Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1, 1766. in the family of a Simbirsk landowner, who came from an old noble family. He was brought up in a private Moscow boarding school. In his adolescence, the future writer read historical novels, in which he was especially fascinated by “dangers and heroic friendship.” According to the noble custom of that time, he was registered as a boy while still a boy. military service, he, “coming of age,” joined the regiment in which he had been enrolled for a long time. But army service weighed heavily on him. The young lieutenant dreamed of doing literary creativity. The death of his father gave Karamzin a reason to ask for resignation, and the small inheritance he received made it possible to fulfill his long-standing dream - a trip abroad. The 23-year-old traveler visited Switzerland, Germany, France and England. This trip enriched him with a variety of impressions. Returning to Moscow, Karamzin published “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” where he described everything that struck him and was remembered in foreign lands: landscapes and the appearance of foreigners, folk morals and customs, city life and political system, architecture and painting, his meetings with writers and scientists , as well as various social events that he witnessed, including the beginning French Revolution(1789-1794).
For several years Karamzin published the Moscow Journal, and then the Vestnik Evropy magazine. He created new type a magazine in which literature, politics, and science coexisted. The various materials in these publications were written in an easy, elegant language, presented in a lively and entertaining manner, so they were not only accessible to the general public, but also contributed to the development of literary taste among readers.
Karamzin became the head of a new direction in Russian literature - sentimentalism. The main theme of sentimental literature is touching feelings, emotional experiences of a person, “the life of the heart.” Karamzin was one of the first to write about the joys and sufferings of modern, ordinary people, and not ancient heroes and mythological demigods. In addition, he was the first to introduce into Russian literature a simple, understandable language, close to colloquial.
Karamzin's story " Poor Lisa" Sensitive readers and especially female readers shed streams of tears over her. The pond at the Simonov Monastery in Moscow, where the heroine of the work Liza drowned herself because of unrequited love, began to be called “Lizin’s Pond”; real pilgrimages were made to him. Karamzin had long been planning to take the history of Russia seriously; he wrote several historical stories, including such brilliant works as “Marfa the Posadnitsa” and “Natalia, the Boyar’s Daughter.”
In 1803 The writer received from Emperor Alexander the official title of historiographer and permission to work in archives and libraries. For several years, Karamzin studied ancient chronicles, working around the clock, damaging his eyesight and damaging his health. Karamzin considered history a science that should educate people and instruct them in everyday life.
Nikolai Mikhailovich was a sincere supporter and defender of autocracy. He believed that “the autocracy founded and resurrected Russia.” Therefore, the historian’s focus was on the formation of supreme power in Russia, the reign of tsars and monarchs. But not every ruler of a state deserves approval. Karamzin was indignant towards any violence. For example, the historian condemned the tyrannical rule of Ivan the Terrible, the despotism of Peter and the harshness with which he carried out reforms, eradicating ancient Russian customs.
The enormous work created by the historian in a relatively short time was a stunning success with the public. “The History of the Russian State” was read by all enlightened Russia, it was read aloud in salons, discussed, and heated debates took place around it. When creating “The History of the Russian State,” Karamzin used a huge number of ancient chronicles and other historical documents. To give readers a true understanding, the historian has included notes in each volume. These notes are the result of colossal work.
In 1818 Karamzin was elected an honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.
Minakov A. Yu.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin, writer, poet, journalist, historian, one of the founders of Russian conservatism.
N.M. Karamzin came from the Crimean Tatar family of Kara-Murza (known since the 16th century). He spent his childhood on the estate of his father, Mikhail Egorovich, a middle-class landowner - the village of Znamenskoye, then he was brought up in the private boarding school of Fauvel in Simbirsk, where they taught in French, then in the Moscow boarding school of Prof. THEM. Shadena. Schaden was an apologist for the family, saw in it the guardian of morality and the source of education, in which religion, the beginning of wisdom, should occupy leading place. Best form Schaden considered the government system to be a monarchy, with a strong nobility, virtuous, sacrificial, educated, putting public benefit at the forefront. The influence of such views on K. is undeniable. At the boarding school, K. learned French and German, and studied English, Latin and Greek. In addition, K. attended lectures at Moscow University. Since 1782, K. served in the Preobrazhensky Regiment. At the same time, his literary activity began. K.'s first printed work is a translation from German of S. Gessner's “Wooden Leg.” After the death of his father, K. retired in 1784 and went to Simbirsk, where he joined the Masonic lodge of the Golden Crown. A year later, K. moved to Moscow, where he became close to Moscow masons from N.I. Novikov’s entourage, under whose influence his views and literary tastes were formed, in particular, interest in the literature of the French “Enlightenment”, “encyclopedists”, Montesquieu, Voltaire and etc. Freemasonry attracted K. with its educational and charitable activities, but repelled him with its mystical side and rituals. At the end of the 1780s. K. participates in various periodicals: “Reflections on the works of God...”, “ Children's reading for the heart and mind”, in which he publishes his own writings and translations. By 1788, K. was losing interest in Freemasonry. In 1789-1790 he made an 18-month trip abroad, one of the motivations for which was K.’s break with the Freemasons. K. visited Germany, Switzerland, revolution-ridden France and England. Witnessing the events in France, he repeatedly visited the National Assembly, listened to Robespierre's speeches, and made acquaintances with many political celebrities. This experience had a huge impact on the further evolution of K., laying the foundation for a critical attitude towards “advanced” ideas. Thus, in “Melodor and Philalethe” (1795) K. clearly expressed the rejection and shock caused by the implementation of the ideas of the “Enlightenment” in practice, during the so-called “Great French Revolution”: “The Age of Enlightenment! I don’t recognize you - in blood and flame I don’t recognize you - among murders and destruction I don’t recognize you!
Upon returning from abroad, he published the “Moscow Journal” (1791-1792), the album “Aglaya” (1794-95), the almanac “Aonids” (1796-99), “Pantheon of Foreign Literature” (1798), the magazine “Children’s Reading” for the heart and mind” (1799), publishes “Letters of a Russian Traveler” (1791-1792), which brought him all-Russian fame, becomes close to the conservative G.R. Derzhavin and finally breaks with Freemasonry. During this period, K. experiences increasing skepticism towards the ideals of the “Enlightenment”, but in general remains in a Westernizing, cosmopolitan position, being confident that the path of civilization is the same for all humanity and that Russia should follow this path: “everyone the people are nothing compared to the people. The main thing is to be people, not Slavs” (Letters of a Russian Traveler. L., 1987. P.254). As a writer, he creates a new direction, the so-called sentimentalism, carries out a large-scale reform of the Russian language, on the one hand, orienting it towards French literary models, on the other, bringing it closer to the spoken language, while believing that the Russian everyday language has yet to be created. Sentimentalism was most reflected in such a work as “Poor Liza” (1792). K.'s desire to “Frenchize” the Russian language should not be exaggerated. Back in 1791, he argued: “in our so-called good society, without French You will be deaf and dumb. Isn't it a shame? How can you not have people's pride? Why be parrots and monkeys together?” (Ibid. P.338.) In addition, the cosmopolitanism of the time was combined with a unique literary struggle for a return to Russian origins. For example, his story “Natalya, the Boyar’s Daughter” (1792) began with the words: “Who among us does not love those times when Russians were Russians, when they dressed up in their own clothes, walked with their own gait, lived according to their own customs, spoke in their own language and according to your heart..? (Notes of an old Moscow resident. M., 1988. P.55).
In April 1801, K. married Elizaveta Ivanovna Protasova, who died a year later, leaving a daughter, Sophia.
The accession to the throne of Alexander I marked the beginning of a new period in the ideological evolution of K. In 1802, he published the “Historical Laudatory Word to Catherine the Second,” written in 1801, which was an order to the new tsar, where he formulates the monarchical program and clearly expresses favor of autocracy. K. launched an active publishing activity: he republished the Moscow Journal, undertook the publication of the Pantheon of Russian Authors, or a Collection of Their Portraits with Comments, and published his first collected works in 8 volumes. The main event of the first years of the 19th century was the publication of the “thick” magazine “Bulletin of Europe” (1802-1803), published twice a month, where K. acted as a political writer, publicist, commentator and international observer. In it, he clearly formulates his statist position (previously for him the state was a “monster”). It is also noteworthy that in his articles K. quite sharply opposes the imitation of everything foreign, against the education of Russian children abroad, etc. K. unambiguously expresses his position with the formula: “The people are humiliated when they need someone else’s mind for education” (Bulletin of Europe. 1802. No. 8. P. 364). Moreover, K. calls for stopping the reckless borrowing of the experience of the West: “The patriot hastens to appropriate to the fatherland what is beneficial and necessary, but rejects slavish imitation in trinkets... It is good and should be studied: but woe<...>to the people who will be an everlasting student” (Oc.: B 2 vol. L., 1984. Vol. 2. P. 230.) K. is critical of the liberal initiatives of Alexander I, forming a position that can be described as proto-conservative, since K. himself still remains a “republican at heart.” K. did not abandon literature either - in 1803 he published “Marfa Posadnitsa” and a number of other works. It is especially worth highlighting “My Confession” (1802), where he sharply polemicizes with the entire educational tradition - from the “encyclopedists” to J.J. Rousseau. His conservative-monarchist views are becoming more and more clear.
