History of Russian Goverment. Volume I-XII. Karamzin N.M.

"Karamzin is our first historian and the last Chronicler ..." - such a definition was given by A. Pushkin to the great educator, writer and historian N. M. Karamzin (1766-1826). The famous "History of the Russian State", all twelve volumes of which were included in this book, became a major event in the social life of the country, an era in the study of our past.

Karamzin N.M.

Born in the village of Mikhailovka, Simbirsk province in the family of a landowner. At the age of fourteen, Karamzin was brought to Moscow and sent to the boarding school of the Moscow professor Shaden. In 1783 he tried to enter the military service, where he was enrolled as a minor, but in the same year he retired. From May 1789 to September 1790 he traveled around Germany, Switzerland, France and England, stopping mainly in large cities - Berlin, Leipzig, Geneva, Paris, London. Returning to Moscow, Karamzin began to publish Moskovsky Zhurnal, where the Letters of a Russian Traveler appeared. Most of 1793 - 1795 Karamzin spent in the village and prepared here two collections called "Aglaya", published in the fall of 1793 and 1794. In 1803, with the help of the assistant minister of public education MN Muravyov, Karamzin received the title of historiographer and 2000 rubles of annual pension in order to write a complete history of Russia. V 1816 he published the first 8 volumes of "History of the Russian State", in 1821 year - 9 volume, in 1824 year - 10th and 11th. V 1826 Mr. Karamzin died before he could finish the 12th volume, which was published by DN Bludov from the papers left over from the deceased.

Format: doc

The size: 9.1 MB

Download: 16 .11.2017, the links were removed at the request of the publishing house "AST" (see note)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
VOLUME I
Chapter I. On the peoples who have inhabited Russia since ancient times. About the Slavs in general.
Chapter II. About the Slavs and other peoples who made up the Russian State.
Chapter III. On the physical and moral character of the ancient Slavs.
Chapter IV. Rurik, Sineus and Trubor. 862-879 g.
Chapter V. Oleg - Ruler. 879-912 g.
Chapter VI. Prince Igor. 912-945 g.
Chapter VII. Prince Svyatoslav. 945-972 g.
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Yaropolk. 972-980 g.
Chapter IX. Grand Duke Vladimir, named Basil in baptism. 980-1014 g.
Chapter X. About the state of Ancient Russia.
VOLUME II
Chapter I. Grand Duke Svyatopolk. 1015-1019 g.
Chapter II. Grand Duke Yaroslav, or George. 1019-1054 g.
Chapter III. Truth Russian, or the laws of Yaroslavna.
Chapter IV. Grand Duke Izyaslav, named Dmitry in baptism. 1054-1077 g.
Chapter V. Grand Duke Vsevolod. 1078-1093 g.
Chapter VI. Grand Duke Svyatopolk - Michael. 1093-1112 g.
Chapter VII. Vladimir Monomakh, named in baptism by Vasily. 1113-1125 g.
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Mstislav. 1125-1132 g.
Chapter IX. Grand Duke Yaropolk. 1132-1139 g.
Chapter X. Grand Duke Vsevolod Olgovich. 1139-1146 g.
Chapter XI. Grand Duke Igor Olgovich.
Chapter XII. Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavovich. 1146-1154 g.
Chapter XIII. Grand Duke Rostislav-Mikhail Mstislavovich. 1154-1155 g.
Chapter XIV. Grand Duke George, or Yuri Vladimirovich, nicknamed Dolgoruky. 1155-1157 g.
Chapter XV. Grand Duke Izyaslav Davidovich of Kiev. Prince Andrey of Suzdalsky, nicknamed Bogolyubsky. 1157-1159 g.
Chapter XVI. Grand Duke Svyatopolk - Michael.
Chapter XVII. Vladimir Monomakh, named in baptism by Vasily.
VOLUME III
Chapter I. Grand Duke Andrew. 1169-1174 g.
Chapter II. Grand Duke Mikhail II [Georgievich]. 1174-1176 g.
Chapter III. Grand Duke Vsevolod III Georgievich. 1176-1212 g.
Chapter IV. George, Prince of Vladimir. Konstantin Rostovsky. 1212-1216 g.
Chapter V. Constantine, Grand Duke of Vladimir and Suzdal. 1216-1219 g.
Chapter VI. Grand Duke George II Vsevolodovich. 1219-1224 g.
Chapter VII. State of Russia from XI to XIII century.
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Georgy Vsevolodovich. 1224-1238 g.
VOLUME IV
Chapter I. Grand Duke Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich. 1238-1247 g.
Chapter II. Grand Dukes Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Andrei Yaroslavich and Alexander Nevsky (one after the other). 1247-1263 g.
Chapter III. Grand Duke Yaroslav Yaroslavich. 1263-1272 g.
Chapter IV. Grand Duke Vasily Yaroslavich. 1272-1276 g.
Chapter V. Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich. 1276-1294 g.
Chapter VI. Grand Duke Andrey Alexandrovich. 1294 -1304 g.
Chapter VII. Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich. 1304-1319 g.
Chapter VIII. Grand Dukes Georgy Daniilovich, Dimitri and Alexander Mikhailovich. (one after the other). 1319-1328 g.
Chapter IX. Grand Duke John Daniilovich, nicknamed Kalita. 1328-1340 g.
Chapter X. Grand Duke Simeon Ioannovich, nicknamed the Proud. 1340-1353 g.
Chapter XI. Grand Duke John II Ioannovich. 1353-1359 g.
Chapter XII. Grand Duke Dimitri Konstantinovich. 1359-1362 g.
TOM V
Chapter I. Grand Duke Dimitri Ioannovich, nicknamed Donskoy. 1363-1389 g.
Chapter II. Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich. 1389-1425 g.
Chapter III. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich Dark. 1425-1462 g.
Chapter IV. The state of Russia from the invasion of the Tatars to John III.
VOLUME VI
Chapter I. Sovereign, Sovereign Grand Duke John III Vasilievich. 1462-1472 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1472-1477 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1475-1481 g.
Chapter IV. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1480-1490 g.
Chapter V. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1491-1496 g.
Chapter VI. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1495-1503 g.
Chapter VII. Continuation of the reign of John. 1503-1505 g.
VOLUME VII
Chapter I. Sovereign Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich. 1505-1509 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of Vasiliev's statehood. 1510-1521 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of Vasiliev's statehood. 1521-1534 g.
Chapter IV. State of Russia. 1462-1533 g.
VOLUME VIII
Chapter I. Grand Duke and Tsar John IV Vasilievich II. 1533-1538 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of the state of John IV. 1538-1547 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of the state of John IV. 1546-1552
Chapter IV. Continuation of the state of John IV. 1552 g.
Chapter V. Continuation of the state of John IV. 1552-1560 g.
VOLUME IX
Chapter I. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1560-1564 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1563-1569 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1569-1572 g.
Chapter IV. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1572-1577 g.
Chapter V. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1577-1582 g.
Chapter VI. The first conquest of Siberia. 1581-1584 g.
Chapter VII. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1582-1584 g.
TOM X
Chapter I. The reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1584-1587 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1587-1592 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1591-1598 g.
Chapter IV. The state of Russia at the end of the 16th century.
VOLUME XI
Chapter I. The reign of Boris Godunov. 1598-1604 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of Borisov's reign. 1600 -1605 g.
Chapter III. The reign of Theodore Borisov. 1605 g.
Chapter IV. The reign of False Dmitry. 1605-1606 g.
VOLUME XII
Chapter I. The reign of Vasily Ioannovich Shuisky. 1606-1608
Chapter II. Continuation of Vasily's reign. 1607-1609 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of Vasily's reign. 1608-1610 g.
Chapter IV. The overthrow of Basil and the interregnum. 1610-1611 g.
Chapter V. Interregnum. 1611-1612 g.

