Karamzin, Nikolai Mikhailovich, famous Russian writer, journalist and historian. Born on December 1, 1766 in Simbirsk province; grew up in the village of his father, a Simbirsk landowner. The first spiritual food of the 8-9 year old boy was ancient novels,... ... Biographical Dictionary

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766 1826) Russian historian, writer. Aphorisms, quotes Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich. Biography Like the fruit of a tree, life is sweetest just before it begins to fade. For… … Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich - .… … Dictionary of the Russian language of the 18th century

Russian writer, publicist and historian. The son of a landowner in the Simbirsk province. He received his education at home, then in Moscow - in a private boarding school (until... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

- (1766 1826), Russian. writer, critic, historian. IN early work L. is noticeable to some extent the influence of sentimentalists, incl. and K. The most interesting material for comparison with production. L. contain “secular” stories by K. (“Julia”, “Sensitive and ... ... Lermontov Encyclopedia

- (1766 1826) Russian historian, writer, honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1818). Creator of the History of the Russian State (vol. 1 12, 1816 29), one of the significant works in Russian historiography. The founder of Russian sentimentalism (... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

The request "Karamzin" is redirected here. See also other meanings. Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin Date of birth: December 1 (12), 1766 Place of birth: Mikhailovka, Russian Empire Date of death: May 22 (June 3), 1826 ... Wikipedia

Historiographer, b. December 1, 1766, d. May 22, 1826 He belonged to noble family, descended from the Tatar Murza, named Kara Murza. His father, a Simbirsk landowner, Mikhail Egorovich, served in Orenburg under I. I. Neplyuev and ... Big biographical encyclopedia

- (1766 1826), historian, writer, critic; honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1818). Creator of the “History of the Russian State” (volumes 1 12, 1816 1829), one of the significant works in Russian historiography. The founder of Russian sentimentalism... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Karamzin, Nikolai Mikhailovich- N.M. Karamzin. Portrait by A.G. Venetsianova. KARAMZIN Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766 1826), Russian writer, historian. The founder of Russian sentimentalism (Letters of a Russian Traveler, 1791 95; Poor Liza, 1792, etc.). Editor... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

pseudonym - A. B. V.

historian, the largest Russian writer of the era of sentimentalism, nicknamed the “Russian Stern”

Nikolay Karamzin

short biography

Famous Russian writer, historian, leading representative of the era of sentimentalism, reformer of the Russian language, publisher. With his input, the vocabulary was enriched with a large number of new crippled words.

The famous writer was born on December 12 (December 1, O.S.) 1766 in an estate located in Simbirsk district. The noble father took care of his son’s home education, after which Nikolai continued to study, first at the Simbirsk noble boarding school, then from 1778 at the boarding school of Professor Schaden (Moscow). Throughout 1781-1782. Karamzin attended university lectures.

His father wanted Nikolai to enter military service after boarding school; his son fulfilled his wish, ending up in the St. Petersburg Guards Regiment in 1781. It was during these years that Karamzin first tried himself in the literary field, in 1783 making a translation from German. In 1784, after the death of his father, having retired with the rank of lieutenant, he finally parted with military service. While living in Simbirsk, he joined the Masonic lodge.

Since 1785, Karamzin’s biography has been connected with Moscow. In this city he meets N.I. Novikov and other writers, joins the “Friendly Scientific Society”, settles in a house that belongs to him, and subsequently collaborates with members of the circle in various publications, in particular, takes part in the publication of the magazine “Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind”, which became the first Russian magazine for children.

Over the course of a year (1789-1790), Karamzin traveled through the countries of Western Europe, where he met not only with prominent figures in the Masonic movement, but also with great thinkers, in particular, Kant, I. G. Herder, J. F. Marmontel. Impressions from the trips formed the basis for the future famous “Letters of a Russian Traveler.” This story (1791-1792) appeared in the Moscow Journal, which N.M. Karamzin began publishing upon his arrival in his homeland, and brought the author enormous fame. A number of philologists believe that modern Russian literature dates back to the Letters.

The story “Poor Liza” (1792) strengthened Karamzin’s literary authority. The subsequently published collections and almanacs “Aglaya”, “Aonids”, “My Trinkets”, “Pantheon of Foreign Literature” ushered in the era of sentimentalism in Russian literature, and it was N.M. Karamzin was at the head of the current; under the influence of his works, V.A. wrote. Zhukovsky, K.N. Batyushkov, as well as A.S. Pushkin at the beginning of their creative career.

A new period in the biography of Karamzin as a person and a writer is associated with the accession to the throne of Alexander I. In October 1803, the emperor appointed the writer as an official historiographer, and Karamzin was given the task of capturing the history of the Russian state. His genuine interest in history, the priority of this topic over all others, was evidenced by the nature of the publications of “Bulletin of Europe” (Karamzin published this first socio-political, literary and artistic magazine in the country in 1802-1803).

In 1804, literary and artistic work was completely curtailed, and the writer began to work on “The History of the Russian State” (1816-1824), which became the main work in his life and a whole phenomenon in Russian history and literature. The first eight volumes were published in February 1818. Three thousand copies were sold in a month - such active sales had no precedent. The next three volumes, published in the following years, were quickly translated into several European languages, and the 12th, final, volume was published after the death of the author.

Nikolai Mikhailovich was an adherent of conservative views and an absolute monarchy. The death of Alexander I and the Decembrist uprising, which he witnessed, became a heavy blow for him, depriving the writer-historian of his last vitality. On June 3 (May 22, O.S.), 1826, Karamzin died while in St. Petersburg; He was buried in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, at the Tikhvin cemetery.

Biography from Wikipedia

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(December 1, 1766, Znamenskoye, Simbirsk province, Russian Empire - May 22, 1826, St. Petersburg, Russian Empire) - historian, the largest Russian writer of the era of sentimentalism, nicknamed the “Russian Stern.” Creator of the “History of the Russian State” (volumes 1-12, 1803-1826) - one of the first generalizing works on the history of Russia. Editor of the Moscow Journal (1791-1792) and Vestnik Evropy (1802-1803).

Karamzin went down in history as a reformer of the Russian language. His style is light in the Gallic manner, but instead of direct borrowing, Karamzin enriched the language with tracing words, such as “impression” and “influence,” “falling in love,” “touching” and “entertaining.” It was he who introduced into use the words “industry”, “concentrate”, “moral”, “aesthetic”, “era”, “scene”, “harmony”, “catastrophe”, “future”.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1 (12), 1766 near Simbirsk. He grew up on the estate of his father - retired captain Mikhail Yegorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), a middle-class Simbirsk nobleman from the Karamzin family, descended from the Tatar Kara-Murza. He received his primary education at a private boarding school in Simbirsk. In 1778 he was sent to Moscow to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Schaden. At the same time, he attended lectures by I. G. Schwartz at the University in 1781-1782.

In 1783, at the insistence of his father, he entered service in the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment, but soon retired. The first literary experiments date back to his military service. After retirement, he lived for some time in Simbirsk, and then in Moscow. During his stay in Simbirsk, he joined the Masonic lodge of the Golden Crown, and after arriving in Moscow, for four years (1785-1789) he was a member of the Friendly Scientific Society.

In Moscow, Karamzin met writers and writers: N.I. Novikov, A.M. Kutuzov, A.A. Petrov, and participated in the publication of the first Russian magazine for children - “Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind.”

In 1789-1790 he made a trip to Europe, during which he visited Immanuel Kant in Königsberg, and was in Paris during the great French Revolution. As a result of this trip, the famous “Letters of a Russian Traveler” were written, the publication of which immediately made Karamzin a famous writer. Some philologists believe that modern Russian literature dates back to this book. Be that as it may, Karamzin really became a pioneer in the literature of Russian “travels” - he quickly found both imitators (V.V. Izmailov, P.I. Sumarokov, P.I. Shalikov) and worthy successors (A.A. Bestuzhev, N. A. Bestuzhev, F. N. Glinka, A. S. Griboedov). It is since then that Karamzin has been considered one of the main literary figures in Russia.

N. M. Karamzin at the monument “1000th anniversary of Russia” in Veliky Novgorod

Upon returning from a trip to Europe, Karamzin settled in Moscow and began working as a professional writer and journalist, starting to publish the Moscow Journal 1791-1792 (the first Russian literary magazine, in which, among other works of Karamzin, the story “Poor Liza” that strengthened his fame appeared "), then published a number of collections and almanacs: "Aglaya", "Aonids", "Pantheon of Foreign Literature", "My Trinkets", which made sentimentalism the main literary movement in Russia, and Karamzin as its recognized leader.

In addition to prose and poetry, the Moscow Journal systematically published reviews, critical articles and theatrical analysis. In May 1792, the magazine published Karamzin’s review of Nikolai Petrovich Osipov’s ironic poem “ Virgil's Aeneid, turned inside out"

Emperor Alexander I, by personal decree of October 31, 1803, granted the title of historiographer to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin; 2 thousand rubles were added to the rank at the same time. annual salary. The title of historiographer in Russia was not renewed after Karamzin’s death. Since the beginning of the 19th century, Karamzin gradually moved away from fiction, and in 1804, having been appointed by Alexander I to the post of historiographer, he stopped all literary work and “took monastic vows as a historian.” In this regard, he refused government posts offered to him, in particular, the post of Tver governor. Honorary member of Moscow University (1806).

In 1811, Karamzin wrote “A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations,” which reflected the views of conservative layers of society dissatisfied with the liberal reforms of the emperor. His goal was to prove that no reforms were needed in the country. “A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations” also played the role of an outline for Nikolai Mikhailovich’s subsequent enormous work on Russian history.

In February 1818, Karamzin released the first eight volumes of “The History of the Russian State,” the three thousand copies of which sold out within a month. In subsequent years, three more volumes of “History” were published, and a number of translations of it into the main European languages ​​appeared. Coverage of the Russian historical process brought Karamzin closer to the court and the tsar, who settled him near him in Tsarskoe Selo. Karamzin's political views evolved gradually, and by the end of his life he was a staunch supporter of absolute monarchy. The unfinished 12th volume was published after his death.

Karamzin died on May 22 (June 3), 1826 in St. Petersburg. According to legend, his death was the result of a cold contracted on December 14, 1825, when Karamzin witnessed with his own eyes the events on Senate Square. He was buried at the Tikhvin cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

Karamzin - writer

Collected works of N. M. Karamzin in 11 volumes. in 1803-1815 was printed in the printing house of the Moscow book publisher Selivanovsky.

"The influence of the latter<Карамзина>on literature can be compared with Catherine’s influence on society: he made literature humane”, wrote A.I. Herzen.

Sentimentalism

Karamzin’s publication of “Letters of a Russian Traveler” (1791-1792) and the story “Poor Liza” (1792; separate publication 1796) ushered in the era of sentimentalism in Russia.

