What did Karamzin say about Russians? Literary and historical notes of a young technician

Why do people need history? This question, in fact, is rhetorical, and the answer to it is easily guessed: by learning from the past, you better understand the present, which means you get the opportunity to foresee the future ... But why, in this case, there are so many different versions of our history, and often polar? Today, on the shelves of bookstores, you can find everything you want: from the works of venerable historians of the 19th century to hypotheses from the series “Russia is the birthplace of elephants” or all kinds of scientific “new chronologies”.

Reading some gives rise to pride in the country and gratitude to the author for immersing himself in beautiful world native antiquity, the appeal to the latter causes, rather, confusion and surprise with an admixture of annoyance (are we really deceived with history all the time?). Living people and their exploits against fantasies and pseudoscientific calculations. Who is right - I do not presume to judge. Which option to read, everyone can choose for himself. But an important conclusion suggests itself: in order to understand what history is for, you must first understand who creates this history and how.

"He saved Russia from the invasion of oblivion"

The first eight volumes of The History of the Russian State were published in early February 1818, and already on February 27, Karamzin wrote to friends: “The last copy was sold off ... In 25 days, 3,000 copies were sold.” Circulation and speed of sale for Russia of those years is unprecedented!

“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 have been found by Karamzin, just as America had been found by Colomb. For some time they didn’t talk about anything else, ”he later recalled Pushkin .

And here is another typical episode for those years. Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, a gambler, a bully, a desperate brave man and a bully, was one of the first to acquire books, locked himself in his office, “read eight volumes of Karamzin in one breath and after that he often said that only from reading Karamzin did he learn what the word Fatherland means ". But this is the same American Tolstoy, who has already proved his love for the Fatherland and patriotism with unparalleled feats on the field of Borodino. Why did Karamzin's "History" hook the reader so much? One of the obvious answers is given by P.A. Vyazemsky: "Karamzin is our Kutuzov of the twelfth year: he saved Russia from the invasion of oblivion, called her to life, showed us that we have a fatherland, as many learned about that in the twelfth year." But attempts to write the history of Russia were made even before Karamzin, but there was no such response. What's the secret? In the author? By the way, they didn’t just ignore him: the historian was praised and scolded, they agreed and argued with him ... What is the only characteristic “extinguisher” given to the historiographer by the future Decembrists. And yet the main thing is that they read it, there were no indifferent people.

“We haven’t had such prose yet!”

Karamzin as a historian could not take place. Thanks to the future director of Moscow University, Ivan Petrovich Turgenev, who saw in the young Simbirsk dandy the future chronicler of Russia, “dissuaded him from scattered secular life and maps” and invited him to live in Moscow. Thanks also to Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov, educator, book publisher, who supported, directed, showed Karamzin other ways in life. He introduced the young man to the philosophical Friendly Society, and when he understood his character and inclinations, he determined to publish (and in fact - to create) a magazine " Children's reading". In an era when children were considered “little adults” and nothing specifically for children was written, Karamzin had to make a revolution - to find the best works of various authors and present them in such a way as to make them useful and intelligible “for the heart and mind” of the child. Who knows, maybe it was then that Karamzin first felt the difficulties of his native literary language.

Our tongue was a heavy caftan And too smelled of antiquity; Karamzin gave a different cut. Let the splits grumble to themselves! Everyone accepted his cut. P. A. Vyazemsky

Such aspirations of the future historian turned out to be especially consonant with Pushkin. The poet, who himself did a lot to make the "cut different" accepted and loved, aptly expressed the essence of the reform: "Karamzin liberated the language from the alien yoke and returned its freedom, turning it to the living sources of the people's word."

The revolution in Russian literature has undoubtedly taken place. And it's not just the language. Every attentive reader must have noticed that, fascinated by reading art book, he willy-nilly begins to empathize with the fate of the heroes, while becoming the acting character of the novel. For such immersion, two conditions are important: the book must be interesting, exciting, and the characters of the novel must be close and understandable to the reader. It is difficult to empathize with the Olympian gods or mythological characters. The heroes of Karamzin's books are simple people, and most importantly, easily recognizable people: a young nobleman traveling around Europe (“Notes of a Russian Traveler”), a peasant girl (“Poor Liza”), a folk heroine of Novgorod history (“Marfa the Posadnitsa”). Having gone headlong into such a novel, the reader, without noticing how, gets into the shoes of the protagonist, and the writer at the same time receives unlimited power over him. Directing the thoughts and actions of book characters, placing them in a situation of moral choice, the author can influence the thoughts and actions of the reader himself, educating the criteria in him. Thus, literature turns from entertainment into something more serious.

“The purpose of literature is to educate in us the inner nobility, the nobility of our soul, and thus remove us from our vices. O people! Bless poetry, for it elevates our spirit and intensifies all our strengths, ”Karamzin dreams of this, creating his first literary masterpieces. But in order to get the right (read: responsibility) to educate his reader, guide him and teach him, the writer himself must become better, kinder, wiser than the one to whom he addresses his lines. At least a little, at least in something ... “If you are going to become an author,” writes Karamzin, “then re-read the book of human suffering and, if your heart does not bleed, throw a pen, otherwise it will portray the cold emptiness of the soul ".

“But this is literature, what does history have to do with it?” - the inquisitive reader will ask. And besides, that all that has been said can equally be attributed to the writing of history. The main condition is that the author must connect an easy literary style, historical authenticity and the great art of "reviving" the past, turning the heroes of antiquity into contemporaries. “It hurts, but it must be fair to say that we still do not have a good Russian history, that is, written with a philosophical mind, with criticism, with noble eloquence,” Karamzin himself wrote. - Tacitus, Hume, Robertson, Gibbon - these are the samples! It is said that our history in itself is less entertaining than others: I don't think so; All you need is intelligence, taste, talent. Karamzin had it all. His "History" is a novel in which real facts and events of Russian life of past times took the place of fiction, and the reader accepted such a replacement, because "for a mature mind, truth has a special charm that is not in fiction." Everyone who loved Karamzin the writer willingly accepted Karamzin the historian.

“I sleep and see Nikon with Nestor”

In 1803, by decree of the emperor Alexander I already known in wide circles, the writer was appointed court historiographer. A new stage in the fate of Karamzin was marked by another event - his marriage to the illegitimate daughter of A. I. Vyazemsky Ekaterina Andreevna Kolyvanova. The Karamzins settled in Ostafyevo, the estate of the Vyazemsky princes near Moscow. It was here, from 1804 to 1816, that the first eight volumes of Russian History would be written.

In Soviet times, the estate building was converted into a holiday home for party workers, and exhibits from the Ostafyev collection were transferred to Moscow and Moscow region museums. Inaccessible to mere mortals, the institution was opened for visiting by everyone once a year, in June, on Pushkin's days. But the rest of the time, the vigilant guards were disturbed by uninvited guests: from different corners countries, grateful people came here, by hook or by crook made their way to the territory in order to “just stand” under the windows of the office in which the history of Russia was “created”. These people seem to be arguing with Pushkin, answering many years later the latter’s bitter reproach against his contemporaries: “No one said thanks to the man who retired to the study at the time of the most flattering successes and devoted twelve whole years of his life to silent and tireless work.”

Pyotr Andreevich Vyazemsky, a future member of the Arzamas brotherhood and friend of Pushkin, was twelve when Karamzin began writing History. The mystery of the birth of "volumes" took place before his eyes and struck the imagination of the young poet. In the historian’s office “there were no cabinets, armchairs, sofas, whatnots, music stands, carpets, pillows,” the prince later recalled. - Desk his was the one that first caught his eye. An ordinary small table made of simple wood, on which in our time even a maid in a decent house would not even want to wash herself, was littered with papers and books. The daily routine was also tough: an early rise, an hour-long walk in the park, breakfast, and then - work, work, work ... Lunch was sometimes postponed until late in the evening, and after that the historiographer still had to prepare for the next day. And all this alone was carried on his shoulders by a middle-aged and not full of health man. “There was no permanent employee even for rough work. There was no scribe ... "

“The notes of Russian History,” Pushkin noted, “testify to Karamzin’s extensive scholarship, acquired by him already in those years when for ordinary people the circle of education and knowledge was long over and chores in the service replace efforts for enlightenment.” Indeed, at thirty-eight, not many will dare to leave the very successful field of a writer and surrender to the vague prospect of writing history. To do this professionally, Karamzin had to quickly become a specialist in many auxiliary historical disciplines: genealogy, heraldry, diplomacy, historical metrology, numismatics, paleography, sphragistics, and chronology. In addition, reading primary sources required a good knowledge of ancient languages: Greek, Old Slavonic - and many new European and Eastern ones.

Searching for sources takes a lot of effort from the historian. Friends and people interested in creating the history of Russia helped: P. M. Stroev, N. P. Rumyantsev, A. N. Musin-Pushkin, K. F. Kalaidovich. Letters, documents, annals were brought to the estate by “carts”. Karamzin was forced to hurry: “It is a pity that I am not younger than ten years. It is unlikely that God will allow me to complete my work ... "God has given -" History "has taken place. After the publication of the first eight books in 1816, the ninth volume appeared in 1821, the tenth and eleventh in 1824; and the twelfth came out posthumously.

"Nutlet did not give up"

These words from last volume, on which death interrupted the work of the historian, can easily be attributed to Karamzin himself. What epithets were later awarded to his "History" by critics: both conservative, and vile, and non-Russian, and unscientific! Did Karamzin foresee such an outcome? Probably yes, and the words of Pushkin, who called Karamzin's work "the feat of an honest man", are not just a compliment to the historian...

To be fair, there were commendable reviews, but that's not the point. Having withstood the harsh judgment of contemporaries and descendants, Karamzin's work convincingly showed: there is no such thing as impersonal, faceless, objective history; What is the Historian, such is History. Questions: Why, How and Who when writing history are inseparable. What the author-Man invests in his work, the reader-Citizen will inherit, the more demanding the author is, the more people's hearts he will be able to awaken. “Count of History” is not a slip of the tongue of an illiterate servant, but a successful and very precise definition aristocratic nature of the "last chronicler" of Russia. But not in the sense of nobility of origin, but in the original sense of the word aristos - “the best”. Become better yourself, and then it will not be so important what comes out from under your hands: the creation will be worthy of the creator, and you will be understood.

“To live is not to write history, not to write tragedies or comedies, but to think, feel and act as best as possible, to love goodness, to rise with the soul to its source; everything else, my dear friend, is a husk: I do not exclude my eight or nine volumes. You must admit that it is strange to hear such words from the lips of a person who has devoted more than twenty years of his life to writing history. But the surprise will pass if you carefully reread both the "History" and the fate of Karamzin, or try to follow his advice: to live, loving the good and exalting in soul.

Literature

N. Eidelman. The last chronicler.
Y. Lotman. Creation of Karamzin.
P. A. Vyazemsky. Old notebook.

Dmitry Zubov

Columbus of Russian history

Pushkin called Karamzin Columbus, who discovered Ancient Rus' for his readers in the same way that the famous traveler discovered America for Europeans. Using this comparison, the poet himself did not assume to what extent it is correct.

We now know that Columbus was not the first European to reach the shores of America, that his very journey was made possible only by the experience accumulated by his predecessors. Calling Karamzin the first Russian historian, one cannot fail to recall the names of Tatishchev, Boltin, Shcherbatov, not to mention a number of publishers of documents that, for all the imperfection of their methods of publication, attracted attention and aroused interest in the past of Russia.

And yet the glory of the discovery of America is rightfully associated with the name of Columbus, and the date of his navigation is one of the decisive milestones in world history. Karamzin had predecessors. But only his "History of the Russian State" became not just another historical work, but the first history of Russia. The discovery of Columbus is an event in world history, not only and not so much because he discovered new lands, but because it turned all the ideas of the inhabitants of Old Europe and changed their way of thinking no less than the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo. Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" not only informed readers of the fruits of many years of research by the historian - it turned the consciousness of the Russian reading society upside down. It was no longer possible to think about the present without connection with the past and without thinking about the future. "The history of the Russian state" was not the only factor that made the consciousness of the people of the XIX century. historical: the war of 1812, Pushkin's work, and the general movement of philosophical thought in Russia and Europe in those years played a decisive role here. But Karamzin's "History" is in the line these events. Therefore, its significance cannot be assessed from any one-sided point of view.

Is Karamzin's "History" a scientific work that creates a complete picture of Russia's past from its first centuries to the eve of the reign of Peter I? - There can be no doubt about that. 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: until the age of thirteen, that is, before I entered the gymnasium, I read it at least twelve times.” Such evidence could be multiplied.

Is Karamzin's "History" the fruit of independent historical research and in-depth study of sources? - And there is no doubt about it: the notes in which Karamzin concentrated the documentary material served as the starting point for a significant number of subsequent historical studies, and until now Russian historians constantly refer to them, never ceasing to be amazed at the enormity of the author's work.

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

Probably, one could point to other connections, from the point of view of some, the “History of the Russian State” is a remarkable phenomenon. But the most important thing is that it does not belong to any of them inseparably: "The History of the Russian State" is a phenomenon of Russian culture in its entirety and should be considered only in this way.

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 his hair as a historian” and did not give up the historian’s pen until his last breath. However, the actual historical

3

Karamzin's interests are rooted in his earlier work. In 1802-1803. In the journal Vestnik Evropy, Karamzin published a number of articles on Russian history. But this is not the very beginning: extracts and preparatory materials on Russian history dating back to the beginning of the century have been preserved. However, it is impossible to see the origins here either. On June 11, 1798, Karamzin sketched out a plan for the "Eulogy to Peter I". Already from this entry it is clear that it was a question of the idea of ​​a vast historical research rather than a rhetorical exercise. The next day, he added the following thought, clearly showing what he expected to devote himself to in the future: “Is Providence spare me; Is there something that is worse for me than death (Karamzin was ill and was afraid of going blind. - Y. L.) ... I'll take up History. I'll start with Gillis; after that I will read Ferguson, Gibbon, Robertson - read with attention and take notes; and there I will take up the ancient Authors, especially Plutarch. This entry testifies to the consciousness of the need to introduce a system into historical studies, which in fact are already going very intensively. It was during these days that Karamzin reads Tacitus, whose opinions he will repeatedly refer to in The History of the Russian State, translates Cicero and Sallust for the Pantheon of Foreign Literature he publishes, and fights against censorship that prohibits ancient historians.

