the preface, the author gives a brief
a review of what has been done on Russian history. He finds the position of science in
Russia is sad, treats Russian historians with disdain, believes
his book is almost the only valid work on Russian history. AND
Indeed, his work far outstripped all others in terms of degree.
scientific consciousness and techniques of the author. These techniques created a kind of school for us
Schletser's students, the first scientific researchers, like M.P. Pogodin. After
Schletser, rigorous historical research has become possible for us, for which,
True, favorable conditions were also created in another environment, headed by
Miller stood. Among the people he collected in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium
Stritter, Malinovsky, and Bantysh-Kamensky were especially outstanding. They created
the first school of learned archivists, by whom the Archives were brought into full
order and which, in addition to the external grouping of archival material,
carried out a number of serious scientific studies based on this material.
Thus, little by little, conditions matured that created for us the possibility of serious
history.
At the beginning of the 19th century. finally, the first integral view of Russian
historical past in the famous “History of the Russian State” N.M.
Karamzin (1766--1826). Possessing an integral worldview, literary
talent and techniques of a good learned critic, Karamzin throughout Russian
historical life saw one most important process - the creation of a national
state power. A number of talented people led Rus' to this power.
figures, of which the two main ones - Ivan III and Peter the Great - with their
activities marked transitional moments in our history and began to
boundaries of its main eras - ancient (before Ivan III), middle (before Peter
Great) and new (until the beginning of the 19th century). Karamzin’s own system of Russian history
expressed it in a language that was fascinating for its time, and he based his story
on numerous studies, which to this day remain his
History has important scientific significance.
But the one-sidedness of Karamzin’s main view, which limited the task
historian depicting only the destinies of the state, and not society with its
culture, legal and economic relations, was soon noticed
already by his contemporaries. Journalist of the 30s of the XIX century. N. A. Polevoy
(1796--1846) reproached him for calling his work “History
of the Russian State", left the "History of the Russian People" without attention.
It was with these words that Polevoy titled his work, in which he thought to depict
the fate of Russian society. He replaced Karamzin’s system with his own system,
but not entirely successful, since he was an amateur in the field of historical knowledge.
Fascinated by the historical works of the West, he tried purely mechanically
apply their conclusions and terms to Russian facts, for example, -
find the feudal system in ancient Rus'. This explains his weakness
attempts, it is clear that Polevoy’s work could not replace Karamzin’s work: in it
there was no complete system at all.
He spoke out against Karamzin less sharply and with more caution.
St. Petersburg professor [N. G.] Ustryalov (1805--1870), who wrote in 1836
"Discourse on the system of pragmatic Russian history." He demanded that
history was a picture of the gradual development of social life, a depiction
transitions of citizenship from one state to another. But he still believes
in the power of the individual in history and, along with the depiction of people's life,
also requires biographies of its heroes. Ustryalov himself, however, refused to give
a certain general point of view on our history and noticed that for this
the time has not come.
Thus, dissatisfaction with Karamzin’s work, which also affected the scientist
world, and in society, did not correct the Karamzin system and did not replace it
another. Above the phenomena of Russian history, as their connecting principle, remained
artistic painting by Karamzin and no scientific system was created. Ustryalov
was right in saying that the time had not yet come for such a system. The best
professors of Russian history who lived in an era close to Karamzin, Pogodin and
[M. T.] Kachenovsky (1775--1842), were still far from one common point
vision; the latter took shape only when Russian history became
take an active interest in the educated circles of our society. Pogodin and
Kachenovsky were brought up on the scientific methods of Schlozer and under his influence,
which had a particularly strong impact on Pogodin. Pogodin continued in many ways
Schletser's research and, studying the most ancient periods of our history, did not go
further to particular conclusions and small generalizations, which, however, he was sometimes able to
captivate your listeners who are not accustomed to strictly scientific and independent
presentation of the subject. Kachenovsky took up Russian history when
has already acquired a lot of knowledge and experience in other branches of history
management Following the development of classical history in the West, which at that time
time was taken to a new path of Niebuhr's research, Kachenovsky was carried away by the
the denial with which they began to treat the most ancient data on history,
for example, Rome. Kachenovsky transferred this denial to Russian history: everything
information relating to the first centuries of Russian history, he considered
unreliable; reliable facts, in his opinion, began only with that
time since written documents of civil life appeared in our country.
Kachenovsky's skepticism had followers: under his influence the foundation of
the so-called skeptical school, not rich in conclusions, but strong in new ones,
skeptical approach to scientific material. This school belonged to
several articles compiled under the leadership of Kachenovsky. At
the undoubted talent of Pogodin and Kachenovsky, both of them developed
although large, but specific issues of Russian history; they were both strong
critical methods, but neither one nor the other rose to the level of practical
historical worldview: while giving a method, they did not produce results, to
which could be reached using this method.
Only in the 30s of the 19th century did a coherent
historical worldview, but it developed not on a scientific, but on
metaphysical soil. In the first half of the 19th century. Russian educated people are all
turned with great and great interest to history, both domestic and
Western European. Foreign campaigns 1813-1814. introduced our
youth with the philosophy and political life of Western Europe. Life Study
and the ideas of the West gave birth, on the one hand, to the political movement of the Decembrists,
on the other hand, a circle of people who were interested in more abstract philosophy than
politics. This circle grew entirely on the basis of German metaphysical
philosophy of the beginning of our century. This philosophy was distinguished by its harmony
logical constructions and optimistic conclusions. In German metaphysics, as in
German romanticism, affected by the protest against dry rationalism
French philosophy of the 18th century. To the revolutionary cosmopolitanism of France
Germany contrasted the beginning of nationality and revealed it in attractive
images of folk poetry and in a number of metaphysical systems. These systems have become
known to educated Russian people and captivated them. In German philosophy
Russian educated people saw a whole revelation. Germany was for them
“The Jerusalem of modern humanity,” as Belinsky called it. Studying
the most important metaphysical systems of Schelling and Hegel were united in a tight circle
several talented representatives of Russian society and forced them
turn to the study of your (Russian) national past. The result
this study there were two completely opposite systems of Russian history,
built on the same metaphysical basis. In Germany at this time
the dominant philosophical systems were those of Schelling and Hegel. By
Schelling's opinion, every historical people must carry out some
the absolute idea of goodness, truth, beauty. Reveal this idea to the world --
historical vocation of the people. By fulfilling it, the people take a step forward
the field of world civilization; having performed it, he leaves the historical stage.
Those peoples whose existence is not inspired by the idea of the unconditional are peoples
unhistorical, they are condemned to spiritual slavery among other nations. Same
Hegel also gives the division of peoples into historical and non-historical, but he,
Developing almost the same principle, he went even further. He gave the big picture
world progress. All world life, according to Hegel, was a development
absolute spirit, which strives for self-knowledge in the history of various
peoples, but reaches it finally in the German-Roman civilization.
The cultural peoples of the Ancient East, the ancient world and Romanesque Europe were
placed by Hegel in a certain order, which was a ladder, according to
which the world spirit ascended. At the top of these stairs stood the Germans, and they
Hegel prophesied eternal world supremacy. There are no Slavs on this staircase
it was completely. He considered them to be an unhistorical race and thus condemned them to spiritual
slavery in the German civilization. Thus, Schelling demanded for his
of the people only world citizenship, and Hegel - world supremacy. But,
Despite this difference in views, both philosophers equally influenced
Russian minds in the sense that they aroused the desire to look back at Russian
historical life, to find that absolute idea that was revealed in
Russian life, determine the place and purpose of the Russian people in the course of the world
progress. And here, in the application of the beginnings of German metaphysics to Russian
In reality, the Russian people disagreed with each other. Some of them
Westerners believed that the German-Protestant civilization existed
the last word in world progress. For them, ancient Rus', which did not know
Western, German civilization and did not have its own, was a country
unhistorical, devoid of progress, condemned to eternal stagnation, a country
“Asian”, as Belinsky called it (in an article about Kotoshikhin). From centuries
Asian inertia was brought out by Peter, who, having introduced Russia to the German
civilization, created for it the possibility of progress and history. Throughout Russian
history, therefore, only the era of Peter V [the great] can have a historical
meaning. She is the main point in Russian life; it separates Asian Rus' from
European Rus'. Before Peter there was complete desert, complete nothingness; in ancient Russian
history makes no sense, since ancient Rus' does not have its own culture.
But not all Russian people of the 30s and 40s thought so;
some did not agree that Germanic civilization was the highest
stage of progress, that the Slavic tribe is a non-historical tribe. They don't
saw the reasons why world development should stop with the Germans. From
Russian history brought them the conviction that the Slavs were far from stagnant,
that it could be proud of many dramatic moments in its past and
that it finally had its own culture. This doctrine was well expounded by I.V.
Kireevsky (1806--1856). He says that Slavic culture is in its foundations
its own was independent and different from the German one. Firstly, the Slavs
received Christianity from Byzantium (and the Germans from Rome) and their religious
life received different forms than those that developed among the Germans under the influence
Catholicism. Secondly, the Slavs and Germans grew up with different cultures:
the first ones are in Greek, the second ones are in Roman. While the German
culture has developed individual freedom, Slavic communities are completely
enslaved her. Thirdly, the political system was created differently.
Germany was formed on Roman soil. The Germans were a newcomer people; winning
the native population, they enslaved him. The struggle between the vanquished and
winners, which formed the basis of the political system of Western
Europe, later turned into antagonism between classes; the Slavs have a state
was created through a peace treaty and voluntary recognition of power. Here
difference between Russia and the West. Europe, differences in religion, culture,
state system. So thought the Slavophiles, who were more independent
followers of German philosophical teachings. They were convinced that
independent Russian life reached its greatest development in
era of the Moscow state. Peter V. grossly disrupted this development,
through violent reform he brought to us alien, even opposite principles
German civilization. He turned the right course of people's life to
false path of borrowing, because he did not understand the covenants of the past, did not
understood our national spirit. The goal of the Slavophiles is to return to the path
natural development, smoothing out the traces of Peter’s violent reform.
The common point of view of Westerners and Slavophiles served them as a basis for
interpretation not only of the meaning of our history, but also of its individual facts: it is possible
count many historical works written by Westerners and especially
Slavophiles (of the Slavophile historians we should mention Constantine
Sergeevich Aksakov, 1817--1860). But their works were much more
philosophical or journalistic rather than historical, and
attitude to history is much more philosophical than scientific.