Lisa was surprised, she dared to look at the young man, she blushed even more and, looking down at the ground, told him that she would not take the ruble.
- For what?
- I don't need anything extra.
- I think that beautiful lilies of the valley, plucked by the hands of a beautiful girl, are worth a ruble. When you don’t take it, here’s your five kopecks. I would like to always buy flowers from you; I would like you to tear them just for me.

Sentimentalism declared feeling, not reason, to be the dominant of “human nature,” which distinguished it from classicism. Sentimentalism believed that the ideal of human activity was not the “reasonable” reorganization of the world, but the release and improvement of “natural” feelings. His hero is more individualized, his inner world enriched by the ability to empathize and sensitively respond to what is happening around.

The publication of these works was a great success among readers of that time; “Poor Liza” caused many imitations. Karamzin's sentimentalism had a great influence on the development of Russian literature: it inspired, among other things, the romanticism of Zhukovsky and the work of Pushkin.

Karamzin's poetry

Karamzin's poetry, which developed in line with European sentimentalism, was radically different from the traditional poetry of his time, brought up on the odes of Lomonosov and Derzhavin. The most significant differences were the following:

Karamzin is not interested in the external, physical world, but in the internal, spiritual world of man. His poems speak “the language of the heart,” not the mind. The object of Karamzin’s poetry is “simple life”, and to describe it he uses simple poetic forms - poor rhymes, avoids the abundance of metaphors and other tropes so popular in the poems of his predecessors.

“Who is your dear?”
I'm ashamed; it really hurts me
The strangeness of my feelings is revealed
And be the butt of jokes.
The heart is not free to choose!..
What to say? She...she.
Oh! not important at all
And talents behind you
Has none;
…
The Strangeness of Love, or Insomnia (1793)

Another difference between Karamzin’s poetics is that the world is fundamentally unknowable for him; the poet recognizes the existence of different points of view on the same subject:

One voice
It's scary in the grave, cold and dark!
The winds howl here, the coffins shake,
White bones are knocking.
Another voice
Quiet in the grave, soft, calm.
The winds blow here; sleepers are cool;
Herbs and flowers grow.
Cemetery (1792)

Karamzin's prose

• “Eugene and Yulia”, story (1789)
• "Letters of a Russian Traveler" (1791-1792)
• "Poor Liza", story (1792)
• “Natalia, the Boyar’s Daughter”, story (1792)
• “The Beautiful Princess and the Happy Karla” (1792)
• "Sierra Morena", a story (1793)
• "The Island of Bornholm" (1793)
• "Julia" (1796)
• “Martha the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novagorod”, story (1802)
• “My Confession,” letter to the magazine publisher (1802)
• "Sensitive and Cold" (1803)
• "A Knight of Our Time" (1803)
• "Autumn"
• Translation - retelling of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”
• “On Friendship” (1826) to the writer A. S. Pushkin.

Karamzin's language reform

Karamzin's prose and poetry had a decisive influence on the development of the Russian literary language. Karamzin purposefully refused to use Church Slavonic vocabulary and grammar, bringing the language of his works to the everyday language of his era and using the grammar and syntax of the French language as a model.

Karamzin introduced many new words into the Russian language - as neologisms (“charity”, “love”, “freethinking”, “attraction”, “responsibility”, “suspiciousness”, “industry”, “refinement”, “first-class”, “humane” ") and barbarisms ("sidewalk", "coachman"). He was also one of the first to use the letter E.

The changes in language proposed by Karamzin caused heated controversy in the 1810s. The writer A. S. Shishkov, with the assistance of Derzhavin, founded in 1811 the society “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word”, the purpose of which was to promote the “old” language, as well as criticize Karamzin, Zhukovsky and their followers. In response, in 1815, the literary society “Arzamas” was formed, which ironized the authors of “Conversation” and parodied their works. Many poets of the new generation became members of the society, including Batyushkov, Vyazemsky, Davydov, Zhukovsky, Pushkin. Literary victory“Arzamas” over “Beseda” strengthened the victory of the language changes that Karamzin introduced.

Despite this, Karamzin later became closer to Shishkov, and, thanks to the latter’s assistance, Karamzin was elected a member of the Russian Academy in 1818. In the same year he became a member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.

Karamzin the historian

Karamzin developed an interest in history in the mid-1790s. He wrote a story on historical topic- “Martha the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novagorod” (published in 1803). In the same year, by decree of Alexander I, he was appointed to the position of historiographer and until the end of his life he was engaged in writing “The History of the Russian State,” practically ceasing his activities as a journalist and writer.

“The History of the Russian State” by Karamzin was not the first description of the history of Russia; before him there were the works of V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov. But it was Karamzin who opened the history of Russia to a wide educated public. According to A.S. Pushkin, “Everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their fatherland, hitherto unknown to them. She was a new discovery for them. Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus.” This work also caused a wave of imitations and contrasts (for example, “The History of the Russian People” by N. A. Polevoy)

In his work, Karamzin acted more as a writer than a historian - describing historical facts, he cared about the beauty of the language, least of all trying to draw any conclusions from the events he described. Nevertheless, his comments, which contain many extracts from manuscripts, mostly first published by Karamzin, are of high scientific value. Some of these manuscripts no longer exist.

In his “History” elegance and simplicity prove to us, without any bias, the necessity of autocracy and the charms of the whip.

Karamzin took the initiative to organize memorials and erect monuments to outstanding figures of Russian history, in particular, K. M. Sukhorukov (Minin) and Prince D. M. Pozharsky on Red Square (1818).

N. M. Karamzin discovered Afanasy Nikitin’s “Walking across Three Seas” in a 16th-century manuscript and published it in 1821. He wrote:

“Until now, geographers did not know that the honor of one of the oldest described European journeys to India belongs to Russia of the Ioannian century... It (the journey) proves that Russia in the 15th century had its own Taverniers and Chardeneis, less enlightened, but equally courageous and enterprising; that the Indians heard about it before they heard about Portugal, Holland, England. While Vasco da Gama was only thinking about the possibility of finding a way from Africa to Hindustan, our Tverite was already a merchant on the banks of Malabar...”

Karamzin - translator

In 1787, fascinated by the work of Shakespeare, Karamzin published his translation of the original text of the tragedy “Julius Caesar”. About his assessment of the work and his own work as a translator, Karamzin wrote in the preface:

“The tragedy that I translated is one of his excellent creations... If reading the translation gives Russian literature lovers a sufficient understanding of Shakespeare; if it brings them pleasure, the translator will be rewarded for his work. However, he was prepared for the opposite.”

In the early 1790s, this edition, one of the first works of Shakespeare in Russian, was included by the censor among the books for confiscation and burning.

In 1792-1793, N. M. Karamzin translated a monument of Indian literature (from English) - the drama “Sakuntala”, authored by Kalidasa. In the preface to the translation, he wrote:

“The creative spirit does not live in Europe alone; he is a citizen of the universe. A person is a person everywhere; He has a sensitive heart everywhere, and in the mirror of his imagination he contains heaven and earth. Everywhere Nature is his mentor and the main source of his pleasures.

I felt this very vividly while reading Sakontala, a drama composed in an Indian language, 1900 years before this, by the Asian poet Kalidas, and recently translated into English by William Jones, a Bengali judge ... "

Family

N. M. Karamzin was married twice and had 10 children:

• First wife (from April 1801) - Elizaveta Ivanovna Protasova(1767-1802), sister of A. I. Pleshcheeva and A. I. Protasov, father of A. A. Voeikova and M. A. Moyer. According to Karamzin to Elizaveta, he “I knew and loved for thirteen years”. She was a very educated woman and an active assistant to her husband. Having poor health, she gave birth to a daughter in March 1802, and in April she died of puerperal fever. Some researchers believe that the heroine of “Poor Lisa” was named in her honor.
  • Sofya Nikolaevna(03/05/1802-07/04/1856), since 1821, maid of honor, close acquaintance of Pushkin and friend of Lermontov.
• Second wife (from 01/08/1804) - Ekaterina Andreevna Kolyvanova(1780-1851), illegitimate daughter of Prince A. I. Vyazemsky and Countess Elizaveta Karlovna Sivers, half-sister of the poet P. A. Vyazemsky.
  • Natalia (30.10.1804-05.05.1810)
  • Ekaterina Nikolaevna(1806-1867), St. Petersburg acquaintance of Pushkin; from April 27, 1828, she was married to retired lieutenant colonel of the guard, Prince Pyotr Ivanovich Meshchersky (1802-1876), who married her for the second time. Their son is writer and publicist Vladimir Meshchersky (1839-1914)
  • Andrey (20.10.1807-13.05.1813)
  • Natalia (06.05.1812-06.10.1815)
  • Andrey Nikolaevich(1814-1854), after graduating from the University of Dorpat, was forced to be abroad due to health, later - a retired colonel. He was married to Aurora Karlovna Demidova. He had children from an extramarital affair with Evdokia Petrovna Sushkova.
  • Alexander Nikolaevich(1815-1888), after graduating from the University of Dorpat, he served in the horse artillery, in his youth he was a magnificent dancer and a merry fellow, he was close to Pushkin’s family in his Last year life. Married to Princess Natalya Vasilievna Obolenskaya (1827-1892), there were no children.
  • Nikolay (03.08.1817-21.04.1833)
  • Vladimir Nikolayevich(06/05/1819 - 08/07/1879), member of the consultation under the Minister of Justice, senator, owner of the Ivnya estate. He was distinguished by his wit and resourcefulness. He was married to Baroness Alexandra Ilyinichna Duka (1820-1871), daughter of General I. M. Duka. They left no offspring.
  • Elizaveta Nikolaevna(1821-1891), maid of honor since 1839, was not married. Having no fortune, she lived on a pension, which she received as Karamzin’s daughter. After the death of her mother, she lived with her older sister Sophia, in the family of the sister of Princess Ekaterina Meshcherskaya. She was distinguished by her intelligence and boundless kindness, taking all other people's sorrows and joys to heart.

"History of Russian Goverment"
is not only the creation of a great writer,
but also a feat of an honest man.
A. S. Pushkin

Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich (1766 1826), writer, historian.

Born on December 1 (12 NS) in the village of Mikhailovka, Simbirsk province, in the family of a landowner. Received a good home education.

At the age of 14 he began studying at the Moscow private boarding school of Professor Schaden. Having graduated from it in 1783, he came to the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg, where he met the young poet and future employee of his “Moscow Journal” Dmitriev. At the same time he published his first translation of S. Gesner’s idyll “The Wooden Leg”. Having retired with the rank of second lieutenant in 1784, he moved to Moscow, became one of the active participants in the magazine “Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind,” published by N. Novikov, and became close to the Freemasons. He began translating religious and moral works. Since 1787, he regularly published his translations of Thomson's The Seasons, Genlis's Country Evenings, W. Shakespeare's tragedy Julius Caesar, Lessing's tragedy Emilia Galotti.

In 1789, Karamzin’s first original story, “Eugene and Yulia,” appeared in the magazine “Children’s Reading...”. In the spring, he went on a trip to Europe: he visited Germany, Switzerland, France, where he observed the activities of the revolutionary government. In June 1790 he moved from France to England.