The fate of the main creation is amazing Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin-- "History of Russian Goverment". During the life of the author, almost all enlightened Russia was read by it, they even read aloud in the salons, exchanged impressions about the dramatic events described by the historian's masterful hand, the most sensitive shed tears. Let us refer to the testimony of an ardent admirer of Nikolai Mikhailovich 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, it seemed, was found by Karamzin, as America was found by Columbus. for some time they did not talk about anything else. "

The name of Nikolai Mikhailovich enjoyed the widest popularity not only in the last century, but also today. What is the attractive force of Karamzin's compositions that have become immortal?

Why was "History of the Russian State" reprinted six times only during the second quarter of the 19th century? The reader is attracted to Karamzin by the magic of words, artistic portraits of historical figures created by him, a combination of writing and research talents. Neither the historians of the 18th century, nor the historians of the 19th century, up to N.I. Kostomarov and V.O. Klyuchevsky.

N.M. was born Karamzin in a noble family in 1766 near Simbirsk. In the creative biography of Nikolai Mikhailovich, two periods can be clearly traced: the first until 1803, when he acted as a writer, journalist and publisher; the second begins in 1803, when a royal decree approved him as a historiographer. He became the third in a row, after G.F. Miller and Prince

MM. Shcherbatov, a historiographer of Russia - that is how historians were called then.

But in order. The seventeen-year-old lieutenant resigns, and the rapid rise of the writer Karamzin begins. Poor Liza has become a reference book for many literate families. In the early 90s of the 18th century, the fame of a talented writer and publicist was added to the reputation of a fashionable fiction writer. In 1789 he visited Switzerland, Germany, France, England. Much has sunk into the soul of the receptive 23_-year-old traveler: dissimilar customs and customs, architecture and city life, political structure and meeting interesting people. Enriched with impressions (he was able to observe the French Revolution with his own eyes), he returned to Moscow and for two years published Letters of a Russian Traveler in the Moscow magazine he published. The letters secured the author among the literary stars of the first magnitude. Nikolai Mikhailovich became a welcome guest in the salons of Moscow nobles, and they, according to a contemporary, treated the thirty-year-old retired lieutenant "almost as an equal."

And suddenly something incomprehensible happened for many: a famous writer, bathed in the rays of glory, abandons literature, publishing, social life, dooms himself to many years of imprisonment in an office in order to immerse himself in a science called history. It was a feat! The profession change has taken place, according to

A.S. Pushkin, "already in those years when for ordinary people the circle of education and knowledge is long over and chores in the service replace efforts to enlightenment."

However, this decision was unexpected for everyone, but not for Nikolai Mikhailovich. He had been preparing for it for a long time. Whatever he did, he was pursued by the idea of ​​plunging into Russian history. In 1790, in Letters of a Russian Traveler, he outlined his idea of ​​Russian history: “They say that our history itself is less interesting: I don’t think, only intelligence, taste, talent are needed. You can choose, animate, color; and the reader will be surprised how something attractive, strong, worthy of the attention of not only Russians, but also foreigners could come out of Nestor, Nikon, etc. ... We had our own Charlemagne: Vladimir; his Louis XI: King John; his own Cromwell: Godunov, and also such a sovereign who was nowhere else like him: Peter the Great. " Karamzin's interest in history also appeared in the writing of historical stories - "Martha the Posadnitsa", "Natalia - the Boyar's Daughter". In 1800 he confessed that “He is head over heels into Russian history; I sleep and see Nikon with Nestor. "

In 1803, when Nikolai Mikhailovich made an important decision for himself, he turned 37 years old - an age for those times quite respectable, when it is difficult to break with the old way of life, attachments, and finally, material well-being. True, the tsar's rescript, which gives Nikolai Mikhailovich the title of historiographer and opens archives and libraries to him, at the same time determined the pension in the amount of two thousand rubles a year - a very modest amount, far from covering his previous income. And one more circumstance: the writer had to learn the craft of a historian already in the process of work, independently comprehending the subtleties of historical research. All this gives the right to call Karamzin's act selfless.

