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. He served for a short time 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 of a simple person was revealed, 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 “Beseda” 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”, “yozh”.
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 Russian Goverment"
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 by V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov.
But Karamzin’s “History” had, in addition to historical, 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 of national self-awareness and 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 breaks off 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, Griboyedov, 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 that have special historical significance.
In his work, Karamzin describes the peoples who inhabited the territory of modern Russia, the origins of the Slavs, their conflict with the Varangians, talks about the origin of the first princes of Rus', their reign, and 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 the autocracy of his day, 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
Karamzin was an immediate and universal success from its very appearance. It broke sales records. The vast majority of readers perceived it as a canonical picture of the Russian past. Even the liberal minority, who did not like her main thesis about the effectiveness of autocracy, was carried away by the literary charm of the presentation and the novelty of the facts. Since then, critical views have changed, and no one today can survive the delight of the public who read it in 1818. Karamzin's historical view is narrow and distorted by the specific nature of his worldview for the 18th century. He studied exclusively (or almost exclusively) the political activities of Russian sovereigns. The Russian people are practically left without attention, as is emphasized by the name itself - History of Russian Goverment. The judgments that he makes about the reigning persons (since persons of lower rank do not attract his attention too much) are often drawn up in a moralizing, sentimental spirit. His fundamental idea of the all-redeeming virtues of autocracy distorts the reading of some facts.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. Portrait by Tropinin
But these shortcomings also have a good side. By forcing the reader to perceive Russian history as a single whole, Karamzin helped him understand its unity. By discussing the behavior of sovereigns from the point of view of a moralist, he was able to condemn them for selfish or despotic policies. By focusing on the actions of the princes, he added drama to his work: what most struck the reader’s imagination was the stories of individual monarchs, no doubt based on solid facts, but presented and combined with the art of a real playwright. The most famous of them is the story of Boris Godunov, which became the great tragic myth of Russian poetry and the source of Pushkin’s tragedy and Mussorgsky’s folk drama.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. Video lecture
Style Stories rhetorical and eloquent. This is a compromise with literary conservatives who are in favor of what he wrote History, forgave Karamzin all his previous sins. But in the main, it still represents the development of the French, in the spirit of the 18th century, style of the young Karamzin. It is abstract and sentimental. He avoids, or, more precisely, misses all local and historical coloring. The choice of words is designed to universalize and humanize rather than individualize ancient Rus', and the monotonously rounded rhythmic cadences create a sense of continuity, but not complexity, of the story. Contemporaries loved this style. Some of the few critics did not like his pomposity and sentimentality, but on the whole the entire era was fascinated by him and recognized him as the greatest achievement of Russian prose.
| History of Russian Goverment |
|
|
Title page of the second edition. 1818. |
|
| Genre : | |
|---|---|
| Original language: | |
| Original published: | |
"History of Russian Goverment"- a multi-volume work by N. M. Karamzin, describing Russian history from ancient times to the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the Time of Troubles. The work of N. M. Karamzin was not the first description of the history of Russia, but it was this work, thanks to the high literary merits and scientific scrupulousness of the author, that opened the history of Russia to a wide educated public.
Karamzin wrote his “History” until the end of his life, but did not have time to finish it. The text of the manuscript of volume 12 ends at the chapter “Interregnum 1611-1612,” although the author intended to bring the presentation to the beginning of the reign of the House of Romanov.
Work on "History"
One of the most popular writers of his time, nicknamed “Russian Stern”, Karamzin retired from society in 1804 to the Ostafyevo estate, where he devoted himself entirely to writing a work that was supposed to open up national history for Russian society, which represented the past of Ancient Rome and France much more better than your own. His initiative was supported by Emperor Alexander I himself, who, by decree of October 31, 1803, granted him the unprecedented title of Russian historiographer.
The first eight volumes were printed in 1817 and went on sale in February 1818. The huge circulation of three thousand for that time sold out faster than in a month, and a second edition was required, which was carried out in -1819 by I. V. Slenin. In 1821 a new, ninth volume was published, and in 1824 the next two. During his time working in the silence of the archives, Karamzin’s worldview underwent a major shift towards conservatism:
While maintaining the cult of virtue and feeling, he was imbued with patriotism and the cult of the state. He came to the conclusion that in order to be successful, the state must be strong, monarchical and autocratic. His new views were expressed in the note “On Ancient and New Russia,” submitted in 1811 to Alexander’s sister.
