210 years ago by Decree of Emperor Alexander I (November 12, 1803) famous writer Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was appointed " Russian historiographer" The historiographer of the Russian state is honorary title for the historian Russian Empire, which imposed on him the obligation to write a “general Russian history.” G. F. Miller was appointed the first Russian historiographer in 1747, M. M. Shcherbatov became the second in 1768, and N. M. Karamzin became the third and last.
A descendant of the baptized Tatar prince Simeon Kara-Murza (kara - black, murza - prince), who distinguished himself in the military field under Vasily Shuisky, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1, 1766 in the village of Karamzinovka Simbirsk province in the family of a nobleman - a middle-income landowner, retired captain Mikhail Egorovich Karamzin and Ekaterina Petrovna (nee Pozukhina). Nikolenka’s stepmother Avdotya Gavrilovna Dmitrieva (aunt of the famous poet I. I. Dmitriev) also fell in love with Nikolenka. Nikolai received home education; studied in Moscow at the boarding school of I. M. Schaden (from 1775 to 1781). Since childhood, assigned to the Preobrazhensky Life Guards Regiment as an ensign, in 1881 Nikolai entered active service. In 1783 he retired with the rank of lieutenant and returned to Simbirsk, where he became friends with the director of Moscow University I. P. Turgenev.
Having arrived to visit I. P. Turgenev in Moscow, N. M. Karamzin stayed, became the author and translator of the magazine “Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind” by N. I. Novikov (joined short term into Freemasonry), began sending his translations and stories to various publications. In the 1790s, N. M. Karamzin was the publisher of the Moscow Journal, the almanac Aglaya, the Pantheon of Foreign Literature magazine, and the famous Vestnik Evropy magazine. Karamzin is the founder of a movement in literature, sentimentalism. P. A. Vyazemsky wrote about him: “Our language was a heavy caftan and smelled too much of antiquity, Karamzin gave a different cut - let the schisms grumble to themselves - everyone accepted his cut.”
In 1789-1890 Karamzin went abroad, visited Germany, Switzerland, France and England. He outlined his impressions of the trip in “Letters of a Russian Traveler.” He was wary of the Great French Revolution, recognizing that “the French Revolution is one of those phenomena that determines the fate of mankind for a long series of centuries.” In this work, he also outlined his idea of Russian history: “They say that our history in itself is less interesting: I don’t think so, all we need is intelligence, taste, and talent. You can choose, animate, color; and the reader will be surprised how something attractive, strong, worthy of the attention of not only Russians, but also foreigners could come out of Nestor, Nikon, etc...." Karamzin’s interest in history was also manifested in writing stories - “Marfa the Posadnitsa”, “Natalya - boyar's daughter" In 1800, he admitted that he “got deep into Russian history; I sleep and see Nikon and Nestor.” In 1802, responding to the accession to the throne of Alexander I, Karamzin wrote “Historical words of praise to Catherine the Second,” where he said: “Fellow citizens! let us recognize in the depths of our hearts beneficence monarchical rule... It is more consistent with the purpose of civil societies than all others: for it most contributes to peace and security.”
In 1803, I. I. Dmitriev turned to State Secretary M. N. Muravyov to petition N. M. Karamzin for the position of Russian historiographer. On October 31, 1803, Karamzin received a decree signed by Alexander I appointing him as an official historiographer. He was given the task of writing full story Russia. Karamzin was awarded the rank of court councilor and “assigned... two thousand rubles of annual boarding school.” Karamzin studied the archives and book collections of the Synod, the Hermitage, the Academy of Sciences, Public library, Moscow University, Alexander Nevsky and Trinity-Sergius Lavra, treasures of private collections of Russian antiquities - Musin-Pushkin, Rumyantsev, Turgenev, Muravyov, Tolstoy, Uvarov. At his request, searches were carried out in the monasteries and archives of Oxford, Venice, Paris, Prague, Copenhagen, Konigsberg and the Vatican. A bunch of foreign libraries and archives were examined by A.I. Turgenev. In Moscow, he received a lot of help from A.F. Malinovsky, A.N. Olenin, A.N. Musin-Pushkin, and N.P. Rumyantsev. Ostromir Gospel 1056-1057, Ipatiev, Trinity, Volyn Chronicles, Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, work ancient Russian literature“Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoner”, “Walking across the Three Seas” in the Trinity List of the end of the 15th century - early XVI centuries - this is only a small part of what Karamzin found.
Many years later, A. S. Pushkin wrote: “Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Colomb.” Back in January 1804, Karamzin married Ekaterina Andreevna Kolyvanova, the illegitimate daughter of Prince A.I. Vyazemsky, and settled in the Vyazemsky Ostafyevo estate near Moscow, where he wrote his History in silence. The first eight volumes of “The History of the Russian State” were presented to Alexander I in 1818. The first edition was published in 3,000 copies and sold out of the shelves in three weeks; the second edition was published in 1819-1824, the last, 12th volume, was published in 1829.
According to Karamzin, the main idea of his “History of the Russian State” was that Russia, both in the past and in the present, rested on autocracy. According to Karamzin, the driving force historical process was autocratic power; without autocracy there is no Russia, Russian tsars united Rus', gathered the land into one whole. “Great nations are like great men, they have their infancy, and should not be ashamed of it: our fatherland, weak, divided into small regions until 862, according to Nestor’s Chronicle, owes its greatness to the happy introduction monarchical power».
