Russian History From The Beginning Of The Russian People To The Death Of Prince Yaroslav The First Or Until 1054 - Alternative View

Russian History From The Beginning Of The Russian People To The Death Of Prince Yaroslav The First Or Until 1054 - Alternative View
Russian History From The Beginning Of The Russian People To The Death Of Prince Yaroslav The First Or Until 1054 - Alternative View

Video: Russian History From The Beginning Of The Russian People To The Death Of Prince Yaroslav The First Or Until 1054 - Alternative View

Video: Russian History From The Beginning Of The Russian People To The Death Of Prince Yaroslav The First Or Until 1054 - Alternative View
Video: The origins of Russia 2024, March
Anonim

Published in 1766, after the death of Lomonosov, his "Ancient Russian history from the beginning of the Russian people to the death of Grand Duke Yaroslav the first or until 1054" was a major event not only in Russian historical science, but also in Russian literature. As you know, in almost all European literatures until the beginning of the 19th century. history was viewed as a part of fictional prose, which differed from the latter not in the manner of presentation, but in the nature of the material used. Historical works were valued primarily for eloquence, and not for documentary accuracy when covering events. Lomonosov's oratory works of the late 40s - early 50s of the 18th century. created for him the well-deserved fame of the greatest Russian prose writer, and that is why Elizaveta Petrovna wished to read the history of Russia, written by "the calm of Mr. Lomonosov."However, work on history dragged on, and Lomonosov's book was published when new requirements for historical works began to be presented in European historiography. And in Russia in the second half of the 60s of the 18th century. along with the traditions that had been held for a long time, different views on the tasks and style of works on history began to appear.

All this could not but affect the literary fate of Lomonosov's "Ancient Russian History".

This was the first work on the history of Russia, published after the publication in 1674 in Kiev of the Synopsis, the compilation of which is attributed to Innocent Gisel.

At the very beginning of its activity, the Academy of Sciences, along with a number of scientific tasks, also raised the question of studying the history of Russia. The first articles on historical topics were published in the "Commentaries" of the Academy of T.-Z. Bayer, a great scientist who was quite familiar with the scientific methods of his time. However, complete ignorance of the Russian language limited the range of sources available to him; as a result, Bayer's articles were not genuine studies of Russian history. Somewhat later G.-F. Miller also began to study Russian history, but the essays on the history of Kievan Rus, published by him in the first volumes of Sammlung Russischer Geschichte, indicate that he, like Bayer, did not speak Russian at that time. The texts of the chronicle were translated to him by the translators of the Academy of Sciences, among them was I.-V. Pause, who in some cases made an inaccuracy in his translations. As a result, Miller has a number of mistakes that confused the issues of the initial period of Russian history.

In the 1730s, V. N. Tatishchev wrote his "History of Russia", but it was published much later, in 1769-1784.

In 1747-1748. Lomonosov took part in the discussion of Miller's historical works at the Academy of Sciences - obviously, even then he was interested in the history of Russia and he got acquainted with the sources.

In 1749, the Academy of Sciences rejected the speech prepared by Miller to be delivered on the day of Elizaveta Petrovna's namesake, about the origin of the people and the name of Russia. In this struggle, Lomonosov took an active role, with his characteristic fervor.

Miller, in his prepared speech, failed to properly glorify the Russian people. Probably, this prompted I. I. Shuvalov to entrust the writing of Russian history to a Russian person. Through II Shuvalov, Lomonosov received "the most merciful command" to write history. From that time on, Lomonosov began a systematic study of sources and reports on the progress of work were submitted to the Academy.

Promotional video:

From the point of view of a scientific approach to materials and historical conclusions, "Ancient Russian History" is immeasurably higher than "Synopsis", articles by Bayer and Miller.

