N.M. Karamzin and "History of the Russian State"
N.M. Karamzin and "History of the Russian State"
The work we are considering describes the history of Russia, starting from the Scythian period and the Slavs, up to the reign of Ivan the Fourth and the period of Troubles. However, this work by Karamzin was not the very first description Russian history, but it was it that was able to open it to an educated general public.
The history of the state includes a dozen volumes. In its preface, Karamzin describes the general importance of history itself and its enormous role for people. He argues that Russian history is no less exciting than world history and then lists the various sources through which he was able to write this study.
In the first volume, the author describes in detail the peoples who lived in the territory modern Russia, including the ancient Slavs, as well as their way of life and attitude towards the tribes that inhabited the territories of the future Russian state. After that, the author gives a description of the first rulers of Russia and the methods of their rule. In other volumes, Karamzin tries to describe all the most important historical events in Russia up to 1612.
Karamzin from its very appearance was an immediate and universal success. She broke records in sales. The vast majority of readers took it as a canonical picture of the Russian past. Even the liberal minority, who did not like her main thesis about the effectiveness of the autocracy, was carried away by the literary charm of the presentation and the novelty of the facts. Since then, critical views have changed, and today no one will survive the enthusiasm of the public who read this in 1818. Karamzin's historical view is narrow and distorted by the character of his worldview, specific to the 18th century. He studied exclusively (or almost exclusively) the political activities of Russian sovereigns. The Russian people are practically left without attention, which is emphasized by the very name - History of Russian Goverment. The judgments that he makes about the kings (since those of lower rank do not attract his attention too much) are often composed in a moralistic, sentimental spirit. His fundamental idea of the redeeming virtues of autocracy distorts the reading of some facts.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. Portrait by Tropinin
But these shortcomings also have a good side. By forcing the reader to perceive Russian history as a whole, Karamzin helped him understand its unity. Speaking about the behavior of sovereigns from the point of view of a moralist, he got the opportunity to condemn them for selfish or despotic policies. Focusing on the actions of the princes, he gave his work a dramatic effect: most of all, the reader's imagination was struck by the stories of individual monarchs, no doubt based on solid facts, but presented and combined with the art of a real playwright. The most famous of them is the story of Boris Godunov, which became the great tragic myth of Russian poetry and the source of Pushkin's tragedy and Mussorgsky's folk drama.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. Video lecture
Style Stories rhetorical and eloquent. This is a compromise with literary conservatives, who are in favor of what he wrote history, forgave Karamzin all his previous sins. But in the main, it nevertheless represents the development of the French, in the spirit of the 18th century, style of the young Karamzin. It is abstract and sentimental. It avoids, or rather misses, all local and historical overtones. The choice of words is designed for universalization and humanization, not for individualization. ancient Russia, and monotonously rounded rhythmic cadences create a sense of continuity, but not complexity, of the story. Contemporaries loved this style. Some of the few critics did not like his grandiloquence and sentimentality, but on the whole the whole era was fascinated by him and recognized him as the greatest achievement of Russian prose.
“History of the Russian State” is a multi-volume work by N. M. Karamzin, describing Russian history from ancient times to the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the Time of Troubles. The work of N. M. Karamzin was not the first description of the history of Russia, but it was this work, thanks to the high literary merit and scientific scrupulousness of the author, that opened the history of Russia to a wide educated public and most contributed to the formation of national self-consciousness.
Karamzin wrote his "History" until the end of his life, but did not have time to finish it. The text of the manuscript of volume 12 ends at the chapter "Interregnum 1611-1612", although the author intended to bring the presentation to the beginning of the reign of the Romanov dynasty.
"History of the Russian State" - the largest achievement of Russian and world historical science for its time, the first monographic description of Russian history from ancient times to early XVIII in.