What goals did Karamzin set for himself when he started the History of the Russian State? There are three of them. The first he formulated as follows: “Human wisdom has a need for experiments, and life is short-lived. One must know what rebellious passions agitated civil society and with what systems the beneficial power of the mind curbed their violent striving to establish order, to agree the benefits of people and to give them the happiness possible on earth. "

In this, Karamzin is not original. Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev wrote about the study of the experience of the past, so as not to repeat mistakes and imitate all good, as the main task of history, and after him and

M.V. Lomonosov. Only the form of expression of this thought is original. By the way, the thought “Human wisdom needs experiments, but life is short-lived” echoes Pushkin’s lines in “Boris Godunov”: “Learn, my son, science shortens our experience of fast-flowing life”.

The second goal of studying history coincides with what M.V. Lomonosov: "History gives the sovereigns examples of government, subjects - obedience, soldiers - courage, judges - justice, the young - the old mind, the elderly - the extra firmness in the councils." Karamzin, as if continuing and developing what was said, considered it necessary to know the history of commoners. How is it useful to ordinary people in the country? The answer is curious: history of ordinary citizens, Nikolai Mikhailovich believed, "reconciles with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with an ordinary phenomenon in all centuries, consoles in state disasters, testifying that there have been similar ones before, there have been even more terrible ones, and the state has not collapsed."

Nikolai Mikhailovich was the last scientist to assign to history the utilitarian task of studying the experience of past centuries.

But Karamzin put before history a new demand, which turned out to be unbearable for the majority of scientists in the previous and present centuries. It can be called aesthetic. History should give pleasure, enjoyment, it kind of raises the dead and their passions. "We hear them, we love them and we hate them." That is why he attached such exceptional importance to the art of presentation. Hence the special requirements for the historian himself. Friend of Karamzin P.A. Vyazemsky thus conveys Karamzin's reasoning on this score: "Talents and knowledge, a sharp, perceptive mind, vivid imagination are still insufficient." In addition to the listed qualities, it is necessary that "the soul can rise to a passion for good, can nourish the holy in itself, the desire for universal good, which is not limited by any spheres." In other words, Nikolai Mikhailovich believed that a historian should possess not only talent, but also be a man of high morality. From the pen of only such an author, lines can spill out that can ignite the reader.

It is no exaggeration to say that Karamzin himself belonged to the people of crystal moral purity, decency and disinterestedness. These features of Nikolai Mikhailovich's nature were recognized not only by his friends, but also by his enemies. He did not take advantage of his friendship with Alexander I in order to seek any benefits for himself, he was indignant when he was awarded, for sincerely, without a flash, he believed that "the main thing is not to receive, but to deserve." Nor was he likened to the crafty courtiers, who had become adept at flattery and were ready for the sake of self-interest to humiliate their dignity.

So, Karamzin's justification of the need to study history was borrowed from the historians of the 18th century. His concept of the country's history also dates back to the same century (it was formulated by V.N. Tatishchev three quarters of a century earlier, and then, in basic outline, was repeated by Prince M.M.Shcherbatov). N.M. Karamzin first expounded it in a publicistic essay - "A note on ancient and new Russia" - submitted to Alexander I in 1811 in order to persuade him to refrain from carrying out reforms. Speransky.

In the first part of the "Note" the author makes a brief overview of the history of Russia - from its origin to the reign of Paul I, inclusive. Karamzin repeats Tatishchev's idea that Russia has flourished, is flourishing and will flourish only under the scepter of the monarch: "Russia settled down by victories and one-man rule, perished from different powers, and was saved by a wise autocracy." Karamzin supported this thesis with a succinct excursion into the country's past.

The force that cemented a single state of many weak organisms was autocracy. Russia, "born, exalted by autocracy, was not inferior in strength and civic education to the first European powers." The loss of autocracy in the specific period led to changes of great importance: “Until then, Russians were afraid,

We began to despise them. " In the specific period "the people have lost respect for the princes, and the princes - love for the people"; "Is it surprising that the barbarians conquered our country?" Following M.M. Shcherbatov Karamzin noted two results of the Tatar-Mongol yoke: negative - "The Russian land became a dwelling place for slaves"; positive - under the auspices of the Tatar-Mongol, conditions ripened for the liberation from their yoke and the restoration of autocracy. It was restored under Ivan III, when the state acquired "independence and greatness."

Like Prince Shcherbatov, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin divided the long reign of Ivan IV into two stages, the borderline between which was the death of Queen Anastasia. The beginning, which had restrained the unbridled temper of the tsar, disappeared, and a dark time of atrocities, cruelties, and a tyrannical regime began. During the years of turmoil, when the autocracy was shaken, Russia also perished.

Karamzin's attitude to Peter the Great and his reforms changed significantly over time. In Letters of a Russian Traveler, the historian spoke enthusiastically about the transformations and the reformer. For example, he believed that the path traversed by Russia under Peter in a quarter of a century would have taken six centuries without him. Now, two decades later, Karamzin writes: “We have become citizens of the world, but in some cases have ceased to be citizens of Russia. Peter's fault. " Nikolai Mikhailovich blamed the Tsar-reformer for the eradication of ancient customs. The innovations introduced by Peter only affected the nobility and did not affect the mass of the people. thus the king erected a wall between the nobles and the rest of the population. The historian condemned the despotism of Peter, his cruelty, the zeal of the Transfiguration order, in the dungeons of which people died by the beard and Russian caftans. Nikolai Mikhailovich also denied the rationality of transferring the capital of the state from Moscow to St. Petersburg - to a city erected in a swamp, in an area with a bad climate, "on tears and corpses."