Back in the late 90s. XVIII century K.'s interest in Russian history became apparent. He creates several small historical works. On September 28, 1803, K. turned to the Ministry of Public Education to the trustee of the Moscow educational district M.N. Muravyov with a request for his official appointment as a historiographer, which was soon granted by a special decree of November 31. In the same year, A.S. Shishkov’s book “Discourse on the old and new syllable” was published Russian language”, in which a prominent Russian conservative accused Karamzin and his followers of spreading gallomania (See Shishkov). However, K. himself did not take any part in the literary controversy. This can be explained by the fact that K. was not only busy with historiographical developments, “he took monastic vows as a historian” (P.A. Vyazemsky), his position, including linguistic, under the influence of his studies in Russian history, began to move closer to the position of Shishkov.
In 1804, K. married for the second time - to Ekaterina Andreevna Kolyvanova. His life was filled with hard work, in the winter he lived in Moscow, in the summer in Ostafyevo.
From 1803 to 1811, K. created five volumes of “History of the Russian State,” simultaneously discovering and using for the first time the most valuable historical sources.
At the end of 1809, K. was first introduced to Alexander I. By 1810, K., under the influence of his studies in Russian history, became a consistent conservative patriot. At the beginning of this year, through his relative F.V. Rostopchin, he met in Moscow the leader of the then “conservative party” at court - Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna and began to constantly visit her residence in Tver, where her husband, Prince of Oldenburg, was a general -governor. The Grand Duchess's salon then represented the center of conservative opposition to the liberal-Western course, personified by the figure of M.M. Speransky. In this salon, K. read excerpts from “History...” in the presence of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, and then he met the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, who since then has become one of his patrons. In 1810, Alexander I granted K. the Order of St. Vladimir 3rd degree. On the initiative of Ekaterina Pavlovna, K. wrote and submitted in March 1811 to Alexander I, during the readings in Tver of the next fragment from his “History...”, a treatise “On the ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations” is the most profound and meaningful document of the emerging Russian conservative thought. Along with a review of Russian history and criticism of the state policy of Alexander I, the “Note” contained a complete, original and very complex in its theoretical content, the concept of Autocracy as a special, original Russian type of power, closely connected with Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church.
From K.’s point of view, autocracy is a “smart political system” (Note on ancient and new Russia. M., 1991, p. 22), which has undergone a long evolution and played a unique role in the history of Russia. This system was “the great creation of the princes of Moscow” (Ibid. P.22), starting with Ivan Kalita, and, in its main elements, it had the quality of objectivity, that is, it was weakly dependent on the personal properties, mind and will of individual rulers, since was not a product of personal power, but a rather complex construction based on certain traditions and state and public institutions. This system arose as a result of the synthesis of the autochthonous political tradition of “unique power,” dating back to Kievan Rus and some traditions of the Tatar-Mongol khan power. Conscious imitation of the political ideals of the Byzantine Empire also played a big role (Ibid. p.23).
The autocracy that emerged in the conditions of the most difficult struggle against the Tatar-Mongol yoke was unconditionally accepted by the Russian people, since it not only eliminated foreign power, but also internal civil strife. “Political slavery” (p.22.) did not seem in these conditions to be an excessive price to pay for national security and unity.
The entire system of state and public institutions was, according to K., “an outpouring of royal power” (Ibid. P.24), the monarchical core permeated the entire political system from top to bottom. At the same time, autocratic power was preferable to the power of the aristocracy. The aristocracy, acquiring self-sufficient importance, could become dangerous for statehood, for example, during the appanage period or during the Time of Troubles of the 17th century (Ibid. P.28). The autocracy “built” the aristocracy into the system of state hierarchy and strictly subordinated it to the interests of monarchical statehood.
According to Karamzin, the Orthodox Church played an exceptional role in this system. She was the “conscience” (Ibid. p. 36.) of the autocratic system, setting the moral coordinates for the monarch and the people in stable times, and, in particular, when their “accidental deviations from virtue” occurred (Ibid.). K. emphasized that spiritual power acted in close alliance with civil power and gave it religious justification. In his “History...” K. emphasized: “history confirms the truth<...>that faith is a special state power” (History of the Russian State: In 4 books. M., 1989. T.6. P.224).
The autocratic system of political power, according to K., was also based on traditions, customs and habits generally recognized by the people, what he designated as “ancient skills” and, more broadly, “the people’s spirit”, “attachment to our special” (Note on the ancient and new Russia. M., 1991. P.32).
Karamzin categorically refused to identify “true autocracy” with despotism, tyranny and arbitrariness. He believed that such deviations from the norms of autocracy were due to chance (Ivan the Terrible, Paul I) and were quickly eliminated by the inertia of the tradition of the “wise” and “virtuous” monarchical rule. This tradition was so powerful and effective that even in cases of a sharp weakening or even complete absence of the supreme state and church power (for example, during the Time of Troubles), it led within a short historical period to the restoration of autocracy (Ibid. p.49).
Due to all of the above, autocracy was the “palladium of Russia” (Ibid. P.105), the main reason for its power and prosperity. From K.’s point of view, the basic principles of monarchical rule should have been preserved in the future, only supplemented by proper policies in the field of education and legislation, which would not lead to the undermining of the autocracy, but to its maximum strengthening. With such an understanding of autocracy, any attempt to limit it would be a crime against Russian history and the Russian people.
K. was one of the first in Russian thought to raise the question of the negative consequences of the reign of Peter I, since the desire of this emperor to transform Russia into the likeness of Europe undermined the “national spirit,” that is, the very foundations of autocracy, “the moral power of the state.” The desire of Peter I “towards new customs for us crossed the boundaries of prudence” (Ibid. P.32). K. actually accused Peter of the forcible eradication of ancient customs, the fatal sociocultural split of the people into a higher, “Germanized” layer and a lower, “common people,” the destruction of the Patriarchate, which led to a weakening of faith, the transfer of the capital to the outskirts of the state, at the cost of enormous efforts and sacrifices ( Ibid. pp. 32-37). As a result, K. argued, Russians “became citizens of the world, but in some cases ceased to be citizens of Russia” (Ibid. p. 35).
The main elements of the concept of autocracy in one form or another were developed by subsequent generations of Russian conservatives: S.S. Uvarov, L.A. Tikhomirov, I.A. Ilyin, I.A. Solonevich and others
In the “Note” K. formulated the idea of “Russian law”, which has not yet been implemented in practice: “the laws of the people must be extracted from their own concepts, morals, customs, and local circumstances” (Ibid. P.91). “Russian law also has its origins, like Roman law; define them and you will give us a system of laws” (P.94). Paradoxically, to some extent (but far from complete) K.’s recommendations were already used during the reign of Nicholas I by his ideological opponent M.M. Speransky in the process of codifying Russian legislation.
Among other things, the “Note” contained the classical principles of Russian conservatism: “we demand more guardian wisdom than creative wisdom” (Ibid. p.63), “every news in state order there is an evil to which one must resort only when necessary” (Ibid. P. 56), “for the firmness of the state’s existence, it is safer to enslave people than to give them freedom at the wrong time” (Ibid. P. 74).
The “note” was received coldly by the emperor, but subsequently, he clearly took into account its main provisions. After the fall of Speransky, K.’s candidacy for the post of State Secretary of the State Council was considered along with A.S. Shishkov. Preference was given to the latter, as a military man, which was important in the conditions of the impending war with Napoleon.
K.’s work on “The History of the Russian State” was temporarily interrupted by the Patriotic War of 1812. K. himself was ready to fight in the Moscow militia and left the city in the last moments before Napoleon entered the capital. K. spent 1813 in evacuation, first in Yaroslavl, and then in Nizhny Novgorod. K. returned to Moscow in June 1813 and continued work on “History...”, despite the fact that his library burned down in the Moscow fire of 1812. At the beginning of 1816, K. came to St. Petersburg to ask for funds to publish the first eight volumes. With the support of Empresses Elizaveta Alekseevna and Maria Fedorovna, after a reception with A.A. Arakcheev, Alexander I honored K. with the highest audience, as a result of which the necessary funds were allocated and the written volumes of “History...”, without censorship, were published in 1818 . (The 9th volume was published in 1821, the 10th and 11th in 1824, the last, 12th volume was published posthumously). “The History of the Russian State” was a huge success. From 1816 until the moment of his death, K. lived in St. Petersburg, communicating with V.A. Zhukovsky, S.S. Uvarov, A.S. Pushkin, D.N. Bludov, P.A. Vyazemsky and others. At the suggestion of Alexander I, K. began to spend every summer in Tsarskoe Selo, which increasingly strengthened his closeness to the royal family. The Emperor repeatedly talked with K. during walks in the Tsarskoye Selo park, constantly read “History...” in the manuscript, and listened to K.’s opinions on current political events. In 1816, K. was granted state councilor and awarded the Order of St. Anna 1st class, in 1824 he became a full state councilor. In 1818 K. was accepted as a member of the Imperial Russian Academy. In 1818, eight volumes of “History...” were published in a circulation of three thousand copies, which quickly sold out in 25 days. The significance of this grandiose work was accurately expressed by P.A. Vyazemsky: “Karamzin’s creation is our only book, truly state, folk and monarchical” (Vyazemsky P.A. Complete collection essays. St. Petersburg, 1879. T.2. P.215).
