(BASED ON ANCIENT RUSSIAN MONUMENTS)
It is difficult to overestimate the role of source study methods in historical knowledge. If" neither thoughts nor language form a special realm in themselves, "if" they are only manifestations of real life,"1 then the accuracy of establishing the objective facts of this real life is just as important to the historian as the accuracy of empirical research is to the natural scientist. That is why the well-known reproach of Karl Marx and Fr. Engels ' view of historiography that it "takes every epoch at its word, no matter what it says or imagines about itself"2 applies not only to the historical science of his day as a whole , but also to source studies.
But what do we mean when we talk about the reliability of the source? The source not only contains a description of individual facts, it is also a product of a certain era, a "remnant of the past". Criticism of the source was familiar to historians from ancient times (from the Renaissance and even antiquity), but it was from the end of the XIX century. In historiography, the idea of the possibility of indirect use of sources, the inaccuracy and unreliability of which also reflect certain historical phenomena, arose and began to spread:" The triumph of historical criticism is to eavesdrop on what people of a certain time say about what they are silent about, " V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote in 1893 .3 In the 20th century, this way of using sources became quite common. The English historian R. J. Collingwood (1889-1943), rejecting archaic historiographical methods that he characterized as "scissors and glue" historiography, wrote that if a historian of the past read sources "on the assumption that there is nothing in them that they do not directly tell the reader", then the modern historian squeezes out of them "information that at first glance suggests something completely different, but in fact gives an answer to the question that he decided to put"4. A similar idea was expressed by his French colleague M. Blok, who noted that " even in clearly intentional evidence, our attention is now mainly drawn not to what is said in the text intentionally. We are much more willing to grasp what the author makes us understand without meaning to. " 5
1 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 3, p. 449.
2 Ibid., p. 49.
3 Klyuchevsky V. O. Letters. Diaries. Aphorisms and thoughts about history, Moscow, 1968, p. 349.
4 Collingwood R. J. The idea of history. Autobiography, Moscow, 1980, p. 245, 256.
5. Blok, M. Apologiya istorii, ili craft istorika [Apology of History, or the craft of a historian], Moscow, 1973, p. 37.
page 61
But isn't such a change in attitude to the source hiding indifference to the question of the reliability of those facts that the source reports directly, the rejection of the desire to find out "how it really was" (in the well-known expression of L. Ranke)?
Many historians of the twentieth century, rejecting the methods of historical criticism developed by their predecessors, actually came to extreme relativism - to the idea of a purely relativity of historical knowledge. A.-I. Marru contrasted the" arrogant, petty and malicious criticism "of the source, which, in his words, was indulged in by scientists of the XIX century, with" sympathy " for it. "History is inseparable from the historian, "" historical research is a work of art, " Marroux declared .
This approach, of course, is completely alien to materialist researchers who see history as a real and natural process. In their scientific practice, it cannot be accepted even by many historians-researchers who do not stand on materialistic positions. Thus, Collingwood, a neo-Hegelian idealist in his philosophical views, 7 defining history as "an imaginary picture of the past", wrote that, unlike a work of art, "the picture drawn by the historian claims to be true." History is united "with any other science" by its "evidential (inferent - derived from proofs. - Ya. L.) character" 8 . In other words, historical science obeys the principle of sufficient reason, which was actually the basis of logical constructions in antiquity, and was most definitely formulated by G. V. Leibniz9 . The answer to the question "what the evidence proves given by a competent researcher," Collingwood wrote, " is no more doubtful than the answer to any question solved in any field of scientific knowledge." One of the basic "rules of the game" of historical science says: "You can't report anything, however reasonable, other than what historical evidence proves when critically examined." 10
But if this is true, if the historian cannot add anything to his research beyond what is proved by evidence that has passed the test of source criticism, then the importance of such criticism for historical science is paramount. What is its purpose? We have already noted that a monument of the past can interest us both as a direct source of factual information and as a reflection of the ideology and culture of its era. It goes without saying that the indirect use of a source does not mean that we should not evaluate its direct indications. On the contrary, every narrative source needs such a double assessment, and in both cases, the analysis of the source is a necessary condition for its use.
The distinction between direct and indirect indications of the source is very important in the study of ancient Russian monuments. The need for such a distinction is particularly obvious when using sources on the history of heretical movements in the late 15th and 16th centuries. With a few exceptions, all of these sources come from the resolute
6 Marrou H. -I. Uber die Historische Erkenntnis. Welches ist der richtige Gebrauch der Vernunft, wenn sie sich historisch betatigt? Munchen. 1973, S. 115 - 120, 323 - 336.
