Образ московского удельного князя XV века в отечественной историографии и источниках. Опыт сравнения

contemporary Russian historical science in study of Russian history of 14-15th centuries faced again need to review approaches and methods of study and use of sources and chronicles in particular. Already in 1910 1940-ties number of researchers raised question of need to change attitude to historical This was largely caused by crisis of so-called state historical school. In 1918 A.E. Presnyakov pointed to tendency of using one chronicle Nikon's chronicle, which was most informative to illustrate complete historiographical schemes, which were not derived from historical He also pointed to negative consequences for understanding and study of history, and he spoke directly about distortion in research of historical process. In 1940 M.D. Priselkov, in his monograph on history of Russian chronicles of 11-15th centuries, spoke about at that time ongoing consumer-like attitude to sources. Thus we can say that general scheme of medieval Russian history, formed by state historical school in 40-80-ties of 19th century continued in Soviet period. Moreover, 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 Crossroads, which was published only 11 years after author's death, in 1991, is evidence of this tradition. In this case, a special issue is under consideration: image in historiography and chronicles of one of appanage princes from Moscow dynasty, who took an active part in so-called dynastic (feudal) wars of second quarter of 15th century. This rather controversial figure allows us to see perception of historians and chroniclers interprince relations and principles of succession that existed in studied time. attitude to personality of prince may also demonstrate mechanisms of perception of recorded information by academic historians of 1920th centuries and influence of political views of author upon created historic images. first author, who studied biography of Prince Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk, V.N. Tatishchev just repeated text of chronicle, intending to be impartial and objective. But from first quarter of 19th century image began to turn negative and very emotional. N.M. Karamzin, who determined appanage ruler as weak, ruthless and frivolous, gave first evaluation of prince's emo tionality. To a lesser degree, S.M. Solovyov, and to a greater degree A.E. Presnyakov accused Prince of Mozhaysk of selfishness and desire to profit at expense of others. L.V. Tcherepnin characterized Ivan Andreevich as a traitor, based, inter alia, on 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 contenders for great reign, and even mentioned that the prince-passage, which indicates quite emotional attitude to ruler. If we question how chroniclers of 15-16th centuries assessed Prince Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaysk, we can see three more or less different images of prince, depending on time, place and purpose of creation of chronicles. chronicles and current events do not describe his activities completely. A part of his biography is hidden from us, but what was described is more of a positive image. We see here a usual appanage prince, who is pragmatic and cares of Russian land and Christians in a way. Grand principality chronicles of second half and end of 15th century provide most complete facts of biography of Ivan of Mozhaysk. His descriptions are restrained. Chroniclers often justify his actions, which in terms of end of 15th century might be perceived as treachery. Reprisals against his record do not give any explanation about reprisals as from viewpoint of his contemporaries; there were no reasons for his punishment at time. chronicles of end of 15-16th centuries do not give big picture of Prince of Mozhaysk, dwelling only on plot against Grand Prince Vasily II. It is first direct negative evaluation of his deeds, but does not provide reasons for any serious conclusions, since there is an obvious political order of winning princely family, and also because of lack of a sufficient number of facts in political history of North-Eastern Russia of second part of 15th century. Thus, there is an obvious gap between sources that in this case are worth trust on one hand, and interpretation of events proposed by historians on other hand. Therefore we can conclude that there is a need to review both individual episodes in history of North-Eastern Russia of 14-15th centuries and period on whole.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.