Literary and historical notes of a young technician. Karamzin poor Lisa analysis of the work, retelling plan

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766 - 1826)

Born on December 1 (12 NS) in the village of Mikhailovka, Simbirsk province, in the family of a landowner. Received a good home education.

At the age of 14 he began studying at the Moscow private boarding school of Professor Schaden. Having graduated from it in 1783, he came to 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”. Having retired with the rank of second lieutenant in 1784, he moved to Moscow and became one of the active participants in the magazine " Children's reading for the heart and mind,” published by N. Novikov, and became close to the Freemasons. He began translating religious and moral works. Since 1787, he regularly published his translations of Thomson’s “The Seasons,” “Village Evenings” by Janlis, and 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...”. In the spring, he went on a trip to Europe: he visited Germany, Switzerland, France, where he observed the activities of the revolutionary government. In June 1790 he moved from France to England.

In the fall he returned to Moscow and soon undertook the publication of the monthly “Moscow Journal”, in which most of the “Letters of a Russian Traveler”, the story “Liodor”, “ Poor Lisa", "Natalia, the boyar's daughter", "Flor Silin", essays, short stories, critical articles and poems. Karamzin attracted Dmitriev and Petrov, Kheraskov and Derzhavin, Lvov Neledinsky-Meletsky and others to collaborate in the magazine. Karamzin's articles approved a new literary direction - sentimentalism. In the 1790s, Karamzin published the first Russian almanacs - "Aglaya" (parts 1 - 2, 1794 - 95) and "Aonids" (parts 1 - 3, 1796 - 99) The third stage began in 1793. The French Revolution established the Jacobin dictatorship, which shocked Karamzin with its cruelty. The dictatorship aroused in him doubts about the possibility of humanity achieving prosperity. He condemned the revolution. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the story “The Island of Bornholm” (1793); " (1795); poems "Melancholy", "Message to A. A. Pleshcheev" and others.

By the mid-1790s, Karamzin became the recognized head of Russian sentimentalism, which opened new page in Russian literature. He was an indisputable authority for Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, and young Pushkin.

In 1802 - 1803 Karamzin published the journal "Bulletin of Europe", in which literature and politics predominated. In Karamzin’s critical articles, a new aesthetic program, which contributed to the formation of Russian literature as nationally distinctive. Karamzin saw the key to the uniqueness of Russian culture in history. The most striking illustration of his views was the story “Marfa Posadnitsa”. In his political articles, Karamzin made recommendations to the government, pointing out the role of education.

Trying to influence Tsar Alexander I, Karamzin gave him his “Note on Ancient and new Russia"(1811), causing his irritation. In 1819 he filed new note- “Opinion of a Russian citizen,” which caused even greater displeasure of the tsar. However, Karamzin did not abandon his belief in the salvation of an enlightened autocracy and later condemned the Decembrist uprising. However, Karamzin the artist was still highly valued by young writers, even those who did not share his political convictions.

In 1803, through M. Muravyov, Karamzin received the official title of court historiographer.

In 1804, he began to create the “History of the Russian State,” which he worked on until the end of his days, but did not complete. In 1818, the first eight volumes of History, Karamzin’s greatest scientific and cultural feat, were published. In 1821, the 9th volume, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was published, in 1824 - the 10th and 11th, about Fyodor Ioannovich and Boris Godunov. Death interrupted work on the 12th volume. This happened on May 22 (June 3, n.s.) 1826 in St. Petersburg.

Date of birth: December 12, 1766
Date of death: June 3, 1826
Place of birth: Znamenskoye estate in Kazan province

Nikolay Karamzin- great historian and writer of the 18th-19th centuries. Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin born on the family estate of Znamenskoye in the Kazan province on December 12, 1766.

His family descended from the Crimean Tatars, his father was an average landowner, retired officers, his mother died when Nikolai Mikhailovich was still just a child. His father was involved in his upbringing, and he also hired tutors and nannies. Karamzin spent his entire childhood on the estate, received an excellent education at home, and read almost all the books in his mother’s extensive library.

His love for foreign progressive literature had a great influence on his work. The future writer, publicist, famous critic, honorary member of the Academy of Sciences, historiographer and reformer of Russian literature, loved to read F. Emin, Rollin and other European masters of words.

