The series History of the Russian State is a grandiose film creation on a historical theme. This multi-part film covers the thousand-year period of existence of our ancestors - the Slavs. The story begins from the time of the Varangians and Rurik himself - the ninth century AD. Next, in small series containing the most significant events, the narrative of Russian history is told up to the time of Catherine the Great and the eighteenth century inclusive.
We can learn about what happened, for example, two hundred or more years ago from the records of past historians. It is worth noting that their entries, of course, have subjective shades. But contemporaries have no choice but to study the opinion and vision of what happened earlier in the interpretation of several authors. One of those who brought together a large amount of information about the history of Russia is N. M. Karamzin. He wrote as many as twelve volumes, which he wrote over twenty-three years until the last days of his life, without finishing them. It was this collection of the same name that became the basis of this project. The last series, where time goes beyond the boundaries of Karamzin’s work, are based on the works of the writer Kostomarov and the historian Solovyov. To get acquainted with what happened over a thousand years in the life of our Slavic ancestors, you need to watch the series History of the Russian State.
The project manager and director was Valery Babich, the script was prepared by Alexander Babich. The musical arrangement is by Boris Kukoba. The series are visualized in three-dimensional computer graphics. The only actor in the series is the famous Russian musician Yuri Shevchuk. It is his voice that voices everything that happens on the screen.
A people who does not know their history has no future - this is a well-known truth. That is why this series is of great value. It can and should not only be watched by middle and high school students, but also by adults.
On the Megogo website you can watch History of the Russian State online in good quality and enjoy watching this documentary historical series.
The series History of the Russian State is a grandiose film creation on a historical theme. This multi-part film covers the thousand-year period of existence of our ancestors - the Slavs. The story begins from the time of the Varangians and Rurik himself - the ninth century AD. Further, in small series, which contain the most significant events, the narration of Russian history until the time of Eka...
History of Russian Goverment. Volume I-XII. Karamzin N.M.
“Karamzin is our first historian and last Chronicler...” - this is the definition given by A. S. Pushkin to the great educator, writer and historian N. M. Karamzin (1766-1826). The famous "History of the Russian State", all twelve volumes of which are included in this book, became a major event in the social life of the country, an era in the study of our past.
Karamzin N.M.
Born in the village of Mikhailovka, Simbirsk province, in the family of a landowner. At the fourteenth year of his life, Karamzin was brought to Moscow and sent to the boarding school of the Moscow professor Schaden. In 1783, he tried to enlist in military service, where he was enrolled while still a minor, but retired that same year. From May 1789 to September 1790, he traveled around Germany, Switzerland, France and England, stopping mainly in large cities - Berlin, Leipzig, Geneva, Paris, London. Returning to Moscow, Karamzin began publishing the Moscow Journal, where Letters of a Russian Traveler appeared. Karamzin spent most of 1793 - 1795 in the village and prepared two collections here called "Aglaya", published in the fall of 1793 and 1794. In 1803, through Comrade Minister of Public Education M.N. Muravyov, Karamzin received the title of historiographer and an annual pension of 2,000 rubles in order to write a complete history of Russia. IN 1816 he published the first 8 volumes of the "History of the Russian State", in 1821 g. - volume 9, in 1824 g. - 10th and 11th. IN 1826 Mr. Karamzin died without having time to finish the 12th volume, which was published by D.N. Bludov from the papers left behind by the deceased.
Format: doc
Size: 9.1 MB
Download: 16 .11.2017, links removed at the request of the publishing house "AST" (see note)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
VOLUME I
Chapter I. About the peoples who have inhabited Russia since ancient times. About the Slavs in general.
Chapter II. About the Slavs and other peoples who made up the Russian State.
Chapter III. On the physical and moral character of the ancient Slavs.
Chapter IV. Rurik, Sineus and Trubor. 862-879
Chapter V. Oleg - Ruler. 879-912
Chapter VI. Prince Igor. 912-945
Chapter VII. Prince Svyatoslav. 945-972
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Yaropolk. 972-980
Chapter IX. Grand Duke Vladimir, named Vasily in baptism. 980-1014
Chapter X. On the state of Ancient Russia.
VOLUME II
Chapter I. Grand Duke Svyatopolk. 1015-1019
Chapter II. Grand Duke Yaroslav, or George. 1019-1054
Chapter III. Russian truth, or Yaroslavna's laws.
Chapter IV. Grand Duke Izyaslav, named Dmitry in baptism. 1054-1077
Chapter V. Grand Duke Vsevolod. 1078-1093
Chapter VI. Grand Duke Svyatopolk - Michael. 1093-1112
Chapter VII. Vladimir Monomakh, named Vasily in baptism. 1113-1125
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Mstislav. 1125-1132
Chapter IX. Grand Duke Yaropolk. 1132-1139
Chapter X. Grand Duke Vsevolod Olgovich. 1139-1146
Chapter XI. Grand Duke Igor Olgovich.
