On December 12 (December 1, Old Style), 1766, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born - Russian writer, poet, editor of the Moscow Journal (1791-1792) and the journal Vestnik Evropy (1802-1803), honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences ( 1818), full member of the Imperial Russian Academy, historian, first and only court historiographer, one of the first reformers of the Russian literary language, founding father of Russian historiography and Russian sentimentalism.
|
|
Contribution of N.M. It is difficult to overestimate Karamzin's contribution to Russian culture. Remembering everything that this man managed to do in the short 59 years of his earthly existence, it is impossible to ignore the fact that it was Karamzin who largely determined the face of the Russian 19th century - the “golden” age of Russian poetry, literature, historiography, source studies and other humanitarian areas of scientific research. knowledge. Thanks to linguistic research aimed at popularizing the literary language of poetry and prose, Karamzin gave Russian literature to his contemporaries. And if Pushkin is “our everything,” then Karamzin can safely be called “our Everything” with a capital letter. Without him, Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Baratynsky, Batyushkov and other poets of the so-called “Pushkin galaxy” would hardly have been possible.
“No matter what you turn to in our literature, everything began with Karamzin: journalism, criticism, stories, novels, historical stories, journalism, the study of history,” V.G. rightly noted later. Belinsky.
“History of the Russian State” N.M. Karamzin became not just the first Russian-language book on the history of Russia, accessible to a wide reader. Karamzin gave the Russian people the Fatherland in the full sense of the word. They say that, having closed the eighth and final volume, Count Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!” And he wasn't alone. All his contemporaries suddenly learned that they lived in a country with a thousand-year history and had something to be proud of. Before this, it was believed that before Peter I, who opened a “window to Europe,” there was nothing in Russia that was even remotely worthy of attention: the dark ages of backwardness and barbarism, boyar autocracy, primordially Russian laziness and bears in the streets...
Karamzin’s multi-volume work was not completed, but, having been published in the first quarter of the 19th century, it completely determined the historical identity of the nation for many years to come. All subsequent historiography was never able to generate anything more consistent with the “imperial” self-awareness that developed under the influence of Karamzin. Karamzin’s views left a deep, indelible mark in all areas of Russian culture in the 19th and 20th centuries, forming the foundations of the national mentality, which ultimately determined the path of development of Russian society and the state as a whole.
It is significant that in the 20th century, the edifice of Russian great power, which had collapsed under the attacks of revolutionary internationalists, was revived again by the 1930s - under different slogans, with different leaders, in a different ideological package. but... The very approach to the historiography of Russian history, both before 1917 and after, largely remained jingoistic and sentimental in Karamzin style.
N.M. Karamzin - early years
N.M. Karamzin was born on December 12 (1st century), 1766 in the village of Mikhailovka, Buzuluk district, Kazan province (according to other sources, in the family estate of Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province). Little is known about his early years: there are no letters, diaries, or memories of Karamzin himself about his childhood. He did not even know exactly his year of birth and almost all his life he believed that he was born in 1765. Only in his old age, having discovered the documents, did he become “younger” by one year.
The future historiographer grew up on the estate of his father, retired captain Mikhail Egorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), an average Simbirsk nobleman. Received a good home education. In 1778 he was sent to Moscow to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Shadena. At the same time, he attended lectures at the university in 1781-1782.
After graduating from the boarding school, in 1783 Karamzin entered service in the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg, where he met the young poet and future employee of his “Moscow Journal” Dmitriev. At the same time he published his first translation of S. Gesner’s idyll “The Wooden Leg”.
In 1784, Karamzin retired as a lieutenant and never served again, which was perceived in the society of that time as a challenge. After a short stay in Simbirsk, where he joined the Golden Crown Masonic lodge, Karamzin moved to Moscow and was introduced into the circle of N. I. Novikov. He settled in a house that belonged to Novikov’s “Friendly Scientific Society” and became the author and one of the publishers of the first children’s magazine “Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind” (1787-1789), founded by Novikov. At the same time, Karamzin became close to the Pleshcheev family. For many years he had a tender platonic friendship with N.I. Pleshcheeva. In Moscow, Karamzin published his first translations, in which his interest in European and Russian history is clearly visible: Thomson’s “The Seasons,” Zhanlis’s “Country Evenings,” W. Shakespeare’s tragedy “Julius Caesar,” Lessing’s tragedy “Emilia Galotti.”
In 1789, Karamzin’s first original story, “Eugene and Yulia,” appeared in the magazine “Children’s Reading...”. The reader practically did not notice it.
Travel to Europe
According to many biographers, Karamzin was not inclined towards the mystical side of Freemasonry, remaining a supporter of its active and educational direction. To be more precise, by the end of the 1780s, Karamzin had already “become ill” with Masonic mysticism in its Russian version. Perhaps the cooling towards Freemasonry was one of the reasons for his departure to Europe, where he spent more than a year (1789-90), visiting Germany, Switzerland, France and England. In Europe, he met and talked (except for influential Freemasons) with European “masters of minds”: I. Kant, I. G. Herder, C. Bonnet, I. K. Lavater, J. F. Marmontel, visited museums, theaters, secular salons. In Paris, Karamzin listened to O. G. Mirabeau, M. Robespierre and other revolutionaries at the National Assembly, saw many outstanding political figures and was familiar with many. Apparently, revolutionary Paris in 1789 showed Karamzin how powerfully a word can influence a person: in print, when Parisians read pamphlets and leaflets with keen interest; oral, when revolutionary speakers spoke and controversy arose (an experience that could not be acquired in Russia at that time).
Karamzin did not have a very enthusiastic opinion about English parliamentarism (perhaps following in the footsteps of Rousseau), but he very highly valued the level of civilization at which English society as a whole was located.
Karamzin – journalist, publisher
In the fall of 1790, Karamzin returned to Moscow and soon organized the publication of the monthly “Moscow Journal” (1790-1792), in which most of the “Letters of a Russian Traveler” were published, telling about the revolutionary events in France, the stories “Liodor”, “Poor Lisa” , “Natalia, the boyar’s daughter”, “Flor Silin”, essays, stories, critical articles and poems. Karamzin attracted the entire literary elite of that time to collaborate in the magazine: his friends Dmitriev and Petrov, Kheraskov and Derzhavin, Lvov, Neledinsky-Meletsky and others. Karamzin’s articles approved a new literary direction - sentimentalism.
The Moscow Journal had only 210 regular subscribers, but for the end of the 18th century, this is the same as a hundred thousand circulation at the end of the 19th century. Moreover, the magazine was read by precisely those who “made the difference” in the literary life of the country: students, officials, young officers, minor employees of various government agencies (“archive youths”).
After Novikov’s arrest, the authorities became seriously interested in the publisher of the Moscow Journal. During interrogations in the Secret Expedition, they ask: was it Novikov who sent the “Russian traveler” abroad on a “special mission”? The Novikovites were people of high integrity and, of course, Karamzin was shielded, but because of these suspicions the magazine had to be stopped.
In the 1790s, Karamzin published the first Russian almanacs - “Aglaya” (1794 -1795) and “Aonids” (1796 -1799). In 1793, when the Jacobin dictatorship was established at the third stage of the French Revolution, which shocked Karamzin with its cruelty, Nikolai Mikhailovich abandoned some of his previous views. The dictatorship aroused in him serious doubts about the possibility of humanity to achieve prosperity. He sharply condemned the revolution and all violent methods of transforming society. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the story “The Island of Bornholm” (1793); "Sierra Morena" (1795); poems “Melancholy”, “Message to A. A. Pleshcheev”, etc.
During this period, real literary fame came to Karamzin.
Fedor Glinka: “Out of 1,200 cadets, it was rare that he did not repeat by heart some page from The Island of Bornholm.”.
The name Erast, previously completely unpopular, is increasingly found in lists of nobility. There are rumors of successful and unsuccessful suicides in the spirit of Poor Lisa. The poisonous memoirist Vigel recalls that important Moscow nobles had already begun to make do with “almost like an equal with a thirty-year-old retired lieutenant”.
In July 1794, Karamzin’s life almost ended: on the way to the estate, in the steppe wilderness, he was attacked by robbers. Karamzin miraculously escaped, receiving two minor wounds.
In 1801, he married Elizaveta Protasova, a neighbor on the estate, whom he had known since childhood - at the time of the wedding they had known each other for almost 13 years.
