ON THE. Field History of the Russian State

SPb. Volumes I - VIII, 1816, IX, 1821, X, XI, 1821, XII, 1829 (the first eight volumes were printed in the second edition in 1818 and 1819).

Having indicated in the title of the article all twelve volumes of the "History of the Russian State", we do not want, however, to offer our readers a detailed analysis of this wonderful creation, we will not follow its creator in detail in all respects, consider the "History of the Russian State" from general and specific sides and its writer as a historian and paleographer, philosopher and geographer, archaeographer and researcher of historical materials. A criticism of such volume cannot be a journal article, and this is because its enormity would exceed the limits that should be allowed for articles in periodical publications. We only want to generally survey Karamzin’s creation at a time when last The volume of this work showed us the limit of work that the writer, unforgettable for Russia, achieved. If magazines should be a mirror of modern education, modern opinions, if they should convey to the public the voice of people of higher education, their view of important subjects that attract attention, then, of course, it should be the duty of a journalist to make a judgment about the “History of the Russian State”, based on conclusions from various opinions and on the considerations of enlightened people. We can definitely say that there has not been before and, perhaps, for a long time there will not be another creation in our literature, so great, attracting such strong, universal attention of the domestic public. In Europe, Karamzin's work was received with curious participation, as a representative of our enlightenment, our opinions about the most important subjects of social life, our view of people and events. To show the reasons for the delight with which Russian readers greeted Karamzin’s work, the coldness with which Europeans responded when they recognized him in translations, and, guided by the opinions of critics worthy of respect, to indicate the degree to which Karamzin occupies in the history of modern literature, modern education, ours and Europe, to indicate his merit, to evaluate his right to glory - this is the goal we have proposed.

We do not think that right-thinking people would blame the reviewer for his obscurity and the enormous glory of the creation he is reviewing. It’s time for us to banish localism from literature, just as we banished this disastrous prejudice from our civil life. Impartiality, respect for a person worthy of him: these are the duties, the fulfillment of which the public should demand from a critic not only of Karamzin’s works, but also of any literary phenomenon. Nothing more. The indignation with which the public, and - we dare add - the author of this article, met Mr. Artsybashev’s criticism of “The History of the Russian State” last year, stemmed from the indecent tone, from the pettiness, injustice shown by Mr. Artsybashev in his articles. On the contrary, the more votes, the more opinions, the better. We must exterminate the unfortunate polemics that dishonor a good writer, we must leave it to those people who want to become famous even through dishonor, but fair, modest criticism, judging the book, not the author, is far from what many of us consider criticism, so as far as heaven from earth. Criticism is the breath of literature, and any attempt to achieve effective criticism should at least be excused by impartial people.

Another circumstance, much more important, may occupy us. We ask: has the time come for us to make judgments about Karamzin? Now it has arrived. Three years have already passed since all earthly relationships, all personal preferences, prejudices were buried in the grave of the unforgettable: only his creations remained, our inalienable inheritance. For us, new generation, Karamzin exists only in the history of literature and in his works. We cannot get carried away either by personal predilection for him or by our passions, which forced some of Karamzin’s contemporaries to look at him incorrectly. Karamzin’s work is complete: the picture of the great artist is presented to us, unfinished, it is true, but the cold of death has already shackled the life-giving hand of the creator, and we, mourning the loss, can judge his work as a creation as a whole. Fortunately for us, if Karamzin died too early for our hopes, then he did a lot, and his creation is as important as it is enormous. He did not have time to depict to us the deliverance of the fatherland by the great Minin and the glorious Pozharsky; did not have time to narrate the reigns of the meek Michael, the wise Alexy, the divine Peter, the great and wonderful deeds that took place over the course of more than seventy years, from 1611 (where he stopped) to 1689. Here Karamzin wanted to finish his creation, to briefly depict the rest of the history of Russia, from the accession to the throne of Peter the Great to our time, and to point out the future fate of the fatherland. But the future is known to the One God, said Karamzin, dedicating his History to Alexander the Blessed, and we, at Karamzin’s tomb, hearing about his assumptions, could repeat his words. Despite all this, Karamzin - let us repeat what we said - managed to fulfill a lot according to his assumption: he depicted for us the events of Russian history over seven and a half centuries, pursued it from the cradle of the Russian people to the maturity of the Russian state, this marvelous giant of the century. It’s not enough for us, who valued Karamzin’s glory, but it’s enough for his glory. He managed to fully develop his talent, he could no longer step further. In twelve volumes of "History of the Russian State" all Karamzin.

Time flies quickly, and things and people change quickly. We can hardly assure ourselves that what we consider to be real has become past, modern - historical. So is Karamzin. Many still classify him as belonging to our generation, to our time, forgetting that he was born sixty more than a year ago (in 1765); that more than 40 years have passed since he entered the literary field; that 25 years have already passed since he stopped all other exercises and took up only the history of Russia, and, consequently, that he began to work on it for a quarter of a century up to now, being almost magpie years: this is a period of life in which a person can no longer erase from himself the type of his initial education, he can only keep up with his rapidly coming century, only follow it, and then straining all the powers of the mind.

A chronological look at Karamzin’s literary career shows us that he was a writer, philosopher, historian past century, previous, not ours generations. This is very important for us in all respects, because in this way Karamzin’s merits, merits and glory are truly assessed. Distinguishing the century and time of each subject is the true measure of the correctness of judgments about each subject. This measure has been improved by the minds of thinkers of our time. Even the ancients knew it, and Cicero said that there can be non vitia hominis, sed vitia saeculi [ Not the vices of man, but the vices of the era (lat.)]. But because this opinion was imperfect and incomplete, many errors in judgment occurred.

If it were necessary to compare Karamzin with anyone, we would compare him with Lomonosov: Karamzin walked from the place where Lomonosov stopped; finished what Lomonosov started. The feat of both was equally great, important, enormous in relation to Russia. Lomonosov found the elements of the Russian language mixed, unsettled; there was no literature. Fueled by the study of Latin writers, he knew how to separate the elements of language, put them in order, form the original Russian literature, taught grammar, rhetoric, wrote poetry, was an orator, prose writer, historian of his time. After him, before Karamzin, for 25 years, very little was done. Karamzin (let us note a strange accident: born in the very year of Lomonosov’s death), educated by the study of French writers, imbued with the modern enlightenment of Europe, which was decidedly all French, transferred what he acquired to his native soil, and with his strong, active mind moved his contemporaries forward. Like Lomonosov, extremely varied in his activities, Karamzin was a grammarian, poet, novelist, historian, journalist, and political writer. We can hardly find any branch of contemporary literature on which he did not have influence; his very mistakes were instructive, causing the minds of others to stir, producing confusion and controversy, from which the truth emerged.

This is how Karamzin acted, and as a result of this his exploits should be appreciated. He was, without a doubt, first The writer of his people at the end of the last century was, perhaps, the most enlightened of the Russian writers of his time. Meanwhile, the century moved with a speed unheard of before. Never has so much been open, explained, and thought through as has been open, explained, and thought through in Europe in the last twenty-five years. Everything has changed in both the political and literary worlds. Philosophy, literary theory, poetry, history, political knowledge - everything has been transformed. But when this new period of changes began, Karamzin had already finished his exploits in literature in general. He was no longer an actor; one thought occupied him: the history of the Fatherland; He then devoted all his time and labors to her. Without him, new Russian poetry developed, the study of philosophy, history, and political knowledge began in accordance with new ideas, new concepts of the Germans, English and French, overheated (retrempes, as they themselves say) in a terrible storm and renewed for a new life.

What dignity do Karamzin’s works, translations and works now have for us, excluding his history? Historical, comparative. Karamzin can no longer be a model of either a poet, or a novelist, or even a Russian prose writer. His period is over. The light prose of Zhukovsky, the poems of Pushkin are higher than the works of Karamzin. We are surprised at how Karamzin stepped forward in his time, we honor his merit, we honorably inscribe his name in the history of our literature, but we see that his Russian stories are not Russian; his prose is far behind the prose of our other newest examples; his poems are prose for us; his theory of literature, his philosophy are insufficient for us.

This is how it should be, for Karamzin was not a huge, centuries-old genius: he was a man of great intelligence, educated in his own way, but did not belong to the eternally young giants of philosophy, poetry, mathematics, he lived during a time of rapid change in young Russian literature, such a time in which everything needs to change quickly. He captivated his contemporaries, and he himself was captivated by them.

Having thus explained Karamzin as a writer in general, we turn to his History.

She took the rest twenty three years old life of Karamzin (from 1802 to 1826); he worked zealously dedicated the best time of his life to her. But did he stand alongside the great historians of ancient and modern times? Can his History be called a work? our time?

We will see a comparison of him with ancient and modern historians, whose names are marked by glory, later, but now we will only say that just as Karamzin himself was not a writer of our century, so we cannot call his History a creation of our time.

There is nothing insulting to the memory of the great Karamzin in this opinion. True, at least contemporary ideas of philosophy, poetry and history have appeared in the last twenty-five years, therefore, the true idea of History was inaccessible to Karamzin. He was already completely educated according to the ideas and concepts of his age and could not be reborn at the time when his work was begun; the concept of it was completely formed and all that remained was to carry it out. Let's explain in more detail.

We often hear the word Story in a confusing, false and perverse sense. Actually this word means: description, but how differently one can accept and understand it! They tell us about historians, and they count them in a row: Herodotus, Tacitus, Hume, Guizo, without feeling what a difference there is between these famous people and how wrong is the one who puts Herodotus and Guizot, Titus Livy and Herder, Gibbon and Thierry, Robertson and Mignet side by side.

The newest thinkers have explained to us the full meaning of the word story; they showed us what a philosopher should mean by this word. History, in the highest knowledge, is not a well-written chronicle of times past, it is not a simple means to satisfy our curiosity. No, it is a practical verification of philosophical concepts about the world and man, an analysis of philosophical synthesis. Here we only mean general history, and in it we see a true revelation of the past, an explanation of the present and a prophecy of the future. Philosophy penetrates the entire abyss of the past: it sees the creations of the earth that were before man, discovers traces of man in the mysterious East and in the deserts of America, considers human traditions, considers the earth in relation to the sky and man in relation to his abode, a planet moved by the hand of Providence in space and time. This is pre-history(Urgeschichte) person. Man appears on earth; society is formed; begins life of humanity, and it begins story person. Here the historian looks at kingdoms and peoples, these planets of the moral world, as mathematical figures depicted by the material world. He reflects the course of humanity, society, morals, concepts of each century and people, and deduces the chain of causes that produced and are producing events. This is the ultimate story.

But the forms of history can be endlessly diverse. History can be critical, narrative, scholarly; at the base each of them must be philosophical, in spirit, not in name, but in essence, in one’s view (for by simply adding the name: philosophical, following the example of Raynal, we will not make any history truly philosophical). General history is that huge circle in which countless other circles revolve: the histories of particular peoples, states, lands, beliefs, knowledge. The conditions of general history already determine what these particular histories should be. They must strive towards the basis of universal history, like radii towards the center; they show the philosopher: what place in the world of eternal existence occupied this or that people, this or that state, this or that person, for for humanity they equally express the idea - both a whole people and a historical person; humanity lives in peoples, and peoples in representatives who move rough material and form separate moral worlds from it.

