Significance of the history of the state of the Russian N.M. Karamzin. Karamzin Nikolai Mikhailovich

T ores of all life. The poet, writer, creator of the first Russian literary magazine and the last Russian historiographer worked on a work of 12 volumes for more than twenty years. He managed to give the historical work a "light style" and create a real historical bestseller of his time. Natalya Letnikova studied the history of the creation of the famous multi-volume book.

From travel notes to the study of history. The author of Letters from a Russian Traveler, Poor Liza, Martha the Posadnitsa, a successful publisher of the Moscow Journal and Vestnik Evropy at the beginning of the 19th century became seriously interested in history. Studying chronicles and rare manuscripts, I decided to combine invaluable knowledge into one work. He set the task - to create a complete printed public presentation of Russian history.

Historiographer of the Russian Empire. Emperor Alexander I appointed Karamzin to the honorary position of the country's chief historian. The writer received an annual pension of two thousand rubles and admission to all libraries. Karamzin did not hesitate to leave the Vestnik, which brought in three times more income, and devoted his life to The History of the Russian State. As Prince Vyazemsky noted, “he took his hair as a historian.” Karamzin preferred the archives to secular salons, and the study of documents to invitations to balls.

Historical knowledge and literary style. Not just a statement of facts mixed with dates, but a highly artistic historical book for a wide range of readers. Karamzin worked not only with primary sources, but also with the style. The author himself called his work "historical poem". Extracts, quotations, retellings of documents, the scientist hid in notes - in fact, Karamzin created a book within a book for those who are especially interested in history.

First historical bestseller. Eight volumes the author gave to print only thirteen years after the start of work. Three printing houses were involved: military, senatorial, medical. The lion's share of the time was taken by proofreading. Three thousand copies came out a year later - at the beginning of 1818. Historical volumes were sold out no worse than sensational romance novels: the first edition sold out to readers in just a month.

Scientific discoveries in between. At work, Nikolai Mikhailovich discovered truly unique sources. It was Karamzin who found the Ipatiev Chronicle. The notes of Volume VI included excerpts from Afanasy Nikitin's Journey Beyond the Three Seas. “Until now, geographers did not know that the honor of one of the oldest described European travels to India belongs to Russia of the Ioannian century ... It (the journey) proves that Russia in the 15th century had its Taverniers and Chardenis, less enlightened, but equally bold and enterprising”- wrote the historian.

Pushkin about the work of Karamzin. “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 have been found by Karamzin, just as America was found by Columbus. For some time they didn’t talk about anything else ... "- wrote Pushkin. Alexander Sergeevich dedicated the tragedy "Boris Godunov" to the memory of the historiographer, he drew material for his work, including from Karamzin's "History".

Assessment at the highest state level. Alexander I not only gave Karamzin the broadest authority to read "all ancient manuscripts relating to Russian antiquities" and a financial allowance. The emperor personally financed the first edition of the History of the Russian State. At the highest command, the book was sent to ministries and embassies. The cover letter said that the sovereign's husbands and diplomats are obliged to know their history.

Whatever the event. Waiting for the release of a new book. The second edition of the eight-volume book was published a year later. Each subsequent volume became an event. Historical facts were discussed in society. So Volume IX, dedicated to the era of Grozny, became a real shock. "Well, Grozny! Well, Karamzin! I don’t know what to be more surprised at, the tyranny of John or the gift of our Tacitus.”, - wrote the poet Kondraty Ryleev, noting both the horrors of the oprichnina themselves and the beautiful style of the historian.

The last historiographer of Russia. The title appeared under Peter the Great. The honorary title was awarded to Gerhard Miller, a native of Germany - archivist and author of the "History of Siberia", also famous for "Miller's portfolios". The author of the History of Russia from Ancient Times, Prince Mikhail Shcherbatov, held a high post. Sergei Solovyov, who devoted 30 years to his historical work, and Vladimir Ikonnikov, a prominent historian of the early twentieth century, claimed it, but, despite petitions, they never received the title. So Nikolai Karamzin remained the last historiographer of Russia.

In Russia, romantic historiography was represented by the works
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(1766-1826). He came from an old noble family, was first educated at home, then in Moscow in the private boarding school of Professor Shaden. In May 1789 he took a trip to Western Europe, returning from which he wrote down his impressions and published Letters from a Russian Traveler (1797-1801).

Karamzin began to think about writing the history of Russia from 1790. According to the original plan, the work of his life was to be of a literary and patriotic nature. In 1797, he was already seriously engaged in Russian history and was the first to inform the scientific world about the discovery of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign". In 1803, Karamzin turned to Alexander I with a request to appoint him a historiographer with an appropriate salary and the right to receive the necessary historical sources. The request was granted. Since then, Karamzin plunged into the hard work of writing the History of the Russian State. By this time, he had already realized that the original plan of work as a literary-patriotic one was insufficient, that he needed to give a scientific justification for history, that is, to turn to primary sources.

As the work progressed, Karamzin's extraordinary critical instinct was revealed. In order to combine both creative plans - literary and documentary, he built his book as if in two tiers: the text was written in the literary plan, and the notes were separated into a separate series of volumes parallel to the text. Thus, the average reader could read the book without looking at the footnotes, while those seriously interested in history could conveniently use the footnotes. Karamzin's "Notes" is a separate and extremely valuable work that has not lost its significance to our time, since since then some of the sources used by Karamzin have been somehow lost or not found. Before the destruction of the Musin-Pushkin collection in the Moscow fire of 1812, Karamzin received many valuable sources from him (Karamzin returned the Trinity Chronicle to Musin for use, as it turned out, to death).

The main idea that guided Karamzin was monarchical: the unity of Russia, headed by a monarch, supported by the nobility. All ancient Russian history before Ivan III was, according to Karamzin, a lengthy preparatory process. The history of autocracy in Russia begins with Ivan III. In the order of his presentation, Karamzin followed in the footsteps of Prince M. M. Shcherbatov’s History of the Russian. He divides the history of Russia into three periods: the ancient one - from Rurik, that is, from the formation of the state, to Ivan III, the middle one - before Peter I and the new one - post-Peter. This division of Karamzin is purely conditional, and, like all periodizations of the 18th century, comes from the history of Russian autocracy. The fact of calling the Varangians in the "History ..." turned, in fact, into the idea of ​​the Varangian origin of the Kyiv state, despite the contradiction of this idea with the entire nationalist orientation of Karamzin's creation.

12 years after hard work on the "History ..." Karamzin published the first seven volumes. In the 1920s, "History ..." was published entirely in French, German, and Italian. The publication was a resounding success. Vyazemsky called Karamzin the second Kutuzov, "who saved Russia from oblivion." "The resurrection of the Russian people" - will call "History ..." N. A. Zhukovsky.

Two main traditions of Russian historiography merged in Karamzin's work: the methods of source criticism from Shlozer to Tatishchev and the rationalist philosophy of the times of Mankiev, Shafirov, Lomonosov, Shcherbatov and others.

Nikolai Mikhailovich introduced into scientific circulation a significant number of historical monuments, including new chronicle lists, for example, the Ipatiev Code; numerous legal monuments, for example, the Pilot Book, church charters, the Novgorod Judicial Charter, the Sudebnik of Ivan III (Tatishchev and Miller knew only the Sudebnik of 1550), Stoglav. Literary monuments were also attracted - "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", "Questions of Kirik", etc. Following M. M. Shcherbatov, expanding the use of foreigners' notes, Karamzin attracted many new texts, starting with Plano Carpini, Rubruk, Barbaro, Contarini, Herberstein and ending with the notes of foreigners about the Time of Troubles. The result of this work was extensive notes.

The real reflection of innovations in historical research is the allocation in the general structure of the "History ..." special chapters devoted to the "state of Russia" for each individual period. In these chapters, the reader went beyond purely political history and got acquainted with the internal structure, economy, culture and way of life. Since the beginning of the XIX century. the allocation of such chapters becomes mandatory in general works on the history of Russia.

The History of the Russian State certainly played a role in the development of Russian historiography. Nikolai Mikhailovich not only summed up the historical work of the 18th century, but also conveyed it to the reader. The publication of "Russkaya Pravda" by Yaroslav the Wise, "Instructions" by Vladimir Monomakh, and finally, the opening of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" aroused interest in the past of the Fatherland, stimulated the development of genres of historical prose. Fascinated by national color and antiquities, Russian writers write historical novels, "excerpts", journalistic articles dedicated to Russian antiquity. At the same time, history appears in the form of instructive stories pursuing educational goals.

A look at history through the prism of painting and art is a feature of Karamzin's historical vision, reflecting his commitment to romanticism. Nikolai Mikhailovich believed that the history of Russia, rich in heroic images, was fertile material for the artist. To show it colorfully, picturesquely is the task of the historian. The historian demanded that the national features of the Russian character be reflected in art and literature, suggested to the painters the themes and images that they could draw from ancient Russian literature. The advice of Nikolai Mikhailovich was willingly used not only by artists, but also by many writers, poets and playwrights. His appeals were especially relevant during the Patriotic War of 1812.

Karamzin outlined his historical and political program in its entirety in the "Note on Ancient and New Russia", submitted in 1811 to Alexander I as a noble program and directed against Speransky's reforms. This program to some extent summed up his historical studies. The main idea of ​​N. M. Karamzin - Russia will flourish under the scepter of the monarch. In the "Note" he retrospectively examines all the stages of the formation of autocracy (in accordance with his "History") and goes further, to the eras of Peter I and Catherine II. Karamzin assesses the reformism of Peter I as a turn in Russian history: “We became citizens of the world, but in some cases ceased to be citizens of Russia. Blame Peter.