Lomonosov began collecting material for compiling history in 1751, drawing, in contrast to T.-Z. Bayer and G.-F. Miller, not only foreign, but also Russian sources. For three years he studied Russian chronicles and legislative acts, comparing different lists among themselves, got acquainted with the then not yet published "History of the Russian" by V. N. Tatishchev, where a number of sources were analyzed in the first volume. Lomonosov paid much attention to ancient and Byzantine writers, and used the works of Western historians. By 1758 the first volume was ready, in 1759 it began to be published.

Lomonosov himself stopped printing, he did not like the design he had chosen - references to sources, as was then customary, were placed in the margins, the author's notes - under the text. He decided to move his "philological research" to the end of the book. He submitted the manuscript to the Academy for the second time in 1763, but he did not have time to provide an apparatus of notes. The book was published after the death of the author, with a short introduction by Schletzer; Schletzer subsequently complained that this introduction had been revised at the Academy. The manuscript disappeared, the printed version was destroyed; thus, Lomonosov's "philological research" was lost; they have not been found to this day.

"Ancient Russian history" consists of two parts: "About Russia before Rurik" and "From the beginning of the reign of Rurikov to the death of Yaroslav the first."

Lomonosov devoted the first part to the question of the origin of the Russian people, proving its antiquity and the existence of its own independent culture. Lomonosov believed that the settlement of the present territory by the Slavs belongs to the most ancient times. As a result of the migrations, a mixture of peoples took place, and in the process of evolution, the Russian people formed from the fusion of the Scythians, Chuds (Lomonosov considers them one people) and the Slavs: “In the composition of the Russian people, the advantage of the Slavs is very evident, for our language, which originated from the Slavic, was a little canceled from it ". These thoughts were completely new for that time. The question of the origin of Russians from Mosokh Lomonosov cautiously avoids: "… I do not find a reason either to put it or to deny it." B. D. Grekov explains this caution of Lomonosov's fear of a collision with the church censorship,who could see this as an attempt to undermine faith in the Holy Scriptures.

The second question, in the solution of which Lomonosov parted with the Normanists T.-Z. Bayer and G.-F. Miller (although their views were dominant, they were shared by V. N. Tatishchev), - the question of the origin of Rurik with his brothers. He calls them "Varangians-Ross", not "Russ-Swedes".

In Russia, "Ancient Russian History" was reprinted in the 18th century. twice in Lomonosov's Complete Works: in 1784-1787 and 1794, both times in the fifth volume. VN Tatishchev's serious work "Russian History" was published in only one edition, and "Synopsis" after 1766 was reprinted by the Academy of Sciences four times, the last edition dates back to 1810.

What interest did “Ancient Russian History” arouse among contemporaries abroad, what translations were made and what assessment did they receive?

Using the periodicals available in the State Public Library and the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences, as well as the works of foreign authors on the history of Russia in the State Public Library, we will try to characterize the attitude towards "Ancient Russian history" in Germany, France and England. It must be remembered that, according to the scientific requirements of the time, the authors were not obliged to indicate and characterize the sources they used, therefore, a direct assessment of Lomonosov's work is found only in a few works on the history of Russia, the authors of which relied on “Ancient Russian history”.

Lomonosov's book was translated into German by G.-Y.-H. Backmaster: Alte russische Geschichte von dem Ursprange der Russischen Nation bis auf den Tod des Grossfürsten Jaroslaws des Ersten bis auf das Jahr 1054, abgefasst von Michael Lomonossov … Aus dem russischen ins Deutsche übersetzt. Riga und Leipzig, bei Johan Friedrich Hartknoch, 1768. 16 nn., 192 pp. “Translator's Preface” signed by Buckmeister. The content of this preface leaves no doubt that it was written by the translator himself. Therefore, it is not clear why in the catalog of the National Library of Paris, 2 in the footnote to the French edition, the German translation is attributed to R ** d'Hottal.