Karamzin subjected all subsequent reigns to a critical assessment. After Peter, "the pygmies argued about the inheritance of the giant." Speaking about the monarchs who reigned after Peter, the historian always emphasized whether they possessed the features of tyrant rulers. Anna Ioanovna, in his opinion, did a lot of good in favor of the nobles - she canceled the decree on single inheritance, established the Cadet Corps, limited her service in the army to 25 years, rivers of blood flowed. " He spoke ironically about Elizaveta Petrovna: "an idle and voluptuous woman, lulled by him."

Under Catherine II, the autocracy softened, the fears inspired by the Secret Chancellery disappeared. The Empress cleared the autocracy from "the impurities of tyranny." However, the historian also discovered unattractive features of Catherine II: she was chasing external brilliance (in modern language - for "show off") under her, "not the best according to the state of things, but the most beautiful in form" was chosen. Foreigners poured into the country in a wide stream, the court forgot the Russian language, debauchery flourished, exorbitant luxury led to the ruin of the nobles.

The attitude of the historian to Paul I is sharply negative, and above all for the contempt for the nobles, for the humiliation to which he subjected them. Paul wanted to be Ivan IV, but after Catherine it was difficult. The tsar "took away shame from the treasury, from the award - delight." He dreamed of building an impregnable palace for himself, but he built a tomb.

Karamzin concluded his survey of reigns and reigns with a phrase that received textbook fame. “Autocracy is the palladium of Russia; her wholeness is necessary for her happiness; from this it does not follow that the sovereign, the only source of power, had the right to humiliate the nobility, as ancient as Russia. "

There can be no two opinions about the historical concept of Karamzin and his socio-political views. He appears as a defender of the autocracy and the institutions it generated, primarily of the serf system. However, this statement requires clarification. First. Not every monarchy and not every monarch deserves a positive assessment. Karamzin - for an enlightened, human-loving, highly moral monarch who does not violate the human dignity of his subjects.

Nikolai Mikhailovich is a consistent supporter of evolutionary development, he was hostile to social upheavals and any violence, even if it came from the monarch. Hence his condemnation of the actions of the Jacobins in France and the Decembrists in Russia. "All violent shocks are disastrous, and every rebel prepares a scaffold for himself," - so he responded to the French Revolution. An enlightened gentleman, gentle and compassionate, he was the son of his age and adhered to the traditional conservative views on serfdom; he associated its abolition with the distant future, when education will have a beneficial effect on the peasants, and they will receive freedom without subjecting the existing order of things to shocks.

Karamzin's attitude to autocracy and serfdom determined the assessment of his work by Soviet historiography. Karamzin was listed in all history textbooks as an odious and reactionary figure. With the label of a reactionary, the way for Karamzin and his History of the Russian State to the printing press was closed. The historical portraits and vivid descriptions of events created more than a century and a half ago have not lost their influence on the reader today, and interest in the “History of the Russian State” has not faded away.

The year 1816 is remarkable in the life of Karamzin: the historian delivered to St. Petersburg the manuscripts of the first eight volumes of his work. Behind 13 years of hard work, the work has not progressed as quickly as the author wanted. he named the date of its completion many times and rescheduled them the same number of times.

Each volume was given with great difficulty, which is evident from his letter to his brother. The historian in 1806 dreamed of bringing his essay to the Tatar-Mongol invasion and complained of a lack of strength: “It's a pity that I am no younger than ten years old. It is unlikely that God will let me finish my work; there is so much more to come. " 1808: "In my work I delirious step by step, and now, having described the terrible invasion of the Tatars, I have passed ... to the tenth century." 1809: "Now, with the help of God, in three or four years we will reach the time when the famous house of the Romanovs reigned in our country." 1811: “Old age is approaching and the eyes grow dull. It’s bad if I don’t reach the Romanovs in three years ”.

It did not reach not only three, but also five years - the manuscript of the eighth volume ended in 1560. And this despite the fact that the director of the Moscow archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Fyodor Alekseevichta, a historian and an excellent connoisseur of antiquity, rendered an invaluable service to the author. On the instructions of the director, the museum staff selected the materials Karamzin needed, freeing him from the rough work - painstaking, exhausting and far from always successful.

Of course, the challenge facing the historian was formidable. And nevertheless, the slow progress of the work was explained by other circumstances: the lack of special training, the completion of which took time, and also - the peace of mind, which is so necessary for any artist of the word. The victory of Napoleon in 1807 at Austerlitz over the Russian army, the invasion of the army of "twelve languages" to Russia in 1812, the fire of Moscow, during which the library of Karamzin burned down ... The patriot's duty called the 46-year-old Nikolai Mikhailovich into the ranks of the militia, but, according to him , "The matter was done without a historiographic sword."

"History of the Russian State" was to be published in St. Petersburg, the historian and his family moved to the northern capital. At the behest of the tsar, a Chinese house located in Tsarskoye Selo Park was decorated for him in Tsarskoye Selo, 60 thousand rubles were allocated for publication costs. Nikolai Mikhailovich spent almost two years on proofreading. “I am reading proofreading until I faint,” he wrote on March 12, 1817. It took up all the working time of the historian: "I am afraid to lose the habit of writing," he wrote in one of his letters.