The strictly scientific integrity of historical views was first created by
us only in the 40s of the XIX century. The first bearers of new historical ideas
there were two young professors at Moscow University: Sergei Mikhailovich
Solovyov (1820-- 1879) and Konstantin Dmitrievich Kavelin (1818--1885). Their
views on Russian history at that time were called the “theory of tribal life”,
and subsequently they and other scientists of their direction became known as
the name of the historical and legal school. They were brought up under the influence
German historical school. At the beginning of the 19th century. historical science in Germany
made great progress. Figures of the so-called German historical school
contributed extremely fruitful guiding ideas and new ideas to the study of history
research methods. The main thought of German historians was the idea that
that the development of human communities is not the result of chance or a single
the will of individuals: the development of society occurs as the development of an organism,
according to strict laws, which neither historical history can overthrow
an accident, nor a personality, no matter how brilliant she may be. The first step towards this
view was made at the end of the 18th century by Friedrich August Wolf in
work "Prologomena ad Homerum", in which he studied
origin and composition of the Greek epics "Odyssey" and "Iliad". Giving in your
work, a rare example of historical criticism, he argued that Homer
the epic could not be the work of an individual, but was gradually
an organically created work of the poetic genius of an entire people. After
Wolf's work began to look for such organic development not only in monuments
poetic creativity, but also in all spheres of public life, they were also looking for
history and law. Signs of organic growth of ancient communities were observed
Niebuhr in Roman history, Karl Gottfried Miller in Greek. Organic
the development of legal consciousness was studied by historian-jurists Eichhorn (Deutsche
Staatsung Rechtsgeschichte, in five volumes, 1808) and Savigny (Geschichte
des ro mischen Rechts in Mittelalter, in six volumes, 1815-- 1831). These
works that bore the stamp of a new direction, by the half of the 19th century. created
in Germany a brilliant school of historians, which has not yet survived
full of your own ideas.
Our scientists of the historical and legal school grew up in its ideas and techniques.
Some learned them by reading, like, for example, Kavelin; others - directly by listening
lectures, such as, for example, Soloviev, who was a student of Ranke. They have learned
the entire content of the German historical movement. Some of them
They were also interested in the German philosophy of Hegel. In Germany, accurate and strictly
the actual historical school did not always live in harmony with metaphysical
the teachings of Hegelianism; nevertheless, both historians and Hegel agreed on
basic view of history as the natural development of human
society Both historians and Hegel alike denied it was an accident, therefore
their views could coexist in one and the same person. These views were
first applied to Russian history by our scientists Solovyov and Kavelin,
who thought to show in it the organic development of those principles that were given
the original way of life of our tribe and which were rooted in the nature of our
people. They paid less attention to cultural and economic life than
on external forms of public unions, since they were convinced that the main thing
the content of Russian historical life was precisely the natural change of some
community laws are different. They hoped to notice the order of this shift and in
Here we can find the law of our historical development. That's why their historical
the treatises are somewhat one-sided historical and legal in nature. Such
one-sidedness did not constitute the individuality of our scientists, but was introduced
them from their German mentors. German historiography considered the main
the task of research is precisely legal forms in history; the root of this
view lies in the ideas of Kant, who understood history “as a path
humanity" to the creation of state forms. These were the grounds on
which built the first scientific and philosophical view of Russian
historical life. This was not a simple borrowing of other people's conclusions, there was no
only a mechanical application of other people's ideas to poorly understood material -
no, it was an independent scientific movement, in which the views and scientific
the techniques were identical to the German ones, but the conclusions were by no means predetermined and
depended on the material. It was scientific creativity moving in the direction
of his era, but independently. That is why every figure in this movement
retained his individuality and left behind valuable monographs, and all
historical-legal school created such a diagram of our historical
development, under the influence of which Russian historiography still lives.
Based on the idea that the distinctive features of the history of each people
created by its nature and its original environment, they turned
attention to the original form of Russian social life, which, according to them
opinion, was determined by the beginning of tribal life. The entire Russian history was represented
they are like a consistent organically harmonious transition from blood
public unions, from tribal life to state life. Between
The era of blood alliances and the state lies in the intermediate period, in
in which there was a struggle between the beginning of the blood and the beginning of the state. IN
In the first period, the personality was unconditionally subordinate to the clan, and its position
determined not by individual activity or ability, but by place in
kind; the blood principle dominated not only in the princely, but in all
In other respects, it determined the entire political life of Russia.
Russia in the first stage of its development was considered patrimonial property
princes; it was divided into volosts, according to the number of members of the princely
Houses. The order of ownership was determined by family accounts. Everyone's position
the prince was determined by his place in the clan. Violation of seniority gave rise to
civil strife, which, from Solovyov’s point of view, is not fought for the volosts, not
for something specific, but for a violation of seniority, for an idea. Over time
The circumstances of the prince's life and activities changed. In the northeast
The princes of Rus' became the complete masters of the land, they themselves called upon the population, they themselves
built cities. Feeling like the creator of a new region, the prince presents
there are new requirements; due to the fact that he himself created it, he does not consider it
clan, but freely disposes of it and passes it on to his family. From here
the concept of family property arises, a concept that caused the final
the death of family life. Family, not clan, became the main principle; princes even
began to look at their distant relatives as strangers, enemies
your family. A new era is coming, when one principle has decayed, another
has not yet been created. Chaos ensues, the struggle of all against all. From this chaos
an accidentally strengthened family of Moscow princes grows up, who take their patrimony
placed above others in strength and wealth. In this fiefdom little by little
the beginning of a unified inheritance is being developed - the first sign of a new
state order, which is finally established by the reforms of Peter
Great.
This, in the most general terms, is S. M. Solovyov’s view of the course of our
history, a view developed by him in his two dissertations: 1) “On relations
Novgorod to the great princes" and 2) "The history of relations between the princes of Rurikov
at home." Solovyov's system was talentedly supported by K. D. Kavelin in
several of his historical articles (see volume 1 of "Collected Works of Kavelin"
ed. 1897). In only one essential detail Kavelin differed from
Solovyov: he thought that even without a random confluence of favorable
circumstances in the north of Rus', the princely family life had to decompose and
go to family, and then to state. Inevitable and consistent
he depicted the change that began in our history in the following brief formula: “Genesis and
common ownership; family and fiefdom or separate property; face and
state".
The impetus given by the talented works of Solovyov and Kavelin to the Russian
historiography, was very great. A harmonious scientific system, given for the first time
our history, captivated many and caused a lively scientific movement. Many
monographs were written directly in the spirit of the historical and legal school. But a lot
objections, increasingly stronger as time passed, were raised against
the teachings of this new school. A series of heated scientific debates, in the end,
finally shattered the harmonious theoretical view of Solovyov and Kavelin
in the form in which it appeared in their first writings. First objection
against the school of tribal life belonged to the Slavophiles. Represented by K. S. Aksakov
(1817--1860) they turned to the study of historical facts (partly to them
Moscow professors joined [V. N.] Leshkov and [I. D.] Belyaev,
1810--1873); at the first stage of our history they saw not tribal life, but
communal and little by little created their own doctrine of community. It met
some support in the works of the Odessa professor [F. I.] Leontovich,
who tried to determine more precisely the primitive character of the ancient Slavic
communities; this community, in his opinion, is very similar to the one that still exists
Serbian "zadru", based partly on relatives, partly on
territorial relations. At the place of the genus precisely defined by the school
tribal life, the community became no less precisely defined, and thus
the first part of the general historical scheme of Solovyov and Kavelin has lost its
immutability. The second objection to this private scheme was made
scientists close in their general direction to Solovyov and Kavelin. Boris
Nikolaevich Chicherin (1828--1904), who was brought up in the same scientific
situation, like Solovyov and Kavelin, pushed the era beyond the boundaries of history
blood clan alliances in Rus'. On the first pages of our historical
existence, he already saw the decomposition of the ancient tribal principles. The first form of our
public, as history knows, in his opinion, was not built on
blood ties, but on the basis of civil law. In ancient Russian life
personality was not limited by anything, neither by blood union, nor by state
orders. All social relations were determined by civil transactions -
contracts. From this contractual order arose naturally
subsequently the state. Chicherin's theory, set out in his work "On
spiritual and contractual charters of the great and appanage princes", received further
neck development in the works of prof. V.I. Sergeevich and in this last form already
completely departed from the original scheme given by the school of tribal life. All
the history of Sergeevich’s social life is divided into two periods: the first - from
the predominance of private and personal will over the state principle, the second - with
the predominance of state interest over personal will.
If the first, Slavophile objection arose on the basis of considerations about
general cultural independence of the Slavs, if the second grew on the soil
studying legal institutions, then the third objection to the school of tribal life
Most likely done from a historical and economic point of view. The oldest
Kievan Rus is not a patriarchal country; her social relations
quite complex and built on a timocratic basis. It is dominated by
the aristocracy of capital, whose representatives sit in the princely Duma. That's how
Prof.'s view V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841--1911) in his works “Boyar Duma
ancient Rus'" and "Course of Russian history").
All these objections destroyed the harmonious system of clan life, but not
created any new historical scheme. Slavophilism remained
true to its metaphysical basis, and in later representatives it moved away from
historical research. The system of Chicherin and Sergeevich deliberately considers
itself a system of legal history only. And the point of view is historical and economic
has not yet been applied to explain the entire course of our history. Finally, in the works
We do not meet other historians with any successful attempt to give
foundations for an independent and integral historical worldview.
How does our historiography live now? Together with K. [S.] Aksakov we
we can say that we now have no “history”, that “we now have
historical research, no more." But, noting the absence of one
dominant doctrine in historiography, we do not deny the existence of
our modern historians have common views, novelty and fruitfulness
which determine the latest efforts of our historiography. These common
views arose in our country at the same time as they appeared in European
science; they touched and scientific methods, and historical ideas in general.