Reformer of the Russian literary language
Already in the early 1790s, Karamzin was seriously thinking about the present and future of Russian literature. He writes to a friend: “I am deprived of the pleasure of reading much in my native language. We are still poor in writers. We have several poets who deserve to be read.” Of course, there were and are Russian writers: Lomonosov, Sumarokov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, but there are no more than a dozen significant names. Karamzin is one of the first to understand that it is not a matter of talent - there are no less talents in Russia than in any other country. It’s just that Russian literature cannot move away from the long-outdated traditions of classicism, founded in the middle of the 18th century by the only theorist M.V. Lomonosov.
The reform of the literary language carried out by Lomonosov, as well as the theory of the “three calms” he created, met the tasks of the transition period from ancient to modern literature. A complete rejection of the use of familiar Church Slavonicisms in the language was then still premature and inappropriate. But the evolution of the language, which began under Catherine II, actively continued. The “Three Calms” proposed by Lomonosov were based not on lively colloquial speech, but on the witty thought of a theoretical writer. And this theory often put the authors in a difficult position: they had to use heavy, outdated Slavic expressions where in the spoken language they had long been replaced by others, softer and more elegant. The reader sometimes could not “cut through” the piles of outdated Slavicisms used in church books and records in order to understand the essence of this or that secular work.
Karamzin decided to bring the literary language closer to the spoken one. Therefore, one of his main goals was the further liberation of literature from Church Slavonicisms. In the preface to the second book of the almanac “Aonida,” he wrote: “The thunder of words alone only deafens us and never reaches our hearts.”
The second feature of Karamzin’s “new syllable” was the simplification of syntactic structures. The writer abandoned lengthy periods. In the “Pantheon of Russian Writers” he decisively declared: “Lomonosov’s prose cannot serve as a model for us at all: his long periods are tiresome, the arrangement of words is not always consistent with the flow of thoughts.”
Unlike Lomonosov, Karamzin strove to write in short, easily understandable sentences. This is still a model of good style and an example to follow in literature.
Karamzin’s third merit was the enrichment of the Russian language with a number of successful neologisms, which became firmly established in the main vocabulary. Among the innovations proposed by Karamzin are such widely known words in our time as “industry”, “development”, “sophistication”, “concentrate”, “touching”, “entertainment”, “humanity”, “public”, “ generally useful”, “influence” and a number of others.
When creating neologisms, Karamzin used mainly the method of tracing French words: “interesting” from “interessant”, “refined” from “raffine”, “development” from “developpement”, “touching” from “touchant”.
We know that even in the era of Peter the Great, many foreign words appeared in the Russian language, but they mostly replaced words that already existed in the Slavic language and were not a necessity. In addition, these words were often taken in their raw form, so they were very heavy and clumsy (“fortecia” instead of “fortress”, “victory” instead of “victory”, etc.). Karamzin, on the contrary, tried to give foreign words a Russian ending, adapting them to the requirements of Russian grammar: “serious”, “moral”, “aesthetic”, “audience”, “harmony”, “enthusiasm”, etc.
In his reform activities, Karamzin focused on the lively spoken language of educated people. And this was the key to the success of his work - he writes not scholarly treatises, but travel notes (“Letters of a Russian Traveler”), sentimental stories (“Bornholm Island”, “Poor Lisa”), poems, articles, translations from French, English and German .
"Arzamas" and "Conversation"
It is not surprising that most of the young writers contemporary to Karamzin accepted his transformations with a bang and willingly followed him. But, like any reformer, Karamzin had staunch opponents and worthy opponents.
A.S. stood at the head of Karamzin’s ideological opponents. Shishkov (1774-1841) – admiral, patriot, famous statesman of that time. An Old Believer, an admirer of Lomonosov's language, Shishkov, at first glance, was a classicist. But this point of view requires significant qualifications. In contrast to Karamzin's Europeanism, Shishkov put forward the idea of nationality in literature - the most important sign of a romantic worldview that was far from classicism. It turns out that Shishkov also joined for romantics, but not of a progressive, but of a conservative direction. His views can be recognized as a kind of forerunner of later Slavophilism and Pochvenism.
In 1803, Shishkov presented his “Discourse on the old and new syllables of the Russian language.” He reproached the “Karamzinists” for succumbing to the temptation of European revolutionary false teachings and advocated for the return of literature to oral folk art, to the vernacular, to Orthodox Church Slavonic books.
Shishkov was not a philologist. He dealt with the problems of literature and the Russian language, rather, as an amateur, so Admiral Shishkov’s attacks on Karamzin and his literary supporters sometimes looked not so much scientifically substantiated as unsubstantiated ideological. Karamzin’s language reform seemed to Shishkov, a warrior and defender of the Fatherland, unpatriotic and anti-religious: “Language is the soul of the people, the mirror of morals, a true indicator of enlightenment, an incessant witness of deeds. Where there is no faith in the hearts, there is no piety in the language. Where there is no love for the fatherland, the language does not express domestic feelings.”.
Shishkov reproached Karamzin for the excessive use of barbarisms (“epoch”, “harmony”, “catastrophe”), he was disgusted by neologisms (“coup” as a translation of the word “revolution”), artificial words hurt his ear: “future”, “well-read” and etc.
And we must admit that sometimes his criticism was pointed and accurate.
The evasiveness and aesthetic affectation of the speech of the “Karamzinists” very soon became outdated and fell out of literary use. This is precisely the future that Shishkov predicted for them, believing that instead of the expression “when travel became a need of my soul,” one could simply say: “when I fell in love with traveling”; the refined and periphrased speech “motley crowds of rural oreads meet with dark bands of reptile pharaohs” can be replaced with the understandable expression “gypsies come to meet the village girls”, etc.
Shishkov and his supporters took the first steps in studying the monuments of ancient Russian writing, enthusiastically studied “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” studied folklore, advocated the rapprochement of Russia with the Slavic world and recognized the need to bring the “Slovenian” style closer to the common language.
In a dispute with the translator Karamzin, Shishkov put forward a compelling argument about the “idiomatic nature” of each language, about the unique originality of its phraseological systems, which make it impossible to literally translate a thought or true semantic meaning from one language to another. For example, when translated literally into French, the expression “old horseradish” loses its figurative meaning and “means only the thing itself, but in the metaphysical sense it has no circle of signification.”
In defiance of Karamzin, Shishkov proposed his own reform of the Russian language. He proposed to designate concepts and feelings missing in our everyday life with new words formed from the roots not of French, but of Russian and Old Church Slavonic. Instead of Karamzin’s “influence” he suggested “influx”, instead of “development” - “vegetation”, instead of “actor” - “actor”, instead of “individuality” - “intelligence”, “wet feet” instead of “galoshes” and “wandering” instead "labyrinth". Most of his innovations did not take root in the Russian language.
It is impossible not to recognize Shishkov’s ardent love for the Russian language; One cannot help but admit that the passion for everything foreign, especially French, has gone too far in Russia. Ultimately, this led to the fact that the language of the common people, the peasant, became very different from the language of the cultural classes. But we cannot ignore the fact that the natural process of the language evolution that had begun could not be stopped. It was impossible to forcefully return into use the already outdated expressions that Shishkov proposed at that time: “zane”, “ugly”, “like”, “yako” and others.
Karamzin did not even respond to the accusations of Shishkov and his supporters, knowing firmly that they were guided exclusively by pious and patriotic feelings. Subsequently, Karamzin himself and his most talented supporters (Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Batyushkov) followed the very valuable instructions of the “Shishkovites” on the need to “return to their roots” and examples of their own history. But then they could not understand each other.
The pathos and ardent patriotism of A.S.’s articles. Shishkova evoked a sympathetic attitude among many writers. And when Shishkov, together with G. R. Derzhavin, founded the literary society “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word” (1811) with a charter and its own magazine, P. A. Katenin, I. A. Krylov, and later V. K immediately joined this society Kuchelbecker and A. S. Griboyedov. One of the active participants in the "Conversation...", the prolific playwright A. A. Shakhovskoy, in the comedy "New Stern" viciously ridiculed Karamzin, and in the comedy "A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters" in the person of the "balladeer" Fialkin created a parody image of V. A Zhukovsky.