Karamzin condemns the despotism of Peter I, his cruelty, denies the reasonableness of transferring the capital. He criticizes all subsequent kingdoms ("the dwarfs argued about the inheritance of the giant"). Under Catherine II, she speaks of softening the autocracy, that she cleansed him of the principle of tyranny. He treats Paul I negatively because of the humiliation of the nobles: "The Tsar took away the shame from the treasury, and the charm from the award." Speaking of contemporary Russia, he notes its main problem - at all times in Russia they steal. Alexander I did not like Karamzin's "Note", but it became the first experience of a political science essay in Russia.

Karamzin took the death of Alexander I hard. The second shock for him was the uprising of the Decembrists. After spending the whole day on December 14 on the street, Nikolai Mikhailovich caught a cold and fell ill. On May 22, the historian died. He died in the midst of his work, having written only twelve volumes of the History, and bringing the exposition up to 1610.

Critical direction in Russian historiography of the 20-40s. 19th century

A new stage in the development of Russian historiography is associated with the emergence of a critical trend in historical science. In the course of the controversy around N. M. Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State”, the worldview foundations of his concept, understanding of the tasks and subject of historical research, attitude to the source, interpretation of individual phenomena of Russian history were criticized. The most striking new direction manifested itself in the work of G. Evers, N.A. Polevoy and M.T. Kachenovsky.

Evers Johann Philip Gustav(1781-1830) - the son of a Livonian farmer, studied in Germany. After graduating from the University of Göttingen, he returned to Estonia and began to study Russian history. In 1808, his first scientific work, Preliminary Critical Studies for Russian History, was published, written in German, like all his further works (a Russian translation was also published in 1825). The next book, Russian History (1816), was completed by him until the end of the 17th century. In 1810 he became a professor at Dorpat University, headed the department of geography, history and statistics, lectured on Russian history and the history of law. In 1818 Evers was appointed rector of the university.

Unlike Karamzin, he considers the origin of the Russian state as the result of the inner life of the Eastern Slavs, who even in the pre-Varangian period had independent political associations, supreme rulers (princes), who used hired Vikings to strengthen their rule. The need to unite the principalities to solve internal and external problems and the impossibility of realizing it due to strife between them in the struggle for supremacy led to the decision to transfer control to a foreigner. The summoned princes, according to Evers, have already come to the state, no matter what form it has.

This conclusion of his destroyed the idea, traditional for Russian historiography, that the history of Russia begins with the autocracy of Rurik. Evers also questioned the dominant historiography statement about the Scandinavian origin of the Varangians-Rus. The study of the ethnogenesis of the peoples inhabiting the territory of Russia led him to the conclusion about the Black Sea (Khazar) origin of the Rus. He subsequently abandoned his hypothesis. His theory of tribal life played a big role in the future and was developed by K. D. Kavelin and S. M. Solovyov.

Mikhail Trofimovich Kachenovsky(1775-1842) came from a Russified Greek family. He graduated from the Kharkov Collegium, was in the civil and military service. In 1790, he read Boltin's writings, which prompted him to critically analyze the sources of Russian history. In 1801, he received a position as a librarian, and then as head of the personal office of Count A. K. Razumovsky. Since then, Kachenovsky's career was secured, especially since in 1807 Razumovsky was appointed trustee of Moscow University. Kachenovsky received a master's degree in philosophy in 1811 and was appointed professor at Moscow University; taught Russian history and enjoyed success with his students: the spirit of the times was changing, young people welcomed the debunking of the old authorities.

Kachenovsky was inspired by the German historian Niebuhr, who rejected the most ancient period of Roman history as fabulous. Following in his footsteps, Kachenovsky declared the entire Kyiv period fabulous, and called the annals, "Russian Truth", "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" fakes. Kachenovsky offers his own method of source study analysis - according to two levels of criticism: external(paleographic, philological, diplomatic analysis of written sources in order to establish the date and authenticity) and internal(representation of the era, selection of facts).

By posing the question of the need for a critical examination of ancient Russian monuments, Kachenovsky forced not only contemporaries, but also subsequent generations of historians to think about them, "endure anxiety, doubt, rummage through foreign and domestic annals and archives." The principles of analysis of sources proposed by him were on the whole correct, but the conclusions regarding the most ancient Russian monuments and Russian history in the 9th-14th centuries. were untenable and rejected both by their contemporaries and subsequent generations of historians.

Nikolai Alekseevich Polevoy(1796-1846) entered the science of history as a historian who put forward and approved a number of new concepts and problems in it. He was the author of the 6-volume "History of the Russian people", the 4-volume "History of Peter the Great", "Russian history for initial reading", "Review of Russian history before the autocracy of Peter the Great", numerous articles and reviews. Polevoy was also widely known as a talented publicist, literary critic, editor and publisher of a number of magazines (including the Moscow Telegraph). Polevoy came from a poor but enlightened family of an Irkutsk merchant, he was a gifted man, his encyclopedic knowledge was the result of self-education.

After the death of his father, he moved to Moscow, took up journalism, and then history. Polevoi believed that the basis for the study of history was the “philosophical method”, that is, “scientific knowledge”: an objective reproduction of the beginning, course and causes of historical phenomena. In understanding the past, Polevoy's starting point was the idea of ​​the unity of the historical process. Polevoi considered the continuous, progressive movement of mankind to be the law of historical life, and the source of development was the “endless struggle” of opposing principles, where the end of one struggle is the beginning of a new one. Polevoy drew attention to three factors that determine the life of mankind: natural and geographical, the spirit of thought and the character of the people, events in the surrounding countries.

Their qualitative diversity determines the originality of the historical process of each people, the manifestation of common patterns, rates and forms of life. On this basis, he tried to build a scheme of world history and rethink the historical past of Russia. Polevoy's concept opened up opportunities for a broad comparative historical study of the historical process and comprehension of historical experience in the context of not only European, but also Eastern history. He did not succeed in everything. Most importantly, he could not write the history of the Russian people, he did not go beyond general phrases about the "spirit of the people", confining himself to some new assessments of certain events. Ultimately, the history of the people in Polevoy's concept remains the same history of the state, the history of autocracy.

Moreover, written by a person who lived at the beginning of the 19th century, it seems outdated and not worth our time and attention.

eksmo editor. Common crawl en Raisa Khanukaeva does not agree with this approach and decided to answer frequently asked questions about Karamzin's books.

Was the "History of the Russian State" the first of its kind?

Of course not. In the middle of the 18th century, Vasily Tatishchev’s “Russian History” was created (a caustic epigram - “Russian History from the most ancient times, with vigilant labors thirty years later collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan governor Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev”). Attempts to write something similar were also made by Prince Vasily Shcherbatov (“Russian History from Ancient Times”), Mikhail Lomonosov and many others.

Then why is Karamzin's work considered the main one?

Karamzin was called the "Columbus of Russian historiography", he was the first who spoke about this complex topic in an accessible language and, in fact, opened it to all readers. The key to success was a serious scientific approach and a literary text, and the consequence was the growth of national self-awareness in the country.

« The first eight volumes of Karamzin's "Russian History" have been published.<...>The appearance of this book (as it should have been) made a lot of noise and made a strong impression, 3000 copies sold out in one month (which Karamzin himself did not expect at all) - the only example in our land", - wrote Alexander Pushkin. Not everyone accepted Karamzin's work favorably. Future Decembrists, for example, accused the historian of excessive reverence for tsarist power. The same Pushkin issued a caustic epigram (“ In his “History” elegance, simplicity / They prove to us without any partiality / The need for autocracy / And the charms of the whip”), and the journalist Nikolai Polevoy took up the creation of the History of the Russian People, which, however, did not have a small share of the success that Karamzin got.

Is "History ..." really propaganda of the autocracy?

Yes and no. Karamzin, as a witness of the Great French Revolution, was really sure that only autocracy could become a guarantee of the country's peace and prosperity. Despite this, he writes lovingly about republican free Novgorod and does not skimp on criticizing some of the great princes, and in particular the "conqueror" of Novgorod, Ivan the Terrible.

During his lifetime, Karamzin was called the main ideologist of the conservatives, but it was he who, in the Note on Ancient and New Russia, pointed out the mistakes of the reign of Catherine II and Paul I, criticized the economic, educational and political systems. Yes, he sharply opposed the ministries, but he argued this with the increased bureaucracy and the incompetence of officials.

What was unusual in the "History of the Russian State"?

Before Karamzin, no one dared to speak negatively about the monarch. But the tsarist historiographer (quite the official position of the writer) considered the flight of Kurbsky and other boyars to be natural and directly called the tsar a traitor: “ An amazing spectacle, forever memorable for the most distant offspring, for all peoples and rulers of the earth; striking proof of how tyranny humiliates the soul, blinds the mind with specters of fear, deadens forces both in the sovereign and in the state! The Russians have not changed, but the tsar has betrayed them!»

The fact is that the Romanovs considered themselves direct descendants of the Rurikovichs and put a lot of effort into “legalizing” this relationship. Therefore, the attack on the first Russian dynasty could also be regarded as an attack on the modern autocracy Karamzin.

Karamzin - a professional historian?

Fortunately, no. The concept of "scientific pop" did not exist then, so scientists with their complex treatises remained little accessible even to encyclopedic readers. Karamzin is also called by many the first writer, "domestic Stern". The Letters of a Russian Traveler brought him fame, and the story Poor Lisa strengthened her.

Sentimentalism Karamzin had a great influence on the work of Zhukovsky and Pushkin. The writer laid the foundation for the reform of the Russian language, but at the peak of his fame, after the publication of the story “Martha the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novagod”, he left the literary salons and locked himself in his office, starting work on the “History of the Russian State”.

Is 12 volumes a finished work?

