A. Venetsianov "Portrait of N.M. Karamzin"
“I was looking for a path to the truth,
I wanted to know the reason for everything...” (N.M. Karamzin)
“History of the Russian State” was the last and unfinished work of the outstanding Russian historian N.M. Karamzin: a total of 12 volumes of research were written, Russian history was presented up to 1612.
Karamzin developed an interest in history in his youth, but there was a long way to go before he was called as a historian.
From the biography of N.M. Karamzin
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin born in 1766 in the family estate of Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province, in the family of a retired captain, an average Simbirsk nobleman. Received home education. Studied at Moscow University. Short time served in the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment of St. Petersburg, it was during this time that his first literary experiments dated back.
After retiring, he lived for some time in Simbirsk and then moved to Moscow.
In 1789, Karamzin left for Europe, where he visited I. Kant in Konigsberg, and in Paris he witnessed the Great French Revolution. Returning to Russia, he publishes “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” which make him a famous writer.
Writer
“Karamzin’s influence on literature can be compared with Catherine’s influence on society: he made literature humane”(A.I. Herzen)
Creativity N.M. Karamzin developed in line with sentimentalism.
V. Tropinin "Portrait of N.M. Karamzin"
Literary direction sentimentalism(from fr.sentiment- feeling) was popular in Europe from the 20s to the 80s of the 18th century, and in Russia - from the end of the 18th to the beginning of the 19th century. J.-J. is considered the ideologist of sentimentalism. Ruso.
European sentimentalism penetrated into Russia in the 1780s and early 1790s. thanks to translations of Goethe's Werther, novels by S. Richardson and J.-J. Rousseau, who were very popular in Russia:
She liked novels early on;
They replaced everything for her.
She fell in love with deceptions
And Richardson and Russo.
Pushkin is talking here about his heroine Tatyana, but all the girls of that time were reading sentimental novels.
The main feature of sentimentalism is that attention is primarily paid to the spiritual world of a person; feelings come first, not reason and great ideas. The heroes of works of sentimentalism have innate moral purity and innocence; they live in the lap of nature, love it and are merged with it.
Such a heroine is Liza from Karamzin’s story “Poor Liza” (1792). This story was a huge success among readers, it was followed by numerous imitations, but the main significance of sentimentalism and in particular Karamzin’s story was that in such works the inner world was revealed common man, which evoked the ability to empathize in others.
In poetry, Karamzin was also an innovator: the previous poetry, represented by the odes of Lomonosov and Derzhavin, spoke the language of the mind, and Karamzin’s poems spoke the language of the heart.
N.M. Karamzin - reformer of the Russian language
He enriched the Russian language with many words: “impression”, “falling in love”, “influence”, “entertaining”, “touching”. Introduced the words “era”, “concentrate”, “scene”, “moral”, “aesthetic”, “harmony”, “future”, “catastrophe”, “charity”, “freethinking”, “attraction”, “responsibility” ", "suspiciousness", "industrial", "sophistication", "first-class", "humane".
His language reforms caused heated controversy: members of the “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word” society, headed by G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov, adhered to conservative views and opposed the reform of the Russian language. In response to their activities, the literary society “Arzamas” was formed in 1815 (it included Batyushkov, Vyazemsky, Zhukovsky, Pushkin), which ironized the authors of “Conversation” and parodied their works. The literary victory of “Arzamas” over “Conversation” was won, which strengthened the victory of Karamzin’s linguistic changes.
Karamzin also introduced the letter E into the alphabet. Before this, the words “tree”, “hedgehog” were written like this: “yolka”, “jozh”.
Karamzin also introduced the dash, one of the punctuation marks, into Russian writing.
Historian
In 1802 N.M. Karamzin wrote the historical story “Martha the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novagorod,” and in 1803 Alexander I appointed him to the position of historiographer, thus, Karamzin devoted the rest of his life to writing “The History of the Russian State,” essentially finishing with fiction.
Studying manuscripts of the 16th century, Karamzin discovered and published in 1821 Afanasy Nikitin’s “Walking across Three Seas.” In this regard, he wrote: “... while Vasco da Gamma was only thinking about the possibility of finding a way from Africa to Hindustan, our Tverite was already a merchant on the banks of the Malabar”(historical region in South India). In addition, Karamzin was the initiator of the installation of a monument to K. M. Minin and D. M. Pozharsky on Red Square and took the initiative to erect monuments to outstanding figures of Russian history.
"History of the Russian State"
Historical work by N.M. Karamzin
This is a multi-volume work by N. M. Karamzin, describing Russian history from ancient times to the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible and the Time of Troubles. Karamzin’s work was not the first in describing the history of Russia; before him there were already historical works V. N. Tatishchev and M. M. Shcherbatova.
But Karamzin’s “History” had, in addition to historical ones, high literary merits, including due to the ease of writing; it attracted not only specialists to Russian history, but also simply educated people, which greatly contributed to the formation national identity, interest in the past. A.S. Pushkin wrote that “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.”
It is believed that in this work Karamzin nevertheless showed himself more not as a historian, but as a writer: “History” is written in a beautiful literary language (by the way, in it Karamzin did not use the letter Y), but the historical value of his work is unconditional, because . the author used manuscripts that were first published by him and many of which have not survived to this day.
Working on “History” until the end of his life, Karamzin did not have time to finish it. The text of the manuscript ends at the chapter “Interregnum 1611-1612”.
Work by N.M. Karamzin on “History of the Russian State”
In 1804, Karamzin retired to the Ostafyevo estate, where he devoted himself entirely to writing “History.”
Ostafyevo Estate
Ostafyevo- estate of Prince P. A. Vyazemsky near Moscow. It was built in 1800-07. the poet's father, Prince A.I. Vyazemsky. The estate remained in the possession of the Vyazemskys until 1898, after which it passed into the possession of the Sheremetev counts.
In 1804, A.I. Vyazemsky invited his son-in-law, N.M., to settle in Ostafyevo. Karamzin, who worked here on the “History of the Russian State”. In April 1807, after the death of his father, Pyotr Andreevich Vyazemsky became the owner of the estate, under whom Ostafyevo became one of the symbols of the cultural life of Russia: Pushkin, Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Denis Davydov, Griboedov, Gogol, Adam Mitskevich visited here many times.
Contents of “History of the Russian State” by Karamzin
N. M. Karamzin "History of the Russian State"
In the course of his work, Karamzin found the Ipatiev Chronicle, it was from here that the historian drew many details and details, but did not clutter up the text of the narrative with them, but placed them in a separate volume of notes, which have a special historical significance.