Chapter XII. Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavovich. 1146-1154
Chapter XIII. Grand Duke Rostislav-Mikhail Mstislavovich. 1154-1155
Chapter XIV. Grand Duke George, or Yuri Vladimirovich, nicknamed Dolgoruky. 1155-1157
Chapter XV. Grand Duke Izyaslav Davidovich of Kyiv. Prince Andrei of Suzdal, nicknamed Bogolyubsky. 1157-1159
Chapter XVI. Grand Duke Svyatopolk - Michael.
Chapter XVII. Vladimir Monomakh, named Vasily in baptism.
VOLUME III
Chapter I. Grand Duke Andrei. 1169-1174
Chapter II. Grand Duke Mikhail II [Georgievich]. 1174-1176
Chapter III. Grand Duke Vsevolod III Georgievich. 1176-1212
Chapter IV. George, Prince of Vladimir. Konstantin Rostovsky. 1212-1216
Chapter V. Constantine, Grand Duke of Vladimir and Suzdal. 1216-1219
Chapter VI. Grand Duke George II Vsevolodovich. 1219-1224
Chapter VII. The state of Russia from the 11th to the 13th centuries.
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Georgy Vsevolodovich. 1224-1238
VOLUME IV
Chapter I. Grand Duke Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich. 1238-1247
Chapter II. Grand Dukes Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Andrei Yaroslavich and Alexander Nevsky (one after the other). 1247-1263
Chapter III. Grand Duke Yaroslav Yaroslavich. 1263-1272
Chapter IV. Grand Duke Vasily Yaroslavich. 1272-1276
Chapter V. Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich. 1276-1294
Chapter VI. Grand Duke Andrei Alexandrovich. 1294 -1304
Chapter VII. Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich. 1304-1319
Chapter VIII. Grand Dukes Georgy Daniilovich, Dimitri and Alexander Mikhailovich. (one after the other). 1319-1328
Chapter IX. Grand Duke John Daniilovich, nicknamed Kalita. 1328-1340
Chapter X. Grand Duke Simeon Ioannovich, nicknamed the Proud. 1340-1353
Chapter XI. Grand Duke John II Ioannovich. 1353-1359
Chapter XII. Grand Duke Dimitri Konstantinovich. 1359-1362
VOLUME V
Chapter I. Grand Duke Dimitri Ioannovich, nicknamed Donskoy. 1363-1389
Chapter II. Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich. 1389-1425
Chapter III. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark. 1425-1462
Chapter IV. The state of Russia from the Tatar invasion to John III.
VOLUME VI
Chapter I. Sovereign, Sovereign Grand Duke John III Vasilyevich. 1462-1472
Chapter II. Continuation of Ioannov's reign. 1472-1477
Chapter III. Continuation of Ioannov's reign. 1475-1481
Chapter IV. Continuation of Ioannov's reign. 1480-1490
Chapter V. Continuation of Ioannov's reign. 1491-1496
Chapter VI. Continuation of Ioannov's reign. 1495-1503
Chapter VII. Continuation of the reign of John. 1503-1505
VOLUME VII
Chapter I. Sovereign Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich. 1505-1509
Chapter II. Continuation of Vasiliev's government. 1510-1521
Chapter III. Continuation of Vasiliev's government. 1521-1534
Chapter IV. State of Russia. 1462-1533
VOLUME VIII
Chapter I. Grand Duke and Tsar John IV Vasilyevich II. 1533-1538
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of John IV. 1538-1547
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of John IV. 1546-1552
Chapter IV. Continuation of the reign of John IV. 1552
Chapter V. Continuation of the reign of John IV. 1552-1560
VOLUME IX
Chapter I. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1560-1564
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1563-1569
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1569-1572
Chapter IV. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1572-1577
Chapter V. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1577-1582
Chapter VI. The first conquest of Siberia. 1581-1584
Chapter VII. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1582-1584
VOLUME X
Chapter I. The reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1584-1587
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1587-1592
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1591-1598
Chapter IV. The state of Russia at the end of the 16th century.
VOLUME XI
Chapter I. The reign of Boris Godunov. 1598-1604
Chapter II. Continuation of Borisov's reign. 1600 -1605
Chapter III. Reign of Theodore Borisov. 1605
Chapter IV. Reign of False Dmitry. 1605-1606
VOLUME XII
Chapter I. The reign of Vasily Ioannovich Shuisky. 1606-1608
Chapter II. Continuation of Vasiliev's reign. 1607-1609
Chapter III. Continuation of Vasiliev's reign. 1608-1610
Chapter IV. The overthrow of Vasily and the interregnum. 1610-1611
Chapter V. Interregnum. 1611-1612
At the very beginning of his reign, Emperor Alexander I appointed Nikolai Karamzin as his official historiographer. Throughout his life, Karamzin will work on the “History of the Russian State.” Pushkin himself appreciated this work, but the Karamzin story is far from flawless.
Ukraine is the birthplace of the horse
“This great part of Europe and Asia, now called Russia, in its temperate climates was originally inhabited, but by wild peoples, plunged into the depths of ignorance, who did not mark their existence with any historical monuments of their own,” Karamzin’s narrative begins with these words and already contains there is a mistake in yourself.
