ON THE. Field History of the Russian State
Reading some gives rise to pride in the country and gratitude to the author for immersing himself in the beautiful world of his native antiquity, while turning to the second causes, rather, confusion and surprise with an admixture of annoyance (were we really deceived with history all the time?). Living people and their exploits against fantasies and pseudoscientific calculations. Who is right - I do not presume to judge. Which option to read, everyone can choose for himself. But an important conclusion suggests itself: in order to understand what history is for, you must first understand who creates this history and how.
"He saved Russia from the invasion of oblivion"
The first eight volumes of The History of the Russian State were published in early February 1818, and already on February 27, Karamzin wrote to friends: “The last copy was sold off ... In 25 days, 3,000 copies were sold.” Circulation and speed of sale for Russia of those years is unprecedented!“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 had been found by Colomb. For some time they didn’t talk about anything else, ”Pushkin later recalled.
And here is another typical episode for those years. Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, a gambler, a bully, a desperate brave man and a bully, was one of the first to acquire books, locked himself in his office, “read eight volumes of Karamzin in one breath and after that he often said that only from reading Karamzin did he learn what the word Fatherland means”. But this is the same American Tolstoy, who has already proved his love for the Fatherland and patriotism with unparalleled feats on the field of Borodino. Why did Karamzin's "History" hook the reader so much? One of the obvious answers is given by P. A. Vyazemsky: “Karamzin is our Kutuzov of the twelfth year: he saved Russia from the invasion of oblivion, called her to life, showed us that we have a fatherland, as many learned about that in the twelfth year.” But attempts to write the history of Russia were made even before Karamzin, but there was no such response. What's the secret? In the author? By the way, they didn’t just ignore him: the historian was praised and scolded, they agreed and argued with him ... What is the only characteristic “extinguisher” given to the historiographer by the future Decembrists. And yet the main thing is that they read it, there were no indifferent people.
“We haven’t had such prose yet!”
Karamzin as a historian could not take place. Thanks to the future director of Moscow University, Ivan Petrovich Turgenev, who saw in the young Simbirsk dandy the future chronicler of Russia, “dissuaded him from scattered secular life and maps” and invited him to live in Moscow. Thanks also to Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov, educator, book publisher, who supported, directed, showed Karamzin other ways in life. He introduced the young man to the philosophical Friendly Society, and when he understood his character and inclinations, he decided to publish (and in fact create) the magazine "Children's Reading". In an era when children were considered “little adults” and nothing specifically for children was written, Karamzin had to make a revolution - to find the best works of various authors and present them in such a way as to make them useful and intelligible “for the heart and mind” of the child. Who knows, maybe it was then that Karamzin first felt the difficulties of his native literary language.Our language was heavy caftan
And too smelled of antiquity;
Karamzin gave a different cut.
Let the splits grumble to themselves!
Everyone accepted his cut.
P. A. Vyazemsky
Such aspirations of the future historian turned out to be especially consonant with Pushkin. The poet, who himself did a lot to make the "cut different" accepted and loved, aptly expressed the essence of the reform: "Karamzin liberated the language from the alien yoke and returned its freedom, turning it to the living sources of the people's word."
The revolution in Russian literature has undoubtedly taken place. And it's not just the language. Every attentive reader must have noticed that, fascinated by reading a fiction book, he willy-nilly begins to empathize with the fate of the characters, while becoming an active character in the novel. For such immersion, two conditions are important: the book must be interesting, exciting, and the characters of the novel must be close and understandable to the reader. It is difficult to empathize with the Olympian gods or mythological characters. The heroes of Karamzin's books are simple people, and most importantly, easily recognizable people: a young nobleman traveling around Europe (“Notes of a Russian Traveler”), a peasant girl (“Poor Liza”), a folk heroine of Novgorod history (“Marfa the Posadnitsa”). Having gone headlong into such a novel, the reader, without noticing how, gets into the shoes of the protagonist, and the writer at the same time receives unlimited power over him. Directing the thoughts and actions of book characters, placing them in a situation of moral choice, the author can influence the thoughts and actions of the reader himself, educating the criteria in him. Thus, literature turns from entertainment into something more serious.
“The purpose of literature is to educate in us the inner nobility, the nobility of our soul, and thus remove us from our vices. O people! Bless poetry, for it elevates our spirit and intensifies all our strengths, ”Karamzin dreams of this, creating his first literary masterpieces. But in order to get the right (read: responsibility) to educate his reader, guide him and teach him, the writer himself must become better, kinder, wiser than the one to whom he addresses his lines. At least a little, at least in something... “If you are going to become an author,” writes Karamzin, “then re-read the book of human suffering and, if your heart does not bleed, drop the pen, otherwise it will portray the cold emptiness of the soul.”
“But this is literature, what does history have to do with it?” - the inquisitive reader will ask. And besides, that all that has been said can equally be attributed to the writing of history. The main condition is that the author must combine a light literary style, historical authenticity and great art to "revive" the past, turning the heroes of antiquity into contemporaries. “It hurts, but it must be fair to say that we still do not have a good Russian history, that is, written with a philosophical mind, with criticism, with noble eloquence,” Karamzin himself wrote. - Tacitus, Hume, Robertson, Gibbon - these are the samples! It is said that our history in itself is less entertaining than others: I don't think so; All you need is intelligence, taste, talent. Karamzin had it all. His "History" is a novel in which real facts and events of Russian life of past times took the place of fiction, and the reader accepted such a replacement, because "for a mature mind, truth has a special charm that is not in fiction." Everyone who loved Karamzin the writer willingly accepted Karamzin the historian.
 |
| Manor Ostafyevo - "Russian Parnassus". 19th century |
“I sleep and see Nikon with Nestor”
In 1803, by decree of Emperor Alexander I, the writer, already well-known in wide circles, was appointed court historiographer. A new stage in the fate of Karamzin was marked by another event - his marriage to the illegitimate daughter of A. I. Vyazemsky Ekaterina Andreevna Kolyvanova. The Karamzins settled in Ostafyevo, the estate of the Vyazemsky princes near Moscow. It was here, from 1804 to 1816, that the first eight volumes of Russian History would be written.In Soviet times, the estate building was converted into a holiday home for party workers, and exhibits from the Ostafyev collection were transferred to Moscow and Moscow region museums. Inaccessible to mere mortals, the institution was opened for visiting by everyone once a year, in June, on Pushkin's days. But the rest of the time, the vigilant guards were disturbed by uninvited guests: grateful people came here from different parts of the country, by hook or by crook they made their way to the territory in order to “just stand” under the windows of the office in which the history of Russia was “created”. These people seem to be arguing with Pushkin, answering many years later the latter’s bitter reproach against his contemporaries: “No one said thanks to the man who retired to the study at the time of the most flattering successes and devoted twelve whole years of his life to silent and tireless work.”
Pyotr Andreevich Vyazemsky, a future member of the Arzamas brotherhood and friend of Pushkin, was twelve when Karamzin began writing History. The mystery of the birth of "volumes" took place before his eyes and struck the imagination of the young poet. In the historian’s office “there were no cabinets, armchairs, sofas, whatnots, music stands, carpets, pillows,” the prince later recalled. - His desk was the one that first caught his eye. An ordinary small table made of simple wood, on which in our time even a maid in a decent house would not even want to wash herself, was littered with papers and books. The daily routine was also tough: an early rise, an hour-long walk in the park, breakfast, and then - work, work, work ... Lunch was sometimes postponed until late in the evening, and after that the historiographer still had to prepare for the next day. And all this alone was carried on his shoulders by a middle-aged and not full of health man. “There was no permanent employee even for rough work. There was no scribe ... "
“The notes of Russian History,” Pushkin noted, “testify to Karamzin’s extensive scholarship, acquired by him already in those years when for ordinary people the circle of education and knowledge was long over and chores in the service replace efforts for enlightenment.” Indeed, at thirty-eight, not many will dare to leave the very successful field of a writer and surrender to the vague prospect of writing history. To do this professionally, Karamzin had to quickly become a specialist in many auxiliary historical disciplines: genealogy, heraldry, diplomacy, historical metrology, numismatics, paleography, sphragistics, and chronology. In addition, reading primary sources required a good knowledge of ancient languages: Greek, Old Slavonic - and many new European and Eastern ones.
Searching for sources takes a lot of effort from the historian. Friends and people interested in creating the history of Russia helped: P. M. Stroev, N. P. Rumyantsev, A. N. Musin-Pushkin, K. F. Kalaidovich. Letters, documents, annals were brought to the estate by “carts”. Karamzin was forced to hurry: “It is a pity that I am not younger than ten years. It is unlikely that God will allow me to complete my work ... "God has given -" History "has taken place. After the publication of the first eight books in 1816, the ninth volume appeared in 1821, the tenth and eleventh in 1824; and the twelfth came out posthumously.
"Nutlet did not give up"
These words from the last volume, on which death cut short the work of the historian, can easily be attributed to Karamzin himself. What epithets were later awarded to his "History" by critics: both conservative, and vile, and non-Russian, and unscientific! Did Karamzin foresee such an outcome? Probably yes, and the words of Pushkin, who called Karamzin's work "the feat of an honest man", are not just a compliment to the historian...To be fair, there were commendable reviews, but that's not the point. Having withstood the harsh judgment of contemporaries and descendants, Karamzin's work convincingly showed: there is no such thing as impersonal, faceless, objective history; What is the Historian, such is History. Questions: Why, How and Who when writing history are inseparable. What the author-Man invests in his work, the reader-Citizen will inherit, the more demanding the author is, the more people's hearts he will be able to awaken. “Count of History” is not a slip of the tongue of an illiterate servant, but a successful and very accurate definition of the aristocratic nature of the “last chronicler” of Russia. But not in the sense of nobility of origin, but in the original sense of the word aristos - “the best”. Become better yourself, and then it will not be so important what comes out from under your hands: the creation will be worthy of the creator, and you will be understood.
“To live is not to write history, not to write tragedies or comedies, but to think, feel and act as best as possible, to love goodness, to rise with the soul to its source; everything else, my dear friend, is a husk: I do not exclude my eight or nine volumes. You must admit that it is strange to hear such words from the lips of a person who has devoted more than twenty years of his life to writing history. But the surprise will pass if you carefully reread both the "History" and the fate of Karamzin, or try to follow his advice: to live, loving the good and exalting in soul.