In his work, Karamzin describes the peoples who inhabited the territory modern Russia, the origins of the Slavs, their conflict with the Varangians, talks about the origins of the first princes of Rus', their reign, describes in detail all the important events of Russian history until 1612.
The importance of N.M.’s work Karamzin
Already the first publications of “History” shocked contemporaries. They read it avidly, discovering the past of their country. Writers later used many plots for works of art. For example, Pushkin took material from “History” for his tragedy “Boris Godunov,” which he dedicated to Karamzin.
But, as always, there were critics. Basically, liberals contemporary to Karamzin objected to the statist picture of the world expressed in the work of the historian, and his belief in the effectiveness of autocracy.
Statism– this is a worldview and ideology that absolutizes the role of the state in society and promotes the maximum subordination of the interests of individuals and groups to the interests of the state; a policy of active state intervention in all spheres of public and private life.
Statism considers the state as the highest institution, standing above all other institutions, although its goal is to create real opportunities for the comprehensive development of the individual and the state.
Liberals reproached Karamzin for the fact that in his work he followed only the development of the supreme power, which gradually took the form of contemporary autocracy, but neglected the history of the Russian people themselves.
There is even an epigram attributed to Pushkin:
In his “History” elegance, simplicity
They prove to us without any bias
The need for autocracy
And the delights of the whip.
Indeed, towards the end of his life Karamzin was a staunch supporter of absolute monarchy. He did not share the point of view of the majority of thinking people on serfdom, and was not an ardent supporter of its abolition.
He died in 1826 in St. Petersburg and was buried at the Tikhvin cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.
Monument to N.M. Karamzin in Ostafyevo
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin is a famous Russian writer, historian, the largest representative of the era of sentimentalism, reformer of the Russian language, publisher. With his input, the vocabulary was enriched with a large number of new crippled words.
The famous writer was born on December 12 (December 1, O.S.), 1766 in an estate located in Simbirsk district. The noble father took care of his son’s home education, after which Nikolai continued to study, first at the Simbirsk noble boarding school, then from 1778 at the boarding school of Professor Schaden (Moscow). Throughout 1781-1782. Karamzin attended university lectures.
His father wanted Nikolai to enter military service after boarding school; his son fulfilled his wish, ending up in the St. Petersburg Guards Regiment in 1781. It was during these years that Karamzin first tried himself in the literary field, in 1783 making a translation from German. In 1784, after the death of his father, having retired with the rank of lieutenant, he finally parted with military service. While living in Simbirsk, he joined the Masonic lodge.
Since 1785, Karamzin’s biography has been connected with Moscow. In this city he meets N.I. Novikov and other writers, joins the “Friendly Scientific Society”, settles in a house that belongs to him, and subsequently collaborates with members of the circle in various publications, in particular, takes part in the publication of the magazine “ Children's reading for the heart and mind,” which became the first Russian magazine for children.
Over the course of a year (1789-1790), Karamzin traveled through the countries of Western Europe, where he met not only with prominent figures of the Masonic movement, but also with great thinkers, in particular, Kant, I.G. Herder, J.F. Marmontel. Impressions from the trips formed the basis for the future famous “Letters of a Russian Traveler.” This story (1791-1792) appeared in the Moscow Journal, which N.M. Karamzin began publishing upon his arrival in his homeland, and brought the author enormous fame. A number of philologists believe that modern Russian literature dates back to the Letters.
The story “Poor Liza” (1792) strengthened Karamzin’s literary authority. The subsequently published collections and almanacs “Aglaya”, “Aonids”, “My Trinkets”, “Pantheon of Foreign Literature” ushered in the era of sentimentalism in Russian literature, and it was N.M. Karamzin was at the head of the current; under the influence of his works, V.A. wrote. Zhukovsky, K.N. Batyushkov, as well as A.S. Pushkin at the beginning of his creative career.
A new period in the biography of Karamzin as a person and a writer is associated with the accession to the throne of Alexander I. In October 1803, the emperor appointed the writer as an official historiographer, and Karamzin was given the task of capturing the history of the Russian state. His genuine interest in history, the priority of this topic over all others, was evidenced by the nature of the publications of “Bulletin of Europe” (Karamzin published this first socio-political, literary and artistic magazine in the country in 1802-1803).
In 1804, literary and artistic work was completely curtailed, and the writer began to work on “The History of the Russian State” (1816-1824), which became the main work in his life and a whole phenomenon in Russian history and literature. The first eight volumes were published in February 1818. Three thousand copies were sold in a month - such active sales were unprecedented. The next three volumes, published in the following years, were quickly translated into several European languages, and the 12th, final, volume was published after the death of the author.
Nikolai Mikhailovich was an adherent of conservative views and an absolute monarchy. The death of Alexander I and the Decembrist uprising, which he witnessed, became a heavy blow for him, depriving the writer-historian of his last vitality. On June 3 (May 22, O.S.), 1826, Karamzin died while in St. Petersburg; He was buried in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, at the Tikhvin cemetery.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin as a historian and his methods of studying the past
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin is an outstanding leader of the minds of Russia at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 19th centuries. The role of N.M. Karamzin in Russian culture is great and what he did for the benefit of the Motherland would be enough for more than one life. He embodied many of the best features of his century, appearing before his contemporaries as a first-class master of literature (poet, critic, playwright, translator), a reformer who laid the foundations of the modern literary language, a major journalist, an organizer of publishing, and the founder of wonderful magazines. The master merged into the personality of N.M. Karamzin artistic word and a talented historian. He left a noticeable mark in science, journalism, and art. N.M. Karamzin largely prepared the success of his younger contemporaries and followers - figures of the Pushkin period, the golden age of Russian literature. N.M. Karamzin was born on December 1, 1766. And during his fifty-nine years he lived an interesting and eventful life, full of dynamism and creativity. He received his education at a private boarding school in Simbirsk, then at the Moscow boarding school of Professor M.P. Shaden, then reported to St. Petersburg for service and received the rank of non-commissioned officer. Then he worked as a translator and editor in various magazines, becoming close to many famous people of that time (M. M. Novikov, M. T. Turgenev). Then he traveled around Europe for more than a year (from May 1789 to September 1790); During the trip, he makes notes, after processing which the famous “Letters of a Russian Traveler” appear.
Knowledge of the past and present led Karamzin to a break with the Freemasons, who were quite influential in Russia at the end of the 18th century. He returns to his homeland with a wide program of publishing and magazine activities, hoping to contribute to the education of the people. He created the "Moscow Journal" (1791-1792) and the "Bulletin of Europe" (1802-1803), published two volumes of the almanac "Aglaya" (1794-1795) and the poetic almanac "Aonids". His creative path continues and ends with the work “History of the Russian State,” work on which took many years, which became the main result of his work.