About the purpose of the work, Nikolai Mikhailovich said in the preface: “rulers and legislators act according to the instructions of history and look at its sheets like sailors at the drawings of the seas.” The history of an ordinary citizen “reconciles... with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with an ordinary phenomenon in all centuries; consoles in state disasters." “The History of the Russian State” begins with the chapter “On the peoples who have lived in Russia since ancient times, and the Slavs in general.” Further, directly from the chronicles, it is stated Norman theory"callings" of princes. The Varangians founded two “autocratic regions” in Russia: Rurik in the north, Askold and Dir in the south. After the death of his brothers, Rurik founded the Russian monarchy. The history of the Russian state recognizes this state as powerful and glorious. However, after the death of Yaroslav I, the autocracy ceases to exist. The division of the state between the sons of Yaroslav leads to the loss of Ancient Russia’s “power and prosperity”, “the state weakened and collapsed after that for more than three hundred years.”
The rise of monarchical power is characteristic only of the Rostov-Suzdal principality under Andrei Bogolyubsky. With his death, a period of anarchy begins again. The consequence of this anarchy was the conquest of Russian lands by the Mongols, which threw Russia far back into its cultural development. However, “evil also has good consequences.” Without the Tatar-Mongols, Russia would have perished from princely strife. Moscow, according to N. Karamzin, “owes its greatness to the khans.”
Since the time of Ivan Kalita, monarchical power has been strengthening. Dmitry Donskoy, suppressing separatism appanage princes, sought to “affirm his power.” The Battle of Kulikovo showed the revival of Russian forces in the fight against Tatar-Mongol yoke. Ivan III is the creator of autocratic power in Russia. Karamzin's anti-hero is Ivan the Terrible, because of his fight against the boyars with the most drastic measures. Boris Godunov, according to Karamzin, is a gloomy personality, with the torments of a murderous king. Vasily Shuisky, his ill-wisher, a flattering courtier, who was famous for the intelligence of the “man of the Duma.” Account of events peasant war And Polish-Swedish intervention was not brought to the end by the historian. The events of volume 12 end with the tenth years of the 15th and 20th centuries, with the words “Nut did not give up.”
For Karamzin, the author of “History of the Russian State,” the monarchy is given by God, only tough monarchical power can preserve Russia with its largest territories, because monarchs always think about what they will leave as an inheritance to their children; The monarchy is the sacred core of history. By order Grand Duchess Catherine Pavlovna in 1811 N. M. Karamzin compiled a “Note on the ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations", an essay on the history of Russia and its current state, permeated with the idea of the unshakable and saving role of autocracy as the basis Russian statehood. The note begins with the calling of the Varangians and ends with the time of Alexander I. House projects Z500 projects of houses for two families in Moscow
In order not to repeat ourselves, let us trace Karamzin’s concept from the first Romanovs. The first Romanovs are the rapprochement of Russia with the West, the borrowing of Western models in everyday life, in military affairs, in civilian institutions. This process was slow. The harsh penetration of Westernism - the reign of Peter I. “The goal was not only the new greatness of Russia, but also the complete appropriation of European customs...” “Peter... corrected, multiplied the army, won brilliant victory over a skilled enemy..; conquered Livonia, created a fleet, founded harbors, issued many wise laws, brought best condition trade, 32 mines, established manufactories, schools, an academy, and finally brought Russia to the famous degree of political system Europe".
And most importantly, Peter “powerfully grabbed the helm of the state. Through the storm and waves, he rushed towards his goal: he achieved it - and everything changed.” The harmful side of these transformations is the unbridled imitation of the West. Thanks to Peter's reforms, "we became citizens of the world, but in some cases ceased to be citizens of Russia." In his desire to impose Westernism from above, Peter reached the point of autocracy. Karamzin saw another mistake of Peter in that he founded new capital on the northern edge of the state, among the swamps, in places “condemned by nature to sterility and lack.”
According to Karamzin, the church should have been raised somewhat. Peter's heirs are a weak shadow of the monarch. Menshikov thought only about the benefits of his personal lust for power; under Anna, Biron, Petrov’s daughter Elizaveta, was the main ruler - “an idle and voluptuous woman, lulled by indolence.” A new conspiracy - and the unfortunate Peter III in the grave with his pathetic vices... Catherine II was the true successor to the greatness of Petrov. Its main task is to soften the autocracy. She caressed the so-called philosophers of the 18th century and was captivated by the character of the ancient republicans, but she wanted to command like an earthly God - and she commanded. Catherine did not demand from the Russians anything contrary to their conscience and civic skills, trying only to exalt the Fatherland given to her by Heaven or her glory - through victories, legislation, and education.
Catherine's reign also had its negative side. "IN government institutions contained at that time more shine rather than thoroughness." Paul I began to reign in “universal horror,” not following the regulations, but only his whims. The ascension to the throne of Alexander I caused general rejoicing. In a note, Karamzin warned Alexander I not to limit the autocracy, because “the autocracy founded and resurrected Russia: with the change of its state charter, it perished and must perish.” Karamzin concluded his note as follows: “Autocracy is the palladium of Russia; her integrity is necessary for her happiness; It does not follow from this that the sovereign, the only source of power, has the right to humiliate the nobility, which is as ancient as Russia.”
In 1812, Russia entered the war with Napoleonic France. After the victory, in 1813, N. M. Karamzin visited the burned-out Moscow and wrote about it to I. I. Dmitriev: “I cried on the way, I cried here too; There is no Moscow: only a corner of it remains. Not only houses burned down, the very morality of people changed for the worse, as they say. Bitterness is noticeable; one can also see audacity that has never happened before.”