The contribution made by the tribes that inhabited the south of modern Karamzin Russia in ancient times to the general development of mankind can hardly be overestimated. A huge amount of modern data indicates that in the territories of present-day Ukraine in the period from 3500 to 4000 BC. e. For the first time in world history, the horse was domesticated.
This is probably Karamzin’s most forgivable mistake, because there was still more than a century left before the invention of genetics. When Nikolai Mikhailovich began his work, he could not have known that all the horses in the world: from Australia and both Americas, to Europe and Africa are distant descendants of the horses with which our not-so-wild and ignorant ancestors “made friends” in the Black Sea steppes.
Norman theory
As you know, “The Tale of Bygone Years,” one of the main historical sources on which Karamzin relies in his work, begins with a lengthy introductory part from biblical times, which fits the history of the Slavic tribes into a general historical context. And only then Nestor sets out the concept of the origin of Russian statehood, which will later be called the “Norman theory”.
According to this concept, Russian tribes originate from Scandinavia during the Viking times. Karamzin omits the biblical part of the Tale, but repeats the main provisions of the Norman Theory. The controversy surrounding this theory began before Karamzin and continued after. Many influential historians either completely denied the “Varangian origin” of the Russian state, or assessed its extent and role completely differently, especially in terms of the “voluntary” calling of the Varangians.
At the moment, the opinion has become stronger among scientists that, at a minimum, everything is not so simple. Karamzin’s apologetic and uncritical repetition of the “Norman Theory” looks, if not an obvious mistake, then an obvious historical simplification.
Ancient, Middle and New
In his multi-volume work and scientific polemics, Karamzin proposed his own concept of dividing the history of Russia into periods: “Our history is divided into the Ancient, from Rurik to John III, the Middle, from John to Peter, and the New, from Peter to Alexander. The system of appanages was the character of the first era, autocracy - the second, changes in civil customs - the third."
Despite some positive responses and support from such prominent historians as, for example, S.M. Soloviev, Karamzin’s periodization was not established in Russian historiography, and the initial premises of the division were recognized as erroneous and unworkable.
Khazar Khaganate
In connection with the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, the history of Judaism is of keen interest to scientists in different parts of the world, because any new knowledge on this topic is literally a matter of “war and peace.” Historians are increasingly paying attention to the Khazar Khaganate, a powerful Jewish state that existed in Eastern Europe and had a significant influence on Kievan Rus.
Against the background of modern research and our knowledge on this topic, the description of the Khazar Khaganate in Karamzin’s work looks like a dark spot. In fact, Karamzin simply bypasses the problem of the Khazars, thereby denying the degree of influence and significance of their cultural ties with the Slavic tribes and states.
"Ardent Romantic Passion"
The son of his century, Karamzin looked at history as a poem written in prose. In his descriptions of the ancient Russian princes, a characteristic feature appears to be what one critic would call “ardent romantic passion.”
Karamzin describes the terrible atrocities, accompanied by no less terrible atrocities, committed completely in the spirit of his time, as Christmas carols, they say, well, yes, the pagans sinned, but they repented. In the first volumes of the “History of the Russian State,” the characters who act are not really historical, but rather literary characters, as Karamzin saw them, who firmly stood on monarchical, conservative-protective positions.
Tatar-Mongol yoke
Karamzin did not use the phrase “Tatar-Mongols”; in his books there were either “Tatars” or “Mongols”, but the term “yoke” was Karamzin’s invention. This term first appeared 150 years after the official end of the invasion in Polish sources. Karamzin transplanted it onto Russian soil, thereby planting a time bomb. Almost another 200 years have passed, and the debate among historians still does not subside: was there a yoke or not? Can what happened be considered a yoke? What are we even talking about?
There is no doubt about the first, aggressive campaign against the Russian lands, the destruction of many cities and the establishment of vassal dependence of the appanage principalities on the Mongols. But for feudal Europe of those years, the fact that the lord could be of a different nationality was, in general, a common practice.
The very concept of “yoke” implies the existence of a certain single Russian national and almost state space, which was conquered and enslaved by the interventionists, with whom a persistent war of liberation is being waged. In this case, this seems to be at least somewhat of an exaggeration.
And Karamzin’s assessment of the consequences of the Mongol invasion sounds completely erroneous: “The Russians emerged from under the yoke with a more European than Asian character. Europe did not recognize us: but because it has changed in these 250 years, and we remained as we were.”
Karamzin gives a categorically negative answer to the question he himself posed: “The dominance of the Mongols, besides the harmful consequences for morality, left any other traces in folk customs, in civil legislation, in home life, in the language of Russians?” “No,” he writes.
In fact, of course - yes.
King Herod
In the previous paragraphs we talked mainly about Karamzin’s conceptual errors. But there is one big factual inaccuracy in his work, which had great consequences and influence on Russian and world culture.