7 Kissel M. A. R. J. Collingwood-historian and philosopher. In: Collingwood R. J. UK. op., pp. 426-427, 436.
8 Ibid., pp. 234-237, 239-240. The term "inferential "is not quite successfully rendered in the Russian translation as" inference " (cf.: Collingwood R. G. The Idea of History. N.Y.-Oxford. 1956, p.250).
9 Leibniz G. V. Soch. Vol. 1. M. 1982, p. 418.
10 Collingwood R. G. The Limits of Historical Knowledge. In: Winks R. W. The Historian as Detective. Essays on Evidence. N. Y. 1968, pp. 518, 522.
page 62
opponents and denouncers of heresy are sharply biased, propagandistic in nature. The historian can undoubtedly "squeeze" from these sources a variety of valuable indirect information: evidence about the ideology of the accusers themselves, about the structure of the inquisition processes of that era, etc. But the direct evidence about the heretics themselves and their views contained in these sources is highly questionable: their authors did not seek to present such views objectively, but tried to portray their bearers as "apostates" who deserved the death penalty. The propagandistic nature of incriminating monuments makes it possible to use them only in cases when they do not speak, but "let it slip" - they report something about the views of their opponents that does not correspond to the task of denouncing 11 .
Similar problems arise in the study of relatively recent sources. They provide valuable insights into the ideology of the environment that gave rise to them. But can their direct testimony about specific facts be considered reliable? Are the news about Kievan Rus contained in the Joachim chronicle of the late 17th or early 18th century reliable? Is the news of the Kazan History 1564-1565 reliable? that Ivan III, on the eve of the campaign of Akhmat in 1480, rejected the "bazma parsuna" of his face received from the Tatar khan, and spitting on the nude, and breaking it, and on the ground below, and trampling his feet. And he beat up his proud ambassadors and led all those who came to him boldly. S. M. Solovyov considered this news "highly suspicious", and A. E. Presnyakov noted the "naive and theatrical form" of the story and its inconsistency with the cautious nature and the entire policy of Ivan III 13 . However, this does not prevent a number of authors from including it in their presentation as a real fact of the history of the overthrow of the Horde yoke .14
To what extent can the specific facts reported by the "Legend of the Battle of Mamayev" be considered reliable? M. N. Tikhomirov drew attention to the" obvious inconsistencies " in this monument. He explained these inconsistencies partly by the fact that the "Legend" was already a consolidated monument, influenced by various works: "On the one hand, a poetic work similar to Zadonshchina, on the other - a text with many church inserts." According to Tikhomirov, "The Legend" was not only a late, but also tendentious monument, glorifying the Lithuanian Olgerdovich and Vladimir Serpukhov and depicting Dmitry Donskoy as "almost a coward": "This is a deliberate distortion of reality, and not a simple literary device." M. N. Tikhomirov did not recognize the description of the night divination of Dmitry Donskoy and Dmitry Volynets contained in the "Legend" as historically reliable (the Russians crossed the Don on the day of the battle, and "it was hardly this poetic night before the battle") and the story of Dmitry Donskoy's finding far from the battlefield, where he was found by soldiers sent by the Russian Army. By Vladimir Andreevich. "This legend, for all its incongruity, is firmly established in the historical tradition-
11 Wed. Lurie Ya. S. On some principles of source criticism. In: Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoi istorii, Moscow, 1973, pp. 94-96.
12 Kazanskaya istoriya [Kazan History], Moscow, 1954, p. 55.
13 S. M. Soloviev, History of Russia since ancient times. Book III. Moscow, 1960, p. 76; Presnyakov A. E. Ivan III on the Ugra. In: Sergey F. Platonov - students, friends and admirers. St. Petersburg, 1911, pp. 289-290. N. P. Likhachev's suggestion that the" Kazan Chronicler "meant, contrary to his direct text, not the" parsun of the face " of the Khan, but a paper label (without an image) with wooden sticks (Likhachev N. P. Basma of the Golden Horde Khans. In the book: Collection of articles in honor of Countess Uvarova, Moscow, 1916, pp. 85-86), does not increase the degree of reliability of the fantastic story of Kazan history.