In the fall he returned to Moscow and soon undertook the publication of the monthly "Moscow Journal", in which most of the "Letters of a Russian Traveler", the stories "Liodor", "Poor Liza", "Natalia, the Boyar's Daughter", "Flor Silin", essays, stories, criticism and poems. Karamzin attracted Dmitriev and Petrov, Kheraskov and Derzhavin, Lvov Neledinsky-Meletsky and others to collaborate in the magazine. Karamzin’s articles asserted new literary direction sentimentalism. In the 1790s, Karamzin published the first Russian almanacs “Aglaya” (part 1 2, 1794 95) and “Aonids” (part 1 3, 1796 99). The year 1793 came, when at the third stage of the French Revolution the Jacobin dictatorship was established, which shocked Karamzin with its cruelty. The dictatorship aroused in him doubts about the possibility for humanity to achieve prosperity. He condemned the revolution. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the story “The Island of Bornholm” (1793); "Sierra Morena" (1795); poems “Melancholy”, “Message to A. A. Pleshcheev”, etc.

By the mid-1790s, Karamzin became the recognized head of Russian sentimentalism, which was opening a new page in Russian literature. He was an indisputable authority for Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, and young Pushkin.

In 1802 1803 Karamzin published the journal "Bulletin of Europe", in which literature and politics predominated. IN critical articles Karamzin, a new aesthetic program emerged, which contributed to the formation of Russian literature as nationally distinctive. Karamzin saw the key to the uniqueness of Russian culture in history. The most striking illustration of his views was the story “Marfa Posadnitsa”. In his political articles, Karamzin made recommendations to the government, pointing out the role of education.

Trying to influence Tsar Alexander I, Karamzin gave him his “Note on Ancient and New Russia” (1811), causing his irritation. In 1819 he submitted a new note, “Opinion of a Russian Citizen,” which caused even greater displeasure to the Tsar. However, Karamzin did not abandon his belief in the salvation of an enlightened autocracy and later condemned the Decembrist uprising. However, Karamzin the artist was still highly valued by young writers, even those who did not share his political convictions.

In 1803, through M. Muravyov, Karamzin received the official title of court historiographer.

In 1804, he began to create the “History of the Russian State,” which he worked on until the end of his days, but did not complete. In 1818, the first eight volumes of "History" - Karamzin's greatest scientific and cultural feat - were published. In 1821 the 9th volume was published, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, in 1824 the 10th and 11th, about Fyodor Ioannovich and Boris Godunov. Death interrupted work on the 12th volume. This happened on May 22 (June 3, n.s.) 1826 in St. Petersburg.

It turns out that I have a Fatherland!

The first eight volumes of the History of the Russian State were published all at once in 1818. They say that, having slammed the eighth and final volume, Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!” And he wasn't alone. Thousands of people thought, and most importantly, felt this very thing. Everyone was engrossed in History: students, officials, nobles, even society ladies. They read it in Moscow and St. Petersburg, they read it in the provinces: distant Irkutsk alone bought 400 copies. After all, it is so important for everyone to know that he has it, the Fatherland. Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin gave this confidence to the people of Russia.

Need a story

In those days, at the beginning of the 19th century, ancient, age-old Russia suddenly turned out to be young and new. She was about to enter the big world. Everything was born anew: the army and navy, factories and manufactories, science and literature. And it might seem that the country has no history - was there anything before Peter except the dark ages of backwardness and barbarism? Do we have a story? “Yes,” answered Karamzin.

Who is he?

We know very little about Karamzin’s childhood and youth; no diaries, letters from relatives, or youthful writings have survived. We know that Nikolai Mikhailovich was born on December 1, 1766, not far from Simbirsk. At that time it was an incredible wilderness, a real bear corner. When the boy was 11 or 12 years old, his father, a retired captain, took his son to Moscow, to a boarding school at the university gymnasium. Karamzin stayed here for some time, and then entered active military service - this was at the age of 15! The teachers prophesied for him not only Moscow Leipzig University, but somehow it didn’t work out.

Karamzin's exceptional education is his personal merit.

Writer

I didn’t go to military service; I wanted to write: compose, translate. And at the age of 17, Nikolai Mikhailovich was already a retired lieutenant. You have your whole life ahead of you. What should I dedicate it to? Literature, exclusively literature decides Karamzin.

What was it like, Russian literature of the 18th century? Also young, a beginner. Karamzin writes to a friend: “I am deprived of the pleasure of reading much in my native language. We are still poor in writers. We have several poets who deserve to be read.” Of course, there are already writers, and not just a few, but Lomonosov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, but there are no more than a dozen significant names. Are there really not enough talents? No, they exist, but it became a matter of language: the Russian language has not yet adapted to convey new thoughts, new feelings, or describe new objects.

Karamzin focuses on the lively spoken language of educated people. He writes not scholarly treatises, but travel notes ("Notes of a Russian Traveler"), stories ("Bornholm Island", "Poor Lisa"), poems, articles, and translates from French and German.

Journalist

Finally, they decide to publish a magazine. It was called simply: "Moscow Journal". The famous playwright and writer Ya. B. Knyazhnin picked up the first issue and exclaimed: “We didn’t have such prose!”

The success of the "Moscow Magazine" was enormous - as many as 300 subscribers. A very large figure for those times. This is how small not only writing and reading Russia is!

Karamzin works incredibly hard. He also collaborates in the first Russian children's magazine. It was called "Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind." Only FOR this magazine Karamzin wrote two dozen pages every week.

Karamzin was the number one writer for his time.

Historian

And suddenly Karamzin takes on the gigantic task of compiling his native Russian history. On October 31, 1803, Tsar Alexander I issued a decree appointing N.M. Karamzin as a historiographer with a salary of 2 thousand rubles a year. Now for the rest of my life I am a historian. But apparently it was necessary.

Chronicles, decrees, codes of law

Now write. But for this you need to collect material. The search began. Karamzin literally combs through all the archives and book collections of the Synod, the Hermitage, the Academy of Sciences, the Public Library, Moscow University, the Alexander Nevsky and Trinity-Sergius Lavra. At his request, they are looking for it in monasteries, in the archives of Oxford, Paris, Venice, Prague and Copenhagen. And how many things were found!

Ostromir Gospel of 1056 1057 (this is still the oldest dated Russian book), Ipatiev and Trinity Chronicles. Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, work ancient Russian literature"The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoner" and much more.

They say that having discovered the new chronicle of Volynskaya, Karamzin did not sleep for several nights with joy. Friends laughed that he had become simply unbearable because he only talked about history.

What will it be like?

The materials are being collected, but how to take on the text, how to write a book that even the simplest person can read, but from which even an academician will not wince? How to make it interesting, artistic, and at the same time scientific? And here are these volumes. Each is divided into two parts: in the first a detailed story written by a great master this is for the common reader; in the second detailed notes, links to sources this is for historians.

This is true patriotism

Karamzin writes to his brother: “History is not a novel: a lie can always be beautiful, but only some minds like the truth in its garb.” So what should I write about? Set forth in detail the glorious pages of the past, and only turn over the dark ones? Maybe this is exactly what a patriotic historian should do? No, Karamzin decides, patriotism does not come at the expense of distorting history. He doesn’t add anything, doesn’t invent anything, doesn’t glorify victories or downplay defeats.

By chance, drafts of the VIIth volume were preserved: we see how Karamzin worked on every phrase of his “History”. Here he writes about Vasily III: “in relations with Lithuania, Vasily... always ready for peace...” It’s not the same, it’s not true. The historian crosses out what was written and concludes: “In relations with Lithuania, Vasily expressed peace in words, trying to harm her secretly or openly.” Such is the impartiality of the historian, such is true patriotism. Love for one's own, but not hatred for someone else's.

Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus

It is written ancient history Russia, and modern things are happening around us: the Napoleonic Wars, the Battle of Austerlitz, the Peace of Tilsit, Patriotic War 12th year, Moscow fire. In 1815, Russian troops enter Paris. In 1818, the first 8 volumes of the History of the Russian State were published. Circulation is a terrible thing! 3 thousand copies. And everything sold out in 25 days. Unheard of! But the price is considerable: 50 rubles.

The last volume stopped at the middle of the reign of Ivan IV, the Terrible.

Some said: Jacobin!

Even earlier, the trustee of Moscow University, Golenishchev-Kutuzov, submitted to the Minister of Public Education a document, to put it mildly, in which he thoroughly proved that “Karamzin’s works are filled with freethinking and Jacobin poison.” “If only he should have been given an order, it would have been time to lock him up long ago.”

Why is this so? First of all, for independence of judgment. Not everyone likes this.

There is an opinion that Nikolai Mikhailovich never betrayed his soul in his life.

Monarchist! - exclaimed others, young people, future Decembrists.

Yes, main character"Stories" of Karamzin Russian autocracy. The author condemns bad sovereigns and sets good ones as examples. And he sees prosperity for Russia in an enlightened, wise monarch. That is, a “good king” is needed. Karamzin does not believe in revolution, much less a quick one. So, before us is truly a monarchist.

And at the same time, the Decembrist Nikolai Turgenev would later remember how Karamzin “shed tears” when he learned about the death of Robespierre, the hero of the French Revolution. And here is what Nikolai Mikhailovich himself writes to a friend: “I do not demand either a constitution or representatives, but in my feelings I will remain a republican, and, moreover, a loyal subject of the Russian Tsar: this is a contradiction, but only an imaginary one.”

Why then is he not with the Decembrists? Karamzin believed that Russia’s time had not yet come, the people were not ripe for a republic.

Good king

The ninth volume has not yet been published, and rumors have already spread that it is banned. It began like this: “We begin to describe the terrible change in the soul of the king and in the fate of the kingdom.” So, the story about Ivan the Terrible continues.

Previous historians did not dare to openly describe this reign. Not surprising. For example, Moscow’s conquest of free Novgorod. Karamzin the historian, however, reminds us that the unification of the Russian lands was necessary, but Karamzin the artist gives a vivid picture of exactly how the conquest of the free northern city was carried out:

“John and his son were tried in this way: every day they presented to them from five hundred to a thousand Novgorodians; they beat them, tortured them, burned them with some kind of fiery mixture, tied them with their heads or feet to a sleigh, dragged them to the bank of the Volkhov, where this river does not freeze in winter, and entire families were thrown from the bridge into the water, wives with husbands, mothers with infants. Moscow warriors rode in boats along the Volkhov with stakes, hooks and axes: whoever of those thrown into the water surfaced was stabbed and cut into pieces. These murders lasted five weeks and consisted of general robbery."

And so on almost every page - executions, murders, burning of prisoners upon the news of the death of the tsar's favorite villain Malyuta Skuratov, the order to destroy an elephant who refused to kneel before the tsar... and so on.

Remember, this is written by a man who is convinced that autocracy is necessary in Russia.

Yes, Karamzin was a monarchist, but during the trial the Decembrists referred to the “History of the Russian State” as one of the sources of “harmful” thoughts.