Of course, the idea of ​​devoting oneself undividedly to history is still far from him. Thinking of a word of praise for Peter I, he writes to Dmitriev, not without coquetry: this “requires me to devote three months to reading Russian history and Golikov: hardly a thing possible for me! And there is so much more thought to be done!” . But nevertheless, plans for essays on historical topics constantly arise in the head of the writer.

However, it can be assumed that the roots go even deeper. In the second half of the 1810s. Karamzin sketched "Thoughts for the History of the Patriotic War". Arguing that the geographical position of Russia and France makes it almost unbelievable that they "could directly strike one against the other," 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: "Napoleon's character". One can think that when Karamzin in Frankfurt am Main first heard about the capture of the Bastille by the people of Paris, when later he sat in the hall of the National Assembly and listened to the speakers of the revolution, when he followed all the steps of General Bonaparte to power and listened to the stomp of Napoleon's legions on the roads Europe, he learned the lesson of observing modernity through the eyes of a historian. As a historian, he witnessed the first peals of the revolution in the streets of Paris and the last cannon volleys in the Senate Square on December 14, 1825. He felt early and for the rest of his life that a writer living in a historical era should be a historian.

It is generally accepted that Karamzin's work is divided into two eras: before 1803 Karamzin was a writer, and later a historian. But we had the opportunity to make sure that, on the one hand, Karamzin did not cease to be a writer even after he was awarded a historiographer (A. Bestuzhev, P. Vyazemsky evaluated "History" as an outstanding phenomenon in Russian prose, and this, of course, is true: "History" Karamzin belongs to art to the same extent as, for example, Herzen's Past and Thoughts), and on the other hand, "he got into Russian history up to his ears" long before his official vocation.

However, there are other, more weighty grounds for opposing the two periods of creativity. The comparison itself seems to suggest itself: the main work of the first half of the work is “Letters from a Russian Traveler”, the second is “The History of the Russian State”. The multiple oppositions contained in the titles of these works are so obvious that their intention is not in doubt. First of all: "Russian" - "Russian". Here the opposition is stylistic. The root "rus" (through "y" and with one "s") was perceived as belonging to colloquial speech, and "ross" - to high style. In Lomonosov's odes, the form "Russian" (even Dahl protested against the fact that "Russian" is written with two "s") is never found. It is replaced by the “Russian” form, natural for high style: “Victory, Russian victory!” (“On the Capture of Khotin”), “Show off the light Russian family” (ode 1745), etc. But if “Russian” is a stylistically high synonym for “Russian”, then “Russian” also includes a semantic connotation - it contains semantics statehood. This is how another antithesis arises: a traveler, a private person, and a deliberately private document - letters to friends, on the one hand, and the history of the state - the struggle for power, chronicles - on the other. Finally, behind all this

Quotations that are supposed to confirm the "reactionary" and "nationalism" of the late Karamzin are usually taken from the "Notes on the Ancient and new Russia”, a preface to the History of the Russian State, or from a really colorful episode with the final phrase of the draft manifesto on December 12, 1825, written on behalf of Nicholas I, who ascended the throne (the new tsar rejected Karamzin’s text and published the manifesto in Speransky’s edition): Karamzin expressed at the end of the manifesto, the tsar's desire "to acquire the blessing of God and the love of the Russian people", but Nikolai and Speransky replaced the last expression with "the love of Our peoples".

The point, however, is not in the presence or absence of certain supporting quotations, but in the possibility of giving no less striking examples that refute this scheme. And in the early period, including in the Letters of a Russian Traveler, Karamzin showed himself as a patriot who remained abroad. Russian traveler." Not the late Karamzin, but the author of Letters from a Russian Traveler, wrote the following words: “... The English know the French language, but do not want to speak to them ... What a difference with us! We have anyone who can only say: comment vous portez-vous? unnecessarily distorts the French language so as not to speak Russian with Russian; and in our so-called good company without French you will be deaf and dumb. Aren't you ashamed? How not to have national pride? Why be parrots and monkeys together? Our language and for conversations the right is not worse than others ... ".

At the same time, Karamzin never abandoned the idea of ​​the beneficence of the influence of Western enlightenment on the cultural life of Russia. Already at the end of his days, working on the last volumes of the History, he sympathetically noted the desire of Boris Godunov to destroy the cultural isolation of Russia (this is despite the general negative attitude towards the personality of this tsar!), And about Vasily Shuisky, who tried to establish cultural ties in the fire of state unrest with the West, wrote: “Pleasing the people with his love for the old Russian customs, Vasily did not want, however, to please him, to drive out foreigners: he did not show predilection for them, with whom they reproached Rasstriga and even Godunov, but did not give them offense to the rebellious mob .. . tried to mercy keep all honest Germans in Moscow and in the Tsarist service, both warriors and people of scientists, artists, artisans, loving civic education and knowing that they are needed for his success in Russia; in a word, he had a desire, only did not have time to become an educator of the fatherland ... and in what a century! under what terrible circumstances! (XII, 42-44).

The reproaches that Karamzin made against Peter I during this period did not concern Europeanization itself, but its despotic methods and the tyrannical interference of the tsar in the private lives of his subjects - an area that Karamzin always considered seized

"History of the Russian State" puts the reader in front of a number of paradoxes. First of all, I must say about the title of this work. On its title is "the history of the state." On the basis of this, Karamzin began to be defined as a "statesman" (may the reader forgive us for this strange word used by some authors!). It is enough to compare Karamzin's "History" with the works of the researchers of the so-called "state school" B.N. questions of the administrative-legal structure, the organization of class institutions, i.e., the problems of the formal-state structure of society, which so occupied the "state school". Moreover, the initial premises of Karamzin and the "state school" are directly opposite: according to Chicherin, the state is an administrative and legal apparatus that determines the life of peoples; it is it, and not individual persons, that acts in history; history is the history of state institutions: “The state is called upon to implement the supreme principles human life; it, as an independent person, plays a world-historical role, participates in deciding the fate of mankind. This formulation removes the question of the moral responsibility of the individual as historical phenomenon. He is simply out of history. For Karamzin, he always remained the main one. In order to understand what Karamzin understood by the state, it is necessary, if necessary, briefly to consider the general nature of his worldview.

Karamzin's views were deeply imprinted by the four years he spent in the circle of N. I. Novikov. From here, young Karamzin endured utopian aspirations, faith in progress and dreams of the coming human brotherhood under the guidance of wise mentors. Reading Plato, Thomas More and Mabley also supported the belief that " Utopia(Karamzin made a note to this word: “Or Kingdom of Happiness Morus' writings. - Y. L.) will always be the dream of a good heart ... ". Sometimes these dreams seriously took possession of Karamzin's imagination. In 1797, he wrote to A. I. Vyazemsky: “You grant me a patent in advance for the right to citizenship in the future Utopia. I playfully sometimes engage in such plans and, having fired up my imagination, I enjoy in advance the perfection of human bliss. Utopia was conceived by Karamzin in this period in the guise of Plato's Republic as an ideal kingdom of virtue, subject to the strict regulation of wise philosophers-chiefs.

However, this ideal early began to undermine skeptical doubts. Karamzin emphasized many times later, “that Plato himself felt the impossibility of her (the blessed republic. - Y. L.)" . In addition, Karamzin was attracted by another ideal, rooted in the writings of Voltaire, whose strong influence he experienced during these years: not severe asceticism, the rejection of luxury, art, industrial success for the sake of equality and civic virtues, but the flourishing of the arts, the progress of civilization, humanity and tolerance, ennoblement of human emotions. Following the Mably dilemma, Karamzin was torn between Sparta and Athens. If in the first case he was attracted by the harsh poetry of ancient heroism, then in the second he was attracted by the flourishing of the arts, the cult of graceful love, the subtle and educated women's society, beauty as a source of goodness. But the bitter aftertaste of skepticism soon began to be added to both hopes, and it is not by chance that the door

True, when publishing this passage in 1792, Karamzin added a skeptical ending: “A dream!” (“dream” is used here in the Church Slavonic meaning of the word: “empty imagination, vision of a thing without its being”), but at that time his moods were exactly like that. Utopian hopes and philanthropic aspirations seized him, and it was not by chance that, having learned in Frankfurt am Main about the taking of the Bastille, he rushed to read Schiller's The Fiesco Conspiracy in Genoa, and in Paris reread Mably and Thomas More.

7

But at the same time, one feature must be emphasized: Utopia for him is not the realm of certain political or public relations, and the realm of virtue; a radiant future depends on the high morality of the people, and not on politics. Virtue generates freedom and equality, and not freedom and equality - virtue. Karamzin treated any form of politics with distrust.

In this regard, the meetings of the National Assembly taught Karamzin important lessons. He heard Mirabeau's stormy speeches about what Karamzin was keenly worried about: religious tolerance, the connection between despotism and aggression, the abuses of feudalism, and listened to his opponent, Abbe Maury. Even in the careful wording of 1797: "Our traveler is present at noisy disputes in the National Assembly, admires the talents of Mirabeau, pays tribute to the eloquence of his opponent, Abbé Maury ..." - the preference for the first is evident. There can be no doubt that the abbot's defense of the historical rights of the Catholic Church (in response to this, Mirabeau pathetically evoked the shadows of the victims of the Bartholomew night) and the feudal order did not arouse any sympathy in Karamzin. But it was here that he had the most important idea that the truth of words is given only by their correspondence to the inner world of the one who pronounces them. Otherwise, any truths turn into "phrases" so hated by Karamzin in the future. Mirabeau's speeches made Karamzin feel the "great talent" of the orator and, no doubt, excited him. But he could not forget that the orator himself was a descendant of an ancient family, a marquis, an unprincipled adventurer who occupied a luxurious mansion and led a stormy life, the scandalous details of which Karamzin had heard back in Lyon. Mirabeau bore little resemblance to the heroes of ancient virtue, from whose severe patriotism one could expect the transformation of France into the Republic of Plato. But his opponent was no better: the son of a poor Huguenot shoemaker, devoured by ambition, striving to achieve the hat of a cardinal at any cost, the gifted but unprincipled Maury renounced the faith of his fathers, family and relatives, went over to the camp of enemies and became their tribune, demonstrating at the National assembly eloquence, intelligence and cynicism.

Much later, Karamzin wrote down the thoughts that first flashed through his mind, perhaps in the hall of the National Assembly: “Aristocrats, Democrats, Liberalists, Servilists! Who among you can boast of sincerity? You are all Augurs, and you are afraid to look into each other's eyes, lest you die of laughter. Aristocrats, Servilists want the old order: because it is beneficial for them. Democrats, Liberalists want a new disorder: because they hope to use it for their own personal gain.

Karamzin, who valued only sincerity and moral qualities politicians, singled out from among the speakers of the Assembly short-sighted and devoid of artistry, but already acquired the nickname "incorruptible" Robespierre, the very shortcomings of whose oratory seemed to him virtues. Robespierre believed in Utopia, avoided theatrical gestures and identified morality with revolution. The clever cynic Mirabeau threw about him with a characteristic touch of contempt: "He will go far because he believes in what he says" (for Mirabeau this was evidence of mental limitation).

Karamzin chose Robespierre. The Decembrist Nikolai Turgenev, who spoke more than once with Karamzin, recalled: “Robespierre inspired him with reverence<...>in his old age, he continued to speak of him with respect, marveling at his disinterestedness, the seriousness and firmness of his character, and even his modest household routine, which, according to Karamzin, contrasted with the way of life of people of that era.

The oft-repeated claims that Karamzin was "frightened" of blood need to be clarified. The fact that the triumph of Reason resulted in bitter enmity and mutual bloodshed was an unexpected and cruel blow for all the Enlighteners, and Radishchev suffered from this no less than Schiller or Karamzin. However, we recall that in 1798, sketching out a plan for a eulogy to Peter I, Karamzin wrote: “Justification of some cruelties. Always kindness of heart is incompatible with greatness of spirit. Les grands hommes ne que le tout. But sometimes sensitivity also triumphed. It should not be forgotten that Karamzin looked at events through the eyes of a contemporary and an eyewitness, and much seemed to him in a perspective that was unexpected for us. He did not identify the sans-culottes and the convention, the street and the tribune, Marat and Robespierre, and saw them as opposing

Now Karamzin is attracted by a realist politician. The stamp of rejection has been removed from the policy. Karamzin begins publishing Vestnik Evropy, the first political magazine in Russia.

On the pages of Vestnik Evropy, skillfully using foreign sources, selecting translations (sometimes quite freely) in such a way as to express his 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 man”. Selfishness turns the lofty ideal of the republic into an unattainable dream: “Without lofty popular virtue, the Republic cannot stand. That is why monarchical government is much happier and more reliable: it does not require extraordinary things from citizens and can rise to that degree of morality at which Republics fall. Bonaparte seems to Karamzin to be that strong realist ruler who builds the management system not on "dreamy" theories, but on the real level of people's morality. He is out of parties. “Bonaparte does not imitate the Directory, does not seek the alliance of this or that party, but puts himself above them and chooses only capable people preferring sometimes a former nobleman and royalist to a sincere republican, sometimes a republican royalist. Bonaparte is so loved and so needed for the happiness of France that one madman can rebel against his beneficent power. Defining the consulate as a "true monarchy", Karamzin emphasizes that the non-hereditary nature of Bonaparte's power and the way he seized it is fully justified by the beneficent nature of his policy: "Bonaparte is not a thief" of power, and history "will not call him by that name". “Royalists must remain silent. They did not know how to save their good king, they did not want to die with weapons in their hands, but they only want to revolt the minds of weak people with vile slander. "France is not ashamed to obey Napoleon Bonaparte when she obeyed Madame Pompadour and Du Barry." "We do not know the ancestors of the consul, but we know him - and that's enough".