No. The author worked on his main work from 1804 until his death in 1826, but even this time was not enough for him to complete such a colossal work. In each volume of the "History ..." there were many editions, Karamzin took up the alteration after the appearance of new documents, sometimes it happened to rewrite already finished volumes. As a result, he brought his story only to the interregnum of 1611-1612, although he dreamed of ending with the beginning of the reign of the Romanov dynasty.

And the main question: is it worth reading "History ..." today?

Costs. If only because it is really one of the simplest and most understandable "textbooks" of history, even for a modern reader. Do not be afraid of the myths about the "History of the Russian State", most of them dissipate already with a superficial acquaintance. Moreover, while working, Nikolai Karamzin studied many now lost sources, so modern historians have to take his word for it.

Foreword

History is, in a certain sense, the sacred book of nations: the main, necessary; a mirror of their being and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the covenant of ancestors to posterity; addition, explanation of the present and an example of the future.

Rulers, Legislators act according to the instructions of History and look at its sheets, like navigators look at the blueprints of the seas. Human wisdom needs experiments, but life is short-lived. One must know how from time immemorial rebellious passions agitated civil society and in what ways the beneficent power of the mind curbed their violent striving in order to establish order, to agree on the benefits of people and to bestow on them the happiness possible on earth.

But even a simple citizen should read History. She reconciles him with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with an ordinary phenomenon in all ages; consoles in state disasters, testifying that there have been similar ones before, there have been even more terrible ones, and the State has not been destroyed; it nourishes a moral sense and with its righteous judgment disposes the soul to justice, which affirms our good and the consent of society.

Here is the benefit: what pleasures for the heart and mind! Curiosity is akin to man, both enlightened and wild. At the glorious Olympic Games, the noise was silent, and the crowds were silent around Herodotus, who was reading the traditions of the ages. Even without knowing the use of letters, the peoples already love History: the elder points the young man to a high grave and tells about the deeds of the Hero lying in it. The first experiments of our ancestors in the art of writing were devoted to the Faith and the Scriptures; darkened by the thick shadow of ignorance, the people eagerly listened to the tales of the Chroniclers. And I like fiction; but for complete pleasure one must deceive oneself and think that they are the truth. History, opening the tombs, raising the dead, putting life into their hearts and words into their mouths, rebuilding the Kingdoms from decay, and presenting to the imagination a series of centuries with their distinct passions, morals, deeds, expands the limits of our own being; By its creative power we live with people of all times, we see and hear them, we love and hate them; not yet thinking about the benefit, we already enjoy the contemplation of diverse cases and characters that occupy the mind or nourish the sensitivity.

If any History, even unskillfully written, is pleasant, as Pliny says: all the more domestic. The true Cosmopolitan is a metaphysical being or a phenomenon so extraordinary that there is no need to talk about him, neither praise nor condemn him. We are all citizens, in Europe and in India, in Mexico and in Abyssinia; the personality of each is closely connected with the fatherland: we love it, because we love ourselves. Let the Greeks and Romans captivate the imagination: they belong to the family of the human race and are not strangers to us in their virtues and weaknesses, glory and disasters; but the name Russian has a special charm for us: my heart beats even stronger for Pozharsky than for Themistocles or Scipio. World History adorns the world with great memories for the mind, and Russian adorns the fatherland, where we live and feel. How attractive are the banks of the Volkhov, Dnieper, Don, when we know what happened on them in ancient times! Not only Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir, but also the huts of Yelets, Kozelsk, Galich become curious monuments and mute objects - eloquent. The shadows of past centuries paint pictures everywhere before us.

In addition to a special dignity for us, the sons of Russia, her chronicles have something in common. Let's take a look at the space of this only Power: the thought becomes numb; Never in its grandeur could Rome equal it, dominating from the Tiber to the Caucasus, the Elbe and the sands of Africa. Isn't it amazing how lands separated by eternal barriers of nature, immeasurable deserts and impenetrable forests, cold and hot climates, like Astrakhan and Lapland, Siberia and Bessarabia, could form one State with Moscow? Is the mixture of its inhabitants, of different tribes, varieties, and so remote from each other in degrees of education, less wonderful? Like America, Russia has its Wilds; like other European countries, it is the fruits of a long-term civil life. You don’t have to be Russian: you just need to think in order to read with curiosity the traditions of a people who, with courage and courage, gained dominance over a ninth part of the world, discovered countries hitherto unknown to anyone, introducing them into the general system of Geography, History, and enlightened them with the Divine Faith, without violence , without the atrocities used by other zealots of Christianity in Europe and America, but the only example of the best.

We agree that the deeds described by Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, for any non-Russian in general, are more entertaining, representing more spiritual strength and a livelier play of passions: for Greece and Rome were popular Powers and more enlightened than Russia; however, we can safely say that some cases, pictures, characters of our history are no less curious than ancient ones. Such are the essence of the exploits of Svyatoslav, the thunderstorm of Batyev, the uprising of the Russians at the Donskoy, the fall of Novgorod, the capture of Kazan, the triumph of popular virtues during the Interregnum. Giants of dusk, Oleg and son Igorev; the simple-hearted knight, the blind man Vasilko; friend of the fatherland, philanthropic Monomakh; Mstislav Brave, terrible in battle and an example of gentleness in the world; Mikhail of Tver, so famous for his generous death, the ill-fated, truly courageous, Alexander Nevsky; The hero is a young man, the winner of Mamaev, in the lightest outline, they strongly affect the imagination and heart. One state is a rare wealth for history: at least I do not know a Monarch worthy to live and shine in her sanctuary. The rays of his glory fall on the cradle of Peter - and between these two Autocrats is the amazing John IV, Godunov, worthy of his happiness and misfortune, the strange False Dmitry, and behind the host of valiant Patriots, Boyars and citizens, the mentor of the throne, the High Hierarch Philaret with the Sovereign son, the light-bearer in the darkness our state disasters, and Tsar Alexy, the wise father of the Emperor, whom Europe called the Great. Either the entire New History should remain silent, or the Russian should have the right to attention.

I know that the battles of our specific civil strife, thundering incessantly in the space of five centuries, are of little importance for the mind; that this subject is neither rich in thought for the Pragmatist, nor in beauty for the painter; but History is not a novel, and the world is not a garden where everything should be pleasant: it depicts the real world. We see majestic mountains and waterfalls on earth, flowering meadows and valleys; but how many barren sands and dull steppes! However, traveling in general is kind to a person with a lively feeling and imagination; in the very deserts there are charming views.

Let us not be superstitious in our lofty conception of the Ancient Scriptures. If we exclude fictitious speeches from the immortal creation of Thucydides, what remains? A naked story about the internecine strife of the Greek cities: the crowds are villainous, slaughtered for the honor of Athens or Sparta, as we have for the honor of Monomakhov or Oleg's house. There is not much difference, if we forget that these half-tigers spoke the language of Homer, had Sophocles' Tragedies and statues of Phidias. Does the thoughtful painter Tacitus always present us with the great, the striking? With tenderness we look at Agrippina, carrying the ashes of Germanicus; with pity for the bones and armor of the Varov Legion scattered in the forest; with horror at the bloody feast of the frantic Romans, illuminated by the flames of the Capitol; with disgust at the monster of tyranny, devouring the remnants of the Republican virtues in the capital of the world: but the boring litigation of cities for the right to have a priest in this or that temple and the dry Obituary of Roman officials occupy many pages in Tacitus. He envied Titus Livius for the richness of the subject; and Livy, smooth, eloquent, sometimes fills entire books with news of clashes and robberies, which are hardly more important than the Polovtsian raids. In a word, reading all the Stories requires some patience, more or less rewarded with pleasure.

The historian of Russia could, of course, having said a few words about the origin of its main people, about the composition of the State, present the important, most memorable features of antiquity in a skillful picture and start detailed a narrative from the time of John, or from the fifteenth century, when one of the greatest state works in the world took place: he would easily write 200 or 300 eloquent, pleasant pages, instead of many books, difficult for the Author, tedious for the Reader. But these reviews, these paintings do not replace the annals, and whoever read only Robertson's Introduction to the History of Charles V does not yet have a solid, true understanding of Europe in the Middle Ages. It is not enough that an intelligent person, looking over the monuments of centuries, will tell us his remarks: we ourselves must see the actions and those who act - then we know History. Will the boastfulness of the Author's eloquence and the bliss of the Readers condemn the deeds and fate of our ancestors to eternal oblivion? They suffered, and with their misfortunes they made our greatness, and we do not want to hear about it, nor know whom they loved, whom they blamed for their misfortunes? Foreigners may miss what is boring to them in our ancient History; but are not good Russians obliged to have more patience, following the rule of state morality, which puts respect for ancestors in the dignity of an educated citizen? .. So I thought, and wrote about Igor, about Vsevolodakh, How contemporary looking at them in the dim mirror of the ancient Chronicle with tireless attention, with sincere reverence; and if, instead of alive, whole images represented only shadows, in excerpts, then it is not my fault: I could not supplement the Chronicles!