The author did not have time to finish the twelfth volume of his work, which was published almost three years after his death. Based on Karamzin's drafts, the twelfth volume was prepared by K. S. Serbinovich and D. N. Bludov. At the beginning of 1829, Bludov published this last volume. Later that year, the second edition of the entire twelve-volume work was published.
The author collected historical facts from ancient chronicles, many of which he introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. For example, it was Karamzin who found and named the Ipatiev Chronicle. Karamzin included numerous details and details in a special volume of notes, so as not to clutter up the coherent text of the story. It was these notes that had the greatest scientific significance.
In the preface to his book, Karamzin describes the importance of history in general, its role in people's lives. He says that Russian history is no less exciting, important and interesting than the world's. The following is a list of sources that helped him recreate the picture of historical events.
In terms of structure and style, the author calls Gibbon’s “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” one of the revered examples. Just as Gibbon, using the example of all the events described, illustrates the thesis that the decline of morals inevitably leads to the collapse of statehood, Karamzin throughout his work conveys the innermost thought about the benefit of a strong autocratic power for Russia.
In the first volume, Karamzin describes in detail the peoples who lived on the territory of modern Russia, including the origins of the Slavs, their conflict with the Varangians, the attitude of the Greeks towards the tribes inhabiting the territory of future Rus'. Then he talks about the origin of the first princes of Rus', their rule in line with the Norman theory. In subsequent volumes, the author describes in detail all the important events of Russian history up to 1612.
In his work, he acted more as a writer than a historian - while describing historical facts, he cared about creating a new noble language for conducting historical storytelling. For example, describing the first centuries of Rus', Karamzin said:
Great nations, like great men, have their infancy and should not be ashamed of it: our fatherland, weak, divided into small regions until 862, according to Nestor’s calendar, owes its greatness to the happy introduction of Monarchical power.
Monotonously rounded rhythmic cadences create a sense of continuity, but not complexity of the story. Contemporaries loved this style. Some of the few critics did not like his pomposity and sentimentality, but on the whole the entire era was fascinated by him and recognized him as the greatest achievement of Russian prose.
D. Mirsky
Meaning
The publication of the first volumes of History had a stunning effect on contemporaries. Pushkin's generation read his work avidly, discovering unknown pages of the past. Writers and poets developed the stories they remembered into works of art. For example, Pushkin drew material from “History” for his tragedy “Boris Godunov,” which he dedicated to the memory of the historiographer. Later, Herzen assessed the significance of Karamzin’s life’s work as follows:
Karamzin’s great creation, the monument he erected for posterity, is twelve volumes of Russian history. His story, on which he conscientiously worked for half his life... greatly contributed to the conversion of minds to the study of the fatherland.
Notes
Literature
- Eidelman N. Ya. The Last Chronicler. - M.: Book, 1983. - 176 p. - 200,000 copies.(region)
- Kozlov V. P.“History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin in the assessments of his contemporaries / Rep. ed. Dr. History Sciences V.I. Buganov. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. - M.: Nauka, 1989. - 224 p. - (Pages of the history of our Motherland). - 30,000 copies. - ISBN 5-02-009482-X
- Polevoy N.A. Review of “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin // Collection of materials on the history of historical science in the USSR (late XVIII - first third of the XIX century): Textbook. manual for universities / Comp. A. E. Shiklo; Ed. I. D. Kovalchenko. - M.: Higher School, 1990. - P. 153-170. - 288 p. - 20,000 copies. - ISBN 5-06-001608-0*in translation)
Links
- Karamzin N. M. History of Russian Goverment: at 12 and t.- St. Petersburg. , 1803−1826; ; ; .