Karamzin had been approaching the idea of creating a large historical canvas for a long time. As proof of the long-standing existence of such plans, Karamzin’s message in “Letters of a Russian Traveler” about a meeting in 1790 in Paris with P.-S. is cited. Level, author of "Histoire de Russie, triee des chroniques originales, des pieces outertiques et des meillierus historiens de la nation" (only one volume was translated in Russia in 1797). Reflecting on the merits and demerits of this work, the writer came to a disappointing conclusion: “It hurts, but it must be said in fairness that we still do not have a good Russian history.” He understood that such a work could not be written without free access to manuscripts and documents in official repositories, so he turned to Emperor Alexander I through the mediation of M.M. Muravyova (trustee of the Moscow educational district). “The appeal was successful and on October 31, 1803, Karamzin was appointed historiographer and received an annual pension and access to the archives.” Imperial decrees provided the historiographer with optimal conditions for working on “History...”.
Work on “The History of the Russian State” required self-denial, rejection of the usual image and way of life. In the figurative expression of P.A. Vyazemsky, Karamzin “took his hair as a historian.” And by the spring of 1818, the first eight volumes of history appeared on book shelves. Three thousand copies of "History..." were sold in twenty-five days. The recognition of his compatriots inspired and encouraged the writer, especially after the historiographer’s relationship with Alexander I deteriorated (after the release of the note “On Ancient and New Russia,” where Karamzin in a sense criticized Alexander I). The public and literary resonance of the first eight volumes of “History...” in Russia and abroad was so great that even the Russian Academy, a long-time stronghold of Karamzin’s opponents, was forced to recognize his merits.
The readership success of the first eight volumes of “History...” gave the writer new strength for further work. In 1821, the ninth volume of his work saw the light. The death of Alexander I and the Decembrist uprising delayed work on “History...”. Having caught a cold on the street on the day of the uprising, the historiographer continued his work only in January 1826. But doctors assured that only Italy could give a full recovery. Going to Italy and hoping to finish the last two chapters there last volume, Karamzin instructed D.N. Bludov is all about the future edition of the twelfth volume. But on May 22, 1826, without leaving Italy, Karamzin died. The twelfth volume was published only in 1828.
Having picked up the work of N.M. Karamzin, we can only imagine how difficult the work of the historiographer was. A writer, poet, amateur historian takes on a task of incongruous complexity, requiring enormous special training. If he had avoided serious, purely intelligent matter, but had only vividly narrated about the past times, “animating and coloring” - this would still have been considered natural, but from the very beginning the volume is divided into two halves: in the first - a living story, and the one to whom this is enough; you may not need to look into the second section, where there are hundreds of notes, references to chronicles, Latin, Swedish, and German sources. History is a very harsh science, even if we assume that the historian knows many languages, but in addition, Arab, Hungarian, Jewish, Caucasian sources appear... And let by the beginning of the 19th century. the science of history did not stand out sharply from literature, all the same, Karamzin the writer had to delve into paleography, philosophy, geography, archeography... Tatishchev and Shcherbatov, however, combined history with serious government activities, but professionalism is constantly increasing; from the West, serious works of German and English scientists come; the ancient naive chronicle methods of historical writing are clearly dying out, and the question itself arises: when will Karamzin, a forty-year-old writer, master all the old and new wisdom? The answer to this question is given to us by N. Eidelman, who reports that “only in the third year Karamzin confesses to close friends that he ceases to be afraid of the “Schletser ferule,” that is, the rod with which a venerable German academician could flog a careless student.”
One historian alone cannot find and process this large number materials on the basis of which the “History of the Russian State” was written. It follows from this that N.M. Karamzin was helped by his many friends. He, of course, went to the archive, but not too often: several special employees, headed by the head of the Moscow archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a magnificent expert on antiquity, Alexei Fedorovich Malinovsky, searched, selected, and delivered ancient manuscripts directly to the historiographer’s desk. Archives and book collections of the foreign collegium of the Synod, the Hermitage, the Imperial Public Library, Moscow University, the Trinity-Sergius and Alexander Nevsky Lavra, Volokolamsk, Resurrection monasteries; in addition, dozens of private collections, and finally, archives and libraries of Oxford, Paris, Copenhagen and other foreign centers. Among those who worked for Karamzin (from the very beginning and later) there were several remarkable scientists in the future, for example, Stroev, Kalaidovich... They sent more comments on already published volumes than others.
In some modern works, Karamzin is reproached for the fact that he did not work “alone.” But otherwise, it would have taken him not 25 years to write “History…”, but much more. Eidelman rightly objects to this: “It is dangerous for one to judge an era by the rules of another.”
Later, when Karamzin's authorial personality develops, a combination of historiographer and junior collaborators will emerge that might seem delicate...However, in the first years of the 19th century. In such a combination it seemed quite normal, and the doors of the archive would hardly have been opened for the younger ones if there had not been an imperial decree about the eldest. Karamzin himself, selfless, with a heightened sense of honor, would never allow himself to become famous at the expense of his employees. Besides, was it only “the archive regiments that worked for the Count of History”? It turns out not. "Such great people as Derzhavin send him their thoughts about ancient Novgorod, young Alexander Turgenev brings necessary books from Gottingen, D.I. promises to send old manuscripts. Yazykov, A.R. Vorontsov. Even more important is the participation of the main collectors: A.N. Musina-Pushkina, N.P. Rumyantseva; one of the future presidents of the Academy of Sciences A.N. Olenin sent Karamzin on July 12, 1806 the Ostromir Gospel of 1057." But this does not mean that all of Karamzin’s work was done for him by his friends: he discovered it himself and stimulated others with his work to find it. Karamzin himself found the Ipatiev and Trinity Chronicles, Ivan’s Code of Law Grozny, “The Prayer of Daniil the Zatochnik.” For his “History...” Karamzin used about forty chronicles (for comparison, let’s say that Shcherbatov studied twenty-one chronicles. Also, the great merit of the historiographer is that he was not only able to bring together all this material). , but also to organize the de facto work of a real creative laboratory.
The work on “History...” came at a turning point in a sense, which influenced the author’s worldview and methodology. In the last quarter of the XVIII. In Russia, the features of the decomposition of the feudal-serf economic system became increasingly noticeable. Changes in the economic and social life of Russia and the development of bourgeois relations in Europe influenced the internal policy of the autocracy. Time confronted the ruling class of Russia with the need to develop socio-political reforms that would ensure the preservation of the dominant position by the class of landowners and power by the autocracy.