It is curious to note that, following his political concept, Karamzin highly appreciates Boris Godunov during this period, and in words reminiscent of the characteristics of the first consul: “Boris Godunov was one of those people who create their own brilliant destiny and prove the miraculous power of Nature. His family did not have any celebrity. In the future, we will touch on the reasons for changing this assessment in the "History".

The fact that heredity was not a significant factor for Karamzin during these years is evidenced by the persistent opposition on the pages of Vestnik to an energetic non-hereditary dictator negative image weak, albeit kind, hereditary monarch, embraced by liberal ideas. Playing on his metaphysical speculations, cunning nobles create an oligarchic rule (this is how Sultan Selim is portrayed; describing the Pasvan-Oglu rebellion, Karamzin, under the guise of a translation, creates his own text, deeply different from the original). Behind these characters, a clear opposition arises for contemporaries: Bonaparte - Alexander I. Later it will be directly expressed in the “Note on Ancient and New Russia”.

But in 1803, at the very time when desperate disputes boiled over Karamzin's language reform, he himself was already thinking more broadly. The reform of the language was intended to make the Russian reader "communal", civilized and humane. Now Karamzin faced another task - to make him a citizen. And for this, Karamzin believed, it is necessary that he had a history of their country. Gotta make it man of history. That is why Karamzin "brought his hair into the historians."

Indeed: in the field of a poet, prose writer, journalist, one could already reap the fruits of long previous labors - in the field of a historian, one had to start all over again, master methodological skills, study at almost forty years as a student. But Karamzin saw it as his duty, his tonsure. The state has no history until the historian told the state about its history. Giving readers the history of Russia, Karamzin gave Russia a history. If the young employees of Alexander hastily sought to look into the future with reform plans, Karamzin opposed them with a look into the past as the basis for the future.

10

Once in St. Petersburg, on the Fontanka, in the house of E. F. Muravyova, Karamzin read excerpts from the History to close friends. Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev wrote about this to his brother Sergei: “Yesterday Karamzin read us the conquest of Novgorod and once again his preface. Right there is no historian equal to him among the living<...>His History cannot be compared with any, because he adapted it to Russia, that is, it poured out from materials and sources, completely its own special national character having. Not only will this be the true beginning of our literature; but its history will serve us as a cornerstone for Orthodoxy, public education, monarchical feeling and, God willing, a possible Russian constitution (emphasized by A. I. Turgenev. - Y. L.). It will unite our concepts of Russia, or better give us them. We will learn what we were, how we passed to the present status quo, and what we can be without resorting to violent transformations.

The views of A. I. Turgenev, an Arzamasian and Karamzinist, an eclecticist out of kindness and an amateurish assistant to Karamzin (A. Turgenev went through his historical studies in Göttingen under the guidance of Schlozer, and Karamzin had no historical education), did not completely coincide with Karamzin’s, and Karamzin is unlikely would put his signature under this letter. But one thing Turgenev learned firmly: a look into the future must be based on knowledge of the past.

The turbulent events of the past Karamzin had a chance to describe in the midst of the turbulent events of the present. On the eve of 1812, Karamzin was working on Volume VI of the History, completing the end of the 15th century. Napoleon's approach to Moscow interrupted classes. Karamzin "sent his wife and children to Yaroslavl with the belly princess Vyazemskaya", and he himself moved to Sokolniki, to the house of his relative by his first wife, Count. FV Rostopchina, closer to the source of the news. He led Vyazemsky, Zhukovsky, the young historian Kalaidovich into the army, and he himself was preparing to join the Moscow militia. He wrote to Dmitriev: “I also said goodbye to History: I gave the best and complete copy of it to my wife, and the other to the Archives of the Foreign Collegium.” Although he is 46 years old, but he "hurts from afar look at the decisive events for our fatherland. He is ready to "mount his gray horse." However, fate prepares something else for him: departure to his family in Nizhny Novgorod, the death of his son, the death of all property in Moscow and, especially, the precious library. He writes to Dmitriev: “My entire library turned to ashes, but the story is intact: Camões saved, Lusiada” .

The subsequent years in burned-out Moscow were difficult and sad, but work on the History continues. By 1815, Karamzin had completed eight volumes, written the "Introduction" and decided to go to St. Petersburg to obtain permission and funds to print what had been written.

New difficulties awaited Karamzin in Petersburg. The historian was enthusiastically greeted by young Karamzinists-Arzamas, he was warmly received by Tsarina Elizaveta Alekseevna, smart and educated, sick and actually abandoned by Alexander I; Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, Grand Duchess. But Karamzin was waiting for something else - an audience with the tsar, who was supposed to decide the fate of the "History". But the king did not accept, "strangled on roses." On March 2, 1816, Karamzin wrote to his wife: “Yesterday, speaking with V.<еликой>To.<нягиней>Ekaterina Pavlovna, I just did not tremble with indignation at the thought that I was kept here in a useless, almost insulting way. "If they do not honor me contemplation, then we must forget Petersburg: we will prove that in Russia there is a noble and God-friendly pride. Finally, Karamzin was given to understand that the tsar would not accept him until the historiographer paid a visit to the all-powerful Arakcheev. Karamzin hesitated (“Won’t they conclude that I’m a creep and a vile seeker? It seems better not to go,” he wrote to his wife) and set off only after urgent requests from Arakcheev, so that the trip acquired the character of a visit of secular courtesy, and not walking petitioner. Not Karamzin, but Arakcheev felt flattered. After that, the king received the historiographer, graciously granted 60,000 for the printing of history, allowing it to be published without censorship. I had to print in St. Petersburg. We had to move there with the whole family. For Karamzin, a new period of life began.

At the beginning of 1818, 3,000 copies of the first eight volumes were published. Despite the fact that the circulation was huge at that time, the publication sold out in 25 days, and a second edition was immediately required, which was taken over by the bookseller Slyonin. The appearance of the "History of the Russian State" became a social event. There were few responses in the press:

11

Kachenovsky's criticism of the preface and Artsybashev's petty remarks would have passed unnoticed if the Karamzinists had not responded to them with an explosion of epigrams. However, in letters, conversations, manuscripts not intended for publication, "History" for a long time remained the main subject of controversy. In Decembrist circles, she was met critically. M. Orlov reproached Karamzin for the lack of hypotheses flattering to the patriotic feeling regarding the beginning of Russian history (the skeptical school will reproach the historian for the opposite). The most thorough analysis of Nikita Muravyov, who criticized Karamzin's attitude to the historical role of the autocracy. Griboedov, in his travel notes of 1819, observing despotism in Iran, wrote: “Slaves, my dear! And serve them right! Do they dare to condemn their supreme owner?<...>They also have panegyric historians.” Comparing the actions of despotism in Iran and in his homeland, Griboyedov in his last words, of course, was thinking about Karamzin. However, all those who attacked the "History" - from the right and from the left - were already its readers, they condemned the author, but built their own conclusions on his material. Moreover, it was the fact of the appearance of the "History" that influenced the course of their thought. Now not a single thinking person in Russia could think outside the general perspectives of Russian history.

And Karamzin went further. He worked on the IX, X and XI volumes of "History" - the time of the oprichnina, Boris Godunov and the Time of Troubles. And this second half of his work differs markedly from the first. It was in these volumes that Karamzin reached an unsurpassed height as a prose writer: this is evidenced by the power of delineation of characters, the energy of narration. But this is not the only thing that distinguishes Karamzin as a historian of the last, "Petersburg" period of his activity. Until now, Karamzin believed that the successes of centralization, which he associated with the formation of the autocratic power of the princes of Moscow, were at the same time the successes of civilization. During the reign of Ivan III and Vasily Ivanovich, not only the statehood was strengthened, but also the original Russian culture achieved success. At the end of volume VII, in a review of the culture of the 15th-16th centuries, Karamzin noted with satisfaction the emergence 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 writings, but also in novels; loved works of wit and imagination” (VII, 139). The reign of Ivan the Terrible presented the historian with a difficult situation: the strengthening of centralization and autocratic power led not to progress, but to monstrous abuses of despotism.

Moreover, Karamzin could not fail to note the decline in morality and the devastating impact of the reign of Ivan the Terrible on the moral future of Russia. Grozny, he writes, “boasted of justice”, “deep wisdom of the state”, “touching the most future times with a destructive hand: for a cloud of informers, slanderers, Kromeshnikov, formed by him, like a cloud of smooth-bearing insects, having disappeared, left an evil seed among the people; and if the yoke of Baty’s humiliated the spirit of the Russians, then undoubtedly the reign of John did not exalt it ”(IX, 260). In essence, Karamzin approached one of the most difficult questions of Russian history in the 16th century. All historians who straightforwardly recognized the strengthening of statehood as the main historically progressive feature of the epoch found themselves fatally faced with the need to justify the oprichnina and the terror of Grozny as a historical necessity. In the heat of the controversy with the Slavophiles, Belinsky spoke out like this, and K. D. Kavelin already unconditionally justified all the actions of Grozny. Proceeding from the idea of ​​the progressiveness of the "state principles" in their struggle against the "tribal way of life", S. M. Solovyov also approached this position. S. F. Platonov wrote about the direction of Grozny's terror against the historically doomed landownership of the former specific princes. P. A. Sadikov also stood in the position of searching for a socially progressive meaning in the oprichnina and the executions of Grozny. This tradition received an odious continuation in the historical and artistic works of the 1940s-1950s, expressed in the exclamation that Ivan the Terrible threw from the screen in Eisenstein's film: "There are no people condemned in vain!" The source of the idealization of Grozny in the texts of these years is obvious. N. K. Cherkasov in his book “Notes of a Soviet Actor” (M., 1953, p. 380) recalled the conversation of I. V. Stalin with Eisenstein and himself as the performer of the role of the Terrible: “Regarding the mistakes of Ivan the Terrible, Iosif Vissarionovich noted that one of his mistakes was that he failed to liquidate the five remaining large feudal families, did not complete the fight against the feudal lords - if he did this, then there would be no troubled time in Russia<...>And then Iosif Vissarionovich added with humor that God prevented Ivan here: “The Terrible liquidates one family of feudal lords, one boyar clan, and then repents and atones for “sins” for a whole year, while he should have acted even more decisively!”

Karamzin stopped in perplexity before the contradiction between the strengthening of state consolidation and the transformation of the pathology of the tsar's personality into a tragedy of the people and,

12

unconditionally justifying the first trend, categorically condemned the second. He did not try to find a state sense in the terror of Grozny. And if Pogodin acted as Karamzin's successor in this regard, Kavelin and many subsequent historians declared Karamzin's view of Grozny obsolete. The objective and insightful historian S. B. Veselovsky reacted differently to Karamzin’s concept of the Terrible: “It is a great merit of N. M. Karamzin that he, talking about the reign of Ivan IV, about his disgrace and execution, about the oprichnina in particular, did not fantasize and did not pretend to broad generalizations of a sociological nature. As a chronicler, he calmly and accurately reported a huge number of facts that he first extracted from archival and library primary sources. If, in assessing Tsar Ivan and his policies, Karamzin moralizes and assumes the role of a judge, then his presentation is so clear and conscientious that we can easily isolate the valuable information he provides from the story and reject the author’s Tacitus approach to historical events.

It should be noted that the Decembrists supported Karamzin's concept, and the attitude of progressive circles towards the History changed dramatically after the appearance of Volume IX. Ryleev wrote: “Well, Grozny! Well, Karamzin! I don’t know what is more surprising, whether the tyranny of John or the talent of our Tacitus. Mikhail Bestuzhev in the fortress, having received Volume IX, "re-read - and read again every page."

Clearly realizing that oral reading would have a much greater resonance than a book publication, Karamzin, leaving the role of an impartial observer of the present, several times gave public readings of excerpts from Volume IX. A. I. Turgenev described his impression of one of these readings as follows: “A truly formidable Tyrant, such as no nation has ever had, either in antiquity or in our time, this John is presented to us with the greatest fidelity and as if Russian, and not Roman tyrant." When Karamzin decided to read an excerpt about the executions of Grozny at the Shishkov Academy, where he was elected a member, Shishkov was mortally frightened. Karamzin wrote about this to P. A. Vyazemsky: “I want to read a few pages about the horrors of the Ioannovs at the solemn meeting of the notorious Russian Academy: the president considered it necessary to report this through the minister to the Sovereign!” . It should be borne in mind that this letter was written at a time when relations between Karamzin and Alexander I became extremely tense. On December 29, 1819, Karamzin wrote a note “For posterity”, in which he outlined his conversation with the emperor on October 17, when he told the tsar something that probably no one had ever told him: “Sir, you are too proud ... I don’t I'm afraid of nothing. We are all equal before God. What I said to you, I would say to your father... Sir, I despise the one-day liberalists, I love only freedom, which no tyrant can take away from me... I no longer ask for your favor. Maybe I'm talking to you last time» .

With such sentiments, Karamzin went to the readings at the Russian Academy. This is what Metropolitan Filaret recalled 48 years later: “The reader and the reading were attractive: but what was being read was scary. I wondered then whether history had not fulfilled its duty sufficiently if it had well illuminated the best part of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, and covered the other part more with shadow than with many gloomy sharp features that are hard to see, put on the name of the Russian Tsar. The Decembrist Lorer told in his memoirs that he led. Prince Nikolai Pavlovich, looking from the window of the Anichkov Palace at the historiographer walking along the Nevsky, asked: “Is this Karamzin? A scoundrel, without whom the people would not have guessed that there are tyrants among kings. This news is anecdotal: Karamzin and Nikolai Pavlovich met back in 1816, and their relationship had a completely different character. But anecdotes are also important for the historian: in the Decembrist folklore, Karamzin, the author of Volume IX, and Nikolai Pavlovich were imprinted as polar opposites.