In 1818 N. M. Karamzin was elected an honorary member St. Petersburg Academy Sci. In the fall of 1819, Emperor Alexander I told the historiographer in one of his conversations that he wanted to restore Poland “within its ancient borders.” In response to this, Karamzin composed a note to Alexander I entitled “Opinion of a Russian Citizen.” In the note, Karamzin expressed not only his attitude towards “ Polish question”, but formulated some principles of the state structure of Russia, the main of which is the principle of the territorial integrity of Russia. The Russian Emperor, who possessed full power, did not have the right, according to the historiographer, to cede even an inch of Russian land to anyone.
“Old fortresses,” noted Karamzin, “are not in Politics: otherwise we would have to restore the Kazan and Astrakhan Kingdoms, Novgorod Republic, the Grand Duchy of Ryazan and so on... Moreover, according to the old fortresses, Belarus, Volynia, Podolia, together with Galicia, were once the indigenous heritage of Russia. If you give them up, they will demand Kyiv, Chernigov, and Smolensk from you: for they also belonged to hostile Lithuania for a long time. Either everything or nothing... Hitherto ours state rule was: not an inch to enemy or friend! Napoleon could have conquered Russia; but you, although an Autocrat, could not cede to him a single Russian hut by agreement... I hear the Russians and know them: we would lose not only beautiful regions, but also love for the Tsar; they would have cooled their souls towards the Fatherland, seeing it as a playground of autocratic tyranny; would have weakened not only by the reduction of the State, but also in spirit, they would have humiliated themselves before others and before themselves... In a word, the restoration of Poland will be the fall of Russia, or our sons will stain the Polish land with their blood and again take Prague by storm!..”
In 1824 Karamzin received the title of actual state councilor. Emperor Alexander I died in November 1825. On behalf of Nicholas I, Karamzin drew up a manifesto on his accession to the throne. From the manifesto, censorship removed everything that, according to Karamzin, should have formed the foundation of the new reign: “true enlightenment of the mind” and “peaceful freedom of civil life.” After the day of the oath to Nicholas I on December 19, Karamzin wrote to his friend Dmitriev: “We are healthy after the local alarm on December 14. I was in the Palace with my daughters, I went out to St. Isaac’s Square, I saw terrible faces, heard terrible words, and five or six stones fell at my feet... The army spent the night among the lights around the Palace. At midnight I... was already walking along the quiet streets, but at 11 o'clock in the morning, December 15, I saw still crowds of rabble on Nevsky Prospekt. Soon everything calmed down, and the army was released to the barracks... This is the absurd tragedy of our crazy Liberalists! God grant that there are not so many true villains among them!”
Night spent on Senate Square, caused colds and pneumonia. On May 13, 1826, Karamzin received a rescript from Alexander I: “Nikolai Mikhailovich! Your poor health forces you to leave your homeland for a while and look for a climate more favorable to you. I consider it a pleasure to express to you my sincere desire that you soon return to us with renewed strength...” In the appendix to the rescript, Karamzin was given a pension of fifty thousand a year from the state. This amount after him was to be paid to his wife, sons before they entered the service and daughters before they got married. May 22 (June 3), 1826 Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin died. He was buried at the Tikhvin cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St. Petersburg.
In 1833, the Simbirsk nobles turned to the tsar for permission to erect a monument to N.M. Karamzin in their city. A committee was created to raise funds for the monument, and money was collected throughout Russia. Nicholas I himself, who visited Simbirsk in 1836, chose the location for the monument. The author of the project was the classicist sculptor Samuil Galberg. In 1839, Galberg died and the monument was completed by his students A. A. Ivanov, P. A. Stawasser, N. A. Ramazanov and K. M. Klimchenko. On August 22, 1845, the monument was unveiled. The Muse Clio on the pedestal of the monument appeared before the eyes of the public in its mythological sinful greatness. Right hand she placed on the altar of immortality the tablets of “The History of the Russian State” - the main work of N.M. Karamzin, and in her left she held a trumpet, with the help of which she intended to broadcast about the glorious pages of the life of Russia. In the pedestal of the monument, in a round niche, there was a bust of the historian.
The pedestal is decorated with high reliefs. On the northern high relief, Karamzin was depicted reading an excerpt from his “History” to Alexander I and his sister Ekaterina Pavlovna in Tver in 1811. On the other, Nikolai Mikhailovich is depicted on his deathbed, surrounded by his family. All figures of the monument are depicted in antique clothes. The inscription on the pedestal read: “N. M. Karamzin historian Russian state by order of Emperor Nicholas I in 1844.” The total height of the monument is nine meters, it is surrounded by a lattice.
Not everyone understood the sculptor’s idea... Here is what Russkiy Vestnik wrote in 1863: “The Karamzin monument is one of the best decorations of the city of Simbirsk, but, unfortunately, the allegorical character given to this monument significantly reduces the impression it makes. The placement of the statue of Clio and the depiction of faces on the bas-reliefs in unnatural positions and half-naked seems completely incomprehensible not only to the people, but also to the majority of literate people. The common people, having no idea about the muse Clio, consider the statue... to be an image of the wife of the late historian, and... in general, thanks to this statue, the entire monument is popularly known as the cast-iron woman.”
In 1866, a park similar to English parks was laid out around the statue. In 1931, the monument was almost demolished; the famous city architect Feofan Evtikheevich Volsov came out in defense of the monument. Through his efforts, the monument was preserved.
Alla Eroshkina
"The History of the Russian State" is not only the creation of a great writer, but also a feat honest man.