Finally, in February 1818, eight volumes were ready. Waiting for the verdict of readers, buyers and admirers was neither tedious nor long. The author has received overwhelming success. Pushkin wrote: “The appearance of this book ... made a lot of noise and made a strong impression. 3000 copies were sold in one month (which was not expected by Karamzin himself). "

Reviews poured in, one more flattering than the other, and they did not come from unknown readers, but from people representing the spiritual elite of that time. Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky: "His history is a monument erected in honor of our century, our literature." Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky: "... I look at the history of our Libya (Roman historian, author of the" Roman History ") as my future: it is a source of inspiration and glory for me." Even the Decembrist Nikolai Ivanovich Turgenev, who, of course, could not be impressed by the direction of the work, which praised the autocracy, could not resist compliments: "I feel an inexplicable charm in reading ... Something dear, dear." Pushkin's friend Alexander Petrovich Vyazemsky: "Karamzin - - our Kutuzov is twelve years old, he saved Russia from the invasion of oblivion, called her to life, showed us that we have a fatherland, as many learned about it in the twelfth year. "

Interest in "History of the Russian State" was explained not only by the skillfully written text, but also by the general situation in the country - the defeat of the Napoleonic army and the events that followed caused the growth of national consciousness, the need to comprehend their past, the origins of the power of the people, who won a victory over the strongest army in Europe.

There were also critical responses, but they were drowned in a chorus of praise. The most serious criticism was made by the head of the school of skeptics, Mikhail Trofimovich Kachenovsky. He questioned the reliability of the sources that originated in antiquity, and considered the history written on their basis "fabulous". When Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriev advised to rebuff the critic, the delicate Nikolai Mikhailovich replied to his friend as follows: “... his criticism is very instructive and conscientious. I don’t have the spirit to scold you for your indignation, but I myself don’t want to be angry. ”

A second glory came to Karamzin, a famous fiction writer and journalist, he became a famous historian. Since 1818, he is a recognized historiographer, by the way, the only one who is known to the general public. The author was encouraged by the success, but work on subsequent volumes was still progressing slowly. Research experience has increased, but along with it there have been added concerns that Karamzin did not know in Moscow - friendship with the emperor obliged him to attend family holidays of the imperial family, parties, masquerades. “I'm not a courtier! - the historian wrote with bitterness to Dmitriev. --It is more natural for a historiographer to die on a ridge of cabbage, which he has processed, than on the threshold of a palace, where I am not more stupid, but also not smarter than others. It used to be very hard for me, but now it’s easier from habit. ”

The eighth volume ended in 1560, breaking the reign of John IV in two. In the ninth volume, which opened the continuation of the publication, Karamzin decided to outline the most dramatic events of his reign.

The attitude of the historian to the reign of John IV after the introduction of the oprichnina is unambiguous. He called his reign "the theater of horrors", and the king himself a tyrant, a man "insatiable in murder and lust." “Moscow was numb with fear. Blood was pouring; victims groaned in dungeons and monasteries, but ... tyranny was still ripening: the present terrified the future "," Nothing could disarm the ferocious: neither humility, nor the magnanimity of the victims ... " and the time of the Tatar-Mongol yoke: “Between other difficult experiences of fate, beyond the disasters of the specific system, beyond the yoke of the Mongols, Russia had to experience the threat of the autocrat-tormentor: she resisted with love for autocracy, for she believed that God would send both ulcers and earthquakes , and tyrants. "

It would seem that describing the tyranny of Terrible (and this was done with such thoroughness for the first time), Karamzin struck a blow at the autocracy, which he consistently defended. The historian removes this seeming contradiction by reasoning about the need to study the past so as not to repeat its vices in the future: “The life of a tyrant is a disaster for mankind, but his history is always useful for sovereigns and peoples: to instill disgust for evil is to instill love for virtue - and glory the time when a writer armed with truth can put such a ruler to shame in an autocratic government, but there will be no more like him in the future. "

The success of the ninth volume was tremendous. A contemporary noted: "There is such emptiness in St. Petersburg because everyone is deepened into the reign of Ivan the Terrible." Some recognized him as the best creation of the historian. After the ninth volume, two more were published during the author's lifetime. The last, twelfth volume, unfinished, was prepared for publication by his friends and published in 1829.

Nikolai Mikhailovich died on May 22, 1826. He just didn’t have enough time to bring History to the election of the Romanovs - his work ended in 1612.

It remains for us to glimpse into the historian's creative laboratory and, at least with isolated examples, imagine how his work was created.

On this score, there are judgments of Karamzin himself. According to one of them, the historian is obliged to represent "the only thing that has survived from the centuries in the annals, in the archives." "It is therefore impermissible for a historian to deceive conscientious readers, to think and speak for heroes who have long been silent in their graves." Another saying: "The most beautiful made-up speech will disgrace history."

So, the adherence of our author to composing a story that is reliable without conjectures and inventions, it would seem, is beyond doubt. But then what about his diametrically opposed statements - "inspire" and "colorize" the text, give the reader "pleasantness", pleasure "for the heart and mind?" events as well as interesting to the reader. The historian tried to overcome this contradiction purely outwardly: he divided each of the twelve volumes of his work into two unequal parts - the first, smaller in volume, contains the author's text, and the second contains notes.

Contemporary historians also use notes. As you know, their purpose is to enable professional colleagues or curious readers to make sure that the described fact or event is not a figment of the author's imagination, but is extracted from published or unpublished sources, or from monographs. However, the purpose of the Karamzin notes is completely different. The historian, not limiting himself to the name of the source, cites either excerpts from it or a retelling from, from which it is easy to see how significantly the author's text differs from the evidence of the source. Here are some examples.

This is how N.M. Karamzin events that took place immediately after the Battle of Kulikovo. Prince Vladimir Andreevich ordered to trumpet the gathering after the victory. Everyone arrived, but Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich was absent. “The astonished Vladimir asked,“ where is my brother and the founder of our glory? ”Nobody could give news about him. In anxiety, in terror, the commanders scattered to seek him, dead or alive; they did not find it for a long time; finally, the two soldiers saw the Grand Duke under the felled tree. Stunned in battle by a strong blow, he fell from his horse, lost consciousness and seemed dead; but soon opened his eyes. Then Vladimir, the prince, the officials, kneeling down, exclaimed unanimously: "Sovereign, you have defeated the enemies!" ... In footnote 80 of the fifth volume of the "History of the Russian State," excerpts from the chronicles are given, in which there are neither the conversations of the heroes, nor the experiences of the military leaders. Synodal chronicle: Rekosha the princes of Lithuania: it’s imaginary, as if he is alive, but wounded ... ”. Rostov Chronicle: "... having found the Grand Duke in Dubrov, it was all ulcerated lying down." Rostov chronicle: "his armor ... was beaten, but there was no ulcer on his body." Thus, the sources give the author the opportunity to write just one phrase: during the battle, Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich was stunned, fell from his horse and lay unconscious under a tree in an oak forest. The details of the scene described in the History of the Russian State are a figment of Nikolai Mikhailovich's imagination.