"No no! You cannot pray for King Herod - the Mother of God does not command,” sings the holy fool in Mussorgsky’s opera “Boris Godunov” based on the text of the drama of the same name by A.S. Pushkin. Tsar Boris recoils in horror from the holy fool, indirectly admitting to committing a crime - the murder of the legitimate heir to the throne, the son of the seventh wife of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the youth prince Dmitry.
Dmitry died in Uglich under unclear circumstances. The official investigation was conducted by boyar Vasily Shuisky. The verdict is an accident. Dmitry's death was beneficial to Godunov, as it cleared the way for him to the throne. Popular rumor did not believe the official version, and then several impostors, False Dmitrievs, appeared in Russian history, claiming that there was no death: “Dmitry survived, I am it.”
In “The History of the Russian State,” Karamzin directly accuses Godunov of organizing the murder of Dmitry. Pushkin will pick up the version of the murder, then Mussorgsky will write a brilliant opera, which will be staged at all the largest theater venues in the world. With the light hand of a galaxy of Russian geniuses, Boris Godunov will become the second most famous King Herod in world history.
The first timid publications in defense of Godunov will appear during the lifetime of Karamzin and Pushkin. At the moment, his innocence has been proven by historians: Dmitry really died as a result of an accident. However, this will not change anything in the popular consciousness.
The episode with the unfair accusation and subsequent rehabilitation of Godunov is, in a sense, a brilliant metaphor for the entire work of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin: a brilliant artistic concept and fiction sometimes turns out to be higher than the convoluted truth of facts, documents and authentic testimonies of contemporaries.
Preface
History, in a sense, is the sacred book of peoples: the main, necessary; a mirror of their existence and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the covenant of ancestors to posterity; addition, explanation of the present and example of the future.
Rulers and Legislators act according to the instructions of History and look at its pages like sailors at drawings of the seas. Human wisdom needs experience, and life is short-lived. One must know how from time immemorial rebellious passions agitated civil society and in what ways the beneficial power of the mind curbed their stormy desire to establish order, harmonize the benefits of people and give them the happiness possible on earth.
But an ordinary citizen should also read History. She reconciles him with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with an ordinary phenomenon in all centuries; consoles in state disasters, testifying that similar ones have happened before, even worse ones have happened, and the State was not destroyed; it nourishes a moral feeling and with its righteous judgment disposes the soul towards justice, which affirms our good and the harmony of society.
Here is the benefit: how much pleasure for the heart and mind! Curiosity is akin to man, both the enlightened and the wild. At the glorious Olympic Games, the noise fell silent, and the crowds remained silent around Herodotus, reading the legends of the centuries. Even without knowing the use of letters, peoples already love History: the old man points the young man to a high grave and tells about the deeds of the Hero lying in it. The first experiments of our ancestors in the art of literacy were devoted to Faith and Scripture; Darkened by a thick shadow of ignorance, the people greedily listened to the tales of the Chroniclers. And I like fiction; but for complete pleasure one must deceive oneself and think that they are the truth. History, opening the tombs, raising the dead, putting life into their hearts and words into their mouths, re-creating Kingdoms from corruption and imagining a series of centuries with their distinct passions, morals, deeds, expands the boundaries of our own existence; by its creative power we live with people of all times, we see and hear them, we love and hate them; Without even thinking about the benefits, we already enjoy the contemplation of diverse cases and characters that occupy the mind or nourish sensitivity.
If any History, even unskillfully written, is pleasant, as Pliny says: how much more domestic. The true Cosmopolitan is a metaphysical being or such an extraordinary phenomenon that there is no need to talk about him, neither to praise nor to condemn him. We are all citizens, in Europe and in India, in Mexico and in Abyssinia; Everyone’s personality is closely connected with the fatherland: we love it because we love ourselves. Let the Greeks and Romans captivate the imagination: they belong to the family of the human race and are not strangers to us in their virtues and weaknesses, glory and disasters; but the name Russian has a special charm for us: my heart beats even stronger for Pozharsky than for Themistocles or Scipio. World History decorates the world for the mind with great memories, and Russian History decorates the fatherland where we live and feel. How attractive are the banks of the Volkhov, Dnieper, and Don, when we know what happened on them in ancient times! Not only Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir, but also the huts of Yelets, Kozelsk, Galich become curious monuments and silent objects - eloquent. The shadows of past centuries paint pictures before us everywhere.
In addition to the special dignity for us, the sons of Russia, its chronicles have something in common. Let us look at the space of this only Power: thought becomes numb; Rome in its greatness could never equal her, dominating from the Tiber to the Caucasus, the Elbe and the African sands. Isn’t it amazing how lands separated by eternal barriers of nature, immeasurable deserts and impenetrable forests, cold and hot climates, like Astrakhan and Lapland, Siberia and Bessarabia, could form one Power with Moscow? Is the mixture of its inhabitants less wonderful, diverse, diverse and so distant from each other in degrees of education? Like America, Russia has its Wild Ones; like other European countries it shows the fruits of long-term civic life. You don’t need to be Russian: you just need to think in order to read with curiosity the traditions of the people who, with courage and courage, gained dominance over a ninth part of the world, discovered countries hitherto unknown to anyone, bringing them into the general system of Geography and History, and enlightened them with the Divine Faith, without violence , without the atrocities used by other zealots of Christianity in Europe and America, but only an example of the best.