“The end of Karamzin’s ideological quest can be attributed to this time. He became the ideologist of the conservative part of the Russian nobility.” The final formulation of his socio-political program, the objective content of which was the preservation of the autocratic-serf system, falls in the second decade of the 19th century, that is, at the time of the creation of “Notes on Ancient and New Russia.” The revolution in France and the post-revolutionary development of France played a decisive role in the design of Karamzin’s conservative political program. “It seemed to Karamzin that the events in France at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries historically confirmed his theoretical conclusions about the paths of human development. He considered the only acceptable and correct path of gradual evolutionary development, without any revolutionary explosions and within the framework of those social relations, that state structure which is characteristic of a given people." Leaving in force the theory of the contractual origin of power, Karamzin now places its forms in strict dependence on ancient traditions and national character. Moreover, beliefs and customs are elevated to a kind of absolute that determines the historical fate of the people. “The institutions of antiquity,” he wrote in the article “Notable views, hopes, and desires of the present time,” “have magical power, which cannot be replaced by any power of mind." Thus, historical tradition was opposed to revolutionary transformations. The socio-political system became directly dependent on it: traditional ancient customs and institutions ultimately determined the political form of the state. This was very clearly seen in relation to Karamzin to the republic. The ideologist of autocracy, Karamzin, nevertheless, declared his sympathies for the republican system. His letter to P.A. Vyazemsky from 1820 is known, in which he wrote: “I am a republican at heart and I will die like that.” Theoretically, Karamzin believed that a republic is a more modern form of government than a monarchy, but it can only exist if a number of conditions are present, and in their absence, a republic loses all meaning and right to exist as a republic. human form organization of society, but made the possibility of the existence of a republic dependent on ancient customs and traditions, as well as on the moral state of society.
On December 12 (December 1, Old Style), 1766, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born - Russian writer, poet, editor of the Moscow Journal (1791-1792) and the journal Vestnik Evropy (1802-1803), honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences ( 1818), full member of the Imperial Russian Academy, historian, first and only court historiographer, one of the first reformers of the Russian literary language, founding father of Russian historiography and Russian sentimentalism.
|
|
Contribution of N.M. It is difficult to overestimate Karamzin's contribution to Russian culture. Remembering everything that this man managed to do in the short 59 years of his earthly existence, it is impossible to ignore the fact that it was Karamzin who largely determined the face of the Russian 19th century - the “golden” age of Russian poetry, literature, historiography, source studies and other humanitarian areas of scientific research. knowledge. Thanks to linguistic research aimed at popularizing the literary language of poetry and prose, Karamzin gave Russian literature to his contemporaries. And if Pushkin is “our everything,” then Karamzin can safely be called “our Everything” with a capital letter. Without him, Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Baratynsky, Batyushkov and other poets of the so-called “Pushkin galaxy” would hardly have been possible.
“No matter what you turn to in our literature, everything began with Karamzin: journalism, criticism, stories, novels, historical stories, journalism, the study of history,” V.G. rightly noted later. Belinsky.
“History of the Russian State” N.M. Karamzin became not just the first Russian-language book on the history of Russia, accessible to a wide reader. Karamzin gave the Russian people the Fatherland in the full sense of the word. They say that, having closed the eighth and final volume, Count Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!” And he wasn't alone. All his contemporaries suddenly learned that they lived in a country with a thousand-year history and had something to be proud of. Before this, it was believed that before Peter I, who opened a “window to Europe,” there was nothing in Russia even remotely worthy of attention: the dark ages of backwardness and barbarism, boyar autocracy, primordially Russian laziness and bears in the streets...
Karamzin’s multi-volume work was not completed, but, having been published in the first quarter of the 19th century, it completely determined the historical identity of the nation 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 very approach to the historiography of Russian history, both before 1917 and after, largely remained jingoistic and sentimental in Karamzin style.
N.M. Karamzin - early years
N.M. Karamzin was born on December 12 (1st century), 1766 in the village of Mikhailovka, Buzuluk district, Kazan province (according to other sources, in the family estate of Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province). Oh him early years little is known: there are no letters, no diaries, no memories of Karamzin himself about his childhood. He did not even know exactly his year of birth and almost all his life he believed that he was born in 1765. Only in his old age, having discovered the documents, did he become “younger” by one year.
The future historiographer grew up on the estate of his father, retired captain Mikhail Egorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), an average Simbirsk nobleman. Received a good home education. In 1778 he was sent to Moscow to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Shadena. At the same time, he attended lectures at the university in 1781-1782.
After graduating from the boarding school, in 1783 Karamzin 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 his 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 precisely by those who “made the weather” in literary life countries: students, officials, young officers, minor employees of various government agencies (“archive youths”).
After Novikov’s arrest, the authorities became seriously interested in the publisher of the Moscow Journal. During interrogations in the Secret Expedition, they ask: was it Novikov who sent the “Russian traveler” abroad on a “special mission”? The Novikovites were people of high integrity and, of course, Karamzin was shielded, but because of these suspicions the magazine had to be stopped.
In the 1790s, Karamzin published the first Russian almanacs - “Aglaya” (1794 -1795) and “Aonids” (1796 -1799). In 1793, when the Jacobin dictatorship was established at the third stage of the French Revolution, which shocked Karamzin with its cruelty, Nikolai Mikhailovich abandoned some of his previous views. The dictatorship aroused in him serious doubts about the possibility of humanity to achieve prosperity. He sharply condemned the revolution and all violent methods of transforming society. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the story “The Island of Bornholm” (1793); "Sierra Morena" (1795); poems “Melancholy”, “Message to A. A. Pleshcheev”, etc.
During this period, real literary fame came to Karamzin.
Fedor Glinka: “Out of 1,200 cadets, it was rare that he did not repeat by heart some page from The Island of Bornholm.”.
The name Erast, previously completely unpopular, is increasingly found in noble lists. There are rumors of successful and unsuccessful suicides in the spirit of Poor Lisa. The poisonous memoirist Vigel recalls that important Moscow nobles had already begun to make do with “almost like an equal with a thirty-year-old retired lieutenant”.
In July 1794, Karamzin’s life almost ended: on the way to the estate, in the steppe wilderness, he was attacked by robbers. Karamzin miraculously escaped, receiving two minor wounds.
In 1801, he married Elizaveta Protasova, a neighbor on the estate, whom he had known since childhood; at the time of the wedding, they had known each other for almost 13 years.