This caused a unanimous rebuff from young people who supported Karamzin’s literary authority. D. V. Dashkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, D. N. Bludov composed several witty pamphlets addressed to Shakhovsky and other members of the “Conversation...”. In “Vision in the Arzamas Tavern” Bludov gave the circle of young defenders of Karamzin and Zhukovsky the name “Society of Unknown Arzamas Writers” or simply “Arzamas”.
The organizational structure of this society, founded in the fall of 1815, was dominated by a cheerful spirit of parody of the serious “Conversation...”. In contrast to the official pomposity, simplicity, naturalness, and openness prevailed here; a large place was given to jokes and games.
Parodying the official ritual of the “Conversation...”, upon joining Arzamas, everyone had to read a “funeral speech” to his “late” predecessor from among the living members of the “Conversation...” or the Russian Academy of Sciences (Count D.I. Khvostov, S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A.S. Shishkov himself, etc.). “Funeral speeches” were a form of literary struggle: they parodied high genres and ridiculed the stylistic archaism of the poetic works of the “talkers.” At the meetings of the society, the humorous genres of Russian poetry were honed, a bold and decisive struggle was waged against all kinds of officialdom, and a type of independent Russian writer, free from the pressure of any ideological conventions, was formed. And although P. A. Vyazemsky, one of the organizers and active participants of the society, in his mature years condemned the youthful mischief and intransigence of his like-minded people (in particular, the rituals of “funeral services” for living literary opponents), he rightly called “Arzamas” a school of “literary fellowship” and mutual creative learning. The Arzamas and Beseda societies soon became centers of literary life and social struggle in the first quarter of the 19th century. “Arzamas” included such famous people as Zhukovsky (pseudonym - Svetlana), Vyazemsky (Asmodeus), Pushkin (Cricket), Batyushkov (Achilles) and others.
"Conversation" disbanded after Derzhavin's death in 1816; "Arzamas", having lost its main opponent, ceased to exist by 1818.
Thus, by the mid-1790s, Karamzin became the recognized head of Russian sentimentalism, which opened not just a new page in Russian literature, but Russian fiction in general. Russian readers, who had previously devoured only French novels and the works of enlighteners, enthusiastically accepted “Letters of a Russian Traveler” and “Poor Liza,” and Russian writers and poets (both “besedchiki” and “Arzamasites”) realized that it was possible must write in their native language.
Karamzin and Alexander I: a symphony with power?
In 1802 - 1803, Karamzin published the journal “Bulletin of Europe”, in which literature and politics predominated. Largely thanks to the confrontation with Shishkov, a new aesthetic program for the formation of Russian literature as nationally distinctive appeared in Karamzin’s critical articles. Karamzin, unlike Shishkov, saw the key to the uniqueness of Russian culture not so much in adherence to ritual antiquity and religiosity, but in the events of Russian history. The most striking illustration of his views was the story “Martha the Posadnitsa or the Conquest of Novagorod.”
In his political articles of 1802-1803, Karamzin, as a rule, made recommendations to the government, the main one of which was educating the nation for the sake of the prosperity of the autocratic state.
These ideas were generally close to Emperor Alexander I, the grandson of Catherine the Great, who at one time also dreamed of an “enlightened monarchy” and a complete symphony between the authorities and a European educated society. Karamzin’s response to the coup of March 11, 1801 and the accession to the throne of Alexander I was “Historical eulogy to Catherine the Second” (1802), where Karamzin expressed his views on the essence of the monarchy in Russia, as well as the duties of the monarch and his subjects. The “eulogium” was approved by the sovereign as a collection of examples for the young monarch and was favorably received by him. Alexander I, obviously, was interested in Karamzin’s historical research, and the emperor rightly decided that the great country simply needed to remember its no less great past. And if you don’t remember, then at least create it again...
In 1803, through the mediation of the tsar’s educator M.N. Muravyov - poet, historian, teacher, one of the most educated people of that time - N.M. Karamzin received the official title of court historiographer with a pension of 2,000 rubles. (A pension of 2,000 rubles a year was then assigned to officials who, according to the Table of Ranks, had ranks no lower than general). Later, I.V. Kireevsky, referring to Karamzin himself, wrote about Muravyov: “Who knows, maybe without his thoughtful and warm assistance Karamzin would not have had the means to accomplish his great deed.”
In 1804, Karamzin practically retired from literary and publishing activities and began to create the “History of the Russian State,” on which he worked until the end of his days. With his influence M.N. Muravyov made many previously unknown and even “secret” materials available to the historian, and opened libraries and archives for him. Modern historians can only dream of such favorable working conditions. Therefore, in our opinion, talking about “The History of the Russian State” as a “scientific feat” by N.M. Karamzin, not entirely fair. The court historiographer was on duty, conscientiously doing the work for which he was paid. Accordingly, he had to write the kind of history that was currently needed by the customer, namely, Emperor Alexander I, who at the first stage of his reign showed sympathy for European liberalism.
However, under the influence of studies in Russian history, by 1810 Karamzin had become a consistent conservative. During this period, the system of his political views was finally formed. Karamzin’s statements that he is a “republican at heart” can only be adequately interpreted if we consider that we are talking about “Plato’s Republic of the Wise Men,” an ideal social order based on state virtue, strict regulation and the renunciation of personal freedom . At the beginning of 1810, Karamzin, through his relative Count F.V. Rostopchin, met in Moscow the leader of the “conservative party” at court - Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna (sister of Alexander I) and began to constantly visit her residence in Tver. The Grand Duchess's salon represented the center of conservative opposition to the liberal-Western course, personified by the figure of M. M. Speransky. In this salon, Karamzin read excerpts from his “History...”, and then he met the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, who became one of his patrons.
In 1811, at the request of Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, Karamzin wrote a note “On ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations,” in which he outlined his ideas about the ideal structure of the Russian state and sharply criticized the policies of Alexander I and his immediate predecessors: Paul I , Catherine II and Peter I. In the 19th century, the note was never published in full and was circulated only in handwritten copies. In Soviet times, the thoughts expressed by Karamzin in his message were perceived as a reaction of the extremely conservative nobility to the reforms of M. M. Speransky. The author himself was branded a “reactionary”, an opponent of the liberation of the peasantry and other liberal steps of the government of Alexander I.
However, during the first full publication of the note in 1988, Yu. M. Lotman revealed its deeper content. In this document, Karamzin made a justified criticism of unprepared bureaucratic reforms carried out from above. Praising Alexander I, the author of the note at the same time attacks his advisers, meaning, of course, Speransky, who stood for constitutional reforms. Karamzin takes it upon himself to prove in detail, with references to historical examples, to the Tsar that Russia is not ready, either historically or politically, for the abolition of serfdom and the limitation of the autocratic monarchy by the constitution (following the example of the European powers). Some of his arguments (for example, about the futility of liberating peasants without land, the impossibility of constitutional democracy in Russia) even today look quite convincing and historically correct.
Along with a review of Russian history and criticism of the political course of Emperor Alexander I, the note contained a complete, original and very complex in its theoretical content concept of autocracy as a special, uniquely Russian type of power, closely associated with Orthodoxy.
At the same time, Karamzin refused to identify “true autocracy” with despotism, tyranny or arbitrariness. He believed that such deviations from the norms were due to chance (Ivan IV the Terrible, Paul I) and were quickly eliminated by the inertia of the tradition of “wise” and “virtuous” monarchical rule. In cases of a sharp weakening and even complete absence of the supreme state and church power (for example, during the Time of Troubles), this powerful tradition led, within a short historical period, to the restoration of autocracy. Autocracy was the “palladium of Russia”, the main reason for its power and prosperity. Therefore, the basic principles of monarchical rule in Russia, according to Karamzin, should have been preserved in the future. They should have been supplemented only by proper policies in the field of legislation and education, which would not lead to the undermining of the autocracy, but to its maximum strengthening. With such an understanding of autocracy, any attempt to limit it would be a crime against Russian history and the Russian people.
Initially, Karamzin’s note only irritated the young emperor, who did not like criticism of his actions. In this note, the historiographer showed himself plus royaliste que le roi (a greater royalist than the king himself). However, subsequently the brilliant “hymn to the Russian autocracy” as presented by Karamzin undoubtedly had its effect. After the War of 1812, Napoleon's winner Alexander I curtailed many of his liberal projects: Speransky's reforms were not completed, the constitution and the very idea of limiting autocracy remained only in the minds of future Decembrists. And already in the 1830s, Karamzin’s concept actually formed the basis of the ideology of the Russian Empire, designated by the “theory of official nationality” of Count S. Uvarov (Orthodoxy-Autocracy-Nationalism).