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what “History of the Russian State” is in other dictionaries:
History of the Russian state ... Wikipedia
History of the Russian State Genre Historical film Country Russia Television channel “TV Center” (Russia) Number of episodes 500 On screens ... Wikipedia
The history of the Russian Armed Forces is divided into several periods. Military uniform from the X to the XVIII centuries Contents 1 From ancient times to the XIII century 1.1 V VIII centuries ... Wikipedia
Genre: ,
Language:Publisher:
City of publication: Moscow
The year of publishing:
ISBN: 978-5-373-04665-7 Size: 45 MB
Description
In the proposed publication, the reader can familiarize himself with the most interesting episodes of the “History of the Russian State,” written by the writer and historiographer N. M. Karamzin on behalf of Alexander I. Creating a picture of the life and way of life of Rus' - from the ancient Slavs to the Time of Troubles - the author relies on extensive historical material. Karamzin devoted over two decades to his multi-volume book. In 1816–1829 it was published for the first time, and Russian society became acquainted with the history of its own homeland with great interest.
But five years before the start of the publication of “History,” in 1811, at the request of Emperor Alexander’s sister, Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, Karamzin created a treatise (Note) “On Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations.” Emphasizing that “the present is a consequence of the past,” Karamzin analyzes the events of Russian life and evaluates the results of the ten-year activity of Alexander I. This assessment was quite critical, and, obviously, that is why Karamzin’s treatise was not published in the 19th century. More than a hundred years have passed, before he saw the light. We present this interesting document by Karamzin for the information of readers.
The book is richly illustrated, which creates a more comprehensive picture of the events and heroes of the era described.
For those who are interested in the history of our Motherland, for the general reader.
Nestor writes that from ancient times the Slavs lived in the Danube countries and, driven out of Mysia by the Bulgarians, and from Pannonia by the Volokhi (still living in Hungary), moved to Russia, Poland and other lands. This news about the primitive dwelling of our ancestors was taken, it seems, from the Byzantine Chronicles; however, Nestor says in another place that St. Apostle Andrew, preaching the name of the Savior in Scythia, reached Ilmen and found the Slavs there: consequently, they lived in Russia already in the first century.
Perhaps, several centuries before the birth of Christ, under the name of the Wends, known on the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea, the Slavs at the same time lived inside Russia. The most ancient inhabitants of Dacia, the Getae, conquered by Trajan, could be our ancestors: this opinion is all the more likely because Russian fairy tales of the 12th century mention the happy warriors of the Trajans in Dacia, and that the Russian Slavs, it seems, began their reckoning from the time of this courageous Emperor.
Many Slavs, of the same tribe as the Poles who lived on the banks of the Vistula, settled on the Dnieper in the Kyiv province and were called Polyany from their pure fields. This name disappeared in ancient Russia, but became the common name of the Lyakhs, the founders of the Polish State. There were two brothers from the same Slavic tribe. Radim and Vyatko, the heads of the Radimichi and Vyatichi: the first chose a home on the banks of the Sozh, in the Mogilev Province, and the second on the Oka, in Kaluga, Tula or Oryol. The Drevlyans, named so from their forest land, lived in the Volyn Province; Duleby and Buzhane along the Bug River, which flows into the Vistula; Lutichi and Tivirtsi along the Dniester to the sea and the Danube, already having cities in their land; White Croats in the vicinity of the Carpathian Mountains; Northerners, neighbors of Polyany, on the banks of the Desna, Semi and Sula, in the Chernigov and Poltava Provinces; in Minsk and Vitebsk, between Pripyat and the Western Dvina, Dregovichi; in Vitebsk, Pskov, Tver and Smolensk, in the upper reaches of the Dvina, Dnieper and Volga, Krivichi; and on the Dvina, where the Polota River flows into it, the Polotsk people of the same tribe; on the shores of Lake Ilmen are the so-called Slavs, who founded Novgorod after the Nativity of Christ.
The Chronicler also dates the beginning of Kiev to the same time, recounting the following circumstances: “The brothers Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv, with their sister Lybid, lived between Polyany on three mountains, two of which are known by the names of the two smaller brothers, Shchekovitsya and Khorivitsa; and the eldest lived where now (in Nestorov’s time) Zborichev vzvoz. They were men, knowledgeable and reasonable; They caught animals in the then dense forests of the Dnieper, built a city and named it after their elder brother, i.e. Kiev. Some consider Kiya to be a carrier, for in the old days there was a transportation in this place and was called Kiev; but Kiy was in charge of his family: he went, as they say, to Constantinople and received great honor from the King of Greece; on the way back, seeing the banks of the Danube, he fell in love with them, cut down a town and wanted to live in it; but the inhabitants of the Danube did not allow him to establish himself there, and to this day they call this place the settlement of Kievets.