Reformer of the Russian literary language
Already in the early 1790s, Karamzin was seriously thinking about the present and future of Russian literature. He writes to a friend: “I am deprived of the pleasure of reading much in my native language. We are still poor in writers. We have several poets who deserve to be read.” Of course, there were and are Russian writers: Lomonosov, Sumarokov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, but there are no more than a dozen significant names. Karamzin is one of the first to understand that it is not a matter of talent - there are no less talents in Russia than in any other country. It’s just that Russian literature cannot move away from the long-outdated traditions of classicism, founded in the middle of the 18th century by the only theorist M.V. Lomonosov.
The reform of the literary language carried out by Lomonosov, as well as the theory of the “three calms” he created, met the tasks of the transition period from ancient to modern literature. A complete rejection of the use of familiar Church Slavonicisms in the language was then still premature and inappropriate. But the evolution of the language, which began under Catherine II, actively continued. The “Three Calms” proposed by Lomonosov were not based on living colloquial speech, but on the witty thought of a writer-theorist. And this theory often put 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 closer literary language to conversational. 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 "Pantheon" Russian writers“He decisively declared: “Lomonosov’s prose cannot serve as a model for us at all: his long periods are tiring, the arrangement of words is not always consistent with the flow of thoughts.”
Unlike Lomonosov, Karamzin strove to write in short, easily understandable sentences. This is still a model of good style and an example to follow in literature.
Karamzin’s third merit was the enrichment of the Russian language with a number of successful neologisms, which became firmly established in the main vocabulary. Among the innovations proposed by Karamzin are such widely known words in our time as “industry”, “development”, “sophistication”, “concentrate”, “touching”, “entertainment”, “humanity”, “public”, “ generally useful”, “influence” and a number of others.
When creating neologisms, Karamzin mainly used the tracing method 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 progressive, but conservative direction. His views can be recognized as a kind of forerunner of later Slavophilism and Pochvenism.
In 1803, Shishkov presented his “Discourse on the old and new syllables of the Russian language.” He reproached the “Karamzinists” for succumbing to the temptation of European revolutionary false teachings and advocated for the return of literature to oral folk art, to the vernacular, to Orthodox Church Slavonic books.
Shishkov was not a philologist. He dealt with the problems of literature and the Russian language, rather, as an amateur, so Admiral Shishkov’s attacks on Karamzin and his literary supporters sometimes looked not so much scientifically substantiated as unsubstantiated ideological. Karamzin’s language reform seemed to Shishkov, a warrior and defender of the Fatherland, unpatriotic and anti-religious: “Language is the soul of the people, the mirror of morals, a true indicator of enlightenment, an incessant witness of deeds. Where there is no faith in the hearts, there is no piety in the language. Where there is no love for the fatherland, the language does not express domestic feelings.”.
Shishkov reproached Karamzin for the excessive use of barbarisms (“epoch”, “harmony”, “catastrophe”), he was disgusted by neologisms (“coup” as a translation of the word “revolution”), artificial words hurt his ear: “future”, “well-read” and etc.
And we must admit that sometimes his criticism was pointed and accurate.
The evasiveness and aesthetic affectation of the speech of the “Karamzinists” very soon became outdated and fell out of literary use. This is precisely the future that Shishkov predicted for them, believing that instead of the expression “when travel became a need of my soul,” one could simply say: “when I fell in love with traveling”; the refined and periphrased speech “motley crowds of rural oreads meet with dark bands of reptile pharaohs” can be replaced with the understandable expression “gypsies come to meet the village girls”, etc.
Shishkov and his supporters took the first steps in studying the monuments of ancient Russian writing, enthusiastically studied “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” studied folklore, advocated the rapprochement of Russia with the Slavic world and recognized the need to bring the “Slovenian” style closer to the common language.
In a dispute with the translator Karamzin, Shishkov put forward a compelling argument about the “idiomatic nature” of each language, about the unique originality of its phraseological systems, which make it impossible to literally translate a thought or true semantic meaning from one language to another. For example, when translated literally into French, the expression “old horseradish” loses its figurative meaning and “means only the thing itself, but in the metaphysical sense it has no circle of signification.”
In defiance of Karamzin, Shishkov proposed his own reform of the Russian language. He proposed to designate concepts and feelings missing in our everyday life with new words formed from the roots not of French, but of Russian and Old Church Slavonic. Instead of Karamzin’s “influence” he suggested “influx”, instead of “development” - “vegetation”, instead of “actor” - “actor”, instead of “individuality” - “intelligence”, “wet feet” instead of “galoshes” and “wandering” instead "labyrinth". Most of his innovations did not take root in the Russian language.
It is impossible not to recognize Shishkov’s ardent love for the Russian language; One cannot help but admit that the passion for everything foreign, especially French, has gone too far in Russia. Ultimately, this led to the fact that the language of the common people, the peasant, became very different from the language of the cultural classes. But we cannot ignore the fact that natural process The evolution of the language that had begun could not be stopped. It was impossible to forcibly return into use the expressions that were already outdated at that time, which were proposed by Shishkov: “zane”, “ugly”, “izhe”, “yako” and others.
Karamzin did not even respond to the accusations of Shishkov and his supporters, knowing firmly that they were guided exclusively by pious and patriotic feelings. Subsequently, Karamzin himself and his most talented supporters (Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Batyushkov) followed the very valuable instructions of the “Shishkovites” on the need to “return to their roots” and examples of their own history. But then they could not understand each other.
The pathos and ardent patriotism of A.S.’s articles. Shishkova evoked a sympathetic attitude among many writers. And when Shishkov, together with G. R. Derzhavin, founded the literary society “Conversation of Lovers” Russian word"(1811) with a charter and its own journal, P. A. Katenin, I. A. Krylov, and later V. K. Kuchelbecker and A. S. Griboyedov 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 created a parody image of V. A Zhukovsky.
This caused a unanimous rebuff from young people who supported Karamzin’s literary authority. D. V. Dashkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, D. N. Bludov composed several witty pamphlets addressed to Shakhovsky and other members of the “Conversation...”. In “Vision in the Arzamas Tavern” Bludov gave the circle of young defenders of Karamzin and Zhukovsky the name “Society of Unknown Arzamas Writers” or simply “Arzamas”.
The organizational structure of this society, founded in the fall of 1815, was dominated by a cheerful spirit of parody of the serious “Conversation...”. In contrast to official pomposity, simplicity, naturalness, openness, great place was devoted to jokes and games.