December 14

He didn't want his book to become a source of harmful thoughts. He wanted to tell the truth. It just so happened that the truth he wrote turned out to be “harmful” for the autocracy.

And then December 14, 1825. Having received news of the uprising (for Karamzin this is, of course, a rebellion), the historian goes out into the street. He was in Paris in 1790, was in Moscow in 1812, in 1825 he walks towards Senate Square. “I saw terrible faces, heard terrible words, five or six stones fell at my feet.”

Karamzin, of course, is against the uprising. But how many of the rebels are the Muravyov brothers, Nikolai Turgenev Bestuzhev, Kuchelbecker (he translated “History” into German).

A few days later Karamzin would say this about the Decembrists: “The delusions and crimes of these young people are the delusions and crimes of our century.”

After the uprising, Karamzin fell fatally ill; he caught a cold on December 14. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was another victim of that day. But he dies not only from a cold; the idea of ​​the world has collapsed, faith in the future has been lost, and a new king has ascended to the throne, very far from ideal image enlightened monarch.

Karamzin could no longer write. The last thing he managed to do was, together with Zhukovsky, he persuaded the tsar to return Pushkin from exile.

And volume XII froze at the interregnum of 1611 1612. And here are the last words of the last volume about the small Russian fortress: “Nut did not give up.”

Now

More than a century and a half has passed since then. Today's historians know much more about ancient Russia than Karamzin, how much has been found: documents, archaeological finds, birch bark letters, finally. But Karamzin’s book history-chronicle is one of a kind and there will never be another like it.

Why do we need it now? Bestuzhev-Ryumin said this well in his time: “A high moral feeling still makes this book the most convenient for cultivating love for Russia and goodness.”

Karamzin's childhood and youth

Karamzin the historian

Karamzin-journalist

Karamzin's childhood and youth

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1 (12), 1766 in the village of Mikhailovka, Buzuluk district, Simbirsk province, into a cultured and well-born, but poor noble family, descended on the paternal side from Tatar roots. He inherited his quiet disposition and penchant for daydreaming from his mother Ekaterina Petrovna (née Pazukhina), whom he lost at the age of three. Early orphanhood and loneliness in his father’s house strengthened these qualities in the boy’s soul: he fell in love with rural solitude, the beauty of the Volga nature, and early became addicted to reading books.

When Karamzin was 13 years old, his father took him to Moscow and sent him to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Schaden, where the boy received a secular upbringing, studied European languages ​​perfectly and attended lectures at the university. At the end of the boarding school in 1781, Karamzin left Moscow and joined the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg, to which he had been assigned since childhood. Friendship with I.I. Dmitriev, a future famous poet and fabulist, strengthened his interest in literature. Karamzin first appeared in print with a translation of the idyll of the German poet S. Gessner in 1783.

After the death of his father, in January 1784, Karamzin retired with the rank of lieutenant and returned to his homeland in Simbirsk. Here he led a rather absent-minded lifestyle, typical of young nobleman those years. A decisive turn in his fate was made by a chance acquaintance with I.P. Turgenev, active Freemason, writer, associate famous writer and the book publisher of the late 18th century N.I. Novikova. I.P. Turgenev takes Karamzin to Moscow, and for four years the aspiring writer moves in Moscow Masonic circles and becomes close friends with N.I. Novikov, becomes a member of the "Friendly Scientific Society".

Moscow Rosicrucian Masons (knights of the gold-pink cross) were characterized by criticism of Voltairianism and the entire legacy of the French encyclopedists and educators. Masons considered human reason to be the lowest level of knowledge and placed it in direct dependence on feelings and Divine revelation. The mind, outside the control of feeling and faith, is unable to correctly understand the world, this is the “dark”, “demonic” mind, which is the source of all human delusions and troubles.

The book of the French mystic Saint-Martin “On Errors and Truth” was especially popular in the “Friendly Learned Society”: it is no coincidence that the Rosicrucians were called “Martinists” by their ill-wishers. Saint-Martin declared that the teaching of the Enlightenment about the social contract, based on the atheistic “faith” in the “good nature” of man, is a lie that tramples the Christian truth about the “darkening” of human nature by “original sin.” It is naive to consider state power the result of human “creativity.” It is the subject of God’s special care for sinful humanity and is sent by the Creator to tame and restrain the sinful thoughts to which fallen man is subject on this earth.

State power Catherine II, who was under the influence of French enlighteners, was considered by the Martinists to be an error, a Divine allowance for the sins of the entire Peter the Great period of our history. Russian Freemasons, among whom Karamzin moved in those years, created a utopia about a beautiful country of believers and happy people, governed by elected Freemasons according to the laws of the Masonic religion, without bureaucracy, clerks, police, nobles, and arbitrariness. In their books, they preached this utopia as a program: in their state, need will disappear, there will be no mercenaries, no slaves, no taxes; everyone will learn and live peacefully and sublimely. To do this, it is necessary for everyone to become Freemasons and cleanse themselves of filth. In the future Masonic "paradise" there will be no church, no laws, but there will be a free society good people, believers in God, whatever they want.

Soon Karamzin realized that, denying the “autocracy” of Catherine II, the Freemasons were hatching plans for their own “autocracy”, opposing the Masonic heresy to everything else, sinful humanity. With outward consonance with the truths of the Christian religion, in the process of their cunning reasoning, one untruth and lie was replaced by another no less dangerous and insidious one. Karamzin was also alarmed by the excessive mystical exaltation of his “brothers”, so far from the “spiritual sobriety” bequeathed by Orthodoxy. I was confused by the cover of secrecy and conspiracy associated with the activities of Masonic lodges.

And so Karamzin, like the hero of Tolstoy’s epic novel “War and Peace” Pierre Bezukhov, experiences deep disappointment in Freemasonry and leaves Moscow, setting off on a long journey through Western Europe. His fears are soon confirmed: the affairs of the entire Masonic organization, as the investigation found out, were run by some shady people who left Prussia and acted in its favor, hiding their goals from the sincerely mistaken, beautiful-hearted Russian “brothers.” Karamzin's journey through Western Europe, which lasted a year and a half, marked the writer's final break with the Masonic hobbies of his youth.

"Letters of a Russian Traveler". In the fall of 1790, Karamzin returned to Russia and from 1791 began publishing the Moscow Journal, which was published for two years and had great success with the Russian reading public. In it he published his two main works - “Letters of a Russian Traveler” and the story “Poor Liza”.

In "Letters of a Russian Traveler", summing up his travels abroad, Karamzin, following the tradition of Stern's "Sentimental Journey", rebuilds it from the inside in the Russian way. Stern pays almost no attention to the outside world, focusing on a meticulous analysis of his own experiences and feelings. Karamzin, on the contrary, is not closed within the boundaries of his “I”, and is not overly concerned with the subjective content of his emotions. The leading role in his narrative is played by the outside world; the author is sincerely interested in its true understanding and objective assessment. In each country he notices the most interesting and important: in Germany - mental life (he meets Kant in Konigsberg and meets Herder and Wieland in Weimar), in Switzerland - nature, in England - political and public institutions, parliament, jury trials, family life of respectable Puritans. In the writer’s responsiveness to the surrounding phenomena of life, in the desire to be imbued with the spirit different countries and peoples is already anticipated in Karamzin and the translation gift of V.A. Zhukovsky, and Pushkin’s “proteism” with his “worldwide responsiveness.”

Particular attention should be paid to the section of Karamzin’s “Letters...” concerning France. He visited this country at the moment when the first thunderclaps of the Great French Revolution were heard. He also saw with his own eyes the king and queen, whose days were already numbered, and attended meetings of the National Assembly. The conclusions that Karamzin made while analyzing the revolutionary upheavals in one of the most advanced countries Western Europe, already anticipated the problems of the entire Russian literature of the 19th century century.

“Every civil society, established for centuries,” says Karamzin, “is a shrine for good citizens, and in the most imperfect one one should be amazed at the wonderful harmony, improvement, order. “Utopia” will always be the dream of a kind heart or can be fulfilled by the inconspicuous action of time, through slow, but true, safe successes of reason, enlightenment, education of good morals. When people are convinced that virtue is necessary for their own happiness, then the golden age will come, and in every reign a person will enjoy the peaceful well-being of life. All violent upheavals are disastrous, and every rebel is preparing. Let us surrender ourselves, my friends, to the power of Providence: it, of course, has its own plan; the hearts of sovereigns are in its hands - and that’s enough.”

In “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” the idea that formed the basis of Karamzin’s later “Notes on Ancient and New Russia,” which he presented to Alexander I in 1811, on the eve of the Napoleonic invasion, matures. In it, the writer inspired the sovereign that the main task of government is not in changing external forms and institutions, but in people, in the level of their moral self-awareness. A beneficent monarch and his skillfully selected governors will successfully replace any written constitution. Therefore, for the good of the fatherland, first of all, good priests are needed, and then public schools.

“Letters of a Russian Traveler” revealed the typical attitude of a thinking Russian person to the historical experience of Western Europe and to the lessons that he learned from it. The West remained for us in the 19th century a school of life both in its best, bright, and dark sides. The deeply personal, kindred attitude of an enlightened nobleman to the cultural and historical life of Western Europe, evident in Karamzin’s “Letters...”, was well expressed later by F.M. Dostoevsky through the mouth of Versilov, the hero of the novel “The Teenager”: “To a Russian, Europe is as precious as Russia: every stone in it is dear and dear.”

Karamzin the historian

It is noteworthy that Karamzin himself did not take part in these disputes, but treated Shishkov with respect, not harboring any resentment towards his criticism. In 1803, he began the main work of his life - the creation of the "History of the Russian State." Karamzin had the idea for this major work a long time ago. Back in 1790, he wrote: “It hurts, but it must be fairly admitted that we still do not have a good history, that is, written with a philosophical mind, with criticism, with noble eloquence. Tacitus, Hume, Robertson, Gibbon - these are the examples They say that our story in itself is less interesting than others: I don’t think it’s all about intelligence, taste, and talent.” Karamzin, of course, had all these abilities, but in order to master the capital work associated with studying a huge number of historical documents, material freedom and independence were also required. When Karamzin began publishing “Bulletin of Europe” in 1802, he dreamed of the following: “Being not very rich, I published a magazine with the intention that through forced work of five or six years I would buy independence, the opportunity to work freely and ... write Russian history , which has been occupying my whole soul for some time."

And then a close acquaintance of Karamzin, comrade of the Minister of Education M.N. Muravyov turned to Alexander I with a petition to help the writer in realizing his plan. In a personal decree of December 31, 1803, Karamzin was approved as a court historiographer with an annual pension of two thousand rubles. Thus began the twenty-two-year period of Karamzin’s life, associated with the major work of creating the “History of the Russian State.”

About how history should be written, Karamzin said: “The historian must rejoice and grieve with his people. He should not, guided by bias, distort facts, exaggerate happiness or belittle disaster in his presentation; he must first of all be truthful; but he can, He must even convey everything unpleasant, everything shameful in the history of his people with sadness, but speak with joy and enthusiasm about what brings honor, about victories, about a flourishing state. Only in this way will he become a national writer of everyday life, which, above all, he should. to be a historian."

