V.N. Tatishchev - the prototype of the first Russian historian

Last quarter of XVII century is an important stage in transit from chronicle writing to historical research, just then the foundation of Russian historical science was laid and it made great advancement in its development already in XVIII century. Tatishchev played his role in establishment of Enlightenment historiography foundation in Russia. Historians often wonder who Tatishchev was - the first professional historian or the last chronicler, an industrious amateur and maybe even a mystifier? Tatishchev's magnum opus - "Russian history" had not been completed till the end when it became the object of conflicting opinions and accounts. The end of XVIII century was marked by the dispute of two historians - M.M. Shcherbatov and I.N. Boltin. They became pioneers of two trends ("skeptics" and "advocates" of Tatishchev's work) that determined the content of dispute on the value of "History" for the years to come. A.-L. Schlozer believed that although Tatishchev did not have proper education he is a "father of Russian history", and his work is a "useful" one. N.M. Karamzin continued to develop the ideas of "skeptics". The value of "History" in scientific world fell down remarkably under the influence of Karamzin's works authority. S.M. Solovyov legitimatized the value of "History" as a unique source of Russian history study. In 2005 a book by A.P. Tolochko appeared, his judgmental conclusions generated new discussions and disputes around Tatishchev. Tolochko believed that Tatishchev was a prominent mystifier of his time who "fooled credulous" readers. Criticizing Tatishchev his opponents not always understood the level of historical science development in Russia of the first half of XVIII century, the peculiarities of work with resources. Tatishchev did not have access to Russian central archives, the manuscripts he had were found mainly in private archives, from friends and acquaintances. Now with the development of historical science it becomes clear that sometimes the first Russian historian was wrong in attribution of resources that he had. One can criticize Tatishchev for misinterpretation of terms, words or events understanding at the same time that he did not have even supporting aids and dictionaries that could provide incredible assistance in his work. But Tatishchev was not a "mystifier" because such notions as "authorship", "resource" were not established in the historical science of XVIII century. Tatishchev is a historian-researcher in a sense of his time who critically selected and systematized a plethora of various written sources. Wherever Tatishchev went he searched for and gathered his unique "manuscripts" and "letters" for his 5 volume "History". This work by a "pioneer" of Russian history should be considered as a result of political and public views of its author from the one hand, and as the "embodiment" of perceptions about methods and historical investigation objectives inherent to a historian of Petrine epoch on the other hand.

Keywords

Authors

References