14 See, for example, V. V. Kargalov, The End of the Horde Yoke, Moscow, 1980, p. 76.
page 63
literature, " Tikhomirov wrote. "Meanwhile, it is a kind of pamphlet directed against the Grand Duke and probably originated in circles close to Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhov." 15
Valuable research on the history of the Battle of Kulikovo is attributed to L. A. Dmitriev and other authors. L. A. Dmitriev proved that the original version of the" Legend of the Battle of Mamai "was not the one that is read in the annals, but a different one (Dmitriev called it the" Main version"), in which, contrary to the chronology, Mamai's ally is not the same as the first one. Prince Jagiello of Lithuania, and his father Olgerd 16 . The presence of such an anachronism already in the original "Legend" indicates a relatively late origin of the monument. M. A. Salmina attributed the "Legend of the Battle of Mamaev" to the end of the XV century; V. S. Mingalev dates it to an even later time (the first third of the XVI century) .17
This dating of the "Legend" has recently received a new confirmation in the work of V. A. Kuchkin. He drew attention to the fact that in the "Legend of the battle of Mamayev" among the participants of the battle are named Andom (Andozhsky) princes, who appeared only in the 20s of the XV century., Vladimir Cathedral is called the "universal Church" (which obviously indicates the time after the fall of Constantinople Sofia in 1453) and, Most importantly, the Constantino-Elensky Gate of the Kremlin is mentioned. This name was given to the gates located between the Frolovsky (Spassky) Gates and the Moskva River only during the construction of the Kremlin walls in 1491 (under 1475, when chronicles tell about a fire near the gates located on this site, they are called Timofeyevsky). Obviously, the "Legend" was compiled not earlier than the end of the 80s-90s of the XV century .
R. G. Skrynnikov came to similar conclusions. He believes that the " Legend "in all the versions that have come down to us refers to the end of the XV century.and that the episode where Cyprian blesses the soldiers who went to battle with Mamai,"unreliable from beginning to end." Skrynnikov notes a "gross mistake" in the "Legend": the wife of Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhov, Elena, is called Maria and the" daughter-in-law " of Dmitry Donskoy's wife. Among the inconsistencies of the "Legend" the author
15 Tikhomirov M. N. Kulikovo Battle of 1380-Voprosy istorii, 1955, N8, pp. 15, 23.
16 Dmitriev L. A. O datirovke "Skazaniya o Mamaev poboishche"[On the dating of the "Tales of Mamaev's Battle"]. - TODRL. T. X. 1954, pp. 185-199; his. To the literary history "Tales of the Mamayev Battle". In: Tales of the Battle of Kulikovo, pp. 406-435. History of monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. In: Tales and Stories about the Battle of Kulikovo. L. 1982, p. 333. 17 Mingalev V. S. "The legend of the Mamayev battle" and its sources. Author's abstract of the cand. Diss. M.-Vilnius, 1971; Salmina M. A. K voprosu o datirovke "Skazaniya o Mamaev poboishche"[On the issue of dating "The Legend of Mamaev's Battle"]. - TODRL. T. XXIX. 1974.
18 Kuchkin V. A. Pobeda na Kulikovo pole [Victory on the Kulikovo field]. - Voprosy istorii, 1980, N 8, p. 7. Before 1491, only Timofeevsky gates are mentioned in the chronicles (PSRL. Vol. VIII. SPb. 1859, p. 181; vol. XXV. Moscow 1949, p. 304; vol. XII. Moscow 1965, p. 158), under 1491 - only the Constantinople Gate (PSRL. Vol. VIII, p. 219; vol. XXV, p. 331; vol. XII, p. 228). There are no cases when both names are used simultaneously as synonyms. Noting the late origin of the "Legend of the Mamayev Battle", V. A. Kuchkin believes, however, that "some details" in the story of this monument coincide with the news of the "Zadonshchina" and the Chronicle story about the Battle of Kulikovo and therefore "deserve trust" (Kuchkin V. A. Uk. soch., pp. 11-12). He does not specify this remark, but he obviously means an addition to the main text in the list of "Zadonshchiny" of the XVI century (GIM, Muzeiskoe sobr., N 3045), which refers to an ambush regiment: "from the right hand to the filthy Mamai with his Prince Volynsky 70 thousand" ("The Word about Igor's Regiment " and monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. Moscow-L. 1966, p. 546; cf. pp. 539, 544, 554). But R. P. Dmitriev and A. A. Zimin with sufficient reason recognized this place in this list of " Zadonshchiny "as an insert borrowed from the" Legend of the Mamayev battle "(Dmitrieva R. P. Relationship between the lists of" Zadonshchiny "and"Words about Igor's Regiment". In: "The Word about Igor's Regiment" and monuments of the Kulikovo cycle, pp. 206-207; Zadonshchina. Old Russian song-a story about the Battle of Kulikovo. Tula. 1980, p. 117).
page 64
He also referred to the episode with the dressing up of Dmitry Ivanovich and Brenk. The "legend", according to the researcher, tendentiously exaggerated the role of Vladimir Andreevich and his regiment in the outcome of the battle 19 .