The desire that arose in the West to apply techniques to the study of history
natural sciences was reflected in the works of the famous [A. P.] Shchapova
(1831--1876). The comparative historical method developed by the English
scientists [(Freeman) et al.] and requiring that every historical phenomenon
studied in connection with similar phenomena of other peoples and eras, -
was also applied by many scientists (for example, V.I. Sergeevich). Development
ethnography gave rise to the desire to create historical ethnography and from the point of view
from an ethnographic point of view, to consider in general the phenomena of our ancient history
(Ya. I. Kostomarov, 1817 - 1885). Interest in the history of economic life,
growing up in the West, has affected us in many attempts to study
national economic life in different eras (V. O. Klyuchevsky and others). So
so-called evolutionism also has its representatives in our country
modern university teachers.
Not only what was reintroduced into scientific consciousness moved forward
our historiography. Revision of old questions that had already been developed gave new ones
conclusions that formed the basis of new and new research. Already in the 70s S.
M. Soloviev in his “Public Readings about Peter the Great” is clearer and
more convincingly expressed his old idea that Peter the Great was
traditional leader and was guided in his work as a reformer by the ideals
old Moscow people of the 17th century. and used the means that were
prepared before him. Almost under the influence of the works of Solovyov
active development of the history of Moscow Rus' began, showing now
that pre-Petrine Moscow was not an Asian inert state and indeed
was moving toward reform even before Peter, who himself adopted the idea of reform from the surrounding
his Moscow environment. Reconsidering the oldest question in Russian historiography
- Varangian question [in the works of V. Gr. Vasilievsky (1838-- 1899), A.A.
Kunika (1814-1899), S. A. Gedeonov and others] illuminates the beginning with new light
our history. New research on the history of Western Rus' has opened up
we have interesting and important data on the history and life of the Lithuanian-Russian
state [V. B. Antonovich (1834--1908), Dashkevich (b. 1852) and
other]. These examples do not, of course, exhaust the content of the latest
works on our subject; but these examples show that modern
historiography works on very large topics. Before attempts at history
synthesis, therefore, may not be far away.
In conclusion of the historiographical review, we should mention those works on
Russian historiography, which depict the gradual development and
current state our science and which therefore should serve
preferred guides for getting to know our historiography: 1) K.
N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin “Russian History” (2 volumes, summary of facts and
learned opinions with a very valuable introduction about sources and historiography); 2) K.
N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin "Biographies and Characteristics" (Tatishchev, Shletser, Karamzin,
Pogodin, Soloviev, etc.). St. Petersburg, 1882; 3) S. M. Soloviev, articles on
historiography published by the Public Benefit Partnership in the book
"Collected works of S. M. Solovyov" St. Petersburg; 4) O. M. Koyalovich “History”
Russian self-awareness". St. Petersburg, 1884; 5) V. S. Ikonnikov "The experience of Russian
historiography" (volume one, book one and two). Kyiv, 1891;
6) P. N. Milyukov “The main currents of Russian historical thought” - in
"Russian Thought" for 1893 (and separately).

Review of sources of Russian history
In the broad sense of the word, a historical source is any remainder
antiquity, will it be a structure, an object of art, a thing of everyday life?
everyday life, a printed book, a manuscript or, finally, an oral tradition. But in a narrow
in the sense that we call a source a printed or written remnant of antiquity, otherwise
speaking, of the era that the historian studies. We are subject only to
remnants of the latter kind.
A review of sources can be carried out in two ways: firstly, it can
be a simple logical and systematic list various types historical
material, indicating its main publications; secondly, a review of sources
can be built historically and combine a list of material with
an overview of the movement of archaeographic works in our country. The second way to get acquainted with
sources are much more interesting for us, firstly, because here we
we can observe the emergence of archaeographic works in connection with how in
society developed an interest in handwritten antiquities, and, secondly, because
that here we will get acquainted with those figures who collected materials
for their native history they have made an eternal name for themselves in our science.
In the pre-Petrine era, the attitude towards manuscripts in the literate strata
The Moscow Society was the most attentive, because at that time the manuscript
replaced the book, was a source of knowledge and aesthetic pleasures and
constituted a valuable item of possession; manuscripts were constantly corresponded with
great care and were often sacrificed before death by the owners in
monasteries “to your liking”: the donor asks the monastery or church for his gift
eternal remembrance of his sinful soul. Legislative acts and everything in general
manuscripts of a legal nature, i.e. what we would call now
official and business papers were also jealously guarded. Printed
legal provisions, except for the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, then
existed, and this handwritten material was, as it were, a code of the current
law, by the leadership of the then administrators and judges. Legislation
It was written then, just as it is printed now. Moreover, on handwritten
charters, monasteries and individuals based their benefits and various types
rights. It is clear that all this written material was expensive in everyday life
life at that time and that it should have been valued and preserved.
In the 18th century under the influence of new cultural tastes, with the spread
printed books and printed statutes, the attitude towards old manuscripts is very
is changing: the decline in the sense of their value is noticeable in us throughout
XVIII century. In the 17th century the manuscript was highly valued by the cultural class of that time,
and now in the 18th century. this class gave way to new cultural layers, which
handwritten sources of antiquity were treated with contempt, as if they were old
worthless rubbish. The clergy also ceased to understand the historical and
spiritual value of their rich manuscript collections and related to them
carelessly. An abundance of manuscripts passed down from the 17th century. in the 18th century, contributed
because they were not valued. The manuscript was still, so to speak, an everyday thing, but
not historical and little by little from the cultural upper echelons of society, where before
rotated, passed into its lower layers, among other things, to the schismatics,
whom our archaeographer P. M. Stroev called “trustees of our manuscripts.”
The old archives and monastery book depositories, which contained a lot of
jewelry, remained without any attention, in complete disregard and
decline. Here are examples from the 19th century that show how ignorant
Handwritten antiquities were handled by their owners and curators. "In one monastery
piety, to which at the end of the 17th century. more than 15 others were attributed
monasteries,” wrote P. M. Stroev in 1823, “its old archive was placed in
tower, where the windows had no frames. Snow covered a pile of books and
columns piled up indiscriminately, and I rummaged through it as if in ruins
Herculana. This is six years old. Consequently, snow covered these six times
manuscripts and the same amount melted on them, now surely only one rusty one remains
dust..." The same Stroev reported to the Academy of Sciences in 1829 that the archive of the ancient
the city of Kevrol, after the abolition of the latter, was transferred to Pinega, “rotted there
in a dilapidated barn and, as I was told, the last remains of it not long before
now (i.e. before 1829) thrown into the water."
Famous lover and researcher of antiquities, Metropolitan Evgeniy of Kiev
(Bolkhovitinov, 1767--1837), being a bishop in Pskov, wished to inspect
rich Novgorod-Yuryev Monastery. "He made his arrival known in advance,
- writes the biographer of Metropolitan [opolitan] Evgenia Ivanovsky, - and this, of course,
forced the monastery authorities to fuss a little and bring some of
monastery premises in a more specious order. He could go to the monastery
one of two roads: either the upper, more passable, but boring, or the lower,
near Volkhov, less convenient, but more pleasant. He went bottom. Near
of the monastery itself, he met with a cart traveling to Volkhov, accompanied by
monk Wanting to know what the monk was bringing to the river, he asked. The monk replied that he
carries all sorts of rubbish and rubbish that cannot simply be thrown into a dung heap, but
must be thrown into the river. This aroused Eugene's curiosity. He came to
cart, ordered to lift the matting, saw torn books and handwritten sheets and
then he ordered the monk to return to the monastery. We found ourselves in this cart
precious remnants of writing even from the 11th century." (Ivanovsky "Metropolitan Eugene",
pp. 41--42).
This was our attitude towards ancient monuments even in the 19th century. In the XVIII
V. it was, of course, no better, although it should be noted that next to this
beginning already in the 18th century. are individuals who consciously relate to
old times. Peter I himself collected ancient coins, medals and other remains
antiquities, according to Western European custom, as unusual and curious
objects as a kind of “monsters”. But, collecting curious material
remnants of antiquity, Peter wanted at the same time to “know the Russian state
history" and believed that "it is necessary to work about this first, and not about the beginning of the world
and other states, a lot has been written about this." Since 1708, by order
Peter's work on the composition of Russian history (XVI and XVII centuries)
scientist of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy Fedor Polikarpov, but work
he was not satisfied with Petra, and remained unknown to us. Despite, however,
such a failure, Peter until the end of his reign did not abandon the thought of complete
Russian history and took care of collecting material for it; in 1720 he
ordered the governors to review all the wonderful historical documents
and chronicle books in all monasteries, dioceses and cathedrals, compile them
inventories and deliver these inventories to the Senate. And in 1722 the Synod was instructed on these
inventories to select all historical manuscripts from the dioceses to the Synod and make from them
lists. But the Synod failed to carry this out: the majority
diocesan authorities responded to requests from the Synod that they did not have such
manuscripts, and in total up to 40 manuscripts were sent to the Synod, as one can judge
according to some sources, and of these only 8 are actually historical, the rest
spiritual content. So Peter's desire to have a historical account of
Russia and to collect material for this crashed due to ignorance and negligence
contemporaries.
Historical science was born among us later than Peter, and scientific processing
historical material began with the appearance of German scientists among us;
Then, little by little, the significance of handwritten material for
our history. In this last respect, invaluable services to our science
provided by Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705-1785), already known to us. Conscientious
and a hardworking scientist, a careful critic-researcher and at the same time
a tireless collector of historical materials, Miller with his diverse
activity fully deserves the name “father of Russian historical science”,
what our historiographers give him. Our science still uses
the material he collected. In the so-called "portfolios" of Miller, stored in
Academy of Sciences and in the Moscow Main Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
contains more than 900 issues of various historical papers. These portfolios
and now they still constitute a whole treasure for the researcher, and new
historical works often draw their materials from them; So,
Until recently, the archaeographic commission filled it with material
some of their publications (Siberian affairs in additions to the "Acts
historical"). Miller collected written monuments not only in
European Russia, but also in Siberia, where he spent about 10 years (1733-- 1743).
These studies in Siberia yielded important results, because only here
Miller managed to find a lot of valuable documents about the Troubles, which were then
published in the Collection of State Charters and Treaties in Volume II. At
Empress Catherine II Miller was appointed head of the College Archive
Foreign Affairs and had instructions from the Empress to draw up a meeting
diplomatic documents following the example of the Amsterdam edition of Dumont (Corps
universel diplomatique du droit des Gens, 8 vols., 1726--1731). But Miller was
already too old for such a grandiose work and, as head of the archive, only had time
start analyzing and organizing archival material and preparing a whole school
his students, who after the death of the teacher continued to work in this archive
and fully deployed their forces later in the so-called “Rumyantsev era”.