A. S. Pushkin
It turns out that I have a Fatherland!
The first eight volumes of the History of the Russian State were published all at once in 1818. They say that, having slammed the eighth and final volume, Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!” And he wasn't alone. Thousands of people thought, and most importantly, felt this very thing. Everyone read “History” - students, officials, nobles, even society ladies. They read it in Moscow and St. Petersburg, they read it in the provinces: distant Irkutsk alone bought 400 copies. After all, it is so important for everyone to know that he has it, the Fatherland. Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin gave this confidence to the people of Russia.
Need a story
In those days, in early XIX centuries, ancient, eternal Russia suddenly turned out to be young, just starting out. She was about to enter Big world. Everything was born anew: the army and navy, factories and manufactories, science and literature. And it might seem that the country has no history - was there anything before Peter except the dark ages of backwardness and barbarism? Do we have a story? “Yes,” answered Karamzin.
Who is he?
We know very little about Karamzin’s childhood and youth - no diaries, no letters from relatives, no youthful writings have survived. We know that Nikolai Mikhailovich was born on December 1, 1766, not far from Simbirsk. At that time it was an incredible wilderness, a real bear corner. When the boy was 11 or 12 years old, his father, a retired captain, took his son to Moscow, to a boarding school at the university gymnasium. Karamzin stayed here for some time, and then entered active military service - this was at the age of 15! The teachers prophesied for him not only the Moscow - Leipzig University, but somehow it didn’t work out.
Karamzin's exceptional education is his personal merit.
Writer
I didn’t do military service - I wanted to write: compose, translate. And at the age of 17, Nikolai Mikhailovich was already a retired lieutenant. Ahead whole life. What should I dedicate it to? Literature, exclusively literature - decides Karamzin.
And what was she like, Russian? literature XVIII centuries? Also young, a beginner. Karamzin writes to a friend: “I am deprived of the pleasure of reading much on native language. We are still poor in writers. We have several poets who deserve to be read." Of course, there are already writers, and not just some, but Lomonosov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, but there are no more than a dozen significant names. Are there really not enough talents? No, they exist, but the matter has become language: the Russian language has not yet adapted to convey new thoughts, new feelings, or describe new objects.
Karamzin makes a live installation colloquial speech educated people. He writes not scientific treatises, but travel notes("Notes of a Russian Traveler"), stories ("Bornholm Island", " Poor Lisa"), poems, articles, translates from French and German.
Journalist
Finally, they decide to publish a magazine. It was called simply: "Moscow Journal". The famous playwright and writer Ya. B. Knyazhnin picked up the first issue and exclaimed: “We didn’t have such prose!”
The success of "Moscow Magazine" was enormous - as many as 300 subscribers. A very large figure for those times. This is how small not only writing and reading Russia is!
Karamzin works incredibly hard. Collaborates in the first Russian children's magazine. It was called "Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind." Only FOR this magazine Karamzin wrote two dozen pages every week.
Karamzin was the number one writer of his time.
Historian
And suddenly Karamzin takes on the gigantic task of compiling his native Russian history. On October 31, 1803, Tsar Alexander I issued a decree appointing N.M. Karamzin as a historiographer with a salary of 2 thousand rubles a year. Now for the rest of my life I am a historian. But apparently it was necessary.
Chronicles, decrees, codes of law
Now - write. But for this you need to collect material. The search began. Karamzin literally combs through all the archives and book collections of the Synod, the Hermitage, the Academy of Sciences, the Public Library, Moscow University, the Alexander Nevsky and Trinity-Sergius Lavra. At his request, they are looking for it in monasteries, in the archives of Oxford, Paris, Venice, Prague and Copenhagen. And how many things were found!
Ostromir Gospel of 1056 - 1057 (this is still the oldest dated Russian book), Ipatiev and Trinity Chronicles. Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, a work of ancient Russian literature “The Prayer of Daniil the Prisoner” and much more.
They say that having discovered a new chronicle - the Volyn one, Karamzin did not sleep for several nights with joy. Friends laughed that he had become simply unbearable - all he talked about was history.
What will it be like?
The materials are being collected, but how to take on the text, how to write a book that even the simplest person can read, but from which even an academician will not wince? How to make it interesting, artistic, and at the same time scientific? And here are these volumes. Each is divided into two parts: in the first - a detailed story written by a great master - this is for the common reader; in the second - detailed notes, links to sources - this is for historians.
This is true patriotism
Karamzin writes to his brother: “History is not a novel: a lie can always be beautiful, but only some minds like the truth in its garb.” So what should I write about? Set forth in detail the glorious pages of the past, and only turn over the dark ones? Maybe this is exactly what a patriotic historian should do? No, Karamzin decides, patriotism does not come at the expense of distorting history. He doesn’t add anything, doesn’t invent anything, doesn’t glorify victories or downplay defeats.
By chance, drafts of volume VII-ro were preserved: we see how Karamzin worked on every phrase of his “History”. Here he writes about Vasily III: “in relations with Lithuania, Vasily... always ready for peace...” It’s not the same, it’s not true. The historian crosses out what was written and concludes: “In relations with Lithuania, Vasily expressed peace in words, trying to harm her secretly or openly.” Such is the impartiality of the historian, such is true patriotism. Love for one's own, but not hatred for someone else's.
Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus
It is written ancient history Russia, and modern things are happening around: Napoleonic stinks, the Battle of Austerlitz, the Peace of Tilsit, Patriotic War 12th year, Moscow fire. In 1815, Russian troops enter Paris. In 1818, the first 8 volumes of the History of the Russian State were published. Circulation is a terrible thing! - 3 thousand copies. And everything sold out in 25 days. Unheard of! But the price is considerable: 50 rubles.