After receiving home education, Karamzin entered a noble boarding school in Simbirsk; in 1778, his father assigned him to an army regiment, which gave Karamzin the opportunity to study at the most prestigious Moscow boarding school at Moscow University. He was in charge of the boarding house I.I. Schaden, under his strict guidance, Karamzin studied the humanities and also attended lectures at the university.

Military service:

His father was confident that Nikolai should continue to serve his homeland in the army, and then Karamzin found himself in active service in the Preobrazhensky Regiment. A military career did not attract the future writer and he almost immediately took a year’s leave, and in 1784 he received a decree on his resignation with the rank of lieutenant.

Secular period:

Karamzin was very famous in secular society; he met the most different people, makes a lot of useful connections, enters the Masonic society, and also begins to work in the literary field. He is actively involved in the development of the first children's magazine in Russia "Children's reading for the heart and mind."

In 1789, he decides to go on a big trip to Europe, during which he met E. Kant, visited the height of the Paris Revolution and witnessed the fall of the Bastille. A large number of European events allowed him to collect a large amount of material to create “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” which immediately gained enormous popularity in society and was received with a bang by critics.

Creation:

After finishing his European trip, he took up literature. He founded his own “Moscow Magazine”, and it published the brightest “star” of his sentimental creativity - “Poor Liza”. Russian sentimentalism unconditionally recognizes him as a leader after the release of this creation. In 1803 he was noticed by the emperor himself and became a historiographer. At this moment he begins to work on the enormous work of his entire life, “The History of the Russian State.” It is worth noting that when compiling this monumental work, he advocated the preservation of all orders, showed his conservatism and doubts regarding any government reforms.

In 1810 he received the Order of St. Vladimir, III degree, six years later received the high rank of state councilor and became a Knight of the Order of St. Anna, I degree. Two years later, the first 8 volumes of “The History of the Russian State” were released; the work was instantly sold out, was reprinted many times, and was also translated into several European languages. He was a close associate of the imperial family, and therefore spoke out in favor of maintaining an absolute monarchy. He never finished his enormous work; volume XII was published after his death.

Personal life:

Karamzin married Elizaveta Ivanovna Protasova in 1801. The marriage was short-lived; the wife died after giving birth to her daughter Sophia. Nikolai Karamzin’s second wife was Ekaterina Andreevna Kolyvanova.

Karamzin died due to an aggravated cold, which he received after the Decembrist uprising on Senate Square. He rests in the Tikhvin cemetery. Karamzin was one of the fundamentalists of Russian sentimentalism, reformed the Russian language, added many new words to the vocabulary. He was one of the first creators of a comprehensive general work on the history of Russia.

Important milestones in the life of Nikolai Karamzin:

Born 1766
- Assignment to army regiments in 1774
- Admission to the Schaden boarding school in 1778
- Active army service in 1781
- Retirement with the rank of lieutenant in 1784
- Work in the first children's magazine in 1787
- Beginning of a two-year journey through Europe in 1789
- Publishing house of the new "Moscow Magazine" in 1791
- Publication of "Poor Lisa" in 1792
- Marriage to Elizaveta Protasova in 1801
- Beginning of publication of the "Bulletin of Europe" and the death of his wife in 1802
- Obtaining the position of historiographer and starting work on the enormous work “History of the Russian State” in 1803
- Marriage to Ekaterina Kolyvanova in 1804
- Receiving the Order of St. Vladimir III degree in 1810
- Obtaining the rank of state councilor, as well as receiving the Order of St. Anne, 1st degree
- Receiving the title of honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, membership in the same academy since 1818
- Death in 1826

Interesting facts from the biography of Nikolai Karamzin:

Karamzin owns popular expression about Russian reality, when asked about what is happening in Russia: “They are stealing”
- Researchers and critics believe that “Poor Liza” is named after Protasova
- Karamzin’s daughter Sophia was accepted secular society, became a maid of honor at the imperial court, was friends with Lermontov and Pushkin
- Karamzin had 4 daughters and 5 sons from his second marriage
- Pushkin was a frequent guest of the Karamzins, but his love for Ekaterina Kolyvanova became the cause of discord between the writers

In this lesson you will get acquainted with the biography of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin, consider his life and creative path, find out what place Karamzin occupies in Russian culture.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born in 1766, his father came from the descendants of the princes of Kara-Murza (a Tatar prince who came to Russia in the 15th century). Subsequently, his descendants became Kostroma and Nizhny Novgorod landowners, and Nikolai Karamzin was born in the Simbirsk province (Fig. 2) at a time when his father was retired with the rank of captain.