Literature
N. Eidelman. The last chronicler.
Y. Lotman. Creation of Karamzin.
P. A. Vyazemsky. Old notebook.
Discuss the article in the community
December 12, 1766 (family estate Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province (according to other sources - the village of Mikhailovka (now Preobrazhenka), Buzuluk district, Kazan province) - June 03, 1826 (St. Petersburg, Russian Empire)
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 12 (December 1, according to the old style), 1766 - a Russian writer, poet, editor of the Moscow Journal (1791-1792) and the Vestnik Evropy magazine (1802-1803), an honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (1818), a full member of the Imperial Russian Academy, historian, the first and only court historiographer, one of the first reformers of the Russian literary language, father of foundations Atelier of Russian historiography and Russian sentimentalism.
|
|
Contribution of N.M. Karamzin in Russian culture can hardly be overestimated. Remembering everything that this man managed to do in the short 59 years of his earthly existence, it is impossible to ignore the fact that it was Karamzin who largely determined the face of the Russian XIX century - the "golden" age of Russian poetry, literature, historiography, source studies and other humanitarian areas of scientific knowledge. Thanks to linguistic searches aimed at popularizing the literary language of poetry and prose, Karamzin presented Russian literature to his contemporaries. And if Pushkin is “our everything”, then Karamzin can be safely called “our everything” with the capital letter. Without him, Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Baratynsky, Batyushkov and other poets of the so-called "Pushkin galaxy" would hardly have been possible.
“Whatever you turn to in our literature, Karamzin laid the foundation for everything: journalism, criticism, a story, a novel, a historical story, publicism, the study of history,” V.G. Belinsky.
"History of the Russian State" N.M. Karamzin became not just the first Russian-language book on the history of Russia, available to the general reader. Karamzin gave the Russian people Fatherland in the full sense of the word. They say that, slamming the eighth, last volume, Count Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!” And he was not alone. All his contemporaries suddenly found out that they live in a country with a thousand-year history and they have something to be proud of. Before that, it was believed that before Peter I, who opened a “window to Europe”, there was nothing in Russia worthy of attention: the dark ages of backwardness and barbarism, boyar autocracy, primordially Russian laziness and bears on the streets ...
Karamzin's multi-volume work was not completed, but, having been published in the first quarter of the 19th century, he completely determined the historical self-consciousness of the nation for many years to come. All subsequent historiography could not give rise to anything more in line with the “imperial” self-consciousness that had developed under the influence of Karamzin. Karamzin's views left a deep, indelible mark in all areas of Russian culture of the 19th-20th centuries, forming the foundations of the national mentality, which, in the end, determined the development of Russian society and the state as a whole.
It is significant that in the 20th century, the edifice of Russian great power, which had collapsed under the attacks of revolutionary internationalists, revived again by the 1930s - under different slogans, with different leaders, in a different ideological package. but... The very approach to the historiography of Russian history, both before 1917 and after, in many ways remained jingoistic and sentimental in Karamzin's way.
N.M. Karamzin - early years
N.M. Karamzin was born on December 12 (1st century), 1766, in the village of Mikhailovka, Buzuluk district, Kazan province (according to other sources, in the family estate of Znamenskoye, Simbirsk district, Kazan province). Little is known about his early years: there are no letters, no diaries, no memories of Karamzin himself about his childhood. He did not even know exactly his year of birth and for almost his entire life he believed that he was born in 1765. Only in his old age, having discovered the documents, he “looked younger” by one year.
The future historiographer grew up in the estate of his father, retired captain Mikhail Yegorovich Karamzin (1724-1783), a middle-class Simbirsk nobleman. He received a good education at home. In 1778 he was sent to Moscow to the boarding house of professor of Moscow University I.M. Shaden. At the same time he attended lectures at the university in 1781-1782.
After graduating from the boarding school, in 1783 Karamzin joined the Preobrazhensky Regiment in St. Petersburg, where he met the young poet and future employee of his Moscow Journal, Dmitriev. At the same time, he published his first translation of S. Gesner's idyll "Wooden Leg".
In 1784, Karamzin retired as a lieutenant and never served again, which was perceived in the then society as a challenge. After a short stay in Simbirsk, where he joined the Golden Crown Masonic lodge, Karamzin moved to Moscow and was introduced into the circle of N. I. Novikov. He settled in a house that belonged to Novikov's "Friendly Scientific Society", became the author and one of the publishers of the first children's magazine "Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind" (1787-1789), founded by Novikov. At the same time, Karamzin became close to the Pleshcheev family. For many years he was connected with N. I. Pleshcheeva by a tender platonic friendship. In Moscow, Karamzin publishes his first translations, in which interest in European and Russian history is clearly visible: Thomson's The Four Seasons, Janlis's Village Evenings, W. Shakespeare's tragedy Julius Caesar, Lessing's tragedy Emilia Galotti.
In 1789, Karamzin's first original story "Eugene and Yulia" appeared in the magazine "Children's Reading ...". The reader hardly noticed it.
Travel to Europe
According to many biographers, Karamzin was not disposed towards the mystical side of Freemasonry, remaining a supporter of its active educational direction. To be more precise, by the end of the 1780s, Karamzin had already “been ill” with Masonic mysticism in its Russian version. Possibly, cooling towards Freemasonry was one of the reasons for his departure to Europe, where he spent more than a year (1789-90), visiting Germany, Switzerland, France and England. In Europe, he met and talked (except for influential Masons) with European "rulers of minds": I. Kant, J. G. Herder, C. Bonnet, I. K. Lavater, J. F. Marmontel, visited museums, theaters, secular salons. In Paris, Karamzin listened to O. G. Mirabeau, M. Robespierre and other revolutionaries in the National Assembly, saw many prominent political figures and was familiar with many. Apparently, the revolutionary Paris of 1789 showed Karamzin how much a person can be influenced by the word: printed, when Parisians read pamphlets and leaflets with keen interest; oral, when revolutionary orators spoke and controversy arose (experience that could not be acquired at that time in Russia).
Karamzin did not have a very enthusiastic opinion about English parliamentarism (perhaps following in the footsteps of Rousseau), but he highly valued the level of civilization at which English society as a whole was located.
Karamzin - journalist, publisher
In the autumn of 1790, Karamzin returned to Moscow and soon organized the publication of the monthly "Moscow Journal" (1790-1792), in which most of the "Letters of a Russian Traveler" were published, telling about the revolutionary events in France, the novels "Liodor", "Poor Lisa", "Natalya, the Boyar's Daughter", "Flor Silin", essays, short stories, critical articles and poems. Karamzin attracted the entire literary elite of that time to cooperate in the journal: his friends Dmitriev and Petrov, Kheraskov and Derzhavin, Lvov, Neledinsky-Meletsky, and others. Karamzin's articles asserted a new literary trend - sentimentalism.
The Moscow Journal had only 210 regular subscribers, but for the end of the 18th century it was the same as a hundred thousand circulation at the end of the 19th century. Moreover, the magazine was read by those who “made the weather” in the literary life of the country: students, officials, young officers, petty employees of various government agencies (“archival youths”).
After the arrest of Novikov, the authorities became seriously interested in the publisher of the Moscow Journal. During interrogations in the Secret Expedition, they ask: did Novikov send the “Russian traveler” abroad with a “special assignment”? The Novikovites were people of high decency and, of course, Karamzin was shielded, but because of these suspicions, the magazine had to be stopped.
In the 1790s, Karamzin published the first Russian almanacs - Aglaya (1794-1795) and Aonides (1796-1799). In 1793, when the Jacobin dictatorship was established at the third stage of the French Revolution, shocking Karamzin with its cruelty, Nikolai Mikhailovich abandoned some of his former views. The dictatorship aroused in him serious doubts about the possibility of mankind to achieve prosperity. He sharply condemned the revolution and all violent ways of transforming society. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the stories "Bornholm Island" (1793); "Sierra Morena" (1795); poems "Melancholy", "Message to A. A. Pleshcheev", etc.
During this period, real literary fame comes to Karamzin.
Fedor Glinka: “Out of 1200 cadets, a rare one did not repeat by heart any page from the Island of Bornholm”.
The name Erast, previously completely unpopular, is increasingly found in noble lists. There are rumors of successful and unsuccessful suicides in the spirit of Poor Lisa. The venomous memoirist Vigel recalls that important Moscow nobles had already begun to make do with “almost like an equal with a thirty-year-old retired lieutenant”.
In July 1794, Karamzin's life almost ended: on the way to the estate, in the wilderness of the steppe, robbers attacked him. Karamzin miraculously escaped, having received two light wounds.
In 1801, he married Elizaveta Protasova, a neighbor on the estate, whom he had known since childhood - at the time of the wedding they had known each other for almost 13 years.
Reformer of the Russian literary language
Already in the early 1790s, Karamzin seriously thought about the present and future of Russian literature. He writes to a friend: “I am deprived of the pleasure of reading a lot in my native language. We are still poor in writers. We have several poets who deserve to be read." Of course, there were and are Russian writers: Lomonosov, Sumarokov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, but there are no more than a dozen significant names. Karamzin was one of the first to understand that it was not about talent - there are no fewer talents in Russia than in any other country. It’s just that Russian literature can’t move away from the long-obsolete traditions of classicism, laid down in the middle of the 18th century by the only theorist M.V. Lomonosov.
The reform of the literary language carried out by Lomonosov, as well as the theory of "three calms" he created, met the tasks of the transition period from ancient to new literature. A complete rejection of the use of the usual Church Slavonicisms in the language was then still premature and inappropriate. But the evolution of the language, which began under Catherine II, continued actively. The "Three Calms" proposed by Lomonosov relied not on live colloquial speech, but on the witty thought of a theoretician writer. And this theory often put the authors in a difficult position: they had to use heavy, outdated Slavic expressions where in the spoken language they had long been replaced by others, softer and more elegant. The reader sometimes could not "break through" through the heaps of obsolete Slavic words used in church books and records in order to understand the essence of this or that secular work.
Karamzin decided to bring the literary language closer to the spoken language. Therefore, one of his main goals was the further liberation of literature from Church Slavonicism. In the preface to the second book of the almanac "Aonides" he wrote: "One thunder of words only deafens us and never reaches the heart."
The second feature of Karamzin's "new style" was the simplification of syntactic constructions. The writer abandoned lengthy periods. In the Pantheon of Russian Writers, he resolutely stated: “Lomonosov’s prose cannot serve as a model for us at all: its long periods are tiring, the arrangement of words is not always in line with the flow of thoughts.”
Unlike Lomonosov, Karamzin strove to write in short, easily visible sentences. This is to this day a model of a good style and an example to follow in literature.
The third merit of Karamzin was to enrich the Russian language with a number of successful neologisms, which have become firmly established in the main vocabulary. Among the innovations proposed by Karamzin are such widely known words in our time as “industry”, “development”, “refinement”, “concentrate”, “touching”, “amusing”, “humanity”, “public”, “generally useful”, “influence” and a number of others.
Creating neologisms, Karamzin mainly used the method of tracing French words: “interesting” from “interesting”, “refined” from “raffine”, “development” from “developpement”, “touching” from “touchant”.