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750) acted next to Miller. He
intended to write the geography of Russia, but understood that geography without history
impossible and therefore decided to write a story first and turned to collecting and
studying handwritten material. While collecting materials, he found and was the first to appreciate
"Russian Truth" and "Tsar's Code of Law". These monuments, like “History” itself
Russian" by Tatishchev, were published after his death by Miller. In addition
actual historical works, Tatishchev compiled instructions for collecting
ethnographic, geographical and archaeological information about Russia. This
the instructions were adopted by the Academy of Sciences.
Since the time of Catherine II, the business of collecting and publishing historical
The material has developed greatly. Catherine herself found time to study Russian.
history, was keenly interested in Russian antiquity, encouraged and challenged
historical works. With this mood of the Empress, Russian society became
be more interested in your past and be more conscious of what remains
of this past. Under Catherine as a collector of historical material
acts, by the way, Count A. N. Musin-Pushkin, who found the “Tale of the Regiment”
Igor" and tried to collect everything from the monastery libraries to the capital
handwritten chronicles in the types of their best storage and publication. Under Catherine
numerous editions of chronicles begin at the Academy of Sciences and at the Synod,
publications, however, are still imperfect and not scientific. And in society it begins
the same movement in favor of the study of antiquity.
In this case, Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov takes first place
(1744--1818), better known to our society for publishing satirical
magazines, Freemasonry and concerns about the spread of education. According to their own
personal qualities and humane ideas, this is a rare person in his age, a bright
a phenomenon of its time. He is already known to us as a collector and publisher
"Ancient Russian Vivliofika" - an extensive collection of old acts of various
clan, chroniclers, ancient literary works and historical articles.
He began his publication in 1773 and in 3 years he published 10 parts. In the preface to
Vivliofike Novikov defines his publication as “an outline of morals and customs
ancestors" in order to recognize "the greatness of their spirit, adorned with simplicity." (It is necessary
note that the idealization of antiquity was already strong in the first satirical
Novikov's journal "Truten", 1769--1770) First edition of "Vivliofika"
now forgotten for the sake of the second, more complete, in 20 volumes (1788-1791).
Novikov in this publication was supported by Catherine II herself both with money and
by allowing him to study in the archives of the Foreign Collegium, where he
Old Miller helped very cordially. According to its content, "Ancient
Russian Vivliofika" was a random compilation of material that came to hand,
published almost without any criticism and without any scientific techniques, as we
we understand now.
In this regard, the “Acts of Peter the Great” of the Kursk merchant rank even lower
Iv. Iv. Golikov (1735-1801), who admired the deeds of Peter from childhood,
had the misfortune of being put on trial, but was released on a manifesto on the occasion
opening of the monument to Peter. On this occasion Golikov decided his whole life
devote to working on the biography of Peter. He collected all the news he could
could get, without analyzing their merits, letters from Peter, anecdotes about him, etc.
At the beginning of his collection he included a brief overview of the 16th and 17th centuries. To work
Golikova drew Ekaterina’s attention and opened the archives for him, but this work
deprived of any scientific significance, although due to the lack of better materials they
They still use it now. For its time it was a major archaeographic
fact (1st edition in 30 volumes, 1778-1798. 11th edition in 15 volumes, 1838).
In addition to the Academy and private individuals, she turned to ancient monuments
activities and "Volny" Russian Assembly", Scientific Society,
founded at Moscow University in 1771. This society was very
active in helping individual scientists, giving them access to archives, constructing
scientists, ethnographic expeditions, etc., but it itself published a little
ancient monuments: in 10 years it published only 6 books of its “Proceedings”.
This, in the most general terms, is the activity of the second half of the past
century for collecting and publishing materials. This activity was different
random in nature, captured only that material that, if possible
so to speak, he went into his own hands: care for those monuments that were in
provinces did not appear. Miller's Siberian expedition and meeting
chronicles, according to Musin-Pushkin, were separate episodes
exceptional character, and the historical wealth of the province remained
so far without evaluation or attention. As for historical publications of the past
century, then they do not withstand even the most lenient criticism. Except
various technical details, we now demand from the learned publisher,
that he review, if possible, all known lists of published
monument, chose the oldest and best of them, i.e. with the correct text,
one of the best laid the basis for the publication and printed its text, leading to it
all variants of other serviceable lists, avoiding the slightest inaccuracies and
typos in the text. Publication must be preceded by historical verification
monument values; if the monument turns out to be a simple compilation, then it’s better
publish his sources rather than the compilation itself. But in the 18th century. looked at the matter
not so; considered it possible to publish, for example, a chronicle based on one copy of it
with all the errors, so now, out of necessity, using some of the publications
for lack of better ones, the historian is constantly in danger of making a mistake,
inaccuracy, etc. Only Schletser theoretically established the methods of the scientist
critics, yes Miller in the publication of the "Degree Book" (1775) observed some
from the basic rules of the scientific publication. In the preface to this chronicle he says
about his publishing methods: they are scientific, although not yet developed; but in
He cannot be blamed for this; the complete development of critical techniques came from
us only in the 19th century, and it was Miller’s students who contributed most to it.
Growing old, Miller asked Empress Catherine to appoint after his death
the head of the Archive of the Foreign Collegium of one of his students. Request
he was respected, and after Miller the Archives were managed by his students: first I.
Stritter, then N.N. Bantysh-Kamensky (1739--1814). This last one
compiling a description of the affairs of his archive, on the basis of these cases he worked and
studies, which, unfortunately, are not all published. They are very
helped Karamzin a lot in compiling the “History of the Russian State”.
When, in the first years of the 19th century, the archive of the Foreign Collegium entered
main jurisdiction of Count Nikolai Petrovich Rumyantsev (1754--1826), in the archives
a whole family of archaeographers had already been raised, and they were ready for Rumyantsev
worthy helpers. The name of Rumyantsev signifies an entire era in the course of our
national self-knowledge, and rightly so. Count N.P. Rumyantsev appeared at that very
the time when Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” was being prepared,
when the realization was ripe that it was necessary to collect and save the remains of the old
people's life, when, finally, figures in this area appeared with scientific
techniques. Count Rumyantsev became an exponent of a conscious attitude towards antiquity
and, thanks to his position and means, became the center of a new
historical and archaeological movement, such a venerable philanthropist, before the memory
whom we and all future generations must bow to.
Rumyantsev was born in 1754; his father was the famous count
Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky. Nikolai Petrovich began his service among the Russians
diplomats of the Catherine century and served as envoy extraordinary for more than 15 years
and Minister Plenipotentiary in Frankfurt am Main. When imp. Paul I though
Rumyantsev was in the favor of the emperor, but did not hold any positions and
remained out of work.
Under Alexander I he was given the portfolio of Minister of Commerce, and then in
1809 entrusted with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, retaining the post of minister
commerce. Over time, he was elevated to the rank of State
Chancellor and appointed Chairman of the State Council. During
management of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Archives was influenced by love
Rumyantsev returned to antiquity, although apparently there was no basis for it. Already in
1810 Count Nikolai Petrovich invites Bantysh-Kamensky to draw up a plan
publication of the Collection of state charters and agreements. This plan was coming soon
ready, etc. Rumyantsev petitioned the Sovereign for the establishment, under
Archive of the Foreign Collegium, Commission for Printing "State
letters and contracts." He took all costs of publication at his own expense, but with
condition that the commission will remain under his jurisdiction even when he leaves
management of the department of foreign affairs. His wish was fulfilled, and on May 3
In 1811 the commission was established. The twelfth year delayed the release of the 1st
volumes, but Bantysh-Kamensky managed to save the printed sheets along with the archive
this first volume, and the first volume was published by 1813 under the title "Collection
State Charters and Agreements stored in the State College
Foreign Affairs". On the title page there was the coat of arms of Rumyantsev, as well as on
all its other publications. In the introduction to the first volume, its editor-in-chief
Bantysh-Kamensky explained the needs that caused the publication and the goals that
it pursued: “Experts of Russian antiquities and those who wanted to acquire
knowledge in domestic diplomacy could not be content with faulty
and contradictory passages of letters placed in Ancient Vivliofika, for
a complete collection of fundamental decrees and treaties was needed, which would
explained the gradual rise of Russia. Without this guide, they
were forced to inquire about the events and alliances of their state from
foreign writers and their works to be guided" (SGG and D, vol. 1,
page II). These words are true, because the publication of gr. Rumyantsev was
the first systematic body of documents, with which no one could compete
one previous edition, The released (first) volume collected
remarkable letters of the time 1229-1613. With their appearance, it was included in
scientific circulation is a mass of valuable material. published conscientiously and luxuriously.
The second volume of the Rumyantsev collection was published in 1819 and contains
charters until the 16th century and documents from the time of troubles. Bantysh-Kamensky died before
the release of the 2nd volume (1814), and Malinovsky worked on the publication instead.
The third volume was published under his editorship in 1822, and in 1828, when Rumyantseva
was no longer alive, and the fourth. Both of these volumes contain documents
XVII century In the preface to the 2nd volume, Malinovsky announced that the publication of charters
comes under the jurisdiction of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and depends on its orders;
however, to this day the matter has not gone further than the beginning of the fifth volume, which from
recently goes on sale and contains diplomatic
paper. If Rumyantsev’s activities were limited only to this publication (at
which he spent up to 40,000 rubles), then even then his memory would live forever in
our science - such is the significance of this collection of documents. How
historical phenomenon, this is the first scientific collection of acts, which marked
the beginning of our scientific attitude towards antiquity, and as a historical source, this
and is still one of the most important bodies of material that is important for
main issues general history of our state.