There is three kind of history: first modern, for example, Thukidides, where an obvious witness speaks of incidents; second, like Tacitov, is based on fresh verbal traditions at a time close to the described actions; third extracted only from monuments, like ours until the 18th century. (Only with Peter the Great do verbal traditions begin for us: we heard from our fathers and grandfathers about him, about Catherine I, Peter II, Anna, Elizabeth a lot that is not in the books. (Hereinafter, notes by N. M. Karamzin are marked. )) AT first and second the mind shines, the imagination of the Writer, who chooses the most curious, blooms, decorates, sometimes creates without fear of reproof; will say: i saw it that way, so heard- and silent Criticism does not prevent the Reader from enjoying the beautiful descriptions. Third the genus is the most limited for talent: not a single trait can be added to the known; one cannot question the dead; we say that our contemporaries have betrayed us; we are silent if they kept silent - or fair Criticism will block the mouth of the frivolous Historian, who is obliged to present only what has been preserved from centuries in the Chronicles, in the Archives. The ancients had the right to invent speeches in accordance with the character of people, with circumstances: a right that is invaluable for true talents, and Livy, using it, enriched his books with the power of the mind, eloquence, and wise instructions. But we, contrary to the opinion of Abbot Mabley, cannot now ordain in History. New advances in reason have given us the clearest conception of its property and purpose; common sense established unaltered rules and forever excommunicated the Epistle from the Poem, from the flower gardens of eloquence, leaving the former to be a true mirror of the past, a true recall of the words really spoken by the Heroes of the ages. The most beautiful invented speech will disgrace the History, dedicated not to the glory of the Writer, not to the pleasure of the Readers, and not even to the wisdom of moralizing, but only to the truth, which already becomes a source of pleasure and benefit by itself. Both Natural and Civil History do not tolerate fiction, depicting what is or was, and not what to be. could. But History, they say, is filled with lies: let us say better that in it, as in human affairs, there is an admixture of lies, but the character of truth is always more or less preserved; and this is sufficient for us to form a general idea of ​​people and deeds. The more exacting and stricter is Criticism; it is all the more impermissible for the Historian, for the benefit of his talent, to deceive conscientious Readers, to think and speak for the Heroes, who have long been silent in the graves. What is left for him, chained, so to speak, to the dry charters of antiquity? order, clarity, strength, painting. He creates from the given substance: he will not produce gold from copper, but he must also purify copper; must know the whole price and property; to reveal the great where it is hidden, and not to give the small the rights of the great. There is no object so poor that Art can no longer mark itself in it in a way pleasing to the mind.

Until now, the Ancients serve as models for us. No one has surpassed Livy in the beauty of the story, Tacitus in strength: that's the main thing! Knowledge of all the rights in the world, German learning, Voltaire's wit, not even Machiavele's deepest thought in the Historian can replace the talent to portray actions. The English are famous for Hume, the Germans for John Müller, and rightly so his Introduction, which can be called a Geological Poem): both are worthy co-workers of the Ancients, not imitators: for every century, every nation gives special colors to the skilful Writer of Genesis. “Do not imitate Tacitus, but write as he would write in your place!” There is a rule of Genius. Did Muller, often inserting moral apothegmas like Tacitus? Don't know; but this desire to shine with the mind, or seem profound, is almost contrary to true taste. The historian argues only in the explanation of cases, where his thoughts, as it were, complement the description. Let us note that these apothegms are for solid minds either half-truths, or very ordinary truths, which have no great value in History, where we are looking for actions and characters. There is skillful storytelling duty bytographer, but a good separate thought - gift: the reader demands the first and thanks for the second, when his demand has already been fulfilled. Didn't the prudent Hume also think so, sometimes very prolific in explaining the reasons, but to the point of avarice in thinking? The historian, whom we would call the most perfect of the New, were it not for shunned England, did not boast too much of impartiality and thus did not cool his elegant creation! In Thucydides we always see an Athenian Greek, in Libya we always see a Roman, and we are captivated by them, and we believe them. Feeling: we, our enlivens the narration - and just as a gross predilection, a consequence of a weak mind or a weak soul, is unbearable in the Historian, so love for the fatherland will give his brush heat, strength, charm. Where there is no love, there is no soul.

I turn to my work. Allowing myself no invention, I sought expressions in my mind, and thoughts only in monuments: I sought spirit and life in smoldering charters; I wanted to unite what has been given to us for centuries into a system, clear by the harmonious convergence of parts; depicted not only the disasters and glory of war, but everything that is part of the civil existence of people: the successes of reason, art, customs, laws, industry; was not afraid to speak with dignity about what was respected by the ancestors; wanted, without betraying his age, without pride and ridicule, to describe the ages of spiritual infancy, gullibility, fables; I wanted to present both the character of the time and the character of the Chroniclers: for one seemed to me necessary for the other. The less news I found, the more I valued and used what I found; the less he chose: for it is not the poor, but the rich who elect. It was necessary either to say nothing, or to say everything about such and such a Prince, so that he would live in our memory not with one dry name, but with a certain moral physiognomy. Diligently exhausting materials of ancient Russian History, I encouraged myself with the thought that in the narrative of distant times there is some inexplicable charm for our imagination: there are sources of Poetry! Our gaze, in contemplation of the great space, does not usually strive - past everything close, clear - to the end of the horizon, where shadows thicken, fade and impenetrability begins?

The reader will notice that I am describing the acts not apart, by years and days, but copulating them for the most comfortable impression in memory. The historian is not a chronicler: the latter looks only at time, and the former at the quality and connection of deeds: he can make a mistake in the distribution of places, but he must indicate his place to everything.

The multitude of notes and extracts I have made terrifies me myself. Happy the Ancients: they did not know this petty labor, in which half the time is lost, the mind is bored, the imagination withers: a painful sacrifice made credibility but necessary! If all the materials in our country were collected, published, purified by Criticism, then I would only have to refer; but when most of them are in manuscript, in the dark; when hardly anything has been processed, explained, agreed upon, one must arm oneself with patience. It is up to the Reader to look into this motley mixture, which sometimes serves as evidence, sometimes as an explanation or addition. For hunters, everything is curious: an old name, a word; the slightest feature of antiquity gives rise to considerations. Since the 15th century, I have been writing less: the sources are multiplying and becoming clearer.

A learned and glorious man, Schlozer, said that our history has five main periods; that Russia from 862 to Svyatopolk should be called nascent(Nascens), from Yaroslav to the Mughals divided(Divisa), from Batu to John oppressed(Oppressa), from John to Peter the Great victorious(Victrix), from Peter to Catherine II prosperous. This idea seems to me more witty than solid. 1) The age of St. Vladimir was already the age of power and glory, and not of birth. 2) State shared before 1015. 3) If, according to the internal state and external actions of Russia, it is necessary to designate periods, then is it possible to mix at one time the Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich and the Donskoy, silent slavery with victory and glory? 4) The Age of Pretenders is marked more by misfortune than by victory. Much better, truer, more modest, our history is divided into ancient from Rurik to, on middle from John to Peter, and new from Peter to Alexander. The Destiny system was a character first era, unanimity - second, change in civil customs - third. However, there is no need to set limits where the places serve as a living tract.

Having willingly and zealously devoted twelve years, and the best time of my life, to the composition of these eight or nine volumes, I can weakly desire praise and fear condemnation; but I dare say that this is not the main thing for me. Love of glory alone could not give me the constant, long-term firmness necessary in such a matter, if I did not find true pleasure in the work itself and had no hope of being useful, that is, of making Russian History known to many, even to my strict judges. .

Thanks to everyone, both the living and the dead, whose intelligence, knowledge, talents, art served as a guide to me, I entrust myself to the indulgence of good fellow citizens. We love one thing, we desire one thing: we love the fatherland; we wish him prosperity even more than glory; we wish that the firm foundation of our greatness never change; Yes, the rules of the wise Autocracy and the Holy Faith more and more strengthen the union of the parts; may Russia bloom... at least for a long, long time, if there is nothing immortal on earth except the human soul!

December 7, 1815.

On the sources of Russian history before the 17th century

These sources are:

I. Chronicles. Nestor, monk of the Monastery of Kiev Pechersk, nicknamed father Russian History, lived in the XI century: gifted with a curious mind, he listened with attention to the oral traditions of antiquity, folk historical tales; I saw the monuments, the graves of the Princes; talked with the nobles, the elders of Kyiv, travelers, residents of other regions of Russia; read the Byzantine Chronicles, church notes and became first chronicler of our fatherland. Second, named Vasily, also lived at the end of the 11th century: used by Vladimir Prince David in negotiations with the unfortunate Vasilko, he described to us the generosity of the latter and other modern deeds of southwestern Russia. All other chroniclers remained for us nameless; one can only guess where and when they lived: for example, one in Novgorod, Priest, consecrated by Bishop Nifont in 1144; another in Vladimir on the Klyazma under Vsevolod the Great; the third in Kyiv, a contemporary of Rurik II; the fourth in Volhynia around 1290; the fifth at the same time in Pskov. Unfortunately, they did not say everything that is curious for posterity; but, fortunately, they did not invent, and the most reliable of the Chroniclers of foreign countries agree with them. This almost uninterrupted chain of Chronicles goes up to the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. Some of them have not yet been published or have been printed very incorrectly. I was looking for the oldest lists: the best of Nestor and his successors are charate, Pushkin and Troitsky, XIV and XV centuries. Notes are also worthy. Ipatiev, Khlebnikov, Koenigsberg, Rostov, Voskresensky, Lvov, Arkhivsky. In each of them there is something special and truly historical, introduced, as one might think, by contemporaries or from their notes. Nikonovsky most of all distorted by insertions of senseless scribes, but in the XIV century he reports probable additional news about the Tver Principality, then it already resembles others, yielding to them, however, in good condition, - for example, Arkhivsky.

II. power book, composed in the reign of Ivan the Terrible according to the thought and instruction of Metropolitan Macarius. It is a selection from the annals with some additions, more or less reliable, and is called by this name for what is indicated in it. degrees, or generations of sovereigns.

III. So called Chronographs, or General History according to the Byzantine Chronicles, with the introduction of our own, very brief. They have been curious since the 17th century: there are already many detailed contemporary news that is not in the annals.

IV. Lives of the Saints, in patericon, in prologues, in menaias, in special manuscripts. Many of these Biographies have been written in modern times; some, however, for example, St. Vladimir, Boris and Gleb, Theodosius, are in the charate Prologues; and the Patericon was composed in the thirteenth century.

v. Special writings: for example, the legend of Dovmont of Pskov, Alexander Nevsky; contemporary notes by Kurbsky and Palitsyn; news about the Pskov siege in 1581, about Metropolitan Philip, and so on.