This is the true idea of history; at least we are now satisfied only with this idea of history and consider it to be true. It has matured over the centuries, and from modern philosophy has developed in history, just as similar ideas have developed from philosophy in theories of poetry and political knowledge.

But if this idea belongs to our century, they will tell us, consequently, no one will satisfy our demands, and the greatest historians should fade in the rays of the few newest ones, let’s say more - future historians.

Thus, if we are pointed to a Greek or a Roman as an example of the highest perfection that man could achieve, as a model that we must unconditionally follow, this is false. classicism stories; He insufficient And incorrect. But, having rejected it, we will find a place and a turn for everyone and everything. Don't think that we want to force everyone to be a philosopher. We have said that the forms of history are endlessly varied; in every form one can be a perfect, or at least a great, historian; fulfill only the conditions of the race you have chosen, and you will satisfy the demands of modern perfection.

History may be pragmatic, if you consider the events of, say, a state in relation to the system of states in which it was contained, and this system in the general history of peoples, if you reduce all events to causes and discover the connection of these causes with others, explaining the causes by events, and back, explaining through this the history of mankind, in the place, century, subject that you have chosen. This is History of European citizenship(Histoire generate de la civilization en Europe, depuis la chute de l'empire Romain jusqu'a la revolution francaise) [ General history of civilization in Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire to the French Revolution (French)] Gizo. You can take a smaller volume, consider the events of a state or period, without elevating it to the general history of mankind, but this goal should be in the mind of the historian. These are: "The History of Charles V", op. Robertson, History of the Fall of the Roman Empire, op. Gibbon, works that could be called perfect in their kind, if the philosophy of these historians was higher than that which they revered as perfect, if the concepts of these writers about political knowledge were brought to their present maturity, if the materials were better processed in their time . Finally, we find another type of history, which we will call narrative. This is a simple narration of events; if possible, eloquently, but most importantly - right stated. Here, in fact, there is no historian: events speak, but extraordinary art is required. Loyalty it is needed not in the years alone, but in the spirit, expression, deeds, words of the characters, in the morals, customs, beliefs, and life of the people. Ancient historians are examples of perfection in this, and the writer of such a story can repeat the words of Karamzin: “Do not imitate Tacitus, but write as he would write in your place.” From the latest, an excellent example of such history was shown to us by Barant and, as a military historian, Napoleon, in the descriptions of his campaigns. Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Tacitus fascinate with their narrative stories. They live in their descriptions, breathe the air with the people they portray; These are Omir's poems in the world of history. The most important difficulty for us, the new ones, if we want to move to another century, to another people, consists in separating ourselves from all opinions, from all the ideas of our age and people, in collecting colors for a picture, in seeking the truth through extensive criticism. The ancients speak unfairly about many things, but they are confident in the truth with such good nature, with such conviction as Omir was confident in his geography and mythology; Moreover, we have nothing to believe their story, and we take their word for it. Therefore, historical criticism completely takes away from the ancients the title of historical-philosophers, pragmatic historians, and looks at them only as eloquent storytellers.

Just as the French formed a special race classic creations from false imitation of the ancients, the false concept of ancient historians produced a special historical classicism. They wanted to force them to imitate the ancients; they adopted all their forms, expressions, even words. The mistake was that they imitated external forms without understanding the spirit of the ancients. Subsequently, they mixed all this with erroneous philosophy, with cleverness, apothegmas and maxims, intolerable and vulgar. And from the very restoration of European enlightenment, history, after monastic chronicles and legends, was an ugly, absurd mixture; Machiavelli, Bossuett, Montesquieu only appeared occasionally. In the past century, there was a desire for a more perfect history, and at a time when Herder was comprehending the secret of universal history, John Miller was guessing how narrative history should be written by new historians, German scientists showed true criticism of history, the French were the first to form, in the footsteps of Machiavelli, Bussuet and Montesquieu, philosophical history. Their experiments were insufficient, and the shortcomings of these experiments were reflected in the works of Hume, Gibbon, Robertson, followers of French philosophy of the 18th century. It was necessary to combine the works of the Schellings, Schlegels, Cousins, Schletsers, Herders, Niebuhrs, to find out classicism And romanticism, learn well the political sciences, properly evaluate the ancients, fully understand the requirements of the newest, maybe even be born Schiller, Zschocke, Goethe, W. Scott, so that we can finally understand what history is? How should it be written and what satisfies our age?

Let us apply all these considerations to the “History of the Russian State,” and we will see that Karamzin’s works, in relation to history, as our age requires, are the same as Karamzin’s other works in relation to the modern requirements of our literature - it is unsatisfactory.

Karamzin could not and did not get out of the concepts of his age, a time in which the idea of philosophical history had just begun to appear, and the relationship of the ancients to us and the special conditions of the new writers were not yet clearly defined; political knowledge was not established; the narrative part of the story is not fully understood.

How philosopher-historian, Karamzin will not stand up to strict criticism. Read his thoughts on the story and you will agree without further explanation.

“History,” Karamzin begins his Preface to the “History of the Russian State,” - History in a manner (?) there is a sacred book of nations: main, necessary; a mirror of their existence and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the covenant of ancestors to posterity; addition, explanation of the present and example of the future."

Great phrases, but what does it mean? Holy book in a sense and at the same time - main, necessary, mirror of existence, tablet of revelations, testament of ancestors, Do all these words explain to us the essence of the subject? Is this how it should be definition stories?

“Rulers and legislators (Karamzin continues) act according to the instructions of History... Human wisdom needs experiments... One must know how From time immemorial, rebellious passions agitated civil society and in what ways the beneficial power of the mind curbed their violent desire... And the common citizen must read history. She reconciles him with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with a common occurrence in all centuries, consoles in state disasters, testifying, that there have been similar ones before, there have been even more terrible ones, and the state was not destroyed; she nourishes a moral sense (?), and with his righteous judgment he disposes the soul to justice, which affirms our right and the consent of society. That's the benefit."

All this is said beautifully, but is this how a philosopher should look at history? Having first made a rhetorical definition, we are told that history is useful for -

1st. The rulers of nations deal with it like a judge with an old archive, in order to decide cases the way they were decided before. Complete injustice!

2nd. Citizens see that there has always been evil What people have always endured why to them must be patient. A consolation similar to the comparison that Karamzin used in Volume IX, saying that the Russians died just as gloriously under the axes of the executioners of Tsar John IV as the Greeks died at Thermopylae *!

______________________

* Volume IX, page 437.

______________________

After such a limited view of benefit the author moves on to the pleasure of history, based on the fact that curiosity is human, and if we like novels and fiction, we should like history all the more, combining with entertaining novel the truth events. Even more so, domestic history, the author continues, moves from the private egoism of peoples to what it should have started with: the importance that the history of Russia has in the history of mankind. Do you think they will tell you how Russia was formed amid the turmoil of the 9th century; how it shielded Europe from the Mongols in the 13th century; how Europe entered the system in the 18th century; how it operated in the 19th century. Not at all! The author sees one curiosity: it is everything to him; he tries to prove that he is no more curious or interesting than the history of Russian history of other peoples; which is also in our history pictures, cases, which no less curious paintings and incidents described by ancient historians. Do you think that the author will say about Varangian feudalism, the formation of Russian principalities, rapprochement with Greece, the merger of Asia and Europe in Russia, the transformation of Russia by the hand of Peter; against; the author calls five centuries Russian history unimportant to the mind, a subject not rich in thoughts for a pragmatist, beauty for the painter, reminds that history is not a novel and the world is not a garden where everything should be pleasant, and finally consoles that in In the deserts there are beautiful views, and as proof he points to the campaigns of Svyatoslav, the invasion of Batu, the Battle of Kulikovo, the capture of Kazan, the blinding of Vasilko! Or does the historian think that we, like children, starting to read his book, ask in advance, isn't she boring? or - he is not a philosopher-historian!

They not a pragmatist when he later assures that it would be unfair if we miss boring start Russian history. " Bliss of readers will he condemn the deeds and fate of our ancestors to eternal oblivion? They suffered and we We don’t even want to hear about them! Foreigners may miss what is boring for them, but kind Russians are obliged to have more patience, following the rule of state morality, which places respect for ancestors in the dignity of an educated citizen." Doesn’t this mean proving that a body without a head cannot exist, and is it possible for a pragmatic historian to deal with the laziness of readers, and therefore force us to read the suffering of our ancestors, why compassion and respect makes a young grandson patiently listen to stories about the petty details of the life of an old and sick grandfather?

“Until now,” says the author, “ the ancients still serve as models for us. No one has surpassed Libya in the beauty of storytelling, Tacitus in force: that's the main thing! Knowledge all rights in the world (?), German learning, Voltaire's wit, not even Machiavellian profundity in a historian can replace the talent for depicting actions." Let us remember these words: they are remarkable.

We could write out and analyze the entire preface to the “History of the Russian State”: readers would then see the spirit, plan, layout of Karamzin’s creation and would agree with our opinion that Karamzin as a philosopher, as a pragmatist there is a writer not of our time. But the places we have cited are enough to show how Karamzin understood and wrote his story.

Read all 12 volumes of “History of the Russian State”, and you will be absolutely convinced of this. In its entirety, there is no one common principle from which all the events of Russian history flow: you do not see how the history of Russia adjoins the history of mankind; all parts of it are separated from one another, all are disproportionate, and the life of Russia remains unknown to the reader, although he is tired of unimportant, insignificant details, he is occupied, touched by pictures of great, terrible, they bring before us a crowd of people, enormous to the point of excess. Karamzin nowhere introduces you to the spirit of the people, does not depict its numerous transitions, from Varangian feudalism to the despotic rule of John and to the original revival under Minin. You see a slender, long gallery of portraits, placed in the same frames, drawn not from life, but according to the will of the artist and dressed also according to his will. This is a chronicle written masterfully, by an artist of excellent, inventive talent, and not story.

“But,” they will tell us, “if so, then Karamzin’s work will go precisely to the type of stories that we named above narrative. Karamzin, who said that the ancients serve us samples to this day that the power and beauty of storytelling is the main thing for a historian, Of course, I managed to support my opinion with performance.”

But Karamzin saw the ancient models wrongly, and putting the power and beauty of the narrative at the forefront, it seems he did not know that he was doing the same thing as the French classics did, imitating the ancients. The French tragedy, in comparison with the tragedy of the Greeks, is the same as the history of Karamzin in comparison with the history of Herodotus and Titus Livy. So here, too, it is not understood that the ancients completely merged with the subject; the originality of the ancients disappeared, so to speak, in the subject that dominated their imagination, which was their faith. The French classics and Karamzin, on the contrary, clothed their spirit, themselves, their concepts, feelings in the forms of the object that occupied them; That is why everything is presented in the French classics and in Karamzin incorrectly and perversely. Let us take his creation only from one side in this regard.