Striving so diligently to bring to light archival material, Count
Rumyantsev was not a simple amateur, but had great erudition in Russian
antiquities and never ceased to regret that his tastes for
antiquity, although their late appearance did not prevent him from spending a lot of labor and
material donations to find and save monuments. The total amount of it
costs for scientific purposes reached 300,000 rubles. silver More than once he
sent his own account to scientific expeditions, made excursions to
in the vicinity of Moscow, carefully searching for all kinds of remnants of antiquity, and
paid generously for every find. From his correspondence it is clear, by the way, that
With one manuscript he released an entire peasant family. High
Rumyantsev's official position made it easier for him to do what he loved and helped him conduct
him on the widest scale: for example, he addressed many governors and
bishops, asking for their instructions about local antiquities, and sent them to
guide your programs for collecting antiquities. Moreover, he
led research in foreign book depositories on Russian history
and, in addition to Russian monuments, wanted to undertake an extensive publication of foreign
writers about Russia: he noted up to 70 foreign legends about Russia,
A plan for publication was drawn up, but unfortunately this did not take place. But not
The chancellor was interested in one thing: collecting monuments; he often provided
support for researchers of antiquity, encouraging their work, and often he himself called
young forces for research, asking them scientific questions and providing
material support. Before his death, Count Rumyantsev bequeathed for the general
use by compatriots of their rich collection of books, manuscripts and other
antiquities. Emperor Nicholas I opened this meeting to the public, under
the name of the "Rumyantsev Museum", originally in St. Petersburg; but at
Emperor Alexander II, the museum was transferred to Moscow, where it was connected with
called the public museum in the famous Pashkov House. These museums...
precious repositories of our ancient writing. Was so wide
the activities of Count Rumyantsev in the field of our historical science. Her incentives
were the high education of this man and his patriotic
direction. He had a lot of intelligence and material means to achieve it
scientific purposes, but it must be admitted that he would not have done much of what
did if he had not had wonderful assistants behind him
people of that time. His assistants were figures from the Archive of the College of Foreign
business The heads of the Archive under Rumyantsev were N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky
(1739--1814) and L.F. Malinovsky, whose advice and works N. used.
M. Karamzin and who did a lot to improve their Archives.
And of the young scientists who began their activities in this Archive under Rumyantsev,
Let us mention only the most prominent: Konstantin Fedorovich Kalaidovich and Pavel
Mikhailovich Stroev. Both of them did a remarkable amount in terms of numbers and
the significance of their works, working on the scientific publication of monuments. collecting and
describing the manuscripts fully armed with excellent critical techniques.
Kalajdovich's biography is little known. He was born in 1792 and lived a short time
- only 40 years old and ended with insanity and almost poverty. In 1829
Pogodin wrote to Stroev about him: “Kalaidovich’s madness passed, but remained
such weakness, such hypochondria, that one cannot look at him without grief.
He is in need..." In his activities, Kalaidovich almost entirely belonged to
Rumyantsev circle and was Rumyantsev’s favorite employee. He participated in
publication of the "Collection of State Charters and Treaties"; together with Stroev
made a trip to the Moscow and Kaluga provinces in 1817 for
searching for old manuscripts. This was the first scientific expedition in
province with the exclusive purpose of paleography. It was created by
starting gr. Rumyantsev and was crowned with great success. Stroev and Kalaidovich found
Illustration of Svyatoslav 1073, Illarion's Praise to Kogan Vladimir and between
other things in the Volokolamsk Monastery Code of Laws of Ivan ///. This was then complete
new: No one in the Russian edition knew the Princely Code of Law, and Karamzin
used it in Herberstein's Latin translation. The Count welcomed the finds
and thanked the young scientists for their work. The code of law was published at his expense
Stroev and Kalaidovich in 1819 (“Laws of Grand Duke John Vasilyevich
and his grandson Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich." Moscow 1819, second edition, Moscow
1878). - In addition to his publishing works and paleographic research,
Kalaidovich is also known for his philological research (“John, Exarch
Bulgarian"). Early death and sad life did not give this talent
opportunities to fully deploy their rich forces.
P. M. Stroev was in close contact with Kalaidovich in his youth.
Stroev, coming from a poor noble family, was born in Moscow in 1796.
In 1812 he was supposed to enter the university, but military events
who interrupted the course of university teaching, prevented this, so that only
in August 1813 he became a student. The most remarkable of his teachers are here
were R. F. Timkovsky (d. 1820), professor of Roman literature,
famous for the publication of Nestor’s chronicle (published in 1824, for its publication he
applied methods of publishing ancient classics) and M. T. Kachenovsky (d. 1842)
- founder of the so-called skeptical school. Immediately upon admission to
university, i.e. 17 years old, Stroev has already compiled a short Russian History,
which was published in 1814, became a generally accepted textbook and five years later
demanded a new edition. In 1815, Stroev appeared with his own
own magazine "Modern Observer of Russian Literature",
which he thought of making a weekly and which was published only from March to
July. At the end of the same 1815, Pavel Mikhailovich left the university, not
Having completed the course, he entered the Printing Commission at the suggestion of Rumyantsev
State Charters and Agreements. Rumyantsev valued him highly and, as we shall see,
was right. In addition to successful cabinet works, Stroyev from 1817 to 1820
funds Rumyantseva tours the Moscow book depository together with Kalaidovich
and Kaluga dioceses. We already know what important monuments there were then
found. In addition to the finds, up to 2000 manuscripts were described, and Stroev in these
during his travels he acquired a great knowledge of handwritten material, of which he
helped Karamzin. And after his expeditions, until the end of 1822, Stroev
continues to work under Rumyantsev. In 1828 Stroev was elected
full member of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at
Moscow University (this Society was founded in 1804 to publish
ancient chronicles). At the meeting of the Society on July 14, 1823, Stroev spoke with
a grandiose project. He made a brilliant speech about his choice,
whom he thanked for his election, indicated that the goal of the Society was to publish
chronicles is too narrow, and proposed to replace it with the analysis and publication of all
generally historical monuments, which the Society will have the opportunity to
place:
“Society must,” said Stroev, “extract, make known
and, if not process it yourself, then provide others with the means to process everything
written monuments of our history and ancient literature..." "Let the whole
Russia, he said, will turn into one library accessible to us. Not
We must limit our studies to hundreds of famous manuscripts, but
countless numbers of them in monasteries and cathedral repositories, no one
stored and not described by anyone, in archives that mercilessly devastate time and
careless ignorance, in storerooms and basements, not accessible to the rays of the sun, where
piles of ancient books and scrolls seem to have been torn down so that the gnawing
animals, worms, rust and aphids could destroy them more conveniently and quickly!..” Stroev,
in a word, he proposed to the Society to bring into existence all written antiquities,
what provincial libraries had, and proposed to achieve this
the goal was to send a scientific expedition to describe the provincial book depositories.
The test trip of this expedition was to be carried out according to the project
Stroev in Novgorod, where it was necessary to dismantle the one located in the St. Sophia Cathedral
library. Next, the expedition had to make its first or northern
trip, the area of which included, according to Stroev’s plan, 10 provinces (Novgorod,
Petersburg, Olonets, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Vyatka, Perm,
Kostroma, Yaroslavl and Tverskaya). This trip was supposed to take two seconds.
more than a year and give, as Stroev hoped, brilliant results, “rich
harvest" because in the north there are many monasteries with libraries; they lived there
There are Old Believers who are very attentive to handwritten
antiquity; and then, in the north there were least of all enemy pogroms.
The second or middle trip, according to Stroev’s project, was supposed to take two years
time and cover central Russia (provinces: Moscow,
Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Tambov, Tula, Kaluga, Smolensk and
Pskovskaya). The third or western trip was to head to
southwestern Russia (9 provinces: Vitebsk, Mogilev, Minsk, Volyn,
Kyiv, Kharkov, Chernigov, Kursk and Oryol) and would demand
year time. With these trips Stroev hoped to achieve systematic
descriptions of all historical material in the province, mainly in
spiritual libraries. He determined the costs in the amount of 7,000 rubles. per year. All
he intended to merge the descriptions compiled by the expedition into one common painting
chronicle and historical-legal material and suggested that the Society publish
then historical monuments according to the best editions described by the expedition, and
not according to random lists, as was done before that time. Drawing like this
attractive prospects, Stroev skillfully proved the possibility of execution
his project and insisted on its adoption. He ended his speech with praise
Rumyantsev, thanks to whom he could acquire skill and experience in
archaeographical work. Of course, the Rumyantsev expedition of 1817-1820.
made Stroev dream about the grandiose expedition that he
offered.
Society, for the most part, accepted Stroev’s speech as a bold dream
young mind and gave Stroev the means to view only Novgorod
Sofia Library, which was described by him. Stroev’s speech wasn’t even
published in the Society's journal, and appeared in the Northern Archive. They read it and
forgot. Stroev himself was studying the history of the Don Cossacks at that time and
compiled his famous "Key to the History of the Russian State" by Karamzin,
wrote in magazines, became a librarian to Count F.A. Tolstoy, together with
Kalajdovich compiled and published a catalog of a rich collection of manuscripts
Count F.A. Tolstoy, now located in the Imperial Public Library.
Stroev's works were noticed by the Academy of Sciences, and in 1826 it gave him the title
his correspondent. Among his latest works, Stroev seemed to have forgotten about
of his speech: in reality it turned out not to be so. According to legend, the Grand Duchess
Maria Pavlovna reacted with great sympathy to Stroev’s speech, which
read it in the Northern Archive, and this participation, as they say, prompted Stroev
write a letter to the President of the Academy of Sciences, Count S.S. Uvarov. In this
in the letter he develops the same plans that he developed in the Society, he proposes
himself, as an experienced archaeographer, for archaeographic trips and reports
a detailed plan for the practical implementation of his proposed case. Uvarov
passed Stroev’s letter to the Academy, and the Academy passed it on to its member of the Circle
commissioned its analysis and evaluation. May 21, 1828 thanks to excellent feedback
Circle, an important matter has been decided. The Academy, recognizing that archaeographic
expedition is "a sacred duty from which the first scientific institution
The Empire cannot evade without being justly reproached for
indifference,” decided to send Stroev on a trip, allocating 10 thousand rubles.
banknotes. An archaeographic expedition was thus established.
The choice of assistants for the archaeographic expedition was left to you
Stroev. He selected two officials from the Foreign Office Archive and
entered into a very interesting condition with them, where, among other things, he wrote
the following: “The expedition does not await various fun, but labor, difficulties and
deprivations of all kinds. Therefore, my companions must be inspired by patience and
readiness to endure everything difficult and unpleasant, so that they do not take possession of them
cowardice, indecisiveness, murmuring! "... Next he warns his
assistants that they will often have to have a bad apartment, a cart, instead
spring carriage, not always tea, etc. Stroev, obviously, knew in what
environment he would work, and consciously walked towards hardships. First
His companions, having experienced the difficulties of the matter, abandoned him six months later.