Rice. 2. Square near the monument to Karamzin. Bolshaya Saratovskaya street in Simbirsk (photo 1866) ()

Karamzin spent his childhood on his father's estate. There he received his initial education and upbringing. He inherited a rich library from his early deceased mother, filled mainly with translated novels. And besides, one of the neighbors gave the teenager “ Ancient history"Rollin in 10 volumes, translated into Russian by Vasily Kirillovich Trediakovsky (one of the first Russian philologists) (Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. V.K. Trediakovsky ()

When Karamzin reached the age of eleven, the possibilities of home upbringing and education, especially in the provinces, were exhausted. And the father considered it best to take his son to Moscow and send him to a private boarding school for Moscow University professor I.M. Schaden, where Karamzin studied, and also had the opportunity to listen to lectures at Moscow University (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. Imperial Moscow University in the 18th century ()

After graduating from the Shaden boarding school, Karamzin goes to St. Petersburg and enlists in the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment. This was the practice of the time, when young nobles were enrolled in the Guards regiments even before birth. One can recall a similar story described by Pushkin in “The Captain’s Daughter,” when Petrusha Grinev was enrolled in a guards regiment even before his birth (Fig. 5).

Rice. 5. Poster for the film of the same name based on the story by A.S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter" ()

This made it possible for noble children, bypassing compulsory military service, which was established by Peter’s decree, to immediately receive an officer’s rank. However, Karamzin was not attracted to service (especially military service). And literally immediately he takes a year’s leave, and then, taking advantage of the early, sudden death of his father, he completely resigns and leaves for his native Simbirsk.

This position of Karamzin is generally unusual. Karamzin’s friend and ally, the famous poet Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriev (Fig. 6), was a minister, and Catherine’s cabinet secretary was Gavrila Romanovich Derzhavin.

Rice. 6. Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriev ()

Both Alexander I and Nicholas I would offer Karamzin high government positions, but Karamzin would consistently shy away from this. This certainly requires its own explanation. Karamzin himself explained his similar behavior in one of his letters literally a few months before his death. He wrote:

“As I approach the end of my career, I thank God for my destiny.

I may be mistaken, but my conscience is calm. My dear Fatherland cannot blame me for anything. I was always ready to serve him without humiliating my personality, for which I am responsible to Russia.

Yes, even if all I did was describe the history of the barbarian centuries, even if I was not seen either on the battlefield or in the council of statesmen. But since I am not a coward or a sloth, I say: “So it was the will of Heaven.” And without any ridiculous pride in my craft as a writer, I without shame see myself among our generals and ministers.”

The pathos of these words of Karamzin is that he proves that writing, literature, studying history is a high social service. And by humiliating his personality, his human dignity, a person commits a moral crime against his Motherland. We can safely say that Karamzin’s main creation in the history of Russian culture was the personality of Karamzin himself. All his life he built her as independent and free.

In 1784, Karamzin came from Simbirsk to Moscow and, thanks to the patronage of Ivan Petrovich Turgenev, entered the circle of Moscow Freemasons, headed by Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov (Fig. 7), who was largest book publisher and magazine publisher.

Rice. 7. N.I. Novikov ()

Novikov attracts Karamzin to participate in Russia's first magazine for children, for which Karamzin translates Julius Caesar and Shakespeare, writes poetry and does a lot of other work.

Communication with Novikov left a huge mark on Karamzin’s soul, but Freemasonry itself and Masonic ideas did not attract him (Fig. 8).

Rice. 8. Badge of the Order of Masons ()

Karamzin very quickly becomes disillusioned with Freemasonry. There is an internal gap, a conflict situation. To avoid this conflict, Karamzin decides to go abroad, on a trip to Europe, which will subsequently provide him with material for his famous “Letters of a Russian Traveler.”