Parodying the official ritual of the “Conversation...”, upon joining Arzamas, everyone had to read a “funeral speech” to his “late” predecessor from among the living members of the “Conversation...” or the Russian Academy of Sciences (Count D.I. Khvostov, S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A.S. Shishkov himself, etc.). “Funeral speeches” were a form of literary struggle: they parodied high genres and ridiculed the stylistic archaism of the poetic works of the “talkers.” At the meetings of the society, the humorous genres of Russian poetry were honed, a bold and decisive struggle was waged against all kinds of officialdom, and a type of independent Russian writer, free from the pressure of any ideological conventions, was formed. And although P. A. Vyazemsky, one of the organizers and active participants of the society, in his mature years condemned the youthful mischief and intransigence of his like-minded people (in particular, the rituals of “funeral services” for living literary opponents), he rightly called “Arzamas” a school of “literary fellowship” and mutual creative learning. The Arzamas and Beseda societies soon became centers of literary life and social struggle in the first quarter of the 19th century. "Arzamas" included such famous people, 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 discovered not only new page in Russian literature, and Russian fiction in general. Russian readers, who had previously devoured only French novels and the works of enlighteners, enthusiastically accepted “Letters of a Russian Traveler” and “Poor Liza,” and Russian writers and poets (both “besedchiki” and “Arzamasites”) realized that it was possible must write in their native language.
Karamzin and Alexander I: a symphony with power?
In 1802 - 1803, Karamzin published the journal “Bulletin of Europe”, in which literature and politics predominated. Largely thanks to the confrontation with Shishkov, a new aesthetic program for the formation of Russian literature as nationally distinctive appeared in Karamzin’s critical articles. Karamzin, unlike Shishkov, saw the key to the uniqueness of Russian culture not so much in adherence to ritual antiquity and religiosity, but in the events of Russian history. The most striking illustration of his views was the story “Martha the Posadnitsa or the Conquest of Novagorod.”
In his political articles of 1802-1803, Karamzin, as a rule, made recommendations to the government, the main one of which was educating the nation for the sake of the prosperity of the autocratic state.
These ideas were generally close to Emperor Alexander I, the grandson of Catherine the Great, who at one time also dreamed of an “enlightened monarchy” and a complete symphony between the authorities and a European educated society. Karamzin’s response to the coup of March 11, 1801 and the accession to the throne of Alexander I was “Historical eulogy to Catherine the Second” (1802), where Karamzin expressed his views on the essence of the monarchy in Russia, as well as the duties of the monarch and his subjects. The “eulogium” was approved by the sovereign as a collection of examples for the young monarch and was favorably received by him. Alexander I, obviously, was interested in Karamzin’s historical research, and the emperor rightly decided that the great country simply needed to remember its no less great past. And if you don’t remember, then at least create it again...
In 1803, through the 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 the kind of history that was currently needed by the customer, namely, Emperor Alexander I, who at the first stage of his reign showed sympathy for European liberalism.
However, under the influence of studies in Russian history, by 1810 Karamzin had become a consistent conservative. During this period, the system of his political views was finally formed. Karamzin’s statements that he is a “republican at heart” can only be adequately interpreted if we consider that we are talking about “Plato’s Republic of the Wise Men,” an ideal social order based on state virtue, strict regulation and the renunciation of personal freedom . At the beginning of 1810, Karamzin, through his relative Count F.V. Rostopchin, met in Moscow the leader " 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 era 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 of detailing, with references to historical examples, to prove to the Tsar that Russia is not ready, either historically or politically, for the abolition of serfdom and the limitation of the autocratic monarchy by the constitution (following the example of the European powers). Some of his arguments (for example, about the futility of liberating peasants without land, the impossibility of constitutional democracy in Russia) even today look quite convincing and historically correct.
Along with a review of Russian history and criticism of the political course of Emperor Alexander I, the note contained a complete, original and very complex in its theoretical content concept of autocracy as a special, uniquely Russian type of power, closely associated with Orthodoxy.
At the same time, Karamzin refused to identify “true autocracy” with despotism, tyranny or arbitrariness. He believed that such deviations from the norms were due to chance (Ivan IV the Terrible, Paul I) and were quickly eliminated by the inertia of the tradition of the “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 Russian Empire, designated by the “theory of official nationality” of Count S. Uvarov (Orthodoxy-Autocracy-Nationalism).
Before the publication of the first 8 volumes of “History...” Karamzin lived in Moscow, from where he traveled only to Tver to visit Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna and to Nizhny Novgorod, during the occupation of Moscow by the French. He usually spent the summer in Ostafyevo, the estate of Prince Andrei Ivanovich Vyazemsky, whose illegitimate daughter, Ekaterina Andreevna, Karamzin married in 1804. (Karamzin’s first wife, Elizaveta Ivanovna Protasova, died in 1802).
In the last 10 years of his life, which Karamzin spent in St. Petersburg, he became very close to the royal family. Although Emperor Alexander I had a reserved attitude towards Karamzin since the submission of the Note, Karamzin often spent the summer in Tsarskoe Selo. At the request of the empresses (Maria Feodorovna and Elizaveta Alekseevna), he more than once had frank political conversations with Emperor Alexander, in which he acted as a spokesman for the opinions of opponents of drastic liberal reforms. In 1819-1825, Karamzin passionately rebelled against the sovereign’s intentions regarding Poland (submitted a note “Opinion of a Russian Citizen”), condemned the increase in state taxes in peacetime, spoke about the absurd provincial system of finance, criticized the system of military settlements, the activities of the Ministry of Education, pointed out the 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, which was so painful for the people, and constantly pointed out the need to have firm laws, civil and state.
Of course, having behind us 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 revise some aspects of domestic policy, but it so happened in our country that in reality all wise advice statesmen remain “fruitless for the dear Fatherland”...
Karamzin as a historian
Karamzin is our first historian and last chronicler.
With his criticism he belongs to history,
simplicity and apothegms - the chronicle.
A.S. Pushkin
Even from the point of view of Karamzin’s contemporary historical science, no one dared to call the 12 volumes of his “History of the Russian State” a scientific work. Even then it was clear to everyone that the honorary title of court historiographer could not make a writer a historian, give him the appropriate knowledge and proper training.
But, on the other hand, Karamzin initially did not set himself the task of taking on the role of a researcher. The newly minted historiographer did not intend to write a scientific treatise and appropriate the laurels of his illustrious predecessors - Schlözer, Miller, Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, Boltin, etc.
Preliminary critical work on sources for Karamzin is only “a heavy tribute to reliability.” He was, first of all, a writer, and therefore wanted to apply his literary talent to ready-made material: “to select, animate, color” and thus make from Russian history “something attractive, strong, worthy of the attention of not only Russians, but also foreigners." And he accomplished this task brilliantly.
Today it is impossible not to agree that at the beginning of the 19th century, source studies, paleography and other auxiliary historical disciplines were in their infancy. Therefore, to demand from the writer Karamzin professional criticism, as well as strict adherence to one or another methodology for working with historical sources, is simply ridiculous.