Buckmeister's translation contains the preface that was sent to the Russian edition of Ancient Russian History; Buckmeister points out that the entire second part of the book was borrowed by Lomonosov mainly from Russian sources, which makes his work compare favorably with previous ones and is interesting for foreigners. If during the translation there were ambiguities, then in order to accurately understand the meaning of the text, Buckmeister drew on the original source, and he himself translated the quotes into German from the original.

The translation was made by Buckmeister in good faith, without distorting the meaning (excluding some minor inaccuracies) and provided with a number of footnotes to clarify the text. The notes are of a varied nature: sometimes Buckmeister gives the names of authors and the names of peoples in Latin form; explains Russian geographical names, in particular, indicates that the Russians call the Varangian Sea Ost-See or that the city of Kiev consisted of three parts; gives an interpretation of some Russian words: hryvnia, funeral. On several occasions Buckmeister refers the reader to Miller's essays for reference.

Thus, Buckmeister's translation must be recognized not only as conscientious, but also benevolent. This translation introduced Europe, and first of all Germany, to Lomonosov's book. In Germany, where, earlier than in other European countries, history was no longer viewed as fictional prose, and began to be seen as an independent science, Lomonosov's work evoked a number of responses, mostly unfriendly. In many ways, this is probably due to the fact that German readers were familiar with the articles of Bayer and Miller and the new, conflicting views of Lomonosov were contrary to the established and considered authoritative views.

The first note we know appeared in the Allgemeine historische Bibliothek 3 in 1767, that is, even before the German translation went on sale. Its author sharply negatively assesses Lomonosov's History: “Auszug aus einem Schreiben von St. Petersburg den 20 sten Febr. 1767. Von des verstorbenen Staatsrath und Professors der Chemie Lomonosov; Russische Historie sind 2 Theile (1766 auf 140 Quartseiten) herausgekommen: mehr wird nicht erscheinen. Der erste Theil ist unbrauchbar: denn er enthält ein Cewirre von Scythen, Sarmaten und Szuden, der zweite ist aus den Annalen und gehet bis 1054. Gott bewahre das Publicum vor solchen Russischen Historien. Further, the note says that in Russia more than one Lomonosov studies Russian history. Besides him, A.-L. Schletser is engaged in comparing numerous lists of the chronicle of Nestor, differing among themselves,and Taubert completed the first part of the Russian Historical Library, which was brought up to 1206.

It is clear from the nature of this review that the author was knowledgeable in academic matters. Most likely, its author was Schletzer, who attached great importance to his work on the annals and who had a strained relationship with Lomonosov. In the heat of the dispute over the issues of Russian history, Lomonosov, with his characteristic unbridledness, called Schletzer "extravagant", said "what filthy dirty tricks such a beast admitted to them would not do in Russian antiquities."

Most likely, Schletzer also inspired the sharp criticism of Lomonosov's book in the edition of Friedrich Nicolai, where the reviews were generally unreasonably harsh. The article is signed by "Nk" and apparently belongs to the pen of the publisher himself. The author says that the late Professor Lomonosov, a chemist, will no longer be able to dishonor his country and harm Russian history. Similar stories were written in Germany 200 years ago, when historical criticism and scholarly researchers did not exist. Errors, which are individually permissible in different historians, are collected all together. Lomonosov never thought that a critical approach was needed when using the numerous priceless Russian chronicles. Without knowledge of historical science in general and works on Russian history over the past forty years, he gives in one stroke a picture of a little-known period of Russian history, up to the 9th century, and talks about the Scythians,Sarmatians, Slavs and Vendians, as his colleagues spoke about it in the days before Bayer. It is said about the second part of Lomonosov's work that it cannot be relied upon with confidence, since the Russian chronicles have not been published, many of them are apocryphal, and it is possible that the unlearned author of Ancient Russian History chose the wrong texts.

And in this review one can clearly feel the line of reasoning peculiar to Schlezer, who especially propagated the critical method in history. The possibility is not excluded that Nikolai relies on some of Schletzer's judgments about "Ancient Russian history", perhaps on letters or conversations with him.