Russian history begins with the arrival of formidable sea robbers to the tribes of semi-wild Slavs and Finns. The alien robbers are the terrible Nordmanns; they enslave the Slavs and Finns. These two elements are fighting, changing in the Russians, habituation with the despotism of Asia and Greece, the patriarchal rule of the conquered Slavs and the path to Constantinople that has opened for the Varangian adventurers; They destroy ordinary Nordmann feudalism, revealing a completely special feudalism: the appanage system of one ruling family of Russian princes. The estates are falling apart; Christian faith changes the characters of leaders and people; there is a struggle between destinies trying to merge into one whole; in the north, from the removal of the Russian princes to the south and the natural position of the country, is the Novgorod Republic; everything falls under the yoke of the Mongols. The spirit of the people fights against this yoke, liberates itself and reveals in Russia one despotic state, which soon collapses under its own burden. Slave done king, terrifying only by the power of the name; but this was the extreme degree of despotism: the horror of the name disappeared - a new era had arrived. The fall of Novagorod and the ferocity of Grozny were necessary to unite the torn parts of the state; a violent merger required strong internal fermentation, and the age of impostors overthrew despotism, awakened the original spirit of the people: it was created from strong elements experienced in the storms of feudalism, enslavement, despotism, and - Russia came to life under the meek, beneficent autocracy of the great Romanov dynasty; the history of Russia began with Minin as states with Peter - how European states.

Karamzin assumed something completely different, and already in the title of his book: “History Russian state" - there is a mistake. From the arrival of Rurik, he begins to say: we, our; sees Russians, thinks that love for the fatherland requires the ennoblement of barbarians, and does not notice the difference in Oleg’s warrior, Ivan the Terrible’s warrior, Pozharsky’s warrior; it seems to him the dignity of an educated citizen is a rule of state morality that requires respect for ancestors. After this, can you expect the concept that before John III there was not Russia, But Russian states; so that the author sees in Oleg a Nordmann barbarian; in the struggle of inheritances, gave equal justice to both Oleg Chernigovsky and Vladimir Monomakh? No! and you will not find it. Oleg is burning him the popularity of heroes, and the victorious banners of this hero flutter on the banks of the Dnieper and Bug; Monomakh is the guardian angel of legitimate power, and Oleg Chernigovsky power-hungry, cruel, rejecting villainy only when it is useless, treacherous, rebel; Shame and disgrace fall on him for a whole generation of Olegovichs! So in Rurik he sees an autocratic, wise monarch; Among the semi-wild Slavs, the people are glorious, great, and Karamzin considers even the military trumpets of Svyatoslav’s warriors as proof love of Russians for the art of music!

After all this, is it surprising that European scientists, who were eagerly awaiting Karamzin’s history, received this creation coldly and do not give it a place among the famous modern historians, Niebuhr, Thierry, Guizot, Barant and others. Karamzin cannot stand comparison with the great historians of the past century, Robertson, Hume, Gibbon, because, having all their shortcomings, he does not redeem them with that broad view, that deep sophistication of causes and consequences, which we see in the immortal works of the three English historians of the past century. Karamzin is as far from them in everything as Russia is far from England in mental maturity and educational activities.

People who are accustomed to seeing unkindness and evil in any impartial judgment will say that we are taking away all his merits from Karamzin, we want to humiliate this great man in the eyes of his contemporaries, they will point us to the voice of the entire fatherland, giving him unanimous praise. We justify ourselves by pointing out to such people the respectful respect with which we speak about Karamzin. But let’s not be unconscious in the delight of gratitude and try to give ourselves a true account of our feelings!

On the contrary, we not only do not want to humiliate Karamzin, but we will elevate him, perhaps more than the most blind adherents would dare to exalt. We will say that none of the Russian writers enjoyed such fame as Karamzin, and no one deserved this fame more than him. Karamzin's feat is worthy of praise and surprise. Knowing well all the Russian writers of our time, we dare to assert that now none of all the Russian writers can even be his successor, let alone think of going further than Karamzin. Is this enough? But Karamzin is great only for today's Russia, And in relation to today's Russia- no more.

The glory that any people unanimously gives to one person is not a mistake, for this one, if he has acquired such fame, there is a true representative of the people glorifying him; it coincides with the people and exceeds them. Karamzin's feat in Russian history is as great for us Russians as his feat in our literature. In this case, foreigners cannot judge us, because they do not know our relationships, which justify the price of everything. We will try to provide evidence of the justice of the surprise that Karamzin arouses in his fatherland.

1. Is it possible not to appreciate the courage of Karamzin’s enterprise? An extraordinary mind is visible in each of his literary enterprises. He guessed the needs of his time, knew how to satisfy them, and in 1790 he thought and wrote: “It hurts, but it must be said in fairness that we still do not have a good Russian history, that is, written with a philosophical mind, with criticism, with a noble eloquence. They say that our story in itself is less interesting than others: I don’t think; you just need intelligence, taste, talent, you can choose; paint, and the reader will be surprised how from Nestor, Nikon, etc. could come out something attractive, strong, worthy of the attention not only of Russians, but also of foreigners."* For 12 years after that, he did not abandon this thought, surprising his compatriots with masterful experiments (description of the rebellion under Tsar Alexy; a trip to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, etc. ) and began History in 1802. You need to know, you need to experience all the difficulty of such an enterprise, to know what Karamzin found and what he left behind. He created the materials, the essence and style of history, was a critic of chronicles and monuments, a genealogist, a chronologist. paleographer, numismatist.

______________________

* Works of Karamzin (third ed.). M., 1820, vol. IV, p. 187.

______________________

2. It is necessary to carefully consider and understand what step Karamzin took from all his predecessors. Who, in any way tolerable, appeared before him, except the Frenchman Leveque (and that same Samaritan!)? Are Shcherbatov, Emin, Nekhachin, Khilkov, Tatishchev worth criticism? Our publishers of chronicles, private histories, and investigators of antiquities showed deep ignorance and often complete ignorance. Let's say more, let's note what, it seems, has not yet been noticed: the critics of Karamzin, the attacks of Messrs. Kachenovsky, Artsybashev and the minions of Vestnik Evropy, the very defense of Karamzin by Mr. Russov and Mr. Dmitriev 7 do not prove the superiority of an extraordinary man over people who can neither think nor write, who can barely master a little learning, which sometimes flashes in their heavy and discordant creations?

3. Karamzin rendered unforgettable services by discovering and putting materials in order. True, attempts were made even before him, and the works of venerable men, Bayer, Thunman, Miller, especially the famous Schlozer, were significant and important. But no one more Karamzin did not contribute to Russian history in this regard. He embraced all of Russian history, from its beginning to the 17th century, and one cannot help but be sad that fate did not allow Karamzin to bring his review of materials to our times. He began actively, and seemed to revive the jealousy of other prospectors. From that time on, Count Rumyantsev began to patronize such enterprises, and under his patronage the gentlemen worked as hard as they could. Kalaidovich, Stroev, Pogodin, Vostokov and others, all deserving, although not to the same extent, our gratitude; materials were sought abroad from Russia; the news of eastern writers was translated; State acts were printed. The Academy of Sciences itself seemed to come to life and showed us in the years. Krug, Frenet, Lerberge are worthy successors to Schlozer and Miller; many (Bauze, Wichmann, Count F.A. Tolstoy) began to collect libraries of Russian monuments; In general, paleography, archeography, numismatics, and Russian genealogy were formed. They will say that this was the desire of the times. But Karamzin guessed him, Karamzin walked ahead of everyone and made everyone more powerful. Having given a life-giving beginning, leaving precious guidance to all his followers in the first eight volumes, Karamzin finally (I must admit) seemed to get tired: the 9th, 10th, 11th and especially the 12th volumes of his History show that he is no longer with his previous activities he collected and disassembled materials. And here it is clear what we said that in twelve volumes of his History Karamzin is all; however, the arrangement of materials, a glance at them, would be precious for us even with Karamzin’s fatigue, with which the most ardent activity of many cannot be compared.

4. But until the end of his career, Karamzin retained clarity, skill in private criticism of events, and fidelity in his particular meanings. Do not look for a higher view of events in him: speaking about the civil strife of destinies, he does not see order in them, will not indicate to you the reasons, their properties, and only in the half of the 15th century he tells you: “From here on, our history accepts the dignity of a truly state, describing no longer senseless princely fights... alliances and wars have important goal: every special enterprise is a consequence main thought aimed at the good of the fatherland"*. The error is obvious, noticed by us from the very Introduction, where Karamzin named the first five centuries of the history of the Russian people unimportant for the mind, not rich in thoughts for the pragmatist, nor in beauty for the painter! From volume VI, the historian already recognizes the dignity of Russian history, but also in this one, which has state dignity(?) history, do not look for the reasons for the atrocities of John, the rapid rise and fall of Boris, the successes of the Pretender, the anarchy that followed him. You read the description of Russia’s struggle with Poland, but you don’t see on what the strange stubbornness of Sigismund is based, as a result of which he, having agreed at first, then does not give Russia his son; You don’t see what the salvation of Russia from alien rule is based on. An event will come over the years, Karamzin describes it and thinks that he has fulfilled his duty, does not know or does not want to know that an important event does not grow instantly, like a mushroom after rain, that its reasons are hidden deep, and the explosion only means that the wick has been held to the tunnel, it burned out, but it was placed and lit much earlier. Is it necessary to depict (unnecessary, however, for Russian history) a detailed picture of the movement of peoples in ancient times: Karamzin leads the Cimmerians, Scythians, Huns, Avars, Slavs through the stage, like Chinese shadows; Is it necessary to describe the invasion of the Tatars: in front of you is only a picture of Genghis Khan; has it come to the fall of Shuisky: the Poles go to Moscow, take Smolensk, Sigismund does not want to give Vladislav the kingdom and - there is nothing more! This is a common shortcoming of writers of the 18th century, which Karamzin shares with them, and which Hume himself sometimes did not avoid. Thus, having reached the revolution under Charles I, Hume sincerely thinks that external trinkets offended the people and brought about a revolution; Thus, when describing the Crusades, everyone called them a consequence of the beliefs of Peter the Hermit, and Robertson tells you this, just as during the Reformation they point out indulgences and the papal bull burned by Luther. Even in our time, when talking about the French Revolution, didn’t they believe that philosophers had corrupted France, the French were flighty by nature, they became stupefied by the child of philosophy, and - a revolution broke out! But when they describe the events themselves, Hume and Robertson speak correctly, precisely: and Karamzin also describes the events as a prudent critic, a person who knows their details very well. Only there you cannot rely on him, where you must understand the character of the person, the spirit of the time: he speaks according to the chroniclers, according to his basic assumption about Russian history and goes no further. Added to this in Karamzin, as we have noticed, is a poorly understood love for the fatherland. He is ashamed of his ancestor colors(remember that he intended to do this back in 1790); he needs heroes, love for the fatherland, and he doesn’t know what fatherland, virtue, heroism for us they do not have the same meanings as they had for the Varangian Svyatoslav, a resident of Novagorod in the 11th century, a Chernigov resident of the 12th century, a subject of Theodore in the 17th century, who had their own concepts, their own way of thinking, their own special goal of life and deeds.

______________________

* Volume IV, pp. 5 and 6.