In 1789 Karamzin went abroad. But this is not just a joyride. Karamzin visits the most prominent thinkers, scientists, and writers. He meets with Kant (Fig. 9), talks with Wieland, he intended to meet with Goethe, but some circumstances prevented this.

Rice. 9. Immanuel Kant ()

In the National Assembly in Paris, he listens to the speech of the then little-known deputy of the National Assembly, Maximilian Robespierre (Fig. 10).

Rice. 10. Maximilian Robespierre ()

Karamzin finds himself in France at the height of the greatest political and historical events - at the beginning of the Great French Revolution. All these impressions will subsequently be presented by Karamzin in his book “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” which will become one of the most important books in Russian literature of the 18th century (Fig. 11).

Rice. 11. “Letters of a Russian traveler.” Title page 1797 edition ()

Returning from abroad, Karamzin begins to publish his “Letters of a Russian Traveler” in a Moscow magazine specially created by him for this purpose. Publishing a book is a wonderful event. The book has a lot of enthusiastic fans and a lot of ill-wishers. All this happens because the book creates a completely unusual image of the traveler. At first glance, he is a young, frivolous young man who travels aimlessly around Europe, visiting European celebrities. But the attentive reader may notice that with people like Kant or famous writer Wieland, this young Russian nobleman talks as equals. He talks to them about issues that are important to them. European culture, he reveals extraordinary reading, it turns out that he is familiar with their main works and, indeed, talks with them on equal terms. This book combines artistic and journalistic features. But her main discovery, of course, is the image of a traveler.

An even bigger event was the publication in the next year (1792) of the story “Poor Liza” (Fig. 12). Perhaps no Russian book before has been destined for such unprecedented success, such unprecedented popularity.

Rice. 12. “Poor Lisa.” Engraving by N. Sokolov (1796) ()

At this time, a rather alarming situation is developing in Russia. political situation in connection with the revolutionary events in France. The government strives to see the influence of French ideas in everything. Radishchev was arrested for the “Book of Travels from St. Petersburg to Moscow” (Fig. 13), and Karamzin, who was well acquainted with Radishchev, considered it best at this time to withdraw from active social activities and concentrate entirely on artistic and literary creativity.

Rice. 13. A.N. Radishchev ()

In 1794, Karamzin’s most scandalous, most controversial story, “The Island of Bornholm” (Fig. 14), was published. It describes how, during his travels in England, a certain man meets a young man living there in exile. This young man is unusually sad, he sings a song that contains the following words:

“The laws condemn the object of my love.”

Rice. 14. Bornholm Island (Denmark) ()

Subsequently, having visited the island of Bornholm, the traveler not so much understands as guesses what is the reason for the misfortune of the poor exiled youth. There he meets an old man who visits a girl languishing there in prison. There is a hint that this prisoner is the sister of the unfortunate exile. Naturally, their love is criminal. There is no definite answer to this question; the traveler rather guesses that this is so. But the young man believes that he is not to blame for nature. However, the narrator, behind whom Karamzin himself stands, believes that this does not relieve him of responsibility to people. A complex moral situation arises, which Karamzin reveals, avoiding moralization. He does not draw any clear conclusions, he does not pass a harsh sentence, but he encourages the reader to make a moral assessment of what is happening in the story.

In 1801, after the assassination of Paul I, on Russian throne Alexander Pavlovich I ascends (Fig. 15). The socio-political situation in the country is radically changing. Pushkin wrote about the time of “Alexandrov’s days” as a “wonderful beginning.” Society wanted quick and inevitable, necessary changes.

Rice. 15. Alexander Pavlovich I Romanov ()

Alexander I offers Karamzin various government posts. Karamzin refuses, but is again actively involved in social and political activities. Karamzin creates the first socio-political magazine in Russia, Vestnik Evropy, and he himself becomes practically the first political commentator in Russia.

Since 1803 (the last 23 years of his life), Karamzin actually spends it very alone, with his family, surrounded by chronicles and other historical sources, and until the end of his life he works on the “History of the Russian State” (Fig. 16).