The death of Alexander I shocked K., and the rebellion on December 14 finally broke K.’s physical strength (on that day he caught a cold on Senate Square, the illness turned into consumption and death).
The role of K. as a figure of culture and Russian historiography as a whole is recognized in Russian thought. However, the significance of K. as a conservative thinker who had a decisive influence on Russian conservative-patriotic thought has yet to be revealed by historians and philosophers.
Works by N.M. Karamzin:
Bulletin of Europe. M., 1802. No. 1-24; 1803. No. 1-22;
Note on ancient and new Russia M., 1991.
Notes of an old Moscow resident. M., 1986.
History of the Russian State, 2nd ed., vol. 1-12, St. Petersburg, 1818-29; 5th ed., books 1-3 (T.1-12). St. Petersburg, 1842-43 (reprint - M., 1988-89);
Essays. T.1-11. M., 1803 - 1815.
Unpublished writings and correspondence. St. Petersburg, 1862. Part 1;
Letters to I.I. Dmitriev. St. Petersburg, 1866;
Letters to P.A. Vyazemsky. 1810-1826. St. Petersburg, 1897.
References
Bestuzhev-Ryumin K.N. Karamzin as a historian // ZhMNP.- 1867. - No. 1.-department.2.-S.1-20. The same in the book. Bestuzheva - Ryumina: Biographies and characteristics. St. Petersburg, 1882.
Bestuzhev-Ryumin K.N. N.M. Karamzin: Essay on life and work. St. Petersburg, 1895.
Bestuzhev-Ryumin K.N. Karamzin N.M. //Russian biographical dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1892. T.8. Ibak-Klyucharyov.
Bulich N.N. Biographical sketch of N.M. Karamzin and the development of his political activities. Kazan, 1866.
Gogotsky S.S. N.M. Karamzin. Kyiv, 187...
Grot Y.K. Essay on the activities and personality of Karamzin. St. Petersburg, 1867.
Gulyga A.V. Karamzin in the system of Russian culture//Literature and art in the system of Russian culture. M., 1988.
Degtyareva M.I. Two candidates for the role of state ideologist: J. de Maistre and N.M. Karamzin // Historical metamorphoses of conservatism. Permian. 1998.
Ermashov D.V., Shirinyants A.A. At the origins of Russian conservatism: N.M. Karamzin. M., 1999.
Zavitnevich V.Z. Speransky and Karamzin as representatives of two political directions, Kyiv, 1907.
Kislyagina L.G. Formation of Karamzin’s socio-political views. M., 1976.
Kozlov V.P. “The history of the Russian state in the assessments of contemporaries” M., 1976.
Lotman Yu.M. “About ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations.” Karamzin - a monument to Russian journalism of the early 19th century//LU.-1988.-No. 4.
Lotman Yu.M. Karamzin. St. Petersburg, 1997.
Miliukov P. Main currents of Russian historical thought. St. Petersburg, 1913.
Pivovarov Yu.S. Karamzin and the beginning of the Russian Enlightenment.//Socium. 1993. No. 26-27.
Pogodin M.P. N.M. Karamzin according to his writings, letters and reviews of contemporaries. Ch.P.M., 1866.-P.58-82.
Predtechensky A.V. Essays on the socio-political history of Russia in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. M., L., 1957.
Pypin A.N. Social movement in Russia under Alexander 1. Historical essays.-SPb., 1908.-588 p.
Sakharov A.N. Lessons from the “immortal historiographer” // Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State: In 12 volumes. T.1. M., 1989. Applications.
Smirnov A.F. N.M. Karamzin and the spiritual culture of Russia // Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. Book 3. Rostov-on-Don, 1990
Uspensky B.A. From the history of the Russian literary language of the 18th - early 19th centuries. Karamzin's language program and its historical roots. M., 1985.
Pointers:
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin: Index of works, literature about life and creativity. 1883-1993. M., 1999. -
Black, Josef L. Nicolas Karamzin and Russian society in the nineteenth century: a study in Russian political and historical thought. Toronto-Buffalo, Univ. of Toronto press, 1975.
Gross A.G. N.M. Karamzin. L.-Amsterdam.
Gross A.G. N.M. Karamzins “Messenger of Europe” (Vestnik Yevropy), 1802-3 // Forum for modern language studies. 1969. Vol. V.No.1.
Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich is a famous Russian historian, as well as a writer. At the same time, he was engaged in publishing, reforming the Russian language and was the brightest representative of the era of sentimentalism.
Since the writer was born into a noble family, he received an excellent primary education at home. Later he entered a noble boarding school, where he continued his own education. Also in the period from 1781 to 1782, Nikolai Mikhailovich attended important university lectures.
In 1781, Karamzin went to serve in the St. Petersburg Guards Regiment, where his work began. After the death of his own father, the writer put an end to military service.
Since 1785, Karamzin began to seriously develop his creative abilities. He moves to Moscow, where he joins the “Friendly Scientific Community”. After this significant event, Karamzin participated in the publication of the magazine and also collaborated with various publishing houses.
For several years, the writer traveled around European countries, where he met various outstanding people. This is what contributed to the further development of his creativity. A work such as “Letters of a Russian Traveler” was written.
More details
The future historian named Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born in the city of Simbirsk on December 12, 1766 into a family of hereditary nobles. Nikolai received his very first basic education at home. After receiving primary education, my father sent me to a noble boarding school, which was located in Simbirsk. And in 1778, he moved his son to a Moscow boarding school. In addition to basic education, young Karamzin I was also very interested in foreign languages and attended lectures at the same time.
After completing his education, in 1781, Nikolai, on the advice of his father, entered military service in the elite Preobrazhensky Regiment at that time. Karamzin's debut as a writer took place in 1783, with a work called "Wooden Leg". In 1784 Karamzin decided to end his military career and therefore retired with the rank of lieutenant.
In 1785, after the end of his military career, Karamzin made a strong-willed decision to move from Simbirsk, where he was born and lived almost his entire life, to Moscow. It was there that the writer met Novikov and the Pleshcheevs. Also, while in Moscow, he became interested in Freemasonry and for this reason he joined a Masonic circle, where he started communicating with Gamaleya and Kutuzov. In addition to his hobby, he is also publishing his first children's magazine.
In addition to writing his own works, Karamzin also translates various works. So in 1787 he translated Shakespeare's tragedy "Julius Caesar". A year later he translated "Emilia Galotti" written by Lessing. The first work written entirely by Karamzin was published in 1789 and was called “Eugene and Yulia”, it was published in a magazine called “Children’s Reading”
In 1789-1790 Karamzin decides to diversify his life and therefore goes on a trip throughout Europe. The writer visited such major countries as Germany, England, France, Switzerland. During his travels, Karamzin met many famous historical figures of that time, such as Herder and Bonnet. He even managed to attend the performances of Robespierre himself. During the trip, he did not easily admire the beauties of Europe, but he carefully described all this, after which he called this work “Letters of a Russian Traveler.”
Detailed biography
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin is the greatest Russian writer and historian, the founder of sentimentalism.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 12, 1766 in the Simbirsk province. His father was a hereditary nobleman and had his own estate. Like most representatives of high society, Nikolai was educated at home. In adolescence he leaves home and enters the Moscow Johann Schaden University. He is making progress in learning foreign languages. In parallel with the main program, the guy attends lectures by famous educators and philosophers. It is there that his literary activity begins.
In 1783 Karamzin became a soldier in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, where he served until the death of his father. After being notified of his death, the future writer goes to his homeland, where he remains to live. There he meets the poet Ivan Turgenev, who is a member of the Masonic lodge. It is Ivan Sergeevich who invites Nikolai to join this organization. After joining the ranks of the Freemasons, the young poet became interested in the literature of Rousseau and Shakespeare. His worldview gradually begins to change. As a result, fascinated by European culture, he breaks all ties with the lodge and goes on a journey. Visiting the leading countries of that period, Karamzin witnesses the revolution in France and makes new acquaintances, the most famous of whom was the popular philosopher of that time, Immanuel Kant.
The above events greatly inspired Nikolai. Being impressed, he creates documentary prose “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” which fully outlines his feelings and attitude towards everything that is happening in the West. Readers liked the sentimental style. Noticing this, Nikolai begins work on a standard work of this genre, known as “Poor Liza.” It reveals thoughts and experiences different heroes. This work was positively received in society, it actually shifted classicism to the bottom.