______________________

5. Let us also note that Karamzin, remaining the same as he was during other literary pursuits, without changing his spirit, without leaving the conditions of his time, was able to change external forms. The logical order of his ideas is superior to all his contemporaries; a noble, courageous way of thinking, in the direction that Karamzin considers best. For each chapter of his History, a huge refutation can be written, stronger than the remarks of Mr. Artsybashev; Almost half of the pages of his work can be criticized in many respects, but nowhere can you refuse praise for Karamzin’s mind, taste, and skill.

6. Finally (remembered: The main thing, according to Karamzin himself), his mind, taste and skill extended into the language and style of History to such a strong degree that in this last respect, for us Russians, Karamzin should be considered an exemplary, unique, inimitable writer. It is necessary to learn from him this oratorical rhyme, this arrangement of periods, the weight of words with which each of them is delivered. N.I. Grech accepted, when compiling the Grammar of the Russian language, everything regarding this subject in Karamzin’s History as basic rules, referred to it as an authority and was not mistaken. Apart from Pushkin, there is hardly any writer in Russia now who penetrated as deeply into the secrets of the Russian language as Karamzin penetrated into them.

Karamzin's eloquence is charming. You don’t believe him when you read him, and you are convinced by the inexplicable power of the word. Karamzin knew this very well and took advantage of his advantage, sometimes sacrificing even the simplicity and fidelity of the images. This is how he portrays to us the reign of John IV, at first quietly, calmly, majestically, and suddenly becomes stern, impetuous, when the time has come for the life of not Anastasia’s husband, not the conqueror of Kazan, but Tiberius of the Alexander Sloboda, the murderer of his brother, the tormentor of Vorotynsky; You will notice the same contrast strikingly between Chapters I and II of Volume XII. But this noticeable, and therefore awkward, effort of art can’t be redeemed by the countless beauties of Karamzin’s creations! We are not talking about volumes IX, X and XII, where the life of Metropolitan Philip, the death of Tsarevich John, John IV himself, the election of Godunov, the overthrow of Dmitry the Pretender are passages inimitably written: they will stand alongside the most eloquent, immortal pages of Thucydides, Livy, Robertson, and in this regard, the words of the venerable publisher of the XII volume of “History of the Russian State”: “Karamzin did not have the misfortune to outlive his talent” are completely fair. But even in the 12th volume there are places of amazing eloquence, for example: Shuisky before the King of Poland and the death of Lyapunov. Karamzin’s hand had already become stiff, but his spirit still retained the youthful vigor of imagination.

These are the inalienable virtues and merits of our unforgettable historian. If we strictly judged his shortcomings, then, of course, no one can say that we did not appreciate his merits. The author of this article dares to think that, having devoted himself to the study of Russian history from his youth, now, after many years of work, he can with some hope believe that he has, over other admirers of the great Karamzin, a preferential right to speak about his merits and demerits.

Let us not give Karamzin any credit for the fact that he may not have been as well prepared for his work as his famous European rivals. Karamzin received not a scientific, but a secular education; he subsequently re-educated himself: all the more honor to him, but we have no need for the writer’s private means and methods: we judge only his creation. Let us note here in passing: there were and now are people in Russia who know more than Karamzin any part related to Russian history, but this private knowledge absorbs all their other abilities and does not give them the means to even think of comparing themselves with the great creator of the “History of the Russian State” ": they are masons, Karamzin is an architect, and a great architect. The building he built does not surprise the whole world, like the buildings of Michel Angelov, but nevertheless it is the honor and beauty of its age for the country in which it was erected.

And his contemporaries and fellow citizens were fair to the great Karamzin. His creation will be the subject of our surprise, honor and praise for a long time to come. Karamzin taught us our history; following in his footsteps, we will eventually learn to avoid his mistakes and shortcomings, we can and should compare him with brilliant creators, and give him not the unconditional praise of noisy ignorance, but at the same time we indignantly reject those who detract from the extraordinary man. He was as great as time, means, his methods and the education of Russia allowed him: gratitude to him is our duty.

Nikolai Alekseevich Polevoy (1796-1846) - Russian writer, playwright, literary and theater critic, journalist, historian and translator; brother of critic and journalist K.A. Polevoy and writer E.A. Avdeeva, father of the writer and critic P.N. Polevoy.

Introduction

Books and magazines of that time bear traces of someone else's will.
Tsarist officials mercilessly mutilated the best works of Russian literature. it took the painstaking work of Soviet literary historians to clear the texts of classical works from distortions. Russian classical literature and social thought of the 19th century are a colossal wealth, an ideological, artistic, moral wealth inherited by our time. But it can be used in different ways. against the backdrop of the tragic judges of his contemporaries, Karamzin’s fate seems happy.

He entered literature early and quickly gained fame as the country's first pen. He successfully traveled and communicated with the first minds and talents of Western Europe.

Readers loved his almanacs and magazines. he is the author of the history of the Russian state, a zealous reader of poets and politicians, a witness to the great French Revolution, an eyewitness to the rise and fall of Napoleon, he called himself a “republican at heart.” Karamzin’s world is the world of a seeking spirit, in constant motion, which has absorbed everything that constituted the content pre-Pushkin era. The name Karamzin was the first to appear in German, French and English literature.

Karamzin's life was unusually rich not so much in external events, although there was no shortage of them, but in internal content, which more than once led the writer to the fact that he was surrounded by twilight.

Karamzin's role in the history of Russian culture is not measured only by his literary and scientific creativity. Karamzin created a stereotype of a Russian traveler in Europe. Karamzin created many works, including the wonderful “Letters of a Russian Traveler” and the great “History of the Russian State.” But Karamzin's greatest creation was himself, his life, and his spiritual personality. It was through this that he had a great moral influence on Russian literature. Karamzin introduced the highest ethical requirements into literature as ordinary. And when Zhukovsky,
Pushkin, and after them all the great writers of the 19th century, continued the construction of Russian literature; they began from the level set by Karamzin as a matter of course, the basis of literary work. Work on the “History of the Russian State” can be divided into three distinct periods: the time of publication of the “Moscow Journal”, creativity 1793 - 1800 and the period
"Bulletin of Europe".
Pushkin called Karamzin Columbus, who discovered Ancient history for his readers
Rus' is similar to how the famous traveler discovered the Europeans
America. In using this comparison, the poet himself did not imagine to what extent it was correct; Columbus was not the first European to reach the shores of
America, and that his journey itself was made possible only thanks to the experience accumulated by his predecessors. Calling Karamzin the first Russian historian, one cannot help but recall the names of V.N. Tatishchev, I.N. Boltin, M.M.
Shcherbatov, not to mention a number of publishers of documents who, despite all the imperfections of their publishing methods, attracted attention and aroused interest in the past of Russia.

Karamzin had predecessors, but only his “History of the State”
Russian" became not just another historical work, but the first history
Russia. Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” not only informed readers of the fruits of the historian’s many years of research - it turned the consciousness of the Russian reading society upside down.

“The history of the Russian state” was not the only factor that made the consciousness of the people of the 19th century historical: the war of 1812, the work of Pushkin, and the general movement of philosophical thought played a decisive role here
Russia and Europe of those years. But Karamzin’s “History” stands among these events.
Therefore, its significance cannot be assessed from any one-sided point of view.

Is Karamzin’s “History” a scientific work that presents a holistic picture of Russia’s past from its first centuries to the eve of the reign of Peter I?
– There can be no doubt about it. For a number of generations of Russian readers, Karamzin’s work was the main source of acquaintance with the past of their homeland. The great Russian historian S. M. Solovyov recalled: “The story of Karamzin also fell into my hands: up to 13 years old, i.e. before I entered the gymnasium, I read it at least 12 times.”

Is Karamzin’s “History” the fruit of independent historical research and in-depth study of sources? – And it is impossible to doubt this: the notes in which Karamzin concentrated the documentary material served as the starting point for a significant number of subsequent historical studies, and to this day Russian historians constantly turn to them, never ceasing to be amazed at the enormity of the author’s work.

Is Karamzin’s “History” a remarkable literary work? – Its artistic merits are also obvious. Karamzin himself once called his work a “historical poem”; and in the history of Russian prose of the first quarter of the 19th century, Karamzin’s work occupies one of the most outstanding places. Decembrist A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, reviewing the last lifetime volumes of “History” (10-11) as phenomena of “elegant prose,” wrote: “We can safely say that in literary terms we have found a treasure in them. There we see the freshness and strength of the style, the seductiveness of the story and the variety in the composition and sonority of the turns of the language, so obedient under the hand of true talent.”

But the most significant thing is that it does not belong inseparably to any of them: “The History of the Russian State” is a phenomenon of Russian culture in its integrity and should be considered only as such. On November 31, 1803, by a special decree of Alexander I, Karamzin received the title of historiographer. From that moment on, in the words of P. A. Vyazemsky, he “took monastic vows as a historian” and did not give up his historian’s pen until his last breath. In 1802-
In 1803, Karamzin published a number of articles on Russian history in the journal Vestnik Evropy.

On June 11, 1798, Karamzin sketched out a plan for the “Laudatory speech to Peter I.”
Already from this entry it is clear that we were talking about the intention of an extensive historical study, and not a rhetorical exercise. The next day he added the following thought, clearly showing what he expected to devote himself to in the future: “If Providence will spare me; Or else what is worse than death for me will not happen...”

In the second half of 1810, Karamzin sketched “Thoughts for History
Patriotic War." Arguing that the geographical location of Russia and
France makes it almost incredible that they “could directly attack one another; Karamzin pointed out that only a complete change in the “entire political state of Europe” could make this war possible. And he directly called this change: “Revolution,” adding to this historical reason a human one: “The Character of Napoleon.”

It is generally accepted to divide Karamzin’s work into two eras: before 1803.
Karamzin - writer; later - historian. On the one hand, Karamzin, even after being awarded the title of historiographer, did not cease to be a writer (A. Bestuzhev, P.
Vyazemsky assessed Karamzin’s “History” as an outstanding phenomenon of Russian prose, and this, of course, is fair: Karamzin’s “History” belongs to art in the same way, as, for example, Herzen’s “The Past and Thoughts”), and on the other
- “got deep into Russian history” long before official recognition.

There are other, more compelling reasons for contrasting the two periods of creativity. The main work of the first half of creativity -
"Letters of a Russian Traveler"; second – “History of the State”
Russian." Pushkin wrote: “A fool alone does not change, because time does not bring him development, and experiences do not exist for him.” For example, to prove that Karamzin’s evolution can be defined as a transition from “Russian cosmopolitanism” to “pronounced national narrow-mindedness,” an excerpt from “Letters of a Russian Traveler” is usually cited: “...Peter moved us with his powerful hand...”.

In “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” Karamzin showed himself as a patriot who remained abroad as a “Russian traveler.” At the same time
Karamzin never abandoned the idea of the beneficial influence of Western enlightenment on the cultural life of Russia. In the history of Russian culture, a contrast between Russia and the West has developed; S. F. Platonov pointed out: “In his works, Karamzin completely abolished the age-old opposition between Rus' and Europe, as different and irreconcilable worlds; he thought of Russia as one of the European countries, and the Russian people, as one of the nations of equal quality with other nations. “Based on the idea of the unity of human culture, Karamzin did not exclude his people from cultural life. He recognized his right to moral equality in the fraternal family of enlightened peoples.”