We know that even in the Petrine era, many foreign words appeared in the Russian language, but for the most part they replaced the words that already existed in the Slavic language and were not necessary. In addition, these words were often taken in a raw form, so they were very heavy and clumsy (“fortecia” instead of “fortress”, “victory” instead of “victory”, etc.). Karamzin, on the contrary, tried to give foreign words a Russian ending, adapting them to the requirements of Russian grammar: “serious”, “moral”, “aesthetic”, “audience”, “harmony”, “enthusiasm”, etc.
In his reforming activities, Karamzin focused on the living colloquial speech of educated people. And this was the key to the success of his work - he does not write scientific treatises, but travel notes (“Letters from a Russian Traveler”), sentimental stories (“Bornholm Island”, “Poor Lisa”), poems, articles, translates from French, English and German.
"Arzamas" and "Conversation"
It is not surprising that most of the young writers, modern Karamzin, accepted his transformations with a bang and willingly followed him. But, like any reformer, Karamzin had staunch opponents and worthy opponents.
A.S. stood at the head of Karamzin's ideological opponents. Shishkov (1774-1841) - admiral, patriot, well-known statesman of that time. An Old Believer, an admirer of Lomonosov's language, Shishkov at first glance was a classicist. But this point of view requires essential reservations. In contrast to the Europeanism of Karamzin, Shishkov put forward the idea of the nationality of literature - the most important sign of a romantic worldview far from classicism. It turns out that Shishkov also adjoined romantics, but only not progressive, but conservative direction. His views can be recognized as a kind of forerunner of later Slavophilism and pochvenism.
In 1803, Shishkov delivered a Discourse on the Old and New Style of the Russian Language. He reproached the “Karamzinists” for having succumbed to the temptation of European revolutionary false teachings and advocated the return of literature to oral folk art, to popular vernacular, to Orthodox Church Slavonic book learning.
Shishkov was not a philologist. He dealt with the problems of literature and the Russian language, rather, as an amateur, so Admiral Shishkov's attacks on Karamzin and his literary supporters sometimes looked not so much scientifically substantiated as unsubstantiated and ideological. The language reform of Karamzin seemed to Shishkov, a warrior and defender of the Fatherland, unpatriotic and anti-religious: “Language is the soul of a people, a mirror of morals, a true indicator of enlightenment, an unceasing witness to deeds. Where there is no faith in the hearts, there is no piety in the tongue. Where there is no love for the fatherland, there the language does not express domestic feelings..
Shishkov reproached Karamzin for the immoderate use of barbarisms (“epoch”, “harmony”, “catastrophe”), neologisms disgusted him (“revolution” as a translation of the word “revolution”), artificial words cut his ear: “future”, “well-read”, etc.
And it must be admitted that sometimes his criticism was apt and accurate.
The evasiveness and aesthetic affectation of the speech of the "Karamzinists" very soon became outdated and went out of literary use. It was precisely this future that Shishkov predicted for them, believing that instead of the expression “when traveling became the need of my soul,” one can simply say: “when I fell in love with traveling”; the refined and paraphrased speech “variegated crowds of rural oreads meet with dark-skinned bands of reptile pharaohs” can be replaced by the understandable expression “gypsies go towards the village girls”, etc.
Shishkov and his supporters took the first steps in studying the monuments of ancient Russian literature, enthusiastically studied The Tale of Igor's Campaign, studied folklore, advocated rapprochement between Russia and the Slavic world and recognized the need for convergence of the "Slovenian" syllable with the common language.
In a dispute with the translator Karamzin, Shishkov put forward a weighty argument about the “idiomaticity” of each language, about the unique originality of its phraseological systems, which make it impossible to translate a thought or a true semantic meaning from one language into another. For example, when translated literally into French, the expression "old horseradish" loses its figurative meaning and "means only the very thing, but in the metaphysical sense it has no circle of signification."
In defiance of Karamzinskaya, Shishkov proposed his own reform of the Russian language. He proposed to designate the concepts and feelings missing in our everyday life with new words formed from the roots of not French, but Russian and Old Slavonic languages. Instead of Karamzin's "influence", he suggested "influence", instead of "development" - "vegetation", instead of "actor" - "actor", instead of "individuality" - "yanost", "wet shoes" instead of "galoshes" and "wandering" instead of "labyrinth". Most of his innovations in Russian did not take root.
It is impossible not to recognize Shishkov's ardent love for the Russian language; one cannot but admit that the passion for everything foreign, especially French, has gone too far in Russia. Ultimately, this led to the fact that the language of the common people, the peasant, began to differ greatly from the language of the cultural classes. But one cannot brush aside the fact that the natural process of the beginning evolution of language could not be stopped. It was impossible to forcibly return to use the already obsolete at that time expressions that Shishkov proposed: “zane”, “ubo”, “like”, “like” and others.
Karamzin did not even respond to the accusations of Shishkov and his supporters, knowing firmly that they were guided by exceptionally pious and patriotic feelings. Subsequently, Karamzin himself and his most talented supporters (Vyazemsky, Pushkin, Batyushkov) followed the very valuable indication of the "Shishkovites" on the need to "return to their roots" and examples of their own history. But then they could not understand each other.
Paphos and ardent patriotism of A.S. Shishkov aroused sympathy among many writers. And when Shishkov, together with G. R. Derzhavin, founded the literary society “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word” (1811) with a charter and its own journal, P. A. Katenin, I. A. Krylov, and later V. K. Kyuchelbeker and A. S. Griboyedov immediately joined this society. One of the active participants in the "Conversation ...", the prolific playwright A. A. Shakhovskoy in the comedy "New Stern" viciously ridiculed Karamzin, and in the comedy "A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters" in the person of the "ballade player" Fialkin created a parody image of V. A. Zhukovsky.
This caused a friendly rebuff from the youth, who supported the literary authority of Karamzin. D. V. Dashkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, D. N. Bludov composed several witty pamphlets addressed to Shakhovsky and other members of the Conversation .... In The Vision in the Arzamas Tavern, Bludov gave the circle of young defenders of Karamzin and Zhukovsky the name "Society of Unknown Arzamas Writers" or simply "Arzamas".
In the organizational structure of this society, founded in the autumn of 1815, a cheerful spirit of parody of the serious "Conversation ..." reigned. In contrast to official pomposity, simplicity, naturalness, openness dominated here, a lot of space was given to jokes and games.
Parodying the official ritual of "Conversations ...", upon joining "Arzamas", everyone had to read the "funeral speech" to their "deceased" predecessor from among the living members of the "Conversations ..." or the Russian Academy of Sciences (Count D. I. Khvostov, S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, A. S. Shishkov himself, etc.). "Gravestone speeches" were a form of literary struggle: they parodied high genres, ridiculed the stylistic archaism of the poetic works of the "talkers". At the meetings of the society, the humorous genres of Russian poetry were honed, a bold and resolute struggle was waged against all sorts of officialdom, a type of independent Russian writer, free from the pressure of any ideological conventions, was formed. And although P. A. Vyazemsky, one of the organizers and active participants in the society, in his mature years condemned the youthful mischief and intransigence of his like-minded people (in particular, the rites of the “burial” of living literary opponents), he rightly called Arzamas a school of “literary camaraderie” and mutual creative learning. The Arzamas and Beseda societies soon became centers of literary life and social struggle in the first quarter of the 19th century. The "Arzamas" included such famous people as Zhukovsky (pseudonym - Svetlana), Vyazemsky (Asmodeus), Pushkin (Cricket), Batyushkov (Achilles), etc.
Beseda broke up after Derzhavin's death in 1816; Arzamas, having lost its main opponent, ceased to exist by 1818.
Thus, by the mid-1790s, Karamzin became the recognized head of Russian sentimentalism, which opened not just a new page in Russian literature, but Russian fiction in general. Russian readers, who had previously absorbed only French novels and the writings of enlighteners, enthusiastically accepted Letters from a Russian Traveler and Poor Liza, and Russian writers and poets (both “conversators” and “Arzamas”) realized that they could and should write in their native language.
Karamzin and Alexander I: a symphony with power?
In 1802 - 1803 Karamzin published the journal Vestnik Evropy, which was dominated by literature and politics. Largely due to the confrontation with Shishkov, a new aesthetic program for the formation of Russian literature as a nationally original appeared in Karamzin's critical articles. Karamzin, unlike Shishkov, saw the key to the identity of Russian culture not so much in adherence to ritual antiquity and religiosity, but in the events of Russian history. The most striking illustration of his views was the story "Marfa Posadnitsa or the Conquest of Novgorod".
In his political articles of 1802-1803, Karamzin, as a rule, made recommendations to the government, the main of which was the enlightenment of the nation in the name of the prosperity of the autocratic state.
These ideas were generally close to Emperor Alexander I, the grandson of Catherine the Great, who at one time also dreamed of an “enlightened monarchy” and a complete symphony between the authorities and a European-educated society. Karamzin's response to the coup on March 11, 1801 and the accession to the throne of Alexander I was the "Historical eulogy to Catherine II" (1802), where Karamzin expressed his views on the essence of the monarchy in Russia, as well as the duties of the monarch and his subjects. "Eulogy" was approved by the sovereign, as a collection of examples for the young monarch, and favorably received by him. Alexander I, obviously, was interested in Karamzin's historical research, and the emperor rightly decided that a great country simply needed to remember its no less great past. And if you don’t remember, then at least create anew ...
In 1803, through the tsar’s educator M.N. Muravyov, a poet, historian, teacher, one of the most educated people of that time, N.M. Karamzin received the official title of court historiographer with a pension of 2,000 rubles. (A pension of 2,000 rubles a year was then assigned to officials who, according to the Table of Ranks, had a rank not lower than that of a general). Later, I. V. Kireevsky, referring to Karamzin himself, wrote about Muravyov: “Who knows, maybe without his thoughtful and warm assistance, Karamzin would not have had the means to accomplish his great deed.”
In 1804, Karamzin practically retired from literary and publishing activities and began to create the "History of the Russian State", on which he worked until the end of his days. Through his influence M.N. Muravyov made available to the historian many of the previously unknown and even "secret" materials, opened libraries and archives for him. Modern historians can only dream of such favorable conditions for work. Therefore, in our opinion, to speak of the "History of the Russian State" as a "scientific feat" N.M. Karamzin, not entirely fair. The court historiographer was in the service, conscientiously doing the work for which he was paid money. Accordingly, he had to write such a story that was currently needed by the customer, namely, Tsar Alexander I, who at the first stage of his reign showed sympathy for European liberalism.