He died in Kyiv, along with two brothers and a sister.” Nestor in his narration is based solely on oral legends. It may be that Kiy and his brothers never really existed and that folk fiction turned the names of places into names of people. But two circumstances in this news of Nestor are worthy of special note: the first is that the Kyiv Slavs from ancient times had communications with Constantinople, and the second that they built a town on the banks of the Danube long before the Russians’ campaigns in Greece.
Russian monk chronicler
Slavic clothing
In addition to the Slavic peoples, according to Nestor’s legend, many foreigners also lived in Russia at that time: Merya around Rostov and on Lake Kleshchina, or Pereslavl; Murom on the Oka. where this river flows into the Volga; Cheremis, Meshchera, Mordva to the southeast of Mary; Livonia in Livonia; Chud in Estonia and east to Lake Ladoga; Narova is where Narva is; Yam, or Eat, in Finland; All on Beleozero; Perm in the province of this name; Ugra, or the current Berezovsky Ostyaks, on the Ob and Sosva; Pechora on the Pechora River. Some of these peoples have already disappeared in modern times or mixed with the Russians; but others exist and speak languages so similar to each other that we can undoubtedly recognize them as peoples of the same tribe and generally call them Finnish. From the Baltic Sea to the Arctic Sea, from the depths of the European North to the East to Siberia, to the Urals and Volga, numerous Finnish tribes scattered.
Golden Gate in Constantinople. V century
Messenger. Generation after generation rose up. Hood. N. Roerich
The Russian Finns, according to the legend of our Chronicler, already had cities: Ves - Beloozero, Merya - Rostov, Muroma - Murom. The chronicler, mentioning these cities in the news of the 9th century, did not know when they were built.
Among these foreign peoples, residents or neighbors of ancient Russia, Nestor also names Letgola (Livonian Latvians), Zimgola (in Semigallia), Kors (in Courland) and Lithuania, which do not belong to the Finns, but together with the ancient Prussians make up the Latvian people.
Many of these Finnish and Latvian peoples, according to Nestor, were tributaries of the Russians: it must be understood that the Chronicler is already talking about his time, that is, about the 11th century, when our ancestors took possession of almost all of present-day European Russia. Until the time of Rurik and Oleg, they could not have been great conquerors, because they lived separately, by tribe; They did not think of uniting the popular forces in a common government and even exhausted them with internecine wars. Thus, Nestor mentions the attack of the Drevlyans, forest dwellers, and other surrounding Slavs on the quiet Kyiv Glades, who more enjoyed the benefits of the civil state and could be the subject of envy. This civil strife betrayed the Russian Slavs as sacrifices to external enemies. The Obras, or Avars, ruling in Dacia in the 6th and 7th centuries, also commanded the Dulebs who lived on the Bug; they brazenly insulted the chastity of the Slavic wives and harnessed them, instead of oxen and horses, to their chariots; but these barbarians, great in body and proud in mind (Nestor writes), disappeared in our fatherland from a pestilence, and their death was a proverb for a long time in the Russian land. Soon other conquerors appeared: in the south - Kozars, Varangians in the North.
The Kozars, or Khazars, of the same tribe as the Turks, lived from ancient times on the western side of the Caspian Sea. Since the third century they have been known from the Armenian chronicles: Europe recognized them in the fourth century together with the Huns, between the Caspian and Black Seas, on the Astrakhan steppes. Attila ruled over them: the Bulgarians also, at the end of the 5th century; but the Kozars, still strong, meanwhile devastated southern Asia, and Khozroes, the King of Persia, had to protect his regions from them with a huge wall, glorious in the chronicles under the name of the Caucasus and to this day still amazing in its ruins. In the 7th century, they appear in Byzantine History with great splendor and power, giving a large army to help the Emperor; They enter Persia with him twice, attack the Ugrians, the Bulgarians, weakened by the division of the sons of the Kuvratovs, and conquer the entire land from the mouth of the Volga to the Azov and Black Seas, Phanagoria, Vosporus and most of Taurida, later called Kozaria for several centuries. Weak Greece did not dare to repel the new conquerors: its Kings sought refuge in their camps, friendship and kinship with the Kagans; as a sign of their respect for them, they decorated themselves with Kozar clothes on certain occasions and made up their guards from these brave Asians. The Empire could indeed boast of their friendship; but, leaving Constantinople alone, they raged in Armenia, Iberia, and Media; waged bloody wars with the Arabians, then already powerful, and defeated their famous Caliphs several times.