The clash with disharmony between statehood and morality apparently shocked Karamzin himself, and this was reflected in the strengthening of the moral pathos of the last volumes. Particularly interesting is the example of metamorphosis in Boris Godunov's assessment. Both in "Letters of a Russian Traveler" and in "Historical Memoirs and Notes on the Way to the Trinity" Karamzin calls Boris Godunov a Russian Cromwell, i.e., a regicide, although in "Historical Memoirs ..." he stipulates that his participation in the death of Demetrius was not proven . Nevertheless, the characterization of Godunov in "Historical Memoirs ..." -

So, the importance of "royal merits" comes first. Moral infallibility is, as it were, its consequence. In the "History" the ratio changes, and the criminal conscience renders useless all the efforts of the statesman's mind. The immoral cannot be useful to the state.

This note resounds insistently in the last volumes of the History. The pages dedicated to the reign of Boris Godunov and the Time of Troubles belong to the heights of Karamzin's historical painting, and it is no coincidence that they inspired Pushkin to create Boris Godunov.

Karamzin of recent years persistently repeats that moral perfection is a matter of personal efforts and personal conscience of an individual, independent of those incomprehensible and tragic paths along which Providence leads peoples, and, therefore, is accomplished outside the course of state development.

On December 5, 1818, Karamzin delivered a speech at a solemn meeting of the Russian Academy (the speech was written earlier, in the fall, at the very time when the historian noted: “I am describing the villainy of Ivashka”). Here, for the first time, he sharply contrasted the state and morality, “power” and “soul”: “Is it for this that Powers on the globe are formed, for that they ascend, to only amaze us with a formidable colossus of power and its resounding fall; so that one, overthrowing the other, after several centuries would serve as its vast grave instead of the footstool of a new State, which in its turn will inevitably fall? No! and our life and the life of Empires should contribute to the disclosure of the great abilities of the human soul; here everything is for the soul, everything is for the mind and feelings; everything is immortal in their successes! This thought, in the midst of graves and corruption, consoles us with some great consolation. Even earlier, in 1815, after burying his daughter Natasha, Karamzin wrote to A. I. Turgenev: “ Live there is not to write history, not to write tragedies or comedies, but to think, feel and act as best as possible, to love the good, to elevate the soul to its source; everything else, my dear friend, is a husk - I do not exclude my eight or nine volumes.

These sentiments are connected with Karamzin's obvious disappointment in the work to which he devoted 23 years of continuous work. It is even more striking that he, who put “the history of the state” on the title, does not want to write about the period when the state achieves great success and really becomes at the center of historical life - about the period of Peter I. Apparently, even the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich does not attract him. The uprising of the Decembrists and the death of Alexander made it necessary for him to rethink his historical concept, for which he no longer had the strength. It is no coincidence that one of the Karamzinists called the uprising on Senate Square an armed criticism of the History of the Russian State.

Karamzin writes on the last day of 1825 that he is seriously thinking about retirement and life in Moscow or serving in a diplomatic mission abroad, “but first I would like to publish a hefty volume of my historical poem” (“heavy” - the twelfth volume - is dedicated to the Time of Troubles and, apparently, it was supposed to end with the election of Mikhail Romanov; since at the end Karamzin wanted to say “something” about Alexander, then, obviously, the “History” would have ended with this) . And a few weeks later, informing Vyazemsky about his overwhelming thirst for travel, Karamzin writes: “I could not have returned to my previous studies if I had recovered here.”

Death, which interrupted the work on the "historical poem", decided all the issues.

Karamzin's merits in discovering new sources, creating big picture Russian history, the combination of scientific commentary with the literary merits of the narrative are not in doubt. However, the scientific achievements of the historian began to be challenged early. The first critics of Karamzin the historian, Kachenovsky and Artsybashev, reproached him for insufficient criticism. But since the theoretical positions of the critics themselves (the denial of the possibility of the existence of Russian culture and statehood before the 13th century, the denial of the authenticity of a number of indisputably original texts of the 11th-12th centuries, etc.) soon lost their credibility, their objections shook Karamzin’s scientific authority and forced professional historians talk about its "obsolescence". The first step in this direction was made by Nikolai Polevoy, and then historians of subsequent schools and trends spoke about it from different positions. There was a lot of scientific truth in this criticism. However, the very fact that each new trend, before formalizing its scientific position, must overthrow Karamzin, speaks best of all of the place that, in spite of everything, he occupied in Russian historical science. They don’t argue with the unnecessary, they don’t refute the petty, they don’t compete with the dead. And the fact that Polevoy, S. Solovyov, Klyuchevsky created works that "cancel" Karamzin's "History", that the pinnacle of the historian's work has traditionally begun to be seen as a holistic experience of the history of Russia, is more eloquent than any reasoning.

Starting with N. Polevoy, Karamzin is presented with one main reproach: the lack of a “higher” (Polevoi) or philosophical, as they began to say later, view, empiricism, emphasizing the role of individuals and a lack of understanding of the spontaneous work of historical laws. If the criticism that Karamzin the historian P. Milyukov subjects to is striking in its bias and some kind of personal irritation, then the modern reader can only join the words of V. O. Klyuchevsky: “... K<арамзина>surrounded by a special moral atmosphere: these are abstract concepts of duty, honor, good, evil, passion, vice, virtue<...>TO<арамзин>does not look behind the historical scenes, does not follow historical connection cause and effect, even seems to have no clear idea of ​​the action of what historical forces the historical process is composed of and how they act.

Indeed, the idea of ​​history as a field of action of certain regularities began to take shape in the 1830s. and was alien to Karamzin. The idea of ​​historical regularity brought about a genuine revolution in science, which gives certain grounds for ascribing everything that preceded it to the pre-scientific period. However, where there are gains, there are losses. Starting with Polevoy, Kavelin, S. Solovyov, the historian could no longer evade the creation of an organizing concept. And this began to give rise to the desire to neglect the facts that do not fit into the concept ... And the somewhat grouchy words of Acad. S. B. Veselovsky contain much more truth than Milyukov’s assertion that Karamzin had no influence on historical science. S. B. Veselovsky wrote: “There is no need to talk and argue that Karamzin, as a historian, is outdated in many respects, but due to his conscientiousness as an author and invariable restraint in assumptions and conjectures, he still remains a model beyond the reach of many subsequent historians, in whom the disdain for facts, the unwillingness to look for them in sources and process them, are combined with self-conceit and with constant claims to broad and premature generalizations not based on facts. Indeed, if many of Karamzin's ideas are outdated, then he himself, as an example of scientific honesty, a high sense of professional responsibility to the truth, remains a noble example.

Finally, the “moral atmosphere” that Klyuchevsky writes about is also not only a sign of the archaism of Karamzin’s outdated methods, but also a source of charm, a special charm of his creation. No one will call for a return to moralizing and the “moral lessons” of history, but the view of history as a faceless automatic process operating with a fatal determination of a chemical reaction is also outdated, and questions of human moral responsibility and the moral meaning of history turn out to be decisive not only for the past but also for the future of historical science. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the "return" of Karamzin the historian.

But the "History of the Russian State" should also be considered in a number of works

And one of the last papers written by his hand ends: “Greetings to posterity from the coffin!” .

This edition is a sign that these words have reached the addressee. Karamzin returns.

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)

December 12 (December 1, according to the old style), 1766, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born - Russian writer, poet, editor of the Moscow Journal (1791-1792) and the Vestnik Evropy magazine (1802-1803), honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences ( 1818), full member of the Imperial Russian Academy, historian, the first and only court historiographer, one of the first reformers of the Russian literary language, the founding father of Russian historiography and Russian sentimentalism.

Contribution of N.M. Karamzin in Russian culture can hardly be overestimated. 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 XIX century - the "golden" age of Russian poetry, literature, historiography, source studies and other humanitarian areas of scientific research. knowledge. Thanks to linguistic searches aimed at popularizing the literary language of poetry and prose, Karamzin presented Russian literature to his contemporaries. And if Pushkin is “our everything”, then Karamzin can be safely called “our everything” with the capital letter. Without him, Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Baratynsky, Batyushkov and other poets of the so-called "Pushkin galaxy" would hardly have been possible.

“Whatever you turn to in our literature, Karamzin laid the foundation for everything: journalism, criticism, a story, a novel, a historical story, publicism, the study of history,” V.G. Belinsky.

"History of the Russian State" N.M. Karamzin became not just the first Russian-language book on the history of Russia, available to the general reader. Karamzin gave the Russian people Fatherland in the full sense of the word. They say that, slamming the eighth, last volume, Count Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!” And he was not alone. All his contemporaries suddenly found out that they live in a country with a thousand-year history and they have something to be proud of. Before that, it was believed that before Peter I, who opened a “window to Europe”, there was nothing in Russia worthy of attention: the dark ages of backwardness and barbarism, boyar autocracy, primordially Russian laziness and bears on the streets ...

Karamzin's multi-volume work was not completed, but, having been published in the first quarter of the 19th century, he completely determined the historical self-consciousness of the nation for many years to come. All subsequent historiography could not give rise to anything more in line with the “imperial” self-consciousness that had developed under the influence of Karamzin. Karamzin's views left a deep, indelible mark on all areas of Russian culture of the 19th-20th centuries, forming the foundations of the national mentality, which ultimately determined the 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, 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, in many respects remained jingoistic and sentimental in Karamzin's way.

N.M. Karamzin - early years

N.M. Karamzin was born on December 12 (1st century), 1766, in the village of Mikhailovka, Buzuluk district, Kazan province (according to other sources, in the family estate of Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province). About him early years little is known: there are no letters, no diaries, no memories of Karamzin himself about his childhood. He did not even know exactly his year of birth and for almost his entire life he believed that he was born in 1765. Only in his old age, having discovered the documents, he “looked younger” by one year.

The future historiographer grew up in the estate of his father, retired captain Mikhail Egorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), a middle-class Simbirsk nobleman. He received a good education at home. In 1778 he was sent to Moscow to the boarding house of professor of Moscow University I.M. Shaden. At the same time he attended lectures at the university in 1781-1782.

After graduating from the boarding school, in 1783 Karamzin joined 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 "Wooden Leg".

In 1784, Karamzin retired as a lieutenant and never served again, which was perceived in the then society 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", 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 was connected with N. I. Pleshcheeva by a tender platonic friendship. In Moscow, Karamzin publishes his first translations, in which interest in European and Russian history is clearly visible: Thomson's The Four Seasons, Janlis's Village 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 hardly noticed it.

Travel to Europe

According to many biographers, Karamzin was not disposed towards the mystical side of Freemasonry, remaining a supporter of its active educational direction. To be more precise, by the end of the 1780s, Karamzin had already “been ill” with Masonic mysticism in its Russian version. Possibly, 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 "rulers of minds": I. Kant, J. 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 in the National Assembly, saw many prominent political figures and was familiar with many. Apparently, the revolutionary Paris of 1789 showed Karamzin how much a person can be influenced by the word: printed, when Parisians read pamphlets and leaflets with keen interest; oral, when revolutionary orators spoke and controversy arose (experience that could not be acquired at that time in Russia).

Karamzin did not have a very enthusiastic opinion about English parliamentarism (perhaps following in the footsteps of Rousseau), but he highly valued the level of civilization at which English society as a whole was located.

Karamzin - journalist, publisher

In the autumn 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 printed, telling about the revolutionary events in France, the story "Liodor", "Poor Lisa" , "Natalia, Boyar's Daughter", "Flor Silin", essays, short stories, critical articles and poems. Karamzin attracted the entire literary elite of that time to cooperate in the journal: his friends Dmitriev and Petrov, Kheraskov and Derzhavin, Lvov, Neledinsky-Meletsky, and others. Karamzin's articles asserted a new literary trend - sentimentalism.

The Moscow Journal had only 210 regular subscribers, but for the end of the 18th century it was the same as a hundred thousand circulation at the end of the 19th century. Moreover, the magazine was read by those who “made the weather” in the literary life of the country: students, officials, young officers, petty employees of various government agencies (“archival youths”).

After the arrest of Novikov, the authorities became seriously interested in the publisher of the Moscow Journal. During interrogations in the Secret Expedition, they ask: did Novikov send the “Russian traveler” abroad with a “special assignment”? The Novikovites were people of high decency 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 Aonides (1796-1799). In 1793, when the Jacobin dictatorship was established at the third stage of the French Revolution, shocking Karamzin with its cruelty, Nikolai Mikhailovich abandoned some of his former views. The dictatorship aroused in him serious doubts about the possibility of mankind to achieve prosperity. He sharply condemned the revolution and all violent ways of transforming society. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the stories "Bornholm Island" (1793); "Sierra Morena" (1795); poems "Melancholy", "Message to A. A. Pleshcheev", etc.

During this period, real literary fame comes to Karamzin.

Fedor Glinka: “Out of 1200 cadets, a rare one did not repeat by heart any page from the Island of Bornholm”.

The name Erast, previously completely unpopular, is increasingly found in noble lists. There are rumors of successful and unsuccessful suicides in the spirit Poor Lisa. The venomous 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 wilderness of the steppe, robbers attacked him. Karamzin miraculously escaped, having received two light 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 seriously thought about the present and future of Russian literature. He writes to a friend: “I am deprived of the pleasure of reading a lot on mother tongue. 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 was one of the first to understand that it was not about talent - there are no fewer talents in Russia than in any other country. It’s just that Russian literature can’t move away from the long-obsolete traditions of classicism, laid down 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 "three calms" he created, met the tasks of the transition period from ancient to new literature. A complete rejection of the use of the usual Church Slavonicisms in the language was then still premature and inappropriate. But the evolution of the language, which began under Catherine II, continued actively. The "Three Calms" proposed by Lomonosov relied not on live colloquial speech, but on the witty thought of a theoretician 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 "break through" through the heaps of obsolete Slavic words used in church books and records in order to understand the essence of this or that secular work.

Karamzin decided to bring the literary language closer to the spoken language. Therefore, one of his main goals was the further liberation of literature from Church Slavonicism. In the preface to the second book of the almanac "Aonides" he wrote: "One thunder of words only deafens us and never reaches the heart."