In 1791, Karamzin became involved in journalism, working for the Moscow Journal newspaper. In it he publishes his own almanacs and other works. In addition, the poet is working on reviews theatrical productions. Until 1802, Nikolai was engaged in journalism. During this period, Nicholas became closer to the royal court, actively communicated with Emperor Alexander I, they were often spotted walking in gardens and parks, the publicist earned the trust of the ruler, and in fact became his close confidant. A year later, he changes his vector to historical notes. The idea of creating a book telling about the history of Russia gripped the writer. Having received the title of historiographer, he writes his most valuable creation, “History of the Russian State.” 12 volumes were published, the last of which was completed by 1826 in Tsarskoe Selo. It was here that Nikolai Mikhailovich spent his last years of his life, dying on May 22, 1826 due to a cold.
Biography by dates and interesting facts. The most important.
Other biographies:
- Viktor Petrovich Astafiev
Back in 1924, in the village of Ovsyanka, on May 1, the future writer and playwright, Viktor Petrovich Astafiev, was born. His village stood on the banks of one of the great rivers of Siberia, the Yenisei.
- Prishvin Mikhail Mikhailovich
Mikhail Mikhailovich Prishvin is a famous naturalist writer. In 1873, on February 4, a man was born into a merchant family who made a great contribution to Russian literature and became the author of many works for children.
- Ostrovsky Alexander Nikolaevich
Ostrovsky Alexander Nikolaevich was born on March 31, 1823. In a big city - Moscow. In a merchant family. At the age of 8, his mother dies. His father's dream was to see his son become a lawyer, but he began to show interest in literature.
- Semyon Dezhnev
The history of geographical discoveries knows many big names. One of them belongs to a tribute collector, a pioneer of Eastern and Northern Siberia, a navigator who passed the Bering Strait 80 years before Vitus Bering himself.
- Karl Ernst von Baer
Karl Baer is a famous scientist, naturalist, founder of the science of embryology, a man who, through his activities, made a huge contribution to the development of embryology and the science of medicine in general.
On December 12 (December 1, Old Style), 1766, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born - Russian writer, poet, editor of the Moscow Journal (1791-1792) and the journal Vestnik Evropy (1802-1803), honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences ( 1818), full member of the Imperial Russian Academy, historian, first and only court historiographer, one of the first reformers of the Russian literary language, founding father of Russian historiography and Russian sentimentalism.
|
|
Contribution of N.M. It is difficult to overestimate Karamzin's contribution to Russian culture. Remembering everything that this man managed to do during the short 59 years of his earthly existence, it is impossible to ignore the fact that it was Karamzin who largely determined the person Russian XIX century - the “golden” age of Russian poetry, literature, historiography, source studies and other humanitarian areas of scientific knowledge. Thanks to linguistic research aimed at popularizing the literary language of poetry and prose, Karamzin gave Russian literature to his contemporaries. And if Pushkin is “our everything,” then Karamzin can safely be called “our Everything” with a capital letter. Without him, Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Baratynsky, Batyushkov and other poets of the so-called “Pushkin galaxy” would hardly have been possible.
“No matter what you turn to in our literature, everything began with Karamzin: journalism, criticism, stories, novels, historical stories, journalism, the study of history,” V.G. rightly noted later. Belinsky.
“History of the Russian State” N.M. Karamzin became not just the first Russian-language book on the history of Russia, accessible to a wide reader. Karamzin gave the Russian people the Fatherland in the full sense of the word. They say that, having closed the eighth and final volume, Count Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!” And he wasn't alone. All his contemporaries suddenly learned that they lived in a country with thousand years of history and they have something to be proud of. Before this, it was believed that before Peter I, who opened a “window to Europe,” there was nothing in Russia even remotely worthy of attention: the dark ages of backwardness and barbarism, boyar autocracy, primordially Russian laziness and bears in the streets...
Karamzin’s multi-volume work was not completed, but, having been published in the first quarter of the XIX century, he completely determined the historical identity of the nation on for many years forward. All subsequent historiography was never able to generate anything more consistent with the “imperial” self-awareness that developed under the influence of Karamzin. Karamzin’s views left a deep, indelible mark in all areas of Russian culture in the 19th and 20th centuries, forming the foundations of the national mentality, which ultimately determined the path of development of Russian society and the state as a whole.
It is significant that in the 20th century, the edifice of Russian great power, which had collapsed under the attacks of revolutionary internationalists, was revived again by the 1930s - under different slogans, with different leaders, in a different ideological package. but... The approach to historiography itself national history, both before 1917 and after, in many ways remained jingoistic and sentimental in Karamzin style.
N.M. Karamzin - early years
N.M. Karamzin was born on December 12 (1st century), 1766 in the village of Mikhailovka, Buzuluk district, Kazan province (according to other sources, in the family estate of Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province). Little is known about his early years: there are no letters, diaries, or memories of Karamzin himself about his childhood. He did not even know exactly his year of birth and almost all his life he believed that he was born in 1765. Only in his old age, having discovered the documents, did he become “younger” by one year.
The future historiographer grew up on the estate of his father, retired captain Mikhail Egorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), an average Simbirsk nobleman. Received a good home education. In 1778 he was sent to Moscow to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Shadena. At the same time, he attended lectures at the university in 1781-1782.
After graduating from the boarding school, in 1783 Karamzin enlisted in the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg, where he met the young poet and future employee of his “Moscow Journal” Dmitriev. At the same time he published his first translation of S. Gesner’s idyll “The Wooden Leg”.
In 1784, Karamzin retired as a lieutenant and never served again, which was perceived in the society of that time as a challenge. After a short stay in Simbirsk, where he joined the Golden Crown Masonic lodge, Karamzin moved to Moscow and was introduced into the circle of N. I. Novikov. He settled in a house that belonged to Novikov’s “Friendly Scientific Society” and became the author and one of the publishers of the first children’s magazine “Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind” (1787-1789), founded by Novikov. At the same time, Karamzin became close to the Pleshcheev family. For many years he had a tender platonic friendship with N.I. Pleshcheeva. In Moscow, Karamzin published his first translations, in which his interest in European and Russian history is clearly visible: Thomson’s “The Seasons,” Zhanlis’s “Country Evenings,” W. Shakespeare’s tragedy “Julius Caesar,” Lessing’s tragedy “Emilia Galotti.”
In 1789, Karamzin’s first original story, “Eugene and Yulia,” appeared in the magazine “Children’s Reading...”. The reader practically did not notice it.
Travel to Europe
According to many biographers, Karamzin was not inclined towards the mystical side of Freemasonry, remaining a supporter of its active and educational direction. To be more precise, by the end of the 1780s, Karamzin had already “become ill” with Masonic mysticism in its Russian version. Perhaps the cooling towards Freemasonry was one of the reasons for his departure to Europe, where he spent more than a year (1789-90), visiting Germany, Switzerland, France and England. In Europe, he met and talked (except for influential masons) with European “masters of minds”: I. Kant, I. G. Herder, C. Bonnet, I. K. Lavater, J. F. Marmontel, visited museums, theaters, secular salons. In Paris, Karamzin listened to O. G. Mirabeau, M. Robespierre and other revolutionaries at the National Assembly, saw many outstanding political figures and was familiar with many. Apparently, revolutionary Paris in 1789 showed Karamzin how powerfully a word can influence a person: in print, when Parisians read pamphlets and leaflets with keen interest; oral, when revolutionary speakers spoke and controversy arose (an experience that could not be acquired in Russia at that time).
Karamzin did not have a very enthusiastic opinion about English parliamentarism (perhaps following in the footsteps of Rousseau), but he very highly valued the level of civilization at which English society as a whole was located.
Karamzin – journalist, publisher
In the fall of 1790, Karamzin returned to Moscow and soon organized the publication of the monthly “Moscow Journal” (1790-1792), in which most of the “Letters of a Russian Traveler” were published, telling about the revolutionary events in France, the stories “Liodor”, “Poor Lisa” , “Natalia, the boyar’s daughter”, “Flor Silin”, essays, stories, critical articles and poems. Karamzin attracted the entire literary elite of that time to collaborate in the magazine: his friends Dmitriev and Petrov, Kheraskov and Derzhavin, Lvov, Neledinsky-Meletsky and others. Karamzin’s articles approved a new literary direction - sentimentalism.
The Moscow Journal had only 210 regular subscribers, but for the end of the 18th century, this is the same as a hundred thousandth circulation in late XIX centuries. Moreover, the magazine was read by precisely those who “made the difference” in the literary life of the country: students, officials, young officers, minor employees of various government agencies (“archive youths”).
After Novikov’s arrest, the authorities became seriously interested in the publisher of the Moscow Journal. During interrogations in the Secret Expedition, they ask: was it Novikov who sent the “Russian traveler” abroad on a “special mission”? The Novikovites were people of high integrity and, of course, Karamzin was shielded, but because of these suspicions the magazine had to be stopped.
In the 1790s, Karamzin published the first Russian almanacs - “Aglaya” (1794 -1795) and “Aonids” (1796 -1799). In 1793, when the Jacobin dictatorship was established at the third stage of the French Revolution, which shocked Karamzin with its cruelty, Nikolai Mikhailovich abandoned some of his previous views. The dictatorship aroused in him serious doubts about the possibility of humanity to achieve prosperity. He sharply condemned the revolution and all violent methods of transforming society. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the story “The Island of Bornholm” (1793); "Sierra Morena" (1795); poems “Melancholy”, “Message to A. A. Pleshcheev”, etc.