Having prepared everything for the trip, stocking up on official papers, which
should have given him access to all archives, Stroev left from
Moscow to the shores of the White Sea. It would take too long to explain the most interesting
details of this expedition. Deprivations, difficulties of communications and work itself,
murderous hygienic living and working conditions, illness, sometimes
ill will and suspicion of ignorant archive keepers and
libraries - Stroev endured all this stoically. He devoted himself entirely to his work,
often surprisingly difficult and dry, and only occasionally, taking advantage of vacations for
rest for a month, returned to his family. The comforting thing is that
in these works he found himself a worthy assistant in the person of Yak. Iv. Berednikova
(1793-1854), with whom he replaced the previous officials in 1830. Energy
These two workers achieved wonderful results;
They worked for five and a half years, traveling throughout the northern and central
Russia, more than 200 libraries and archives were examined, up to 3000 were written off
historical and legal documents dating back to the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th centuries,
examined a lot of monuments of annalistic and literary nature.
The material they collected, having been rewritten, took 10 huge volumes, and in
their draft portfolios were left with a mass of certificates, extracts and instructions that
allowed Stroev to compose two remarkable works that appeared in print
after his death. (This is the "Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries
Russian Church", everyone whom history remembers, and "Bibliological
dictionary or alphabetical list of all historical and literary manuscripts
contents" that only Stroev had seen in his lifetime.)
The whole of educated Russia followed Stroev’s journey. Scientists
turned to him, asking for extracts, instructions and certificates. Speransky, cooking
then the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire” was published, addressed to
Stroev for help in collecting decrees. Every year, December 29, the day of the year
meetings of the Academy of Sciences, by the way, reports were read about the actions
archaeographic expedition. Information about her was published in magazines. Emperor
Nikolai read from blackboard to blackboard large volumes of completely copied
acts collected by the expedition.
At the end of 1834, Stroev was close to finishing his work. Northern and
His middle trip was over. The smallest one remained - the western one,
those. Little Russia, Volyn, Lithuania and Belarus. In its report to the Academy for 1834
Mr. Stroev triumphantly announced this and, listing the results
archaeographic expedition for the entire period of its existence, said: “From
the discretion of the Imperial Academy of Sciences depends: a) to continue
archaeographic expedition in other areas of the Empire in order to confirm
decisively: there is no more than this, i.e. no unknown material, or b) start
printing of historical and legal acts, almost prepared, and collection
various writings (i.e. chronicles) according to my instructions..." This report by Stroev
was read at the solemn meeting of the Academy on December 29, 1834, and almost on that
the same day Stroev learned that by the will of the authorities (not the Academy) the archaeographic
the expedition ceased to exist, so that for the analysis and publication of the extracted
Construction acts established under the Ministry of Public Education
Archaeographic Commission. Stroev was appointed as a simple member of this commission
along with his former assistant Berednikov and two more persons, to
expeditions not at all involved [* It was hard for Stroev to see the expensive business in
at someone else's disposal; so he soon leaves the commission and settles in
Moscow, but involuntarily maintains lively relations with the members of the commission. On the first
at times the commission depended a lot on him in its scientific activity; for her
he continues to work until the end of his life, developing Moscow archives.
Here, under his leadership, the well-known I. E. Zabelin began his work
and N.V. Kyalachev. At the same time, Stroev continued to work for the Society
history and antiquities, describing, among other things, the library of the Society. Died
he January 5, 1876, aged eighty years.]. Establishment of a commission, soon
turned into a constant (it still exists), a new one begins
era in the publication of monuments of our antiquity.
The Archaeographical Commission, which was established first with a temporary
the purpose of publishing the acts found by Stroev became in 1837, as we mentioned,
a permanent commission for the analysis and publication of historical material in general.
Its activities have been expressed throughout its existence by numerous
publications, of which it is necessary to indicate the most important ones. In 1836 she published
his first four volumes under the titles: “Acts collected in libraries
and archives of the Russian Empire by the Imperial Archaeographic Expedition
Academy of Sciences." (In common parlance, this publication is called "Acts
Expeditions", and in scientific references it is indicated by the letters AE.) In 1838 they appeared
"Legal acts or a collection of forms of ancient paperwork" (one volume).
This publication contains acts of private life up to the 18th century. In 1841 and 1842
five volumes of "Acts of Historical Collection and Published by the Archaeographical
commission" (volume I [contains] acts up to the 17th century, from volumes II to V - acts of the 17th century
V.). Then “Additions to historical acts” began to be published (total XII
volumes containing documents of the XII-XVII centuries). Since 1846, the commission began to
systematic publication of the "Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles". Pretty soon
She managed to release eight volumes (Volume I - Laurentian Chronicle. II -
Ipatiev Chronicle. III and IV -- Novgorod Chronicle, end of IV and V --
Pskovskaya, VI - Sofia Temporary, VII and VIII - Resurrection Chronicle).
Then publication slowed down somewhat, and only many years later volumes were published
IX--XIV (containing the text of the Nikon Chronicle), and then volume XV
(concluding the Tver Chronicle), Volume XVI (Chronicle of Abramka), XVII
(Western Russian Chronicles), XIX (Degree Book), XXII (Russian Chronograph),
XXIII (Ermolin Chronicle), etc.
All this material, enormous in number and importance of documents, brought to life
our science. Many monographs were based almost exclusively on it
(for example, the excellent works of Solovyov and Chicherin), questions were clarified
ancient social life, it became possible to develop many details
ancient life.
After its first monumental works, the commission continued to actively
work. Until now, it has published more than forty publications. The highest value
in addition to those already mentioned, they have: 1) “Acts relating to the history of Western Russia”
(5 volumes), 2) “Acts relating to the history of Western and Southern Russia” (15
volumes), 3) "Acts related to legal life ancient Russia"(3 volumes),
4) "Russian Historical Library" (28 volumes), 5) "Great Menaion of Chetya
Metropolitan Macarius" (up to 20 issues), 6) "Scribe books" Novgorod and
Izhora XVII century, 7) “Acts in foreign languages relating to Russia” (3
volumes with addition), 8) "Tales of foreign writers about Russia" (Rerum
Rossicarum scriptores exteri) 2 volumes, etc.
Following the model of the Imperial Archaeographic Commission, the same
commissions in Kyiv and Vilna - just in those places where I did not have time to visit
Stroev. They are engaged in publications and research of local material and
have already done a lot. Business is going especially well in Kyiv,
In addition to the publications of archaeographic commissions, we also have a whole
a number of government publications. Second Division of His Majesty's Stationery
was not limited to the publication of the “Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire”
(Laws from 1649 to the present), it also published “Monuments
diplomatic relations of the Moscow state with Europe" (10 volumes),
"Palace ranks" (5 volumes) and "Books ranks" (2 volumes). Next to
government and private activities for the publication of ancient
monuments. Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities, which
the times of Stroev barely eked out its existence, came to life and constantly declares
about yourself with new publications. After the "Readings at the Moscow Society of History and
Antiquities", edited by O. M. Bodyansky, it was published under the editorship of I. D.
Belyaev: "Vremennik of the Imperial Moscow Society of History and
Antiquities" (25 books containing rich material, research and a whole range of
documents). In 1858, Bodyansky was again elected secretary of the Society,
which continued to publish "Readings" instead of Belyaev's "Vremennik".
After Bodyansky, A.N. Popov was elected secretary in 1871, and after his death
him in 1881 by E.V. Barsov, during which the same “Readings” continue.
Archaeological societies have also published and are publishing their works: St. Petersburg,
called "Russian" (founded in 1846), and Moscow (founded in 1864
G.). Was and is engaged in archeology and history Geographical Society
(in St. Petersburg since 1846). Of his publications, we are especially interested in
"Scribe books" (2 volumes edited by N.V. Kalachev). Operating since 1866
(mainly over the history of the 18th century) Imperial Russian Historical
A society that has already managed to publish up to 150 volumes of its “Collection”. Scientists
Historical Societies are beginning to be founded in the provinces, for example:
Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, provincial scientific archival commissions.
The activities of individuals are also evident: private collections of Mukhanov, book.
Obolensky, Fedotov-Chekhovsky, N.P. Likhachev and others include
very valuable materials. Since the 30s and 40s, our magazines begin
materials for history are printed, there are even magazines specifically
dedicated to Russian history, for example:
Russian Archive, Russian Antiquity, etc.
Let us move on to the characteristics of certain types of historical material and
First of all, let us dwell on chronicle-type sources, and in particular on
chronicle, since we are mainly indebted to it for our acquaintance with the most ancient
history of Rus'. But in order to study chronicle literature, it is necessary
know the terms used in it. In science, a “chronicle” is the weather record.
a story about events, sometimes brief, sometimes more detailed, always with
exact indication of years. Our chronicles have been preserved in huge quantities.
copies or lists of the XIV--XVIII centuries. By place and time of compilation and by
According to the content of the chronicle, they are divided into categories (there are Novgorod, Suzdal,
Kyiv, Moscow). Lists of chronicles of the same category differ from each other
not only in words and expressions, but even in the very choice of news, and often
in one of the lists of a known category there is an event that is not in the other;
As a result, the lists are divided into editions or editions. Differences in the lists
of the same category and led our historians to the idea that our chronicles are
collections and that their original sources have not reached us in their pure form.
This idea was first expressed by P. M. Stroev back in the 20s in his
preface to the Sofia Vremennik. Further acquaintance with the chronicles
led finally to the conviction that the chronicles that we know
represent collections of news and legends, compilations of several works. AND
Now the prevailing opinion in science is that even the most ancient chronicles are
compilation codes. Thus, the chronicle of Nestor is a collection of the 12th century, Suzdal
Chronicle - vault of the 14th century, Moscow - vaults of the 16th and 17th centuries. etc.