The second feature of Karamzin's "new style" was the simplification of syntactic constructions. The writer abandoned lengthy periods. In "Pantheon" Russian writers"He resolutely declared:" Lomonosov's prose cannot serve as a model for us at all: its long periods are tiring, the arrangement of words is not always in accordance with the flow of thoughts.

Unlike Lomonosov, Karamzin strove to write in short, easily visible sentences. This is to this day a model of a good style and an example to follow in literature.

The third merit of Karamzin was to enrich the Russian language with a number of successful neologisms, which have become firmly established in the main vocabulary. Among the innovations proposed by Karamzin are such widely known words in our time as “industry”, “development”, “refinement”, “concentrate”, “touching”, “entertainment”, “humanity”, “public”, “ generally useful", "influence" and a number of others.

Creating neologisms, Karamzin mainly used the method of tracing French words: “interesting” from “interesting”, “refined” from “raffine”, “development” from “developpement”, “touching” from “touchant”.

We know that even in the Petrine era, many foreign words appeared in the Russian language, but for the most part they replaced the words that already existed in the Slavic language and were not necessary. In addition, these words were often taken in a 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 reforming activities, Karamzin focused on the living colloquial speech of educated people. And this was the key to the success of his work - he does not write scientific treatises, but travel notes (“Letters from a Russian Traveler”), sentimental stories (“Bornholm Island”, “Poor Liza”), poems, articles, translates from French, English and German .

"Arzamas" and "Conversation"

It is not surprising that most of the young writers, modern 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, well-known 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 essential reservations. In contrast to the Europeanism of Karamzin, Shishkov put forward the idea of ​​the nationality of literature - the most important sign of a romantic worldview far from classicism. It turns out that Shishkov also adjoined romantics, but only not progressive, but conservative direction. His views can be recognized as a kind of forerunner of later Slavophilism and pochvenism.

In 1803, Shishkov delivered a Discourse on the Old and New Syllabus Russian language". He reproached the “Karamzinists” for having succumbed to the temptation of European revolutionary false teachings and advocated the return of literature to oral folk art, to popular vernacular, to Orthodox Church Slavonic book learning.

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 and ideological. The language reform of Karamzin seemed to Shishkov, a warrior and defender of the Fatherland, unpatriotic and anti-religious: “Language is the soul of a people, a mirror of morals, a true indicator of enlightenment, an unceasing witness to deeds. Where there is no faith in the hearts, there is no piety in the tongue. Where there is no love for the fatherland, there the language does not express domestic feelings..

Shishkov reproached Karamzin for the immoderate use of barbarisms (“era”, “harmony”, “catastrophe”), neologisms disgusted him (“coup” as a translation of the word “revolution”), artificial words cut his ear: “future”, “readiness” and etc.

And it must be admitted that sometimes his criticism was apt and precise.

The evasiveness and aesthetic affectation of the speech of the "Karamzinists" very soon became outdated and went out of literary use. It was precisely this future that Shishkov predicted for them, believing that instead of the expression “when traveling became the need of my soul,” one can simply say: “when I fell in love with traveling”; the refined and paraphrased speech “variegated crowds of rural oreads meet with dark-skinned bands of reptile pharaohs” can be replaced by the understandable expression “gypsies go towards the village girls”, etc.

Shishkov and his supporters took the first steps in studying the monuments of ancient Russian literature, enthusiastically studied The Tale of Igor's Campaign, studied folklore, advocated rapprochement between Russia and the Slavic world and recognized the need for convergence of the "Slovenian" syllable with the common language.

In a dispute with the translator Karamzin, Shishkov put forward a weighty argument about the “idiomaticity” of each language, about the unique originality of its phraseological systems, which make it impossible to translate a thought or a true semantic meaning from one language into another. For example, when translated literally into French, the expression "old horseradish" loses its figurative meaning and "means only the very thing, but in the metaphysical sense it has no circle of signification."

In defiance of Karamzinskaya, Shishkov proposed his own reform of the Russian language. He proposed to designate the concepts and feelings missing in our everyday life with new words formed from the roots of not French, but Russian and Old Slavonic languages. Instead of Karamzin's "influence", he suggested "influence", instead of "development" - "vegetation", instead of "actor" - "actor", instead of "individuality" - "yanost", "wet shoes" instead of "galoshes" and "wandering" instead of "maze". Most of his innovations in Russian did not take root.

It is impossible not to recognize Shishkov's ardent love for the Russian language; one cannot 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, began to differ greatly from the language of the cultural classes. But one cannot brush aside the fact that the natural process of the beginning evolution of language could not be stopped. It was impossible to forcibly return to use the already obsolete at that time expressions that Shishkov proposed: “zane”, “ubo”, “like”, “like” and others.

Karamzin did not even respond to the accusations of Shishkov and his supporters, knowing firmly that they were guided by exceptionally pious and patriotic feelings. Subsequently, Karamzin himself and his most talented supporters (Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Batyushkov) followed the very valuable indication 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.

Paphos and ardent patriotism of A.S. Shishkov aroused sympathy 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 journal, P. A. Katenin, I. A. Krylov, and later V. K. Küchelbecker and A. S. Griboyedov. One of the active participants in the "Conversations ..." 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 face of the "ballade player" Fialkin created a parody image of V. A Zhukovsky.

This caused a friendly rebuff from the youth, who supported the literary authority of Karamzin. D. V. Dashkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, D. N. Bludov composed several witty pamphlets addressed to Shakhovsky and other members of the Conversation .... In The 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".

In the organizational structure of this society, founded in the autumn of 1815, a cheerful spirit of parody of the serious "Conversation ..." reigned. In contrast to official pomposity, simplicity, naturalness, openness dominated here, a lot of space was given to jokes and games.

Parodying the official ritual of "Conversations ...", upon joining "Arzamas", everyone had to read a "funeral speech" to their "deceased" predecessor from among the living members of the "Conversations ..." or the Russian Academy of Sciences (Count D.I. Khvostov, S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A. S. Shishkov himself, etc.). "Gravestone speeches" were a form of literary struggle: they parodied high genres, 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 resolute struggle was waged against all sorts of officialdom, 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 in the society, in his mature years condemned the youthful mischief and intransigence of his like-minded people (in particular, the rites of the “burial” of 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. The "Arzamas" included such famous people as Zhukovsky (pseudonym - Svetlana), Vyazemsky (Asmodeus), Pushkin (Cricket), Batyushkov (Achilles), etc.

Beseda broke up 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 absorbed only French novels and the works of enlighteners, enthusiastically accepted Letters from a Russian Traveler and Poor Liza, and Russian writers and poets (both “conversators” and “Arzamas”) realized that it was possible to must write in their native language.

Karamzin and Alexander I: a symphony with power?

In 1802 - 1803 Karamzin published the journal Vestnik Evropy, which was dominated by literature and politics. Largely due to the confrontation with Shishkov, a new aesthetic program for the formation of Russian literature as a nationally original appeared in Karamzin's critical articles. Karamzin, unlike Shishkov, saw the key to the identity 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 "Marfa Posadnitsa or the Conquest of Novgorod".

In his political articles of 1802-1803, Karamzin, as a rule, made recommendations to the government, the main of which was the enlightenment of the nation in the name 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 on March 11, 1801 and the accession to the throne of Alexander I was "Historical eulogy to Catherine II" (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. "Eulogy" was approved by the sovereign, as a collection of examples for the young monarch, and favorably accepted by him. Alexander I, obviously, was interested in the historical research of Karamzin, and the emperor rightly decided that a great country simply needed to remember its no less great past. And if you don’t remember, then at least create anew ...

In 1803, through the tsar’s educator M.N. Muravyov, a 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 a rank no lower than that of a 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 departed 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. Through his influence M.N. Muravyov made available to the historian many of the previously unknown and even "secret" materials, opened libraries and archives for him. Modern historians can only dream of such favorable conditions for work. Therefore, in our opinion, to speak of the "History of the Russian State" as a "scientific feat" N.M. Karamzin, not entirely fair. The court historiographer was in the service, conscientiously doing the work for which he was paid money. Accordingly, he had to write such a story that was currently needed by the customer, namely, Tsar 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 became a consistent conservative. During this period, the system of his political views finally took shape. Karamzin's statements that he is a "republican at heart" can only be adequately interpreted if one considers that we are talking about the "Platonic Republic of the Sages", an ideal social order based on state virtue, strict regulation and the denial of personal freedom. . At the beginning of 1810, Karamzin, through his relative Count F.V. Rostopchin, met in Moscow with 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 salon of the Grand Duchess 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 ...", at the same time he met Empress Dowager Maria Feodorovna, who became one of his patronesses.

In 1811, at the request of Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, Karamzin wrote a note "On ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations", in which he outlined his ideas about the ideal structure Russian state and sharply criticized the policy 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 diverged only in handwritten lists. 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 taken by 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 reasonable criticism of unprepared bureaucratic reforms carried out from above. While praising Alexander I, the author of the note at the same time attacks his advisers, referring, of course, to Speransky, who stood for constitutional reforms. Karamzin takes the liberty of proving to the tsar in detail, with reference to historical examples, that Russia is not ready either historically or politically to abolish serfdom and limit the autocratic monarchy by the constitution (following the example of the European powers). Some of his arguments (for example, about the uselessness of freeing peasants without land, the impossibility of constitutional democracy in Russia) look quite convincing and historically correct even today.

Along with an overview of Russian history and criticism of the political course of Emperor Alexander I, the note contained an integral, original and very complex theoretical concept of autocracy as a special, original Russian type of power closely associated with Orthodoxy.

At the same time, Karamzin refused to identify "true autocracy" with despotism, tyranny or arbitrariness. He believed that such deviations from the norms were due to chance (Ivan IV the Terrible, Paul I) and were quickly eliminated by the inertia of the tradition of "wise" and "virtuous" monarchical rule. In cases of a sharp weakening and even complete absence of the supreme state and church authority (for example, during the Time of Troubles), this powerful tradition led to the restoration of autocracy within a short historical period. Autocracy was the "palladium of Russia", the main reason for its power and prosperity. Therefore, the basic principles of monarchical government in Russia, according to Karamzin, should have been preserved in the future. They should have been supplemented only by a proper policy in the field of legislation and education, which would lead not to undermining 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 proved himself plus royaliste que le roi (greater royalist than the king himself). However, subsequently the brilliant "anthem to the Russian autocracy" as presented by Karamzin undoubtedly had its effect. After the war of 1812, the winner of Napoleon, Alexander I, curtailed many of his liberal projects: Speransky's reforms were not completed, the constitution and the very idea of ​​\u200b\u200blimiting 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-Nationhood).

Before the publication of the first 8 volumes of "History ..." Karamzin lived in Moscow, from where he traveled only to Tver to the Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna and to Nizhny Novgorod, while Moscow was occupied by the French. He usually spent his summers at Ostafyev, the estate of Prince Andrei Ivanovich Vyazemsky, whose illegitimate daughter, Ekaterina Andreevna, Karamzin married in 1804. (The first wife of Karamzin, 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 treated Karamzin with restraint from the time the Note was submitted, Karamzin often spent his summers in Tsarskoye Selo. At the request of the empresses (Maria Feodorovna and Elizaveta Alekseevna), he more than once conducted frank political conversations with Emperor Alexander, in which he acted as a spokesman for the opponents of drastic liberal reforms. In 1819-1825, Karamzin passionately rebelled against the intentions of the sovereign regarding Poland (submitted a note "Opinion of a Russian citizen"), condemned the increase in state taxes in peacetime, spoke of the ridiculous provincial system of finance, criticized the system of military settlements, the activities of the Ministry of Education, pointed to the strange choice by the sovereign of some of the most important dignitaries (for example, Arakcheev), spoke of the need to reduce internal troops, about the imaginary correction of roads, 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, one could criticize, and argue, and show civil courage, and try to set the monarch "on the right path." It was not for nothing that Emperor Alexander I and his contemporaries and subsequent historians of his reign called the “mysterious sphinx”. In words, the sovereign agreed with Karamzin's critical remarks regarding military settlements, recognized the need to "give fundamental laws to Russia", as well as to revise some aspects of domestic policy, but it so happened in our country that in reality - all the wise advice of state people remain "fruitless for Dear Fatherland"...

Karamzin as a historian

Karamzin is our first historian and last chronicler.
By his criticism he belongs to history,
innocence and apothegms - the chronicle.

A.S. Pushkin

Even from the point of view of Karamzin's modern historical science, no one dared to call 12 volumes of his "History of the Russian State" scientific work. Even then, it was clear to everyone that the honorary title of a court historiographer cannot make a writer a historian, give him the appropriate knowledge and proper training.

But, on the other hand, Karamzin did not initially set himself the task of taking on the role of a researcher. The newly minted historiographer was not going to write a scientific treatise and appropriate the laurels of his illustrious predecessors - Schlozer, Miller, Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, Boltin, etc.

Preliminary critical work on sources for Karamzin is only "a heavy tribute brought by reliability." He was, first of all, a writer, and therefore he wanted to apply his literary talent to ready-made material: “select, animate, colorize” and, in this way, make Russian history “something attractive, strong, worthy of attention not only Russians, but also foreigners." And this task he performed brilliantly.

Today it is impossible not to agree with the fact that at the beginning of the 19th century source studies, paleography and other auxiliary historical disciplines were in their very infancy. Therefore, to demand professional criticism from the writer Karamzin, as well as strict adherence to one or another method of working with historical sources, is simply ridiculous.

One can often hear the opinion that Karamzin simply beautifully rewrote Prince M.M. 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. Coincidentally 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 developed by his predecessors, Karamzin cites in his essay a lot of references to the most extensive foreign historiography, almost unfamiliar to the Russian reader. While working on his "History ...", for the first time he introduced into scientific circulation a mass of unknown and previously unexplored 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 in 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 the study. A special chapter of "History ..." is devoted to "Russian Truth", and a number of pages - to the newly opened "Tale of Igor's Campaign".