VI. Discharges, or the distribution of governors and regiments: start from the time. These handwritten books are not rare.

VII. Pedigree book: there is printed; the most correct and complete, written in 1660, is stored in the Synodal Library.

VIII. Written Catalogs of metropolitans and bishops. - These two sources are not very reliable; they need to be compared with the annals.

IX. Epistles of the Saints to princes, clergy and laity; the most important of these is the Epistle to Shemyaka; but in others there is much to remember.

X. The Ancients coins, medals, inscriptions, fairy tales, songs, proverbs: the source is scarce, but not completely useless.

XI. Certificates. The oldest authentic writing was written around 1125. Archival New Year's letters and soul records princes begin from the XIII century; this source is already rich, but there is still much richer.

XII. collection of so-called Article lists, or Embassy Affairs, and letters in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium from the 15th century, when both incidents and methods for describing them give the Reader the right to demand even greater satisfaction from the Historian. - They are added to this property of ours.

XIII. Foreign contemporary chronicles: Byzantine, Scandinavian, German, Hungarian, Polish, along with the news of travelers.

XIV. Government Papers of Foreign Archives: most of all I used extracts from Koenigsberg.

Here are the materials of History and the subject of Historical Criticism!

| Introduction | 3 |
| Chapter 1. "History of the Russian State" as a phenomenon of culture | p. 5 |
| Chapter 2. "Letters of the Russian traveler" Karamzin in development | |
| Russian culture | |
| Chapter 3. "History - art" as a method Karamzin N. M | |
| Conclusion | 26 |
| List of sources used | 27 |

Introduction

Books and magazines of that time bear traces of someone else's will.
The tsarist officials mercilessly disfigured the best works of Russian literature. it took the painstaking work of Soviet literary historians to clear the texts of classical works from distortions. Russian classical literature and social thought of the 19th century is a colossal wealth, an ideological, artistic, moral wealth inherited by our time. But you can use it in different ways. against the backdrop of the tragic judges of his contemporaries, Karamzin's fate seems happy.

He entered literature early and quickly gained fame as the country's first pen. He successfully traveled and communicated with the first minds and talents of Western Europe.

His almanacs and magazines were loved by readers. he is the author of the history of the Russian state, a diligent reader of poets and politicians, a witness of the great French revolution, an eyewitness to the rise and fall of Napoleon, he called himself a "republican in his soul." pre-Pushkin era. Karamzin's name was first mentioned in German, French and English literature.

Karamzin's life was unusually rich not so much in external events, although there was no shortage of them, but in internal content, which more than once led the writer to the fact that he was surrounded by twilight.

The role of Karamzin in the history of Russian culture is not measured only by his literary and scientific work. Karamzin created the stereotype of a Russian traveler in Europe. Karamzin created many works, among them the remarkable Letters of a Russian Traveler and the great History of the Russian State. But the greatest creation of Karamzin was himself, his life, and his spiritualized personality. It was with it that he had a great moral impact on Russian literature. Karamzin introduced the highest ethical requirements into literature as ordinary. And when Zhukovsky
Pushkin, and after them all the great writers of the 19th century, continued the construction of Russian literature, they started from the level set by Karamzin as a matter of course, the basis of writing. Work on the "History of the Russian State" can be divided into three distinct periods: the time of publication of the "Moscow Journal", creativity 1793 - 1800 and the period
"Bulletin of Europe".
Pushkin called Karamzin Columbus, who opened the Ancient
Rus', just as the famous traveler discovered to Europeans
America. Using this comparison, the poet himself did not imagine to what extent it was correct, Columbus was not the first European to reach the shores of
America, and that his very journey was made possible only by the experience accumulated by his predecessors. Calling Karamzin the first Russian historian, one cannot but recall the names of V.N. Tatishchev, I.N. Boltin, M.M.
Shcherbatov, not to mention a number of publishers of documents that, despite the imperfection of their methods of publication, attracted attention and aroused interest in the past of Russia.

Karamzin had predecessors, but only his History of the State
Russian ”became not just another historical work, but the first history
Russia. Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" not only informed readers of the fruits of many years of research by the historian - it turned the consciousness of the Russian reading society upside down.

The “History of the Russian State” was not the only factor that made the consciousness of the people of the 19th century historical: the war of 1812, Pushkin’s work, and the general movement of philosophical thought played a decisive role here.
Russia and Europe of those years. But Karamzin's "History" stands among these events.
Therefore, its significance cannot be assessed from any one-sided point of view.

Is the "History" of Karamzin a scientific work, conscious of a complete picture of the past of Russia from its first centuries to the eve of the reign of Peter I?
“There can be no doubt about that. For a number of generations of Russian readers, Karamzin's work was the main source of acquaintance with the past of their homeland. The great Russian historian S. M. Solovyov recalled: “The story of Karamzin also fell into my hands: up to 13 years, i.e. before my admission to the gymnasium, I read it at least 12 times.

Is Karamzin's "History" the fruit of independent historical research and in-depth study of sources? – And there is no doubt about it: the notes, in which Karamzin concentrated the documentary material, served as the starting point for a significant number of subsequent historical studies, and until now Russian historians constantly refer to them, never ceasing to be amazed at the enormity of the author’s work.

Is Karamzin's "History" a remarkable literary work? – Her artistic merits are also obvious. Karamzin himself once called his work a "historical poem"; and in the history of Russian prose of the first quarter of the 19th century, Karamzin's work occupies one of the most prominent places. Decembrist A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, reviewing the last lifetime volumes of the History (10-11) as a phenomenon of “elegant prose”, wrote: “We can safely say that in literary terms we found a treasure in them. There we see the freshness and strength of the style, the temptation of the story and the variety in the structure and sonority of the turns of the language, so obedient at the hand of a true talent.

But the most important thing is that it does not belong to any of them inseparably: "The History of the Russian State" is a phenomenon of Russian culture in its entirety and should be considered only in this way. On November 31, 1803, by a special Decree of Alexander I, Karamzin received the title of historiographer. From that moment on, in the words of P. A. Vyazemsky, he “took his hair as a historian” and did not give up the historian’s pen until his last breath. In 1802-
In 1803, Karamzin published a number of articles on Russian history in the journal Vestnik Evropy.

On June 11, 1798, Karamzin sketched out a plan for the "Eulogy to Peter I".
Already from this entry it is clear that it was about the intention of an extensive historical study, and not a rhetorical exercise. The next day, he added the following thought, clearly showing what he expected to devote himself to in the future: “Is Providence spare me; or something will not happen that is more terrible for me than death ... ".

In the second half of 1810, Karamzin sketched "Thoughts for History
Patriotic War". Claiming that the geographical position of Russia and
France makes it almost unbelievable that they “could directly strike one against the other, Karamzin pointed out that only a complete change in“ the entire political state of Europe ”could make this war possible. And he directly called this change: "Revolution", adding to this historical reason a human one: "Napoleon's character".

It is generally accepted that Karamzin's work is divided into two eras: before 1803 and before 1803.
Karamzin is a writer; later a historian. On the one hand, Karamzin did not cease to be a writer even after he was awarded a historiographer (A. Bestuzhev, P.
Vyazemsky assessed Karamzin's "History" as an outstanding phenomenon of Russian prose, and this, of course, is fair: Karamzin's "History" belongs to art in the same way as, for example, Herzen's "Past and Thoughts", but on the other
- "he got into Russian history up to his ears" long before official recognition.

There are other, more weighty grounds for opposing the two periods of creativity. The main work of the first half of creativity -
"Letters from a Russian Traveler"; the second - "History of the state
Russian". Pushkin wrote: "A fool alone does not change, because time does not bring him development, and experiments do not exist for him." For example, to prove that Karamzin's evolution can be defined as a transition from "Russian cosmopolitanism" to "pronounced national narrow-mindedness", an excerpt from "Letters of a Russian Traveler" is usually cited: "... Peter moved us with his powerful hand ...".

In "Letters from a Russian Traveler" Karamzin showed himself as a patriot who remained abroad as a "Russian traveller". However,
Karamzin never abandoned the idea of ​​the beneficence of the influence of Western enlightenment on the cultural life of Russia. In the history of Russian culture, the opposition of Russia to the West has developed, S. F. Platonov pointed out: “In his works, Karamzin completely abolished the age-old opposition of Rus' and Europe, as different and irreconcilable worlds; he thought of Russia as one of the European countries, and the Russian people, as one of equal quality with other nations. “Based on the idea of ​​the unity of human culture, Karamzin did not exclude his people from cultural life. He recognized his right to moral equality in the fraternal family of enlightened peoples.

"History of the Russian State" puts the reader in front of a number of paradoxes. First of all, I must say about the title of this work. Its title is "History of the State". On the basis of this, Karamzin began to be defined as a "statist".

Karamzin's trip abroad coincided with the beginning of the French Revolution. This event had a huge impact on all his further reflections. The young Russian traveler was at first carried away by liberal dreams under the influence of the first weeks of the revolution, but later he was frightened by the Jacobin terror and went over to the camp of its opponents - very far from reality. It should be noted that Karamzin, who is often, but completely unreasonably, identified with his literary counterpart - the narrator from the "Letters of a Russian Traveler", was not a superficial observer of events: he was a constant bearer of the National Assembly, listened to the speeches of Mirabeau, Abbé Maury, Robespierre and others.

It can be said with certainty that none of the prominent figures of Russian culture had such detailed and directly personal impressions of
French Revolution like Karamzin. He knew her by sight. Here he met with history.