“The History of the Russian State” confronts the reader with a number of paradoxes. First of all, it is necessary to say something about the title of this work. Its title is “History of the State.” Based on this, Karamzin began to be defined as a “statist.”

Karamzin's travels abroad coincided with the beginning of the Great French Revolution. This event had a huge impact on all his further thoughts. The young Russian traveler was at first carried away by liberal dreams under the influence of the first weeks of the revolution, but later became frightened by the Jacobin terror and moved to the camp of its opponents - very far from reality. It should be noted that Karamzin, who is often, but completely unfoundedly, identified with his literary counterpart - the narrator from “Letters of a Russian Traveler”, was not a superficial observer of events: he was a permanent member of the National Assembly, listened to the speeches of Mirabeau, Abbé Maury, Robespierre and others.

It is safe to say that none of the prominent figures of Russian culture had such detailed and directly personal impressions of
French Revolution, like Karamzin. He knew her by sight. Here he met history.

It is no coincidence that Pushkin called Karamzin’s ideas paradoxes: the exact opposite happened to him. The beginning of the revolution was perceived by Karamzin as the fulfillment of the promises of a philosophical century. “We considered the end of our century to be the end of the main disasters of mankind and thought that it would be followed by an important, general combination of theory with practice, speculation with activity,” Karamzin wrote in the mid-1790s. Utopia for him is not the kingdom of certain political or social relationships, but the kingdom of virtue; a shining future depends on the high morality of people, not on politics. Virtue gives rise to freedom and equality, not freedom and equality - virtue. The politician Karamzin treated any form with distrust. Karamzin, who valued the sincerity and moral qualities of political figures, singled out from among the speakers of the Assembly the short-sighted and devoid of artistry, but who had already acquired the nickname “incorruptible” Robespierre, whose very shortcomings in oratory seemed to him advantages.
Karamzin chose Robespierre. The tears that Karamzin shed on the coffin
Robespierre, were the last tribute to the dream of Utopia, Plato's Republic, the State of Virtue. Now Karamzin is attracted to a realist politician.
The seal of rejection has been removed from politics. Karamzin begins publishing Vestnik
Europe" is the first political magazine in Russia.

On the pages of the “Bulletin of Europe”, skillfully using foreign sources, selecting translations in such a way as to express their thoughts in their language,
Karamzin develops a consistent political doctrine. People are selfish by nature: “Egoism is the true enemy of society,” “unfortunately, everywhere and everything is selfishness in a person.” Selfishness turns the high ideal of the republic into an unattainable dream: “Without high popular virtue, the Republic cannot stand.” Bonaparte seems to Karamzin to be that strong ruler - a realist who builds a system of government not on “dreamy” theories, but on the real level of people’s morality. He is outside the party. It is interesting to note that, following his political concept, Karamzin highly appreciated Boris Godunov during this period. “Boris Godunov was one of those people who create their own brilliant destiny and prove their miraculous power
Natures. His family had no celebrity.”

The idea of “History” matured in the depths of “Bulletin of Europe”. This is evidenced by the ever-increasing amount of materials on Russian history on the pages of this magazine. Karamzin's views on Napoleon changed.
The excitement began to give way to disappointment. After the transformation of the first consul into the emperor of the French, Karamzin wrote bitterly to his brother: “Napoleon
Bonaparte exchanged the title of great man for the title of emperor: power showed him better than glory.” The idea of "History" was to show how
Russia, having gone through centuries of fragmentation and disasters, rose to glory and power with unity and strength. It was during this period that the name arose
"History of the State". Subsequently, the plan underwent changes. But the title could no longer be changed. However, the development of statehood was never the goal of human society for Karamzin. It was just a means. Karamzin's ideas about the essence of progress changed, but the faith in progress, which gave the meaning of human history, remained unchanged. In its most general form, progress for Karamzin consisted in the development of humanity, civilization, education and tolerance. Literature has a major role to play in the humanization of society. In the 1790s, after a break with the Freemasons, Karamzin believed that it was belles-lettres, poetry and novels that would be these great civilizers. Civilization is getting rid of the coarseness of feelings and thoughts. It is inseparable from the subtle shades of experiences. Therefore, the Archimedean fulcrum in the moral improvement of society is language. It is not dry moral sermons, but flexibility, subtlety and richness of language that improve the moral physiognomy of society. It was these thoughts that Karamzin had in mind, the poet K. N. Batyushkov. But in
1803, at the very time when desperate debates began to boil over Karamzin’s language reform, he himself was already thinking more broadly. The language reform was intended to make the Russian reader “social,” civilized and humane.
Now Karamzin was faced with another task - to make him a citizen. And for this, Karamzin believed, he must have the history of his country. We need to make him a man of history. That is why Karamzin “took his hair as a historian.” The state has no history until a historian tells the state about its history. By giving readers the history of Russia, Karamzin gave Russia history. Karamzin had the opportunity to describe the turbulent events of the past in the midst of the turbulent events of the present; on the eve of 1812, Karamzin was working on volume VI
"History", completing the end of the 15th century.

The subsequent years in burned-out Moscow were difficult and sad, but work on “History” continues. By 1815, Karamzin completed 8 volumes, wrote the “Introduction” and decided to go to St. Petersburg to obtain permission and funds to print what he had written. At the beginning of 1818, 3,000 copies of the first 8 volumes were published. The appearance of the “History of the Russian State” became a public event. “History” has long been a major subject of debate. In Decembrist circles she was met with criticism. Appearance
"History" influenced the flow of their thought. Now not a single thinking person in Russia could think outside the general perspectives of Russian history. A
Karamzin walked on. He worked on volumes IX, X and XI of “History” - the time of the oprichnina, Boris Godunov and the Time of Troubles. In these volumes, Karamzin reached unsurpassed heights as a prose writer: this is evidenced by the power of characterization and the energy of the narrative. During the reign of Ivan III and Vasily
Ivanovich not only strengthened statehood, but also achieved success in the original Russian culture. At the end of volume VII, in a review of the culture of the 15th-16th centuries, Karamzin noted with satisfaction the appearance of secular literature - for him an important sign of the success of education: “... we see that our ancestors were engaged not only in historical or theological works, but also in novels; loved works of wit and imagination.”

In “History” the ratio changes and a criminal conscience makes all the efforts of the state mind useless. What is immoral cannot be useful to the state. The pages dedicated to the reign of Boris Godunov and the Time of Troubles belong to the pinnacle of historical writing
Karamzin, and it is no coincidence that it was he who inspired Pushkin to create “Boris
Godunov."

Death, which interrupted work on the “historical poem,” resolved all the issues. If we talk about the significance of the “History of the Russian State” in the culture of the early 19th century and what attracts the modern reader in this monument, then it would be appropriate to consider the scientific and artistic aspects of the issue. Karamzin's merits in discovering new sources, creating a broad picture of Russian history, and combining scholarly commentary with the literary merits of the narrative are not in doubt. But “The History of the Russian State” should also be considered among works of fiction. As a literary phenomenon, it belongs to the first quarter of the 19th century. It was a time of triumph of poetry.
The victory of Karamzin’s school led to the identification of the concepts of “literature” and “poetry”.

Pushkin's drama had inspirations: Shakespeare, the chronicles of the “History of the Russian State”. But Karamzin is not Karamzit. Critics of History in vain reproached Karamzin for not seeing a deep idea in the movement of events. Karamzin was imbued with the idea that history has meaning.

N. M. Karamzin (Tales of the Ages) M., 1988

I. “Ancient Russia discovered by Karamzin.”

N. Karamzin entered the history of Russian literature as a major writer - a sentimentalist who worked actively in the last decade of the 18th century. In recent years, the situation has begun to change - 2 two-volume works have been published
Karamzin, “Letters of a Russian Traveler” were published twice. But Karamzin’s main book, on which he worked for more than two decades, which had a huge influence on Russian literature of the 19th century, is practically still unknown to the modern reader, “History of the Russian State.”
History has interested him since his youth. That is why many pages of “Letters of a Russian Traveler” are dedicated to her. History has been an art, not a science, for many centuries. For Pushkin and Belinsky, Karamzin’s “History” is a major achievement of Russian literature of the early 19th century, not only historical, but also an outstanding literary work. The originality of the “History of the Russian State”
Karamzin and was determined by the time of its writing, the time of development of new historical thinking, the understanding of the national identity of Russian history throughout its entire length, the nature of the events themselves and the trials that befell the Russian nation over many centuries. Work on
“History” lasted more than two decades - from 1804 to 1826. By 1820
“History of the Russian State” was published in French, German, Italian. In 1818, Russian readers received the first eight volumes of History, which told about the ancient period of Russia. And by that time V. Scott had managed to publish six novels - they told about the past
Scotland. Both writers in Russia were rightly called Columbus.
“Ancient Russia,” wrote Pushkin, “seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America
Columbus." In the spirit of the times, each of them acted simultaneously as an artist and as a historian. Karamzin, in the preface to the first volume of History, summarizing his already established principles for depicting Russian history, stated:
"History" is not a novel." He contrasted “fiction” with “truth.” This position was developed under the influence of the real Russian literary process and the creative evolution of the writer himself.

During the 1800s, literature was awash with original and translated works—in poetry, prose, and drama—on historical themes.
It is history that can reveal the “truth” and “secret” of the life of society and man, as Karamzin came in his development. This new understanding of history manifested itself in the 1795 article “The Reasoning of the Philosopher, Historian and Citizen.” Because
Karamzin, starting “History,” abandons “fiction,” those specific and traditional means by which epics, tragedies or novels were created. To know the “truth” of history meant not only to abandon one’s own agnosticism, calling on the objectivity of the real world, but also to abandon the traditional way of depicting this world in the art of that time. IN
In Russia, this merger will be brilliantly accomplished by Pushkin in the tragedy “Boris
Godunov,” but from the standpoint of realism, Karamzin’s “History” both preceded Pushkin’s success and largely prepared it. Refusal
Karamzin’s rejection of “fiction” did not mean a denial in general of the possibilities of artistic research into history. “The History of the Russian State” captured the search and development of these new, so to speak, equivalent principles for its depiction of historical truth. The most important feature of this structure that developed during the writing process was the combination of analytical (scientific) and artistic principles. Consideration of the elements of such a structure clearly shows how both the searches and discoveries of the writer turned out to be nationally determined.

“The History of the Russian State” contains not only love stories, but generally fictitious plots. The author does not introduce plot into his work, but extracts it from history, from real historical events and situations - the heroes act in circumstances set by history. Only a genuine, and not a fictional, plot brings the writer closer to the “truth” hidden by the “veil of time.”

Given the story, the plot tells a person in his broad connections with the general life of the country, state, and nation. This is how the characters of famous historical figures are built. The life of Ivan the Terrible opened up an abyss of possibilities for constructing a love story - the tsar had seven wives and countless others who were victims of his “shameless lust.” But
Karamzin proceeded from social conditions that determined the character of the tsar, his actions, and the “era of torment” that shook all of Russia.
The historical situation that created the possibility of B. Godunov seizing power had a decisive influence on his policy, on his attitude towards the people, and determined his crime and moral suffering. Thus, not only did history become material for literature, but literature also turned out to be a means of artistic knowledge of history. His “History” is populated only by genuine historical figures.