Before the publication of the first 8 volumes of “History...” Karamzin lived in Moscow, from where he traveled only to Tver to visit Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna and to Nizhny Novgorod, during the occupation of Moscow by the French. He usually spent the summer in Ostafyevo, the estate of Prince Andrei Ivanovich Vyazemsky, whose illegitimate daughter, Ekaterina Andreevna, Karamzin married in 1804. (Karamzin’s first wife, Elizaveta Ivanovna Protasova, died in 1802).
In the last 10 years of his life, which Karamzin spent in St. Petersburg, he became very close to the royal family. Although Emperor Alexander I had a reserved attitude towards Karamzin since the submission of the Note, Karamzin often spent the summer in Tsarskoe Selo. At the request of the empresses (Maria Feodorovna and Elizaveta Alekseevna), he more than once had frank political conversations with Emperor Alexander, in which he acted as a spokesman for the opinions of opponents of drastic liberal reforms. In 1819-1825, Karamzin passionately rebelled against the sovereign’s intentions regarding Poland (submitted a note “Opinion of a Russian Citizen”), condemned the increase in state taxes in peacetime, spoke about the absurd provincial system of finance, criticized the system of military settlements, the activities of the Ministry of Education, pointed out the sovereign’s strange choice of some of the most important dignitaries (for example, Arakcheev), spoke of the need to reduce internal troops, about the imaginary correction of roads, which was so painful for the people, and constantly pointed out the need to have firm laws, civil and state.
Of course, having behind such intercessors as both empresses and Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, it was possible to criticize, and argue, and show civil courage, and try to guide the monarch “on the true path.” It is not for nothing that Emperor Alexander I was called the “mysterious sphinx” by both his contemporaries and subsequent historians of his reign. In words, the sovereign agreed with Karamzin’s critical remarks regarding military settlements, recognized the need to “give fundamental laws to Russia,” and also to revise some aspects of domestic policy, but it so happened in our country that in reality, all the wise advice of government officials remains “fruitless for dear Fatherland"...
Karamzin as a historian
Karamzin is our first historian and last chronicler.
With his criticism he belongs to history,
simplicity and apothegms - the chronicle.
A.S. Pushkin
Even from the point of view of Karamzin’s contemporary historical science, no one dared to call the 12 volumes of his “History of the Russian State” a scientific work. Even then it was clear to everyone that the honorary title of court historiographer could not make a writer a historian, give him the appropriate knowledge and proper training.
But, on the other hand, Karamzin initially did not set himself the task of taking on the role of a researcher. The newly minted historiographer did not intend to write a scientific treatise and appropriate the laurels of his illustrious predecessors - Schlözer, Miller, Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, Boltin, etc.
Preliminary critical work on sources for Karamzin is only “a heavy tribute to reliability.” He was, first of all, a writer, and therefore wanted to apply his literary talent to ready-made material: “to select, animate, color” and thus make from Russian history “something attractive, strong, worthy of the attention of not only Russians, but also foreigners." And he accomplished this task brilliantly.
Today it is impossible not to agree that at the beginning of the 19th century, source studies, paleography and other auxiliary historical disciplines were in their infancy. Therefore, to demand from the writer Karamzin professional criticism, as well as strict adherence to one or another methodology for working with historical sources, is simply ridiculous.
You can often hear the opinion that Karamzin simply beautifully rewrote the “Russian History from Ancient Times” written in a long-outdated, difficult-to-read style by Prince M.M. Shcherbatov, introduced some of his own thoughts from it, and thereby created a book for lovers of fascinating reading in family circle. This is wrong.
Naturally, when writing his “History...” Karamzin actively used the experience and works of his predecessors - Schlozer and Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov helped Karamzin navigate the sources of Russian history, significantly influencing both the choice of material and its arrangement in the text. Whether by chance or not, Karamzin brought the “History of the Russian State” to exactly the same place as Shcherbatov’s “History”. However, in addition to following the scheme already worked out by his predecessors, Karamzin provides in his work a lot of references to extensive foreign historiography, almost unfamiliar to the Russian reader. While working on his “History...”, he for the first time introduced into scientific circulation a mass of unknown and previously unstudied sources. These are Byzantine and Livonian chronicles, information from foreigners about the population of ancient Rus', as well as a large number of Russian chronicles that have not yet been touched by the hand of a historian. For comparison: M.M. Shcherbatov used only 21 Russian chronicles when writing his work, Karamzin actively cites more than 40. In addition to the chronicles, Karamzin attracted monuments of ancient Russian law and ancient Russian fiction to his research. A special chapter of “History...” is dedicated to “Russian Truth,” and a number of pages are devoted to the just discovered “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
Thanks to the diligent help of the directors of the Moscow Archive of the Ministry (Collegium) of Foreign Affairs N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky and A. F. Malinovsky, Karamzin was able to use those documents and materials that were not available to his predecessors. Many valuable manuscripts were provided by the Synodal Repository, libraries of monasteries (Trinity Lavra, Volokolamsk Monastery and others), as well as private collections of manuscripts by Musin-Pushkin and N.P. Rumyantseva. Karamzin received especially many documents from Chancellor Rumyantsev, who collected historical materials in Russia and abroad through his numerous agents, as well as from A.I. Turgenev, who compiled a collection of documents from the papal archive.
Many of the sources used by Karamzin were lost during the Moscow fire of 1812 and were preserved only in his “History...” and extensive “Notes” to its text. Thus, Karamzin’s work, to some extent, itself acquired the status of a historical source, to which professional historians have every right to refer.
Among the main shortcomings of the “History of the Russian State,” the author’s peculiar view of the tasks of the historian is traditionally noted. According to Karamzin, “knowledge” and “learning” in a historian “do not replace the talent to depict actions.” Before the artistic task of history, even the moral one, which Karamzin’s patron, M.N., set for himself, recedes into the background. Muravyov. The characteristics of historical characters are given by Karamzin exclusively in a literary and romantic vein, characteristic of the direction of Russian sentimentalism he created. Karamzin’s first Russian princes are distinguished by their “ardent romantic passion” for conquest, their squad is distinguished by their nobility and loyal spirit, the “rabble” sometimes shows dissatisfaction, raising rebellions, but ultimately agrees with the wisdom of the noble rulers, etc., etc. P.
Meanwhile, the previous generation of historians, under the influence of Schlözer, had long ago developed the idea of critical history, and among Karamzin’s contemporaries, the demands for criticism of historical sources, despite the lack of a clear methodology, were generally accepted. And the next generation has already come forward with a demand for philosophical history - with the identification of the laws of development of the state and society, the recognition of the main driving forces and laws of the historical process. Therefore, Karamzin’s overly “literary” creation was immediately subjected to well-founded criticism.
According to the idea, firmly rooted in Russian and foreign historiography of the 17th - 18th centuries, the development of the historical process depends on the development of monarchical power. Karamzin does not deviate one iota from this idea: monarchical power exalted Russia during the Kiev period; the division of power between the princes was a political mistake, which was corrected by the statesmanship of the Moscow princes - the collectors of Rus'. At the same time, it was the princes who corrected its consequences - the fragmentation of Rus' and the Tatar yoke.
But before reproaching Karamzin for not bringing anything new into the development of Russian historiography, it should be remembered that the author of “History of the Russian State” did not at all set himself the task of philosophical understanding of the historical process or blind imitation of the ideas of Western European romantics (F. Guizot , F. Mignet, J. Meschlet), who even then started talking about the “class struggle” and the “spirit of the people” as the main driving force of history. Karamzin was not at all interested in historical criticism, and he deliberately rejected the “philosophical” direction in history. The researcher’s conclusions from historical material, as well as his subjective fabrications, seem to Karamzin to be “metaphysics”, which is not suitable “for depicting action and character.”
Thus, with his unique views on the tasks of a historian, Karamzin, by and large, remained outside the dominant trends of Russian and European historiography of the 19th and 20th centuries. Of course, he participated in its consistent development, but only in the form of an object for constant criticism and the clearest example of how history does not need to be written.
