The Image of the Moscow Appanage Prince of the 15th Century in National Historiography and Sources.Comparison Experience

The contemporary Russian historical science in the study of Russian historyof the 14-15th centuries faced again the need to review the approaches and methods of study and use of sources and chronicles in particular.Already in the 1910 - 1940-ties the number of researchers raised the question of the need to change the attitude to historical sources. Thiswas largely caused by the crisis of the so-called state historical school. In 1918 A.E. Presnyakov pointed to the tendency of using one chronicle- Nikon's chronicle, which was most informative to illustrate complete historiographical schemes, which were not derived from historicalsources. He also pointed to negative consequences for understanding and study of history, and he spoke directly about distortion in the researchof the historical process.In 1940 M.D. Priselkov, in his monograph on the history of Russian chronicles of the 11-15th centuries, spoke about at that time the ongoing"consumer-like attitude to the sources". Thus we can say that the general scheme of medieval Russian history, formed by the statehistorical school in the 40-80-ties of the 19th century continued in the Soviet period. Moreover, the tradition, which was established by S.M.Solovyov, was more powerful than Marxism, at least in terms of political history. A.A. Zimin's monograph "The Knight at the Crossroads",which was published only 11 years after the author's death, in 1991, is the evidence of this tradition. In this case, a special issue is underconsideration: the image in historiography and chronicles of one of the appanage princes from the Moscow dynasty, who took an active partin the so-called dynastic (feudal) wars of the second quarter of the 15th century. This rather controversial figure allows us to see the perceptionof historians and chroniclers the interprince relations and the principles of succession that existed in the studied time. The attitude to thepersonality of the prince may also demonstrate the mechanisms of perception of the recorded information by academic historians of the 19-20th centuries and the influence of political views of the author upon the created historic images.The first author, who studied the biography of Prince Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk, V.N. Tatishchev just repeated the text of thechronicle, intending to be impartial and objective. But from the first quarter of the 19th century the image began to turn negative and veryemotional. N.M. Karamzin, who determined the appanage ruler as "weak, ruthless and frivolous", gave the first evaluation of prince's emotionality. To a lesser degree, S.M. Solovyov, and to a greater degree A.E. Presnyakov accused the Prince of Mozhaysk of selfishness and thedesire to profit at the expense of others.L.V. Tcherepnin characterized Ivan Andreevich as a traitor, based, inter alia, on the facts, which equally apply to some other princes,but who did not receive any negative reference. A.A. Zimin continued discussion of this prince, as a traitor and an unreliable ally of the contendersfor the great reign, and even mentioned that "the prince-passage", which indicates quite emotional attitude to the ruler. If we questionhow the chroniclers of the 15-16th centuries assessed Prince Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaysk, we can see three more or less different images ofthe prince, depending on time, place and the purpose of creation of chronicles. The chronicles and current events do not describe his activitiescompletely. A part of his biography is hidden from us, but what was described is more of a positive image. We see here a usual appanageprince, who is pragmatic and cares of the Russian land and Christians in a way. Grand principality chronicles of the second half and the endof the 15th century provide the most complete facts of the biography of Ivan of Mozhaysk. His descriptions are restrained. Chroniclers oftenjustify his actions, which in terms of the end of the 15th century might be perceived as treachery. Reprisals against his record do not give anyexplanation about reprisals as from the viewpoint of his contemporaries; there were no reasons for his punishment at the time. The chroniclesof the end of the 15-16th centuries do not give the big picture of the Prince of Mozhaysk, dwelling only on the plot against the Grand PrinceVasily II. It is the first direct negative evaluation of his deeds, but does not provide reasons for any serious conclusions, since there is anobvious political order of the winning princely family, and also because of the lack of a sufficient number of facts in political history ofNorth-Eastern Russia of the second part of the 15th century. Thus, there is an obvious gap between sources that in this case are worth trust onthe one hand, and the interpretation of the events proposed by historians on the other hand. Therefore we can conclude that there is a need toreview both individual episodes in the history of North-Eastern Russia of the 14-15th centuries and the period on the whole.

Keywords

Authors

References