Let's start our acquaintance with chronicle literature with the so-called chronicle
Nestor, which begins with a story about the settlement of tribes after the flood, and
ends around 1110; its title is: “Behold the tales of bygone years (in
other lists added: monk of Fedosiev Pechora Monastery) from where
there is a Russian land that went to Kyiv, who were the first principalities, and where did the Russian
the earth began to eat." Thus, from the title we see that the author promises
to say only the following: who first began to reign in Kyiv and where he came from
Russian land. The very history of this land is not promised and yet it is being carried out
until 1110. After this year we read the following postscript in the chronicle:
Abbot Selivester of St. Michael, having written books and chronicler, hoping
accept mercy from God, under Prince Volodymyr, reigning for him in Kyiv, but for me
I became abbot at St. Michael's in 6624, indictment of the 9th summer (i.e. in 1116). So
In one way it turns out that the author of the chronicle was Sylvester, but according to others
it is not Sylvester, abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery, who wrote the chronicle,
known as "The Tale of Bygone Years", and the monk of Pechersk
Nestor Monastery; Tatishchev also attributed it to Nestor. In the ancient "Paterikon"
Pechersky" we read the story that Nestor came to the monastery, to
Theodosius, 17 years old, was tonsured by him, wrote a chronicle and died in the monastery. IN
chronicles under 1051, in the story about Theodosius, the chronicler says about himself: “To
He (Theodosius) came to me thin and accepted me when I was seventeen years old.”
Further, under 1074, the chronicler conveys a story about the great ascetics
Pechersky and about their exploits says that he heard a lot from the monks,
and the other “and the witness was.” Under 1091, the chronicler on his own behalf
talks about how, in his presence and even with his participation, the Pechersk brethren
transferred the relics of St. to a new place. Feodosia; in this story the chronicler
calls himself a “slave and disciple” of Theodosius. Under 1093 follows a story about
the Polovtsian attack on Kyiv and their capture of the Pechersky Monastery, story
written entirely in the 1st person; then under 1110 we find the above
Sylvester's note from the hegumen not of the Pechersk, but of the Vydubitsky monastery.
On the basis that the author of the chronicle speaks of himself as a Pechersk
monk, and due to the fact that the news, extraneous chronicles, are called in
Pechersk Monastery by the chronicler of monk Nestor, Tatishchev so confidently
attributed the chronicle before 1110 to Nestor, but only considered Sylvester
her copyist. Tatishchev’s opinion met with support in Karamzin, but with that
the only difference is that the first thought that Nestor brought the chronicle only to 1093
g., and the second - until 1110. Thus, the opinion has been fully established that
the chronicle belonged to the pen of one person from the Pechersk brethren, who compiled it
quite independently. But Stroev, when describing the manuscripts of Count Tolstoy,
discovered the Greek chronicle of George Mnich (Amartola), which in some places turned out to be
literally similar to the introduction to the chronicle of Nestor. This fact illuminated this
question from a completely new angle, there was an opportunity to point out and study
chronicle sources. Stroev was the first to hint that the chronicle is nothing more than
as a collection of various historical and literary materials. Its author really
compiled both Greek chronicles and Russian material: brief monastic records,
folk legends, etc. The idea that the chronicle is a compilation collection,
should have prompted new research. Many historians have begun research
reliability and composition of the chronicle. He devoted his scientific articles to this issue.
and Kachenovsky. He came to the conclusion that the original chronicle
was not compiled by Nestor and is generally unknown to us. The chronicles known to us, according to
according to Kachenovsky, are “collections of the 13th or even 14th centuries, of which
sources are mostly unknown to us." Nestor, by his education,
living in an era of general rudeness, I could not create anything similar to what has come down to
us an extensive chronicle; he could only own those inserted into
chronicle "monastery notes", in which he, as an eyewitness, talks about
life of his monastery in the 11th century. and talks about himself. Kachenovsky's opinion
caused serious objections from Pogodin. (See "Research"
remarks and lectures" Pogodin, vol. I, M. 1846.) Pogodin claims that if
we do not doubt the reliability of the chronicle starting from the 14th century, we do not have
there are grounds to doubt the testimony of the chronicle about the first centuries. Coming from
reliability of the later story of the chronicle, Pogodin rises increasingly
and great antiquity and proves that even in the most ancient centuries the chronicle
absolutely correctly depicts events and states of citizenship.
Skeptical views on the chronicle of Kachenovsky and his students caused
defense of the chronicle book by Butkov ("Defense of the Russian Chronicle", M. 1840) and articles
Kubarev ("Nestor" and about the "Paterikon of Pechersk"). Through the labors of these three individuals,
Pogodin, Butkova and Kuba-rev, the idea was established in the 40s that exactly
Nestor, who lived in the 11th century, owns the oldest chronicle. But in the 50s
Over the years, this belief began to waver. Works of P. S. Kazansky (articles in
Vremennik of the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities), Sreznevsky ("Readings
about ancient Russian chronicles"), Sukhomlinov ("About the ancient Russian chronicle, how
literary monument"), Bestuzhev-Ryumina ("On the composition of ancient Russian
chronicles up to XIV"), A. A. Shakhmatov (articles in scientific journals and a huge
in terms of volume and very important in terms of scientific significance, the study “Search for
the most ancient Russian chronicle collections", published in 1908) question about the chronicle
was posed differently: new ones were involved in its study
historical and literary materials (undoubtedly belonging to Nestor’s life and
etc.) and new techniques are added. Compilative, consolidated nature of the chronicle
was completely established, the sources of the code were indicated very definitely;
A comparison of Nestor's works with the chronicle revealed contradictions.
The question of Sylvester's role as a chronicle collector became more serious and
more difficult than it was before. Currently, the original chronicle of scientists
imagine as a collection of several literary works,
compiled by different people, at different times, from a variety of sources.
These individual works at the beginning of the 12th century. have been combined into one more than once
literary monument, by the way, by the same Sylvester who signed
your name. A careful study of the original chronicle made it possible to outline
it contains many components, or more precisely, independent
literary works. Of these, the most noticeable and important: firstly,
"The Tale of Bygone Years" itself is a story about the settlement of tribes after
the flood, about the origin and settlement of Slavic tribes, about the division of the Slavs
Russians into tribes, about the original life of the Russian Slavs and about the settlement on
Rus' of the Varangian princes (only to this first part of the chronicle and can
refer to the title of the code given above: “Behold the tales of bygone years and
etc."); secondly, an extensive story about the baptism of Rus', compiled
by an unknown author, probably at the beginning of the 11th century, and thirdly, a chronicle about
events of the 11th century, which is most appropriately called the Kyiv initial
chronicle. As part of these three works that formed the corpus, and especially in
composition of the first and third of them, one can notice traces of other, smaller
literary works, “individual tales”, and thus it is possible
to say that our ancient chronicle is a compilation made up of
compilations, its internal composition is so complex.
Getting acquainted with the news of the Laurentian list, the oldest of those
which contain this name. Nesterov's Chronicle (it was written by a monk
Lawrence in Suzdal in 1377), we notice that for 1110, according to the chronicle
initial, the Laurentian list contains news, mainly
related to northeastern Suzdal Rus'; so that's what we're dealing with here
with a local chronicle. Ipatiev list (XIV-XV centuries) after the original
the chronicle gives us very detailed story about the events of Kyiv, and then
the chronicle focuses on events in Galich and Volyn land;
and here, therefore, we are dealing with local chronicles. These local
A lot of regional chronicles have reached us. The most prominent place between them
occupied by the Novgorod chronicles (there are several editions of them and some are very valuable) and
Pskovskys, bringing their story to the 16th, even 17th centuries. Considerable importance
There are also Lithuanian chronicles, which have survived in different editions and cover history
Lithuania and Rus' united with it in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Since the 15th century are attempts to collect historical material into one whole,
scattered throughout these local annals. Since these attempts were made in
era of the Moscow State and often through official government means,
then they are known under the name of Moscow vaults or Moscow chronicles, therefore
Moreover, they provide abundant material specifically for Moscow history. Of these
attempts earlier - Sofia Vremnik (two editions), which
connects the news of the Novgorod chronicles with the news of Kyiv, Suzdal
and other local chronicles, supplementing this material with individual legends
historical nature. The Sofia vremennik dates back to the 15th century. And
represents a purely external connection of several chronicles, a connection
under a certain year all data relating to the latest without any of them
processing. The same nature of simple connection of material from all
available to the compiler of chronicles is the Resurrection Chronicle, which arose in
beginning of the 16th century The Voskresensky vault has preserved to us in its pure form a mass of valuable
news on the history of the appanage and Moscow eras, which is why it can be called
the richest and most reliable source for the study of the XIV-XV centuries. Different character
have a Degree Book (compiled by persons close to Metropolitan Macarius,
XVI century) and the Nikon Chronicle with the New Chronicler (XVI-XVII centuries). Taking advantage
with the same material as the previously named vaults, these monuments give us this
material in processed form, with rhetoric in the language, with known
trends in reporting facts. These are the first attempts to process historical
material that introduces us to historiography. Later Russian chronicles
went in two ways in the Moscow state. On the one hand, it became
official business - at the Moscow court, the weather of the palace and
political events (chronicles of the time of Grozny, for example: Alexander Nevskaya,
The Royal Book and, in general, the last parts of the Moscow vaults, -
Nikonovsky, Voskresensky, Lvovsky), and over time, the very type
chronicles began to change, they began to be replaced by the so-called bit
books. On the other hand, chronicles began to appear in different parts of Rus'
strictly local, regional, even urban in nature, in the majority
devoid of significance for political history (such as Nizhny Novgorod, Dvinsk,
Uglichskaya and others; these are to some extent the Siberian ones).
Since the 16th century, next to the chronicles, a new type of historical
works: these are Chronographs or reviews of world history (more precisely,
biblical, Byzantine, Slavic and Russian). First edition of the chronograph
was compiled in 1512, mainly based on Greek sources
with additional information on Russian history. She belonged to the Pskov
"Elder Philotheus" In 1616--1617. The 2nd edition of the chronograph was compiled. This
the work is interesting in the sense that it depicts more ancient events
based on the first edition of the chronograph, and Russians - starting from XVI, XVII
centuries - describes again, independently. Its author undoubtedly has
literary talent and who wants to get acquainted with ancient Russian rhetoric in
its successful examples, should read articles on Russian history in this
chronograph. In the 17th century Moscow society is beginning to show a special
a penchant for chronographs that is growing in large quantities. Pogodin in
collected up to 50 copies of them in his library; no big deal
collections of manuscripts, where they are not counted in dozens. Prevalence
chronographs are easy to explain: brief summaries of the system, written
in literary language, they gave the Russian people the same information as
chronicles, but in a more convenient form.