In German journalism, there is a response to the French translation (from German) of "Ancient Russian History" with a general negative assessment of the book, especially its first part. The author of the review reproaches Lomonosov for the fact that, due to the lack of historical sources, he uses the linguistic interpretation of names and the history of words for his work, and that he, more than other writers, allowed arbitrary interpretations of obscure texts. The author of the review also believes that the French translator did not know enough German.

Against the background of this harsh criticism, Hartknoch's positive response stands out. His praise for Lomonosov's book and its German translation is understandable, since he was the publisher of the translation. It is interesting that, giving a positive assessment of the second part of Lomonosov's work, he is silent about the first.

The French translation of Ancient Russian History 8 came out a year after the German one: Histoire de la Russie depuis l'origine de la nation russe, jusqu'à la mort du grand Duc Jaroslavs premier. Par Michel Lomonossow, conseiller d'Etat … Traduit de l'allemand par M. E ***. Augmentée de deux cartes géographiques. Paris, chez Guillyn, Dijon, chez François Des Ventes, 1769. Two maps of southern and northern Russia are attached to the edition. The translation was by Marc Antoine Edoux, a prolific but not always accurate translator of the 18th century.

In the preface, Edu says that the work he is translating is about a people about which little is known to this day. The remoteness of the era, the geographical position of the country, the lack of knowledge of the language, the scarcity of materials contributed to the fact that everything written about Russia is shrouded in such darkness that it is impossible to distinguish truth from fiction. To get acquainted with the history of the country, Edu turned to Pufendorf, but did not find information there. Lomonosov, a Russian by birth, well fluent in his native language and the necessary materials, compiled the history of his country. He did his best to fulfill his task; proof of the success of the work is the emergence of a German translation. Everything in this essay is new and entertaining. The translator asks him to excuse him if errors are found in the translation, this was due to the complexity of the text and the difficulty of the language from which the translation was made. Edu says: “… c'est moins à moi que le Public en est redevable, qu'à un homme (a footnote is made here and is inserted in the margin:“M. le Baron d'Holbach”) distingué par sa probité, ses lumières et son amour pour les lettres, lequel a eu la bonté de me prêter l'original Allemand.”9 This message to Ed shows that Lomonosov’s“History”did not pass unnoticed among encyclopedists, and Golbach considered it necessary to acquaint French scholars with it by providing his a copy of the book for translation.that Lomonosov's History did not pass unnoticed among the encyclopedists, and Golbach considered it necessary to familiarize French scholars with it by providing his copy of the book for translation.that Lomonosov's History did not pass unnoticed among the encyclopedists, and Golbach considered it necessary to familiarize French scholars with it by providing his copy of the book for translation.

Ed's translation, following Buckmeister's German text, is not always accurate, in some cases due to negligence. He calls the Grand Duchess Olga Empress; transmitting the episode with the priest's prophecy about the death of Oleg, Edu writes about the horse: "… il l'envoya dans une province eloignée" ("… he sent him to a distant province"), although Bakmeister translated Lomonosov's text exactly: "… to put and feed in a special place."

In some cases, Ed has to be suspected of deliberately skipping the text. In the phrase: "Troy, created by Antenor on the Adriatic coast - in the name of the former fatherland, also new Ishpania, France, England and other new settlements, and in Slavic Pomerania itself, new Romes" - Edu omitted the end, starting with the words "in the name of the former fatherland ". Lomonosov's phrase about the fact that many Latin words have entered the Prussian language ends with the following words: "with whom the Gothic from the community with the Normans and the Livonian in the vicinity of the great have abolished in the present dialect"; in Ed's translation this part is missing. The phrase is completely omitted: "The Swedes and the Danes, despite the fact that their letters began to be used almost later than ours, begin their first kings before the birth of Christ, describing their household affairs and campaigns." In the story aboutthat in order to select a human sacrifice, “the priests threw foals, which they deliberately sent to fall on the son of a noble Varangian who lived in Kiev, who contained Christianity,” omitted the indication that the casting of lots was rigged and fell on the Varangian.