It is no coincidence that Pushkin called Karamzin's ideas paradoxes: the exact opposite happened to him. The beginning of the revolution was perceived by Karamzin as the fulfillment of the promises of the philosophical century. “We considered the end of our century the end of the main disasters of mankind and thought that it would be followed by an important, general connection of theory with practice, speculation with activity,” Karamzin wrote in the mid-1790s. Utopia for him is not the realm of certain political or social relationships, and the realm of virtue; a radiant future depends on the high morality of the people, and not on politics. Virtue generates freedom and equality, and not freedom and equality - virtue. The politician Karamzin treated any forms with distrust. Karamzin, who appreciated the sincerity and moral qualities of political figures, singled out from among the speakers of the Assembly the short-sighted and devoid of artistry, but already acquired the nickname "incorruptible" Robespierre, whose very shortcomings in oratory seemed to him virtues.
Karamzin chose Robespierre. The tears that Karamzin shed on the coffin
Robespierre, were the last tribute to the dream of Utopia, the Platonic Republic, the State of Virtue. Now Karamzin is attracted by a realist politician.
The stamp of rejection has been removed from the policy. Karamzin begins to publish "Bulletin
Europe” is the first political magazine in Russia.

On the pages of Vestnik Evropy, skillfully using foreign sources, selecting translations in such a way that they express their thoughts in their language,
Karamzin develops a consistent political doctrine. People are egoists by nature: “Egoism is the true enemy of society”, “unfortunately everywhere and everything is selfishness in man”. Selfishness turns the lofty ideal of the republic into an unattainable dream: "Without lofty popular virtue, the Republic cannot stand." Bonaparte seems to Karamzin to be that strong ruler - a realist who builds a management system not on "dreamy" theories, but on the real level of people's morality. He is outside the party. It is curious to note that, following his political concept, Karamzin highly appreciates Boris Godunov during this period. “Boris Godunov was one of those people who create their own brilliant destiny and prove the miraculous power
Nature. His family did not have any celebrity.

The idea of ​​"History" has matured in the bowels of the "Bulletin of Europe". This is evidenced by the ever-increasing number of materials on Russian history on the pages of this journal. Karamzin's views on Napoleon changed.
Passion began to give way to disappointment. After the transformation of the first consul into the emperor of the French, Karamzin bitterly wrote to his brother: “Napoleon
Bonaparte exchanged the title of a great man for the title of emperor: the authorities showed him better glory. The intention of the "History" was to show how
Russia, having passed through centuries of fragmentation and disasters, ascended to glory and power with unity and strength. It was during this period that the name
"History of the State". In the future, the idea underwent changes. But the title could no longer be changed. However, the development of statehood was never for Karamzin the goal of human society. It was only a means. Karamzin's idea of ​​the essence of progress changed, but the belief in progress, which gave meaning to human history, remained unchanged. In its most general form, progress for Karamzin consisted in the development of humanity, civilization, enlightenment and tolerance. Literature is called upon to play the main role in the humanization of society. In the 1790s, after breaking with the Freemasons, Karamzin believed that it was belles-lettres, poetry, and novels that would be these great civilizers. Civilization - getting rid of the rudeness of feelings and thoughts. It is inseparable from subtle shades of experiences. Therefore, the Archimedean point of support in the moral improvement of society is language. Not dry moral sermons, but the flexibility, subtlety and richness of language improve the moral physiognomy of society. It was these thoughts that Karamzin had in mind, the poet K. N. Batyushkov. But in
1803, at the very time when desperate disputes boiled over Karamzin's language reform, he himself was already thinking more broadly. The reform of the language was intended to make the Russian reader "communal", civilized and humane.
Now Karamzin faced another task - to make him a citizen. And for this, Karamzin believed, it is necessary that he had the history of his country. We need to make him a man of history. That is why, Karamzin "cut his hair in historians." The state has no history until the historian told the state about its history. Giving readers the history of Russia, Karamzin gave Russia a history. The turbulent events of the past Karamzin had a chance to describe in the midst of the turbulent events of the present, on the eve of 1812 Karamzin is working on Volume VI
"History", completing the end of the XV century.

The subsequent years in burned-out Moscow were difficult and sad, but work on the History continues. By 1815, Karamzin finished 8 volumes, wrote the "Introduction" and decided to go to St. Petersburg to obtain permission and funds to print what was written. At the beginning of 1818, 3000 copies of the first 8 volumes were published. The appearance of the "History of the Russian State" became a social event. "History" has long been the main subject of controversy. In Decembrist circles, she was met critically. Appearance
"History" influenced the course of their thought. Now not a single thinking person in Russia could think outside the general perspectives of Russian history. AND
Karamzin went further. He worked on IX, X and XI volumes of "History" - the time of the oprichnina, Boris Godunov and the Time of Troubles. In these volumes, Karamzin reached an unsurpassed height as a prose writer: this is evidenced by the power of delineation of characters, the energy of narration. During the reign of Ivan III and Vasily
Ivanovich not only strengthened statehood, but also achieved success in original Russian culture. At the end of volume VII, in a review of the culture of the 15th-16th centuries, Karamzin noted with satisfaction the emergence of secular literature - for him, an important sign of the success of education: “... we see that our ancestors were engaged not only in historical or theological writings, but also in novels; loved works of wit and imagination.

In the "History" the ratio changes and the criminal conscience renders useless all the efforts of the statesman's mind. The immoral cannot be useful to the state. The pages dedicated to the reign of Boris Godunov and the Time of Troubles belong to the heights of historical painting
Karamzin, and it is no coincidence that it was he who inspired Pushkin to create "Boris
Godunov.

Death, which interrupted the work on the "historical poem", decided all the issues. If we talk about the significance of the "History of the Russian State" in the culture of the early 19th century and what attracts the modern reader in this monument, then it would be appropriate to consider the scientific and artistic aspects of the issue. The merits of Karamzin in discovering new sources, creating a broad picture of Russian history, combining scholarly commentary with the literary merits of narration are beyond doubt. But the "History of the Russian State" should also be considered among works of fiction. As a literary phenomenon, it belongs to the first quarter of the 19th century. It was the time of the triumph of poetry.
The victory of the Karamzin school led to the fact that the concepts of "literature" and "poetry" were identified.

Pushkin's drama was inspired by Shakespeare, the chronicles of the History of the Russian State. But Karamzin is not Karamzit. Critics of "History" in vain reproached Karamzin for not seeing a deep idea in the movement of events. Karamzin was imbued with the idea that history makes sense.

N. M. Karamzin (Tradition of the Ages) M., 1988

I. "Ancient Russia discovered by Karamzin".

N. Karamzin entered the history of Russian literature as a major writer - sentimentalist, who actively worked in the last decade of the 18th century. In recent years, the situation has begun to change - 2 two-volume essays have been published
Karamzin, Letters of a Russian Traveler were published twice. But Karamzin's main book, on which he worked for more than two decades, which had a huge impact on Russian literature of the 19th century, is practically still unknown to the modern reader, The History of the Russian State.
History has fascinated him since his youth. That is why many pages of the Letters of a Russian Traveler are dedicated to her. History has been an art for many centuries, not a science. For Pushkin, Belinsky Karamzin's "History" is a major achievement of Russian literature of the early 19th century, not only a historical, but also an outstanding literary work. The originality of the "History of the Russian State"
Karamzin and was determined by the time of its writing, the time of development of new historical thinking, the understanding of the national identity of Russian history throughout its entire course, the nature of the events themselves and the trials that have befallen the Russian nation for many centuries. Work on
"History" lasted more than two decades - from 1804 to 1826. By 1820
"History of the Russian State" was published in French, German, Italian. In 1818, the Russian reader received the first eight volumes of History, which told about the ancient period of Russia. And by that time V. Scott managed to publish six novels - they told about the past
Scotland. Both writers in Russia were rightly called Columbus.
“Ancient Russia,” wrote Pushkin, “seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America
Columbus." In the spirit of the time, each of them acted both as an artist and as a historian. Karamzin, in the preface to the first volume of the History, summarizing his already established principles for depicting Russian history, stated:
History is not a novel. He contrasted "fiction" with "truth." This position was also developed under the influence of the real Russian literary process and the creative evolution of the writer himself.

In the 1800s, literature was flooded with original and translated works - in poetry, prose and drama - on a historical theme.
It is history that can reveal the "truth" and "mystery" of the life of society and man, Karamzin also came in his development. This new understanding of history was manifested in the 1795 article "The Discourse of the Philosopher, Historian and Citizen". That's why
Karamzin, embarking on the "History", refuses "fiction", from those specific and traditional means by which epics, tragedies or novels were created. To know the "truth" of history meant not only to renounce one's own agnosticism, calling on the objectivity of the real world, but also to abandon the way of depicting this world, traditional for the art of that time. AT
Russia, this merger will be brilliantly carried out by Pushkin in the tragedy "Boris
Godunov", but from the standpoint of realism, Karamzin's "History" preceded Pushkin's success, and to a large extent prepared it. Refusal
Karamzin from “fiction” did not mean a denial of the possibilities of artistic study of history in general. "History of the Russian State" and captured the search for and development of these new, so to speak, equivalent to the historical truth of the principles of its depiction. The most important feature of this emerging structure in the process of writing was the combination of analytical (scientific) and artistic principles. Consideration of the elements of such a structure clearly shows how both the searches themselves and the writer's discoveries turned out to be nationally conditioned.

In the "History of the Russian State" there are not only love, but, in general, fictional plots. The author does not introduce the plot into his work, but extracts it from history, from real historical events and situations - the characters act in the circumstances set by history. Only a genuine, and not fictional, plot brings the writer closer to the "truth" hidden by the "veil of time."