Karamzin emphasizes the talent, originality and intelligence of ordinary people who acted independently, without the tsar and boyars, who knew how to think stately and rationally. The historical plot, the use of a given situation, justified a different method, born of Russian tradition, of depicting a person - not in a “home image”, not from the side of his private family life, but from the side of his connections with the larger world of national, national existence. That is why Karamzin demanded from writers the depiction of heroic Russian women, whose character and personality were manifested not in home life and “family happiness,” but in political and patriotic activities. In this regard, he wrote: “Nature sometimes loves extremes, departs from its ordinary law and gives women characters that lead them out of home obscurity into the folk theater...” The method of depicting Russian characters in “History” is bringing them “out of home obscurity into folk theater,” it was ultimately developed from a generalization of the experience of the historical life of the Russian nation. Many folk songs captured heroic prowess, the poetry of a life full of activity, struggle, and high feat, which opened up beyond the boundaries of domestic family existence. Gogol in Ukrainian songs revealed precisely these character traits of the people: “Everywhere one can see the strength, joy, power with which the Cossack abandons the silence and carelessness of homely life in order to delve into all the poetry of battles, dangers and riotous feasting with his comrades...” This method contained the opportunity to most fully and clearly reveal the fundamental features of the Russian national character.

Karamzin, turning to history, was forced to develop a special genre for his narrative. A study of the genre nature of Karamzin’s work convinces that it is not the implementation of principles already found. It is rather a kind of self-adjusting model, the type and character of which was influenced by the experience of the writer, and by the involvement of more and more new materials, which required new illumination, and by the increasing trust in the artistic knowledge of the “truth” that grew from volume to volume.

Having abandoned “fiction,” Karamzin could not use one of the traditional literary genres for his narrative. It was necessary to develop a genre form that would organically correspond to the real historical plot, would be capable of accommodating the enormous and varied factual material that was included in “History” under the sign of analytical and emotional perception, and, most importantly, would give the writer wide freedom in expressing his position.

But to develop did not mean to invent, Karamzin decided to be consistent - and in developing the genre he relied on national tradition. And here the chronicle played a decisive role. Its main genre feature is syncretism. The chronicle freely included many works of ancient Russian literature - lives, stories, epistles, lamentations, folk poetic legends, etc. Syncretism became the organizing principle of Karamzin’s “History”. The writer did not imitate, he continued the chronicle tradition. The author’s position, split into two principles - analytical and artistic - united all the material introduced into the “History”, determined the inclusion in the form of quotes or retellings of the lives, stories, legends and “miracles” included in the chronicles and the chronicler’s story itself, which was either accompanied by comments , or found himself merged with the opinion of the creator of “History”.
Chronicle syncretism is the main feature of the “History of the Russian State” genre. This genre - Karamzin's original creation - helped him both express Russian national identity in its dynamics and development, and develop a special ethical style of narration about a heroic nation, whose sons emerged from home obscurity into the theater of people's life.
The writer's achievements were adopted by Russian literature. His innovative attitude to the genre, the search for a special, free genre structure that would correspond to new material, a new plot, new tasks for the artistic study of the “real world” of history, turned out to be close to new Russian literature. And it is not by chance, but naturally, that we will find this free attitude to the genre in Pushkin (the “free” novel in verse - “Eugene Onegin”), Gogol (the poem “Dead Souls”), Tolstoy (“War and Peace”). In 1802, Karamzin wrote: “France, in its greatness and character, should be a monarchy.” A few years later, this “prophecy” came true - Napoleon proclaimed France an empire and himself emperor. Using examples of the reign of Russian monarchs - positive and negative -
Karamzin wanted to teach how to reign.

The contradiction turned into a tragedy for Karamzin; the political concept led to a dead end. And, despite this, the writer did not change his method of clarifying the truth that was revealed in the process of artistic research of the past, he remained faithful to it, even if it contradicted his political ideal. This was a victory for Karamzin, the artist. That is why Pushkin called “History” the feat of an honest man.

Pushkin understood the inconsistency of Karamzin’s work very well. Pushkin not only understood and saw the artistic nature of “History,” but also determined the originality of its artistic method and genre. According to Pushkin, Karamzin acted as a historian and as an artist, his work is a synthesis of analytical and artistic knowledge of history. The originality of the artistic method and the genre of “History” itself is determined by the chronicle tradition. This idea is both fair and fruitful.

Karamzin, a historian, used the facts of the chronicle, subjecting them to criticism, verification, explanation and commentary. Karamzin, the artist, mastered the aesthetic principles of the chronicle, perceiving it as a national Russian type of story about the past, as a special artistic system that captured the Russian view of the historical events of historical figures, of fate
Russia.

Pushkin correctly understood the enormity of the content of Karamzin’s work, writing that he found Russia like Columbus found America. This clarification is very important: opening
Ancient Rus', Karamzin discovered the historical role of the Russian people in the formation of a great power. Describing one of the battles, Karamzin emphasizes that it was the love of freedom that inspired ordinary people when they heroically fought the enemy, showed wonderful frenzy and, thinking that the one killed by the enemy should serve him as a slave in hell, plunged swords into their hearts when they could no longer escape : because they wanted to preserve their freedom in the future life. The most important feature of the artistic element
“History” is the patriotism of its author, which determined the possibility of creating an emotional image of “past centuries.”

“History” captures the unity of analytical study and emotional image of “past centuries.” At the same time, neither the analytical nor the emotional method of study and depiction contradicted the truth - each helped to establish it in their own way. Truth serves as the basis for historical poetry; but poetry is not history: the first most of all wants to arouse curiosity and for this purpose interferes with fables, the second rejects the most witty inventions and wants only the truth.

For Karamzin, in this case, the chronicle story, the chronicle point of view is a type of consciousness of the era, and therefore he does not consider it possible to introduce
“corrections” by the historian to the chronicler’s view. Revealing Godunov's inner world by psychological means, drawing his character, he proceeds not only from the facts gleaned from the chronicle, but also from the general historical situation recreated by the chronicler. The story about Godunov thereby opened up to modern literature a completely new type of artistic knowledge and reproduction of history, firmly based on national tradition.
It was this position of Karamzin that was understood and supported by Pushkin in his defense
“History” from Polevoy’s attacks, it gave him the opportunity to call the writer our last chronicler.

The artistic beginning of “History” made it possible to reveal the process of developing the mental makeup of the Russian nation. Analyzing numerous facts from the initial period of Russian history, the writer comes to understand the enormous role of the people in the political life of the country. The study of history made it possible to write about two faces of the people - they are “kind”, they are “rebellious”.

According to Karamzin, the virtue of the people did not at all contradict the people’s “love of rebellion.” Artistic research into history revealed this truth to the writer. He understood that it was not love for the “institutions” of autocrats, but “love for revolts” directed against autocrats who did not fulfill their duty to take care of the welfare of their subjects, that distinguishes the Russian people.

Pushkin, when working on “Boris Godunov,” used the writer’s discoveries. Not yet knowing the works of French historians, Pushkin, relying on national tradition, develops historicism as a method of knowledge and explanation of the past and present, following Karamzin in revealing Russian national identity - he creates the image of Pimen.

Karamzin in “History” discovered the enormous artistic world of chronicles.
The writer “cut a window” into the past; he really, like Columbus, found ancient Russia, connecting the past with the present.

“The History of the Russian State” rightfully invaded the living process of literary development, helped the formation of historicism, promoting the movement of literature along the path of national identity. She enriched literature with important artistic discoveries, incorporating the experience of chronicles.
“History” armed new literature with important knowledge of the past and helped it rely on national traditions. At the first stage, Pushkin and Gogol, in their appeal to history, showed how enormous and important Karamzin’s contribution was.

History enjoyed unparalleled success throughout many decades of the 19th century, influencing Russian writers.

The term "History" has many definitions. History of the story and incident. History is a process of development. This past. History must enter the consciousness of society; it is not only written and read. Nowadays, not only books perform this function, but also radio and television. Initially, historical description exists as an art form. Each field of knowledge has an object of study. History studies the past. The task of history is to reproduce the past in the unity of the necessary and the accidental. The central component of art is the artistic image. A historical image is a real event. In a historical image, fiction is excluded, and fantasy plays a supporting role. An image is created unambiguously if the historian holds something back. Man is the best object for studying history. The main merit of the Renaissance culture is that it opened the spiritual world of man.

Karamzin's feat.

According to Pushkin, “Karamzin is a great writer in every sense of the word.”

Karamzin’s language, which has undergone evolution from “Letters of a Russian Traveler” and “Poor Liza” to “History of the Russian State”. His work is the history of Russian autocracy. “History of the Russian State” fell out of the history of literature. History is a science that goes beyond; Literature is an art that transcends its boundaries. The story of Karamzin is for him a sphere of aesthetic pleasure. Karamzin formulates the methodological principles of his work. “The History of the Russian State” is considered as a monument to Russian literature.

The Karamzin tradition in the art of historiography has not died, and it cannot be said that it is thriving.

Pushkin believed that Karamzin devoted his last years to history, and he devoted his whole life to it.

The attention of the author of “History of the Russian State” is drawn to how the state arose. Karamzin puts Ivan III above Peter I. Volume 6 is dedicated to him (Ivan III). Karamzin concludes his consideration of the era of Ivan III with the history of the wanderings of an ordinary Russian at his own peril and risk, without government initiative and support.

The chapters of Karamzin’s work are divided according to the years of the reign of one or another monarch and are named after them.

The “History of the Russian State” contains descriptions of battles, campaigns, as well as everyday life, economic and cultural life. In the 1st chapter of volume 7 it is written that Pskov is annexed to Moscow by Vasily III. Karamzin opened Russian history for Russian literature. “The History of the Russian State” is an image from which poets, prose writers, playwrights, etc. drew inspiration. IN
“History of the Russian State” we see the plot of Pushkin’s “Song of the Prophetic
Oleg”, as well as “Boris Godunov” and “History of the Russian State”. 2 tragedies about Boris Godunov, written by 2 poets and based on materials
"History of the Russian State."

Belinsky called “The History of the Russian State” a great monument in the history of Russian literature.

Historical drama blossomed earlier, but its possibilities were limited.

Interest in history is an interest in a person, in his environment and life.
The novel opened up broader perspectives than the drama. In Russia Pushkin and
Tolstoy raised the historical novel to great prose. The great masterpiece in this genre is “War and Peace”. Historical events serve as the background against which actions unfold. Historical figures appear suddenly in a historical novel. The main characters are fictitious persons. The novel as a drama turns to historical material and pursues the goal of artistic reproduction of historical reality. A complete fusion of history and art is a rare occurrence. The line between them is blurred, but not completely. You could say they are allies. They have one goal - the formation of historical consciousness. Art gives history artistic culture. History provides the foundation for art. Art gains depth by drawing on historical tradition. Culture is a system of prohibitions.