Alans. Armament of a warrior of the Khazar Kaganate
Khazar warrior
The scattered Slavic tribes could not resist such an enemy when he turned the force of his weapons at the end of the 7th century, or already in the 8th, to the banks of the Dnieper and the Oka itself. The conquerors besieged the Slavs in Denmark and took, as the Chronicler himself says, “a squirrel per house.” The Slavs, having long plundered Greek possessions beyond the Danube, knew the price of gold and silver; but these metals were not yet in popular use between them. The Kozars searched for gold in Asia and received it as a gift from the Emperors; in Russia, rich only in wild works of nature, they were content with the citizenship of the inhabitants and the spoils of their hunting. The yoke of these conquerors, it seems, did not oppress the Slavs. Everything proves that they already had civil customs. Their khans lived for a long time in Balangiar, or Atel (a rich and populous capital founded near the Volga estuary by Khosroes, the King of Persia), and then in Tauris, famous for its merchants. The Huns and other Asian barbarians only loved to destroy cities: but the Kozars demanded skilled architects from the Greek Emperor Theophilos and built the Sarkel fortress on the banks of the Don, in the present land of the Cossacks, to protect their possessions from the raids of nomadic peoples. Having been idolaters at first, in the eighth century they accepted the Jewish Faith, and in 858 [the year] the Christian... Horrifying the Persian Monarchs, the most formidable Caliphs and patronizing the Greek Emperors, the Kozars could not foresee that the Slavs, enslaved by them, would overthrow their strong Power.
Tribute of the Slavs to the Khazars. Miniature from the chronicle
But the power of our ancestors in the South should have been a consequence of their citizenship in the North. The Kozars did not rule in Russia beyond the Oka: Novgorodians and Krivichi were free until 850. Then - let us note this first chronological testimony in Nestor - some brave and courageous conquerors, called Varangians in our chronicles, came from across the Baltic Sea and imposed tribute on Chud, the Ilmen Slavs, Krivichi, Meryu, and although they were expelled two years later them, but the Slavs, tired of internal strife, in 862 again called to themselves three Varangian brothers, from the Russian tribe, who became the first Rulers in our ancient fatherland and after whom it began to be called Russia. This important incident, which serves as the basis for the History and greatness of Russia, requires special attention from us and consideration of all circumstances.
First of all, let's solve the question: who does Nestor call Varangians? We know that from ancient times the Baltic Sea was called the Varangian Sea in Russia: who at this time - that is, in the ninth century - dominated its waters? Scandinavians, or inhabitants of three Kingdoms: Denmark, Norway and Sweden, of the same tribe with the Goths. They, under the general name of Normans or Northern people, then destroyed Europe. Tacitus also mentions the navigation of the Sveons or Swedes; Even in the sixth century, the Danes sailed to the shores of Gaul: at the end of the eighth century, their glory was already thundering everywhere. In the ninth century they plundered Scotland, England, France, Andalusia, Italy; established themselves in Ireland and built cities there that still exist; in 911 they captured Normandy; finally, they founded the Kingdom of Naples and, under the leadership of the brave William, conquered England in 1066. There seems to be no doubt that 500 years before Columbus they discovered midnight America and traded with its inhabitants. Undertaking such distant travels and conquests, could the Normans leave the closest countries alone: Estonia, Finland and Russia? One cannot believe the fabulous Icelandic stories, composed, as we have already noted, in modern times and often mentioning ancient Russia, which is called Ostragard, Gardarikia, Holmgard and Greece in them: but Rune stones found in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and much more ancient Christianity , introduced into Scandinavia around the tenth century, prove by their inscriptions (in which they call Girkia, Grikia or Russia) that the Normans had long had communication with it. And since at the time when, according to the Nestor Chronicle, the Varangians took possession of the countries of Chud, Slavs, Krivichi and Meri, there was no other people in the North, except the Scandinavians, so brave and strong, then we can with great probability conclude that the Chronicler ours understands them under the name Varyagov.