Given the same history, the plot tells a person in his broad connections with the general life of the country, state, nation. This is how the characters of famous historical figures are built. The life of Ivan the Terrible opened up an abyss of opportunities for building a love story - the tsar had seven wives and countless of those who were victims of his "shameless voluptuousness." But
Karamzin proceeded from the social conditions that determined both the character of the tsar, and his actions, and the "epoch of torment" that shook all of Russia.
The historical situation, which created the possibility of the seizure of power by B. Godunov, had a decisive influence on his policy, on his attitude towards the people, determined his crime and moral suffering. Thus, not only history became the material for literature, but literature also became a means of artistic knowledge of history. His "History" is inhabited only by genuine historical figures.

Karamzin emphasizes the talent, originality and mind of ordinary people who acted independently, without a tsar and boyars, who knew how to think stately and reasonably. The historical plot, the use of a given situation, justified a different method, born of Russian tradition, of depicting a person - not in a "homely way", not from the side of his private family life, but from the side of his connections with the big world of national, nationwide being. That is why Karamzin demanded from writers to depict heroic Russian women, whose character and personality were manifested not in domestic life and “family happiness”, but in political, patriotic activities. In this regard, he wrote: “Nature sometimes loves extremes, departs from its ordinary law and gives women characters that take them out of home obscurity to the folk theater ...” The method of depicting Russian characters in History is to bring them “from home obscurity to folk theater”, it was developed ultimately from the generalization of the experience of the historical life of the Russian nation. Many folk songs captured the heroic prowess, the poetry of life, full of activity, struggle, high feat, which opened up outside the home family existence. Gogol in Ukrainian songs discovered precisely these traits of the character of the people: “Everywhere one can see the strength, joy, power with which the Cossack throws the silence and carelessness of home life in order to go into all the poetry of battles, dangers and wild feast with comrades ... ". This method concealed the opportunity to most fully and clearly reveal the fundamental features of the Russian national character.

Karamzin, turning to history, was forced to develop a special genre for his narration. The study of the genre nature of Karamzin's work convinces us that it is not the realization of already found principles. It is rather a kind of self-adjusting model, the type and nature of which was influenced by the experience of the writer, and more and more new materials were attracted, requiring new illumination, and increasing trust in the artistic knowledge of “truth” from volume to volume.

Having abandoned "fiction", Karamzin could not use one of the traditional literary genres for his narration. It was necessary to develop a genre form that would organically correspond to the real historical plot, be able to accommodate the huge and diverse factual material that was included in the "History" under the sign of analytical and emotional perception, and, most importantly, give the writer wide freedom in expressing his position.

But to develop did not mean to invent, Karamzin decided to be consistent - and in developing the genre, he relied on the national tradition. And here the chronicle played a decisive role. Its main genre feature is syncretism. The chronicle freely included in its composition many works of ancient Russian literature - lives, stories, messages, lamentations, folk poetic legends, etc. Syncretism became the organizing principle of Karamzin's History. The writer did not imitate, he continued the chronicle tradition. The author's position, split into two principles - analytical and artistic, - united all the material introduced into the "History", determined the inclusion in the form of quotations or retelling of the lives, stories, legends and "miracles" included in the annals, and the chronicler's story itself, which was either accompanied by comments , or turned out to be merged with the opinion of the creator of the "History".
Chronicle syncretism is the main feature of the genre of "History of the Russian State". This genre, an original creation by Karamzin, helped him both to express Russian national identity in its dynamics and development, and to develop a special ethical style of narration about a heroic nation whose sons emerged from home obscurity to the theater of people's life.
The achievements of the writer were assimilated by Russian literature. His innovative attitude to the genre, the search for a special, free genre structure that would correspond to new material, new plot, new tasks of artistic research of the "real world" of history, turned out to be close to new Russian literature. And it is not by chance, but naturally, that we will meet this free attitude to the genre in Pushkin (“free” novel in verse - “Eugene Onegin”), Gogol (poem “Dead Souls”), Tolstoy (“War and Peace”). In 1802, Karamzin wrote: "France, by its greatness and character, should be a monarchy." A few years later, this "prophecy" came true - Napoleon proclaimed France an empire, and himself emperor. On the examples of the reign of Russian monarchs - positive and negative -
Karamzin wanted to teach to reign.

The contradiction turned out to be a tragedy for Karamzin, the political concept led to a dead end. And, despite this, the writer did not change his method of clarifying the truth, which was revealed in the process of artistic research of the past, remained true to it, even if it contradicted his political ideal. This was the victory of Karamzin - the artist. That is why Pushkin called "History" the feat of an honest man.

The inconsistency of Karamzin's work was well understood by Pushkin. Pushkin not only understood and saw the artistic nature of the "History", but also determined the originality of its artistic method and genre. According to Pushkin, Karamzin acted as a historian and as an artist, his work is a synthesis of analytical and artistic knowledge of history. The originality of the artistic method and the very genre of "History" is due to the chronicle tradition. This idea is both fair and fruitful.

Karamzin, the historian, used the facts of the chronicle, subjecting them to criticism, verification, explanation and commentary. Karamzin - the artist mastered the aesthetic principles of the chronicle, perceiving it as a national Russian type of story about the past, as a special artistic system that captured the Russian view of the historical events of historical figures, of fate
Russia.

Pushkin correctly understood the enormity of the content of Karamzin's work, writing that he found Russia, like Columbus found America. This clarification is very important: opening
Ancient Rus', Karamzin opened the historical role of the Russian people in the formation of a great power. Describing one of the battles, Karamzin emphasizes that it was love of freedom that inspired ordinary people when they heroically fought the enemy, showed a wonderful frenzy and, thinking that the one killed by the enemy should serve him as a slave in hell, they plunged swords into their hearts when they could no longer be saved. : because they wanted to preserve their liberty in the future life. The most important feature of the artistic element
"History" is the patriotism of its author, which determined the possibility of creating an emotional image of "past centuries".

The "History" captures the unity of analytical study and the emotional image of the "past centuries". At the same time, neither the analytical nor the emotional method of studying and depicting contradicted the truth - each helped to assert it in its own way. Truth serves as the basis for historical poetry; but poetry is not history: the former most of all wants to arouse curiosity and for this interferes with fiction, the latter rejects the most witty inventions and wants only the truth.

For Karamzin, in this case, the annalistic story, the annalistic point of view is a type of consciousness of the era, and therefore he does not consider it possible to introduce
"corrections" of the historian in the view of the chronicler. Revealing Godunov's inner world by psychological means, drawing his character, he proceeds not only from the facts gleaned from the annals, but also from the general historical situation recreated by the chronicler. The story about Godunov thereby opened up to modern literature a completely new type of artistic knowledge and reproduction of history, firmly based on national tradition.
It was this position of Karamzin that was understood and supported by Pushkin in his defense
"History" from the attacks of Polevoy, she gave him the opportunity to call the writer our last chronicler.

The artistic beginning of the "History" made it possible to reveal the process of developing the mental warehouse of the Russian nation. Analyzing numerous facts of the initial period of Russian history, the writer comes to understand the enormous role of the people in the political life of the country. The study of history made it possible to write about the two faces of the people - he is “kind”, he is also “rebellious”.

According to Karamzin, the virtue of the people did not at all contradict the people's "love for rebellions." The artistic study of history revealed this truth to the writer. He understood that it was not love for the "establishments" of autocrats, but "love for rebellions" directed against autocrats who did not fulfill their duty to take care of the welfare of their subjects, which distinguishes the Russian people.

Pushkin, when working on Boris Godunov, to use the writer's discoveries. Still not knowing the works of French historians, Pushkin, relying on the national tradition, develops historicism as a method of knowing and explaining the past and present, following Karamzin in revealing Russian national identity - he creates the image of Pimen.

Karamzin in "History" opened the vast artistic world of chronicles.
The writer "cut a window" into the past, he really, like Columbus, found ancient Russia, linking the past with the present.

"History of the Russian State" rightfully invaded the living process of literary development, helped the formation of historicism, contributing to the movement of literature along the path of national identity. She enriched literature with important artistic discoveries, absorbing the experience of chronicles.
"History" armed new literature with important knowledge of the past, helped it to rely on national traditions. At the first stage, Pushkin and Gogol, in their appeal to history, showed how enormous and important Karamzin's contribution was.

"History" enjoyed unparalleled success for many decades of the 19th century, influencing Russian writers.

The term "History" has many definitions. Storytelling and events. History is a process of development. This past. History must enter the consciousness of society, it is not only written and read. Nowadays, not only books, but also radio and television perform the function. Initially, historical description exists as an art form. Each field of knowledge has an object of study. History studies the past. The task of history is to reproduce the past in the unity of the necessary and the accidental. The central component of art is the artistic image. A historical image is a real event. Fiction is excluded in the historical image, and fantasy plays an auxiliary role. The image is created unambiguously if the historian is silent about something. Man is the best object for the study of history. The main merit of the Renaissance culture is that it opened the spiritual world of man.

The feat of Karamzin.

According to Pushkin, "Karamzin is a great writer in every sense of the word."

Karamzin's language, which has evolved from "Letters of a Russian Traveler" and "Poor Lisa" to "History of the Russian State". His work is the history of the Russian autocracy. "History of the Russian State" dropped out of the history of literature. History is a science that transcends; literature is an art that transcends its boundaries. The history of Karamzin is for him a sphere of aesthetic pleasure. Karamzin formulates the methodological principles of his work. "History of the Russian State" is considered as a monument of Russian literature.

The tradition of Karamzin in the art of historiography has not died, and it cannot be said that it is flourishing.

Pushkin believed that Karamzin devoted his last years to history, and he devoted his whole life to this.