"The Legend of the Battle of Mamayev" and "Kazan History" are outstanding works of ancient Russian literature; their value as monuments of social thought of their time is also beyond doubt. But the use of these monuments to cover specific facts of the history of 1380 or 1480 requires special source study and is impossible without restoring their earlier protographs (if any existed).
However, such a statement of the question about late and unreliable sources often runs into one objection. These sources may be dubious, but some of their news does not contain anything physically and logically impossible. Why not believe them?
The "Why not?"often contrasted with criticism of the source. A few years ago, this argument took a rather curious form: the principle of "presumption of innocence" of the source was proclaimed, similar to the principle of "presumption of innocence" of the accused,' existing in jurisprudence. ' 20
The likening of a source to a defendant who must be defended from the accusations of a skeptic scientist has been encountered in historical science before. Marrou, for example, used this analogy. A historian, he wrote, should not address a source like a judge: "Defendant, stand up!" Marrou referred to the Belgian legal historian P. Peeters, who believed that the rules of law did not apply to historical source studies, because the requirements of strict legal proof would put in a difficult position the "stubborn defender of a dubious source"21 . The principle of "presumption of innocence" of the source is based on the same parallel (the source is "the defendant"), but, on the contrary, it protects the source by reference to legal norms; like the judge, "the scientist cannot oblige the source to justify himself".
The principle of "presumption of innocence" in jurisprudence is inextricably linked with the most important logical principle of the need to substantiate any proven position. In legal science, this principle is formulated as follows:" the duty (burden) of proof lies on the one who is the author "of the proved provision;"the proof lies on the one who asserts, and not on the one who denies" 22 . In a judicial procedure, the prosecutor acts as the "author of the evidence"; he is opposed by the accused. Presumption of innocence means that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the accused's unproven guilt is equivalent to his proven innocence. If it is not proved that the accused is guilty, then it is proved that he is innocent 23 .
19 Skrynnikov R. G. The Battle of Kulikovo. In: The Battle of Kulikovo in the History and Culture of our Motherland, Moscow, 1983, pp. 57-62, 67-68. R. G. Skrynnikov suggests that the extant text of the "Legend" is based on an older narrative compiled by adherents of Vladimir Serpukhov, but also this hypothetical protograph (the existence of which is textually determined by the researcher). it is not justified) seems to him an extremely biased monument that glorified the Serpukhov prince.
20 Kuzmin A. G. Disputable issues of methodology for studying Russian chronicles. - Voprosy istorii, 1973, N 2, p. 33.
21 Marrou H. I. Op. cit., S. 154; Peeters P. Les aphorismes da droit dans fe critique historique. - Bulletin de l'Akademie Royale de Belgifue, Bruxelles, 5e Serie, 1946, t. XXXII.
22 Vladimirov L. E. Uchenie ob ugolovnykh protivstvstv [The doctrine of criminal evidence]. SPb. 1910, p. 119. Cf. kodeksy rimskogo prava: Gaius. Institutions II, tit. 20; Corpus juris civilts: Digestae, XXII, tit. 3, 1. 21 e. a.
23 Strogovich M. S. Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo protsessa [Course of the Soviet criminal process], vol. 1, Moscow, 1968, pp. 349-358; cf. Vladimirov L. E. Uk. soch., pp. 115-137.
page 65
But is the analogy constructed correctly in this case? There is no reason to liken historical research to a trial in which the source is the defendant. The work of a research historian does have some similarities with a legal procedure, but the source most often plays the role of a witness rather than one of the litigants. Collingwood has already noted this. He considered it characteristic of modern historiography that the source began to play the role of a person in the study, "who voluntarily took the position of a witness at the trial and must be cross-examined." If the methods of judicial investigation "are not in all respects identical with the methods of scientific history," Collingwood saw this difference not in the less rigor of historical evidence (as Peeters believed), but, on the contrary, in the fact that the investigator is based "on the most likely lines of behavior of people in everyday life, whereas in history we require confidence levels. In all other respects, there is a complete parallel, " wrote Collingwood 24 .