However, under the influence of studies in Russian history, by 1810 Karamzin became a consistent conservative. During this period, the system of his political views finally took shape. Karamzin's statements that he is a "republican at heart" can only be adequately interpreted if one considers that we are talking about the "Platonic Republic of the Sages", an ideal social order based on state virtue, strict regulation and the denial of personal freedom. At the beginning of 1810, Karamzin, through his relative Count F.V. Rostopchin, met in Moscow with the leader of the "conservative party" at court - Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna (sister of Alexander I) and began to constantly visit her residence in Tver. The salon of the Grand Duchess represented the center of conservative opposition to the liberal-Western course, personified by the figure of M. M. Speransky. In this salon, Karamzin read excerpts from his "History ...", at the same time he met Empress Dowager Maria Feodorovna, who became one of his patronesses.
In 1811, at the request of Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, Karamzin wrote a note “On ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations”, in which he outlined his ideas about the ideal structure of the Russian state and sharply criticized the policies of Alexander I and his immediate predecessors: Paul I, Catherine II and Peter I. In the 19th century, the note was never published in full and diverged only in handwritten lists. In Soviet times, the thoughts expressed by Karamzin in his message were perceived as a reaction of the extremely conservative nobility to the reforms of M. M. Speransky. The author himself was branded a "reactionary", an opponent of the liberation of the peasantry and other liberal steps taken by the government of Alexander I.
However, during the first full publication of the note in 1988, Yu. M. Lotman revealed its deeper content. In this document, Karamzin made a reasonable criticism of unprepared bureaucratic reforms carried out from above. While praising Alexander I, the author of the note at the same time attacks his advisers, referring, of course, to Speransky, who stood for constitutional reforms. Karamzin takes the liberty of proving to the tsar in detail, with reference to historical examples, that Russia is not ready either historically or politically to abolish serfdom and limit the autocratic monarchy by the constitution (following the example of the European powers). Some of his arguments (for example, about the uselessness of freeing peasants without land, the impossibility of constitutional democracy in Russia) look quite convincing and historically correct even today.
Along with an overview of Russian history and criticism of the political course of Emperor Alexander I, the note contained an integral, original and very complex theoretical concept of autocracy as a special, distinctively Russian type of power closely associated with Orthodoxy.
At the same time, Karamzin refused to identify "true autocracy" with despotism, tyranny or arbitrariness. He believed that such deviations from the norms were due to chance (Ivan IV the Terrible, Paul I) and were quickly eliminated by the inertia of the tradition of "wise" and "virtuous" monarchical rule. In cases of a sharp weakening and even complete absence of the supreme state and church authority (for example, during the Time of Troubles), this powerful tradition led to the restoration of autocracy within a short historical period. Autocracy was the "palladium of Russia", the main reason for its power and prosperity. Therefore, the basic principles of monarchical government in Russia, according to Karamzin, should have been preserved in the future. They should have been supplemented only by a proper policy in the field of legislation and education, which would lead not to undermining the autocracy, but to its maximum strengthening. With such an understanding of autocracy, any attempt to limit it would be a crime against Russian history and the Russian people.
Initially, Karamzin's note only irritated the young emperor, who did not like criticism of his actions. In this note, the historiographer proved himself plus royaliste que le roi (greater royalist than the king himself). However, subsequently the brilliant "anthem to the Russian autocracy" as presented by Karamzin undoubtedly had its effect. After the war of 1812, the winner of Napoleon, Alexander I, curtailed many of his liberal projects: Speransky's reforms were not completed, the constitution and the very idea of \u200b\u200blimiting autocracy remained only in the minds of future Decembrists. And already in the 1830s, Karamzin's concept actually formed the basis of the ideology of the Russian Empire, designated by the "theory of official nationality" of Count S. Uvarov (Orthodoxy-Autocracy-Nationhood).
Before the publication of the first 8 volumes of "History ..." Karamzin lived in Moscow, from where he traveled only to Tver to the Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna and to Nizhny Novgorod, while Moscow was occupied by the French. He usually spent his summers at Ostafyev, the estate of Prince Andrei Ivanovich Vyazemsky, whose illegitimate daughter, Ekaterina Andreevna, Karamzin married in 1804. (The first wife of Karamzin, Elizaveta Ivanovna Protasova, died in 1802).
In the last 10 years of his life, which Karamzin spent in St. Petersburg, he became very close to the royal family. Although Emperor Alexander I treated Karamzin with restraint from the time the Note was submitted, Karamzin often spent his summers in Tsarskoye Selo. At the request of the empresses (Maria Feodorovna and Elizaveta Alekseevna), he more than once conducted frank political conversations with Emperor Alexander, in which he acted as a spokesman for the opponents of drastic liberal reforms. In 1819-1825, Karamzin passionately rebelled against the intentions of the sovereign regarding Poland (submitted a note “Opinion of a Russian citizen”), condemned the increase in state taxes in peacetime, spoke of the ridiculous provincial system of finance, criticized the system of military settlements, the activities of the Ministry of Education, pointed out the strange choice of the sovereign by some of the most important dignitaries (for example, Arakcheev), spoke of the need to reduce internal troops, about the imaginary correction of roads, so painful for the people and constantly pointed out the need to have firm laws, civil and state.
Of course, having behind such intercessors as both empresses and Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, one could criticize, and argue, and show civil courage, and try to set the monarch "on the right path." It was not for nothing that Emperor Alexander I and his contemporaries and subsequent historians of his reign called the “mysterious sphinx”. In words, the sovereign agreed with Karamzin’s critical remarks regarding military settlements, recognized the need to “give fundamental laws to Russia”, as well as to revise some aspects of domestic policy, but it just so happened in our country that in reality all wise advice of state people remains “fruitless for the dear Fatherland” ...
Karamzin as a historian
Karamzin is our first historian and last chronicler.
By his criticism he belongs to history,
innocence and apothegms - the chronicle.
A.S. Pushkin
Even from the point of view of Karamzin's modern historical science, no one dared to call 12 volumes of his "History of the Russian State" scientific work. Even then, it was clear to everyone that the honorary title of a court historiographer cannot make a writer a historian, give him the appropriate knowledge and proper training.
But, on the other hand, Karamzin did not initially set himself the task of taking on the role of a researcher. The newly minted historiographer was not going to write a scientific treatise and appropriate the laurels of his illustrious predecessors - Schlozer, Miller, Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, Boltin, etc.
Preliminary critical work on sources for Karamzin is only "a heavy tribute brought by reliability." He was, first of all, a writer, and therefore he wanted to apply his literary talent to ready-made material: “select, animate, colorize” and, in this way, make Russian history “something attractive, strong, worthy of attention not only Russians, but also foreigners.” And this task he performed brilliantly.
Today it is impossible not to agree with the fact that at the beginning of the 19th century source studies, paleography and other auxiliary historical disciplines were in their very infancy. Therefore, to demand professional criticism from the writer Karamzin, as well as strict adherence to one or another method of working with historical sources, is simply ridiculous.
One can often hear the opinion that Karamzin simply beautifully rewrote Prince M.M. This is wrong.
Naturally, when writing his "History ..." Karamzin actively used the experience and works of his predecessors - Schlozer and Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov helped Karamzin navigate the sources of Russian history, significantly influencing both the choice of material and its arrangement in the text. Coincidentally or not, Karamzin brought The History of the Russian State to exactly the same place as Shcherbatov's History. However, in addition to following the scheme already developed by his predecessors, Karamzin cites in his essay a lot of references to the most extensive foreign historiography, almost unfamiliar to the Russian reader. While working on his "History ...", for the first time he introduced into scientific circulation a mass of unknown and previously unexplored sources. These are Byzantine and Livonian chronicles, information from foreigners about the population of ancient Rus', as well as a large number of Russian chronicles that have not yet been touched by the hand of a historian. For comparison: M.M. Shcherbatov used only 21 Russian chronicles in writing his work, Karamzin actively cites more than 40. In addition to the chronicles, Karamzin attracted monuments of ancient Russian law and ancient Russian fiction to the study. A special chapter of "History ..." is devoted to "Russian Truth", and a number of pages - to the newly opened "Tale of Igor's Campaign".
Thanks to the diligent help of the directors of the Moscow Archive of the Ministry (Board) of Foreign Affairs N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky and A. F. Malinovsky, Karamzin was able to use those documents and materials that were not available to his predecessors. The Synodal depository, libraries of monasteries (Trinity Lavra, Volokolamsk Monastery and others), as well as private collections of Musin-Pushkin and N.P. Rumyantsev. Karamzin received especially many documents from Chancellor Rumyantsev, who collected historical materials in Russia and abroad through his numerous agents, as well as from AI Turgenev, who compiled a collection of documents from the papal archive.
Many of the sources used by Karamzin perished during the Moscow fire of 1812 and survived only in his "History ..." and extensive "Notes" to its text. Thus, Karamzin's work, to some extent, has itself acquired the status of a historical source, to which professional historians have every right to refer.
Among the main shortcomings of the "History of the Russian State" is traditionally noted the peculiar view of its author on the tasks of the historian. According to Karamzin, "knowledge" and "scholarship" in the historian "do not replace the talent to portray actions." Before the artistic task of history, even the moral one recedes into the background, which was set by Karamzin's patron, M.N. Muravyov. The characteristics of historical characters are given by Karamzin exclusively in a literary and romantic vein, characteristic of the direction of Russian sentimentalism he created. The first Russian princes according to Karamzin are distinguished by their "ardent romantic passion" for conquests, their retinue - nobility and loyal spirit, the "rabble" sometimes shows discontent, raising rebellions, but in the end agrees with the wisdom of noble rulers, etc., etc.
Meanwhile, the previous generation of historians, under the influence of Schlözer, had long developed the idea of critical history, and among Karamzin's contemporaries, the requirements for criticizing historical sources, despite the lack of a clear methodology, were generally recognized. And the next generation has already come forward with the demand for philosophical history - with the identification of the laws of development of the state and society, the recognition of the main driving forces and laws of the historical process. Therefore, the overly “literary” creation of Karamzin was immediately subjected to well-founded criticism.
According to the idea, firmly rooted in Russian and foreign historiography of the 17th - 18th centuries, the development of the historical process depends on the development of monarchical power. Karamzin does not deviate one iota from this idea: the monarchical power glorified Russia in the Kievan period; the division of power between the princes was a political mistake, which was corrected by the state wisdom of the Moscow princes - the collectors of Rus'. At the same time, it was the princes who corrected its consequences - the fragmentation of Rus' and the Tatar yoke.
But before reproaching Karamzin for not contributing anything new to the development of Russian historiography, it should be remembered that the author of The History of the Russian State did not at all set himself the task of philosophical understanding of the historical process or blind imitation of the ideas of the Western European romantics (F. Guizot, F. Mignet, J. Meschel), who already then started talking about the “class struggle” and the “spirit of the people” as the main driving force of history. Karamzin was not interested in historical criticism at all, and deliberately denied the "philosophical" trend in history. The researcher's conclusions from historical material, as well as his subjective fabrications, seem to Karamzin to be "metaphysics" that is not suitable "for depicting action and character."