Karamzin's work caused stormy and fruitful discussions for the development of historiography. In disputes with his concept, views on the historical process and events of the past, other ideas and generalizing historical studies arose - "The History of the Russian People" by M.A. Field, "History of Russia since ancient times" by S.M. Solovyov and other works. Losing its own scientific significance over the years, Karamzin's "History ..." retained its general cultural and historiographical significance; playwrights, artists and musicians drew plots from it. And therefore this work of Karamzin is included "in the body of those classical texts, without the knowledge of which the history of Russian culture and historical science cannot be fully understood." But, unfortunately, after the October Revolution, the perception of "History ..." as a reactionary-monarchist work blocked its way to the reader for many decades. Since the mid-1980s, when a period of rethinking the historical path and the destruction of ideological stereotypes and oppressive ideas begins in society, a stream of new humanistic acquisitions, discoveries, the return to life of many creations of mankind, and with them a stream of new hopes and illusions. Along with these changes, N.M. returned to us. Karamzin with his immortal "History ...". What is the reason for this socio-cultural phenomenon, the manifestation of which was the repeated publication of excerpts from the "History ...", its facsimile reproduction, reading of its individual parts on the radio, etc.? A.N. Sakharov suggested that "the reason for this lies in the enormous power of the spiritual impact on people of Karamzin's truly scientific and artistic talent." The author of this work fully shares this opinion - after all, years pass, and talent remains young. The "History of the Russian State" revealed in Karamzin true spirituality, which is based on the desire to answer the eternal questions that concern man and mankind - the questions of being and the purpose of life, the patterns of development of countries and peoples, the relationship between the individual, family and society, etc. N.M. Karamzin was just one of those who raised these issues, and tried, to the best of his ability, to solve them on the material national history. That is, we can say that this is a combination of scientific character and journalistic popularization in the spirit of historical works that are now fashionable, convenient for the reader to perceive.
An important principle in writing "History ..." is the principle of following the truth of history, as he understands it, even if it was sometimes bitter. "History is not a novel, and the world is not a garden where everything should be pleasant. It depicts the real world," remarks Karamzin. But he understands limited opportunities historian in the matter of achieving historical truth, since in history "as in a human matter, there is an admixture of lies, but the character of truth is always more or less preserved, and this is enough for us to form a general idea of \u200b\u200bpeople and deeds." Consequently, the historian can create from the material that he has and he cannot produce "gold from copper, but he must also purify copper, he must know the price and properties of everything; discover the great where it is hidden, and not give the small the rights of the great" . Scientific authenticity is the leitmotif that constantly sounds restlessly throughout Karamzin's "History ..."
Another most important achievement of "History ..." is that a new philosophy of history is clearly revealed here: the historicism of "History ...", which has just begun to take shape. Historicism discovered the principles constant change, development and improvement of human society. He gave rise to an understanding of the place of each people in the history of mankind, the uniqueness of the culture of each science, the peculiarities of the national character ..
Since the publication of The History of the Russian State, historical science has come a long way. For many of Karamzin's contemporaries, the monarchical concept of the historiographer's work seemed strained, unproven, and even harmful. Russian Empire, his desire, sometimes with objective data, to subordinate the story of the Russian historical process from ancient times to the 17th century to this concept. And, nevertheless, interest in this work immediately after the release was huge.
The publication of the "History of the Russian State", and in its entirety, helps to see not only the origins of the most important phenomena in the history of Russian science, literature, language, but also facilitates the study of historical psychology, the history of social consciousness. Therefore, the work of N.M. Karamzin on long time became a model of approaches to the study of the main subjects of Russian history.
"History of the Russian State" - an essay by N.M. Karamzin. The idea for this work arose in 1802-1803, when Karamzin published the journal Vestnik Evropy, where his first historical experiments were published. In October 1803, thanks to the efforts of his patron M.N. Muravyov, Karamzin receives the title of a historiographer and an annual pension of 2,000 rubles in order to write a complete history of Russia. This work continued for 22 years until the death of the writer. The first eight volumes of "History ..." were printed in 1818, two years later their second edition was carried out. In 1821 the 9th volume was printed, in 1824 the 10th and 11th. On May 22, 1826, Karamzin died before he could complete the 12th volume (published by D.N. Bludov in the same 1826). During the life of the author, translations of the "History ..." into French, German, Italian and other languages appeared.