The last volume stopped at the middle of the reign of Ivan IV, the Terrible.
Some said - Jacobin!
Even earlier, the trustee of Moscow University Golenishchev-Kutuzov submitted to the minister public education some, to put it mildly, document, which thoroughly proved that “Karamzin’s works are filled with freethinking and Jacobin poison.” “If only he should have been given an order, it would have been time to lock him up long ago.”
Why is this so? First of all - for independence of judgment. Not everyone likes this.
There is an opinion that Nikolai Mikhailovich has never betrayed his soul even once in his life.
Monarchist! - exclaimed others, young people, future Decembrists.
Yes, main character"Stories" by Karamzin - Russian autocracy. The author condemns bad sovereigns and sets good ones as examples. And he sees prosperity for Russia in an enlightened, wise monarch. That is, we need a “good king”. Karamzin does not believe in revolution, much less a quick one. So, before us is truly a monarchist.
And at the same time, the Decembrist Nikolai Turgenev would later remember how Karamzin “shed tears” when he learned about the death of Robespierre, the hero of the French Revolution. And here is what Nikolai Mikhailovich himself writes to a friend: “I do not demand either a constitution or representatives, but in my feelings I will remain a republican, and, moreover, a loyal subject of the Russian Tsar: this is a contradiction, but only an imaginary one.”
Why then is he not with the Decembrists? Karamzin believed that Russia’s time had not yet come, the people were not ripe for a republic.
Good king
The ninth volume has not yet been published, and rumors have already spread that it is banned. It began like this: “We begin to describe the terrible change in the soul of the king and in the fate of the kingdom.” So, the story about Ivan the Terrible continues.
Previous historians did not dare to openly describe this reign. Not surprising. For example, Moscow’s conquest of free Novgorod. Karamzin the historian, however, reminds us that the unification of Russian lands was necessary, but Karamzin the artist gives a bright picture how exactly the conquest of the free people was carried out northern city:
“John and his son were tried in this way: every day they presented to them from five hundred to a thousand Novgorodians; they beat them, tortured them, burned them with some kind of fiery mixture, tied them with their heads or feet to a sleigh, dragged them to the bank of the Volkhov, where this river does not freeze in winter, and They threw whole families into the water, wives with husbands, mothers with infants. Moscow warriors rode in boats along the Volkhov with stakes, hooks and axes: whoever of those thrown into the water floated up was stabbed and cut into pieces. These killings lasted five weeks and concluded by common robbery."
And so on almost every page - executions, murders, burning of prisoners upon the news of the death of the tsar's favorite villain Malyuta Skuratov, the order to destroy an elephant who refused to kneel before the tsar... and so on.
Remember, this is written by a man who is convinced that autocracy is necessary in Russia.
Yes, Karamzin was a monarchist, but during the trial the Decembrists referred to the “History of the Russian State” as one of the sources of “harmful” thoughts.
December 14
He didn't want his book to become a source of harmful thoughts. He wanted to tell the truth. It just so happened that the truth he wrote turned out to be “harmful” for the autocracy.
And then December 14, 1825. Having received news of the uprising (for Karamzin this is, of course, a rebellion), the historian goes out into the street. He was in Paris in 1790, was in Moscow in 1812, in 1825 he walks towards Senate Square. “I saw terrible faces, heard terrible words, five or six stones fell at my feet.”
Karamzin, of course, is against the uprising. But how many of their rebels are the Muravyov brothers, Nikolai Turgenev Bestuzhev, Kuchelbecker (he translated “History” into German).
A few days later Karamzin would say this about the Decembrists: “The delusions and crimes of these young people are the delusions and crimes of our century.”
After the uprising, Karamzin fell fatally ill - he caught a cold on December 14. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was another victim of that day. But he dies not only from a cold - the idea of the world collapsed, faith in the future was lost, and he ascended the throne new king, very far from the ideal image of an enlightened monarch.
Karamzin could no longer write. The last thing he managed to do was, together with Zhukovsky, he persuaded the tsar to return Pushkin from exile.
A Volume XII froze during the interregnum of 1611 - 1612. And so last words the last volume - about a small Russian fortress: "Nut did not give up."
Now
More than a century and a half has passed since then. Modern historians know about ancient Russia much more than Karamzin - how much was found: documents, archaeological finds, birch bark letters, finally. But Karamzin’s book - a history-chronicle - is one of a kind and there will never be another like it.
Why do we need it now? Bestuzhev-Ryumin said this well in his time: “High moral sense This book still makes it the most convenient for cultivating love for Russia and goodness."
Bibliography
E. Perekhvalskaya. Karamzin N. M. The first Russian historian .
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
A new century began with a new reign. On the night of March 11-12, 1801, Paul I was killed. Alexander I was on the throne. Residents of the capitals rejoiced. The spirit of a politician awakened in Karamzin.
In 1801, Karamzin greeted the new emperor with a political moral lesson:
How difficult it is to rule autocratically,
And only give an account to the sky!...
But is it possible to love a slave?
Should we be grateful to him?
Love and fear do not go together;
The soul is free alone
Created for her feelings.