If the source plays the role of a witness in the study, then the researcher's attitude towards it cannot be identified with the position of the prosecutor in relation to the accused. Source criticism, according to N. V. Ustyugov, aims "not to condemn the source, but to analyze it"; it "determines which questions the source gives or cannot give an answer"; S. O. Schmidt supported N. V. Ustyugov's opinion. 25 Finding out the source's awareness is not undertaken for its own sake, but to establish the facts that it reports. There is no point in bringing a witness to the inquest without first finding out how familiar they are with the circumstances and are able to give substantial and credible testimony. In the same way, you can't involve a source without first determining the degree of bias and, more importantly, the degree of awareness, which largely depends on the time of writing. Otherwise, the proclaimed principle of" presumption of innocence " of the source will turn into a "presumption of reliability of the witness", and this is a dangerous presumption. "There is no smoke without fire", "they will not say in vain" - such a rather common" presumption of reliability "of a witness turns just into a presumption of guilt of the accused, i.e. it is equivalent to rejecting the actual "presumption of innocence" 26 .
How important the approach to the source is as a witness (and not as a litigant) is clearly revealed in cases where the author of the source himself becomes the subject of research and a detailed assessment of him is offered - as a person and ideologist. We know of two similar examples in the literature devoted to the writers of Ancient Russia. At one time, N. F. Kapterev used the "Life" of Habakkuk as evidence that its author was not only a fanatic, but also a person of "self-conceit, self-worship", who used "self-glorification" as a "propaganda device"; his moral views were rude, selfish"27. Recently, the American researcher G. Lenhoff came to the conclusion that, judging by the "Walking across three seas", Athanasius Nikitin, contrary to his assurances, changed his faith in India: his pu-
24 Collingwood R. J. Uk. soch., pp. 246, 255-257. Convergence of the source's testimony with the witness testimony is also found in A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky. Actually, he called" witness testimonies", however, only "independent testimonies" of sources based on "their own sensory perceptions" (Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Methodology of History. Issue II. St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 653, 748-749).
25 On criticism of historical sources. - Historical Archive, 1957, N 5, pp. 285-286.
26 Cf. Strogovich M. S. Uk. soch. Vol. 1, pp. 402-403.
27 Kapterev N. F. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich. T. I. Sergiev Posad. 1909, p. 333 - 336, 350, 354 - 355, 363, 372 - 373.
page 66
the journey "beyond the three seas" is "the path from Orthodoxy to apostasy" 28 .
It goes without saying that both Athanasius Nikitin and Avvakum, who testify about historical events, cannot claim the "presumption of innocence", and their writings - the "presumption of authenticity". As a witness, Afanasy Nikitin was not and could not always be sufficiently knowledgeable: he clearly exaggerated the size of the army of the Bahmanid sultan, in whose possession he found himself, claiming that the sultan sent two million soldiers to war, incorrectly believed that the Bahmanid capital of Bidar was the capital of all the Muslim lands of India, accepted many local legends on faith 29 . One should not reproach the Tver merchant for such inaccuracies (on the contrary, one should be surprised that, living in a foreign country and having difficulty communicating with its inhabitants, Nikitin understood and noticed so much in India), but the researcher is not obliged to accept this news as the truth. Naturally, Habakkuk could be both inaccurate and biased in his memoirs. He claimed that his return from the Daurian exile lasted three years, and according to documentary sources, this journey lasted about two years; the number of persons arrested by Nikon in 1653 is exaggerated in the "Life"; Avvakum's statements that the Greek patriarchs, defending the three-finger sign in 1667, referred to Catholics and that Nikon defended icons of "fryazhsky" (Western, Latin) writing, tendentious and highly questionable 30 . The researcher has the right to question such news.