During this period, real literary fame came to Karamzin.
Fedor Glinka: “Out of 1,200 cadets, it was rare that he did not repeat by heart some page from The Island of Bornholm.”.
The name Erast, previously completely unpopular, is increasingly found in lists of nobility. There are rumors of successful and unsuccessful suicides in the spirit of Poor Lisa. The poisonous memoirist Vigel recalls that important Moscow nobles had already begun to make do with “almost like an equal with a thirty-year-old retired lieutenant”.
In July 1794, Karamzin’s life almost ended: on the way to the estate, in the steppe wilderness, he was attacked by robbers. Karamzin miraculously escaped, receiving two minor wounds.
In 1801, he married Elizaveta Protasova, a neighbor on the estate, whom he had known since childhood - at the time of the wedding they had known each other for almost 13 years.
Reformer of the Russian literary language
Already in the early 1790s, Karamzin was seriously thinking about the present and future of Russian literature. He writes to a friend: “I am deprived of the pleasure of reading much in my native language. We are still poor in writers. We have several poets who deserve to be read.” Of course, there were and are Russian writers: Lomonosov, Sumarokov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, but there are no more than a dozen significant names. Karamzin is one of the first to understand that it is not a matter of talent - there are no less talents in Russia than in any other country. It’s just that Russian literature cannot move away from the long-outdated traditions of classicism, founded in the middle of the 18th century by the only theorist M.V. Lomonosov.
The reform of the literary language carried out by Lomonosov, as well as the theory of the “three calms” he created, met the tasks of the transition period from ancient to modern literature. A complete rejection of the use of familiar Church Slavonicisms in the language was then still premature and inappropriate. But the evolution of the language, which began under Catherine II, actively continued. The “Three Calms” proposed by Lomonosov were based not on lively colloquial speech, but on the witty thought of a theoretical writer. And this theory often put the authors in a difficult position: they had to use heavy, outdated Slavic expressions where in the spoken language they had long been replaced by others, softer and more elegant. The reader sometimes could not “cut through” the piles of outdated Slavicisms used in church books and records in order to understand the essence of this or that secular work.
Karamzin decided to bring the literary language closer to the spoken one. Therefore, one of his main goals was the further liberation of literature from Church Slavonicisms. In the preface to the second book of the almanac “Aonida,” he wrote: “The thunder of words alone only deafens us and never reaches our hearts.”
The second feature of Karamzin’s “new syllable” was the simplification of syntactic structures. The writer abandoned lengthy periods. In the “Pantheon of Russian Writers” he decisively declared: “Lomonosov’s prose cannot serve as a model for us at all: his long periods are tiresome, the arrangement of words is not always consistent with the flow of thoughts.”
Unlike Lomonosov, Karamzin strove to write in short, easily understandable sentences. This is still a model of good style and an example to follow in literature.
Karamzin’s third merit was the enrichment of the Russian language with a number of successful neologisms, which became firmly established in the main vocabulary. The innovations proposed by Karamzin include such widely known words in our time as “industry”, “development”, “sophistication”, “concentrate”, “touching”, “entertainment”, “humanity”, “public”, “ generally useful”, “influence” and a number of others.
When creating neologisms, Karamzin used mainly the method of tracing French words: “interesting” from “interessant”, “refined” from “raffine”, “development” from “developpement”, “touching” from “touchant”.
We know that even in the era of Peter the Great, many foreign words appeared in the Russian language, but they mostly replaced words that already existed in the Slavic language and were not a necessity. In addition, these words were often taken in their raw form, so they were very heavy and clumsy (“fortecia” instead of “fortress”, “victory” instead of “victory”, etc.). Karamzin, on the contrary, tried to give foreign words Russian ending, adapting them to the requirements of Russian grammar: “serious”, “moral”, “aesthetic”, “audience”, “harmony”, “enthusiasm”, etc.
In his reform activities, Karamzin focused on the lively spoken language of educated people. And this was the key to the success of his work - he writes not scholarly treatises, but travel notes (“Letters of a Russian Traveler”), sentimental stories (“Bornholm Island”, “Poor Lisa”), poems, articles, translations from French, English and German .
"Arzamas" and "Conversation"
It is not surprising that most of the young writers contemporary to Karamzin accepted his transformations with a bang and willingly followed him. But, like any reformer, Karamzin had staunch opponents and worthy opponents.
A.S. stood at the head of Karamzin’s ideological opponents. Shishkov (1774-1841) – admiral, patriot, famous statesman of that time. An Old Believer, an admirer of Lomonosov's language, Shishkov, at first glance, was a classicist. But this point of view requires significant qualifications. In contrast to Karamzin's Europeanism, Shishkov put forward the idea of nationality in literature - the most important sign of a romantic worldview that was far from classicism. It turns out that Shishkov also joined for romantics, but not of a progressive, but of a conservative direction. His views can be recognized as a kind of forerunner of later Slavophilism and Pochvenism.
In 1803, Shishkov presented his “Discourse on the old and new syllables of the Russian language.” He reproached the “Karamzinists” for succumbing to the temptation of European revolutionary false teachings and advocated for the return of literature to oral folk art, to the vernacular, to Orthodox Church Slavonic books.
Shishkov was not a philologist. He dealt with the problems of literature and the Russian language, rather, as an amateur, so Admiral Shishkov’s attacks on Karamzin and his literary supporters sometimes looked not so much scientifically substantiated as unsubstantiated ideological. Karamzin’s language reform seemed to Shishkov, a warrior and defender of the Fatherland, unpatriotic and anti-religious: “Language is the soul of the people, the mirror of morals, a true indicator of enlightenment, an incessant witness of deeds. Where there is no faith in the hearts, there is no piety in the language. Where there is no love for the fatherland, there the language does not express domestic feelings.”.
Shishkov reproached Karamzin for the excessive use of barbarisms (“epoch”, “harmony”, “catastrophe”), he was disgusted by neologisms (“coup” as a translation of the word “revolution”), artificial words hurt his ear: “future”, “well-read” and etc.
And we must admit that sometimes his criticism was pointed and accurate.
The evasiveness and aesthetic affectation of the speech of the “Karamzinists” very soon became outdated and fell out of literary use. This is precisely the future that Shishkov predicted for them, believing that instead of the expression “when travel became a need of my soul,” one could simply say: “when I fell in love with traveling”; the refined and periphrased speech “motley crowds of rural oreads meet with dark bands of reptile pharaohs” can be replaced by the understandable expression “gypsies come to meet the village girls”, etc.
Shishkov and his supporters took the first steps in studying the monuments of ancient Russian writing, enthusiastically studied “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” studied folklore, advocated the rapprochement of Russia with the Slavic world and recognized the need to bring the “Slovenian” style closer to the common language.
In a dispute with the translator Karamzin, Shishkov put forward a compelling argument about the “idiomatic nature” of each language, about the unique originality of its phraseological systems, which make it impossible to literally translate a thought or true semantic meaning from one language to another. For example, when translated literally into French, the expression “old horseradish” loses its figurative meaning and “means only the thing itself, but in the metaphysical sense it has no circle of signification.”
In defiance of Karamzin, Shishkov proposed his own reform of the Russian language. He proposed to designate concepts and feelings missing in our everyday life with new words formed from the roots not of French, but of Russian and Old Church Slavonic. Instead of Karamzin’s “influence” he suggested “influx”, instead of “development” - “vegetation”, instead of “actor” - “actor”, instead of “individuality” - “intelligence”, “wet feet” instead of “galoshes” and “wandering” instead "labyrinth". Most of his innovations did not take root in the Russian language.
It is impossible not to recognize Shishkov’s ardent love for the Russian language; One cannot help but admit that the passion for everything foreign, especially French, has gone too far in Russia. Ultimately, this led to the fact that the language of the common people, the peasant, became very different from the language of the cultural classes. But we cannot ignore the fact that natural process The evolution of language that had begun could not be stopped. It was impossible to forcefully bring back into use the expressions that were already outdated at that time, which were proposed by Shishkov: “zane”, “ugly”, “izhe”, “yako” and others.
Karamzin did not even respond to the accusations of Shishkov and his supporters, knowing firmly that they were guided exclusively by pious and patriotic feelings. Subsequently, Karamzin himself and his most talented supporters (Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Batyushkov) followed the very valuable instructions of the “Shishkovites” on the need to “return to their roots” and examples of their own history. But then they could not understand each other.
The pathos and ardent patriotism of A.S.’s articles. Shishkova evoked a sympathetic attitude among many writers. And when Shishkov, together with G. R. Derzhavin, founded the literary society “Conversation of Lovers” Russian word"(1811) with a charter and its own journal, P. A. Katenin, I. A. Krylov, and later V. K. Kuchelbecker and A. S. Griboedov immediately joined this society. One of the active participants in the “Conversation...”, the prolific playwright A. A. Shakhovskoy, in the comedy “New Stern”, viciously ridiculed Karamzin, and in the comedy “A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters”, in the person of the “balladeer” Fialkin, he created a parody image of V. A. Zhukovsky.