About “Boris Godunov” Pushkin wrote: “The study of Shakespeare, Karamzin and our old chronicles gave me the idea to put into dramatic forms one of the most dramatic eras of modern history.” The play does not have a fictional plot or characters; they are borrowed from the “History of the Russian State.”
Karamzin writes about the famine at the beginning of the reign of B. Godunov: “Disaster began, and the cry of the hungry alarmed the king... Boris ordered the royal granaries to be opened.”

Pushkin in his tragedy also solves the problem of ends and means in history.

A historical era passed between “The History of the Russian State” and “Boris Godunov,” and this affected the interpretation of events. Karamzin wrote under the impression of the Patriotic War, and Pushkin - on the eve of the December uprising.

“The history of the Russian state helped Pushkin establish himself in two guises - a historian and a historical novelist - to process the same material in different ways.

When Karamzin was working on “History,” he studied Russian folklore, collected historical songs, and arranged them in chronological order. But this did not materialize. He singled out “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” most of all in historical literature.

The culture of Russia in the 19th century is like an example of the rise of peak achievements. Since the beginning of the 19th century, a high patriotic upsurge has been observed in Russian society. It intensified even more in 1812, deeply promoting national unity and the development of citizenship. Art interacted with public consciousness, shaping it into a national one. The development of realistic trends in the national cultural traits has intensified. A cultural event was the appearance of “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin. Karamzin was the first who, at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, intuitively felt that the main thing in Russian culture of the coming 19th century was the increasing problems of national self-identity. Pushkin followed Karamzin, solving the problem of the relationship between national culture and ancient cultures, after which P. Ya. Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter” appeared - the philosophy of Russian history, which stimulated the discussion between Slavophiles and Westerners.
Classical literature of the 19th century was more than just literature, it was a synthetic cultural phenomenon that turned out to be a universal form of social consciousness. Karamzin noted that the Russian people, despite humiliation and slavery, felt their cultural superiority in relation to the nomadic people. The first half of the 19th century was the time of the formation of national historical science. Karamzin believed that the history of mankind
is the story of the struggle of reason against error, enlightenment against ignorance.

He assigned a decisive role in history to great people.

Professional historians were not satisfied with Karamzin’s work “History of the Russian State.” There were many new sources on Russian history. IN
In 1851, the first volume of “History of Russia since Ancient Times” was published, written by
S. M. Solovyov.

Comparing the historical development of Russia and other European countries, Solovyov found much in common in their destinies. The style of presentation of Solovyov’s “History” is rather dry; it is inferior to Karamzin’s “History”.

In the fiction of the early 19th century there was, according to Belinsky,
"Karamzin" period.

The War of 1812 sparked interest in Russian history. "History of the state
Russian" Karamzin, based on chronicle material. Pushkin saw in this work a reflection of the spirit of the chronicle. Pushkin attached great importance to chronicle materials. And this was reflected in “Boris Godunov”. In working on the tragedy, Pushkin followed the path of studying Karamzin, Shakespeare and the “chronicles”.

The 30-40s did not bring anything new to Russian historiography. These are the years of development of philosophical thinking. Historical science froze on Karamzin. By the end of the 40s, everything changed, a new historiography of S. Solovyov emerged.
M. In 1851, volume 1 of “History of Russia from Ancient Times” was published. Towards the middle
In the 50s, Russia entered a new period of storms and upheavals. The Crimean War revealed the disintegration of classes and material backwardness. "War and Peace" contains a huge amount of historical books and materials, it turned out to be a decisive and violent rebellion against historical science. “War and Peace” is a book that grew out of “pedagogical” experience. Tolstoy when he read
“The History of Russia from Ancient Times” by S. M. Solovyov, then he argued with him.
According to Solovyov, the government was ugly: “But how did a series of outrages produce a great, united state? This alone proves that it was not the government that produced history.” The conclusion from this is that what is needed is not history.
- science, and history - art: “History - art, like art, goes deep and its subject is a description of the life of all of Europe.”

"War and Peace" is characterized by the features of thinking and style, composition, which are found in "The Tale of Bygone Years." The Tale of Bygone Years combines two traditions: folk-epic and hagiographic. This is also in War and Peace.

“War and Peace” is one of the “modifications” created by the era of “great changes”. The chronicle style served as the basis for satire on both historical science and the political system.

A historical era is a force field of contradictions and a space of human choice; its very essence as a historical era consists in a moving openness to the future; the body is a substance equal to itself.
Worldly wisdom, or common sense, knowledge of people, without which the art of understanding what is said and written, which is philology, is impossible.

The content of humanitarian thought is truly revealed only in the light of life experience - human experience. The objective existence of the semantic aspects of a literary word takes place only within the dialogue and cannot be extracted from the situation of the dialogue. The truth lies on a different plane.
An ancient author and an ancient text, communication with them is an understanding “above the barriers” of misunderstanding, presupposing these barriers. The past era is the era of humanity’s life, our life, and not someone else’s. Being an adult means experiencing childhood and adolescence.

Karamzin is the most prominent figure of his era, a language reformer, one of the fathers of Russian sentimentalism, historian, publicist, author of poetry and prose on which a generation was brought up. All this is enough to study, respect, acknowledge; but not enough to fall in love in literature, in ourselves, and not in the world of our great-grandfathers. It seems that two features of Karamzin’s biography and creativity make him one of our interlocutors.

Historian-artist. They laughed at this already in the 1820s, they tried to move away from it in the scientific direction, but this is exactly what seems to be missing a century and a half later. In fact, Karamzin, the historian, simultaneously proposed two ways to understand the past; one – scientific, objective, new facts, concepts, patterns; the other is artistic, subjective. So, the image of the historian-artist does not only belong to the past; the coincidence of Karamzin’s position and some of the newest concepts about the essence of historical knowledge - does this speak for itself? This, we believe, is the first feature of the “topical nature” of Karamzin’s works.

And, secondly, let us once again note the wonderful contribution to Russian culture that Karamzin’s personality is called. Karamzin is a highly moral, attractive person who influenced many through direct example and friendship; but a much larger number - by the presence of this personality in poems, stories, articles, and especially in History. Karamzin was, after all, one of the most internally free people of his era, and among his friends and acquaintances there were many wonderful, best people. He wrote what he thought, drew historical characters based on vast, new material; managed to discover ancient Russia, “Karamzin is our first historian and last chronicler.”

List of used literature

1. Averentsev S.S. Our interlocutor is an ancient author.

2. Aikhenvald Yu. I. Silhouettes of Russian writers. – M.: Republic, 1994.

– 591 p.: ill. - (Past and present).

3. Gulyga A.V. The Art of History - M.: Sovremennik, 1980. - 288 p.

4. Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State in 12 volumes. T. II-

III/ Ed. A. N. Sakharov. – M.: Nauka, 1991. – 832 p.

5. Karamzin N. M. On the history of the Russian state / comp. A.I.

Schmidt. – M.: Education, 1990. – 384 p.

6. Karamzin N. M. Traditions of the Ages / Comp., intro. Art. G. P. Makogonenko;

G. P. Makogonenko and M. V. Ivanova; - Lee. V. V. Lukashova. – M.:

Pravda, 1988. – 768 p.

7. Culturology: a textbook for students of higher educational institutions - Rostov n/D: Phoenix Publishing House, 1999. - 608 p.

8. Lotman Yu. M. Karamzin: The Creation of Karamzin. Art. and research, 1957-

1990. Notes rec. – St. Petersburg: Art – St. Petersburg, 1997 – 830 pp.: ill.: portrait.

9. Eikhenbaum B. M. About prose: collection. Art. – L.: Fiction,

1969. – 503 p.
-----------------------
Lotman Yu. M. Karamzin. – St. Petersburg, Art. – St. Petersburg, 1997. – p. 56.
Soloviev S. M. Selected works. Notes. – M., 1983. – p. 231.
Karamzin N. M. Works. – St. Petersburg, 1848. t. 1. p. 487.Send a request indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of receiving a consultation.