You can often hear the opinion that Karamzin simply beautifully rewrote the “Russian History from Ancient Times” written in a long-outdated, difficult-to-read style by Prince M.M. Shcherbatov, introduced some of his own thoughts from it, and thereby created a book for lovers of fascinating reading in family circle. This is wrong.
Naturally, when writing his “History...” Karamzin actively used the experience and works of his predecessors - Schlozer and Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov helped Karamzin navigate the sources of Russian history, significantly influencing both the choice of material and its arrangement in the text. Whether by chance or not, Karamzin brought the “History of the Russian State” to exactly the same place as Shcherbatov’s “History”. However, in addition to following the scheme already worked out by his predecessors, Karamzin provides in his work a lot of references to extensive foreign historiography, almost unfamiliar to the Russian reader. While working on his “History...”, he for the first time introduced into scientific circulation a mass of unknown and previously unstudied sources. These are Byzantine and Livonian chronicles, information from foreigners about the population of ancient Rus', as well as a large number of Russian chronicles that have not yet been touched by the hand of a historian. For comparison: M.M. Shcherbatov used only 21 Russian chronicles when writing his work, Karamzin actively cites more than 40. In addition to the chronicles, Karamzin involved in the study monuments of ancient Russian law and ancient Russian fiction. A special chapter of “History...” is dedicated to “Russian Truth”, and a number of pages are dedicated to the just opened “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”.
Thanks to the diligent help of the directors of the Moscow Archive of the Ministry (Collegium) of Foreign Affairs N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky and A. F. Malinovsky, Karamzin was able to use those documents and materials that were not available to his predecessors. Many valuable manuscripts were provided by the Synodal Repository, libraries of monasteries (Trinity Lavra, Volokolamsk Monastery and others), as well as private collections of manuscripts by Musin-Pushkin and N.P. Rumyantseva. Karamzin received especially many documents from Chancellor Rumyantsev, who collected historical materials in Russia and abroad through his numerous agents, as well as from A.I. Turgenev, who compiled a collection of documents from the papal archive.
Many of the sources used by Karamzin were lost during the Moscow fire of 1812 and were preserved only in his “History...” and extensive “Notes” to its text. Thus, Karamzin’s work, to some extent, itself acquired the status of a historical source, to which professional historians have every right to refer.
Among the main shortcomings of the “History of the Russian State,” the author’s peculiar view of the tasks of the historian is traditionally noted. According to Karamzin, “knowledge” and “learning” in a historian “do not replace the talent to depict actions.” Before the artistic task of history, even the moral one, which Karamzin’s patron, M.N., set for himself, recedes into the background. Muravyov. The characteristics of historical characters are given by Karamzin exclusively in a literary and romantic vein, characteristic of the direction of Russian sentimentalism he created. Karamzin’s first Russian princes are distinguished by their “ardent romantic passion” for conquest, their squad is distinguished by their nobility and loyal spirit, the “rabble” sometimes shows dissatisfaction, raising rebellions, but ultimately agrees with the wisdom of the noble rulers, etc., etc. p.
Meanwhile, the previous generation of historians, under the influence of Schlözer, had long ago developed the idea of critical history, and among Karamzin’s contemporaries, the demands for criticism of historical sources, despite the lack of a clear methodology, were generally accepted. And the next generation has already come forward with a demand for philosophical history - with the identification of the laws of development of the state and society, the recognition of the main driving forces and laws 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 set himself the task of philosophical understanding 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 history. Historical criticism Karamzin was not interested at all, and 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 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 general meaning this work in historiography. Lelevel pointed out an involuntary distortion of the truth due to Karamzin’s patriotic, religious and political hobbies. Artsybashev showed to what extent the literary techniques of a lay historian harm the writing of “history.” Pogodin summed up all the shortcomings of the History, and N.A. The field saw common cause These shortcomings are 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 appearance of new influences in Russia European romanticism. 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 a 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, very far from ideal image enlightened monarch. Half-ill, Karamzin visited the palace every day, where he talked with Empress Maria Feodorovna, moving from memories of the late Emperor Alexander to discussions about the tasks of the future reign.
Karamzin could no longer write. The XII volume of “History...” froze during the interregnum of 1611 - 1612. The last words of the last volume are about a small Russian fortress: “Nut did not give up.” The last thing that Karamzin actually managed to do in the spring of 1826 was that, together with Zhukovsky, he persuaded Nicholas I to return Pushkin from exile. A few years later, the emperor tried to pass the baton of the first historiographer of Russia to the poet, but the “sun of Russian poetry” somehow did not fit into the role of state ideologist and theorist...
In the spring of 1826 N.M. Karamzin, on the advice of doctors, decided to go to Southern France or Italy for treatment. Nicholas I agreed to sponsor his trip and kindly provided the historiographer with a frigate imperial fleet. 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.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin is a famous Russian writer and historian, famous for his reforms of the Russian language. He created the multi-volume “History of the Russian State” and wrote the story “Poor Liza.” Nikolai Karamzin was born near Simbirsk on December 12, 1766. My father was retired at that time. The man belonged to noble family, who, in turn, came from the ancient Tatar dynasty of Kara-Murza.
Nikolai Mikhailovich began studying in a private boarding school, but in 1778 his parents sent the boy to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Shadena. Karamzin had a desire to learn and develop, so for almost 2 years Nikolai Mikhailovich attended lectures by I.G. Schwartz in educational institution Moscow. My father wanted Karamzin Jr. to follow in his footsteps. The writer agreed with his parents' will and enlisted in the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment.
Nikolai was not a military man for long, he soon resigned, but he took something positive from this period of his life - the first literary works. After resignation, he chooses a new place of residence - Simbirsk. Karamzin at this time became a member of the Golden Crown Masonic lodge. Nikolai Mikhailovich did not stay long in Simbirsk - he returned to Moscow. For four years he was a member of the Friendly Scientific Society.
Literature
At the dawn of his literary career, Nikolai Karamzin went to Europe. The writer met with, looked at the Great French revolution. The result of the trip was “Letters of a Russian Traveler.” This book brought fame to Karamzin. Such works had not yet been written before Nikolai Mikhailovich, so philosophers consider the creator the founder of modern Russian literature.
Returning to Moscow, Karamzin begins an active creative life. He not only writes stories and short stories, but also runs the Moscow Journal. The publication published works by young and famous authors, including Nikolai Mikhailovich himself. During this period of time, “My trifles”, “Aglaya”, “Pantheon of Foreign Literature” and “Aonids” came out from Karamzin’s pen.