We agree that the acts described by Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy are more interesting for anyone who is not Russian, representing more spiritual strength and a lively play of passions: for Greece and Rome were people's Powers and more enlightened than Russia; however, we can safely say that some cases, pictures, characters of our History are no less curious than the ancients. These are the essence of the exploits of Svyatoslav, the thunderstorm of Batu, the uprising of the Russians at Donskoy, the fall of Novagorod, the capture of Kazan, the triumph of national virtues during the Interregnum. Giants of the twilight, Oleg and son Igor; the simple-hearted knight, the blind Vasilko; friend of the fatherland, benevolent Monomakh; Mstislavs Brave, terrible in battle and an example of kindness in the world; Mikhail Tversky, so famous for his magnanimous death, the ill-fated, truly courageous, Alexander Nevsky; The young hero, the conqueror of Mamaev, in the lightest outline, has a strong effect on the imagination and heart. One state is a rare wealth for history: at least I don’t know a Monarch more worthy to live and shine in its sanctuary. The rays of his glory fall on the cradle of Peter - and between these two Autocrats the amazing John IV, Godunov, worthy of his happiness and misfortune, the strange False Dmitry, and behind the host of valiant Patriots, Boyars and citizens, the mentor of the throne, High Hierarch Philaret with the Sovereign Son, a light-bearer in the darkness our state disasters, and Tsar Alexy, the wise father of the Emperor, whom Europe called Great. Either all of New History should remain silent, or Russian History should have the right to attention.
I know that the battles of our specific civil strife, rattling incessantly in the space of five centuries, are of little importance to the mind; that this subject is neither rich in thoughts for the Pragmatist, nor in beauty for the painter; but History is not a novel, and the world is not a garden where everything should be pleasant: it depicts the real world. We see majestic mountains and waterfalls, flowering meadows and valleys on earth; but how many barren sands and dull steppes! However, travel is generally kind to a person with a lively feeling and imagination; In the very deserts there are beautiful species.
Let us not be superstitious in our lofty concept of the Scriptures of Antiquity. If we exclude fictitious speeches from the immortal creation of Thucydides, what remains? A naked story about the civil strife of the Greek cities: crowds commit villainy, are slaughtered for the honor of Athens or Sparta, just as we have for the honor of Monomakhov or Oleg’s house. There is not much difference if we forget that these half-tigers spoke in the language of Homer, had Sophocles' Tragedies and statues of Phidias. Does the thoughtful painter Tacitus always present to us the great, the striking? We look with tenderness at Agrippina, carrying the ashes of Germanicus; with pity for the bones and armor of Varov's Legion scattered in the forest; with horror at the bloody feast of the frantic Romans, illuminated by the flames of the Capitol; with disgust at the monster of tyranny devouring the remnants of Republican virtues in the capital of the world: but the boring litigation of cities about the right to have a priest in this or that temple and the dry Obituary of Roman officials take up many pages in Tacitus. He envied Titus Livy for the wealth of the subject; and Livy, smooth and eloquent, sometimes fills entire books with news of conflicts and robberies, which are hardly more important than the Polovtsian raids. – In a word, reading all the Stories requires some patience, which is more or less rewarded with pleasure.
A historian of Russia could, of course, say a few words about the origin of its main people, about the composition of the State, present the important, most memorable features of antiquity in a skillful picture and start thorough a narrative from John's time or from the 15th century, when one of the greatest state creations in the world was accomplished: he would have easily written 200 or 300 eloquent, pleasant pages, instead of many books, difficult for the Author, tedious for the Reader. But these reviews, these paintings do not replace chronicles, and whoever has read only Robertson’s Introduction to the History of Charles V still does not have a thorough, true understanding of Europe in middle times. It is not enough that an intelligent person, looking around the monuments of centuries, will tell us his notes: we must see the actions and the actors ourselves - then we know History. The boastfulness of the Author's eloquence and bliss Will the readers be condemned to eternal oblivion of the deeds and fate of our ancestors? They suffered, and through their misfortunes they created our greatness, and we don’t even want to hear about it, or know who they loved, who they blamed for their misfortunes? Foreigners may miss what is boring for them in our ancient History; But aren’t good Russians obliged to have more patience, following the rule of state morality, which places respect for ancestors in the dignity of an educated citizen?.. This is how I thought and wrote about Igor, O Vsevolodakh, How contemporary, looking at them in the dim mirror of the ancient Chronicle with tireless attention, with sincere respect; and if, instead alive, whole represented the only images shadows, in excerpts, then it’s not my fault: I couldn’t supplement the Chronicles!