Thus, with his peculiar views on the tasks of the historian, Karamzin, by and large, remained outside the dominant currents of Russian and European historiography of the 19th and 20th centuries. Of course, he participated in its consistent development, but only in the form of an object for constant criticism and the clearest example of how history should not be written.
The reaction of contemporaries
Karamzin's contemporaries - readers and admirers - enthusiastically accepted his new "historical" work. The first eight volumes of The History of the Russian State were printed in 1816-1817 and went on sale in February 1818. Huge for that time, the three-thousandth circulation sold out in 25 days. (And this despite the solid price - 50 rubles). A second edition was immediately required, which was carried out in 1818-1819 by I. V. Slyonin. In 1821 a new, ninth volume was published, and in 1824 the next two. The author did not have time to finish the twelfth volume of his work, which was published in 1829, almost three years after his death.
"History ..." was admired by Karamzin's literary friends and a vast public of non-specialist readers who suddenly discovered, like Count Tolstoy the American, that their Fatherland has a history. According to A.S. Pushkin, “everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their fatherland, hitherto unknown to them. She was a new discovery for them. Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus.
Liberal intellectual circles of the 1820s found Karamzin's "History ..." backward in general views and unnecessarily tendentious:
Specialists-researchers, as already mentioned, treated Karamzin's work exactly as a work, sometimes even belittling its historical significance. It seemed to many that Karamzin's undertaking itself was too risky - to undertake to write such an extensive work in the then state of Russian historical science.
Already during Karamzin's lifetime, critical analyzes of his "History ..." appeared, and soon after the author's death, attempts were made to determine the general significance of this work in historiography. Lelevel pointed to an involuntary distortion of the truth, due to the patriotic, religious and political hobbies of Karamzin. Artsybashev showed the extent to which the writing of "history" is harmed by the literary techniques of a non-professional historian. Pogodin summed up all the shortcomings of the History, and N.A. Polevoy saw the common cause of these shortcomings in the fact that "Karamzin is a writer not of our time." All his points of view, both in literature and in philosophy, politics and history, became obsolete with the appearance in Russia of new influences of European romanticism. In opposition to Karamzin, Polevoy soon wrote his six-volume History of the Russian People, where he completely surrendered himself to the ideas of Guizot and other Western European romantics. Contemporaries rated this work as an "unworthy parody" of Karamzin, subjecting the author to rather vicious and not always deserved attacks.
In the 1830s, Karamzin's "History ..." becomes the banner of the officially "Russian" direction. With the assistance of the same Pogodin, its scientific rehabilitation is carried out, which is fully consistent with the spirit of Uvarov's "theory of official nationality".
In the second half of the 19th century, on the basis of the "History ...", a mass of popular science articles and other texts were written, which formed the basis of well-known educational and teaching aids. Based on the historical plots of Karamzin, many works for children and youth were created, the purpose of which for many years was to instill patriotism, fidelity to civic duty, and the responsibility of the younger generation for the fate of their homeland. This book, in our opinion, played a decisive role in shaping the views of more than one generation of Russian people, having a significant impact on the foundations of the patriotic education of young people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
December 14th. Final Karamzin.
The death of Emperor Alexander I and the December events of 1925 deeply shocked N.M. Karamzin and negatively affected his health.
On December 14, 1825, having received news of the uprising, the historian goes out into the street: “I saw terrible faces, heard terrible words, five or six stones fell at my feet.”
Karamzin, of course, regarded the performance of the nobility against their sovereign as a rebellion and a grave crime. But there were so many acquaintances among the rebels: the Muravyov brothers, Nikolai Turgenev, Bestuzhev, Ryleev, Kuchelbeker (he translated Karamzin's History into German).
A few days later, Karamzin will say about the Decembrists: "The errors and crimes of these young people are the errors and crimes of our age."
On December 14, during his travels around St. Petersburg, Karamzin caught a bad cold and fell ill with pneumonia. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was another victim of this day: his idea of the world collapsed, faith in the future was lost, and a new king ascended the throne, very far from the ideal image of an enlightened monarch. Half-ill, Karamzin visited the palace every day, where he talked with Empress Maria Feodorovna, from memories of the late sovereign Alexander, moving on to discussions about the tasks of the future reign.
Karamzin could no longer write. Volume XII of the "History ..." stopped at the interregnum of 1611 - 1612. The last words of the last volume are about a small Russian fortress: "Nutlet did not give up." The last thing that Karamzin really managed to do in the spring of 1826 was, together with Zhukovsky, he persuaded Nicholas I to return Pushkin from exile. A few years later, the emperor tried to pass the baton of the first historiographer of Russia to the poet, but the “sun of Russian poetry” somehow did not fit into the role of the state ideologist and theorist ...
In the spring of 1826 N.M. Karamzin, on the advice of doctors, decided to go to southern France or Italy for treatment. Nicholas I agreed to sponsor his trip and kindly placed a frigate of the imperial fleet at the disposal of the historiographer. But Karamzin was already too weak to travel. He died on May 22 (June 3) 1826 in St. Petersburg. He was buried at the Tikhvin cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.
SPb. Volumes I - VIII, 1816, IX, 1821, X, XI, 1821, XII, 1829 (the first eight volumes were printed in the second edition in 1818 and 1819).
Having indicated in the title of the article all twelve volumes of the "History of the Russian State", we do not want, however, to offer our readers a detailed analysis of this remarkable creation, we will not follow its creator in detail in all respects, we will not consider the "History of the Russian State" from general and private sides and its writer as a historian and paleographer, philosopher and geographer, archaeographer and researcher of historical materials. Criticism of such a volume cannot be an article in a journal, and only because, in its immensity, it would exceed the limits that should be placed on articles of time-based publications. We only want to survey the work of Karamzin in general at a time when last The volume of this creation showed us the limit of labor, which the writer, unforgettable for Russia, reached. If journals are to be a mirror of modern enlightenment, of modern opinions, if they are to convey to the public the voice of people of higher education, their view of important subjects that draw attention to themselves, then, of course, it is the duty of the journalist to make judgments about the History of the Russian State, based on conclusions from various opinions and on the considerations of enlightened people. It can be resolutely said that there has not been before and, perhaps, there will not be for a long time in our literature another creation, so great, attracting such strong, universal attention of the domestic public. In Europe, Karamzin's work was accepted with curious participation, as a representative of our enlightenment, our opinions on the most important subjects of social life, our view of people and events. To show the reasons for the delight with which Russian readers welcomed Karamzin's work, the coldness with which the Europeans responded, recognizing him in translations, and guided by the opinions of critics worthy of respect, to indicate the degree that Karamzin occupies in the history of modern literature, modern education, ours and Europe, to signify his merit, to evaluate his right to glory - this is the goal we have proposed.
We do not think that well-meaning people will blame the reviewer for his obscurity and the vastness of the glory of the creation he is considering. It is time for us to banish localism in literature, just as this disastrous prejudice has been banished from our civil life. Impartiality, respect for a person worthy of him: these are the duties that the public must demand from a critic not only of Karamzin's works, but of any literary phenomenon. Nothing more. The indignation with which the public, and - we dare to add - the writer of this article, met Mr. Artsybashev's criticism of the "History of the Russian State" last year, stemmed from the indecent tone, from the pettiness, injustice shown by Mr. Artsybashev in his articles. On the contrary, the more votes, the more opinions, the better. We must exterminate the unfortunate polemic that dishonors a good writer, we must leave it to those people who want to become known even for dishonor, but fair, modest criticism that judges a book, not the author, is far from what many among us consider criticism, as far as heaven is from earth. Criticism is the breath of literature, and any attempt to achieve practical criticism must at least be excused by impartial people.
Another circumstance, much more important, may occupy us. We ask: has the time come for us to judge Karamzin? Now it has come. Three years have already passed, as all earthly relationships, all personal passions, prejudices were buried in the grave of the unforgettable: only his creations remained, our legacy is inalienable. For us, new generation, Karamzin exists only in the history of literature and in his works. We cannot get carried away, neither by a personal predilection for him, nor by our own passions, which forced some of Karamzin's contemporaries to look at him incorrectly. Karamzin's work has been completed: the picture of the great artist is presented to us, unfinished, it is true, but the chill of death has already bound the life-giving hand of the creator, and we, grieving for the loss, can judge his work as the creation of the whole. Fortunately for us, if Karamzin died too early for our hopes, then he did a lot, and his creation is as important as it is huge. He did not have time to depict to us the deliverance of the fatherland by the great Minin and the glorious Pozharsky; he did not have time to narrate the reigns of the meek Michael, the wise Alexis, the divine Peter, the great and wonderful deeds that took place over a period of more than seventy years, from 1611 (on which he stopped) to 1689. Here Karamzin wanted to finish his work, briefly depict the rest of the history of Russia, from the accession to the throne of Peter the Great to our time, and indicate the future fate of the fatherland. But the future is known to the One God, said Karamzin, dedicating his History to Alexander the Blessed, and we, at Karamzin's tomb, hearing about his assumptions, could repeat his words. Despite all this, Karamzin - we repeat what we said - managed to fulfill a lot according to his assumption: he depicted for us the events of Russian history for seven and a half centuries, pursued it from the cradle of the Russian people to the maturity of the Russian state, this wondrous giant of the century. Not enough for us, who valued the glory of Karamzin - enough for his glory. He managed to fully develop his talent, he could not step further. In twelve volumes of "History of the Russian State" the whole Karamzin.
Time flies quickly, and things and people change quickly. We can hardly assure ourselves that what we regard as real has become past, modern - historical. So is Karamzin. Many more reckon him with our generation, with our time, forgetting that he was born sixty more than a year ago (in 1765); that more than 40 years have passed since he entered the field of literature; that it has already been 25 years since he stopped all other exercises and took up only the history of Russia, and, consequently, that he started it for a quarter of a century up to now, being almost magpie years: this is such a period of life in which a person can no longer erase from himself the type of his initial education, he can only keep up with his rapidly advancing age, only follow it, and then straining all the powers of the mind.
A chronological look at the literary field of Karamzin shows us that he was a writer, philosopher, historian past century, former, not our generations. This is very important for us in all respects, for by this the merits of Karamzin, his merits and glory are truly assessed. Distinguishing the age and time of each object is the true measure of the correctness of judgments about each object. This measure has been perfected by the mind of the thinkers of our time. Even the ancients knew it, and Cicero said that there could be non vitia hominis, sed vitia saeculi [ Not the vices of man, but the vices of the age (lat.)]. But because this opinion was imperfect, incomplete, there were many errors in judgments.