Prose and poetry alternated with reviews, analyzes of theatrical productions and critical articles that could be read in the Moscow Journal. The first review, created by Karamzin, appeared in the publication in 1792. The writer shared his impressions of the ironic poem “Virgil’s Aeneid, Turned Inside Out,” written by Nikolai Osipov. During this period, the creator writes the story “Natalya, the Boyar’s Daughter.”
Karamzin achieved success in the art of poetry. The poet used European sentimentalism, which did not fit into the traditional poetry of that time. No odes or odes, with Nikolai Mikhailovich a new stage in the development of the poetic world in Russia began.
Karamzin praised spiritual world person, leaving the physical shell unattended. The “language of the heart” was used by the creator. Logical and simple forms, meager rhymes and an almost complete absence of paths - that’s what Nikolai Mikhailovich’s poetry represented.
In 1803, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin officially became a historian. The emperor signed the corresponding decree. The writer became the first and last historiographer of the country. Nikolai Mikhailovich devoted the second half of his life to the study of history. Karamzin was not interested in government positions.
First historical work Nikolai Mikhailovich became “Note on ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations.” Karamzin represented the conservative layers of society, expressed their opinion regarding liberal reforms Emperor. The writer tried to prove through his creativity that Russia does not need transformation. This work represents a sketch for a large-scale work.
Only in 1818 Karamzin published his main creation - “The History of the Russian State.” It consisted of 8 volumes. Later, Nikolai Mikhailovich published 3 more books. This work helped bring Karamzin closer to the imperial court, including the tsar.
From now on, the historian lives in Tsarskoye Selo, where the sovereign allocated him separate housing. Gradually, Nikolai Mikhailovich went over to the side of the absolute monarchy. The last, 12th volume of “History of the Russian State” was never completed. The book was published in this form after the writer’s death. Karamzin was not the founder of descriptions of Russian history. According to researchers, Nikolai Mikhailovich was the first to reliably describe the life of the country.
“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, it seemed, was found by Karamzin, like America - “, stated.
The popularity of history books is due to the fact that Karamzin acted more as a writer than a historian. He respected the beauty of the language, but did not offer readers personal assessments of the events that happened. In special manuscripts for the volumes, Nikolai Mikhailovich made explanations and left comments.
Karamzin is known in Russia as a writer, poet, historian and critic, but little information remains about Nikolai Mikhailovich’s translation activities. He did not work in this direction for long.
Among the works is a translation of the original tragedy “,” written by. This book, translated into Russian, did not pass censorship, so it was sent to be burned. Karamzin attached prefaces to each work in which he assessed the work. For two years, Nikolai Mikhailovich worked on the translation of the Indian drama “Sakuntala” by Kalidas.
The Russian literary language changed under the influence of Karamzin’s work. The writer deliberately ignored Church Slavonic vocabulary and grammar, giving his works a touch of vitality. Nikolai Mikhailovich took syntax and grammar as a basis French.
Thanks to Karamzin, Russian literature was replenished with new words, including the appearance of “attraction,” “charity,” “industry,” and “love.” There was also a place for barbarism. For the first time, Nikolai Mikhailovich introduced the letter “e” into the language.
Karamzin as a reformer caused a lot of controversy in the literary community. A.S. Shishkov and Derzhavin created the community “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word,” whose participants tried to preserve the “old” language. Community members loved to criticize Nikolai Mikhailovich and other innovators. The rivalry between Karamzin and Shishkov ended with the rapprochement of the two writers. It was Shishkov who contributed to the election of Nikolai Mikhailovich as a member of the Russian and Imperial Academy of Sciences.
Personal life
In 1801, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was legally married for the first time. The writer’s wife was Elizaveta Ivanovna Protasova. The young woman was the historian's longtime lover. According to Karamzin, he loved Elizabeth for 13 years. Nikolai Mikhailovich's wife was known as an educated citizen.
She helped her husband when necessary. The only thing that worried Elizaveta Ivanovna was her health. In March 1802, Sofya Nikolaevna Karamzina, the daughter of a writer, was born. Protasova suffered from postpartum fever, which turned out to be fatal. According to researchers, the work “Poor Liza” was dedicated to the first wife of Nikolai Mikhailovich. Daughter Sophia served as a maid of honor, was friends with Pushkin and.
Being a widower, Karamzin met Ekaterina Andreevna Kolyvanova. The girl was considered the illegitimate daughter of Prince Vyazemsky. This marriage produced 9 children. Three descendants died at a young age, including two daughters of Natalya and son Andrei. At the age of 16, the heir Nikolai died. In 1806, there was an addition to the Karamzin family - Ekaterina was born. At the age of 22, the girl married retired lieutenant colonel Prince Pyotr Meshchersky. The couple's son Vladimir became a publicist.
In 1814 Andrei was born. The young man studied at the University of Dorpat, but then went abroad due to health problems. Andrei Nikolaevich resigned. He married Aurora Karlovna Demidova, but the marriage did not produce children. However, Karamzin’s son had illegitimate heirs.
After 5 years, there was another addition to the Karamzin family. Son Vladimir became the pride of his father. A witty, resourceful careerist - this is how the heir to Nikolai Mikhailovich was described. He was witty, resourceful, and achieved serious heights in his career. Vladimir worked in consultation with the Minister of Justice, as a senator. Owned the Ivnya estate. His wife was Alexandra Ilyinichna Duka, the daughter of a famous general.
The maid of honor was the daughter Elizaveta. The woman even received a pension for her relationship with Karamzin. After her mother died, Elizabeth moved in with her older sister Sofia, who at that time lived in the house of Princess Ekaterina Meshcherskaya.
The fate of the maid of honor was not easy, but the girl was known as a good-natured, sympathetic, intelligent person. He even considered Elizabeth “an example of self-sacrifice.” In those years, photographs were rare, so portraits of family members were painted by special artists.
Death
The news of the death of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin spread across Russia on May 22, 1826. The tragedy occurred in St. Petersburg. IN official biography The writer said that the cause of death was a cold.
The historian fell ill after visiting Senate Square December 14, 1825. The funeral of Nikolai Karamzin took place at the Tikhvin cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.
Bibliography
- 1791-1792 – “Letters of a Russian traveler”
- 1792 – “Poor Liza”
- 1792 – “Natalia, boyar’s daughter”
- 1792 – “The Beautiful Princess and the Happy Karla”
- 1793 – “Sierra Morena”
- 1793 – “Island of Bornholm”
- 1796 – “Julia”
- 1802 – “Martha the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novagorod”
- 1802 – “My Confession”
- 1803 – “Sensitive and cold”
- 1803 – “Knight of Our Time”
- 1816-1829 – “History of the Russian State”
- 1826 – “On Friendship”