Another plot dating back to the time of Grozny. We are talking about the execution of Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, accused of trying to poison the tsar. The sources given in note 277 of the ninth volume are short and lackluster. “According to the legend of Gvagnini, Prince. Vladimir's head was cut off; and the Oderbory, calling him George, says that he was stabbed to death. " In one of the chronicles belonging to St. Dmitry Rostovsky, it says: “In the summer of 7078 did not become in the stomach of Prince. Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky ... "

Nikolai Mikhailovich, when depicting the execution of Prince Vladimir, accepted the version of his poisoning and described it as follows: “They lead the unfortunate man with his wife and two young sons to the sovereign: they fall at his feet, swear in their innocence, demanding tonsure. The king replied: "you wanted to kill me with poison: drink it yourself." Poison was served. Prince Vladimir, ready to die, did not want to poison himself from his own hands. Then his wife, Evdokia (princess Odoevskaya by birth), intelligent, virtuous, seeing that there is no salvation, no pity in the heart of the destroyer, turned her face away from John, dried her tears and told her husband with firmness: “We are not ourselves, but the tormentor poisons us: it is better to accept death from the king than from the executioner. " Vladimir said goodbye to his wife, blessed the children and drank poison, followed by Evdokia and his sons. They prayed together. The poison began to act, John was a witness to their torment and death, "and so on.

We see how the modest text of sources, dryly informing about what was happening, under the skillful pen of the author turned into a description of an episode filled with drama. To evoke emotions in the reader, the author put “soul and feelings” into his text and “colored it”.

If there were no notes in the volumes that give a reliable idea of ​​the episodes and correct the author's text, then the reader would have the right to consider the author a writer of fables. But the fact of the matter is that Nikolai Mikhailovich does not hide from the reader the true reflection of events in the sources and shows how an unreadable text can be turned into an exciting reading.

The closer to our time, the more sources are at the disposal of the researcher and, consequently, the more opportunities for "coloring" when describing both the events and the characters of the characters. The paucity of sources on ancient history limited this kind of author's possibilities and made it possible to create "pleasantness" for the reader only by epithets. Nikolai Mikhailovich had a lot of them: kind, beneficent, cruel, gentle, sad, brave, cunning, prudent, etc. In addition, he equipped the text with such words as consoled, indignant, jealous, in a hurry, etc.

In "History of the Russian State" Nikolai Mikhailovich put both colossal work and all the strength of his extraordinary talent as a writer. It looks like he was pleased with the creation. In any case, a few months before his death, he shared his thoughts with his friend I.I. Dmitriev: “... Do you know. that with tears I feel gratitude to Heaven for my historical action, I know what and how I write; in my quiet delight I do not think of either contemporaries or posterity; I am independent and enjoy only my work, love for the fatherland and humanity. Let no one read my Story; she is and is enough for me. "

In his prophecy, Karamzin was a little mistaken: his History has been read and is being read.

REFERENCES ABOUT N.M. KARAMZIN.

1. Klyuchevsky V.O. N.M. Karamzin // Klyuchevsky V.O. Historical portraits.-M., 1991.-P.488--.

2. Kozlov V.P. Karamzin - historian // Karamzin N.M. The history of the Russian state.- T.4.-С.17--.

3. Korosteleva V. Lessons from Karamzin: To the 225th anniversary of his birth // Rural life.-1991.-11 December.

4. Kosulina L.G. The feat of an honest man // Literature at school.-1993.-N 6.-P.20-25.

5. Lotman Yu.M. The Creation of Karamzin. - M., 1987._336s.

6. Lotman Yu.M. Columbus of Russian history // Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian state.- T.4.-С.3--.

8. Maksimov E. secret of Karamzin's archive // ​​Slovo.-1990.-N12.-P.24--.

9. Pavlenko N. "The old man is most dear to me" // Science and Life.-1993.-N12 & -C.98

10. Smirnov A. How the "History of the Russian State" was created // Moscow.-1989.-N11,12, 1990.-N8

11 Soloviev S.M. Karamzin // Moscow .-1988.-N8.-P.141--

12. Khapilin K. Monument of my soul and heart // Young Guard.-1996.-N7.- P.217--.

13. Schmidt S.O. "History of the Russian State" in the culture of pre-revolutionary Russia // Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian state.Vol. 4.- P.28--.

History of Russian Goverment. Volume I-XII. Karamzin N.M.

"Karamzin is our first historian and the last Chronicler ..." - such a definition was given by A. Pushkin to the great educator, writer and historian N. M. Karamzin (1766-1826). The famous "History of the Russian State", all twelve volumes of which were included in this book, became a major event in the social life of the country, an era in the study of our past.

Karamzin N.M.