Rice. 16. “History of the Russian State.” Second edition (1818) ()

It was almost a monastic feat. It is no coincidence that Pushkin will call this work of Karamzin a feat honest man, and the creator of the “History of the Russian State” - the last Russian chronicler. And to this day, “The History of the Russian State” has not lost either its scientific or artistic value.

It is believed that the indirect cause of Karamzin’s death was the events of December 14, 1825 (the Decembrist uprising) (Fig. 17).

On this day, Karamzin arrived at the Winter Palace to swear allegiance to the new emperor. Suddenly, screams and shooting began to be heard outside. But Karamzin needs to see everything with his own eyes, to see it as it was in 1790 in Paris, as it was in 1812 in burning Moscow. And Karamzin goes out onto the square. People recalled seeing a man with fluttering gray hair without a hat, in a ceremonial uniform, in orders, who persuaded those gathered to disperse. The December frost did its job. Karamzin caught a cold and contracted pneumonia. Karamzin, a principled opponent of violence as an achievement of any good goals, did not accept the Decembrist revolt. He wrote:

“The error and crime of these young people are the essence of the error and crime of our century.”

Rice. 18. Nikolay Karamzin ()

Karamzin falls ill and does not actually return to active artistic or scientific activity. There were plans to go abroad for treatment (to Italy), but these plans were not destined to come true.

Today in St. Petersburg, in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, on Karamzin’s grave lies a marble slab. There are two names on it: Nikolai Mikhailovich and Ekaterina Andreevna Karamzin (Fig. 20).

Rice. 20. The grave of N. M. Karamzin and his wife in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra (St. Petersburg) ()

And there are heartfelt lines written by Karamzin’s younger friend, colleague, student, outstanding poet Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky (Fig. 21).

Rice. 21. V.A. Zhukovsky ()

It is interesting that he included these lines in a poetic message to Karamzin’s friend, the famous poet Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriev. In this poem Zhukovsky wrote:

"The crown lies on the marble of the grave

Russia's faithful son prays to her,

And there will be strength in him for wonderful deeds

Holy name: Karamzin."

Karamzin’s activities and creativity prompted many Russian scientists to conduct research. Remarkable works of domestic researchers, including the outstanding scientist, academician Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov, are devoted to Karamzin and his activities (Fig. 22).

Rice. 22. V.V. Vinogradov ()

Bibliography

1. Literature. 8th grade. Textbook at 2 o'clock. Korovina V.Ya. and others - 8th ed. - M.: Education, 2009.
2. Merkin G.S. Literature. 8th grade. Textbook in 2 parts. - 9th ed. - M.: 2013.
3. Kritarova Zh.N. Analysis of works of Russian literature. 8th grade. - 2nd ed., rev. - M.: 2014.

1. Internet portal “Biographies of Writers” ()
2. Internet portal “Maxim Moshkov Library” ()
3. Internet portal “nsportal.ru” ()

Homework

1. How were the childhood and teenage years Karamzin?
2. Under what circumstances was Karamzin’s work “Letters of a Russian Traveler” written?
3. What role did the activities of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin play for the development of Russian culture?

Analysis of the work

This story is one of the first sentimental works in Russian literature of the 18th century. Its plot was not new, as it had been encountered more than once by domestic and foreign novelists. But feelings play a decisive role in Karamzin’s story.

One of the main characters of the work is the narrator, who tells the story with immense sadness and... sympathy for the fate of the girl. The introduction of the image of a sentimental narrator turned out to be Karamzin’s innovation in Russian literature, since previously the narrator remained as if on the sidelines and was neutral in relation to the events described. Already the title of this story combines a proper name with a certain attitude of the author towards him. Karamzin’s plot develops in an unusual way; the ideological and artistic center is not the event and constancy of the characters, but their experiences, that is, the plot is psychological in nature.

The exposition of the work is a description of the outskirts of Moscow; the author recalls the times when this city was waiting for help in severe disasters.

The meeting begins

Lisa, a poor girl, with the young nobleman Erast.

The culmination is Lisa's chance meeting with Erast, during which he asks her to leave him alone because he is getting married.

The denouement is the death of Lisa. She chooses death in order to solve all problems, not to live deceived and abandoned by her loved one. For Lisa, life without Erast does not exist.