Eat three kind of stories: first modern, for example, Thucydides, where an obvious witness talks about incidents; second, like Tacitov, is based on fresh verbal traditions at a time close to the actions described; third extracted only from monuments like ours until the 18th century. (Only with Peter the Great do verbal legends begin for us: we heard from our fathers and grandfathers about him, about Catherine I, Peter II, Anna, Elizabeth, much that is not in the books. (Here and below are notes by N. M. Karamzin. )) IN first And second the mind and imagination of the Writer shines, who chooses the most curious, blossoms, decorates, sometimes creates, without fear of reproof; will say: that's what I saw, that's what I heard– and silent Criticism does not prevent the Reader from enjoying the beautiful descriptions. Third the genus is the most limited for talent: you cannot add a single feature to what is known; you cannot question the dead; we say that our contemporaries betrayed us; we remain silent if they remain silent - or fair Criticism will block the lips of a frivolous Historian, obliged to present only what has been preserved from centuries in the Chronicles, in the Archives. The ancients had the right to invent speeches in accordance with the character of people, with circumstances: a right that is invaluable for true talents, and Livy, using it, enriched his books with the power of mind, eloquence, and wise instructions. But we, contrary to the opinion of Abbot Mably, cannot now orbit History. New advances in reason have given us the clearest understanding of its nature and purpose; common taste established unchanged rules and forever separated the Description from the Poem, from the flower beds of eloquence, leaving it to the former to be a faithful mirror of the past, a faithful response to the words actually spoken by the Heroes of the Ages. The most beautiful fictitious speech disgraces History, which is dedicated not to the glory of the Writer, not to the pleasure of the Readers, and not even to moralizing wisdom, but only to the truth, which itself becomes a source of pleasure and benefit. Both Natural and Civil History does not tolerate fiction, depicting what is or was, and not what is to be could. But History, they say, is filled with lies: let’s say better that in it, as in human affairs, there is an admixture of lies, but the character of truth is always more or less preserved; and this is enough for us to form a general concept of people and actions. The more demanding and stricter the Criticism; it is all the more inadmissible for the Historian, for the benefit of his talent, to deceive conscientious Readers, to think and speak for Heroes who have long been silent in their graves. What remains for him, chained, so to speak, to the dry charters of antiquity? order, clarity, strength, painting. He creates from a given substance: he will not produce gold from copper, but must also purify copper; must know the price and properties; to reveal the great where it is hidden, and not to give the small the rights of the great. There is no subject so poor that Art cannot mark itself in it in a way that is pleasing to the mind.
Until now, the Ancients serve as models for us. No one has surpassed Livy in the beauty of storytelling, Tacitus in power: that’s the main thing! Knowledge of all the Rights in the world, German erudition, Voltaire's wit, not even the most profound thought of Machiavellian in the Historian do not replace the talent to depict actions. The English are famous for Hume, the Germans for John Müller, and rightly so (I am speaking only about those who wrote the entire History of Nations. Ferreras, Daniel, Maskov, Dalin, Mallet are not equal to these two Historians; but while zealously praising Müller (the Historian of Switzerland), experts do not praise his Introduction, which can be called a Geological Poem): both are worthy collaborators of the Ancients, not imitators: for every century, every people gives special colors to the skillful Writer of Genesis. “Do not imitate Tacitus, but write as he would write in your place!” There is a rule of genius. Did Muller want to, by frequently inserting moral issues into the story? apophegma, become like Tacitus? Don't know; but this desire to shine with intelligence, or to appear thoughtful, is almost contrary to true taste. The historian argues only to explain things, where his thoughts seem to complement the description. Let us note that these apothegms are for thorough minds either half-truths or very ordinary truths that do not have much value in History, where we look for actions and characters. There is skillful storytelling duty writer of everyday life, and a good individual thought is gift: the reader demands the first and thanks for the second when his demand has already been fulfilled. Didn’t the prudent Hume think so too, sometimes very prolific in explaining reasons, but stingily moderate in his reflections? A historian whom we would call the most perfect of the New Ones, if he were not excessively shunned England, did not unduly boast of impartiality and thus did not cool his elegant creation! In Thucydides we always see the Athenian Greek, in Libya we always see the Roman, and we are captivated by them and believe them. Feeling: we, our enlivens the narrative - and just as gross passion, the consequence of a weak mind or a weak soul, is unbearable in the Historian, so love for the fatherland will give his brush heat, strength, charm. Where there is no love, there is no soul.
I turn to my work. Not allowing myself any invention, I sought expressions in my mind, and thoughts only in monuments: I sought spirit and life in smoldering charters; I wanted to unite what had been faithful to us for centuries into a system, clear by the harmonious rapprochement of parts; depicted not only the disasters and glory of war, but also everything that is part of the civil existence of people: the successes of reason, art, customs, laws, industry; was not afraid to speak with importance about what was respected by his ancestors; I wanted, without betraying my age, without pride and ridicule, to describe the centuries of spiritual infancy, gullibility, and fabulousness; I wanted to present both the character of the time and the character of the Chroniclers: for one seemed to me necessary for the other. The less news I found, the more I valued and used what I found; the less he chose: for it is not the poor, but the rich who choose. It was necessary either not to say anything, or to say everything about such and such a Prince, so that he would live in our memory not just as a dry name, but with some moral physiognomy. Diligently exhausting materials of ancient Russian History, I encouraged myself with the thought that in the narration of distant times there is some inexplicable charm for our imagination: there are sources of Poetry! Doesn’t our gaze, in contemplating the great space, usually tend – past everything close and clear – to the end of the horizon, where the shadows thicken, fade and impenetrability begins?