At the same time, at the turn of two centuries and two periods of his work, he wrote “Historical Eulogies to Catherine II.” The topic was suggested by the fact that Alexander I, in the manifesto announcing his accession to the throne, promised to reign “according to the laws and according to the heart of our august grandmother, Empress Catherine II.” How Karamzin imagined the reign of Catherine II, he himself told Alexander I later, in 1811, in the merciless “Note on Ancient and New Russia.” Now he preferred to draw an ideal image, a kind of monarchical utopia, under the name of Catherine. The "Word" is contradictory - it is a work of a transitional era. Karamzin defends autocracy as the only suitable form for a vast empire and for the current state of morality. This does not prevent him from emphasizing that, ideally, for a society brought up on civic virtue, a republic is preferable. But “A republic without virtue and heroic love for the fatherland is an inanimate corpse.” This was the formula of “republicanism in the soul,” to which Karamzin subsequently resorted more than once and which could not convince his revolutionary contemporaries. However, the tone of the essay is striking. It begins with an appeal not to “dear readers,” but as if it were to be read before a crowded meeting of patriots: “Fellow citizens!” This is probably the first time that a Russian writer addressed his readers in this way. Only a man who had imbibed eloquence could defend the autocracy in this way. National Assembly. Karamzin defended power that restricts freedom, but defended it as free man. And autocracy in his presentation looked unusual. This was not unlimited despotism. Freedom and security individual, a private person was the wall before which the power of any autocrat had to stop. Catherine, as portrayed by Karamzin, “respected in her subject the dignity of a person, a moral being created for happiness in civil life" “She knew that personal security is the first good for a person, and that without it our life, among all other ways of happiness and pleasure, is eternal, painful anxiety.” At the same time, Karamzin refers to the first manifesto of Catherine II and her Mandate - both documents, as he, of course, knew, were secretly disavowed by the government itself. Lotman Yu. M. The Creation of Karamzin. M., 1987.
In two odes written by Karamzin on the occasion of Alexander I’s accession to the throne and on the occasion of his coronation, he expressed approval of Alexander’s first steps in government and outlined the desired program for his reign. Karamzin gave a full statement of his political demands to the new autocrat in “Historical laudable word Catherine II." “The Lay” was written by Karamzin in 1801 and through D.P. Troshchinsky was given to Alexander I. Kislyagin L.G. Formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin (1785-1803). M., 1976. P.157.
In an ode dedicated to the accession to the throne of Alexander I, Karamzin likens autocratic power to divine power: “Great as God is the legislator; he is the founder of peaceful societies and the benefactor of all ages.” In understanding the nature of autocratic power, he completely agrees with Catherine’s “Instruction,” and in the “Instruction” the monarch was considered as the creator of laws: he follows his “blessings, from which the laws flow and flow.”
“The sovereign is the source of all power in the monarchy; but this power must act through certain means, in a certain definite way: governments and laws are born that make the establishment of any state firm and immovable.”
The autocrat, according to Karamzin, is obliged to comply with the laws, otherwise his rule turns into tyranny, and such power is contrary to reason. Based on rationalistic teachings about society, he argued that where there are no laws, there are no civil society. Here it is fundamentally important to establish what Karamzin understood by “society”, “citizens”, “people”? The fact is that often these concepts hide an ethnic whole - the Russian people, but sometimes they have a narrow class meaning, and then only the nobility is hidden behind them.
All the odes Karamzin addressed to the Russian autocrats contained a demand - a reminder to comply with the laws existing in the country. Kislyagina L.G. Formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin (1785-1803). M., 1976. P.162-163.
Since the issue of the peasantry in the first year of the reign of Alexander I became the focus of attention not only of the government, but also of the public, Karamzin found it necessary to speak out on this issue. In the article " Nice views, hopes and desires of the present time", written in 1802 and published in the "Bulletin of Europe", he pointed out that all projects for the emancipation of peasants are a violation not only of the rights of the nobility, which are based on their right of ownership of land, but also of the established historically of the alliance between the nobility and the peasantry: “The Russian nobleman,” he wrote, “gives the right land to his peasants, he is their defender in civil relations, an assistant in the disasters of chance and nature: these are his duties. For this, he demands from them half the working days of the week: that’s his right!” He also spoke out against any restrictions on the landowner’s power over the peasants, since “according to our very laws, it is not tyrant and unlimited.”
According to the state development scheme developed by Karamzin, the autocratic government must gradually change the position of all classes of the state. So far, he believed, the autocracy had given political rights only to the nobility. In the future, he believed, changes would occur in the position of the two lower classes. In the article “Pleasant views, hopes and desires of the present time,” Karamzin, guided by his scheme, pointed out to the government of Alexander I the need to act in this direction, and not to deal with the private peasant issue; not to get ahead of the development of society, but to begin to implement more general and urgent tasks. By creating new legislation, the government, in his opinion, would also resolve the peasant issue, guided by the general state interest and taking into account the level moral development society as a whole and individual classes. Kislyagina L.G. Formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin (1785-1803). M., 1976. P. 189.
In 1811, Karamzin compiled a “Note on Ancient and New Russia,” specifically intended for the emperor (which in itself largely determined its tone). Karamzin expresses his view here on current state Russia.
A. N. Pynin Karamzin: pro et contra: personality and creativity of N. M. Karamzin in the assessment of Russian. writers, critics, researchers: anthology / comp. Sapchenko L.A. - St. Petersburg, 2006., in essays social movement under Alexander I, determines that the “Note” has the task of presenting the internal political history of Russia and its current state. The main theme of the "Note" is to prove that all the greatness, the whole destiny of Russia lies in the development and power of the autocracy, that Russia flourished when it was strong and fell when it weakened. The lesson that followed from this topic for Alexander should have been that even at the present moment Russia does not need anything more, that liberal reforms are only harmful, that only “patriarchal power” and “virtue” are needed. “The present is a consequence of the past” - with these words Karamzin began his note: this past was supposed to provide him with the basis for his conclusions about the present - the whole essence of the note and its purpose lies in the examination and criticism of the reign of Alexander I.