Reaction of contemporaries
Karamzin's contemporaries - readers and fans - enthusiastically accepted his new “historical” work. The first eight volumes of “History of the Russian State” were printed in 1816-1817 and went on sale in February 1818. A huge circulation of three thousand for that time was sold out in 25 days. (And this despite the hefty price of 50 rubles). A second edition was immediately required, which was carried out in 1818-1819 by I.V. Slenin. In 1821 a new, ninth volume was published, and in 1824 the next two. The author did not have time to finish the twelfth volume of his work, which was published in 1829, almost three years after his death.
“History...” was admired by Karamzin’s literary friends and the vast public of non-specialist readers who suddenly discovered, like Count Tolstoy the American, that their Fatherland has a history. According to A.S. Pushkin, “everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their fatherland, hitherto unknown to them. She was a new discovery for them. Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus.”
Liberal intellectual circles of the 1820s found Karamzin’s “History...” backward in general views and overly tendentious:
Research specialists, as already mentioned, treated Karamzin’s work precisely as a work, sometimes even belittling its historical significance. To many, Karamzin’s enterprise itself seemed too risky - to undertake to write such an extensive work given the then state of Russian historical science.
Already during Karamzin’s lifetime, critical analyzes of his “History...” appeared, and soon after the author’s death, attempts were made to determine the general significance of this work in historiography. Lelevel pointed out an involuntary distortion of the truth due to Karamzin’s patriotic, religious and political hobbies. Artsybashev showed to what extent the literary techniques of a lay historian harm the writing of “history.” Pogodin summed up all the shortcomings of the History, and N.A. Polevoy saw the general reason for these shortcomings in the fact that “Karamzin is a writer not of our time.” All his points of view, both in literature and in philosophy, politics and history, became outdated with the advent of new influences of European romanticism in Russia. In contrast to Karamzin, Polevoy soon wrote his six-volume “History of the Russian People,” where he completely surrendered to the ideas of Guizot and other Western European romantics. Contemporaries assessed this work as an “undignified parody” of Karamzin, subjecting the author to rather vicious, and not always deserved, attacks.
In the 1830s, Karamzin’s “History...” became the banner of the officially “Russian” movement. With the assistance of the same Pogodin, its scientific rehabilitation is being carried out, which is fully consistent with the spirit of Uvarov’s “theory of official nationality”.
In the second half of the 19th century, based on the “History...”, a lot of popular science articles and other texts were written, which served as the basis for well-known educational and teaching aids. Based on the historical stories of Karamzin, many works were created for children and youth, the purpose of which for many years was to instill patriotism, loyalty to civic duty, and the responsibility of the younger generation for the fate of their Motherland. This book, in our opinion, played a decisive role in shaping the views of more than one generation of Russian people, having a significant impact on the foundations of patriotic education of youth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
December 14. Karamzin's finale.
The death of Emperor Alexander I and the December events of 1925 deeply shocked N.M. Karamzin and had a negative impact on his health.
On December 14, 1825, having received news of the uprising, the historian goes out into the street: “I saw terrible faces, heard terrible words, five or six stones fell at my feet.”
Karamzin, of course, regarded the action of the nobility against their sovereign as a rebellion and a serious crime. But among the rebels there were so many acquaintances: the Muravyov brothers, Nikolai Turgenev, Bestuzhev, Ryleev, Kuchelbecker (he translated Karamzin’s “History” into German).
A few days later Karamzin will say about the Decembrists: “The delusions and crimes of these young people are the delusions and crimes of our century.”
On December 14, during his movements around St. Petersburg, Karamzin caught a severe cold and contracted pneumonia. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was another victim of this day: his idea of the world collapsed, his faith in the future was lost, and a new king ascended to the throne, very far from the ideal image of an enlightened monarch. Half-ill, Karamzin visited the palace every day, where he talked with Empress Maria Feodorovna, moving from memories of the late Emperor Alexander to discussions about the tasks of the future reign.
Karamzin could no longer write. The XII volume of “History...” froze during the interregnum of 1611 - 1612. The last words of the last volume are about a small Russian fortress: “Nut did not give up.” The last thing that Karamzin actually managed to do in the spring of 1826 was that, together with Zhukovsky, he persuaded Nicholas I to return Pushkin from exile. A few years later, the emperor tried to pass the baton of the first historiographer of Russia to the poet, but the “sun of Russian poetry” somehow did not fit into the role of state ideologist and theorist...
In the spring of 1826 N.M. Karamzin, on the advice of doctors, decided to go to Southern France or Italy for treatment. Nicholas I agreed to sponsor his trip and kindly placed a frigate of the Imperial Navy at the disposal of the historiographer. But Karamzin was already too weak to travel. He died on May 22 (June 3), 1826 in St. Petersburg. He was buried at the Tikhvin Cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.
Karamzin's childhood and youth
Karamzin the historian
Karamzin-journalist
Karamzin's childhood and youth
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1 (12), 1766 in the village of Mikhailovka, Buzuluk district, Simbirsk province, into a cultured and well-born, but poor noble family, descended on the paternal side from Tatar roots. He inherited his quiet disposition and penchant for daydreaming from his mother Ekaterina Petrovna (née Pazukhina), whom he lost at the age of three. Early orphanhood and loneliness in his father's house strengthened these qualities in the boy's soul: he fell in love with rural solitude, the beauty of the Volga nature, and early became addicted to reading books.
When Karamzin was 13 years old, his father took him to Moscow and sent him to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Schaden, where the boy received a secular upbringing, studied European languages perfectly and attended lectures at the university. At the end of the boarding school in 1781, Karamzin left Moscow and joined the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg, to which he had been assigned since childhood. Friendship with I.I. Dmitriev, a future famous poet and fabulist, strengthened his interest in literature. Karamzin first appeared in print with a translation of the idyll of the German poet S. Gessner in 1783.
After the death of his father, in January 1784, Karamzin retired with the rank of lieutenant and returned to his homeland in Simbirsk. Here he led a rather absent-minded lifestyle, typical of a young nobleman of those years. A decisive turn in his fate was made by a chance acquaintance with I.P. Turgenev, an active freemason, writer, associate of the famous writer and book publisher of the late 18th century N.I. Novikova. I.P. Turgenev takes Karamzin to Moscow, and for four years the aspiring writer moves in Moscow Masonic circles and becomes close friends with N.I. Novikov, becomes a member of the "Friendly Scientific Society".
Moscow Rosicrucian Masons (knights of the gold-pink cross) were characterized by criticism of Voltairianism and the entire legacy of the French encyclopedists and educators. Masons considered human reason to be the lowest level of knowledge and placed it in direct dependence on feelings and Divine revelation. The mind, outside the control of feelings and faith, is not able to correctly understand the world around us; it is a “dark”, “demonic” mind, which is the source of all human delusions and troubles.
The book of the French mystic Saint-Martin “On Errors and Truth” was especially popular in the “Friendly Learned Society”: it is no coincidence that the Rosicrucians were called “Martinists” by their ill-wishers. Saint-Martin declared that the teaching of the Enlightenment about the social contract, based on the atheistic “faith” in the “good nature” of man, is a lie that tramples the Christian truth about the “darkening” of human nature by “original sin.” It is naive to consider state power the result of human “creativity.” It is the subject of God’s special care for sinful humanity and is sent by the Creator to tame and restrain the sinful thoughts to which fallen man is subject on this earth.
The Martinists considered the state power of Catherine II, who was under the influence of French enlighteners, to be a delusion, Divine permission for the sins of the entire Peter the Great period of our history. Russian Freemasons, among whom Karamzin moved in those years, created a utopia about a beautiful country of believers and happy people, governed by elected Freemasons according to the laws of the Masonic religion, without bureaucracy, clerks, police, nobles, and arbitrariness. In their books, they preached this utopia as a program: in their state, need will disappear, there will be no mercenaries, no slaves, no taxes; everyone will learn and live peacefully and sublimely. To do this, it is necessary for everyone to become Freemasons and cleanse themselves of filth. In the future Masonic "paradise" there will be neither a church nor laws, but there will be a free society of good people who believe in God, as they wish.
Soon Karamzin realized that, denying the “autocracy” of Catherine II, the Freemasons were hatching plans for their own “autocracy”, opposing the Masonic heresy to everything else, sinful humanity. With outward consonance with the truths of the Christian religion, in the process of their cunning reasoning, one untruth and lie was replaced by another no less dangerous and insidious one. Karamzin was also alarmed by the excessive mystical exaltation of his “brothers”, so far from the “spiritual sobriety” bequeathed by Orthodoxy. I was confused by the cover of secrecy and conspiracy associated with the activities of Masonic lodges.