If it were necessary to compare Karamzin with anyone, we would compare him with Lomonosov: Karamzin walked from the place where Lomonosov had stopped; finished what Lomonosov started. The feat of both was equally great, important, huge in relation to Russia. Lomonosov found the elements of the Russian language mixed, unsettled; there was no literature. Imbued with the study of Latin writers, he knew how to separate the elements of the language, put them in order, form the original Russian literature, taught grammar, rhetoric, wrote poetry, was an orator, prose writer, historian of his time. After him, before Karamzin, for 25 years, very little was done. Karamzin (let us note a strange accident: born in the very year of Lomonosov's death), educated by the study of French writers, imbued with the modern enlightenment of Europe, which was decidedly all French, transferred what he had acquired to his native soil, and with his strong, active mind moved his contemporaries forward. Like Lomonosov, extremely varied in his studies, Karamzin was a grammarian, poet, novelist, historian, journalist, and political writer. We can hardly find any branch of contemporary literature on which he would not have had influence; his very mistakes were instructive, causing the minds of others to move, producing perplexities, disputes, from which the truth was.
This is how Karamzin acted, and as a result of this, his exploits should be evaluated. He was, no doubt, first writer of his people at the end of the last century, was, perhaps, the most enlightened of the Russian writers of his day. Meanwhile, the century moved with a speed unheard of until that time. Never has so much been discovered, explained, thought about as much has been openly, explained, thought about in Europe in the last twenty-five years. Everything has changed both in the political and in the literary world. Philosophy, theory of literature, poetry, history, political knowledge - everything has been transformed. But when this new period of change began, Karamzin had already completed his exploits in general in literature. He was no longer an actor; one thought occupied him: the history of the Fatherland; he devoted all his time and labors to her. Without him, a new Russian poetry developed, the study of philosophy, history, political knowledge began in accordance with new ideas, new concepts of the Germans, English and French, tempered (retrempes, as they themselves say) in a terrible storm and renewed for a new life.
What value do the writings, translations and works of Karamzin have for us now, excluding his history? Historical, comparative. Karamzin can no longer be a model for either a poet, or a novelist, or even a Russian prose writer. His period is over. The light prose of Zhukovsky, Pushkin's poems are higher than the works in these genera of Karamzin. We are surprised how Karamzin stepped in his time, we honor his merit, we honorably inscribe his name in the history of our literature, but we see that his Russian stories are not Russian; his prose lagged far behind the prose of other modern examples of ours; his poems are prose for us; his theory of literature, his philosophy are insufficient for us.
This is as it should be, for Karamzin was not a huge, age-old genius: he was a man of great intelligence, educated in his own way, but did not belong to the eternally young giants of philosophy, poetry, mathematics, he lived at a time of rapid change in young Russian literature, a time in which everything must change rapidly. He captivated his contemporaries, and he himself was captivated by them.
Having thus explained Karamzin to ourselves as a writer in general, we turn to his History.
She took the rest twenty three years the life of Karamzin (from 1802 to 1826); he worked diligently gave her the best time of his life. But did he become along with the great historians of ancient and modern times? Can his History be called a work our time?
We will see a comparison of him with ancient and modern historians, whose names are marked by glory, later, but now we will only say that just as Karamzin himself was generally a writer not of our century, so we cannot call his history a creation of our time.
There is nothing in this opinion that offends the memory of the great Karamzin. True, at least modern ideas of philosophy, poetry and history appeared in the last twenty-five years, consequently, the true idea of History was inaccessible to Karamzin. He was already completely educated according to the ideas and concepts of his age and could not be reborn at the time when his work was begun, the concept of him was completely educated and it remained only to fulfill. Let's explain in more detail.
We often hear the word Story in a confused, false and perverse sense. The word actually means: descriptor, but how differently one can accept and understand it! We are told about historians, and they count in a row: Herodotus, Tacitus, Hume, Guizot, without feeling what difference there is between these famous people and how mistaken he is who puts side by side Herodotus and Guizot, Titus Livius and Herder, Gibbon and Thierry, Robertson and Mignet.
The latest thinkers have fully explained to us the meaning of the word story; they showed us what the philosopher must understand by this word. History, in the highest knowledge, is not a neatly written chronicle of past times, it is not a simple means of satisfying our curiosity. No, it is a practical verification of philosophical concepts about the world and man, an analysis of philosophical synthesis. Here we only understand general history, and in it we see the true revelation of the past, the explanation of the present, and the prophecy of the future. Philosophy penetrates the whole abyss of the past: it sees earthly creations that were before man, discovers the traces of man in the mysterious East and in the deserts of America, understands human legends, considers the earth in relation to heaven and man in relation to his dwelling place, the planet, driven by the hand of providence in space and time. Takova pre-history(Urgeschichte) of a person. Man appears on earth; a society is formed; starts human life, and starts story person. Here the historian looks at kingdoms and peoples, these planets of the moral world, as mathematical figures depicted by the material world. He understands the course of mankind, society, customs, concepts of each age and people, deduces a chain of causes that have produced and are producing events. Here is the story of the highest.
But the forms of history can be infinitely diverse. History can be critical, narrative, scholarly; at the base of each of them should be philosophical, in spirit, not in name, but in essence, according to one’s outlook (for simply adding the name: philosophical, following the example of Rainal, we will not make any history truly philosophical). General history is that huge circle in which countless other circles revolve: the histories of particular peoples, states, lands, beliefs, knowledge. The conditions of general history already determine what these particular histories should be. They must strive towards the basis of universal history, as radii towards the center; they show the philosopher: what place in the world of eternal existence was occupied by this or that people, this or that state, this or that person, for for humanity both the whole people and the historical person equally express the idea; humanity lives in peoples, and peoples in representatives who move crude material and form separate moral worlds from it.
This is the true idea of history; at least we are now satisfied only with this idea of history and regard it as true. It has matured over the centuries, and has developed from modern philosophy in history, just as similar ideas have developed from philosophy into theories of poetry and political knowledge.
But if this idea belongs to our age, we will be told, consequently, no one will satisfy our requirements, and the greatest historians must fade in the rays of the few newest, let's say more - future historians.
So, if we are pointed to a Greek, a Roman, as an example of the highest perfection that a person could achieve, as a model that we must unconditionally follow, this is false. classicism stories; He insufficient And wrong. But, having rejected it, we will find a place and a turn for everyone and everything. Don't think that we want to force everyone to be a philosopher. We have said that the forms of history are infinitely varied; in every form one can be perfect, at least a great historian; fulfill only the conditions of the clan you have chosen, and you will satisfy the requirements of modern perfection.
History can be pragmatic if you consider the events of, say, some state in relation to the system of states in which it was included, and this system in the general history of peoples, if you reduce all events to causes and open the connection of these causes with others, explaining the causes by events, and vice versa, explaining through that the history of mankind, in that place, century, subject that you have chosen. Takova History of European citizenship(Histoire generate de la civilization en Europe, depuis la chute de l'empire Romain jusqu'a la revolution francaise) [ A General History of Civilization in Europe from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the French Revolution] Gizo. You can take a smaller volume, consider the events of a state or period without raising it to the general history of mankind, but this goal should be in the mind of the historian. These are: The History of Charles V, Op. Robertson, History of the Fall of the Roman Empire, Op. Gibbon, works that could be called perfect in their own way, if the philosophy of these historians was higher than that which they considered perfect, if the concepts of these writers about political knowledge were brought to the present maturity, if the materials were better processed in their time. Finally, we find another kind of history, which we will call narrative. This is a simple narrative of events; if possible, eloquently, but the main thing - right outlined. There is actually no historian here: events speak, but extraordinary art is required. Loyalty is necessary not only in years, but in the spirit, expression, deeds, words of the characters, in the mores, customs, beliefs, and life of the people. Ancient historians are examples of perfection in this, and the writer of such a story can repeat the words of Karamzin: "Do not imitate Tacitus, but write as he would write in your place." Of the latest, an excellent example of such a story was shown to us by Barant and, as a military historian, Napoleon, in the descriptions of his campaigns. Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Tacitus enchant with their narrative stories. They live in their descriptions, breathe the air with the people they portray; these are Omir's poems in the world of history. The most important difficulty for us newcomers, if we want to move to another century, to another people, consists in separating ourselves from all opinions, from all the ideas of our age and people, in collecting colors for a picture, in searching for truth through extensive criticism. The ancients speak unfairly about many things, but they are confident in the truth with such good nature, with such persuasiveness, with which Omir was confident in his geography and mythology; moreover, we have nothing to believe their story, and we believe in the word. Therefore, historical criticism completely robs the ancients of the name historical-philosophers, pragmatic historians, and looks at them only as eloquent narrators.
Just as the French made up a special kind classical creations from a false imitation of the ancients, the false concept of ancient historians produced a special historical classicism. They wanted to make them imitate the ancients, adopted from them all forms, expressions, even words. The mistake was that they imitated external forms, not understanding the spirit of the ancients. Subsequently, they mixed all this with erroneous philosophy, with cleverness, apothegms and maxims, intolerable and vulgar. And from the very restoration of European enlightenment, history, after the monastic annals and legends, has been an ugly, absurd mixture; occasionally only flashed Machiavelli, Bossuets, Montesquieu. In the past century, there was a desire for a more perfect history, and at the time when Herder comprehended the secret of universal history, John Miller guessed how narrative history should be written for new historians, German scholars showed a true criticism of history, the French were the first to begin to form, in the footsteps of Machiavelli, Bussuet and Montesquieu, philosophical history. Their experiments were insufficient, and the shortcomings of these experiments echoed in the works of Hume, Gibbon, Robertson, followers of the French philosophy of the XVIII century. It was necessary to combine the works of the Schellings, Schlegels, Cousins, Schlozers, Herders, Niebuhrs, to find out classicism And romanticism, get to know the political sciences well, evaluate the ancients in a proper way, fully understand the requirements of the latest, perhaps even Schiller, Zshokke, Goethe, W. Scott, so that we can finally understand what history is? How should it be written, and what satisfies our age?
Let us apply all these considerations to the History of the Russian State, and we will see that Karamzin's works, in relation to history, which our age requires, are the same as Karamzin's other works in relation to the modern requirements of our literature - it is unsatisfactory.
Karamzin could not and did not leave the concepts of his age, the time in which the idea of philosophical history had just begun to manifest itself, and the relations of the ancients to us, and the special conditions of the new writers, were not yet clearly defined; political knowledge was not established; the narrative part of the story is not fully understood.
How philosopher-historian, Karamzin will not withstand strict criticism. Read his thoughts on history and you will agree with this without further explanation.
"History," this is how Karamzin begins his Preface to "The History of the Russian State," in a manner (?) there is a holy book of nations: main, necessary; a mirror of their being and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the covenant of ancestors to posterity; supplement, an explanation of the present and an example of the future.