Karamzin began writing “The History of the Russian State” in Moscow and in the Olsufyevo estate near Moscow. In 1816, he moved to St. Petersburg: efforts began to publish the completed eight volumes of “History...”. Karamzin became a person close to the court, personally communicating with Alexander I and members of the royal family. The Karamzins spent the summer months in Tsarskoe Selo, where they were visited by the young lyceum student Pushkin. In 1818, eight volumes of “History...” were published, in 1821 the ninth, dedicated to the era of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was published, in 1824 - the tenth and eleventh volumes.

"History..." was created based on the study of a huge factual material, among which chronicles occupied a key place. Combining the talent of a scholar-historian with artistic talent, Karamzin skillfully conveyed the very spirit of chronicle sources by abundantly quoting them or skillfully retelling them. What was valuable to the historian in the chronicles was not only the abundance of facts, but also the chronicler’s very attitude towards them. Comprehension of the chronicler's point of view is the main task of Karamzin the artist, allowing him to convey the “spirit of the times”, popular opinion about certain events. And Karamzin the historian made comments. That is why Karamzin’s “History...” combined a description of the emergence and development of Russian statehood with the process of growth and formation of Russian national identity.

By his convictions, Karamzin was a monarchist. He believed that an autocratic form of government was most organic for such a huge country as Russia. But at the same time, he showed the constant danger that awaits autocracy in the course of history - the danger of its degeneration into “autocracy.” Refuting the widespread view of peasant rebellions and riots as a manifestation of popular “savagery” and “ignorance,” Karamzin showed that popular indignation is generated every time by the retreat of monarchical power from the principles of autocracy towards autocracy and tyranny. For Karamzin, popular indignation is a form of manifestation of the Heavenly Court, Divine punishment for the crimes committed by the tyrants. It is through the life of the people that, according to Karamzin, the Divine will manifests itself in history; it is the people that most often turn out to be a powerful instrument of Providence. Thus, Karamzin absolves the people of blame for the rebellion in the event that this rebellion has the highest moral justification.

When Pushkin became acquainted with this “Note...” in manuscript at the end of the 1830s, he said: “Karamzin wrote his thoughts about Ancient and New Russia with all the sincerity of a beautiful soul, with all the courage of a strong and deep conviction.” "Someday posterity will appreciate... the nobility of a patriot."

But the “Note...” caused irritation and displeasure of the vain Alexander. For five years, he emphasized his resentment with a cold attitude towards Karamzin. In 1816 there was a rapprochement, but not for long. In 1819, the sovereign, returning from Warsaw, where he opened the Polish Sejm, in one of his sincere conversations with Karamzin, said that he wanted to restore Poland to its ancient borders. This “strange” desire shocked Karamzin so much that he immediately composed and personally read to the sovereign a new “Note...”:

“You are thinking of restoring the ancient kingdom of Poland, but is this restoration in accordance with the law of the state good of Russia? Is it in accordance with your sacred duties, with your love for Russia and for justice itself? Can you, with a peaceful conscience, take away from us Belarus, Lithuania, Volynia, Podolia, the established property of Russia even before your reign? Do not the sovereigns swear to preserve the integrity of their powers? These lands were already Russia when Metropolitan Plato presented you with the crown of Monomakh, Peter, Catherine, whom you called Great... Nikolay Karamzin boarding house historiographer

We would have lost not only our beautiful regions, but also our love for the Tsar, our souls would have cooled towards our fatherland, seeing it as a playground of autocratic tyranny, we would have weakened not only by the reduction of the state, but we would also have humiliated ourselves in spirit before others and before ourselves. If the palace were not empty, of course, you would still have ministers and generals, but they would not serve the fatherland, but only their own personal benefits, like mercenaries, like true slaves..."

At the end of a heated argument with Alexander 1 over his policy towards Poland, Karamzin said: “Your Majesty, you have a lot of pride... I am not afraid of anything, we are both equal before God. What I told you, I would tell yours father... I despise precocious liberalists; I love only that freedom that no tyrant will take away from me... I no longer need your favors.”

Karamzin passed away on May 22 (June 3), 1826, while working on the twelfth volume of “History...”, where he was supposed to talk about the people’s militia of Minin and Pozharsky, which liberated Moscow and stopped the “turmoil” in our Fatherland. The manuscript of this volume ended with the phrase: “The nut did not give up...”

The significance of “The History of the Russian State” is difficult to overestimate: its publication was a major act of Russian national self-awareness. According to Pushkin, Karamzin revealed to the Russians their past, just as Columbus discovered America. The writer in his “History...” gave a sample of a national epic, making each Epoch speak its own language. Karamzin's work had a great influence on Russian writers. Relying on Karamzin, he wrote his “Boris Godunov” by Pushktn, and composed his “Dumas” by Ryleev. "History of the Russian State" had direct influence on the development of the Russian historical novel from Zagoskin and Lazhechnikov to Leo Tolstoy. “The pure and high glory of Karamzin belongs to Russia,” said Pushkin.

Karamzin-journalist

Since the publication of the Moscow Journal, Karamzin appeared before Russian public opinion as the first professional writer and journalist. Before him, only third-tier writers decided to live on literary earnings. The cultured nobleman considered the pursuit of literature rather as fun and certainly not as a serious profession. Karamzin, with his work and constant success among readers, established the authority of writing in the eyes of society and turned literature into a profession, perhaps the most honorable and respected. There is an opinion that the enthusiastic young men of St. Petersburg dreamed of even walking to Moscow, just to look at the famous Karamzin. In the "Moscow Journal" and subsequent publications, Karamzin not only expanded the circle of readers of good Russian books, but also cultivated aesthetic taste, prepared cultural society to the perception of V.A.’s poetry Zhukovsky and A.S. Pushkin. His magazine, his literary almanacs were no longer limited to Moscow and St. Petersburg, but penetrated into the Russian provinces. In 1802, Karamzin began publishing "Bulletin of Europe" - a magazine not only literary, but also socially political, which gave the prototype to the so-called "thick" Russian magazines that existed throughout the 19th century and survived until the end of the 20th century.

On December 12 (December 1, Old Style), 1766, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born - Russian writer, poet, editor of the Moscow Journal (1791-1792) and the journal Vestnik Evropy (1802-1803), honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences ( 1818), full member of the Imperial Russian Academy, historian, first and only court historiographer, one of the first reformers of the Russian literary language, founding father of Russian historiography and Russian sentimentalism.

Contribution of N.M. It is difficult to overestimate Karamzin's contribution to Russian culture. Remembering everything that this man managed to do during the short 59 years of his earthly existence, it is impossible to ignore the fact that it was Karamzin who largely determined the person Russian XIX century - the “golden” age of Russian poetry, literature, historiography, source studies and other humanitarian areas of scientific knowledge. Thanks to linguistic research aimed at popularizing the literary language of poetry and prose, Karamzin gave Russian literature to his contemporaries. And if Pushkin is “our everything,” then Karamzin can safely be called “our Everything” with a capital letter. Without him, Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Baratynsky, Batyushkov and other poets of the so-called “Pushkin galaxy” would hardly have been possible.

“No matter what you turn to in our literature, everything began with Karamzin: journalism, criticism, stories, novels, historical stories, journalism, the study of history,” V.G. rightly noted later. Belinsky.

“History of the Russian State” N.M. Karamzin became not just the first Russian-language book on the history of Russia, accessible to a wide reader. Karamzin gave the Russian people the Fatherland in the full sense of the word. They say that, having slammed the eighth and final volume, Count Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!” And he wasn't alone. All his contemporaries suddenly learned that they lived in a country with a thousand-year history and had something to be proud of. Before this, it was believed that before Peter I, who opened a “window to Europe,” there was nothing even remotely worthy of attention in Russia: the dark ages of backwardness and barbarism, boyar autocracy, primordially Russian laziness and bears in the streets...

Karamzin’s multi-volume work was not completed, but, having been published in the first quarter of the 19th century, it completely determined the historical identity of the nation on long years forward. All subsequent historiography was never able to generate anything more consistent with the “imperial” self-awareness that developed under the influence of Karamzin. Karamzin’s views left a deep, indelible mark in all areas of Russian culture in the 19th and 20th centuries, forming the foundations of the national mentality, which ultimately determined the path of development of Russian society and the state as a whole.

It is significant that in the 20th century, the edifice of Russian great power, which had collapsed under the attacks of revolutionary internationalists, was revived again by the 1930s - under different slogans, with different leaders, in a different ideological package. but... The very approach to the historiography of Russian history, both before 1917 and after, largely remained jingoistic and sentimental in Karamzin style.

N.M. Karamzin - early years

N.M. Karamzin was born on December 12 (1st century), 1766 in the village of Mikhailovka, Buzuluk district, Kazan province (according to other sources, in the family estate of Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province). About him early years little is known: there are no letters, no diaries, no memories of Karamzin himself about his childhood. He did not even know exactly his year of birth and almost all his life he believed that he was born in 1765. Only in his old age, having discovered the documents, did he become “younger” by one year.

The future historiographer grew up on the estate of his father, retired captain Mikhail Egorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), an average Simbirsk nobleman. Received a good home education. In 1778 he was sent to Moscow to the boarding school of Moscow University professor I.M. Shadena. At the same time, he attended lectures at the university in 1781-1782.

After graduating from the boarding school, in 1783 Karamzin entered service in the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg, where he met the young poet and future employee of his “Moscow Journal” Dmitriev. At the same time he published his first translation of S. Gesner’s idyll “The Wooden Leg”.

In 1784, Karamzin retired as a lieutenant and never served again, which was perceived in the society of that time as a challenge. After a short stay in Simbirsk, where he joined the Golden Crown Masonic lodge, Karamzin moved to Moscow and was introduced into the circle of N. I. Novikov. He settled in a house that belonged to the Novikov Friendly Scientific Society, became the author and one of the publishers of the first children's magazine"Children's reading for the heart and mind" (1787-1789), founded by Novikov. At the same time, Karamzin became close to the Pleshcheev family. For many years he had a tender platonic friendship with N.I. Pleshcheeva. In Moscow, Karamzin published his first translations, in which his interest in European and Russian history is clearly visible: Thomson’s “The Seasons,” Zhanlis’s “Country Evenings,” W. Shakespeare’s tragedy “Julius Caesar,” Lessing’s tragedy “Emilia Galotti.”

In 1789, Karamzin’s first original story, “Eugene and Yulia,” appeared in the magazine “Children’s Reading...”. The reader practically did not notice it.