And so Karamzin, like the hero of Tolstoy’s epic novel “War and Peace” Pierre Bezukhov, experiences deep disappointment in Freemasonry and leaves Moscow, setting off on a long journey through Western Europe. His fears are soon confirmed: the affairs of the entire Masonic organization, as the investigation found out, were run by some shady people who left Prussia and acted in its favor, hiding their goals from the sincerely mistaken, beautiful-hearted Russian “brothers.” Karamzin's journey through Western Europe, which lasted a year and a half, marked the writer's final break with the Masonic hobbies of his youth.
"Letters of a Russian traveler". In the fall of 1790, Karamzin returned to Russia and from 1791 began publishing the Moscow Journal, which was published for two years and had great success with the Russian reading public. In it he published his two main works - “Letters of a Russian Traveler” and the story “Poor Liza”.
In "Letters of a Russian Traveler", summing up his travels abroad, Karamzin, following the tradition of Stern's "Sentimental Journey", rebuilds it from the inside in the Russian way. Stern pays almost no attention to the outside world, focusing on a meticulous analysis of his own experiences and feelings. Karamzin, on the contrary, is not closed within the boundaries of his “I” and is not overly concerned with the subjective content of his emotions. The leading role in his narrative is played by the outside world; the author is sincerely interested in its true understanding and objective assessment. In each country he notices the most interesting and important: in Germany - mental life (he meets Kant in Konigsberg and meets Herder and Wieland in Weimar), in Switzerland - nature, in England - political and public institutions, parliament, jury trials, family life of respectable Puritans. In the writer’s responsiveness to the surrounding phenomena of existence, in the desire to be imbued with the spirit of different countries and peoples, Karamzin already anticipates V.A.’s translation gift. Zhukovsky, and Pushkin’s “proteism” with his “worldwide responsiveness.”
Particular attention should be paid to the section of Karamzin’s “Letters...” concerning France. He visited this country at the moment when the first thunderclaps of the Great French Revolution were heard. He also saw with his own eyes the king and queen, whose days were already numbered, and attended meetings of the National Assembly. The conclusions that Karamzin made while analyzing the revolutionary upheavals in one of the most advanced countries of Western Europe already anticipated the problems of all Russian literature of the 19th century.
“Every civil society, established for centuries,” says Karamzin, “is a shrine for good citizens, and in the most imperfect one one should be amazed at the wonderful harmony, improvement, order. “Utopia” will always be the dream of a kind heart or can be fulfilled by the inconspicuous action of time, through slow, but true, safe successes of reason, enlightenment, education of good morals. When people are convinced that virtue is necessary for their own happiness, then the golden age will come, and in every reign a person will enjoy the peaceful well-being of life. All violent upheavals are disastrous, and every rebel is preparing. Let us surrender ourselves, my friends, to the power of Providence: it, of course, has its own plan; the hearts of sovereigns are in its hands - and that’s enough.”
In “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” the idea that formed the basis of Karamzin’s later “Notes on Ancient and New Russia,” which he presented to Alexander I in 1811, on the eve of the Napoleonic invasion, matures. In it, the writer inspired the sovereign that the main task of government is not in changing external forms and institutions, but in people, in the level of their moral self-awareness. A beneficent monarch and his skillfully selected governors will successfully replace any written constitution. Therefore, for the good of the fatherland, first of all, good priests are needed, and then public schools.
“Letters of a Russian Traveler” revealed the typical attitude of a thinking Russian person to the historical experience of Western Europe and to the lessons that he learned from it. The West remained for us in the 19th century a school of life both in its best, bright, and dark sides. The deeply personal, kindred attitude of an enlightened nobleman to the cultural and historical life of Western Europe, evident in Karamzin’s “Letters...”, was well expressed later by F.M. Dostoevsky through the mouth of Versilov, the hero of the novel “The Teenager”: “To a Russian, Europe is as precious as Russia: every stone in it is dear and dear.”
Karamzin the historian
It is noteworthy that Karamzin himself did not take part in these disputes, but treated Shishkov with respect, not harboring any resentment towards his criticism. In 1803, he began the main work of his life - the creation of the "History of the Russian State." Karamzin had the idea for this major work a long time ago. Back in 1790, he wrote: “It hurts, but it must be fairly admitted that we still do not have a good history, that is, written with a philosophical mind, with criticism, with noble eloquence. Tacitus, Hume, Robertson, Gibbon - these are the examples They say that our story in itself is less interesting than others: I don’t think it’s all about intelligence, taste, and talent.” Karamzin, of course, had all these abilities, but in order to master the capital work associated with studying a huge number of historical documents, material freedom and independence were also required. When Karamzin began publishing “Bulletin of Europe” in 1802, he dreamed of the following: “Being not very rich, I published a magazine with the intention that through forced work of five or six years I would buy independence, the opportunity to work freely and ... write Russian history , which has been occupying my whole soul for some time."
And then a close acquaintance of Karamzin, comrade of the Minister of Education M.N. Muravyov turned to Alexander I with a petition to help the writer in realizing his plan. In a personal decree of December 31, 1803, Karamzin was approved as a court historiographer with an annual pension of two thousand rubles. Thus began the twenty-two-year period of Karamzin’s life, associated with the major work of creating the “History of the Russian State.”
About how history should be written, Karamzin said: “The historian must rejoice and grieve with his people. He should not, guided by bias, distort facts, exaggerate happiness or belittle disaster in his presentation; he must first of all be truthful; but he can, He must even convey everything unpleasant, everything shameful in the history of his people with sadness, but speak with joy and enthusiasm about what brings honor, about victories, about a flourishing state. Only in this way will he become a national writer of everyday life, which, above all, he should. to be a historian."
Karamzin began writing “The History of the Russian State” in Moscow and in the Olsufyevo estate near Moscow. In 1816, he moved to St. Petersburg: efforts began to publish the completed eight volumes of “History...”. Karamzin became a person close to the court, personally communicating with Alexander I and members of the royal family. The Karamzins spent the summer months in Tsarskoe Selo, where they were visited by the young lyceum student Pushkin. In 1818, eight volumes of “History...” were published, in 1821 the ninth, dedicated to the era of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was published, in 1824 - the tenth and eleventh volumes.
“History...” was created based on the study of vast factual material, among which chronicles occupied a key place. Combining the talent of a scholar-historian with artistic talent, Karamzin skillfully conveyed the very spirit of chronicle sources by abundantly quoting them or skillfully retelling them. What was valuable to the historian in the chronicles was not only the abundance of facts, but also the chronicler’s very attitude towards them. Comprehension of the chronicler's point of view is the main task of Karamzin the artist, allowing him to convey the “spirit of the times”, popular opinion about certain events. And Karamzin the historian made comments. That is why Karamzin’s “History...” combined a description of the emergence and development of Russian statehood with the process of growth and formation of Russian national identity.
By his convictions, Karamzin was a monarchist. He believed that an autocratic form of government was most organic for such a huge country as Russia. But at the same time, he showed the constant danger that awaits autocracy in the course of history - the danger of its degeneration into “autocracy.” Refuting the widespread view of peasant rebellions and riots as a manifestation of popular “savagery” and “ignorance,” Karamzin showed that popular indignation is generated every time by the retreat of monarchical power from the principles of autocracy towards autocracy and tyranny. For Karamzin, popular indignation is a form of manifestation of the Heavenly Court, Divine punishment for the crimes committed by the tyrants. It is through the life of the people that, according to Karamzin, the Divine will manifests itself in history; it is the people that most often turn out to be a powerful instrument of Providence. Thus, Karamzin absolves the people of blame for the rebellion in the event that this rebellion has the highest moral justification.
When Pushkin became acquainted with this “Note...” in manuscript at the end of the 1830s, he said: “Karamzin wrote his thoughts about Ancient and New Russia with all the sincerity of a beautiful soul, with all the courage of a strong and deep conviction.” "Someday posterity will appreciate... the nobility of a patriot."