Viking attack on an Irish monastery
The ancient Varangians fought in mercenary troops
But this common name of the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes does not satisfy the curiosity of the Historian: we want to know which people, especially called Russia, gave our fatherland the first Sovereigns and the name itself, already at the end of the ninth century terrible for the Greek Empire? In vain will we look for explanations in the ancient Scandinavian chronicles: there is not a word about Rurik and his brothers. called to rule over the Slavs; however, Historians find good reasons to think that Nestor’s Varangians-Rus lived in the Kingdom of Sweden, where one coastal region has long been called Rosska, Roslagen. The Finns, having once had more relations with Roslagen than with the other countries of Sweden, still call all its inhabitants Ross, Rots, Ruots.
Birch bark letter is an ancient source of information about the life of our ancestors
Let us also report another opinion with its evidence. In the Degree Book of the 16th century and in some of the newest chronicles it is said that Rurik and his brothers left Prussia, where the Kursk Bay has long been called Rusna, the northern branch of the Neman, or Memel, Russa, and their surroundings Porus. The Varangians of Rus' could have moved there from Scandinavia, from Sweden, from Roslagen itself, in accordance with the news of the most ancient Chroniclers of Prussia, who assure that its primitive inhabitants, the Ulmigans or Ulmigers, were civilly educated by Scandinavian immigrants who knew how to read and write. Having lived among the Latvians for a long time, they could understand the Slavic language and it was all the more convenient to apply to the customs of the Novogorod Slavs. This satisfactorily explains why in ancient Novgorod one of the most crowded streets was called Prusskaya.
On the physical and moral character of the ancient Slavs
The ancient Slavs, as described by modern Historians, were vigorous, strong, and tireless. Despising bad weather, they endured hunger and every need; they ate the coarsest, raw food; surprised the Greeks with their speed; with extreme ease they climbed steep slopes and descended into crevasses; boldly rushed into dangerous swamps and deep rivers. Thinking, without a doubt, that the main beauty of a husband is strength in the body, strength in the hands and ease in movements, the Slavs cared little about their appearance: in dirt, in dust, without any neatness in clothing, they appeared in a large gathering of people. The Greeks, condemning this uncleanness, praise their slenderness, tall stature and courageous pleasantness of face. Sunbathing from the hot rays of the sun, they seemed dark and all, without exception, were fair-haired, like other indigenous Europeans.
Iornand's news about the Veneds, who were conquered without great difficulty in the 4th century by the Gothic King Ermanaric, shows that they were not yet famous for their military art. The ambassadors of the distant Baltic Slavs, who left the Bayan camp for Thrace, also described their people as quiet and peace-loving; but the Danube Slavs, having left their ancient fatherland in the North, in the 6th century proved to Greece that courage was their natural property and that with little experience it triumphs over long-term art. The Greek chronicles do not mention any main or general Commander of the Slavs; they had only private Leaders; they fought not in a wall, not in closed ranks, but in scattered crowds and always on foot, following not the general command, not the single thought of the commander, but the inspiration of their own special, personal courage and courage; not knowing prudent caution, but rushing straight into the midst of the enemies. The extreme courage of the Slavs was so well known that the Khan of Avar always placed them ahead of his numerous army. Byzantine Historians write that the Slavs, beyond their usual courage, had a special art of fighting in gorges, hiding in the grass, surprising enemies with an instant attack and taking prisoners. Ancient Slavic weapons consisted of swords, darts, arrows smeared with poison, and large, very heavy shields.
Slavic clothing
Battle of the Scythians with the Slavs. Hood. V. Vasnetsov
Armament of Slavic warriors. Reconstruction
The chronicles of the 6th century depict in the darkest colors the cruelty of the Slavs in the reasoning of the Greeks; but this cruelty, characteristic, however, of an uneducated and warlike people, was also an act of revenge. The Greeks, embittered by their frequent attacks, mercilessly tormented the Slavs who fell into their hands and who endured every torture with amazing firmness; They died in agony and did not answer a word to the enemy’s questions about the number and plans of their army. Thus, the Slavs raged in the Empire and did not spare their own blood to acquire jewelry they did not need: for they - instead of using them - usually buried them in the ground.