Thanks to the diligent help of the directors of the Moscow Archive of the Ministry (Board) 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. The Synodal depository, libraries of monasteries (Trinity Lavra, Volokolamsk Monastery and others), as well as private collections of Musin-Pushkin and N.P. Rumyantsev. Karamzin received especially many documents from Chancellor Rumyantsev, who collected historical materials in Russia and abroad through his numerous agents, as well as from AI Turgenev, who compiled a collection of documents from the papal archive.

Many of the sources used by Karamzin perished during the Moscow fire of 1812 and survived only in his "History ..." and extensive "Notes" to its text. Thus, Karamzin's work, to some extent, has 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" is traditionally noted the peculiar view of its author on the tasks of the historian. According to Karamzin, "knowledge" and "scholarship" in the historian "do not replace the talent to portray actions." Before the artistic task of history, even the moral one recedes into the background, which was set by Karamzin's patron, M.N. Muravyov. Characteristics historical characters given by Karamzin exclusively in a literary and romantic vein, characteristic of the direction of Russian sentimentalism he created. The first Russian princes according to Karamzin are distinguished by their "ardent romantic passion" for conquests, their retinue - nobility and loyal spirit, the "rabble" sometimes shows discontent, raising rebellions, but in the end agrees with the wisdom of noble rulers, etc., etc. P.

Meanwhile, the previous generation of historians, under the influence of Schlözer, had long developed the idea of ​​critical history, and among Karamzin's contemporaries, the requirements for criticizing historical sources, despite the lack of a clear methodology, were generally recognized. And the next generation has already made a demand 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, the overly “literary” creation of Karamzin 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: the monarchical power glorified Russia in the Kievan period; the division of power between the princes was a political mistake, which was corrected by the state wisdom 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 introducing anything new into the development of Russian historiography, it should be remembered that the author of The History of the Russian State did not at all set himself the task of philosophical reflection historical process or blind imitation of the ideas of the Western European romantics (F. Guizot, F. Mignet, J. Meschel), who already then started talking about the “class struggle” and the “spirit of the people” as the main driving force stories. Karamzin was not interested in historical criticism at all, and deliberately denied the "philosophical" trend in history. The researcher's conclusions from historical material, as well as his subjective fabrications, seem to Karamzin to be "metaphysics" that is not suitable "for depicting action and character."

Thus, with his peculiar views on the tasks of the historian, Karamzin, by and large, remained outside the dominant currents of Russian and European historiography of the 19th and 20th centuries. Of course, he participated in its consistent development, but only in the form of an object for constant criticism and the clearest example of how history should not be written.

The reaction of contemporaries

Karamzin's contemporaries - readers and admirers - enthusiastically accepted his new "historical" work. The first eight volumes of The History of the Russian State were printed in 1816-1817 and went on sale in February 1818. Huge for that time, the three-thousandth circulation sold out in 25 days. (And this despite the solid price - 50 rubles). A second edition was immediately required, which was carried out in 1818-1819 by I. V. Slyonin. 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 a 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 unnecessarily tendentious:

Specialists-researchers, as already mentioned, treated Karamzin's work exactly as a work, sometimes even belittling its historical significance. It seemed to many that Karamzin's undertaking itself was too risky - to undertake to write such an extensive work in 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 to an involuntary distortion of the truth, due to the patriotic, religious and political hobbies of Karamzin. Artsybashev showed the extent to which the writing of "history" is harmed by the literary techniques of a non-professional historian. Pogodin summed up all the shortcomings of the History, and N.A. Polevoy saw the common cause of 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 obsolete with the appearance in Russia of new influences of European romanticism. In opposition to Karamzin, Polevoy soon wrote his six-volume History of the Russian People, where he completely surrendered himself to the ideas of Guizot and other Western European romantics. Contemporaries rated this work as an "unworthy parody" of Karamzin, subjecting the author to rather vicious and not always deserved attacks.

In the 1830s, Karamzin's "History ..." becomes the banner of the officially "Russian" direction. With the assistance of the same Pogodin, its scientific rehabilitation is carried out, which is fully consistent with the spirit of Uvarov's "theory of official nationality".

In the second half of the 19th century, on the basis of the "History ...", a mass of popular science articles and other texts were written, which formed the basis of well-known educational and teaching aids. Based on the historical plots of Karamzin, many works for children and youth were created, the purpose of which for many years was to instill patriotism, fidelity to civic duty, and the responsibility of the younger generation for the fate of their homeland. 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 the patriotic education of young people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

December 14th. Final Karamzin.

The death of Emperor Alexander I and the December events of 1925 deeply shocked N.M. Karamzin and negatively affected 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 performance of the nobility against their sovereign as a rebellion and a serious crime. But there were so many acquaintances among the rebels: the Muravyov brothers, Nikolai Turgenev, Bestuzhev, Ryleev, Kuchelbeker (he translated Karamzin's History into German).

A few days later, Karamzin will say about the Decembrists: "The errors and crimes of these young people are the errors and crimes of our age."

On December 14, during his travels around St. Petersburg, Karamzin caught a bad cold and fell ill with pneumonia. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was another victim of this day: his idea of ​​the world collapsed, faith in the future was lost, and a new king, very far from perfect image enlightened monarch. Half-ill, Karamzin visited the palace every day, where he talked with Empress Maria Feodorovna, from memories of the late sovereign Alexander, moving on to discussions about the tasks of the future reign.

Karamzin could no longer write. Volume XII of the "History ..." stopped at the interregnum of 1611 - 1612. The last words of the last volume are about a small Russian fortress: "Nutlet did not give up." The last thing that Karamzin really managed to do in the spring of 1826 was, 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 the 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 fleet 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.

Why do people need history? This question, in fact, is rhetorical, and the answer to it is easily guessed: by learning from the past, you better understand the present, which means you get the opportunity to foresee the future ... But why, in this case, there are so many different versions of our history, and often polar? Today, on the shelves of bookstores, you can find everything you want: from the works of venerable historians of the 19th century to hypotheses from the series “Russia is the birthplace of elephants” or all kinds of scientific “new chronologies”.

Reading some gives rise to pride in the country and gratitude to the author for immersing himself in the beautiful world of his native antiquity, while turning to the second causes, rather, confusion and surprise with an admixture of annoyance (were we really deceived with history all the time?). Living people and their exploits against fantasies and pseudoscientific calculations. Who is right - I do not presume to judge. Which option to read, everyone can choose for himself. But an important conclusion suggests itself: in order to understand what history is for, you must first understand who creates this history and how.

"He saved Russia from the invasion of oblivion"

The first eight volumes of The History of the Russian State were published in early February 1818, and already on February 27, Karamzin wrote to friends: “The last copy was sold off ... In 25 days, 3,000 copies were sold.” Circulation and speed of sale for Russia of those years is unprecedented!

“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 have been found by Karamzin, just as America had been found by Colomb. For some time they didn’t talk about anything else, ”Pushkin later recalled.

And here is another typical episode for those years. Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, a gambler, a bully, a desperate brave man and a bully, was one of the first to acquire books, locked himself in his office, “read eight volumes of Karamzin in one breath and after that he often said that only from reading Karamzin did he learn what the word Fatherland means ". But this is the same American Tolstoy, who has already proved his love for the Fatherland and patriotism with unparalleled feats on the field of Borodino. Why did Karamzin's "History" hook the reader so much? One of the obvious answers is given by P. A. Vyazemsky: “Karamzin is our Kutuzov of the twelfth year: he saved Russia from the invasion of oblivion, called her to life, showed us that we have a fatherland, as many learned about that in the twelfth year.” But attempts to write the history of Russia were made even before Karamzin, but there was no such response. What's the secret? In the author? By the way, they didn’t just ignore him: the historian was praised and scolded, they agreed and argued with him ... What is the only characteristic “extinguisher” given to the historiographer by the future Decembrists. And yet the main thing is that they read it, there were no indifferent people.

“We haven’t had such prose yet!”

Karamzin as a historian could not take place. Thanks to the future director of Moscow University, Ivan Petrovich Turgenev, who saw in the young Simbirsk dandy the future chronicler of Russia, “dissuaded him from scattered secular life and maps” and invited him to live in Moscow. Thanks also to Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov, educator, book publisher, who supported, directed, showed Karamzin other ways in life. He introduced the young man to the philosophical Friendly Society, and when he understood his character and inclinations, he decided to publish (and in fact create) the magazine "Children's Reading". In an era when children were considered “little adults” and nothing specifically for children was written, Karamzin had to make a revolution - to find the best works of various authors and present them in such a way as to make them useful and intelligible “for the heart and mind” of the child. Who knows, maybe it was then that Karamzin first felt the difficulties of his native literary language.

Our language was heavy caftan
And too smelled of antiquity;
Karamzin gave a different cut.
Let the splits grumble to themselves!
Everyone accepted his cut.
P. A. Vyazemsky

Such aspirations of the future historian turned out to be especially consonant with Pushkin. The poet, who himself did a lot to make the "cut different" accepted and loved, aptly expressed the essence of the reform: "Karamzin liberated the language from the alien yoke and returned its freedom, turning it to the living sources of the people's word."

The revolution in Russian literature has undoubtedly taken place. And it's not just the language. Every attentive reader must have noticed that, fascinated by reading a fiction book, he willy-nilly begins to empathize with the fate of the characters, while becoming an active character in the novel. For such immersion, two conditions are important: the book must be interesting, exciting, and the characters of the novel must be close and understandable to the reader. It is difficult to empathize with the Olympian gods or mythological characters. The heroes of Karamzin's books are simple people, and most importantly, easily recognizable people: a young nobleman traveling around Europe (“Notes of a Russian Traveler”), a peasant girl (“Poor Liza”), a folk heroine of Novgorod history (“Marfa the Posadnitsa”). Having gone headlong into such a novel, the reader, without noticing how, gets into the shoes of the protagonist, and the writer at the same time receives unlimited power over him. Directing the thoughts and actions of book characters, placing them in a situation of moral choice, the author can influence the thoughts and actions of the reader himself, educating the criteria in him. Thus, literature turns from entertainment into something more serious.

“The purpose of literature is to educate in us the inner nobility, the nobility of our soul, and thus remove us from our vices. O people! Bless poetry, for it elevates our spirit and intensifies all our strengths, ”Karamzin dreams of this, creating his first literary masterpieces. But in order to get the right (read: responsibility) to educate his reader, guide him and teach him, the writer himself must become better, kinder, wiser than the one to whom he addresses his lines. At least a little, at least in something ... “If you are going to become an author,” writes Karamzin, “then re-read the book of human suffering and, if your heart does not bleed, throw a pen, otherwise it will portray the cold emptiness of the soul ".

“But this is literature, what does history have to do with it?” - the inquisitive reader will ask. And besides, that all that has been said can equally be attributed to the writing of history. The main condition is that the author must combine a light literary style, historical authenticity and great art to "revive" the past, turning the heroes of antiquity into contemporaries. “It hurts, but it must be fair to say that we still do not have a good Russian history, that is, written with a philosophical mind, with criticism, with noble eloquence,” Karamzin himself wrote. - Tacitus, Hume, Robertson, Gibbon - these are the samples! It is said that our history in itself is less entertaining than others: I don't think so; All you need is intelligence, taste, talent. Karamzin had it all. His "History" is a novel in which real facts and events of Russian life of past times took the place of fiction, and the reader accepted such a replacement, because "for a mature mind, truth has a special charm that is not in fiction." Everyone who loved Karamzin the writer willingly accepted Karamzin the historian.

Manor Ostafyevo - "Russian Parnassus". 19th century

“I sleep and see Nikon with Nestor”

In 1803, by decree of Emperor Alexander I, the writer, already well-known in wide circles, was appointed court historiographer. A new stage in the fate of Karamzin was marked by another event - his marriage to the illegitimate daughter of A. I. Vyazemsky Ekaterina Andreevna Kolyvanova. The Karamzins settled in Ostafyevo, the estate of the Vyazemsky princes near Moscow. It was here, from 1804 to 1816, that the first eight volumes of Russian History would be written.

In Soviet times, the estate building was converted into a holiday home for party workers, and exhibits from the Ostafyev collection were transferred to Moscow and Moscow region museums. Inaccessible to mere mortals, the institution was opened for visiting by everyone once a year, in June, on Pushkin's days. But the rest of the time, the vigilant guards were disturbed by uninvited guests: grateful people came here from different parts of the country, by hook or by crook they made their way to the territory in order to “just stand” under the windows of the office in which the history of Russia was “created”. These people seem to be arguing with Pushkin, answering many years later the latter’s bitter reproach against his contemporaries: “No one said thanks to the man who retired to the study at the time of the most flattering successes and devoted twelve whole years of his life to silent and tireless work.”

Pyotr Andreevich Vyazemsky, a future member of the Arzamas brotherhood and friend of Pushkin, was twelve when Karamzin began writing History. The mystery of the birth of "volumes" took place before his eyes and struck the imagination of the young poet. In the historian’s office “there were no cabinets, armchairs, sofas, whatnots, music stands, carpets, pillows,” the prince later recalled. - His desk was the one that first caught his eye. An ordinary small table made of simple wood, on which in our time even a maid in a decent house would not even want to wash herself, was littered with papers and books. The daily routine was also tough: an early rise, an hour-long walk in the park, breakfast, and then - work, work, work ... Lunch was sometimes postponed until late in the evening, and after that the historiographer still had to prepare for the next day. And all this alone was carried on his shoulders by a middle-aged and not full of health man. “There was no permanent employee even for rough work. There was no scribe ... "

“The notes of Russian History,” Pushkin noted, “testify to Karamzin’s extensive scholarship, acquired by him already in those years when for ordinary people the circle of education and knowledge was long over and chores in the service replace efforts for enlightenment.” Indeed, at thirty-eight, not many will dare to leave the very successful field of a writer and surrender to the vague prospect of writing history. To do this professionally, Karamzin had to quickly become a specialist in many auxiliary historical disciplines: genealogy, heraldry, diplomacy, historical metrology, numismatics, paleography, sphragistics, and chronology. In addition, reading primary sources required a good knowledge of ancient languages: Greek, Old Slavonic - and many new European and Eastern ones.