Born in the village of Mikhailovka, Simbirsk province in the family of a landowner. At the age of fourteen, Karamzin was brought to Moscow and sent to the boarding school of the Moscow professor Shaden. In 1783 he tried to enter the military service, where he was enrolled as a minor, but in the same year he retired. From May 1789 to September 1790 he traveled around Germany, Switzerland, France and England, stopping mainly in large cities - Berlin, Leipzig, Geneva, Paris, London. Returning to Moscow, Karamzin began to publish Moskovsky Zhurnal, where the Letters of a Russian Traveler appeared. Most of 1793 - 1795 Karamzin spent in the village and prepared here two collections called "Aglaya", published in the fall of 1793 and 1794. In 1803, with the help of the assistant minister of public education MN Muravyov, Karamzin received the title of historiographer and 2000 rubles of annual pension in order to write a complete history of Russia. V 1816 he published the first 8 volumes of "History of the Russian State", in 1821 year - 9 volume, in 1824 year - 10th and 11th. V 1826 Mr. Karamzin died before he could finish the 12th volume, which was published by DN Bludov from the papers left over from the deceased.

Format: doc

The size: 9.1 MB

Download: 16 .11.2017, the links were removed at the request of the publishing house "AST" (see note)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
VOLUME I
Chapter I. On the peoples who have inhabited Russia since ancient times. About the Slavs in general.
Chapter II. About the Slavs and other peoples who made up the Russian State.
Chapter III. On the physical and moral character of the ancient Slavs.
Chapter IV. Rurik, Sineus and Trubor. 862-879 g.
Chapter V. Oleg - Ruler. 879-912 g.
Chapter VI. Prince Igor. 912-945 g.
Chapter VII. Prince Svyatoslav. 945-972 g.
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Yaropolk. 972-980 g.
Chapter IX. Grand Duke Vladimir, named Basil in baptism. 980-1014 g.
Chapter X. About the state of Ancient Russia.
VOLUME II
Chapter I. Grand Duke Svyatopolk. 1015-1019 g.
Chapter II. Grand Duke Yaroslav, or George. 1019-1054 g.
Chapter III. Truth Russian, or the laws of Yaroslavna.
Chapter IV. Grand Duke Izyaslav, named Dmitry in baptism. 1054-1077 g.
Chapter V. Grand Duke Vsevolod. 1078-1093 g.
Chapter VI. Grand Duke Svyatopolk - Michael. 1093-1112 g.
Chapter VII. Vladimir Monomakh, named in baptism by Vasily. 1113-1125 g.
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Mstislav. 1125-1132 g.
Chapter IX. Grand Duke Yaropolk. 1132-1139 g.
Chapter X. Grand Duke Vsevolod Olgovich. 1139-1146 g.
Chapter XI. Grand Duke Igor Olgovich.
Chapter XII. Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavovich. 1146-1154 g.
Chapter XIII. Grand Duke Rostislav-Mikhail Mstislavovich. 1154-1155 g.
Chapter XIV. Grand Duke George, or Yuri Vladimirovich, nicknamed Dolgoruky. 1155-1157 g.
Chapter XV. Grand Duke Izyaslav Davidovich of Kiev. Prince Andrey of Suzdalsky, nicknamed Bogolyubsky. 1157-1159 g.
Chapter XVI. Grand Duke Svyatopolk - Michael.
Chapter XVII. Vladimir Monomakh, named in baptism by Vasily.
VOLUME III
Chapter I. Grand Duke Andrew. 1169-1174 g.
Chapter II. Grand Duke Mikhail II [Georgievich]. 1174-1176 g.
Chapter III. Grand Duke Vsevolod III Georgievich. 1176-1212 g.
Chapter IV. George, Prince of Vladimir. Konstantin Rostovsky. 1212-1216 g.
Chapter V. Constantine, Grand Duke of Vladimir and Suzdal. 1216-1219 g.
Chapter VI. Grand Duke George II Vsevolodovich. 1219-1224 g.
Chapter VII. State of Russia from XI to XIII century.
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Georgy Vsevolodovich. 1224-1238 g.
VOLUME IV
Chapter I. Grand Duke Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich. 1238-1247 g.
Chapter II. Grand Dukes Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Andrei Yaroslavich and Alexander Nevsky (one after the other). 1247-1263 g.
Chapter III. Grand Duke Yaroslav Yaroslavich. 1263-1272 g.
Chapter IV. Grand Duke Vasily Yaroslavich. 1272-1276 g.
Chapter V. Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich. 1276-1294 g.
Chapter VI. Grand Duke Andrey Alexandrovich. 1294 -1304 g.
Chapter VII. Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich. 1304-1319 g.
Chapter VIII. Grand Dukes Georgy Daniilovich, Dimitri and Alexander Mikhailovich. (one after the other). 1319-1328 g.
Chapter IX. Grand Duke John Daniilovich, nicknamed Kalita. 1328-1340 g.
Chapter X. Grand Duke Simeon Ioannovich, nicknamed the Proud. 1340-1353 g.
Chapter XI. Grand Duke John II Ioannovich. 1353-1359 g.
Chapter XII. Grand Duke Dimitri Konstantinovich. 1359-1362 g.
TOM V
Chapter I. Grand Duke Dimitri Ioannovich, nicknamed Donskoy. 1363-1389 g.
Chapter II. Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich. 1389-1425 g.
Chapter III. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich Dark. 1425-1462 g.
Chapter IV. The state of Russia from the invasion of the Tatars to John III.
VOLUME VI
Chapter I. Sovereign, Sovereign Grand Duke John III Vasilievich. 1462-1472 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1472-1477 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1475-1481 g.
Chapter IV. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1480-1490 g.
Chapter V. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1491-1496 g.
Chapter VI. Continuation of the state of Ioannova. 1495-1503 g.
Chapter VII. Continuation of the reign of John. 1503-1505 g.
VOLUME VII
Chapter I. Sovereign Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich. 1505-1509 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of Vasiliev's statehood. 1510-1521 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of Vasiliev's statehood. 1521-1534 g.
Chapter IV. State of Russia. 1462-1533 g.
VOLUME VIII
Chapter I. Grand Duke and Tsar John IV Vasilievich II. 1533-1538 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of the state of John IV. 1538-1547 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of the state of John IV. 1546-1552
Chapter IV. Continuation of the state of John IV. 1552 g.
Chapter V. Continuation of the state of John IV. 1552-1560 g.
VOLUME IX
Chapter I. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1560-1564 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1563-1569 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1569-1572 g.
Chapter IV. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1572-1577 g.
Chapter V. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1577-1582 g.
Chapter VI. The first conquest of Siberia. 1581-1584 g.
Chapter VII. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1582-1584 g.
TOM X
Chapter I. The reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1584-1587 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1587-1592 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1591-1598 g.
Chapter IV. The state of Russia at the end of the 16th century.
VOLUME XI
Chapter I. The reign of Boris Godunov. 1598-1604 g.
Chapter II. Continuation of Borisov's reign. 1600 -1605 g.
Chapter III. The reign of Theodore Borisov. 1605 g.
Chapter IV. The reign of False Dmitry. 1605-1606 g.
VOLUME XII
Chapter I. The reign of Vasily Ioannovich Shuisky. 1606-1608
Chapter II. Continuation of Vasily's reign. 1607-1609 g.
Chapter III. Continuation of Vasily's reign. 1608-1610 g.
Chapter IV. The overthrow of Basil and the interregnum. 1610-1611 g.
Chapter V. Interregnum. 1611-1612 g.