Karamzin was not a historian, he did not have any particular predilection for archival research. The work of a historian in collecting and systematizing materials seemed to him "a heavy tribute brought by reliability". He does not accept the method of critical history, which was widely recognized at that time, and defines the task of his work purely literary, purely artistic: "select, animate, color" Russian history and make it "something attractive." Karamzin believes that scholarship and thoughtfulness "in a historian do not replace the talent to portray actions." Karamzin's interest is entirely focused on the depiction and description of events. As for their study, in the writer's mind, it is fraught with "metaphysics" that imposes its own conclusions on history. This approach made the author dependent on the historical literature that he used. The main manual for Karamzin was the "History of Russia from ancient times" by M.M. Shcherbatov, as well as "Russian History ..." V.N. Tatishchev.
Karamzin thought of his "History of the Russian State" not only as a historical, but also as a didactic work, written for the edification of contemporaries and posterity. A number of journalistic works of the writer served the same purposes: “A historical laudatory word to Empress Catherine II” (1801), in which the period of the “mother’s” reign was presented in the form of a utopia, the “golden age” of Russian history; “A Note on Ancient and New Russia” (more precisely: “On Ancient and New Russia, in its Political and Civil Relations”, 1810) is a summary of Karamzin’s historiosophical concept.
Karamzin unconditionally accepts the postulate of official historiography about the causal connection of Russian history with the state of monarchical power. The weakening of the latter, according to Karamzin, turns into ruin and decline for the Russian state. This position evoked an evil epigram of the young Pushkin: "In his "history" elegance, simplicity / They prove to us, without any prejudice, / The need for autocracy / And the charms of the whip." The belonging of this text to Pushkin's pen was disputed by many scholars, but in any case, the epigram is indicative as a Jacobin-minded contemporary's look at Karamzin's work.
Russian historians of a later time found many flaws in Karamzin. However, the weaknesses of Karamzin the historian were covered by the strength of his artistic intuition, the brightness of his literary presentation. This explains the ambivalent perception of Karamzin's "History ...": on the one hand, a wary attitude in scientists, university circles, and, on the other hand, sympathetic reviews in the literary environment, an unprecedented reader success. Three thousand copies of the first edition of 1818 were sold out within 25 days.
The artistic aesthetics and stylistics of Karamzin's research developed in his works of the 1790-1800s, written on historical material: the stories "Natalia, the Boyar's Daughter", "Marfa Posadnitsa", the unfinished poem "Ilya Muromets", etc. "History of the Russian State" - the work of a historiographer, not a professor of history. Karamzin is the first of the Russian writers who managed to revive and spiritualize the historical narrative. In Karamzin, for the first time, the history of the fatherland appeared not in the alternation of events, but in living persons, as if acting on the stage of a gigantic historical stage.
Before Karamzin, in historical writings, the event prevailed over those who were its participants, witnesses, and even creators. Karamzin brought out historical figures as protagonists of time and epoch. A.S. Pushkin wrote that while working on the tragedy "Boris Godunov", he followed Karamzin "in the bright development of incidents." Indeed, in the "History of the Russian State" there appears a "development of incidents", reminiscent of the movement of a dramatic plot. Dramatization and personification of historical description was a great discovery of Karamzin the artist. Karamzin's work had a profound effect on Russian historical prose, beginning with Boris Godunov, which Pushkin dedicated to "the precious memory of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin for Russians."
In Russia, romantic historiography was represented by the works
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(1766-1826). He came from an old noble family, was first educated at home, then in Moscow in the private boarding school of Professor Shaden. In May 1789 he took a trip to Western Europe, returning from which he wrote down his impressions and published Letters from a Russian Traveler (1797-1801).