The attention of the author of the "History of the Russian State" is drawn to how the state arose. Karamzin puts Ivan III above Peter I. Volume 6 is dedicated to him (Ivan III). With the history of the wanderings of a simple Russian at his own peril and risk, without state initiative and support, Karamzin finishes his consideration of the era of Ivan III.

The chapters of Karamzin's work are divided into years of the reign of one or another monarch, they are named after them.

In the "History of the Russian State" descriptions of battles, campaigns, as well as everyday life, economic and cultural life. In the 1st chapter of the 7th volume it is written that Pskov joins Moscow with Vasily III. Karamzin opened Russian history to Russian literature. "History of the Russian State" is an image from which poets, prose writers, playwrights, etc. drew inspiration. AT
"History of the Russian State" we see the plot of Pushkin's "Songs about the Thing
Oleg”, as well as “Boris Godunov” and “History of the Russian State”. 2 tragedies about Boris Godunov, written by 2 poets and based on materials
"History of the Russian State".

Belinsky called The History of the Russian State a great monument in the history of Russian literature.

Historical drama blossoms earlier, but its possibilities were limited.

Interest in history is an interest in a person, in his environment and life.
The novel opened up broader perspectives than the drama. In Russia Pushkin and
Tolstoy raised the historical novel to great prose. The great masterpiece in this genre is War and Peace. Historical events serve as the backdrop against which actions unfold. Historical figures appear suddenly in a historical novel. Fictional characters as main characters. The novel as a drama refers to historical material, pursues the goal of artistic reproduction of historical reality. A complete fusion of history and art is rare. The line between them is blurred, but not completely. You could say they are allies. They have one goal - the formation of historical consciousness. Art gives history an artistic culture. History provides a foundation for art. Art acquires depth, based on historical tradition. Culture is a system of prohibitions.

About "Boris Godunov" Pushkin wrote: "The study of Shakespeare, Karamzin and our old chronicles gave me the idea to clothe in dramatic forms one of the most dramatic epochs of modern history." There is no fictitious plot or characters in the play, they are borrowed from the History of the Russian State.
Karamzin, writes about the famine at the beginning of the reign of B. Godunov: “Disaster began, and the cry of the hungry alarmed the king ... Boris ordered the royal granaries to be opened.”

Pushkin in his tragedy also solves the problem of ends and means in history.

Between the "History of the Russian State" and "Boris Godunov" a historical era lay, and this affected the interpretation of events. Karamzin wrote under the impression of the Patriotic War, and Pushkin on the eve of the December uprising.

“The history of the Russian state helped Pushkin to establish himself in two guises - a historian and a historical novelist - to process the same material in different ways.

When Karamzin worked on "History" he studied Russian folklore, collected historical songs, arranged in chronological order. But it didn't materialize. He singled out most of all in the historical literature "The Tale of Igor's Campaign".

The culture of Russia in the 19th century is, as it were, an example of the rise of peak achievements. Since the beginning of the 19th century, a high patriotic upsurge has been observed in Russian society. It intensified even more in 1812, deeply contributed to the national community, the development of citizenship. Art interacted with public consciousness, forming it into a national one. The development of realistic tendencies in their national cultural traits intensified. A cultural event was the appearance of the "History of the Russian State" by N. M. Karamzin. Karamzin was the first who, at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, intuitively felt that the main thing in the Russian culture of the coming 19th century was the growing problems of national self-identity. Pushkin followed Karamzin, solving the problem of the correlation of national culture with ancient cultures, after which P. Ya. Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter” appears - the philosophy of Russian history, which stimulated a discussion between Slavophiles and Westerners.
Classical literature of the 19th century was more than literature, it is a synthetic phenomenon of culture, which turned out to be a universal form of social self-consciousness. Karamzin noted that the Russian people, despite the humiliation and slavery, felt their cultural superiority in relation to the nomadic people. The first half of the 19th century is the time of the formation of domestic historical science. Karamzin believed that the history of mankind
- this is the story of the struggle of reason with delusion, enlightenment - with ignorance.

He assigned a decisive role in history to great people.

Professional historians were not satisfied with Karamzin's work "History of the Russian State". There were many new sources on the history of Russia. AT
In 1851, the first volume of The History of Russia from Ancient Times was published, written by
S. M. Solovyov.

Comparing the historical development of Russia and other European countries, Solovyov found much in common in their destinies. The style of presentation of Solovyov's "History" is rather dry, it is inferior to "History" by Karamzin.

In fiction at the beginning of the 19th century, according to Belinsky,
"Karamzin" period.

The War of 1812 aroused interest in Russian history. "History of the state
Russian" Karamzin, built on chronicle material. Pushkin saw in this work a reflection of the spirit of chronicle. Pushkin attached great importance to chronicle materials. And this was reflected in Boris Godunov. In his work on the tragedy, Pushkin went through the study of Karamzin, Shakespeare and the "chronicles".

The 1930s and 1940s did not bring anything new to Russian historiography. These are the years of development of philosophical thinking. Historical science froze on Karamzin. By the end of the 1940s, everything was changing, a new historiography of Solovyov S.
M. In 1851, the 1st volume of “The History of Russia from Ancient Times” was published. towards the middle
In the 1950s, Russia entered a new era of storms and upheavals. The Crimean War revealed the disintegration of classes and material backwardness. "War and Peace" is a huge amount of historical books and materials, it turned out to be a decisive and violent uprising against historical science. "War and Peace" is a book that grew out of "pedagogical" experience. Tolstoy when reading
“The History of Russia from Ancient Times” by S. M. Solovyov, he argued with him.
According to Solovyov, the government was ugly: “But how did a series of ugliness produce a great, unified state? This already proves that it was not the government that produced history.” The conclusion from this is that we do not need a story
- science, and history - art: "History - art, like art, goes deep and its subject is a description of the life of all Europe."

"War and Peace" has features of thinking and style, composition, which are found in "The Tale of Bygone Years". The Tale of Bygone Years combines two traditions: folk epic and hagiographic. This is also the case in War and Peace.

"War and Peace" is one of the "modifications" created by the era of "great changes". The chronicle style served as the basis for satire on both historical science and the political system.

The historical epoch is a force field of contradictions and a space of human choice, that its very essence as a historical epoch consists in a mobile openness to the future; body is a substance equal to itself.
Worldly wisdom, or common sense, knowledge of people, without which it is impossible that art of understanding what is said and written, which is philology.

The content of humanitarian thought is truly revealed only in the light of life experience - human experience. The objective existence of the semantic aspects of the literary word takes place only within the dialogue and cannot be extracted from the situation of the dialogue. The truth lies in a different plane.
The ancient author and the ancient text, communication with them is an understanding “above the barriers” of misunderstanding, which presupposes these barriers. The past era is the era of the life of mankind, our life, and not someone else's. Being an adult means experiencing childhood and adolescence.

Karamzin is the most prominent figure of his era, a language reformer, one of the fathers of Russian sentimentalism, a historian, publicist, author of poetry and prose, on which a generation was brought up. All this is enough to study, respect, recognize; but not enough to fall in love in literature, in themselves, and not in the world of great-grandfathers. It seems that two features of Karamzin's biography and work make him one of our interlocutors.

Historian-artist. They laughed at this already in the 1820s, they tried to get away from it in the scientific direction, but it seems that this is what is lacking a century and a half later. Indeed, Karamzin, the historian, proposed simultaneously two ways of knowing the past; one is scientific, objective, new facts, concepts, patterns; the other is artistic, subjective. So, the image of a historian-artist belongs not only to the past, the coincidence of Karamzin's position and some of the latest concepts about the essence of historical knowledge - does this speak for itself? Such, we believe, is the first feature of the "topicality" of Karamzin's works.

And, secondly, let us once again note that remarkable contribution to Russian culture, which is called the personality of Karamzin. Karamzin is a highly moral, attractive person who influenced many by direct example and friendship; but to a much greater number - by the presence of this personality in poems, stories, articles, and especially in History. After all, Karamzin was one of the most internally free people of his era, and among his friends and buddies there are many wonderful, best people. He wrote what he thought, drew historical characters on the basis of huge, new material; managed to discover ancient Russia, "Karamzin is our first historian and last chronicler."

List of used literature

1. Averentsev S. S. Our interlocutor is an ancient author.

2. Aikhenwald Yu. I. Silhouettes of Russian writers. - M.: Respublika, 1994.

- 591 p.: ill. - (Past and present).

3. Gulyga A. V. The Art of History - M.: Sovremennik, 1980. - 288 p.

4. Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian state in 12 volumes. T. II-

III / Ed. A. N. Sakharova. – M.: Nauka, 1991. – 832 p.

5. Karamzin N. M. On the history of the Russian state / comp. A.I.

Schmidt. - M.: Enlightenment, 1990. - 384 p.

6. Karamzin N. M. Traditions of the ages / Comp., entry. Art. G. P. Makogonenko;

G. P. Makogonenko and M. V. Ivanova; - Lee. V. V. Lukashova. – M.:

Pravda, 1988. - 768 p.

7. Culturology: a textbook for students of higher educational institutions - Rostov n / D: Phoenix Publishing House, 1999. - 608 p.

8. Lotman Yu. M. Karamzin: The Creation of Karamzin. Art. and research., 1957-

1990. Notes rev. - St. Petersburg: Art - St. Petersburg, 1997 - 830 p.: ill.: portr.

9. Eikhenbaum B. M. About prose: Sat. Art. - L .: Fiction,

1969. - 503 p.
-----------------------
Lotman Yu. M. Karamzin. - St. Petersburg, Art. - St. Petersburg, 1997. - p. 56.
Solovyov S. M. Selected works. Notes. - M., 1983. - p. 231.
Karamzin N. M. Works. - St. Petersburg, 1848. v. 1. p. 487.Submit a request with a topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.