N. M. Muravyov

Thoughts on “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin

Karamzin: pro et contra / Comp., intro. Art. L. A. Sapchenko. -- St. Petersburg: RKhGA, 2006. History belongs to the people. In it they find a true depiction of their virtues and vices, the beginning of power, the causes of prosperity or disaster. For a long time we were deprived of everyday life writers, having only Shcherbatov and Tatishchev 1 . Finally, N.M. Karamzin, jealous of national glory, devoted 12 years to constant, tedious research and brought the tales of our simple-minded chroniclers into a clear and harmonious system. An invaluable blessing! With the modesty of true talent, the historian tells us that in this work he was encouraged by the hope of making Russian history more famous. His wish came true - we became much more familiar with the affairs of our ancestors. Until now, however, no one has taken upon themselves the flattering obligation to express general gratitude to the historian. No one observed with attention the greatness of his work, the beauty, proportionality and correctness of the parts, no one gave the writer the praise worthy of him, for praise without evidence is the praise of the mob. Hasn’t this creation really revived many different judgments, questions, and doubts! Woe to the country where everyone agrees. Can we expect educational success there? There mental powers sleep, there they do not value the truth, which, like glory, is acquired through effort and constant work. Honor to the writer, but freedom of judgment for the readers. Can doubts expressed with decency be offensive? A thorough review of history is difficult for one person; the philosopher, the lawyer, the shepherd of the church, the military man must each especially participate in this feat. One must delve into the spirit in which it was written—whether the thoughts of our century have not been attributed to distant centuries, whether concepts already acquired by their grandchildren have been attributed to the forefathers. Another must check it with sources. The third is to analyze the writer’s opinions about trade, about the internal structure, and so on. Let each choose his own part, but here the reader should expect only an exposition of the thoughts excited by the reading of this work, and a disorderly mixture of comments. Everyone has the right to judge the history of their fatherland. Let's look at the preface first; in it we will see how our writer embraced his subject and what rules he was guided by. Here is his definition of the benefits of history: “Rulers and legislators act according to the instructions of history... Human wisdom needs experience, and life is short-lived. One must know how rebellious passions from time immemorial concerned civil society and in what ways beneficent power crazy curbed their violent desire, to establish order, agree on the benefits of people and grant they will have all possible happiness on earth." History sometimes shows us how the beneficial power of the mind curbed the violent desire of the rebels passions. But we agree that these examples are rare. Usually passions are opposed by other passions - the struggle begins, spiritual and mental abilities on both sides acquire the greatest strength; Finally, the opponents get tired, mutual anger is exhausted, they realize the common benefit, and reconciliation is concluded through prudent experience. In general, it is very difficult for a small number of people to be above the passions of the nations to which they themselves belong, to be more prudent than the century and to maintain the aspirations of entire societies. Our considerations are weak against the natural course of things. And then, even when we imagine that we are acting according to our own arbitrariness, and then we obey the past - we complement what has been done, we do what the general opinion requires of us, a necessary consequence of previous actions, we go where events take us, where Our ancestors were already trying. In general, from the very first times there have been the same phenomena. From time to time, new concepts and new thoughts are born. They lurk for a long time, mature, then quickly spread and produce long-term unrest, followed by a new order of things, a new moral system. What mind can foresee and embrace these phenomena? Which hand can control their progress? Who dares in his arrogance to establish order itself through violence? Who will stand alone against the general opinion? A wise and virtuous person in such circumstances will not resort to either trick or force. Following the general movement, his good soul will only guide it with lessons of moderation and justice. Violent means are both lawless and disastrous, for the highest politics and the highest morality are one and the same. Moreover, do beings subject to passions have the right to persecute for them? Passions are a necessary accessory of the human race and an instrument of providence, incomprehensible to our limited mind. Is it not through them that people are drawn towards the goal of all mankind? In the moral, as well as in the physical world, the agreement of the whole is based on the struggle of the parts.<...>"But the common citizen must also read history. It reconciles him with the imperfection of the visible order of things as ordinary a phenomenon in all centuries; consoles in state disasters, testifying that there have been similar ones before, there have been even more terrible ones and the state was not destroyed...” Of course, imperfection is the inseparable companion of everything earthly, but should history only reconcile us with imperfection, should it immerse us in moral the dream of quietism? 2 Is this the civic virtue that popular history is obliged to ignite, not the world? eternal battle must exist between evil and good; virtuous citizens must be in eternal alliance against error and vice. It is not our reconciliation with imperfection, not the satisfaction of vain curiosity, not the food of sensitivity, not the amusement of idleness that constitutes the subject of history: it ignites the competition of centuries, awakens our spiritual strength and directs us towards that perfection that is destined on earth. Through the sacred lips of history, our forefathers cry to us: Do not disgrace the Russian lands! Imperfection of the visible order of things there is, without a doubt, a common phenomenon in all centuries, but there are differences between imperfections. Who will compare the imperfections of the century of the Fabricians 3 or the Antonines 4 with the imperfections of the century of Nero 5 or the vile Eliogobal 6, when honor, life and the very morals of citizens depended on the arbitrariness of a corrupt youth, when the rulers of the world, the Romans, were likened to senseless creatures? Do the crimes of Tiberius 7, Caligula 8, Caracalla 9, who devastated one city after another, belong to the ordinary phenomena of centuries? Finally, are the imperfections of the warlike, generous people of the times of Svyatoslav 10 and Vladimir 11 similar to the imperfections of the times of enslaved Russia, when an entire people could get used to the destructive thought necessary? Even more humiliating for the morality of the people's era revival ours, the slavish cunning of John Kalita; 12 further, the cold cruelty of John III 13, the hypocrisy of Basil 14 and the horrors of John IV 15. Can history also console us in state disasters, testifying that there were even more terrible ones and the state was not destroyed? Who will guarantee the future? Who knows whether our grandchildren will suffer disasters even more terrible than those suffered by our grandfathers? State disasters can also result in the destruction of the state itself. In 97, the Venetians, reading in their chronicles how they once opposed the Union of Cambrai (In 1508, King Ludwig XII of France, Emperor Maximilian, Duke of Savoy, Ferrara, Marquis of Mantua, the Florentines and Pope Julius II declared war on Venice. An alliance was concluded in Cambrai between the King of France, the King of Aragon, Emperor Max and the Pope, to whom all the aforementioned allies subsequently joined.), could they console themselves by losing (In 1797 Bonaparte took possession of Venice, destroyed the republic and gave its lands to Austria.) their independence and glory . This is not how the ancients thought about history: “Life is short,” says Sallust 16, “and so let us prolong the memory of ourselves as much as possible.” “The most useful thing in understanding events is that examples are presented to us on a bright monument.” We imitate what is worthy of imitation, we despise what is shamefully begun and shamefully accomplished (see the introduction of Titus Livy 1T). Not everyone will agree that the civil strife of appanage princes is of little importance for reason; they confirm the famous verse of Horace: 18 Quidquid delirant Reges plectuntur Achivi (No matter how much the kings rage, the Argives pay (lat.).). Comparing Russian history with ancient history, our historian says: “Crowds commit villainy, are slaughtered for the honor of Athens or Sparta, as we have for the honor of Monomakhov 19 or Olegov 20 house - there is a little difference: if we forget that these half-tigers spoke in the language of Homer 21, Sophocles had 22 tragedies and statues of Fidiasov 23". Almost the same thought is expressed in Igoreva’s song: “In the princely karmols, the people have shrunk by man,” p. 17. I find some difference. There the citizens fought for the power in which they participated; here servants fought according to the whims of their masters. We can't forget that half tigers of Greece enjoyed all the blessings of the earth, freedom and the glory of enlightenment. Our writer says that in history, the beauty of storytelling and power are the main thing! I doubt. “Knowledge of rights... learning... wit... profundity... in a historian are no substitute for talent in depicting actions.” Undoubtedly, but this does not prove that the art of representation was the most important thing in history. It can be said quite rightly that the talent of a narrator cannot replace the knowledge of learning, diligence and thoughtfulness. What's more important! It seems to me that the main thing in history is efficiency this one. To look at history solely as a literary work is to humiliate it. We will forgive a wise historian for his lack of skill, and we will condemn an eloquent historian if he does not thoroughly know what he is talking about. The following saying is indisputable: “It is not permissible for a historian to think and speak for his heroes, who have long been silent in their graves... what remains for him... is order, clarity, strength, painting.” Condemning Hume's coldness, 24 our writer quite rightly notes that “love for the fatherland gives the historian’s brushes “heat, strength, charm. Where there is no love, there is no soul.” I agree, but how often did Hume come across Alfreda 25, and is it possible to love oppressors and rivets. Tacitus was animated by indignation 26. Subsequently, we will proceed to the story itself. It is all the more interesting for us because it was written, according to the author’s assurance (See the historiographer’s letter to the French translators of his History dated June 5, 1818, printed by them on the 4th page of their advertisement.), “in the spirit of the people and solely for compatriots, so that foreigners cannot please, because of this Russian character, so different from the character of other peoples!

NOTES

Thoughts on “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin

For the first time: Lit. inheritance. M., 1954. T. 59. Book. I. P. 586--595 (publ., introductory article and commentary by I. N. Medvedeva). Published from this edition. Muravyov Nikita Mikhailovich(1795--1843) - Decembrist, publicist, author of the Decembrist constitution. Father, M.N. Muravyov, assisted Karamzin in the preparation of the “History of the Russian State.” Having deep affection for Karamzin (in St. Petersburg, Karamzin lived for a long time in the Muravyovs’ house), N. M. Muravyov constantly argued with him. His “Thoughts on the “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin” (1818) became widespread in the cultural environment. “Thoughts...” represent a critical analysis of Karamzin’s preface to “The History of the Russian State.” Drafts and numerous extracts testify to Muravyov’s in-depth work on the initial chapters of the “History of the Russian State.” Having conceived a critical analysis of Karamzin’s work, Muravyov first focused on the preface to the first volume, dedicated to the general historical idea and principles of historical description. From the criticism of Karamzin’s views, expressed by him in the preface, Muravyov’s completely finished article was compiled, which was distributed in lists and was promoted by the author himself. Then Muravyov began a detailed analysis of Karamzin’s work in terms of the problem of the origin of the Slavs. This continuation was first published only in 1954 (Lit. inheritance. M., 1954. T. 59. Book I. P. 586--595). Cm.: Medvedeva I. N. Note by Nikita Muravyov “Thoughts on the “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin” (P. 567--580). The task of historical description, Muravyov believes, is not to teach wise reconciliation with imperfect reality, but to awaken civic virtues; history is an eternal struggle between “evil and good,” in which “virtuous citizens” must be united against evil. The guarantee of the future greatness of Russia lies in the freedoms of pre-Rurik Rus'. Muravyov disagreed with Karamzin in his assessment of entire periods of Russia’s historical development. After his appearance as a critic of Karamzin, Muravyov became, as it were, a recognized exponent of the historical thought of the Decembrists. 1 Muravyov speaks about “Russian History from Ancient Times” by M. M. Shcherbatov, published in 1770-1791. and brought by him to the events of 1610, and “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” by V.N. Tatishchev, published in 1768-1784. (after the death of the historian) in three volumes and brought to John III (vol. IV was not yet known to Muravyov until 1577). Both historians did not have at their disposal all the chronicle sources that Karamzin used, and sometimes resorted to dubious lists. 2 Quietism is a religious and ethical teaching that arose in the 17th century, preaching humility, submission, a contemplative, passive attitude towards reality, complete submission to the Divine will. 3 Fabricii - a heroic family from the city of Aletrium, who moved to Rome, probably in 306 BC. e. 4 Antonines - a dynasty of Roman emperors (96-192). 5 See note. 11 on p. 879. 6 Eliogobal (Elagabal, Heliobal) - imperial name Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antony Augustus (204--222), Roman emperor (in 218--222). 7 Tiberius (Tiberius, 42 BC - 37 AD) - Roman emperor (from 14). 8 Caligula (12-41) - Roman emperor (from 37). 9 Caracalla (186--217) - Roman emperor (from 211). 10 Svyatoslav (?--972) - Grand Duke of Kiev. 11 Vladimir (?--1015) - Grand Duke of Kiev (from 980), son of Svyatoslav. 12 John Kalita (?--1340) - Prince of Moscow (from 1325), Grand Duke of Vladimir (from 1328). 13 John III Vasilyevich (1440-1505) - Grand Duke of Moscow (from 1462). 14 Vasily III (1479--1533) - Grand Duke of Moscow (from 1505). He completed the unification of Rus' around Moscow with the annexation of Pskov, Smolensk, and Ryazan. 15 Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible (1530-1584) - Grand Duke of “All Rus'” (from 1538), the first Russian Tsar (from 1547). 16 See note. 7 on p. 1017.17 See note. 7 on p. 876. 18 Horace Quintus Horace Flaccus (65 BC - 8 BC) - Roman poet. 19 Monomakh Vladimir (1053-1125) - Prince of Smolensk (from 1067), Chernigov (from 1078), Pereyaslavl (from 1093), Grand Duke of Kiev (from 1113). 20 Oleg (?--912) - the first historically reliable prince of Kievan Rus. 21 Homer is the legendary ancient Greek epic poet. 22 Sophocles (c. 496-406 BC) - ancient Greek poet-playwright. 23 Phidias (Phidias; early 5th century BC - c. 432-431 BC) - ancient Greek sculptor of the high classical period. 24 David Hume (1711--1776) - English philosopher, historian, economist. 25 King Alfred the Great of England (849-901) became famous not only for the liberation of England from invaders, but also for significant reforms. 26 Muravyov understands Tacitus’s attitude towards the tyranny of the Roman emperor Domitian (51-96) and tyrannical rule in general, which had a detrimental effect on the destinies and morals of the Romans. The historical writings of Tacitus are full of indignation against the destroyers of Rome and admiration for the glorious heroic and civil exploits of the Romans.

December 12, 1766 (family estate Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province (according to other sources - the village of Mikhailovka (now Preobrazhenka), Buzuluk district, Kazan province) - June 03, 1826 (St. Petersburg, Russian Empire)

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 Russian history accessible to a wide readership. Karamzin gave the Russian people the Fatherland in the full sense of the word. They say that, having slammed 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 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 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 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, distinctively 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 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 a clear example of how history should not 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 educate 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.