Travel to Europe

According to many biographers, Karamzin was not inclined towards the mystical side of Freemasonry, remaining a supporter of its active and educational direction. To be more precise, by the end of the 1780s, Karamzin had already “become ill” with Masonic mysticism in its Russian version. Perhaps the cooling towards Freemasonry was one of the reasons for his departure to Europe, where he spent more than a year (1789-90), visiting Germany, Switzerland, France and England. In Europe, he met and talked (except for influential Freemasons) with European “masters of minds”: I. Kant, I. G. Herder, C. Bonnet, I. K. Lavater, J. F. Marmontel, visited museums, theaters, secular salons. In Paris, Karamzin listened to O. G. Mirabeau, M. Robespierre and other revolutionaries at the National Assembly, saw many outstanding political figures and was familiar with many. Apparently, revolutionary Paris in 1789 showed Karamzin how powerfully a word can influence a person: in print, when Parisians read pamphlets and leaflets with keen interest; oral, when revolutionary speakers spoke and controversy arose (an experience that could not be acquired in Russia at that time).

Karamzin did not have a very enthusiastic opinion about English parliamentarism (perhaps following in the footsteps of Rousseau), but he very highly valued the level of civilization at which English society as a whole was located.

Karamzin – journalist, publisher

In the fall of 1790, Karamzin returned to Moscow and soon organized the publication of the monthly “Moscow Journal” (1790-1792), in which most of the “Letters of a Russian Traveler” were published, telling about the revolutionary events in France, the stories “Liodor”, “Poor Lisa” , “Natalia, the boyar’s daughter”, “Flor Silin”, essays, stories, critical articles and poems. Karamzin attracted the entire literary elite of that time to collaborate in the magazine: his friends Dmitriev and Petrov, Kheraskov and Derzhavin, Lvov, Neledinsky-Meletsky and others. Karamzin’s articles approved a new literary direction - sentimentalism.

The Moscow Journal had only 210 regular subscribers, but for the end of the 18th century, this is the same as a hundred thousandth circulation in late XIX centuries. Moreover, the magazine was read precisely by those who “made the weather” in literary life countries: students, officials, young officers, minor employees of various government agencies (“archive youths”).

After Novikov’s arrest, the authorities became seriously interested in the publisher of the Moscow Journal. During interrogations in the Secret Expedition, they ask: was it Novikov who sent the “Russian traveler” abroad on a “special mission”? The Novikovites were people of high integrity and, of course, Karamzin was shielded, but because of these suspicions the magazine had to be stopped.

In the 1790s, Karamzin published the first Russian almanacs - “Aglaya” (1794 -1795) and “Aonids” (1796 -1799). In 1793, when the Jacobin dictatorship was established at the third stage of the French Revolution, which shocked Karamzin with its cruelty, Nikolai Mikhailovich abandoned some of his previous views. The dictatorship aroused in him serious doubts about the possibility of humanity to achieve prosperity. He sharply condemned the revolution and all violent methods of transforming society. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the story “The Island of Bornholm” (1793); "Sierra Morena" (1795); poems “Melancholy”, “Message to A. A. Pleshcheev”, etc.

During this period, real literary fame came to Karamzin.

Fedor Glinka: “Out of 1,200 cadets, it was rare that he did not repeat by heart some page from The Island of Bornholm.”.

The name Erast, previously completely unpopular, is increasingly found in noble lists. There are rumors of successful and unsuccessful suicides in the spirit of Poor Lisa. The poisonous memoirist Vigel recalls that important Moscow nobles had already begun to make do with “almost like an equal with a thirty-year-old retired lieutenant”.

In July 1794, Karamzin’s life almost ended: on the way to the estate, in the steppe wilderness, he was attacked by robbers. Karamzin miraculously escaped, receiving two minor wounds.

In 1801, he married Elizaveta Protasova, a neighbor on the estate, whom he had known since childhood - at the time of the wedding they had known each other for almost 13 years.

Reformer of the Russian literary language

Already in the early 1790s, Karamzin was seriously thinking about the present and future of Russian literature. He writes to a friend: “I am deprived of the pleasure of reading much in my native language. We are still poor in writers. We have several poets who deserve to be read.” Of course, there were and are Russian writers: Lomonosov, Sumarokov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, but there are no more than a dozen significant names. Karamzin is one of the first to understand that it is not a matter of talent - there are no less talents in Russia than in any other country. It’s just that Russian literature cannot move away from the long-outdated traditions of classicism, founded in the middle of the 18th century by the only theorist M.V. Lomonosov.

The reform of the literary language carried out by Lomonosov, as well as the theory of the “three calms” he created, met the tasks of the transition period from ancient to new literature. A complete rejection of the use of familiar Church Slavonicisms in the language was then still premature and inappropriate. But the evolution of the language, which began under Catherine II, actively continued. The “Three Calms” proposed by Lomonosov were based not on lively colloquial speech, but on the witty thought of a theoretical writer. And this theory often put the authors in a difficult position: they had to use heavy, outdated Slavic expressions where in the spoken language they had long been replaced by others, softer and more elegant. The reader sometimes could not “cut through” the piles of outdated Slavicisms used in church books and records in order to understand the essence of this or that secular work.

Karamzin decided to bring the literary language closer to the spoken one. Therefore, one of his main goals was the further liberation of literature from Church Slavonicisms. In the preface to the second book of the almanac “Aonida,” he wrote: “The thunder of words alone only deafens us and never reaches our hearts.”

The second feature of Karamzin’s “new syllable” was the simplification of syntactic structures. The writer abandoned lengthy periods. In "Pantheon" Russian writers“He decisively declared: “Lomonosov’s prose cannot serve as a model for us at all: his long periods are tiring, the arrangement of words is not always consistent with the flow of thoughts.”

Unlike Lomonosov, Karamzin strove to write in short, easily understandable sentences. This is still a model of good style and an example to follow in literature.

Karamzin’s third merit was the enrichment of the Russian language with a number of successful neologisms, which became firmly established in the main vocabulary. Among the innovations proposed by Karamzin are such widely known words in our time as “industry”, “development”, “sophistication”, “concentrate”, “touching”, “entertainment”, “humanity”, “public”, “ generally useful”, “influence” and a number of others.

When creating neologisms, Karamzin used mainly the method of tracing French words: “interesting” from “interessant”, “refined” from “raffine”, “development” from “developpement”, “touching” from “touchant”.

We know that even in the era of Peter the Great, many foreign words appeared in the Russian language, but they mostly replaced words that already existed in the Slavic language and were not a necessity. In addition, these words were often taken in their raw form, so they were very heavy and clumsy (“fortecia” instead of “fortress”, “victory” instead of “victory”, etc.). Karamzin, on the contrary, tried to give foreign words a Russian ending, adapting them to the requirements of Russian grammar: “serious”, “moral”, “aesthetic”, “audience”, “harmony”, “enthusiasm”, etc.

In his reform activities, Karamzin focused on the lively spoken language of educated people. And this was the key to the success of his work - he writes not scholarly treatises, but travel notes (“Letters of a Russian Traveler”), sentimental stories (“Bornholm Island”, “Poor Lisa”), poems, articles, translations from French, English and German .

"Arzamas" and "Conversation"

It is not surprising that most of the young writers contemporary to Karamzin accepted his transformations with a bang and willingly followed him. But, like any reformer, Karamzin had staunch opponents and worthy opponents.

A.S. stood at the head of Karamzin’s ideological opponents. Shishkov (1774-1841) – admiral, patriot, famous statesman of that time. An Old Believer, an admirer of Lomonosov's language, Shishkov, at first glance, was a classicist. But this point of view requires significant qualifications. In contrast to Karamzin's Europeanism, Shishkov put forward the idea of ​​nationality in literature - the most important sign of a romantic worldview that was far from classicism. It turns out that Shishkov also joined for romantics, but not of a progressive, but of a conservative direction. His views can be recognized as a kind of forerunner of later Slavophilism and Pochvenism.

In 1803, Shishkov presented his “Discourse on the old and new syllables of the Russian language.” He reproached the “Karamzinists” for succumbing to the temptation of European revolutionary false teachings and advocated for the return of literature to the oral folk art, to popular vernacular, to Orthodox Church Slavonic literature.

Shishkov was not a philologist. He dealt with the problems of literature and the Russian language, rather, as an amateur, so Admiral Shishkov’s attacks on Karamzin and his literary supporters sometimes looked not so much scientifically substantiated as unsubstantiated ideological. Karamzin’s language reform seemed to Shishkov, a warrior and defender of the Fatherland, unpatriotic and anti-religious: “Language is the soul of the people, the mirror of morals, a true indicator of enlightenment, an incessant witness of deeds. Where there is no faith in the hearts, there is no piety in the language. Where there is no love for the fatherland, there the language does not express domestic feelings.”.

Shishkov reproached Karamzin for the excessive use of barbarisms (“epoch”, “harmony”, “catastrophe”), he was disgusted by neologisms (“coup” as a translation of the word “revolution”), artificial words hurt his ear: “future”, “well-read” and etc.

And we must admit that sometimes his criticism was pointed and accurate.

The evasiveness and aesthetic affectation of the speech of the “Karamzinists” very soon became outdated and fell out of literary use. This is precisely the future that Shishkov predicted for them, believing that instead of the expression “when travel became a need of my soul,” one could simply say: “when I fell in love with traveling”; the refined and periphrased speech “motley crowds of rural oreads meet with dark bands of reptile pharaohs” can be replaced with the understandable expression “gypsies come to meet the village girls”, etc.

Shishkov and his supporters took the first steps in studying the monuments of ancient Russian writing, enthusiastically studied “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” studied folklore, advocated the rapprochement of Russia with the Slavic world and recognized the need to bring the “Slovenian” style closer to the common language.

In a dispute with the translator Karamzin, Shishkov put forward a compelling argument about the “idiomatic nature” of each language, about the unique originality of its phraseological systems, which make it impossible to literally translate a thought or true semantic meaning from one language to another. For example, when translated literally into French, the expression “old horseradish” loses figurative sense and “means only the thing itself, but in the metaphysical sense has no circle of signification.”

In defiance of Karamzin, Shishkov proposed his own reform of the Russian language. He proposed to designate concepts and feelings missing in our everyday life with new words formed from the roots not of French, but of Russian and Old Church Slavonic. Instead of Karamzin’s “influence” he suggested “influx”, instead of “development” - “vegetation”, instead of “actor” - “actor”, instead of “individuality” - “intelligence”, “wet feet” instead of “galoshes” and “wandering” instead "labyrinth". Most of his innovations did not take root in the Russian language.

It is impossible not to recognize Shishkov’s ardent love for the Russian language; One cannot help but admit that the passion for everything foreign, especially French, has gone too far in Russia. Ultimately, this led to the fact that the language of the common people, the peasant, became very different from the language of the cultural classes. But we cannot ignore the fact that the natural process of the language evolution that had begun could not be stopped. It was impossible to forcibly bring back into use the already outdated expressions that Shishkov proposed at that time: “zane”, “ugly”, “izhe”, “yako” and others.

Karamzin did not even respond to the accusations of Shishkov and his supporters, knowing firmly that they were led exclusively by pious and patriotic feelings. Subsequently, Karamzin himself and his most talented supporters (Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Batyushkov) followed the very valuable instructions of the “Shishkovites” on the need to “return to their roots” and examples of their own history. But then they could not understand each other.