In addition to the chronicles themselves, in ancient Russian writing one can find
There are many literary works that serve as sources for the historian. Can
even say that all ancient Russian literary writing should
be considered as a historical source, and it is often difficult
predict from which literary work the historian will draw the best
clarification of the question of interest. So, for example, the meaning of class
the name of Kievan Rus "ognishchanin" is interpreted in historiography not only
from monuments of legislation, but also from the ancient Slavic text of teachings
St. Gregory the Theologian, in which we encounter the archaic saying “fire” in
in the sense of “slaves”, “servants” (“many fires and herds looming”). Translations
sacred books made by the book. A. M. Kurbsky, provide material for a biography and
characteristics of this famous figure of the 16th century. But with such significance of everything
historical and literary material, some of its types still have a special
interest for the historian;
These are individual tales about persons and facts that have the character of
historical, then journalistic. A number of historical tales are included in their entirety
in our chronicles: such, for example, are the stories about the baptism of Rus', about
the blinding of Prince Vasilko, about the Battle of Lipitsa, about Batu’s invasion, about
Battle of Kulikovo and many others. In separate lists or also collections
curious journalistic works of ancient Rus' have reached us, with which
The 16th century was especially rich; Of these, “History” occupies a prominent place,
written book A. M. Kurbsky about Grozny; pamphleteous works
called Ivashki Peresvetov, defender of the government system
Grozny; "The Tale of a Certain God-Loving Man" who was an opponent of this
systems; "Conversation of the Valaam Wonderworkers", in which they see the work
boyar environment, dissatisfied with the Moscow order, etc. Next to
journalism in the XVI-XVII centuries. continued to exist and develop
historical writing, expressed in a number of curious stories and legends,
often taking large external volumes. This is, for example, compiled in
XVI century "The History of the Kazan Kingdom", outlining the history of Kazan and its fall
in 1552. In the XIII volume of the "Russian Historical Library" a whole series was published
Russian stories about the time of troubles, many of which have long become
known to researchers of the Troubles. Among dozens of these stories stand out: 1) so
called Another Legend, which is a political pamphlet,
left the Shuisky party in 1606; 2) Legend of the cellarer to Trinity-Sergeeva
Laurels of Abraham Palitsyn, written in its final form in 1620; 3)
Vremnik by Ivan Timofeev, a very interesting chronicle of the turmoil; 4) The Prince's Tale
I. Mikh. Katyrev-Rostovsky, marked with the seal of a great literary
talent; 5) New Chronicler - attempts to factually review the troubled era and
etc. Tales of the capture of Azov by the Cossacks date back to a later era,
description of the Moscow state made by G.K. Kotoshikhin in the 60s
XVII century, and, finally, a whole series of notes of Russian people (Prince S.I. Shakhovsky,
Baim Boltin, A. A. Matveev, S. Medvedev, Zhelyabuzhsky, etc.) about time
Peter the Great. These notes open endless series Russian memoirs
figures who took part in government activities and
social life of the 18th and 19th centuries. Common knowledge of some memoirs
(Bolotova, Dashkova) eliminates the need to list the most prominent
them.
Next to historical tales as a historical source
there are hagiographical tales or lives of saints and stories of miracles.
Not only the life of the saint itself sometimes provides valuable historical evidence about
the era in which the saint lived and acted, but also in the “miracles” of the saint,
attributed to the life, the historian finds important indications about the circumstances of that
time when miracles happened. So, in the life of Stephen of Sourozh one of
stories about the miracle of the saint makes it possible to establish the existence
the people of Rus' and their actions in Crimea before 862, when, according to the chronicle, Rus'
was called to Novgorod with Rurik. The Artless Form of the Most Ancient Lives
gives particular value to their testimony, but from the 15th century. special
methods of writing lives that replace factual content with rhetoric and
distorting the meaning of a fact for the sake of literary fashion. Lives (of St. Sergius
Radonezh, Stefan of Perm), compiled in the 15th century. Epiphanius the Wise,
already suffer from rhetoric, although they are marked by literary talent and strength
sincere feeling. More rhetoric and cold conventionality in the lives,
compiled by learned Serbs who lived in Rus' in the 15th century: Metropolitan. Cyprian and
monk Pachomius Logothetes. Their works created a conventional form in Rus'
hagiographic creativity, the spread of which is noticeable in the Lives of the XVI and XVII
centuries This conventional form, subordinating the content of the lives, deprives them of testimony
freshness and precision.
We will complete the list of historical sources of literary type if
let's mention a large number of those notes about Russia that were in different centuries
compiled by foreigners who visited Rus'. From the legends of foreigners it is more noticeable
works: Catholic monk Plano Carpini (XIII century), Sigismund Herberstein
(early 16th century), Paul Jovius (16th century), Hieronymus Horsey (16th century),
Heidenstein (XVI century), Fletcher (1591), Margeret (XVII century), Konrad Bussow
(XVII century), Zholkiewski (XVII centuries), Olearius (XVII century), von Meyerberg (XVII
century), Gordon (late 17th century), Korb (late 17th century). For the history of the 18th century.
Diplomatic dispatches from Western European ambassadors are of great importance
Russian court and an endless series of memoirs of foreigners. familiar with Russians
affairs. Along with the works of foreign writers who knew Russia, it follows
remember also the foreign material that historians use when studying
the first pages of the history of the Slavs and Rus'. The beginning of our historical life
it is impossible, for example, to study without becoming acquainted with Arab writers (IX-X centuries and
later), who knew the Khazars, Rus' and in general the peoples who lived on our plain;
it is equally necessary to use the works of Byzantine writers,
good acquaintance with which has recently given special results in
the works of V. G. Vasilievsky, F. I. Uspensky and our other Byzantinists.
Finally, information about the Slavs and Russians is found in medieval writers
Western European and Polish: the Gothic historian Iornand [correctly --
Jordan. - Ed.] (VI century), Polish Martin Gall (XII century), Jan Dlugosz (XV century
c.) and others.
Let's move on to monuments of a legal nature, to monuments
government activities and civil society. This material
are usually called acts and charters and are stored in large numbers in
government archives (of which the remarkable ones are: in Moscow - Archive
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Archive of the Ministry of Justice, in Petrograd --
State and Senate Archives, finally, Archives in Vilna, Vitebsk and
Kyiv). To become familiar with archival material, you should whenever possible
accurately classify, but monuments of a legal nature have reached us
there are so many and they are so varied that it is quite difficult to do. We can
note only the main types: 1) State acts, i.e. all documents
which relate to the most important aspects of public life, for example, contracts.
Monuments of this kind have been preserved with us from the very beginning of our history, this
remarkable treaties with the Greeks of Oleg and subsequent princes. Next, a row
interprincely treaties have reached us from the XIV-XVI centuries. In these agreements
the political relations of the ancient Russian princes are determined. Next to
contractual letters must be given by spiritual letters, i.e. spiritual
princes' wills. For example, two spiritual testaments of Ivan have reached us
Wickets. The first was written before going to the horde, the second before death. In them
he divides all property between his sons and therefore lists it. So
Thus, a spiritual document is a detailed list of land holdings
and the property of Russian princes and from this point of view is very valuable
historical and geographical material. We will mention with sincere letters
electoral certificates. The first of them relates to the election of Boris Godunov to
Moscow throne (its composition is attributed to Patriarch Job); second - to
election of Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov. Finally, to state acts
monuments of ancient Russian legislation should be included. To them first
In all, Russian Pravda should be considered, since it can be recognized as an act
government activities, not a private collection. Then here
include the letters of judgment of Novgorod and Pskov, approved by the veche; They
conclude a number of rulings in court cases. Has the same character
and Code of Law of Ivan III of 1497 (called the first or princely). In 1550 for
this code of law was followed by the second or royal Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, more
complete, and 100 years after it in 1648-1649. the Council was compiled
The Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, which was comparatively very
the complete code of law then in force. Next to collections of secular
legislation acted in the sphere of ecclesiastical court and administration
collections of church legislation (Kormchaya Book or Nomocanon, etc.);
These collections were compiled in Byzantium, but over the centuries little by little
adapted to the peculiarities of Russian life. 2) Second type
historical and legal material are administrative documents: these are
separate government orders given or for special cases
administrative practice, or to individuals and communities in order to
determine the relationship of these individuals and communities to the authorities. Some of these letters
had a fairly broad content - for example, statutory and oral charters,
determining the order of self-government of entire volosts. In the majority it is
separate government orders on current affairs. In Moscow
state legislation developed precisely through the accumulation of individual
legal provisions, each of which, arising in connection with a particular case,
then turned into a precedent for all similar cases, it became
permanent law. This casuistic nature of legislation created in
Moscow, the so-called Decree Books of Orders or individual departments, -
each department recorded the royal decrees in chronological order,
that concerned him, and a “Book of Indications” arose, which became
guidance for all administrative or judicial practice departments. 3)
The third type of legal material can be considered petitions, i.e. those
requests that were submitted to the government in various cases. Right of petition
was not constrained by anything in ancient Rus' until the middle of the 17th century, and the legislative
government action was often a direct response to petitions; from here
the great historical significance of petitions is clear - they not only introduce
needs and everyday life of the population, but also explain the direction of legislation. 4)
In fourth place, let us remember the letters of private civil life, in which
personal and property relations of private individuals were reflected - enslaving
records, bills of sale, etc. 5) Further, a special type of monuments can be considered
monuments of legal proceedings, in which we find a lot of data for the history of not
only the court, but also those civil relations, that real life, which
concerned the court. 6) Finally, a special place among the sources is occupied by:
called Order Books (one type of them - Order Books - has already been mentioned).
There were many types of order books, and we should only familiarize ourselves with
historically important. Scribe books are the most curious of all,
containing a land inventory of the districts of the Moscow State,
produced for tax purposes; census books containing
census of people of tax classes of the population;
books of feed and tithes, containing censuses of courtiers and
service people with indications of their property status; bit books
(and the so-called palace ranks), in which everything that
belonged to the court and state service of the boyars and nobility
(in other words, these are diaries of court life and official appointments).
If we mention materials for the history of diplomatic relations
(“mandates”, i.e. instructions to ambassadors. “item lists”, i.e. diaries
negotiations, reports of ambassadors, etc.), then historical and legal monuments will be
We have listed them with sufficient completeness. As for this kind
monuments of Petrine Rus', then their terminology and classification in the 18th century. V
in its main features differs so little from what we have today that it does not require
explanations.