The part of the “Note” dedicated to Alexander I is the most decisive denial of those liberal enterprises that filled the first years of his reign.
We have seen that these enterprises were often very untenable, due to the indecisiveness of the emperor himself and the lack of real information from himself and his assistants. When some time passed, these properties of the matter began to reveal themselves, and therefore it was not particularly difficult to see them weak sides and contradictions; and Karamzin often points them out quite skillfully.
Pointing out that at the beginning of the reign two opinions dominated in the minds: one that wanted to limit autocracy, the other that wanted only to restore Catherine’s system, Karamzin joins the latter and laughs at those who thought “to put the law above the sovereign.”
Karamzin threatens that with the change state charter Russia must perish, that autocracy is necessary for the unity of a huge empire consisting of various parts, that, finally, the monarch does not have the right to legally limit his power, because Russia handed over indivisible autocracy to his ancestor; finally, even assuming that Alexander prescribes some kind of charter to the authorities, will his oath be a bridle for his successors, without other means that are impossible or dangerous for Russia? “No,” he continues, “let’s leave the student’s philosophies and say that our sovereign has only one the right way curb his heirs in abuses of power: let him reign virtuously! may he accustom his subjects to goodness! Then saving customs will be born; rules, popular thoughts, which, better than all mortal forms, will keep future sovereigns within legitimate authority… How? - fear of arousing universal hatred in the event of a contrary system of reign..." Karamzin N.M. Note on ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations. M., 1991. P.49.
Karamzin finds only one way to “keep future sovereigns within the limits of legitimate power” - this is the fear of popular hatred, of course, with its consequences.
Having resolved this first question, Karamzin proceeds to consider the external and internal activities government. Having pointed out how all the “Russians” agreed in a good opinion about the qualities of the monarch, his jealousy of common good etc., Karamzin gathers his fortitude to “tell the truth” that “Russia is filled with dissatisfied people: they complain in chambers and huts, have neither power of attorney nor zeal for government, and strictly condemn its goals and measures...”
Karamzin begins with severe condemnation foreign policy, diplomatic and military mistakes. He condemns in particular the embassy of Count Markov, his arrogance in Paris and the warlike fervor of some people at court.
In analyzing internal transformations, Karamzin finds even more reasons for condemnation. There was nothing to change, according to him, all he had to do was restore Catherine’s order, and everything would be fine. “This system of government was not inferior in improvement to any other European one, containing, in addition to what was common to all, some features consistent with the local circumstances of the empire” Karamzin N.M. A note on ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations. M., 1991. P.57.. This should have been adhered to. But, “instead of abolishing the only superfluous, adding the necessary, in one word correcting after thorough reflection, the Alexandrov advisers wanted news in the main methods of royal action, ignoring the rule of the wise that all news in state order there is an evil to which one must resort only when necessary: for one time gives the proper firmness to the statutes; for we respect more what we have respected for a long time and we do everything better from habit.”
Moving on to particulars, Karamzin strictly criticizes Alexander’s new institutions, for example, the establishment of ministries, measures for the Ministry of Public Education, the structure of the police, assumptions about the liberation of the peasants, financial measures, legislative projects, etc.
The measures taken by the Ministry of Public Education again evoke the harshest condemnation of Karamzin. Emperor Alexander “used millions for the formation of universities, gymnasiums, and schools; unfortunately, we see more losses for the treasury than benefits for the fatherland. They discharged professors without preparing students; among the former there are many worthy people, but few useful ones; students do not understand foreign teachers, for they know the Latin language poorly and their number is so small that professors lose the desire to go to classes" Karamzin N.M. A note on ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations. M., 1991. P.66.. “The whole trouble is because we formed our universities in German, without recognizing that the circumstances here are different.” There are many listeners there, but with us - “we have no hunters for higher sciences. Nobles serve, and merchants want to know essential arithmetic or foreign languages for the benefit of their trade;... our lawyers and judges do not need knowledge of Roman rights; ours priests are educated somehow in seminaries and do not go further,” and the benefits of the “learned state” are still unknown.
Karamzin criticized a number of real steps taken by the government of Alexander I, the initiator of which was Speransky: the establishment of ministries, a decree on a new procedure for promotion to the rank of collegiate assessor. Karamzin called Speransky’s “Project Code” “a translation of the Napoleonic Code.” But still, the main thing he rejected was the possibility legal restrictions autocracy through the institution of representation without undermining the foundations Russian monarchy. Speransky proposed to achieve strengthening political system by reforming the management system to the point of abandoning the unlimited nature of monarchical power, but Karamzin resolutely rejected the usefulness of such reforms. Mirzoev E.B. “Note” N.M. Karamzin and projects of M.M. Speransky: two views on the Russian autocracy // Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 8: History. 2001. No. 1. P.74.
But, condemning Speransky’s project, Karamzin, nevertheless, himself recognized the need for a “systematic” code, only he wanted to build it not on Napoleon’s code, but on Justinian’s laws and the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. This was the point of the dispute, and, of course, when conceiving a plan for a new systematic code not with archaeological purposes, it was more natural to think about a new European legislation, than about the Byzantine and that old Russian, where Karamzin considered it necessary to correct some, especially criminal laws, “cruel, barbaric” - and is it only criminal ones? - which, although they were not executed, existed “to the shame of our legislation.” This shame was seriously felt by the people who chose to look for a model in the Napoleonic Code. If this systematic legislation turned out to be too difficult, Karamzin, as is known, proposed a simple collection of existing laws - as the same thing was proposed in worst case, and Speransky.