The pathos and ardent patriotism of A.S.’s articles. Shishkova evoked a sympathetic attitude among many writers. And when Shishkov, together with G. R. Derzhavin, founded the literary society “Conversation of Lovers” Russian word"(1811) with a charter and its own journal, P. A. Katenin, I. A. Krylov, and later V. K. Kuchelbecker and A. S. Griboedov immediately joined this society. One of the active participants in the "Conversation...", the prolific playwright A. A. Shakhovskoy, in the comedy "New Stern" viciously ridiculed Karamzin, and in the comedy "A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters" in the person of the "balladeer" Fialkin created a parody image of V. A Zhukovsky.

This caused a unanimous rebuff from young people who supported Karamzin’s literary authority. D. V. Dashkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, D. N. Bludov composed several witty pamphlets addressed to Shakhovsky and other members of the “Conversation...”. In “Vision in the Arzamas Tavern” Bludov gave the circle of young defenders of Karamzin and Zhukovsky the name “Society of Unknown Arzamas Writers” or simply “Arzamas”.

The organizational structure of this society, founded in the fall of 1815, was dominated by a cheerful spirit of parody of the serious “Conversation...”. In contrast to the official pomposity, simplicity, naturalness, and openness prevailed here; a large place was given to jokes and games.

Parodying the official ritual of the “Conversation...”, upon joining Arzamas, everyone had to read a “funeral speech” to his “late” predecessor from among the living members of the “Conversation...” or the Russian Academy of Sciences (Count D.I. Khvostov, S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A.S. Shishkov himself, etc.). “Funeral speeches” were a form of literary struggle: they parodied high genres and ridiculed the stylistic archaism of the poetic works of the “talkers.” At the meetings of the society, the humorous genres of Russian poetry were honed, a bold and decisive struggle was waged against all kinds of officialdom, and a type of independent Russian writer, free from the pressure of any ideological conventions, was formed. And although P. A. Vyazemsky, one of the organizers and active participants of the society, in his mature years condemned the youthful mischief and intransigence of his like-minded people (in particular, the rituals of “funeral services” for living literary opponents), he rightly called “Arzamas” a school of “literary fellowship” and mutual creative learning. The Arzamas and Beseda societies soon became centers of literary life and social struggle in the first quarter of the 19th century. "Arzamas" included such famous people, like Zhukovsky (pseudonym - Svetlana), Vyazemsky (Asmodeus), Pushkin (Cricket), Batyushkov (Achilles), etc.

"Conversation" disbanded after Derzhavin's death in 1816; "Arzamas", having lost its main opponent, ceased to exist by 1818.

Thus, by the mid-1790s, Karamzin became the recognized head of Russian sentimentalism, which opened not just a new page in Russian literature, but Russian fiction in general. Russian readers, who had previously devoured only French novels and the works of enlighteners, enthusiastically accepted “Letters of a Russian Traveler” and “ Poor Lisa”, and Russian writers and poets (both “besedchiki” and “Arzamas people”) realized that they can and should write in their native language.

Karamzin and Alexander I: a symphony with power?

In 1802 - 1803, Karamzin published the journal “Bulletin of Europe”, in which literature and politics predominated. Largely thanks to the confrontation with Shishkov, a new aesthetic program for the formation of Russian literature as nationally distinctive appeared in Karamzin’s critical articles. Karamzin, unlike Shishkov, saw the key to the uniqueness of Russian culture not so much in adherence to ritual antiquity and religiosity, but in the events of Russian history. The most striking illustration of his views was the story “Martha the Posadnitsa or the Conquest of Novagorod.”

In his political articles of 1802-1803, Karamzin, as a rule, made recommendations to the government, the main one of which was educating the nation for the sake of the prosperity of the autocratic state.

These ideas were generally close to Emperor Alexander I, the grandson of Catherine the Great, who at one time also dreamed of an “enlightened monarchy” and a complete symphony between the authorities and a European educated society. Karamzin’s response to the coup of March 11, 1801 and the accession to the throne of Alexander I was “Historical eulogy to Catherine the Second” (1802), where Karamzin expressed his views on the essence of the monarchy in Russia, as well as the duties of the monarch and his subjects. The “eulogium” was approved by the sovereign as a collection of examples for the young monarch and was favorably received by him. Alexander I, obviously, was interested in Karamzin’s historical research, and the emperor rightly decided that the great country simply needed to remember its no less great past. And if you don’t remember, then at least create it again...

In 1803, through the tsar’s educator M.N. Muravyov - poet, historian, teacher, one of the most educated people of that time - N.M. Karamzin received the official title of court historiographer with a pension of 2,000 rubles. (A pension of 2,000 rubles a year was then assigned to officials who, according to the Table of Ranks, had ranks no lower than general). Later, I.V. Kireevsky, referring to Karamzin himself, wrote about Muravyov: “Who knows, maybe without his thoughtful and warm assistance Karamzin would not have had the means to accomplish his great deed.”

In 1804, Karamzin practically retired from literary and publishing activities and began to create the “History of the Russian State,” on which he worked until the end of his days. With his influence M.N. Muravyov made many previously unknown and even “secret” materials available to the historian, and opened libraries and archives for him. Modern historians can only dream of such favorable working conditions. Therefore, in our opinion, talking about “The History of the Russian State” as a “scientific feat” by N.M. Karamzin, not entirely fair. The court historiographer was on duty, conscientiously doing the work for which he was paid. Accordingly, he had to write a story that was in this moment necessary for the customer, namely, Emperor Alexander I, who at the first stage of his reign showed sympathy for European liberalism.

However, under the influence of studies in Russian history, by 1810 Karamzin had become a consistent conservative. During this period, the system of his political views was finally formed. Karamzin’s statements that he is a “republican at heart” can only be adequately interpreted if we consider that we are talking about “Plato’s Republic of the Wise Men,” an ideal social order based on state virtue, strict regulation and the renunciation of personal freedom . At the beginning of 1810, Karamzin, through his relative Count F.V. Rostopchin, met in Moscow the leader of the “conservative party” at court - Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna (sister of Alexander I) and began to constantly visit her residence in Tver. The Grand Duchess's salon represented the center of conservative opposition to the liberal-Western course, personified by the figure of M. M. Speransky. In this salon, Karamzin read excerpts from his “History...”, and then he met the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, who became one of his patrons.

In 1811, at the request of Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, Karamzin wrote a note “On ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations,” in which he outlined his ideas about the ideal structure of the Russian state and sharply criticized the policies of Alexander I and his immediate predecessors: Paul I , Catherine II and Peter I. In the 19th century, the note was never published in full and was circulated only in handwritten copies. In Soviet times, the thoughts expressed by Karamzin in his message were perceived as a reaction of the extremely conservative nobility to the reforms of M. M. Speransky. The author himself was branded a “reactionary”, an opponent of the liberation of the peasantry and other liberal steps of the government of Alexander I.

However, during the first full publication of the note in 1988, Yu. M. Lotman revealed its deeper content. In this document, Karamzin made a justified criticism of unprepared bureaucratic reforms carried out from above. Praising Alexander I, the author of the note at the same time attacks his advisers, meaning, of course, Speransky, who stood for constitutional reforms. Karamzin takes it upon himself to prove in detail, with references to historical examples, to the Tsar that Russia is not ready, either historically or politically, for the abolition of serfdom and the limitation of the autocratic monarchy by the constitution (following the example of the European powers). Some of his arguments (for example, about the futility of liberating peasants without land, the impossibility of constitutional democracy in Russia) even today look quite convincing and historically correct.

Along with the review Russian history and criticism of the political course of Emperor Alexander I, the note contained a complete, original and very complex in its theoretical content concept of autocracy as a special, original Russian type of power, closely associated with Orthodoxy.

At the same time, Karamzin refused to identify “true autocracy” with despotism, tyranny or arbitrariness. He believed that such deviations from the norms were due to chance (Ivan IV the Terrible, Paul I) and were quickly eliminated by the inertia of the tradition of “wise” and “virtuous” monarchical rule. In cases of a sharp weakening and even complete absence of the supreme state and church power (for example, during the Time of Troubles), this powerful tradition led, within a short historical period, to the restoration of autocracy. The autocracy was the “palladium of Russia”, main reason her power and prosperity. Therefore, the basic principles of monarchical rule in Russia, according to Karamzin, should have been preserved in the future. They should have been supplemented only by proper policies in the field of legislation and education, which would not lead to the undermining of the autocracy, but to its maximum strengthening. With such an understanding of autocracy, any attempt to limit it would be a crime against Russian history and the Russian people.

Initially, Karamzin’s note only irritated the young emperor, who did not like criticism of his actions. In this note, the historiographer showed himself plus royaliste que le roi (a greater royalist than the king himself). However, subsequently the brilliant “hymn to the Russian autocracy” as presented by Karamzin undoubtedly had its effect. After the War of 1812, Napoleon's winner Alexander I curtailed many of his liberal projects: Speransky's reforms were not completed, the constitution and the very idea of ​​​​limiting autocracy remained only in the minds of future Decembrists. And already in the 1830s, Karamzin’s concept actually formed the basis of the ideology Russian Empire, designated by the “theory of official nationality” of Count S. Uvarov (Orthodoxy-Autocracy-Nationalism).

Before the publication of the first 8 volumes of “History...” Karamzin lived in Moscow, from where he traveled only to Tver to visit Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna and Nizhny Novgorod, during the occupation of Moscow by the French. He usually spent the summer in Ostafyevo, the estate of Prince Andrei Ivanovich Vyazemsky, whose illegitimate daughter, Ekaterina Andreevna, Karamzin married in 1804. (Karamzin’s first wife, Elizaveta Ivanovna Protasova, died in 1802).

In the last 10 years of his life, which Karamzin spent in St. Petersburg, he became very close to the royal family. Although Emperor Alexander I had a reserved attitude towards Karamzin since the submission of the Note, Karamzin often spent the summer in Tsarskoe Selo. At the request of the empresses (Maria Feodorovna and Elizaveta Alekseevna), he more than once had frank political conversations with Emperor Alexander, in which he acted as a spokesman for the opinions of opponents of drastic liberal reforms. In 1819-1825, Karamzin passionately rebelled against the sovereign’s intentions regarding Poland (submitted a note “Opinion of a Russian Citizen”), condemned the increase in state taxes in peacetime, spoke about the absurd provincial system of finance, criticized the system of military settlements, the activities of the Ministry of Education, pointed out the sovereign’s strange choice of some of the most important dignitaries (for example, Arakcheev), spoke of the need to reduce internal troops, about the imaginary correction of roads, which was so painful for the people, and constantly pointed out the need to have firm laws, civil and state.