These people, cruel in war, leaving a long-lasting memory of its horrors in the Greek possessions, returned home with only their natural good nature. They knew neither guile nor malice; preserved the ancient simplicity of morals, unknown to the Greeks of that time; They treated the prisoners friendly and always set a term for their slavery, giving them the freedom to either ransom themselves and return to their fatherland, or live with them in freedom and brotherhood.
The chronicles equally unanimously praise the general hospitality of the Slavs, rare in other lands and to this day very common in all Slavic lands. Every traveler was, as it were, sacred to them: they greeted him with affection, treated him with joy, saw him off with a blessing, and handed him over to each other. The owner was responsible to the people for the safety of the stranger, and whoever did not know how to save the guest from harm or trouble, the neighbors took revenge on him for this insult as if it were their own. Merchants and artisans willingly visited the Slavs, among whom there were no thieves or robbers among them.
Ancient writers praise the chastity of not only Slavic wives, but also Slavic husbands. Demanding from brides proof of their virginal purity, they considered it a sacred duty to be faithful to their spouses. Slavic women did not want to outlive their husbands and voluntarily burned at the stake with their corpses. The living widow dishonored the family. The Slavs considered their wives to be perfect slaves; they were not allowed to contradict themselves or complain; they burdened them with labor and economic worries and imagined that the wife, dying with her husband, should serve him in the next world. This slavery of wives occurred, it seems, because their husbands usually bought them. Removed from the affairs of the people, Slavic women sometimes went to war with their fathers and spouses, without fear of death: for example, during the siege of Constantinople in 626, the Greeks found many female corpses among the killed Slavs. The mother, raising her children, prepared them to be warriors and irreconcilable enemies of those people who insulted her neighbors: for the Slavs, like other pagan peoples, were ashamed to forget the insult.
Squad of Russians. X century
Speaking about the cruel customs of the pagan Slavs, let us also say that every mother had the right to kill her newborn daughter when the family was already too numerous, but she was obliged to preserve the life of her son, born to serve the fatherland. This custom was not inferior in cruelty to another: the right of children to kill their parents, burdened with old age and illness, burdensome for the family and useless to fellow citizens.
To the description of the general character of the Slavs, we add that Nestor especially speaks about the morals of the Russian Slavs. The Polyans were more educated than others, meek and quiet in custom; modesty adorned their wives; peace and chastity reigned in families. The Drevlyans had wild customs, like animals, feeding on all kinds of uncleanness; in feuds and quarrels they killed each other: they did not know marriages based on the mutual consent of parents and spouses, but they took away or kidnapped girls. The Northerners, Radimichi and Vyatichi were similar in morals to the Drevlyans; they also knew neither chastity nor marriage; Polygamy was their custom.
These three peoples, like the Drevlyans, lived in the depths of the forests, which were their protection from enemies and provided them with convenience for hunting animals. The History of the 6th century says the same about the Danube Slavs. They built their poor huts in wild, secluded places, among impassable swamps. Constantly expecting the enemy, the Slavs took another precaution: they made different exits in their homes, so that in case of an attack they could escape faster, and hid in deep holes not only all the precious things, but also the bread itself.
Blinded by reckless greed, they looked for imaginary treasures in Greece, having in their country, in Dacia and its environs, the true wealth of people: rich meadows for cattle breeding and fruitful lands for arable farming, in which they had practiced since ancient times. They think that the Slavs learned cattle breeding only in Dacia; but this idea seems unfounded. Being in their northern fatherland the neighbors of the Germanic, Scythian and Sarmatian peoples, rich in cattle breeding, the Slavs should have been aware of this important invention of the human economy from ancient times. Using both, they had everything necessary for a person; They were not afraid of hunger or the ferocity of winter: fields and animals gave them food and clothing. In the 6th century, the Slavs ate millet, buckwheat and milk; and then we learned how to cook various delicious dishes. Honey was their favorite drink: it is likely that they first made it from the honey of forest, wild bees; and finally they bred them themselves. The Wends, according to Tacitov, did not differ in clothing from the Germanic peoples, that is, they covered their nakedness. In the 6th century, the Slavs fought without caftans, some even without shirts, in some ports. The skins of animals, forest and domestic, warmed them in cold times. Women wore long dresses, decorated with beads and metals obtained in war or exchanged with foreign merchants.