Having retained almost all of Buckmeister's footnotes, Edu added several new ones: that the country of Wagren, or Wagerland, is in Germany; explained the word "posadnik". An interesting note is made to the seventh chapter of the second part, where Lomonosov speaks about Vladimir's meekness after baptism: "… when he did not want to take a single person's life for a worthy execution." Ed makes a footnote: “La defunte imperatrice de Russie (Elissbeth) a imité son exemple” (“The late Russian Empress Elizabeth imitated his example”).

There are several inaccuracies in the French translation due to the fact that in the font of the German text the capital letters "K" and "R" are very similar in outline. Where we are talking about Kiev, the name is conveyed correctly, but "les montagnes de Riewitsch" is already translated "along the Kiev mountains", the names are "Riy" instead of "Kiy", "Rupala" instead of "Kupala", "Rolada" instead of "Kolyada" ".

In general, Ed's translation can be considered a little free, but satisfactory.

It is generally accepted that there were three French editions of Ancient Russian History. In addition to the above, the second: Histoire de la Russie, depuis l'origine de la nation Russe jusqu'à la mort du grand duc Jaroslaws premier. Par Michel Lomonossow … Traduit de l'Allemand par M ****. Paris, chez Dupour, chez Gostard, 1773, and third edition: Nouvelle histoire de la Russie, depuis l'origine de la nation Russe, jusqu'à la mort du Grand-Duc Jaroslaws premier. Par Michel Lomonossow … Traduit de l'Allemand par M. E ***. Paris, chez Nyon, 1776.

A detailed comparison of editions showed that all three editions were printed from the same set; apparently, the circulation was not sold out and was twice put on sale with a new title page. The same maps of Russia are enclosed in both editions. The copy of the third edition held by the State Public Library contains permission to print, royal privilege and a list of books sold by de Venta which were attached to the first edition; this indirectly confirms that the title page has been mechanically replaced in the third edition.

Unfortunately, we cannot judge whether the French translation of Lomonosov's History aroused interest in France. Journal des Savants kits, 1766-1776 are incomplete both in the State Public Library and in the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and there is no way to say whether a review of the book appeared in the journal. It can be assumed that it did not enjoy much popularity, which forced the publishers to release it on sale under the guise of new editions.

Much later, in Biographie universelle, Ancient Russian History was assessed positively: Il entreprit aussi d'écrire l'histoire ancienne de sa nation; et le volume qu'il publia, résulta de recherches profondes, lui fit le plus grand honneur; further, the presence of a German translation and a French translation of 1769 is indicated. The catalog of the National Library of Paris contains only the first edition of 1769; there is no book at all in Voltaire's personal library. The Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences also has only the first edition.

Judging by the reviewed works on the history of Russia in foreign languages, Lomonosov's “Ancient Russian History” was not widely known abroad. A number of works mention the names of Russian historians, but these are the names of the German academicians Bayer, Miller, later Schletzer, sometimes there are indications of the "Synopsis"; in some cases Voltaire's History of Russia is mentioned.

Even N.-G. Leclerc, who lived for several years in Russia, was elected an academician on April 11, 1765, in his three-volume work "Physical, moral, civil and political history of ancient Russia" mentions only the "History of Russia" by Shcherbatov.

In his five-volume work History of Russia, Leveque gives a list of the sources he used with a brief description of them. He used manuscripts, chronicles and a number of works by Russian historians. He characterizes Lomonosov's “ancient Russian history” as follows: “Auteur était le meilleur poète de sa nation et est en même temps un exellent ecrivain en prose; mais il n'avait pas cette saine critique qui est la première qualité d'un historien."

In 1802, a five-volume work by A.-L. Schletser "Nestor". Schletzer speaks rather dismissively of the state of Russian historical science: “Freilich.