Searching for sources takes a lot of effort from the historian. Friends and people interested in creating the history of Russia helped: P. M. Stroev, N. P. Rumyantsev, A. N. Musin-Pushkin, K. F. Kalaidovich. Letters, documents, annals were brought to the estate by “carts”. Karamzin was forced to hurry: “It is a pity that I am not younger than ten years. It is unlikely that God will allow me to complete my work ... "God has given -" History "has taken place. After the publication of the first eight books in 1816, the ninth volume appeared in 1821, the tenth and eleventh in 1824; and the twelfth came out posthumously.

"Nutlet did not give up"

These words from the last volume, on which death cut short the work of the historian, can easily be attributed to Karamzin himself. What epithets were later awarded to his "History" by critics: both conservative, and vile, and non-Russian, and unscientific! Did Karamzin foresee such an outcome? Probably yes, and the words of Pushkin, who called Karamzin's work "the feat of an honest man", are not just a compliment to the historian...

To be fair, there were commendable reviews, but that's not the point. Having withstood the harsh judgment of contemporaries and descendants, Karamzin's work convincingly showed: there is no such thing as impersonal, faceless, objective history; What is the Historian, such is History. Questions: Why, How and Who when writing history are inseparable. What the author-Man invests in his work, the reader-Citizen will inherit, the more demanding the author is, the more people's hearts he will be able to awaken. “Count of History” is not a slip of the tongue of an illiterate servant, but a successful and very accurate definition of the aristocratic nature of the “last chronicler” of Russia. But not in the sense of nobility of origin, but in the original sense of the word aristos - “the best”. Become better yourself, and then it will not be so important what comes out from under your hands: the creation will be worthy of the creator, and you will be understood.

“To live is not to write history, not to write tragedies or comedies, but to think, feel and act as best as possible, to love goodness, to rise with the soul to its source; everything else, my dear friend, is a husk: I do not exclude my eight or nine volumes. You must admit that it is strange to hear such words from the lips of a person who has devoted more than twenty years of his life to writing history. But the surprise will pass if you carefully reread both the "History" and the fate of Karamzin, or try to follow his advice: to live, loving the good and exalting in soul.

Literature
N. Eidelman. The last chronicler.
Y. Lotman. Creation of Karamzin.
P. A. Vyazemsky. Old notebook.

Discuss the article in the community

| Introduction | 3 |
| Chapter 1. "History of the Russian State" as a phenomenon of culture | p. 5 |
| Chapter 2. "Letters of the Russian traveler" Karamzin in development | |
| Russian culture | |
| Chapter 3. "History - art" as a method Karamzin N. M | |
| Conclusion | 26 |
| List of sources used | 27 |

Introduction

Books and magazines of that time bear traces of someone else's will.
The tsarist officials mercilessly disfigured 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 is a colossal wealth, an ideological, artistic, moral wealth inherited by our time. But you can use it 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.

His almanacs and magazines were loved by readers. he is the author of the history of the Russian state, a diligent reader of poets and politicians, a witness of the great French revolution, an eyewitness to the rise and fall of Napoleon, he called himself a "republican in his soul." pre-Pushkin era. Karamzin's name was first mentioned 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.

The role of Karamzin in the history of Russian culture is not measured only by his literary and scientific creativity. Karamzin created the stereotype of a Russian traveler in Europe. Karamzin created many works, among them the remarkable Letters of a Russian Traveler and the great History of the Russian State. But greatest creation Karamzin was himself, his life, and his spiritual personality. It was with it that he had a great moral impact 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 started from the level set by Karamzin as a matter of course, the basis of writing. 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 opened the Ancient
Rus', just as the famous traveler discovered to Europeans
America. 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 very journey was made possible only by the experience accumulated by his predecessors. Calling Karamzin the first Russian historian, one cannot but recall the names of V.N. Tatishchev, I.N. Boltin, M.M.
Shcherbatov, not to mention a number of publishers of documents that, despite the imperfection of their methods of publication, 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 many years of research by the historian - 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, Pushkin’s work, 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 the "History" of Karamzin a scientific work, conscious of a complete picture of the past of Russia from its first centuries to the eve of the reign of Peter I?
“There can be no doubt about that. 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, i.e. before my admission to 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 there is no doubt about it: the notes, in which Karamzin concentrated the documentary material, served as the starting point for a significant number of subsequent historical studies, and until now Russian historians constantly refer to them, never ceasing to be amazed at the enormity of the author’s work.

Is Karamzin's "History" a remarkable literary work? – Her 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 prominent places. Decembrist A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, reviewing the last lifetime volumes of the History (10-11) as a phenomenon of “elegant prose”, wrote: “We can safely say that in literary terms we found a treasure in them. There we see the freshness and strength of the style, the temptation of the story and the variety in the structure and sonority of the turns of the language, so obedient at the hand of a true talent.

But the most important thing is that it does not belong to any of them inseparably: "The History of the Russian State" is a phenomenon of Russian culture in its entirety and should be considered only in this way. 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 his hair as a historian” and did not give up the 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 "Eulogy to Peter I".
Already from this entry it is clear that it was 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: “Is Providence spare me; or something will not happen that is more terrible for me than death ... ".

In the second half of 1810, Karamzin sketched "Thoughts for History
Patriotic War". Claiming that the geographical position of Russia and
France makes it almost unbelievable that they “could directly strike one against the other, 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: "Napoleon's character".

It is generally accepted that Karamzin's work is divided into two eras: before 1803 and before 1803.
Karamzin is a writer; later a historian. On the one hand, Karamzin did not cease to be a writer even after he was awarded a historiographer (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 "Past and Thoughts", but on the other
- "he got into Russian history up to his ears" long before official recognition.

There are other, more weighty grounds for opposing the two periods of creativity. The main work of the first half of creativity -
"Letters from a Russian Traveler"; the second - "History of the state
Russian". Pushkin wrote: "A fool alone does not change, because time does not bring him development, and experiments 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 from a Russian Traveler" Karamzin showed himself as a patriot who remained abroad as a "Russian traveller". However,
Karamzin never abandoned the idea of ​​the beneficence of the influence of Western enlightenment on the cultural life of Russia. In the history of Russian culture, the opposition of Russia to the West has developed, S. F. Platonov pointed out: “In his works, Karamzin completely abolished the age-old opposition of 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 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.

"History of the Russian State" puts the reader in front of a number of paradoxes. First of all, I must say about the title of this work. Its title is "History of the State". On the basis of this, Karamzin began to be defined as a "statist".

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

It can be said with certainty 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 with 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 the philosophical century. “We considered the end of our century the end of the main disasters of mankind and thought that it would be followed by an important, general connection of theory with practice, speculation with activity,” Karamzin wrote in the mid-1790s. Utopia for him is not the realm of certain political or social relationships, and the realm of virtue; a radiant future depends on the high morality of the people, and not on politics. Virtue generates freedom and equality, and not freedom and equality - virtue. The politician Karamzin treated any forms with distrust. Karamzin, who appreciated 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 already acquired the nickname "incorruptible" Robespierre, whose very shortcomings in oratory seemed to him virtues.
Karamzin chose Robespierre. The tears that Karamzin shed on the coffin
Robespierre, were the last tribute to the dream of Utopia, the Platonic Republic, the State of Virtue. Now Karamzin is attracted by a realist politician.
The stamp of rejection has been removed from the policy. Karamzin begins to publish "Bulletin
Europe” is the first political magazine in Russia.

On the pages of Vestnik Evropy, skillfully using foreign sources, selecting translations in such a way that they express their thoughts in their language,
Karamzin develops a consistent political doctrine. People are egoists by nature: “Egoism is the true enemy of society”, “unfortunately everywhere and everything is selfishness in man”. Selfishness turns the lofty ideal of the republic into an unattainable dream: "Without lofty popular virtue, the Republic cannot stand." Bonaparte seems to Karamzin to be that strong ruler - a realist who builds a management system not on "dreamy" theories, but on the real level of people's morality. He is outside the party. It is curious to note that, following his political concept, Karamzin highly appreciates Boris Godunov during this period. “Boris Godunov was one of those people who create their own brilliant destiny and prove the miraculous power
Nature. His family did not have any celebrity.

The idea of ​​"History" has matured in the bowels of the "Bulletin of Europe". This is evidenced by the ever-increasing number of materials on Russian history on the pages of this journal. Karamzin's views on Napoleon changed.
Passion began to give way to disappointment. After the transformation of the first consul into the emperor of the French, Karamzin bitterly wrote to his brother: “Napoleon
Bonaparte exchanged the title of a great man for the title of emperor: the authorities showed him better glory. The intention of the "History" was to show how
Russia, having passed through centuries of fragmentation and disasters, ascended to glory and power with unity and strength. It was during this period that the name
"History of the State". In the future, the idea underwent changes. But the title could no longer be changed. However, the development of statehood was never for Karamzin the goal of human society. It was only a means. Karamzin's idea of ​​the essence of progress changed, but the belief in progress, which gave meaning to human history, remained unchanged. In the very general view progress for Karamzin was the development of humanity, civilization, enlightenment and tolerance. Literature is called upon to play the main role in the humanization of society. In the 1790s, after breaking with the Freemasons, Karamzin believed that it was belles-lettres, poetry, and novels that would be these great civilizers. Civilization - getting rid of the rudeness of feelings and thoughts. It is inseparable from subtle shades of experiences. Therefore, the Archimedean point of support in the moral improvement of society is language. Not dry moral sermons, but the flexibility, subtlety and richness of language 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 disputes boiled over Karamzin's language reform, he himself was already thinking more broadly. The reform of the language was intended to make the Russian reader "communal", civilized and humane.
Now Karamzin faced another task - to make him a citizen. And for this, Karamzin believed, it is necessary that he had the history of his country. We need to make him a man of history. That is why, Karamzin "cut his hair in historians." The state has no history until the historian told the state about its history. Giving readers the history of Russia, Karamzin gave Russia a history. The turbulent events of the past Karamzin had a chance to describe in the midst of the turbulent events of the present, on the eve of 1812 Karamzin is working on Volume VI
"History", completing the end of the XV century.

The subsequent years in burned-out Moscow were difficult and sad, but work on the History continues. By 1815, Karamzin finished 8 volumes, wrote the "Introduction" and decided to go to St. Petersburg to obtain permission and funds to print what was written. At the beginning of 1818, 3000 copies of the first 8 volumes were published. The appearance of the "History of the Russian State" became a social event. "History" has long been the main subject of controversy. In Decembrist circles, she was met critically. Appearance
"History" influenced the course of their thought. Now not a single thinking person in Russia could think outside the general perspectives of Russian history. A
Karamzin went further. He worked on IX, X and XI volumes of "History" - the time of the oprichnina, Boris Godunov and the Time of Troubles. In these volumes, Karamzin reached an unsurpassed height as a prose writer: this is evidenced by the power of delineation of characters, the energy of narration. During the reign of Ivan III and Vasily
Ivanovich not only strengthened statehood, but also achieved success in 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 emergence 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 writings, but also in novels; loved works of wit and imagination.

In the "History" the ratio changes and the criminal conscience renders useless all the efforts of the statesman's mind. The immoral cannot be useful to the state. The pages dedicated to the reign of Boris Godunov and the Time of Troubles belong to the heights of historical painting
Karamzin, and it is no coincidence that it was he who inspired Pushkin to create "Boris
Godunov.

Death, which interrupted the work on the "historical poem", decided 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. The merits of Karamzin in discovering new sources, creating a broad picture of Russian history, combining scholarly commentary with the literary merits of narration are beyond 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 the time of the triumph of poetry.
The victory of the Karamzin school led to the fact that the concepts of "literature" and "poetry" were identified.

Pushkin's drama was inspired by 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 makes sense.

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

I. "Ancient Russia discovered by Karamzin".

N. Karamzin entered the history of Russian literature as a major writer - sentimentalist, who actively worked in the last decade of the 18th century. In recent years, the situation has begun to change - 2 two-volume essays 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 impact on Russian literature of the 19th century, is practically still unknown to the modern reader, The History of the Russian State.
History has fascinated him since his youth. That is why many pages of the Letters of a Russian Traveler are dedicated to her. History has been an art for many centuries, not a science. For Pushkin, Belinsky Karamzin's "History" is a major achievement of Russian literature of the early 19th century, not only a 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 course, the nature of the events themselves and the trials that have befallen the Russian nation for 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, the Russian reader received the first eight volumes of History, which told about ancient period Russia. And by that time V. Scott 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 time, each of them acted both as an artist and as a historian. Karamzin, in the preface to the first volume of the History, summarizing his already established principles for depicting Russian history, stated:
History is not a novel. He contrasted "fiction" with "truth." This position was also developed under the influence of the real Russian literary process and the creative evolution of the writer himself.

In the 1800s, literature was flooded with original and translated works - in poetry, prose and drama - on a historical theme.
It is history that can reveal the "truth" and "mystery" of the life of society and man, Karamzin also came in his development. This new understanding of history was manifested in the 1795 article "The Discourse of the Philosopher, Historian and Citizen". Because
Karamzin, embarking on the "History", refuses "fiction", from those specific and traditional means by which epics, tragedies or novels were created. To know the "truth" of history meant not only to renounce one's own agnosticism, calling on the objectivity of the real world, but also to abandon the way of depicting this world, traditional for the art of that time. IN
Russia, this merger will be brilliantly carried out by Pushkin in the tragedy "Boris
Godunov", but from the standpoint of realism, Karamzin's "History" preceded Pushkin's success, and to a large extent prepared it. Refusal
Karamzin from “fiction” did not mean a denial of the possibilities of artistic study of history in general. "History of the Russian State" and captured the search for and development of these new, so to speak, equivalent to the historical truth of the principles of its depiction. The most important feature this structure, which was formed in the process of writing, was a combination of an analytical (scientific) and artistic principle. Consideration of the elements of such a structure clearly shows how both the searches themselves and the writer's discoveries turned out to be nationally conditioned.