Karamzin began to think about writing the history of Russia from 1790. According to the original plan, the work of his life was to be of a literary and patriotic nature. In 1797, he was already seriously engaged in Russian history and was the first to inform the scientific world about the discovery of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign". In 1803, Karamzin turned to Alexander I with a request to appoint him a historiographer with an appropriate salary and the right to receive the necessary historical sources. The request was granted. Since then, Karamzin plunged into the hard work of writing the History of the Russian State. By this time, he had already realized that the original plan of work as a literary-patriotic one was insufficient, that he needed to give a scientific justification for history, that is, to turn to primary sources.
As the work progressed, Karamzin's extraordinary critical instinct was revealed. In order to combine both creative plans - literary and documentary, he built his book as if in two tiers: the text was written in the literary plan, and the notes were separated into a separate series of volumes parallel to the text. Thus, the average reader could read the book without looking at the footnotes, while those seriously interested in history could conveniently use the footnotes. Karamzin's "Notes" is a separate and extremely valuable work that has not lost its significance to our time, since since then some of the sources used by Karamzin have been somehow lost or not found. Before the destruction of the Musin-Pushkin collection in the Moscow fire of 1812, Karamzin received many valuable sources from him (Karamzin returned the Trinity Chronicle to Musin for use, as it turned out, to death).
The main idea that guided Karamzin was monarchical: the unity of Russia, headed by a monarch, supported by the nobility. All ancient Russian history before Ivan III was, according to Karamzin, a lengthy preparatory process. The history of autocracy in Russia begins with Ivan III. In the order of his presentation, Karamzin followed in the footsteps of Prince M. M. Shcherbatov’s History of the Russian. He divides the history of Russia into three periods: the ancient one - from Rurik, that is, from the formation of the state, to Ivan III, the middle one - before Peter I and the new one - post-Peter. This division of Karamzin is purely conditional, and, like all periodizations of the 18th century, comes from the history of Russian autocracy. The fact of calling the Varangians in the "History ..." turned, in fact, into the idea of the Varangian origin of the Kiev state, despite the contradiction of this idea with the entire nationalist orientation of Karamzin's creation.
12 years after hard work on the "History ..." Karamzin published the first seven volumes. In the 1920s, "History ..." was published entirely in French, German, and Italian. The publication was a resounding success. Vyazemsky called Karamzin the second Kutuzov, "who saved Russia from oblivion." "The resurrection of the Russian people" - will call "History ..." N. A. Zhukovsky.
Two main traditions of Russian historiography merged in Karamzin's work: the methods of source criticism from Shlozer to Tatishchev and the rationalist philosophy of the times of Mankiev, Shafirov, Lomonosov, Shcherbatov and others.
Nikolai Mikhailovich introduced into scientific circulation a significant number of historical monuments, including new chronicle lists, for example, the Ipatiev Code; numerous legal monuments, for example, the Pilot Book, church charters, the Novgorod Judicial Charter, the Sudebnik of Ivan III (Tatishchev and Miller knew only the Sudebnik of 1550), Stoglav. Literary monuments were also involved - "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", "Questions of Kirik", etc. Following M. M. Shcherbatov, expanding the use of foreigners' notes, Karamzin attracted many new texts, starting with Plano Carpini, Rubruk, Barbaro, Contarini, Herberstein and ending with the notes of foreigners about the Time of Troubles. The result of this work was extensive notes.
The real reflection of innovations in historical research is the allocation in the general structure of the "History ..." special chapters devoted to the "state of Russia" for each individual period. In these chapters, the reader went beyond purely political history and got acquainted with the internal structure, economy, culture and way of life. Since the beginning of the XIX century. the allocation of such chapters becomes mandatory in general works on the history of Russia.