This caused a unanimous rebuff from young people who supported Karamzin’s literary authority. D. V. Dashkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, D. N. Bludov composed several witty pamphlets addressed to Shakhovsky and other members of the “Conversation...”. In “Vision in the Arzamas Tavern” Bludov gave the circle of young defenders of Karamzin and Zhukovsky the name “Society of Unknown Arzamas Writers” or simply “Arzamas”.
IN organizational structure This society, founded in the fall of 1815, was dominated by a cheerful spirit of parody of the serious “Conversation...”. In contrast to the official pomposity, simplicity, naturalness, and openness prevailed here; a large place was given to jokes and games.
Parodying the official ritual of the “Conversation...”, upon joining Arzamas, everyone had to read a “funeral speech” to his “late” predecessor from among the living members of the “Conversation...” or the Russian Academy of Sciences (Count D.I. Khvostov, S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A.S. Shishkov himself, etc.). “Funeral speeches” were a form of literary struggle: they parodied high genres and ridiculed the stylistic archaism of the poetic works of the “talkers.” At the meetings of the society, the humorous genres of Russian poetry were honed, a bold and decisive struggle was waged against all kinds of officialdom, and a type of independent Russian writer, free from the pressure of any ideological conventions, was formed. And although P. A. Vyazemsky is one of the organizers and active participants of the society - in mature years condemned the youthful mischief and intransigence of his like-minded people (in particular, the rituals of “funeral services” for living literary opponents), he rightly called “Arzamas” a school of “literary camaraderie” and mutual creative learning. The Arzamas and Beseda societies soon became centers of literary life and social struggle in the first quarter of the 19th century. "Arzamas" included such famous people, like Zhukovsky (pseudonym - Svetlana), Vyazemsky (Asmodeus), Pushkin (Cricket), Batyushkov (Achilles), etc.
"Conversation" disbanded after Derzhavin's death in 1816; "Arzamas", having lost its main opponent, ceased to exist by 1818.
Thus, by the mid-1790s, Karamzin became the recognized head of Russian sentimentalism, which opened not just a new page in Russian literature, but Russian fiction in general. Russian readers, who had previously absorbed only French novels, and the works of the enlighteners, “Letters of a Russian Traveler” and “Poor Liza” were enthusiastically received, and Russian writers and poets (both “besedchiki” and “Arzamas people”) realized that they could and should write in their native language.
Karamzin and Alexander I: a symphony with power?
In 1802 - 1803, Karamzin published the journal “Bulletin of Europe”, in which literature and politics predominated. Largely thanks to the confrontation with Shishkov, in critical articles Karamzin has a new one aesthetic program the formation of Russian literature as nationally distinctive. Karamzin, unlike Shishkov, saw the key to the uniqueness of Russian culture not so much in adherence to ritual antiquity and religiosity, but in the events of Russian history. The most striking illustration of his views was the story “Martha the Posadnitsa or the Conquest of Novagorod.”
In his political articles of 1802-1803, Karamzin, as a rule, made recommendations to the government, the main one of which was educating the nation for the sake of the prosperity of the autocratic state.
These ideas were generally close to Emperor Alexander I, the grandson of Catherine the Great, who at one time also dreamed of an “enlightened monarchy” and a complete symphony between the authorities and a European educated society. Karamzin’s response to the coup of March 11, 1801 and the accession to the throne of Alexander I was “Historical eulogy to Catherine the Second” (1802), where Karamzin expressed his views on the essence of the monarchy in Russia, as well as the duties of the monarch and his subjects. The “eulogium” was approved by the sovereign as a collection of examples for the young monarch and was favorably received by him. Alexander I, obviously, was interested in Karamzin’s historical research, and the emperor rightly decided that the great country simply needed to remember its no less great past. And if you don’t remember, then at least create it again...
In 1803, through the royal educator M.N. Muravyov - poet, historian, teacher, one of the most educated people of that time - N.M. Karamzin received the official title of court historiographer with a pension of 2,000 rubles. (A pension of 2,000 rubles a year was then assigned to officials who, according to the Table of Ranks, had ranks no lower than general). Later, I.V. Kireevsky, referring to Karamzin himself, wrote about Muravyov: “Who knows, maybe without his thoughtful and warm assistance Karamzin would not have had the means to accomplish his great deed.”
In 1804, Karamzin practically retired from literary and publishing activities and began to create “The History of the Russian State,” on which he worked until the end of his days. With his influence M.N. Muravyov made many previously unknown and even “secret” materials available to the historian, and opened libraries and archives for him. Modern historians can only dream of such favorable working conditions. Therefore, in our opinion, talking about “The History of the Russian State” as a “scientific feat” by N.M. Karamzin, not entirely fair. The court historiographer was on duty, conscientiously doing the work for which he was paid. Accordingly, he had to write a story that was in at the moment necessary for the customer, namely, Emperor Alexander I, who at the first stage of his reign showed sympathy for European liberalism.
However, under the influence of studies in Russian history, by 1810 Karamzin had become a consistent conservative. During this period, the system of his political views was finally formed. Karamzin’s statements that he is a “republican at heart” can only be adequately interpreted if we consider that we are talking about “Plato’s Republic of the Wise Men,” an ideal social order based on state virtue, strict regulation and the renunciation of personal freedom . At the beginning of 1810, Karamzin, through his relative Count F.V. Rostopchin, met in Moscow the leader " conservative party"at court - Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna (sister of Alexander I) and began to constantly visit her residence in Tver. The Grand Duchess's salon represented the center of conservative opposition to the liberal-Western course, personified by the figure of M. M. Speransky. In this salon, Karamzin read excerpts from his “History...”, and then he met the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, who became one of his patrons.
In 1811, at the request of Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, Karamzin wrote a note “On ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations,” in which he outlined his ideas about the ideal structure of the Russian state and sharply criticized the policies of Alexander I and his immediate predecessors: Paul I , Catherine II and Peter I. In the 19th century, the note was never published in full and was circulated only in handwritten copies. In Soviet times, the thoughts expressed by Karamzin in his message were perceived as a reaction of the extremely conservative nobility to the reforms of M. M. Speransky. The author himself was branded a “reactionary”, an opponent of the liberation of the peasantry and other liberal steps of the government of Alexander I.
However, at the first full publication notes in 1988, Yu. M. Lotman revealed its deeper content. In this document, Karamzin made a justified criticism of unprepared bureaucratic reforms carried out from above. Praising Alexander I, the author of the note at the same time attacks his advisers, meaning, of course, Speransky, who stood for constitutional reforms. Karamzin takes the liberty to prove to the Tsar in detail, with references to historical examples, that Russia is not ready, either historically or politically, for the abolition of serfdom and the limitation of the autocratic monarchy by the constitution (following the example of the European powers). Some of his arguments (for example, about the futility of liberating peasants without land, the impossibility of constitutional democracy in Russia) even today look quite convincing and historically correct.
Along with the review Russian history and criticism of the political course of Emperor Alexander I, the note contained a complete, original and very complex in its theoretical content concept of autocracy as a special, original Russian type of power, closely associated with Orthodoxy.
At the same time, Karamzin refused to identify “true autocracy” with despotism, tyranny or arbitrariness. He believed that such deviations from the norms were due to chance (Ivan IV the Terrible, Paul I) and were quickly eliminated by the inertia of the tradition of “wise” and “virtuous” monarchical rule. In cases of a sharp weakening and even complete absence of the supreme state and church power (for example, during the Time of Troubles), this powerful tradition led, within a short historical period, to the restoration of autocracy. Autocracy was the “palladium of Russia”, the main reason for its power and prosperity. Therefore, the basic principles of monarchical rule in Russia, according to Karamzin, should have been preserved in the future. They should have been supplemented only by proper policies in the field of legislation and education, which would not lead to the undermining of the autocracy, but to its maximum strengthening. With such an understanding of autocracy, any attempt to limit it would be a crime against Russian history and the Russian people.
Initially, Karamzin’s note only irritated the young emperor, who did not like criticism of his actions. In this note, the historiographer showed himself plus royaliste que le roi (a greater royalist than the king himself). However, subsequently the brilliant “hymn to the Russian autocracy” as presented by Karamzin undoubtedly had its effect. After the War of 1812, Napoleon's winner Alexander I curtailed many of his liberal projects: Speransky's reforms were not completed, the constitution and the very idea of limiting autocracy remained only in the minds of future Decembrists. And already in the 1830s, Karamzin’s concept actually formed the basis of the ideology of the Russian Empire, designated the “theory official nationality» Count S. Uvarov (Orthodoxy-Autocracy-Nationalism).
Before the publication of the first 8 volumes of “History...” Karamzin lived in Moscow, from where he traveled only to Tver to visit Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna and to Nizhny Novgorod, during the occupation of Moscow by the French. He usually spent the summer in Ostafyevo, the estate of Prince Andrei Ivanovich Vyazemsky, whose illegitimate daughter, Ekaterina Andreevna, Karamzin married in 1804. (Karamzin’s first wife, Elizaveta Ivanovna Protasova, died in 1802).