Great phrases, but what do they mean? Holy book in a way and at the same time - the main, necessary, the mirror of being, the tablet of revelations, the covenant of the ancestors, Do all these words explain to us the essence of the object? Is it supposed to be definition stories?
“Rulers, legislators (continues Karamzin) act according to the instructions of History ... Human wisdom needs experiments ... It must know how from time immemorial, rebellious passions have agitated civil society, and in what ways the beneficent power of the mind curbed their violent aspiration ... And a simple citizen should read history. She reconciles him with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with a common occurrence in all ages, consoles in public calamities, testifying, that before there were similar ones, there were even more terrible ones, and the state did not collapse; she nourishes the moral sense (?), and with its righteous judgment disposes the soul to justice, which affirms our right and the consent of society. That's the benefit."
All this is well said, but is this how a philosopher should look at history? Having first made a rhetorical definition, we are told that history is helpful for -
1st. The rulers of nations cope with it like a judge with an old archive, in order to decide cases as they were previously decided. Perfect injustice!
2nd. Citizens see that Evil has always been What people have always endured why and them must endure. A consolation similar to the comparison that Karamzin used in Volume IX, saying that the Russians died just as gloriously under the axes of the executioners of Tsar John IV, as the Greeks died at Thermopylae*!
______________________
* Volume IX, p. 437.
______________________
After such a limited view of favor, the author goes to the pleasure of history, based on the fact that curiosity is human and if we like novels, fictions, then all the more should we like history, connecting with amusement novel the truth events. The history of our country is even more so, the author continues, and from the private egoism of peoples it passes to what it should have begun: the importance that the history of Russia has in the history of mankind. You think that you will be told how Russia was formed in the midst of the unrest of the ninth century; how she shielded Europe from the Mongols in the thirteenth century; how it entered the European system in the 18th century; how it worked in the 19th century. Not at all! The author sees one curiosity: it is everything for him; he tries to prove that he is in no way more curious and entertaining than the history of Russian history of other peoples; what is in our history pictures, cases, which no less curious paintings and incidents described by ancient historians. Do you think that the author will say about Varangian feudalism, the formation of Russian principalities, rapprochement with Greece, the merging of Asia and Europe in Russia, the transformation of Russia by the hand of Peter; against; the author calls five centuries Russian history unimportant to the mind a subject that is not rich in thoughts for a pragmatist, beauty for the painter, recalls that history is not a novel and the world is not a garden where everything should be pleasant, and consoles at last that in in the deserts there are charming views, and as evidence he points to the campaigns of Svyatoslav, the invasion of Batu, the Battle of Kulikovo, the capture of Kazan, the blinding of Vasilko! Or does the historian think that we, like children, when we take up his book, ask beforehand, isn't she boring? or - he is not a philosopher-historian!
They not a pragmatist when later he assures that it will be unfair if we miss boring start Russian history. " Bliss readers will it condemn the deeds and fate of our ancestors to eternal oblivion? They suffered and we We don't even want to hear about them! Foreigners may miss what is boring for them, but kind Russians are bound to have more patience, following the rule of state morality which puts respect for ancestors in the dignity of an educated citizen. "Doesn't this mean to prove that a body without a head cannot exist, and is it possible for a pragmatic historian to deal with the laziness of readers, and therefore force us to read the suffering of ancestors, why does compassion and respect make a young grandson patiently listen to stories about the petty details of the life of an old and sick grandfather?
Until now, says the author, hitherto the ancients serve as models for us. No one has surpassed Libya in the beauty of storytelling, Tacitus in force: that's the main thing! Knowledge all right in the light (?), German erudition, Voltaire's wit, not Machiavellian's deepest thought in a historian can replace the talent to depict actions. Let us recall these words: they are wonderful.
We could write out, analyze the entire preface to the "History of the Russian State": readers would then see the spirit, plan, location of Karamzin's creation and would agree with our opinion that Karamzin as a philosopher, as a pragmatist there is a writer not of our time. But even the places we have cited are enough to show how Karamzin understood how he wrote his history.
Read all 12 volumes of the "History of the Russian State", and you will be absolutely convinced of this. In the whole volume of it, there is no one common beginning from which all the events of Russian history would flow: you do not see how the history of Russia adjoins the history of mankind; all parts of it are separated from one another, all are disproportionate, and the life of Russia remains unknown to readers, although they tire him with unimportant, insignificant details, occupy him, touch him with great, terrible pictures, bring before us a crowd of people, enormously huge. Karamzin nowhere presents you with the spirit of the people, does not depict its numerous transitions, from Varangian feudalism to the despotic rule of John and to an original revival under Minin. You see a slender, long gallery of portraits, set in the same frame, drawn not from life, but by the will of the artist and dressed also by his will. This is a chronicle, written masterfully, by an artist of excellent, inventive talent, and not story.
“But,” they will tell us, “if so, then Karamzin’s work will go precisely to the kind of stories that we have named above narrative. Karamzin, saying that the ancients serve us samples until now that the strength and beauty of the narrative is the main thing for the historian, Of course, he managed to support his opinion with performance.
But Karamzin saw the ancient models wrongly, and putting the strength and beauty of the narrative as the main thing, it seems he did not know that he was doing the same thing that the French classics did, imitating the ancients. French tragedy, in comparison with the tragedy of the Greeks, is the same as the history of Karamzin in comparison with the history of Herodotus and Titus Livius. So here it is not understood that the ancients completely merged with the subject; the originality of the ancients disappeared, so to speak, in the subject that dominated their imagination, was their faith. The French classics and Karamzin, on the contrary, clothed their spirit, themselves, their concepts, feelings in the form of the object that occupies them; that is why everything is presented in the French classics and in Karamzin incorrectly and perversely. Let us take his creation only from one side in this respect.
Russian history begins with the arrival of formidable sea robbers to the tribes of half-savage Slavs and Finns. The alien robbers are the terrible Nordmanns; they enslave Slavs and Finns. These two elements fight, change into Russ, a habit with the despotism of Asia and Greece, the patriarchal rule of the conquered Slavs and the path to Constantinople that has opened up for Varangian adventurers; they exterminate ordinary Nordmannian feudalism, revealing a completely special feudalism: the appanage system of one ruling family of Russian princes. The destinies are falling apart; the Christian faith changes the characters of the leaders and the people; is the struggle of the inheritances, striving to merge into one whole; in the north, from the removal of the Russian princes to the south and the natural position of the country, is the Novgorod Republic; everything falls under the yoke of the Mongols. The spirit of the people struggles with this yoke, frees itself and reveals in Russia one despotic state, which soon collapses under its own burden. Slave is being done king terrifying only by the power of the name; but this was an extreme degree of despotism: the horror of the name disappeared - a new era had come. The fall of Novgorod and the ferocity of Grozny were necessary to merge together the torn parts of the state; violent merging required strong internal fermentation, and the age of impostors overthrew despotism, awakened the original spirit of the people: it was created from strong elements tested in the storms of feudalism, enslavement, despotism, and - Russia came to life under the meek, beneficent autocracy of the great Romanov dynasty; the history of Russia began with Minin as states, with Peter European states.
Karamzin suggested something completely different to himself, and already in the title of his book: "History Russian state"- a mistake is concluded. From the arrival of Rurik, he begins to say: we, our; sees Russians, thinks that love for the fatherland requires the ennoblement of the barbarians, and in the warrior Oleg, the warrior of Ivan the Terrible, the warrior Pozharsky does not notice the difference; he thinks the dignity of an educated citizen is the rule of state morality, requiring respect for ancestors. After this, can you expect the notion that before John III there was not Russia, But Russian states; so that the author sees the Nordmannian barbarian in Oleg; did he give equal justice to both Oleg Chernigovsky and Vladimir Monomakh in the struggle of appanages? No! and you won't find it. Oleg blazing him the popularity of the heroes, and the victorious banners of this hero flutter on the banks of the Dnieper and the Bug; Monomakh is the guardian angel of legitimate authority, and Oleg Chernigovskiy power-hungry, cruel, rejecting villainy only when it is useless, insidious, a rebel; a whole generation of Olegovichs falls under his shame and shame! So in Rurik he sees an autocratic, wise monarch; in the semi-wild Slavs, the people are glorious, great, and - even the military trumpets of the Svyatoslav warriors Karamzin considers proof the love of Russians for music art!
After all this, is it any wonder that European scholars, who were looking forward to the history of Karamzin, accepted this creation coldly, do not give him a place among the latest famous historians, Niebuhr, Thierry, Guizot, Barant and others. Karamzin cannot stand comparison with the great historians of the past century, Robertson, Hume, Gibbon, because, having all their shortcomings, he does not redeem them with that broad look, that deep refinement of causes and effects, which we see in the immortal works of three English historians of the past century. Karamzin is just as far from them in everything as Russia is far from England in intellectual maturity and enlightenment activity.
People who are accustomed to seeing unkindness and evil in any impartial judgment will say that we are depriving Karamzin of all his virtues, we want to humiliate this great man in the eyes of his contemporaries, they will point us to the voice of the entire fatherland, giving him unanimous praise. We justify ourselves by pointing out to such people the respectful respect with which we speak of Karamzin. But let us not be unconscious in the ecstasy of gratitude, and let us try to give ourselves a true account of our feelings!
On the contrary, not only do we not want to humiliate Karamzin, but we will elevate him, perhaps more than the most blind adherents dare to elevate. We will say that none of the Russian writers enjoyed such fame as Karamzin, and no one else deserved this fame. The feat of Karamzin is worthy of praise and astonishment. Knowing well all the Russian writers of our time, we dare to assert that today none of all Russian writers can even be his successor, let alone think of stepping further than Karamzin. Is this enough? But Karamzin is great only for today's Russia, And in relation to today's Russia- no more.
The glory that a people unanimously gives to one person is not a mistake, for this one, if he has acquired such fame, there is a true representative of the people who glorify him; he coincides with the people and exceeds them. The feat of Karamzin in the history of our country, for us Russians, is as great as his feat in our literature. In this case, foreigners should not judge us, because they do not know our relations, which justify the price of everything. We will try to present evidence of the justice of the surprise that Karamzin excites in his own country.
1. Is it possible not to appreciate the courage of Karamzin's enterprise? An extraordinary mind is visible in each of his literary enterprises. He guessed the needs of his time, knew how to satisfy them, and in 1790 he thought and wrote: “It hurts, but it must be fair to say that we still don’t have a good Russian history, that is, written with a philosophical mind, with criticism, with noble eloquence. colorize, and the reader will be surprised how from Nestor, Nikon and so on. could come out something attractive, strong, worthy of the attention not only of Russians, but also of strangers "*. For 12 years after that, he did not leave this thought, surprised his compatriots with his masterful experiments (description of the rebellion under Tsar Alexy; trip to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, etc.) and in 1802 began History. One must know, one must experience the whole difficulty of such an enterprise, know what Karamzin found and what he left behind. He created and materials, and the essence and style of history, was a critic of chronicles and monuments, a genealogist, chronologist, paleographer, numismatist.