But the “Note...” caused irritation and displeasure of the vain Alexander. For five years, he emphasized his resentment with a cold attitude towards Karamzin. In 1816 there was a rapprochement, but not for long. In 1819, the sovereign, returning from Warsaw, where he opened the Polish Sejm, in one of his sincere conversations with Karamzin, said that he wanted to restore Poland to its ancient borders. This “strange” desire shocked Karamzin so much that he immediately composed and personally read to the sovereign a new “Note...”:
“You are thinking of restoring the ancient kingdom of Poland, but is this restoration in accordance with the law of the state good of Russia? Is it in accordance with your sacred duties, with your love for Russia and for justice itself? Can you, with a peaceful conscience, take away from us Belarus, Lithuania, Volynia, Podolia, the established property of Russia even before your reign? Do not the sovereigns swear to preserve the integrity of their powers? These lands were already Russia when Metropolitan Plato presented you with the crown of Monomakh, Peter, Catherine, whom you called Great... Nikolay Karamzin boarding house historiographer
We would have lost not only our beautiful regions, but also our love for the Tsar, our souls would have cooled towards our fatherland, seeing it as a playground of autocratic tyranny, we would have weakened not only by the reduction of the state, but we would also have humiliated ourselves in spirit before others and before ourselves. If the palace were not empty, of course, you would still have ministers and generals, but they would not serve the fatherland, but only their own personal benefits, like mercenaries, like true slaves..."
At the end of a heated argument with Alexander 1 over his policy towards Poland, Karamzin said: “Your Majesty, you have a lot of pride... I am not afraid of anything, we are both equal before God. What I told you, I would tell yours father... I despise precocious liberalists; I love only that freedom that no tyrant will take away from me... I no longer need your favors.”
Karamzin passed away on May 22 (June 3), 1826, while working on the twelfth volume of “History...”, where he was supposed to talk about the people’s militia of Minin and Pozharsky, which liberated Moscow and stopped the “turmoil” in our Fatherland. The manuscript of this volume ended with the phrase: “The nut did not give up...”
The significance of “The History of the Russian State” is difficult to overestimate: its publication was a major act of Russian national self-awareness. According to Pushkin, Karamzin revealed to the Russians their past, just as Columbus discovered America. The writer in his “History...” gave a sample of a national epic, making each Epoch speak its own language. Karamzin's work had a great influence on Russian writers. Relying on Karamzin, he wrote his “Boris Godunov” by Pushktn, and composed his “Dumas” by Ryleev. "The History of the Russian State" had a direct influence on the development of the Russian historical novel from Zagoskin and Lazhechnikov to Leo Tolstoy. “The pure and high glory of Karamzin belongs to Russia,” said Pushkin.
Karamzin-journalist
Beginning with the publication of the Moscow Journal, Karamzin appeared before Russian public opinion as the first professional writer and journalist. Before him, only third-tier writers decided to live on literary earnings. The cultured nobleman considered the pursuit of literature rather as fun and certainly not as a serious profession. Karamzin, with his work and constant success among readers, established the authority of writing in the eyes of society and turned literature into a profession, perhaps the most honorable and respected. There is an opinion that the enthusiastic young men of St. Petersburg dreamed of even walking to Moscow, just to look at the famous Karamzin. In "Moscow Journal" and subsequent editions, Karamzin not only expanded the circle of readers of good Russian books, but also cultivated aesthetic taste, prepared cultural society to perceive the poetry of V.A. Zhukovsky and A.S. Pushkin. His magazine, his literary almanacs were no longer limited to Moscow and St. Petersburg, but penetrated into the Russian provinces. In 1802, Karamzin began publishing "Bulletin of Europe" - a magazine not only literary, but also socially political, which gave the prototype to the so-called "thick" Russian magazines that existed throughout the 19th century and survived until the end of the 20th century.
Nikolay Karamzin- Russian historian, writer, poet and prose writer. He is the author of “History of the Russian State” - one of the first generalizing works on the history of Russia, written in 12 volumes.
Karamzin is the largest Russian writer of the era of sentimentalism, nicknamed the “Russian Stern.”
In addition, he managed to carry out many important reforms in the Russian language, as well as introduce dozens of new words into use.
Feeling confident in his abilities and inspired by his first success, Nikolai Karamzin begins to actively engage in writing. From his pen come many interesting and instructive stories.
Soon Karamzin becomes the head of the Moscow Journal, which publishes the works of various writers and poets. Until that time, there was no such publication in the Russian Empire.
Works by Karamzin
It was in the Moscow Journal that Nikolai Karamzin published “Poor Liza,” which is considered one of the best works in his biography. After this, “Aonids”, “My trifles” and “Aglaya” came out from his pen.
Karamzin was an incredibly efficient and talented person. He managed to compose poetry, write reviews and articles, participate in theatrical life, and also study many historical documents.
Despite the fact that he liked creativity and creativity, he looked at poetry from a different perspective.
Nikolai Karamzin wrote poetry in the style of European sentimentalism, thanks to which he became the best Russian poet working in this direction.
In his poems, he primarily paid attention to the spiritual state of a person, and not to his physical shell.
In 1803, a significant event occurred in Karamzin’s biography: by a personal decree, the emperor granted Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin the title of historiographer; At the same time, an annual salary of 2 thousand rubles was added to the rank.
From that time on, Karamzin began to move away from fiction, and began to study historical documents even more diligently, including the most ancient chronicles.
During this biographical period, he was constantly offered various government positions, but apart from Karamzin, he was not interested in anything.
At the same time, he wrote several historical books, which were only a prelude to the main work of his life.
"History of Russian Goverment"
His work was appreciated by all segments of society. Representatives of the elite tried to acquire the “History of the Russian State” in order to become familiar with a detailed history for the first time in their lives.
Many prominent people sought meetings with the writer, and the emperor openly admired him. It is worth noting here that as a historian, Nikolai Karamzin was a supporter of absolute monarchy.
Having received wide recognition and fame, Karamzin needed silence in order to continue to work fruitfully. For this purpose, he was allocated separate housing in Tsarskoe Selo, where the historian could carry out his activities in comfortable conditions.
Karamzin's books attracted the reader with the clarity and simplicity of the presentation of historical events. While describing certain facts, he did not forget about beauty.
Works of Karamzin
During his biography, Nikolai Karamzin completed many translations, among which was the work “Julius Caesar”. However, he did not work in this direction for long.
It is worth noting that Karamzin managed to radically change the Russian literary language. First of all, the writer sought to get rid of outdated Church Slavonic words, as well as modify the grammar.
Karamzin took the syntax and grammar of the French language as the basis for his transformations.
The result of Karamzin's reforms was the emergence of new words that are still used in everyday life. Here is a short list of words introduced into the Russian language by Karamzin:
Today it is difficult to imagine the modern Russian language without these and other words.
An interesting fact is that it was thanks to the efforts of Nikolai Karamzin that the letter “e” appeared in our alphabet. It should be admitted that not everyone liked his reforms.
Many criticized him and tried to do everything possible to preserve the “old” language.
However, Karamzin was soon elected a member of the Russian and Imperial Academy of Sciences, thus recognizing his services to the Fatherland.
Personal life
In Karamzin’s biography there were two women to whom he was married. His first wife was Elizaveta Protasova.
She was a very literate and flexible girl, but she was often sick. In 1802, a year after the wedding, their daughter Sophia was born.
Ekaterina Andreevna Kolyvanova, Karamzin’s second wife After giving birth, Elizabeth began to develop a fever, from which she later died. A number of biographers believe that the story “Poor Liza” was written in honor of Protasova.
An interesting fact is that Karamzin’s daughter Sofia was friends with and.
Karamzin’s second wife was Ekaterina Kolyvanova, who was the illegitimate daughter of Prince Vyazemsky.
In this marriage they had 9 children, three of whom died in childhood.
Some of the children have reached certain heights in life.
For example, son Vladimir was a very witty and promising careerist. He later became a senator in the Justice Department.
Karamzin's youngest daughter, Elizaveta, never married, although she had a great mind and was an extremely kind girl.
Karamzin was buried at the Tikhvin cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.
Karamzin Photos
At the end you can see some of Karamzin’s most famous portraits. All are made from paintings, not from life.
If you liked Karamzin’s short biography, where we briefly described the most important things, share it on social networks.
If you like biographies of great people in general, and in particular, subscribe to the site. It's always interesting with us!