It was very important for the sentimentalist writer to address social issues. The author does not condemn Erast for the death of Lisa. After all, a young nobleman is just as unhappy as a peasant girl. For the rest of his life he feels guilty before Lisa, his own life path didn't work out.

Karamzin was one of the first in Russian literature to discover the subtle and vulnerable inner world representatives of the lower class, as well as the ability to love unselfishly and selflessly. It is from his story that another tradition of Russian literature begins - compassion for ordinary people, sympathy for their joys and experiences, protection of the disadvantaged and oppressed. Thus, we can say that Karamzin prepared the basis for the creativity of many writers of the 19th century century.

Retelling plan

1. Description of the surrounding areas of Moscow.

2. Lisa's life.

3. Meet Erast.

4. Declaration of love.

5. Chance meeting with Erast in Moscow.

6. Death of Lisa.

7. The further fate of Erast.

Glossary:

• poor Lisa's plan
• Poor Lisa's plan
• poor Lisa analysis of the work
• Poor Lisa's plan
• outline of the work poor lisa

(No ratings yet)

Other works on this topic:

1. In Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin’s story “Poor Liza” we are talking about how a young nobleman named Erast once met a beautiful girl Lisa. Lisa with her...
2. What does the story teach? Every century leaves its mark on the formation of literature. The eighteenth century is no exception. Reading works such as “Poor Liza” by N. M....
3. Did Liza have another way out? N. M. Karamzin’s story “Poor Liza” touches the souls of readers to the depths. This Russian sentimentalist writer was able to clearly...

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 during the short 59 years of his earthly existence, it is impossible to ignore the fact that it was Karamzin who largely determined the person Russian XIX century - the “golden” age of Russian poetry, literature, historiography, source studies and other humanitarian areas of scientific 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” from the very capital letters. 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 thousand years of history and they have something to be proud of. Before this, it was believed that before Peter I, who opened a “window to Europe,” there was nothing even remotely worthy of attention in Russia: 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 of the 19th–20th centuries, forming the foundations national mentality, which ultimately determined the development paths 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). About him early years little is known: there are no letters, no diaries, no 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.

Moscow Magazine had only 210 regular subscribers, but for late XVIII century is the same as a hundred thousandth circulation in late XIX centuries. Moreover, the magazine was read precisely by those who “made the weather” in literary life countries: 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 not based on living colloquial speech, but on the witty thought of a writer-theorist. And this theory often put authors in predicament: I 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 language. 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 Russian ending, adapting them to the requirements of Russian grammar: “serious”, “moral”, “aesthetic”, “audience”, “harmony”, “enthusiasm”, etc.

In his reform activities, Karamzin focused on lively spoken language 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, there 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 forcibly return into use the expressions that were already outdated at that time, which were proposed by Shishkov: “zane”, “ugly”, “izhe”, “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 literary struggle: they parodied high genres, ridiculed the stylistic archaism poetic works"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, like Zhukovsky (pseudonym - Svetlana), Vyazemsky (Asmodeus), Pushkin (Cricket), Batyushkov (Achilles), etc.

"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 great country you just need to remember your no less great past. And if you don’t remember, then at least create it again...

In 1803, through 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 a story that was in this moment necessary for 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 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 the review 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, original 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 for 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 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 Nizhny Novgorod, during the occupation of Moscow by the French. He usually spent the summer in Ostafyevo, the estate of Prince Andrei Ivanovich Vyazemsky, on illegitimate daughter whom, 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 reconsider some aspects domestic policy, but it just so happens in our country that in reality all wise advice statesmen remain “fruitless for the 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 historical science contemporary to Karamzin, to name 12 volumes of his “History of the Russian State”, in fact, scientific work no one decided. 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 above the sources for Karamzin there is only “a heavy tribute brought to reliability.” He was, first of all, a writer, and therefore wanted to apply his literary talent to already finished 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 involved in the study monuments of ancient Russian law and ancient Russian fiction. 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 the 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 as an object for constant criticism and the brightest example there is no need to write how history should 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 literary friends Karamzin 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 it historical meaning. 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 general meaning 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. Last words the last volume is 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.