______________________
* Works of Karamzin (third ed.). M., 1820, vol. IV, p. 187.
______________________
2. It is necessary to carefully consider and understand what step Karamzin took from all his predecessors. Who, in any way tolerable, appeared before him, except for the Frenchman Leveque (and that be a Samaritan!)? Shcherbatov, Emin, Nekhachin, Khilkov, Tatishchev are they worth criticism? Our publishers of chronicles, private histories, prospectors of antiquities showed deep ignorance and often complete ignorance. Let us say more, let us note what, it seems, has not yet been noticed: the criticisms of Karamzin, the attacks of Mr. Kachenovsky, Artsybashev and the slanderers of Vestnik Evropy, the very defense of Karamzin by Mr. Russov and Mr. Dmitriev 7 do not prove the superiority of an extraordinary man over people who can neither think nor write, who can hardly possess a little learning, which sometimes flickers in their heavy and discordant creatures?
3. Karamzin rendered unforgettable merits by discovering and putting the materials in order. True, attempts were made even before him, and the works of respectable men, Bayer, Tunman, Miller, especially the famous Schlozer, were significant and important. But no one over Karamzin did not render merits of Russian history in this respect. He embraced the whole of Russian history, from its beginning to the 17th century, and one cannot help but be sad that fate did not allow Karamzin to bring his review of materials to our times. He began actively, and seemed to revive the jealousy of other prospectors. Count Rumyantsev from that time began to patronize such enterprises, and under his patronage the Messrs. Kalaidovich, Stroev, Pogodin, Vostokov and others, all deserving, although not equally, our gratitude; materials were sought outside the borders of Russia; the news of Eastern writers was translated; state acts were printed. The Academy of Sciences itself seemed to come to life and showed us in the years. Krug, Frenet, Lerberg, worthy successors of Schlozer and Miller; many (Bause, Wichmann, Count F.A. Tolstoy) began to collect libraries of Russian memorabilia; in general, paleography, archeography, numismatics, and Russian genealogy were formed. It will be said that such was the desire of the times. But Karamzin guessed it, Karamzin went ahead of everyone and made everyone more. Having given a life-giving start, leaving in the first eight volumes a precious guide to all his followers, Karamzin finally (it must be admitted) seemed to be tired: the 9th, 10th, 11th and especially the 12th volumes of his History show that he no longer collected and disassembled materials with his former activity. And here you can see, what we said, that Karamzin is all in twelve volumes of his History; however, the arrangement of materials, a look at them, would be precious for us even in the face of Karamzin's fatigue, with which one cannot compare the most ardent activity of many.
4. But until the end of his career, Karamzin retained clarity, skill in private criticism of events, fidelity in his private meanings. Do not look for a higher view of events in him: speaking of the civil strife of destinies, he does not see order in them, does not mean to you the reasons, their properties, and only in the middle of the 15th century says to you: “From now on, our history accepts the dignity of a truly state, describing no longer senseless princely fights ... unions and wars have important goal: every particular undertaking is a consequence the main thought, striving for the good of the fatherland"*. An obvious mistake, we noticed from the very Introduction, where Karamzin named the first five centuries of the history of the Russian people unimportant for the mind, not rich in either thoughts for a pragmatist, or beauties for a painter! From Volume VI, the historian recognizes already dignity of Russian history, but also in this having state dignity(?) history, do not look for the reasons for the villainy of John, the rapid rise and fall of Boris, the successes of the Pretender, the anarchy that followed him. You read the description of Russia's struggle with Poland, but you don't see what Sigismund's strange stubbornness is based on, as a result of which, having agreed at first, he does not later give Russia his son; you do not see what the salvation of Russia from alien domination is based on. An event will come over the years, Karamzin describes it and thinks that he has fulfilled his duty, does not know or does not want to know that an important event does not grow instantly, like a mushroom after rain, that its causes are hidden deep, and the explosion only means that the fuse led to the dig burned out, but was laid and lit much earlier. Is it necessary to depict (unnecessary, however, for Russian history) a detailed picture of the movement of peoples in ancient times: Karamzin leads the Cimmerians, Scythians, Huns, Avars, Slavs across the stage, like Chinese shadows; is it necessary to describe the invasion of the Tatars: before you is only a picture of Genghis Khan; has it come to the fall of Shuisky: the Poles go to Moscow, take Smolensk, Sigismund does not want to give Vladislav the kingdom and - there is nothing else! This is a common shortcoming of the writers of the 18th century, which Karamzin shares with them, from which Hume himself sometimes did not avoid. Thus, having reached the revolution under Charles I, Hume sincerely thinks that external trifles offended the people and made a revolution; so, when describing the crusades, everyone called them the result of the convictions of Peter the Hermit, and Robertson tells you this, just as at the Reformation you are pointed out indulgences, and the papal bull burned by Luther. Even in our time, when talking about the French Revolution, didn’t they think that the philosophers corrupted France, the French are by nature anemones, stupefied by the child of philosophy, and the revolution broke out! But when the events themselves are described to us, Hume and Robertson speak correctly, precisely: and Karamzin also describes the events as a prudent critic, a man who knows their details very well. Only there you cannot rely on him, where you have to figure out the character of the person, the spirit of the time: he speaks according to the chroniclers, according to his basic assumption about Russian history, and does not go further. To this Karamzin adds, as we have noticed, a poorly understood love for the fatherland. He is ashamed of his ancestor paints(remember that he intended to do this back in 1790); he needs heroes, love for the fatherland, and he does not know what fatherland, virtue, heroism for us they do not have the same meanings as they had for the Varangian Svyatoslav, a resident of Novgorod in the 11th century, a Chernigov resident of the 12th century, a subject of Theodore in the 17th century, who had their own concepts, their own way of thinking, their own special goal of life and deeds.
______________________
* Volume IV, pp. 5 and 6.
______________________
5. We also note that Karamzin, remaining the same as he was in other literary pursuits, without betraying his spirit, without leaving the conditions of his time, knew how to change external forms. The logical order of his ideas is higher than all his contemporaries; the way of thinking is noble, bold, in the direction that Karamzin considers the best. For each chapter of his History one can write a huge refutation, stronger than the remarks of Mr. Artsybashev; almost half of the pages of his work can be criticized in many respects, but nowhere can you refuse praise for the mind, taste, and skill of Karamzin.
6. Finally (remembered: The main thing, in the words of Karamzin himself), his mind, taste and skill extended into the language and style of History to such a strong extent that in this last respect for us Russians, Karamzin should be considered an exemplary, unique, inimitable writer. One must learn from him this oratorical rhyme, this arrangement of periods, the weight of words with which each of them is placed. N.I. Grech accepted, when compiling the Grammar of the Russian Language, everything regarding this subject in the History of Karamzin as the basic rules, referred to it as an authority and was not mistaken. Apart from Pushkin, there is hardly a writer in Russia today who penetrated so deeply into the mysteries of the native language as Karamzin did.
Karamzin's eloquence is charming. Do not believe him when you read him, and you are convinced by the inexplicable power of the word. Karamzin knew this very well and used his advantage, sometimes sacrificing even the simplicity and fidelity of the images. So he depicts the reign of John IV, at first quietly, calmly, majestically, and suddenly becomes stern, impetuous, when the time has come for the life of not the wife of Anastasia, not the winner of Kazan, but Tiberius of Alexander Sloboda, the murderer of his brother, the tormentor of Vorotynsky; you will strikingly notice the same contrast between chapters I and II of the XII volume. But this noticeable, consequently, awkward effort of art can not redeem the countless beauties of Karamzin's creation! We are not talking about volumes IX, X and XII, where the life of Metropolitan Philip, the death of Tsarevich John, John IV himself, the election of Godunov, the overthrow of Dmitry the Pretender are places inimitably written: they will become, along with the most eloquent, immortal pages of the Thucydides, Livius, Robertsons, and in this respect the words of the venerable publisher of volume XII of the History of the Russian State: "Karamzin had no misfortunes to survive one's talent" - are absolutely fair. But even in the 12th volume there are places of amazing eloquence, for example: Shuisky before the King of Poland and the death of Lyapunov. Karamzin's hand had already sagged, but his spirit still retained the youthful vivacity of his imagination.
These are the inalienable virtues and merits of our unforgettable historian. If we strictly judged his shortcomings, then, of course, no one can say that we did not appreciate his merits. The writer of this article dares to think that, having devoted himself to the occupation of national history from his very youth, now, after many years of labor, he can with some hope believe that he has a preferential right over other admirers of the great Karamzin to speak about his merits and demerits.
Let us not credit Karamzin with the fact that perhaps he was not as well prepared for his work as his famous European rivals. Karamzin received an education not a scientist, but a secular one; he subsequently re-educated himself: all the more credit to him, but we have no need for the private means and methods of the writer: we judge only his creation. Let us note here in passing: there were and now there are people in Russia who know more than Karamzin any part related to Russian history, but this particular knowledge absorbs all their other abilities and does not give them the means to even think of comparing with the great creator of the "History of the Russian State": they are masons, Karamzin is an architect, and a great architect. The building he built does not surprise the whole world, like the buildings of Michelangelov, but nevertheless it is the honor and beauty of its age for the country in which it was erected.
And contemporaries-compatriots were fair to the great Karamzin. His creation will be the object of our surprise, honor and praise for a long time to come. Karamzin taught us our history; following in his footsteps, we will eventually learn to avoid his errors and shortcomings, we can and must compare him with brilliant creators, and give him not unconditional praise of loud ignorance, but at the same time we indignantly reject detractors of an extraordinary man. He was as great as time, means, his methods and the education of Russia allowed him: gratitude to him is our duty.
Nikolai Alekseevich Polevoy (1796-1846) - Russian writer, playwright, literary and theater critic, journalist, historian and translator; brother of critic and journalist K.A. Polevoy and writer E.A. Avdeeva, father of the writer and critic P.N. Field.
| 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." Karamzin's world is the world of a searching spirit, in constant motion, which has absorbed everything that was the content of the 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 that is more terrible for me than death will not happen ... ".
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 relations, but 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. A
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". Because
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. IN
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 lead them out of domestic obscurity to the folk theater ...” The method of depicting Russian characters in History is to bring them “out of domestic obscurity to the folk theater”, it was ultimately developed from a 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 chronicles 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 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: for they wanted to preserve their freedom 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. IN
"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. IN
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.