The reader will notice that I am describing the actions not apart, by year and day, but copulating them for the most convenient impression in memory. The historian is not a Chronicler: the latter looks only at time, and the former at the nature and connection of actions: he may make a mistake in the distribution of places, but must indicate his place to everything.
The multitude of notes and extracts I made frightens me. Happy are the Ancients: they did not know this petty labor, in which half the time is lost, the mind is bored, the imagination withers: a painful sacrifice made reliability, but necessary! If all the materials were collected, published, and purified by Criticism, then I would only have to refer; but when most of them are in manuscripts, in the dark; when hardly anything has been processed, explained, agreed upon, you need to arm yourself with patience. It is up to the Reader to look into this motley mixture, which sometimes serves as evidence, sometimes as an explanation or addition. For hunters, everything is curious: an old name, a word; the slightest feature of antiquity gives rise to considerations. Since the 15th century I have been writing less: the sources are multiplying and becoming clearer.
A learned and glorious man, Schletser, said that our History has five main periods; that Russia from 862 to Svyatopolk should be named nascent(Nascens), from Yaroslav to the Mughals divided(Divisa), from Batu to John oppressed(Oppressa), from John to Peter the Great victorious(Victrix), from Peter to Catherine II prosperous. This idea seems to me more witty than thorough. 1) The century of St. Vladimir was already a century of power and glory, and not birth. 2) State shared and before 1015. 3) If according to the internal state and external actions of Russia it is necessary to mean periods, then is it possible to mix at one time the Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich and Donskoy, silent slavery with victory and glory? 4) The Age of the Impostors is marked by more misfortune than victory. Much better, truer, more modest, our history is divided into the oldest from Rurik to, to average from John to Peter, and new from Peter to Alexander. The Lot system was a character first era, autocracy - second, change in civil customs – third. However, there is no need to put boundaries where places serve as living tracts.
Having willingly and zealously devoted twelve years, and the best time of my life, to the composition of these eight or nine Volumes, I can, out of weakness, desire praise and fear condemnation; but I dare say that this is not the main thing for me. The love of fame alone could not have given me the constant, long-term firmness necessary in such a matter, if I had not found true pleasure in the work itself and had not had the hope of being useful, that is, of making Russian History more famous for many, even for my strict judges .
Thanks to everyone, both living and dead, whose intelligence, knowledge, talents, and art served as my guidance, I entrust myself to the condescension of good fellow citizens. We love one thing, we desire one thing: we love the fatherland; We wish him prosperity even more than glory; We wish that the solid foundation of our greatness never changes; may the rules of the wise Autocracy and the Holy Faith strengthen the union of parts more and more; May Russia bloom... at least for a long, long time, if there is nothing immortal on earth except the human soul!
December 7, 1815.
On the sources of Russian history before the 17th century
These sources are:
I. Chronicles. Nestor, monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, nicknamed father Russian History, lived in the 11th century: gifted with a curious mind, he listened with attention to the oral traditions of antiquity, folk historical tales; saw monuments, graves of Princes; talked with nobles, elders of Kyiv, travelers, residents of other Russian regions; read the Byzantine Chronicles, church notes and became first chronicler of our fatherland. Second, named Vasily, also lived at the end of the 11th century: used by Prince David of Vladimir in negotiations with the unfortunate Vasilko, he described to us the generosity of the latter and other modern deeds of southwestern Russia. All other chroniclers remained for us nameless; one can only guess where and when they lived: for example, one in Novgorod, Priest, dedicated by Bishop Nifont in 1144; another in Vladimir on the Klyazma under Vsevolod the Great; the third in Kyiv, a contemporary of Rurik II; the fourth in Volynia around 1290; the fifth was then in Pskov. Unfortunately, they did not say everything that might be of interest to posterity; but, fortunately, they did not make it up, and the most reliable of the foreign chroniclers agree with them. This almost continuous chain of Chronicles goes up to the statehood of Alexei Mikhailovich. Some have not yet been published or were printed very poorly. I was looking for the most ancient copies: the best of Nestor and his successors are the Charatean ones, Pushkin and Trinity, XIV and XV centuries. Notes are also worthy Ipatievsky, Khlebnikovsky, Koenigsbergsky, Rostovsky, Voskresensky, Lvovsky, Archivsky. In each of them there is something special and truly historical, introduced, one must think, by contemporaries or from their notes. Nikonovsky most distorted by the insertions of meaningless copyists, but in the 14th century it reports probable additional news about the Tver Principality, then it is already similar to others, but inferior to them in serviceability, - for example, Archivsky.