Having indicated in two words several more erroneous measures of the government, Karamzin comes to the following general conclusion about the state of affairs: “...Is it surprising that the general opinion is so unfavorable to the government? Let’s not hide evil, let’s not deceive ourselves and the sovereign, let’s not repeat, that people usually love to complain and are always dissatisfied with the present, but these complaints are striking in their agreement and effect on the disposition of minds in the whole state."
He then offers his own opinions about what had to be done for the well-being of Russia and what the essence of government should have been. The main mistake he sees new legislators in “excessive respect for forms government activities"; affairs are not conducted better, only in places and by officials of a different name. In his opinion, it is not the forms that are important, but the people: ministries and the council can, perhaps, exist, and will be useful, if only they contain "men famous for their intelligence and honor." Therefore main advice Karamzin - “to look for people,” and not only for ministries, but especially for gubernatorial positions.
Secondly, he advises the elevation of the clergy. He “does not propose to restore the patriarchate,” but wants the synod to have more importance, so that it contains, for example, only archbishops, so that it, together with the Senate, convenes to listen to new laws, to accept them into its repository and promulgate them, “of course , without any contradiction." In addition to good governors, Russia must be given good priests: “We’ll do without anything else and won’t envy anyone in Europe.”
In his conclusion, Karamzin repeats his opinions about the dangers of innovation, about the need for saving severity, about the choice of people, about various private measures, and expresses hope for correcting mistakes and calming discontent. He once again combined his conservative program into the following words: “the nobility and the clergy, the Senate and the Synod, as the repository of laws, the sovereign is above all, the only legislator, the only source of power. This is the basis of the Russian monarchy, which can be confirmed or weakened by the rules of the reigning... "
1. Nikolay Karamzin born in the Simbirsk province, in the village of Znamenskoye, which is now called Karamzinka. Father of the future historian, Mikhail Egorovich Karamzin, belonged to a family of nobles descended from the Tatar Kara-Murza.
2. Nikolai Karamzin's father dreamed that his son would do military career, therefore, at his insistence, Karamzin Jr. entered the service in Preobrazhensky guards regiment, but soon retired. However, it was during military service Karamzin wrote his very first literary works.
3. In Moscow, the aspiring writer Karamzin was a member of the “Friendly learned society"and participated in the publication of the first Russian magazine for children - "Children's reading for the heart and mind."
4. In 1789-1790, Nikolai Karamzin made a trip to Europe, during which he visited Immanuel Kant in Königsberg, was in Paris during the Great french revolution. As a result of this trip, “Letters of a Russian Traveler” were written, after the publication of which the author immediately became one of the leading writers in Russia. Karamzin is considered the founder of Russian “travel literature.”
5. In 1791, Nikolai Karamzin became the publisher of the Moscow Journal, the first Russian literary magazine. Among the works first published in the Moscow Journal was Karamzin’s most famous literary and artistic work, the story “Poor Liza.”
6. October 31, 1803 Emperor Alexander I by personal decree appoints Nikolai Karamzin as an official Russian historiographer, setting his annual salary at 2,000 rubles. The title of historiographer in Russia was not renewed after Karamzin’s death. This appointment radically changed the life of Karamzin, who, in order to create a large-scale historical work, actually moved away from fiction.
7. Main historical work Nikolai Karamzin - “History of the Russian State” - is unfinished. The first eight volumes were created by 1816-1817, and went on sale in 1818. Over the next six years, Karamzin created three more volumes. The text of the manuscript of volume 12 ends at the chapter “Interregnum 1611-1612”.
The first edition of Karamzin’s “History” on Polish language Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org / Alma Pater
8. Nikolai Karamzin was not the first domestic historian, who created a large-scale description of the history of Russia from ancient times to the Time of Troubles. However, Karamzin, an experienced writer, was the first to create a work in which the facts were presented in a form accessible to a wide educated public. In terms today, his "History" became a bestseller. At the same time, Karamzin was the first scientist to publish many extracts from hitherto unknown historical manuscripts. “The History of the Russian State” is all the more valuable due to the fact that some of the documents with which Karamzin worked have not survived to this day.
9. In 1862, the Millennium of Russia monument was unveiled in Veliky Novgorod in honor of the anniversary of the calling of the Varangians to Rus'. Among the 129 figures, the most outstanding personalities In Russian history, Nikolai Karamzin is also on the monument.
10. Now famous work merchant and traveler Afanasy Nikitin“Walking across Three Seas” remained unknown until Nikolai Karamzin discovered it, publishing excerpts from the book in 1818 in the notes of one of the volumes of “History of the Russian State.”
11. In 1811, Nikolai Karamzin wrote “A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations,” which reflected the views of conservative layers of society who were dissatisfied liberal reforms Emperor Alexander I. Karamzin argued that the well-being of Russia can be ensured only by the inviolability of the autocratic system. This work Karamzin is called the first manifesto of Russian conservatism.
12. Nikolai Karamzin's work as an official historiographer had a beneficial effect on his descendants. Grandson of a historian, advisor and consultant to governments Alexandra III And Nicholas II, Prince Vladimir Meshchersky more than half a century after the death of his grandfather, he received an increase in his own salary, which was established for the relatives of the historiographer of the Russian Empire.