In the "History of the Russian State" there are not only love, but, in general, fictional plots. The author does not introduce the plot into his work, but extracts it from history, from real historical events and situations - the characters act in the circumstances set by history. Only a genuine, and not fictional, plot brings the writer closer to the "truth" hidden by the "veil of time."

Given the same history, the plot tells a person in his extensive connections with common life countries, states, nations. This is how the characters of famous historical figures are built. The life of Ivan the Terrible opened up an abyss of opportunities for building a love story - the tsar had seven wives and countless of those who were victims of his "shameless voluptuousness." But
Karamzin proceeded from the social conditions that determined both the character of the tsar, and his actions, and the "epoch of torment" that shook all of Russia.
The historical situation, which created the possibility of the seizure of power by B. Godunov, had a decisive influence on his policy, on his attitude towards the people, determined his crime and moral suffering. Thus, not only history became the material for literature, but literature also became a means of artistic knowledge of history. His "History" is inhabited only by genuine historical figures.

Karamzin emphasizes the talent, originality and mind of ordinary people who acted independently, without a tsar and boyars, who knew how to think stately and reasonably. The historical plot, the use of a given situation, substantiated a different method of depicting a person, born of Russian tradition - not in a "homely way", not from the side of his private family life, but from the side of his connections with big world nationwide, nationwide existence. That is why Karamzin demanded from writers to depict heroic Russian women, whose character and personality were not manifested in domestic life and “ family happiness”, but in political, patriotic activities. In this regard, he wrote: “Nature sometimes loves extremes, departs from its ordinary law and gives women characters that take them out of home obscurity to the folk theater ...” The method of depicting Russian characters in History is to bring them “from home obscurity to folk theater”, it was developed ultimately from the generalization of the experience of the historical life of the Russian nation. Many folk songs captured the heroic prowess, the poetry of life, full of activity, struggle, high feat, which opened up outside the home family existence. Gogol in Ukrainian songs discovered precisely these traits of the character of the people: “Everywhere one can see the strength, joy, power with which the Cossack throws the silence and carelessness of home life in order to go into all the poetry of battles, dangers and wild feast with comrades ... ". This method concealed 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 narration. The study of the genre nature of Karamzin's work convinces us that it is not the realization of already found principles. It is rather a kind of self-adjusting model, the type and nature of which was influenced by the experience of the writer, and more and more new materials were attracted, requiring new illumination, and increasing trust in the artistic knowledge of “truth” from volume to volume.

Having abandoned "fiction", Karamzin could not use one of the traditional literary genres for his narration. It was necessary to develop a genre form that would organically correspond to the real historical plot, be able to accommodate the huge and diverse factual material that was included in the "History" under the sign of analytical and emotional perception, and, most importantly, 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 the national tradition. And here the chronicle played a decisive role. Its main genre feature is syncretism. Chronicle freely included in its composition many works ancient Russian literature- lives, stories, messages, lamentations, folk poetic legends, etc. Syncretism became the organizing principle of Karamzin's History. The writer did not imitate, he continued the chronicle tradition. 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 quotations or retelling of the lives, stories, legends and "miracles" included in the chronicles and the chronicler's story itself, which was either accompanied by comments, or turned out to be merged with the opinion of the creator of "History".
Chronicle syncretism is the main feature of the genre of "History of the Russian State". This genre - Karamzin's original creation - helped him to express Russian national identity in its dynamics and development, and to develop a special ethical style of narration about the heroic nation, whose sons came out of home obscurity to the theater folk life.
The achievements of the writer were assimilated by Russian literature. His innovative attitude to the genre, the search for a special, free genre structure that would correspond to new material, new plot, new tasks of artistic research 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 meet this free attitude to the genre in Pushkin (“free” novel in verse - “Eugene Onegin”), Gogol (poem “Dead Souls”), Tolstoy (“War and Peace”). In 1802, Karamzin wrote: "France, by its greatness and character, should be a monarchy." A few years later, this "prophecy" came true - Napoleon proclaimed France an empire, and himself emperor. On the examples of the reign of Russian monarchs - positive and negative -
Karamzin wanted to teach to reign.

The contradiction turned out to be 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, which was revealed in the process of artistic research of the past, remained true to it, even if it contradicted his political ideal. This was the victory of Karamzin - the artist. That is why Pushkin called "History" the feat of an honest man.

The inconsistency of Karamzin's work was well understood by Pushkin. Pushkin not only understood and saw the artistic nature of the "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 very genre of "History" is due to the chronicle tradition. This idea is both fair and fruitful.

Karamzin, the 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 opened the historical role of the Russian people in the formation of a great power. Describing one of the battles, Karamzin emphasizes that it was love of freedom that inspired ordinary people when they heroically fought the enemy, showed a wonderful frenzy and, thinking that the one killed by the enemy should serve him as a slave in hell, they plunged swords into their hearts when they could no longer be saved. : because they wanted to preserve their liberty in 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".

The "History" captures the unity of analytical study and the emotional image of the "past centuries". At the same time, neither the analytical nor the emotional method of studying and depicting contradicted the truth - each helped to assert it in its own way. Truth serves as the basis for historical poetry; but poetry is not history: the former most of all wants to arouse curiosity and for this interferes with fiction, the latter rejects the most witty inventions and wants only the truth.

For Karamzin, in this case, the annalistic story, the annalistic point of view is a type of consciousness of the era, and therefore he does not consider it possible to introduce
"corrections" of the historian in the view of the chronicler. Revealing Godunov's inner world by psychological means, drawing his character, he proceeds not only from the facts gleaned from the annals, but also from the general historical situation recreated by the chronicler. The story about Godunov thereby opened contemporary 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 the attacks of Polevoy, she gave him the opportunity to call the writer our last chronicler.

The artistic beginning of the "History" made it possible to reveal the process of developing the mental warehouse of the Russian nation. Analyzing numerous facts initial period 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 the two faces of the people - he is “kind”, he is also “rebellious”.

According to Karamzin, the virtue of the people did not at all contradict the people's "love for rebellions." Artistic research history revealed this truth to the writer. He understood that it was not love for the "establishments" of autocrats, but "love for rebellions" directed against autocrats who did not fulfill their duty to take care of the welfare of their subjects, which distinguishes the Russian people.

Pushkin, when working on Boris Godunov, to use the writer's discoveries. Still not knowing the works of French historians, Pushkin, relying on the national tradition, develops historicism as a method of knowing and explaining the past and present, following Karamzin in revealing Russian national identity - he creates the image of Pimen.

Karamzin in "History" opened a huge art world chronicles.
The writer "cut a window" into the past, he really, like Columbus, found ancient Russia, linking the past with the present.

"History of the Russian State" rightfully invaded the living process of literary development, helped the formation of historicism, contributing to the movement of literature along the path of national identity. She enriched literature with important artistic discoveries, absorbing the experience of chronicles.
"History" armed new literature important knowledge of the past, helped her to 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 for many decades of the 19th century, influencing Russian writers.

The term "History" has many definitions. Storytelling and events. 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, but also radio and television perform the function. 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. Fiction is excluded in the historical image, and fantasy plays an auxiliary role. The image is created unambiguously if the historian is silent about something. Man is the best object for the study of history. The main merit of the Renaissance culture is that it opened the spiritual world of man.

The feat of Karamzin.

According to Pushkin, "Karamzin - great writer in every sense of the word."

Karamzin's language, which has evolved from "Letters of a Russian Traveler" and "Poor Lisa" to "History of the Russian State". His work is the history of the Russian autocracy. "History of the Russian State" dropped out of the history of literature. History is a science that transcends; literature is an art that transcends its boundaries. The history of Karamzin is for him a sphere of aesthetic pleasure. Karamzin formulates the methodological principles of his work. "History of the Russian State" is considered as a monument of Russian literature.

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

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

The attention of the author of the "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). With the history of the wanderings of a simple Russian at his own peril and risk, without state initiative and support, Karamzin finishes his consideration of the era of Ivan III.

The chapters of Karamzin's work are divided into years of the reign of one or another monarch, they are named after them.

In the "History of the Russian State" descriptions of battles, campaigns, as well as everyday life, economic and cultural life. In the 1st chapter of the 7th volume it is written that Pskov joins Moscow with Vasily III. Karamzin opened Russian history to Russian literature. "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 "Songs about the Thing
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 blossoms 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 backdrop against which actions unfold. Historical figures appear suddenly in a historical novel. Fictional characters as main characters. The novel as a drama refers to historical material, pursues the goal of artistic reproduction of historical reality. A complete fusion of history and art is rare. 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 an artistic culture. History provides a foundation for art. Art acquires depth, based 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 clothe in dramatic forms one of the most dramatic eras recent history". There is no fictitious plot or characters in the play, 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.

Between the "History of the Russian State" and "Boris Godunov" a historical era lay, 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 to establish himself in two guises - a historian and a historical novelist - to process the same material in different ways.

When Karamzin worked on "History" he studied Russian folklore, collected historical songs, arranged in chronological order. But it didn't materialize. He singled out most of all in the historical literature "The Tale of Igor's Campaign".

The culture of Russia in the 19th century is, as it were, 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 contributed to the national community, the development of citizenship. Art interacted with public consciousness, forming it into a national one. The development of realistic tendencies in their national cultural traits intensified. A cultural event was the appearance of the "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 the Russian culture of the coming 19th century was the growing problems of national self-identity. Pushkin followed Karamzin, solving the problem of the relation national culture with ancient cultures, after that comes the “Philosophical Letter” by P. Ya. Chaadaev - the philosophy of Russian history, which stimulated a discussion between Slavophiles and Westerners.
Classical literature of the 19th century was more than literature, it is a synthetic phenomenon of culture, which turned out to be a universal form of social self-consciousness. Karamzin noted that the Russian people, despite the humiliation and slavery, felt their cultural superiority in relation to the nomadic people. The first half of the 19th century is the time of the formation of domestic historical science. Karamzin believed that the history of mankind
- this is the story of the struggle of reason with delusion, enlightenment - with 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 the history of Russia. IN
In 1851, the first volume of The History of Russia from 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 "History" by Karamzin.

In fiction at the beginning of the 19th century, according to Belinsky,
"Karamzin" period.

The War of 1812 aroused interest in Russian history. "History of the state
Russian" Karamzin, built on chronicle material. Pushkin saw in this work a reflection of the spirit of chronicle. Pushkin attached great importance to chronicle materials. And this was reflected in Boris Godunov. In his work on the tragedy, Pushkin went through the study of Karamzin, Shakespeare and the "chronicles".

The 1930s and 1940s 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 1940s, everything was changing, a new historiography of Solovyov S.
M. In 1851, the 1st volume of “The History of Russia from Ancient Times” was published. towards the middle
In the 1950s, Russia entered a new era of storms and upheavals. The Crimean War revealed the disintegration of classes and material backwardness. "War and Peace" is a huge amount of historical books and materials, it turned out to be a decisive and violent uprising against historical science. "War and Peace" is a book that grew out of "pedagogical" experience. Tolstoy when reading
“The History of Russia from Ancient Times” by S. M. Solovyov, he argued with him.
According to Solovyov, the government was ugly: “But how did a series of ugliness produce a great, unified state? This already proves that it was not the government that produced history.” The conclusion from this is that we do not need a story
- science, and history - art: "History - art, like art, goes deep and its subject is a description of the life of all Europe."

"War and Peace" has 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 the case 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.

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

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 the literary word takes place only within the dialogue and cannot be extracted from the situation of the dialogue. The truth lies in a different plane.
The ancient author and the ancient text, communication with them is an understanding “above the barriers” of misunderstanding, which presupposes these barriers. The past era is the era of the life of mankind, 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, a historian, publicist, author of poetry and prose, on which a generation was brought up. All this is enough to study, respect, recognize; but not enough to fall in love in literature, in themselves, and not in the world of great-grandfathers. It seems that two features of Karamzin's biography and work make him one of our interlocutors.

Historian-artist. They laughed at this already in the 1820s, they tried to get away from it in the scientific direction, but it seems that this is what is lacking a century and a half later. Indeed, Karamzin, the historian, proposed simultaneously two ways of knowing the past; one is scientific, objective, new facts, concepts, patterns; the other is artistic, subjective. So, the image of a historian-artist belongs not only to the past, the coincidence of Karamzin's position and some of the latest concepts about the essence of historical knowledge - does this speak for itself? Such, we believe, is the first feature of the "topicality" of Karamzin's works.

And, secondly, let us once again note that remarkable contribution to Russian culture, which is called the personality of Karamzin. Karamzin is a highly moral, attractive person who influenced many by direct example and friendship; but to a much greater number - by the presence of this personality in poems, stories, articles, and especially in History. After all, Karamzin was one of the most internally free people of his era, and among his friends and buddies there are many wonderful, best people. He wrote what he thought, drew historical characters on the basis of huge, 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. Aikhenwald Yu. I. Silhouettes of Russian writers. - M.: Respublika, 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. Sakharova. – M.: Nauka, 1991. – 832 p.

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

Schmidt. - M.: Enlightenment, 1990. - 384 p.

6. Karamzin N. M. Traditions of the ages / Comp., entry. 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 / a: Publishing house "Phoenix", 1999. - 608 p.

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

1990. Notes rev. - St. Petersburg: Art - St. Petersburg, 1997 - 830 p.: ill.: portr.

9. Eikhenbaum B. M. About prose: Sat. Art. - L .: Fiction,

1969. - 503 p.
-----------------------
Lotman Yu. M. Karamzin. - St. Petersburg, Art. - St. Petersburg, 1997. - p. 56.
Solovyov S. M. Selected writings. Notes. - M., 1983. - p. 231.
Karamzin N. M. Works. - St. Petersburg, 1848. v. 1. p. 487.Submit a request with a topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.