The History of the Russian State certainly played a role in the development of Russian historiography. Nikolai Mikhailovich not only summed up the historical work of the 18th century, but also conveyed it to the reader. The publication of "Russkaya Pravda" by Yaroslav the Wise, "Instructions" by Vladimir Monomakh, and finally, the discovery of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" aroused interest in the past of the Fatherland, stimulated the development of genres of historical prose. Fascinated by national color and antiquities, Russian writers write historical novels, "excerpts", journalistic articles dedicated to Russian antiquity. At the same time, history appears in the form of instructive stories pursuing educational goals.
A look at history through the prism of painting and art is a feature of Karamzin's historical vision, reflecting his commitment to romanticism. Nikolai Mikhailovich believed that the history of Russia, rich in heroic images, was fertile material for the artist. To show it colorfully, picturesquely is the task of the historian. The historian demanded that the national features of the Russian character be reflected in art and literature, suggested to the painters the themes and images that they could draw from ancient Russian literature. The advice of Nikolai Mikhailovich was willingly used not only by artists, but also by many writers, poets and playwrights. His appeals were especially relevant during the Patriotic War of 1812.
Karamzin outlined his historical and political program in its entirety in the "Note on Ancient and New Russia", submitted in 1811 to Alexander I as a noble program and directed against Speransky's reforms. This program to some extent summed up his historical studies. main idea NM Karamzina - Russia will flourish under the scepter of the monarch. In the "Note" he retrospectively examines all the stages of the formation of autocracy (in accordance with his "History") and goes further, to the eras of Peter I and Catherine II. Karamzin assesses the reformism of Peter I as a turn in Russian history: “We became citizens of the world, but in some cases ceased to be citizens of Russia. Blame Peter.
Karamzin condemns the despotism of Peter I, his cruelty, denies the reasonableness of transferring the capital. He criticizes all subsequent kingdoms ("the dwarfs argued about the inheritance of the giant"). Under Catherine II, she speaks of softening the autocracy, that she cleansed him of the principle of tyranny. He treats Paul I negatively because of the humiliation of the nobles: "The Tsar took away the shame from the treasury, and the charm from the award." Speaking of contemporary Russia, he notes its main problem - at all times in Russia they steal. Alexander I did not like Karamzin's "Note", but it became the first experience of a political science essay in Russia.
Karamzin took the death of Alexander I hard. The second shock for him was the uprising of the Decembrists. After spending the whole day on December 14 on the street, Nikolai Mikhailovich caught a cold and fell ill. On May 22, the historian died. He died in the midst of his work, having written only twelve volumes of the History, and bringing the exposition up to 1610.
Critical direction in Russian historiography of the 20-40s. 19th century
A new stage in the development of Russian historiography is associated with the emergence of a critical trend in historical science. In the course of the controversy around N. M. Karamzin's "History of the Russian State", the worldview foundations of his concept, understanding of the tasks and subject of historical research, attitude to the source, interpretation of individual phenomena of Russian history were criticized. The most striking new direction manifested itself in the work of G. Evers, N.A. Polevoy and M.T. Kachenovsky.
Evers Johann Philip Gustav(1781-1830) - the son of a Livonian farmer, studied in Germany. After graduating from the University of Göttingen, he returned to Estonia and began to study Russian history. In 1808 his first scientific work"Preliminary Critical Studies for Russian History", written in German, like all his further works (a Russian translation was also published in 1825). The next book - "Russian History" (1816) brought them to late XVII in. In 1810 he became a professor at Dorpat University, headed the department of geography, history and statistics, lectured on Russian history and the history of law. In 1818 Evers was appointed rector of the university.
Unlike Karamzin, he considers the origin of the Russian state as the result of the inner life of the Eastern Slavs, who even in the pre-Varangian period had independent political associations, supreme rulers (princes), who used hired Vikings to strengthen their rule. The need to unite the principalities to solve internal and external problems and the impossibility of realizing it due to strife between them in the struggle for supremacy led to the decision to transfer control to a foreigner. The summoned princes, according to Evers, have already come to the state, no matter what form it has.