But the position of the historian is different if he himself offers some general characteristic of Athanasius Nikitin or Habakkuk. Here he already acts as the "author" of the proposition being proved, and the "burden of proof" rests on him. To prove the "apostasy" of Afanasy Nikitin, it is necessary not only to refute his numerous statements that, despite pressure, he "did not leave Christianity", but also to explain why Nikitin, since he became a Muslim, then went to Russia, where he undoubtedly faced severe punishment for such apostasy. The lack of appropriate arguments makes G. Lenhoff's construction unconvincing. Similarly, it was not enough for N. F. Kapterev to pass sentence on Avvakum by giving examples of the protopop's" rough, square abuse " against his opponents (including the tsar), but he had to try to understand the psychology of the author of the "Life". Habakkuk's faith in the rightness and even sanctity of his work was born not only of his character, but also of overcoming innumerable doubts and struggling hard not only with his tormentors, but also with himself; finally, it was difficult for him to maintain reverence and even simple respect for the representatives of the very authorities and ministers of the church who were responsible for his work. they converted a whole nation to the new faith "with fire, but with a whip, and with the gallows." If Athanasius Nikitin or Habakkuk find themselves in the position of defendants, then their" unproven guilt " is logically equivalent to "proven innocence".
These examples of exceptions to the usual research procedure, in which the author of a source finds himself in the position of a defendant, further emphasize the general rule: inapplicability
28 Lenhoff G. Beyond Three Seas: Afanasij Nikitin's Journey from Orthodoxy to Apostasy. - East European Quarterly, December. 1979. Vol. XIII, N 4.
29 Minaev I. Old India. Notes on "Walking across the Three Seas" by Afanasy Nikitin-ZHMNP, 1881, part CCXV, p. 211; part CCXVI, p. 14-16; Kudryavtsev M. K. India in the XV century. In: The Journey beyond the Three Seas by Afanasy Nikitin, Moscow, 1958, p. 147.
30 The Life of Archpriest Habakkuk, written by himself, and other works, Moscow, 1960, pp. 368, 373, 383, 392.
page 67
The principle of "presumption of innocence" applies to the source in all other cases, when the source acts in the usual role of a witness, and under investigation or in the position of a defendant are persons who appear in the testimony of the source. In this case, the presumption of reliability of the source may actually develop into a presumption of guilt of specific persons of the past.
Analyzing the accusations against heretics in one of the earliest sources of heresy - the epistle of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to Bishop Nifont of Suzdal, N. K. Goleizovsky in an interesting study gave a convincing explanation of one accusation made by Gennady: "And here you will find an icon at the Saviour on Ilyin Street... Vasily Kisariysky stands there, but he circumcised the Savior's arm and leg, and the signature says: Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ, "the Novgorod bishop declared, listing heretical"insults". Goleizovsky proved that the image that Gennady wrote about was by no means heretical, but corresponded to one of the episodes in the life of Basil of Caesarea. The placement of the inscription "Circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ" near this composition that does not correspond to it was explained by the fact that the memory of Basil of Caesarea and the circumcision of Christ fall on the same day in the church calendar - January 1, which is why the image of the miracle and the inscription that does not relate to it could be next to it. But if this is so, then the story given by Gennady, as N. K. Goleizovsky admits, does not at all indicate the "machinations of the Jews"31 . In addition, the rest of Gennady's accusations are no more convincing. But N. K. Goleizovsky believes that there is" no reason "to"completely deny the involvement" of those guilty of heresy in the blasphemies described by their accuser .32 So, the" presumption of reliability " of a witness, even in a weakened form, here just turns into a presumption of guilt of the victims of inquisitorial trials.
A similar role is played by the presumption of reliability of the source and when using the "Legend of the battle of Mamayev". To accept as reliable the news of the " Legend "that Dmitry Donskoy changed clothes with the boyar Mikhail Brenk before the Battle of Kulikovo and he died in the battle, means to assume that Brenk was deliberately sacrificed. 33 But is there any reason to accept this news that is not found anywhere else and accuse Dmitry Donskoy of such a calculation? Here again is an example of how the presumption of innocence (reliability) of a "witness"- a source - can negate the presumption of innocence of the "accused" - the historical figure about whom this source reports.
The task of the historian is not to "condemn" or" defend " the source, but first of all to establish what it is and what questions can be put to it. When referring to sources, the researcher should reject any "presumption". The sole purpose of studying them is to establish the truth.
31 Goleizovsky N. K. Two episodes from the activities of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod. - Byzantine vremennik, 1980, vol. 41, pp. 126-130. Epistle of Gennady see: Kazakova N. A., Lurie Ya. S. Anti-feudal heretical movements in Russia of the XIV-beginning of the XVI century. Moscow-L. 1955, pp. 312-313.
32 Goleizovsky N. K. Uk. soch., p. 125.
33 Tikhomirov M. N. The Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 In: The Tale of the Kulikovo Battle, Moscow, 1959, p. 369.
page 68
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2020-2025, BIBLIO.UZ is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Uzbekistan |