II. Degree book, composed during the reign of Ivan the Terrible according to the thoughts and instructions of Metropolitan Macarius. It is a selection from the chronicles with some additions, more or less reliable, and is called by this name for what is indicated in it degrees, or generations of sovereigns.
III. So called Chronographs, or General History according to the Byzantine Chronicles, with the introduction of ours, very brief. They have been curious since the 17th century: there are already many detailed modern news that is not in the chronicles.
IV. Lives of the Saints, in the patericon, in prologues, in menaions, in special manuscripts. Many of these Biographies were composed in modern times; some, however, for example, St. Vladimir, Boris and Gleb, Theodosius, are in the Charatean Prologues; and the Patericon was composed in the 13th century.
V. Special descriptions: for example, the legend of Dovmont of Pskov, Alexander Nevsky; modern notes by Kurbsky and Palitsyn; news about the Pskov siege in 1581, about Metropolitan Philip, etc.
VI. Rank, or the distribution of Voivodes and regiments: begin from the time. These handwritten books are not rare.
VII. Pedigree book: printed; The most correct and complete one, written in 1660, is kept in the Synodal Library.
VIII. Written Catalogs of metropolitans and bishops. – These two sources are not very reliable; they need to be checked against the chronicles.
IX. Epistles of the saints to princes, clergy and laity; the most important of these is the Epistle to Shemyaka; but in others there is also much that is memorable.
X. Ancients coins, medals, inscriptions, fairy tales, songs, proverbs: the source is meager, but not entirely useless.
XI. Certificates. The oldest authentic one was written around 1125. Archival New Town certificates and Soul recordings princes begin in the 13th century; This source is already rich, but there is still a much richer one.
XII. A collection of so-called Article lists, or Ambassadorial affairs, and letters in the Archive of the Foreign Collegium from the 15th century, when both incidents and methods for describing them give the Reader the right to demand greater satisfaction from the Historian. - They are adding to this property of ours.
XIII. Foreign contemporary chronicles: Byzantine, Scandinavian, German, Hungarian, Polish, along with news from travelers.
XIV. State papers of foreign archives: I mostly used extracts from Koenigsberg.
Here are the materials of History and the subject of Historical Criticism!
The literary and historical work of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin “History of the Russian State” consists of 12 volumes. It covers the history of his native country from the beginning of the emergence of statehood to the Time of Troubles. He worked on this for several years, but this work was not finished. The reason for this was the death of Nikolai Mikhailovich.
Possessing excellent literary talent, Karamzin was able to convey historical materials simply and understandably for most people. His “History..” is written in artistic language. But for those who wish to become more familiar with this, he wrote notes that form separate volumes.
Karamzin's work begins with a preface. In it, he evaluates the role of history and its significance for everyone. He then provides information about the sources he used for his writing. The author also gives his assessment of their reliability.
And the sources for Karamzin were many chronicles, letters of bishops and princes, and many other historical monuments. He also analyzed the judicial codes. So, thanks to him, many of them attracted the attention of historians. Many of them were later lost. Therefore, what he collected in his work is very valuable information.
Karamzin also used foreign evidence and records for his work. He also used embassy affairs and letters from the archives of other states, and ancient Greek references to ancient Russian tribes.
The first chapter of the first volume begins with the latter. It is dedicated to the peoples who have lived on Russian land since ancient times.
Next comes the history of the birth of statehood. According to Karamzin, all the time before the beginning of the reign of Ivan 3 was a stage in the formation of monarchism, a kind of preparatory stage. And the history of autocracy begins with his reign.
This stage, according to Karamzin, lasted until the end of the reign of Peter the Great. The next stage of the historical development of society and the state identified by him is post-Petrine times. This was not included in the work, since it covers the time until the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible.
Thanks to Karamzin, many chronicles gained great popularity. Also, in his work, in addition to historical information and reviews of relations between Rus' and other states, he paid great attention to the internal structure. Nikolai Mikhailovich devoted entire separate chapters to the culture and life of the people. In his work, he tried to convey the general national character and character of the people.
Karamzin's entire work is permeated with the idea of patriotism. The unity of the people and the state was one of the ideological directions of his work. And also, he believed that everyone should know their native history, since it plays an important role for every educated person.
You can use this text for a reader's diary
Karamzin. All works
- Poor Lisa
- History of Russian Goverment
- Sensitive and cold
History of Russian Goverment. Picture for the story
Currently reading
- Summary of Russian Nights Odoevsky
Odoevsky, in his nine mystical plots, touched upon a deep philosophical meaning, strengthened by reasoning, which touches on and describes problems that concern modern society.
- Summary of Aeschylus Persians
Darius' son Xerxes raised all the troops of Asia and went to war against Greece. Xerxes' mother Atossa has a dream that shows her that there will be a defeat for their troops and her son.
- Summary of Chekhov's Wager
The work "Bet", as the title suggests, is about a dispute between two acquaintances. The story is narrated by an old banker who recalls an incident that happened 15 years ago.
- Summary by Oldby Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Before us appears a married couple who are in a stage of conflict. George, the head of the family, is 46 years old and teaches at a college.