This conclusion of his destroyed the idea traditional for Russian historiography that the history of Russia begins with the autocracy of Rurik. Evers also questioned the dominant historiography statement about the Scandinavian origin of the Varangians-Rus. The study of the ethnogenesis of the peoples inhabiting the territory of Russia led him to the conclusion about the Black Sea (Khazar) origin of the Rus. He subsequently abandoned his hypothesis. His theory of tribal life played a big role in the future and was developed by K. D. Kavelin and S. M. Solovyov.
Mikhail Trofimovich Kachenovsky(1775-1842) came from a Russified Greek family. Graduated from the Kharkov Collegium, was a civilian and military service. In 1790, he read Boltin's writings, which prompted him to critically analyze the sources of Russian history. In 1801, he received a position as a librarian, and then as head of the personal office of Count A. K. Razumovsky. Since then, Kachenovsky's career was secured, especially since in 1807 Razumovsky was appointed trustee of Moscow University. Kachenovsky received a master's degree in philosophy in 1811 and was appointed professor at Moscow University; taught Russian history and enjoyed success with his students: the spirit of the times was changing, young people welcomed the debunking of the old authorities.
Kachenovsky was inspired by the German historian Niebuhr, who rejected the most ancient period of Roman history as fabulous. Following in his footsteps, Kachenovsky declared the entire Kyiv period fabulous, and called the annals, "Russian Truth", "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" fakes. Kachenovsky offers his own method of source study analysis - according to two levels of criticism: external(paleographic, philological, diplomatic analysis of written sources in order to establish the date and authenticity) and internal(representation of the era, selection of facts).
By posing the question of the need for a critical examination of ancient Russian monuments, Kachenovsky forced not only contemporaries, but also subsequent generations of historians to think about them, "endure anxiety, doubt, rummage through foreign and domestic annals and archives." The principles of analysis of sources proposed by him were on the whole correct, but the conclusions regarding the most ancient Russian monuments and Russian history in the 9th-14th centuries. were untenable and rejected both by their contemporaries and subsequent generations of historians.
Nikolai Alekseevich Polevoy(1796-1846) entered the science of history as a historian who put forward and approved a number of new concepts and problems in it. He was the author of the 6-volume "History of the Russian people", the 4-volume "History of Peter the Great", "Russian history for initial reading", "Review of Russian history before the autocracy of Peter the Great", numerous articles and reviews. Polevoy was also widely known as a talented publicist, literary critic, editor and publisher of a number of magazines (including the Moscow Telegraph). Polevoy came from a poor but enlightened family of an Irkutsk merchant, he was a gifted man, his encyclopedic knowledge was the result of self-education.
After the death of his father, he moved to Moscow, took up journalism, and then history. Polevoi believed that the basis for the study of history was the “philosophical method”, that is, “scientific knowledge”: an objective reproduction of the beginning, course and causes of historical phenomena. In understanding the past, Polevoy's starting point was the idea of the unity of the historical process. Polevoy considered the continuous, progressive movement of mankind to be the law of historical life, and the source of development was the “endless struggle” of opposing principles, where the end of one struggle is the beginning of a new one. Polevoy drew attention to three factors that determine the life of mankind: natural and geographical, the spirit of thought and the character of the people, events in the surrounding countries.
Their qualitative diversity determines the originality of the historical process of each nation, the manifestation general patterns, rates and forms of life. On this basis, he tried to build a scheme of world history and rethink the historical past of Russia. Polevoy's concept opened up opportunities for a broad comparative historical study of the historical process and comprehension of historical experience in the context of not only European, but also Eastern history. He did not succeed in everything. Most importantly, he could not write the history of the Russian people, he did not go beyond general phrases about the "spirit of the people", confining himself to some new assessments of certain events. Ultimately, the history of the people in Polevoy's concept remains the same history of the state, the history of autocracy.