In the last 10 years of his life, which Karamzin spent in St. Petersburg, he became very close to the royal family. Although Emperor Alexander I had a reserved attitude towards Karamzin since the submission of the Note, Karamzin often spent the summer in Tsarskoe Selo. At the request of the empresses (Maria Feodorovna and Elizaveta Alekseevna), he more than once had frank political conversations with Emperor Alexander, in which he acted as a spokesman for the opinions of opponents of drastic liberal reforms. In 1819-1825, Karamzin passionately rebelled against the sovereign’s intentions regarding Poland (submitted a note “Opinion of a Russian Citizen”), condemned the increase in state taxes in peacetime, spoke about the absurd provincial system of finance, criticized the system of military settlements, the activities of the Ministry of Education, pointed out the sovereign’s strange choice of some of the most important dignitaries (for example, Arakcheev), spoke of the need to reduce internal troops, about the imaginary correction of roads, which was so painful for the people, and constantly pointed out the need to have firm laws, civil and state.
Of course, having behind such intercessors as both empresses and Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, it was possible to criticize, and argue, and show civil courage, and try to guide the monarch “on the true path.” It is not for nothing that Emperor Alexander I was called the “mysterious sphinx” by both his contemporaries and subsequent historians of his reign. In words, the sovereign agreed with Karamzin’s critical remarks regarding military settlements, recognized the need to “give fundamental laws to Russia,” and also reconsider some aspects domestic policy, but it just so happened in our country that in reality, all the wise advice of government officials remains “fruitless for the dear Fatherland”...
Karamzin as a historian
Karamzin is our first historian and last chronicler.
With his criticism he belongs to history,
simplicity and apothegms - the chronicle.
A.S. Pushkin
Even from the point of view of Karamzin’s contemporary historical science, no one dared to call the 12 volumes of his “History of the Russian State” a scientific work. Even then it was clear to everyone that the honorary title of court historiographer could not make a writer a historian, give him the appropriate knowledge and proper training.
But, on the other hand, Karamzin initially did not set himself the task of taking on the role of a researcher. The newly minted historiographer did not intend to write a scientific treatise and appropriate the laurels of his illustrious predecessors - Schlözer, Miller, Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, Boltin, etc.
Preliminary critical work on sources for Karamzin is only “a heavy tribute to reliability.” He was, first of all, a writer, and therefore wanted to apply his literary talent to ready-made material: “to select, animate, color” and thus make from Russian history “something attractive, strong, worthy of the attention of not only Russians, but also foreigners." And he accomplished this task brilliantly.
Today it is impossible not to agree that at the beginning of the 19th century, source studies, paleography and other auxiliary historical disciplines were in their infancy. Therefore, to demand from the writer Karamzin professional criticism, as well as strict adherence to one or another methodology for working with historical sources, is simply ridiculous.
You can often hear the opinion that Karamzin simply beautifully rewrote the “Russian History from Ancient Times” written in a long-outdated, difficult-to-read style by Prince M.M. Shcherbatov, introduced some of his own thoughts from it, and thereby created a book for lovers of fascinating reading in family circle. This is wrong.
Naturally, when writing his “History...” Karamzin actively used the experience and works of his predecessors - Schlozer and Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov helped Karamzin navigate the sources of Russian history, significantly influencing both the choice of material and its arrangement in the text. Whether by chance or not, Karamzin brought the “History of the Russian State” to exactly the same place as Shcherbatov’s “History”. However, in addition to following the scheme already worked out by his predecessors, Karamzin provides in his work a lot of references to extensive foreign historiography, almost unfamiliar to the Russian reader. While working on his “History...”, he for the first time introduced into scientific circulation a mass of unknown and previously unstudied sources. These are Byzantine and Livonian chronicles, information from foreigners about the population of ancient Rus', as well as large number Russian chronicles, which have not yet been touched by the hand of a historian. For comparison: M.M. Shcherbatov used only 21 Russian chronicles when writing his work, Karamzin actively cites more than 40. In addition to the chronicles, Karamzin attracted monuments of ancient Russian law and ancient Russian fiction to his research. A special chapter of “History...” is dedicated to “Russian Truth,” and a number of pages are devoted to the just discovered “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
Thanks to the diligent help of the directors of the Moscow Archive of the Ministry (Collegium) of Foreign Affairs N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky and A. F. Malinovsky, Karamzin was able to use those documents and materials that were not available to his predecessors. Many valuable manuscripts were provided by the Synodal Repository, libraries of monasteries (Trinity Lavra, Volokolamsk Monastery and others), as well as private collections of manuscripts by Musin-Pushkin and N.P. Rumyantseva. Karamzin received especially many documents from Chancellor Rumyantsev, who collected historical materials in Russia and abroad through his numerous agents, as well as from A.I. Turgenev, who compiled a collection of documents from the papal archive.
Many of the sources used by Karamzin were lost during the Moscow fire of 1812 and were preserved only in his “History...” and extensive “Notes” to its text. Thus, Karamzin’s work, to some extent, itself acquired the status of a historical source, to which professional historians have every right to refer.
Among the main shortcomings of the “History of the Russian State,” the author’s peculiar view of the tasks of the historian is traditionally noted. According to Karamzin, “knowledge” and “learning” in a historian “do not replace the talent to depict actions.” Before the artistic task of history, even the moral one, which Karamzin’s patron, M.N., set for himself, recedes into the background. Muravyov. Characteristics historical characters given by Karamzin exclusively in a literary-romantic vein, characteristic of the direction of Russian sentimentalism he created. Karamzin’s first Russian princes are distinguished by their “ardent romantic passion” for conquest, their squad is distinguished by their nobility and loyal spirit, the “rabble” sometimes shows dissatisfaction, raising rebellions, but ultimately agrees with the wisdom of the noble rulers, etc., etc. p.
Meanwhile, the previous generation of historians, under the influence of Schlözer, had long ago developed the idea of critical history, and among Karamzin’s contemporaries, the demands for criticism of historical sources, despite the lack of a clear methodology, were generally accepted. And the next generation has already come forward with a demand for philosophical history - with the identification of the laws of development of the state and society, the recognition of the main driving forces and laws historical process. Therefore, Karamzin’s overly “literary” creation was immediately subjected to well-founded criticism.
According to the idea, firmly rooted in Russian and foreign historiography of the 17th - 18th centuries, the development of the historical process depends on the development of monarchical power. Karamzin does not deviate one iota from this idea: monarchical power exalted Russia during the Kiev period; the division of power between the princes was a political mistake, which was corrected by the statesmanship of the Moscow princes - the collectors of Rus'. At the same time, it was the princes who corrected its consequences - the fragmentation of Rus' and the Tatar yoke.
But before reproaching Karamzin for not bringing anything new into the development of Russian historiography, it should be remembered that the author of “History of the Russian State” did not at all set himself the task of philosophical understanding of the historical process or blind imitation of the ideas of Western European romantics (F. Guizot , F. Mignet, J. Meschlet), who even then started talking about the “class struggle” and the “spirit of the people” as the main driving force of history. Karamzin was not at all interested in historical criticism, and he deliberately denied the “philosophical” direction in history. The researcher’s conclusions from historical material, as well as his subjective fabrications, seem to Karamzin to be “metaphysics”, which is not suitable “for depicting action and character.”
Thus, with his unique views on the tasks of a historian, Karamzin, by and large, remained outside the dominant trends of Russian and European historiography of the 19th and 20th centuries. Of course, he participated in its consistent development, but only in the form of an object for constant criticism and the clearest example of how history does not need to be written.
Reaction of contemporaries
Karamzin's contemporaries - readers and fans - enthusiastically accepted his new “historical” work. The first eight volumes of “History of the Russian State” were printed in 1816-1817 and went on sale in February 1818. A huge circulation of three thousand for that time was sold out in 25 days. (And this despite the hefty price of 50 rubles). A second edition was immediately required, which was carried out in 1818-1819 by I.V. Slenin. In 1821 a new, ninth volume was published, and in 1824 the next two. The author did not have time to finish the twelfth volume of his work, which was published in 1829, almost three years after his death.
“History...” was admired by Karamzin’s literary friends and the vast public of non-specialist readers who suddenly discovered, like Count Tolstoy the American, that their Fatherland has a history. According to A.S. Pushkin, “everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their fatherland, hitherto unknown to them. She was a new discovery for them. Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus.”
Liberal intellectual circles of the 1820s found Karamzin’s “History...” backward in general views and overly tendentious:
Research specialists, as already mentioned, treated Karamzin’s work precisely as a work, sometimes even belittling its historical significance. To many, Karamzin’s enterprise itself seemed too risky - to undertake to write such an extensive work given the then state of Russian historical science.