Did you like the post? Press any button.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin, born in the Simbirsk province on December 1, 1766 and died in 1826, entered Russian literature as a deeply sensitive artist-sentimentalist, a master of journalistic words and the first Russian historiographer.
His father was an average nobleman, a descendant of the Tatar Murza Kara-Murza. The family of a Simbirsk landowner living in the village of Mikhailovka had a family estate, Znamenskoye, where the boy spent his childhood and youth.
Having received an initial education at home and devouring fiction and history, young Karamzin was sent to a private Moscow boarding school named after. Shadena. In addition to his studies, in his youth he actively studied foreign languages and attended university lectures.
In 1781, Karamzin was enlisted for three years of service in the St. Petersburg Preobrazhensky Regiment, considered one of the best at that time, and left it as a lieutenant. During his service, the writer's first work was published - the translated story "The Wooden Leg". Here he met the young poet Dmitriev, a sincere correspondence and great friendship with whom continued during his joint work at the Moscow Journal.
Continuing to actively seek his place in life, acquiring new knowledge and acquaintances, Karamzin soon leaves for Moscow, where he makes acquaintance with N. Novikov, publisher of the magazine “Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind” and a member of the Masonic circle Golden Crown." Communication with Novikov, as well as I. P. Turgenev had a significant influence on the views and direction of the further development of Karamzin’s individuality and creativity. Communication with Pleshcheev, A. M. Kutuzov and I. S. Gamaleya also began in the Masonic circle.
In 1787, a translation of Shakespeare’s work “Julius Caesar” was published, and in 1788 a translation of Lessing’s work “Emilia Galotti” was published. A year later, Karamzin’s first own publication, the story “Eugene and Yulia,” was published.
At the same time, the writer has the opportunity to visit Europe thanks to the inherited estate he received. Having pawned it, Karamzin decides to use this money to go on a journey for a year and a half, which will subsequently allow him to receive a powerful impetus to his fullest self-determination.
During his trip, Karamzin visited Switzerland, England, France and Germany. During his travels, he was a patient listener, a vigilant observer and a sensitive person. He collected a huge number of notes and essays about the morals and characters of people, noticed many characteristic scenes from street life and the everyday life of people of different classes. All this became rich material for his future work, including for “Letters of a Russian Traveler”, mostly published in the “Moscow Journal”.
At this time, the poet is already making a living for himself through the work of a writer. Over the following years, the almanacs “Aonids”, “Aglaya” and the collection “My Trinkets” were published. The famous historically true story "Marfa the Posadnitsa" was published in 1802. Karamzin gained fame and respect as a writer and historiographer not only in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but throughout the country.
Soon Karamzin began publishing a unique socio-political magazine at that time, “Bulletin of Europe,” in which he published his historical stories and works, which were preparation for larger-scale work.
"History of the Russian State" - an artistically designed, titanic work by Karamzin the historian, was published in 1817. Twenty-three years of painstaking work made it possible to create a huge, impartial and deep in its truthfulness work, which revealed to people their true past.
Death found the writer while working on one of the volumes of “History of the Russian State,” which tells about the “time of troubles.”
It is interesting that in Simbirsk, in 1848, the first scientific library was opened, later called “Karamzin”.
Having initiated the movement of sentimentalism in Russian literature, he revived and deepened the traditional literature of classicism. Thanks to his innovative views, deep thoughts and subtle feelings, Karamzin managed to create the image of a real living and deeply feeling character. The most striking examples in this regard are his story “Poor Liza,” which first found its readers in the Moscow Journal.
Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich is a famous Russian historian, as well as a writer. At the same time, he was engaged in publishing, reforming the Russian language and was the brightest representative of the era of sentimentalism.
Since the writer was born into a noble family, he received an excellent primary education at home. Later he entered a noble boarding school, where he continued his own education. Also in the period from 1781 to 1782, Nikolai Mikhailovich attended important university lectures.
In 1781, Karamzin went to serve in the St. Petersburg Guards Regiment, where his work began. After the death of his own father, the writer put an end to military service.
Since 1785, Karamzin began to seriously develop his creative abilities. He moves to Moscow, where he joins the “Friendly Scientific Community”. After this significant event, Karamzin participated in the publication of the magazine and also collaborated with various publishing houses.
For several years, the writer traveled around European countries, where he met various outstanding people. This is what contributed to the further development of his work. A work such as “Letters of a Russian Traveler” was written.
More details
The future historian named Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born in the city of Simbirsk on December 12, 1766 into a family of hereditary nobles. Nikolai received his very first basic education at home. After receiving primary education, my father sent me to a noble boarding school, which was located in Simbirsk. And in 1778, he moved his son to a Moscow boarding school. In addition to his basic education, young Karamzin was also very interested in foreign languages and at the same time attended lectures.
After completing his education, in 1781, Nikolai, on the advice of his father, entered military service in the elite Preobrazhensky Regiment at that time. Karamzin's debut as a writer took place in 1783, with a work called "The Wooden Leg." In 1784 Karamzin decided to end his military career and therefore retired with the rank of lieutenant.
In 1785, after the end of his military career, Karamzin made a strong-willed decision to move from Simbirsk, where he was born and lived almost his entire life, to Moscow. It was there that the writer met Novikov and the Pleshcheevs. Also, while in Moscow, he became interested in Freemasonry and for this reason he joined a Masonic circle, where he started communicating with Gamaleya and Kutuzov. In addition to his hobby, he is also publishing his first children's magazine.
In addition to writing his own works, Karamzin also translates various works. So in 1787 he translated Shakespeare's tragedy "Julius Caesar". A year later he translated "Emilia Galotti" written by Lessing. The first work entirely written by Karamzin was published in 1789 and was called “Eugene and Yulia”, it was published in a magazine called “Children’s Reading”
In 1789-1790 Karamzin decides to diversify his life and therefore goes on a trip throughout Europe. The writer visited such major countries as Germany, England, France, Switzerland. During his travels, Karamzin met many famous historical figures of that time, such as Herder and Bonnet. He even managed to attend the performances of Robespierre himself. During the trip, he did not easily admire the beauties of Europe, but he carefully described all this, after which he called this work “Letters of a Russian Traveler.”
Detailed biography
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin is the greatest Russian writer and historian, the founder of sentimentalism.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 12, 1766 in the Simbirsk province. His father was a hereditary nobleman and had his own estate. Like most representatives of high society, Nikolai was educated at home. As a teenager, he leaves his home and enters the Moscow Johann Schaden University. He is making progress in learning foreign languages. In parallel with the main program, the guy attends lectures by famous educators and philosophers. It was there that his literary activity began.
In 1783 Karamzin became a soldier in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, where he served until the death of his father. After being notified of his death, the future writer goes to his homeland, where he remains to live. There he meets the poet Ivan Turgenev, who is a member of the Masonic lodge. It is Ivan Sergeevich who invites Nikolai to join this organization. After joining the ranks of the Freemasons, the young poet became interested in the literature of Rousseau and Shakespeare. His worldview gradually begins to change. As a result, fascinated by European culture, he breaks all ties with the lodge and goes on a journey. Visiting the leading countries of that period, Karamzin witnesses the revolution in France and makes new acquaintances, the most famous of whom was the popular philosopher of that time, Immanuel Kant.
The above events greatly inspired Nikolai. Being impressed, he creates documentary prose “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” which fully expounds his feelings and attitude towards everything that is happening in the West. Readers liked the sentimental style. Noticing this, Nikolai begins work on a standard work of this genre, known as “Poor Liza.” It reveals the thoughts and experiences of different characters. This work was positively received in society; it actually shifted classicism to the bottom.
In 1791, Karamzin became involved in journalism, working for the Moscow Journal newspaper. In it he publishes his own almanacs and other works. In addition, the poet is working on reviews of theatrical productions. Until 1802, Nikolai was engaged in journalism. During this period, Nicholas became closer to the royal court, actively communicated with Emperor Alexander I, they were often spotted walking in gardens and parks, the publicist earned the trust of the ruler, and in fact became his close confidant. A year later, he changes his vector to historical notes. The idea of creating a book telling about the history of Russia gripped the writer. Having received the title of historiographer, he writes his most valuable creation, “History of the Russian State.” 12 volumes were published, the last of which was completed by 1826 in Tsarskoye Selo. It was here that Nikolai Mikhailovich spent his last years of his life, dying on May 22, 1826 due to a cold.