Of course, having behind such intercessors as both empresses and Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, it was possible to criticize, and argue, and show civil courage, and try to guide the monarch “on the true path.” It is not for nothing that Emperor Alexander I was called the “mysterious sphinx” by both his contemporaries and subsequent historians of his reign. In words, the sovereign agreed with Karamzin’s critical remarks regarding military settlements, recognized the need to “give fundamental laws to Russia,” and also reconsider some aspects domestic policy, but it just so happened in our country that in reality, all the wise advice of government officials remains “fruitless for the dear Fatherland”...

Karamzin as a historian

Karamzin is our first historian and last chronicler.
With his criticism he belongs to history,
simplicity and apothegms - the chronicle.

A.S. Pushkin

Even from the point of view of Karamzin’s contemporary historical science, no one dared to call the 12 volumes of his “History of the Russian State” a scientific work. Even then it was clear to everyone that the honorary title of court historiographer could not make a writer a historian, give him the appropriate knowledge and proper training.

But, on the other hand, Karamzin initially did not set himself the task of taking on the role of a researcher. The newly minted historiographer did not intend to write a scientific treatise and appropriate the laurels of his illustrious predecessors - Schlözer, Miller, Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, Boltin, etc.

Preliminary critical work on sources for Karamzin is only “a heavy tribute to reliability.” He was, first of all, a writer, and therefore wanted to apply his literary talent to ready-made material: “to select, animate, color” and thus make from Russian history “something attractive, strong, worthy of the attention of not only Russians, but also foreigners." And he accomplished this task brilliantly.

Today it is impossible not to agree that at the beginning of the 19th century, source studies, paleography and other auxiliary historical disciplines were in their infancy. Therefore, to demand from the writer Karamzin professional criticism, as well as strict adherence to one or another methodology for working with historical sources, is simply ridiculous.

You can often hear the opinion that Karamzin simply beautifully rewrote the “Russian History from Ancient Times” written in a long-outdated, difficult-to-read style by Prince M.M. Shcherbatov, introduced some of his own thoughts from it, and thereby created a book for lovers of fascinating reading in family circle. This is wrong.

Naturally, when writing his “History...” Karamzin actively used the experience and works of his predecessors - Schlozer and Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov helped Karamzin navigate the sources of Russian history, significantly influencing both the choice of material and its arrangement in the text. Whether by chance or not, Karamzin brought the “History of the Russian State” to exactly the same place as Shcherbatov’s “History”. However, in addition to following the scheme already worked out by his predecessors, Karamzin provides in his work a lot of references to extensive foreign historiography, almost unfamiliar to the Russian reader. While working on his “History...”, he for the first time introduced into scientific circulation a mass of unknown and previously unstudied sources. These are Byzantine and Livonian chronicles, information from foreigners about the population ancient Rus', and a large number of Russian chronicles, which have not yet been touched by the hand of a historian. For comparison: M.M. Shcherbatov used only 21 Russian chronicles when writing his work, Karamzin actively cites more than 40. In addition to the chronicles, Karamzin attracted monuments of ancient Russian law and ancient Russian fiction to his research. A special chapter of “History...” is dedicated to “Russian Truth,” and a number of pages are devoted to the just discovered “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”

Thanks to the diligent help of the directors of the Moscow Archive of the Ministry (Collegium) of Foreign Affairs N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky and A. F. Malinovsky, Karamzin was able to use those documents and materials that were not available to his predecessors. Many valuable manuscripts were provided by the Synodal Repository, libraries of monasteries (Trinity Lavra, Volokolamsk Monastery and others), as well as private collections of manuscripts by Musin-Pushkin and N.P. Rumyantseva. Karamzin received especially many documents from Chancellor Rumyantsev, who collected historical materials in Russia and abroad through his numerous agents, as well as from A.I. Turgenev, who compiled a collection of documents from the papal archive.

Many of the sources used by Karamzin were lost during the Moscow fire of 1812 and were preserved only in his “History...” and extensive “Notes” to its text. Thus, Karamzin’s work, to some extent, itself acquired the status of a historical source, to which professional historians have every right to refer.

Among the main shortcomings of the “History of the Russian State,” the author’s peculiar view of the tasks of the historian is traditionally noted. According to Karamzin, “knowledge” and “learning” in a historian “do not replace the talent to depict actions.” Before the artistic task of history, even the moral one, which Karamzin’s patron, M.N., set for himself, recedes into the background. Muravyov. The characteristics of historical characters are given by Karamzin exclusively in a literary and romantic vein, characteristic of the direction of Russian sentimentalism he created. Karamzin’s first Russian princes are distinguished by their “ardent romantic passion” for conquest, their squad is distinguished by their nobility and loyal spirit, the “rabble” sometimes shows dissatisfaction, raising rebellions, but ultimately agrees with the wisdom of the noble rulers, etc., etc. P.

Meanwhile, the previous generation of historians, under the influence of Schlözer, long ago developed the idea critical history, and among Karamzin’s contemporaries, the demands for criticism of historical sources, despite the lack of a clear methodology, were generally accepted. And the next generation has already come forward with a demand for philosophical history - with the identification of the laws of development of the state and society, the recognition of the main driving forces and laws of the historical process. Therefore, Karamzin’s overly “literary” creation was immediately subjected to well-founded criticism.

According to the idea, firmly rooted in Russian and foreign historiography of the 17th - 18th centuries, the development of the historical process depends on the development of monarchical power. Karamzin does not deviate one iota from this idea: monarchical power exalted Russia during the Kiev period; the division of power between the princes was a political mistake, which was corrected by the statesmanship of the Moscow princes - the collectors of Rus'. At the same time, it was the princes who corrected its consequences - the fragmentation of Rus' and the Tatar yoke.

But before reproaching Karamzin for not bringing anything new into the development of Russian historiography, it should be remembered that the author of “History of the Russian State” did not at all set himself the task of philosophical understanding of the historical process or blind imitation of the ideas of Western European romantics (F. Guizot , F. Mignet, J. Meschlet), who even then started talking about the “class struggle” and the “spirit of the people” as the main driving force stories. Karamzin was not at all interested in historical criticism, and he deliberately rejected the “philosophical” direction in history. The researcher’s conclusions from historical material, as well as his subjective fabrications, seem to Karamzin to be “metaphysics”, which is not suitable “for depicting action and character.”

Thus, with his unique views on the tasks of the historian, Karamzin, by and large, remained outside the dominant trends of Russian and European historiography of the 19th and 20th centuries. Of course, he participated in its consistent development, but only in the form of an object for constant criticism and the clearest example of how history does not need to be written.

Reaction of contemporaries

Karamzin's contemporaries - readers and fans - enthusiastically accepted his new “historical” work. The first eight volumes of “History of the Russian State” were printed in 1816-1817 and went on sale in February 1818. A huge circulation of three thousand for that time was sold out in 25 days. (And this despite the hefty price of 50 rubles). A second edition was immediately required, which was carried out in 1818-1819 by I.V. Slenin. In 1821 a new, ninth volume was published, and in 1824 the next two. The author did not have time to finish the twelfth volume of his work, which was published in 1829, almost three years after his death.

"History..." was admired literary friends Karamzin and the vast public of non-specialist readers who suddenly discovered, like Count Tolstoy the American, that their Fatherland has a history. According to A.S. Pushkin, “everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their fatherland, hitherto unknown to them. She was a new discovery for them. Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus.”

Liberal intellectual circles of the 1820s found Karamzin’s “History...” backward in general views and overly tendentious:

Research specialists, as already mentioned, treated Karamzin’s work precisely as a work, sometimes even belittling it historical meaning. To many, Karamzin’s enterprise itself seemed too risky - to undertake to write such an extensive work in the then state of Russian historical science.

Already during Karamzin’s lifetime, critical analyzes of his “History...” appeared, and soon after the author’s death, attempts were made to determine the general significance of this work in historiography. Lelevel pointed out an involuntary distortion of the truth due to Karamzin’s patriotic, religious and political hobbies. Artsybashev showed to what extent the literary techniques of a lay historian harm the writing of “history.” Pogodin summed up all the shortcomings of the History, and N.A. Polevoy saw the general reason for these shortcomings in the fact that “Karamzin is a writer not of our time.” All his points of view, both in literature and in philosophy, politics and history, became outdated with the appearance of new influences in Russia European romanticism. In contrast to Karamzin, Polevoy soon wrote his six-volume “History of the Russian People,” where he completely surrendered to the ideas of Guizot and other Western European romantics. Contemporaries assessed this work as an “undignified parody” of Karamzin, subjecting the author to rather vicious, and not always deserved, attacks.

In the 1830s, Karamzin’s “History...” became the banner of the officially “Russian” movement. With the assistance of the same Pogodin, its scientific rehabilitation is being carried out, which is fully consistent with the spirit of Uvarov’s “theory of official nationality”.

In the second half of the 19th century, based on the “History...”, a lot of popular science articles and other texts were written, which served as the basis for well-known educational and teaching aids. Based on historical stories by Karamzin, many works were created for children and youth, the purpose of which for many years was to instill patriotism, loyalty to civic duty, and responsibility. younger generation for the fate of their homeland. This book, in our opinion, played a decisive role in shaping the views of more than one generation of Russian people, having a significant impact on the foundations patriotic education youth at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries.

December 14. Karamzin's finale.

The death of Emperor Alexander I and the December events of 1925 deeply shocked N.M. Karamzin and had a negative impact on his health.

On December 14, 1825, having received news of the uprising, the historian goes out into the street: “I saw terrible faces, heard terrible words, five or six stones fell at my feet.”

Karamzin, of course, regarded the action of the nobility against their sovereign as a rebellion and a serious crime. But among the rebels there were so many acquaintances: the Muravyov brothers, Nikolai Turgenev, Bestuzhev, Ryleev, Kuchelbecker (he translated Karamzin’s “History” into German).

A few days later Karamzin will say about the Decembrists: “The delusions and crimes of these young people are the delusions and crimes of our century.”

On December 14, during his movements around St. Petersburg, Karamzin caught a severe cold and contracted pneumonia. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was another victim of this day: his idea of ​​the world collapsed, his faith in the future was lost, and a new king ascended to the throne, very far from the ideal image of an enlightened monarch. Half-ill, Karamzin visited the palace every day, where he talked with Empress Maria Feodorovna, moving from memories of the late Emperor Alexander to discussions about the tasks of the future reign.

Karamzin could no longer write. The XII volume of “History...” froze during the interregnum of 1611 - 1612. The last words of the last volume are about a small Russian fortress: “Nut did not give up.” The last thing that Karamzin actually managed to do in the spring of 1826 was that, together with Zhukovsky, he persuaded Nicholas I to return Pushkin from exile. A few years later, the emperor tried to pass the baton of the first historiographer of Russia to the poet, but the “sun of Russian poetry” somehow did not fit into the role of state ideologist and theorist...

In the spring of 1826 N.M. Karamzin, on the advice of doctors, decided to go to Southern France or Italy for treatment. Nicholas I agreed to sponsor his trip and kindly placed a frigate of the Imperial Navy at the disposal of the historiographer. But Karamzin was already too weak to travel. He died on May 22 (June 3), 1826 in St. Petersburg. He was buried at the Tikhvin Cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.