Already during Karamzin’s lifetime, critical analyzes of his “History...” appeared, and soon after the author’s death attempts were made to determine general meaning this work in historiography. Lelevel pointed out an involuntary distortion of the truth due to Karamzin’s patriotic, religious and political hobbies. Artsybashev showed to what extent the writing of “history” is harmed literary devices non-professional historian. Pogodin summed up all the shortcomings of the History, and N.A. Polevoy saw the general reason for these shortcomings in the fact that “Karamzin is a writer not of our time.” All his points of view, both in literature and in philosophy, politics and history, became outdated with the advent of new influences of European romanticism in Russia. In contrast to Karamzin, Polevoy soon wrote his six-volume “History of the Russian People,” where he completely surrendered to the ideas of Guizot and other Western European romantics. Contemporaries assessed this work as an “undignified parody” of Karamzin, subjecting the author to rather vicious, and not always deserved, attacks.
In the 1830s, Karamzin’s “History...” became the banner of the officially “Russian” movement. With the assistance of the same Pogodin, its scientific rehabilitation is being carried out, which is fully consistent with the spirit of Uvarov’s “theory of official nationality”.
In the second half of the 19th century, based on the “History...”, a lot of popular science articles and other texts were written, which served as the basis for well-known educational and teaching aids. Based on historical stories by Karamzin, many works were created for children and youth, the purpose of which for many years was to instill patriotism, loyalty to civic duty, and responsibility. younger generation for the fate of their homeland. This book, in our opinion, played decisive role in shaping the views of more than one generation of Russian people, having significant influence on the foundations of patriotic education of youth in the late 19th – early 20th centuries.
December 14. Karamzin's finale.
The death of Emperor Alexander I and the December events of 1925 deeply shocked N.M. Karamzin and had a negative impact on his health.
On December 14, 1825, having received news of the uprising, the historian goes out into the street: “I saw terrible faces, heard terrible words, five or six stones fell at my feet.”
Karamzin, of course, regarded the action of the nobility against their sovereign as a rebellion and a serious crime. But among the rebels there were so many acquaintances: the Muravyov brothers, Nikolai Turgenev, Bestuzhev, Ryleev, Kuchelbecker (he translated Karamzin’s “History” into German).
A few days later Karamzin will say about the Decembrists: “The delusions and crimes of these young people are the delusions and crimes of our century.”
On December 14, during his movements around St. Petersburg, Karamzin caught a severe cold and contracted pneumonia. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was another victim of this day: his idea of the world collapsed, his faith in the future was lost, and a new king ascended to the throne, very far from the ideal image of an enlightened monarch. Half-ill, Karamzin visited the palace every day, where he talked with Empress Maria Feodorovna, moving from memories of the late Emperor Alexander to discussions about the tasks of the future reign.
Karamzin could no longer write. The XII volume of “History...” froze during the interregnum of 1611 - 1612. Last words the last volume is about a small Russian fortress: “Nut did not give up.” The last thing that Karamzin actually managed to do in the spring of 1826 was that, together with Zhukovsky, he persuaded Nicholas I to return Pushkin from exile. A few years later, the emperor tried to pass the baton of the first historiographer of Russia to the poet, but the “sun of Russian poetry” somehow did not fit into the role of state ideologist and theorist...
In the spring of 1826 N.M. Karamzin, on the advice of doctors, decided to go to Southern France or Italy for treatment. Nicholas I agreed to sponsor his trip and kindly placed a frigate of the Imperial Navy at the disposal of the historiographer. But Karamzin was already too weak to travel. He died on May 22 (June 3), 1826 in St. Petersburg. He was buried at the Tikhvin Cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.
According to one version, he was born in the village of Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district (now Mainsky district, Ulyanovsk region), according to another - in the village of Mikhailovka, Buzuluk district, Kazan province (now the village of Preobrazhenka, Orenburg region). IN lately experts were in favor of the “Orenburg” version of the writer’s birthplace.
Karamzin belonged to a noble family, descended from the Tatar Murza, named Kara-Murza. Nikolai was the second son of a retired captain and landowner. He lost his mother early; she died in 1769. For his second marriage, his father married Ekaterina Dmitrieva, the aunt of the poet and fabulist Ivan Dmitriev.
Karamzin spent his childhood on his father's estate and studied in Simbirsk at the noble boarding school of Pierre Fauvel. At the age of 14, he began studying at the Moscow private boarding school of Professor Johann Schaden, while simultaneously attending classes at Moscow University.
In 1781, Karamzin began serving in the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg, where he was transferred from the army regiments (he was enlisted in the service in 1774), and received the rank of lieutenant ensign.
During this period, he became close to the poet Ivan Dmitriev and began literary activity translation from German “Conversation of the Austrian Maria Theresa with our Empress Elizabeth in the Champs Elysees” (not preserved). Karamzin’s first published work was a translation of Solomon Gesner’s idyll “The Wooden Leg” (1783).
In 1784, after the death of his father, Karamzin retired with the rank of lieutenant and never served again. After a short stay in Simbirsk, where he joined the Masonic lodge, Karamzin moved to Moscow, was introduced to the circle of the publisher Nikolai Novikov and settled in a house that belonged to the Novikov Friendly Scientific Society.
In 1787-1789 he was an editor in the magazine “Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind” published by Novikov, where he published his first story “Eugene and Julia” (1789), poems and translations. Translated into Russian the tragedies "Julius Caesar" (1787) by William Shakespeare and "Emilia Galotti" (1788) by Gotthold Lessing.
In May 1789, Nikolai Mikhailovich went abroad and until September 1790 traveled around Europe, visiting Germany, Switzerland, France and England.
Returning to Moscow, Karamzin began publishing the "Moscow Journal" (1791-1792), where the "Letters of a Russian Traveler" written by him were published, in 1792 the story "Poor Liza" was published, as well as the stories "Natalia, the Boyar's Daughter" and "Liodor ", which became examples of Russian sentimentalism.
Karamzin. In the first Russian poetic anthology “Aonids” (1796-1799) compiled by Karamzin, he included his own poems, as well as poems by his contemporaries - Gabriel Derzhavin, Mikhail Kheraskov, Ivan Dmitriev. In "Aonids" the letter "ё" of the Russian alphabet appeared for the first time.
Karamzin combined some of the prose translations in the “Pantheon of Foreign Literature” (1798); brief characteristics of Russian writers were given by him for the publication “The Pantheon of Russian Authors, or a Collection of Their Portraits with Comments” (1801-1802). Karamzin’s response to the accession to the throne of Alexander I was “Historical eulogy to Catherine the Second” (1802).
In 1802-1803, Nikolai Karamzin published the literary and political magazine "Bulletin of Europe", which, along with articles on literature and art, widely covered issues of Russian foreign and domestic policy, history and political life foreign countries. In the "Bulletin of Europe" he published works on Russian medieval history "Martha the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novagorod", "News about Martha the Posadnitsa, taken from the life of St. Zosima", "Journey around Moscow", "Historical memories and notes on the way to the Trinity "etc.
Karamzin developed a language reform aimed at bringing the book language closer to colloquial speech educated society. Limiting the use of Slavicisms, widely using linguistic borrowings and calques with European languages(mostly from French), introducing new words, Karamzin created a new literary syllable.
On November 12 (October 31, old style), 1803, by personal imperial decree of Alexander I, Nikolai Karamzin was appointed historiographer “to compose a complete History of the Fatherland.” From that time until the end of his days, he worked on the main work of his life - “The History of the Russian State.” Libraries and archives were opened for him. In 1816-1824, the first 11 volumes of the work were published in St. Petersburg; the 12th volume, dedicated to describing the events of the “time of troubles,” Karamzin did not have time to finish; it was published after the historiographer’s death in 1829.
In 1818, Karamzin became a member of the Russian Academy and an honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. He received an active state councilor and was awarded the Order of St. Anne, 1st degree.
In the early months of 1826 he suffered from pneumonia, which undermined his health. On June 3 (May 22, old style), 1826, Nikolai Karamzin died in St. Petersburg. He was buried at the Tikhvin Cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.
Karamzin was married for the second time to Ekaterina Kolyvanova (1780-1851), the sister of the poet Pyotr Vyazemsky, who was the mistress of the best literary salon in St. Petersburg, where poets Vasily Zhukovsky, Alexander Pushkin, Mikhail Lermontov, and writer Nikolai Gogol visited. She helped the historiographer, proofreading the 12-volume History, and after his death she completed the publication of the last volume.
His first wife, Elizaveta Protasova, died in 1802. From his first marriage, Karamzin had a daughter, Sophia (1802-1856), who became a maid of honor, was the owner of a literary salon, and a friend of the poets Alexander Pushkin and Mikhail Lermontov.
In his second marriage, the historiographer had nine children, five of whom lived to adulthood. Daughter Ekaterina (1806-1867) married Prince Meshchersky, her son is writer Vladimir Meshchersky (1839-1914).
Nikolai Karamzin's daughter Elizaveta (1821-1891) became a maid of honor at the imperial court, son Andrei (1814-1854) died in Crimean War. Alexander Karamzin (1816-1888) served in the guard and at the same time wrote poetry, which was published by the magazines Sovremennik and Otechestvennye zapiski. Youngest son Vladimir (1819-1869)