"History of Russian Goverment"- a multivolume essay 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 merits and scientific scrupulousness of the author, that opened the history of Russia to the general educated public.

Karamzin wrote his "History" until the end of his life, but did not manage to finish it. The text of the manuscript of volume 12 is cut off at the chapter "Interregnum 1611-1612", although the author intended to bring the exposition to the beginning of the reign of the Romanov dynasty.

Work on the "History"

One of the most popular writers of his time, nicknamed the "Russian Stern", Karamzin in 1804 retired from society to the Ostafyevo estate, where he devoted himself entirely to writing a work that was supposed to open national history for Russian society, which the past of Ancient Rome and France represented much better than your own. His initiative was supported by Emperor Alexander I himself, who, by decree of October 31, 1803, bestowed upon him the unprecedented title of Russian historiographer.

The first eight volumes were printed in 1817 and went on sale in February 1818. The three thousandth circulation, huge for that time, sold out faster than in a month, and a second edition was required, which was carried out in -1819 by I.V.Slenin. In 1821 a new ninth volume was published, and in 1824 the next two. During his work in the silence of the archives, Karamzin's worldview underwent a major shift towards conservatism:

Preserving the cult of virtue and feeling, he was imbued with patriotism and the cult of the state. He came to the conclusion that in order to be successful, the state must be strong, monarchical and autocratic. His new views were expressed in a note "On Ancient and New Russia", submitted in 1811 to Alexander's sister.

The author did not manage to finish the twelfth volume of his work, which was published almost three years after his death. Based on the drafts of Karamzin, the twelfth volume was prepared by K. S. Serbinovich and D. N. Bludov. At the beginning of 1829 Bludov published this last volume. Later in the same year, the second edition of the entire twelve-volume edition was published.

The author collected historical facts from ancient chronicles, many of which were introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. For example, it was Karamzin who found and named the Ipatiev Chronicle. Numerous details and details, so as not to clutter up the coherent text of the story, Karamzin put in a special volume of notes. It was these notes that had the greatest scientific significance.

In the preface to his book, Karamzin describes the importance of history in general, its role in people's lives. He says that the history of Russia is no less exciting, important and interesting than the world history. The following is a list of sources that helped him to recreate the picture of historical events.

In terms of structure and syllable, the author calls Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as one of the revered examples. Just as Gibbon, using the example of all the events described, illustrates the thesis that the decline of morals inevitably leads to the collapse of statehood, Karamzin, through all his work, carries out the innermost thought about the beneficence of a strong autocratic power for Russia.

In the first volume, Karamzin describes in detail the peoples who lived on the territory of modern Russia, including the origins of the Slavs, their conflict with the Varangians, the attitude of the Greeks to the tribes inhabiting the territory of future Russia. Then he talks about the origin of the first princes of Russia, their rule in line with the Norman theory. In subsequent volumes, the author describes in detail all the important events of Russian history up to 1612.

In his work, he acted more as a writer than a historian - describing historical facts, he was concerned about creating a new noble language for conducting historical narration. For example, describing the first centuries of Russia, Karamzin said:

Great nations, like great men, have their infancy and should not be ashamed of it: our fatherland, weak, divided into small regions until 862, according to Nestor's reckoning, owes its greatness to the happy introduction of Monarchical power.

The monotonously rounded rhythmic cadences create a sense of continuity, but not the complexity of the story. Contemporaries loved this style. Some of the few critics did not like his pomp and sentimentality, but on the whole the whole era was fascinated by him and recognized him as the greatest achievement of Russian prose.

D. Mirsky

Meaning

The publication of the first volumes of the History made a stunning effect on contemporaries. The Pushkin generation read his work eagerly, discovering unknown pages of the past. The stories that he remembered were developed by writers and poets into works of art. For example, Pushkin drew material from his History for his tragedy Boris Godunov, which he dedicated to the memory of the historiographer. Later, Herzen assessed the importance of Karamzin's labor of life as follows:

The great creation of Karamzin, the monument erected by him for posterity, is twelve volumes of Russian history. His story, on which he conscientiously worked for half his life. ... greatly contributed to the appeal of minds to the study of the fatherland.

Notes (edit)

Literature

• Eidelman N. Ya. The last chronicler. - M .: Kniga, 1983 .-- 176 p. - 200,000 copies(region)
• V.P. Kozlov"History of the Russian State" N. M. Karamzin in the assessments of his contemporaries / Otv. ed. Dr. East Sci. V. I. Buganov. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. - M .: Nauka, 1989 .-- 224 p. - (Pages of the history of our Motherland). - 30,000 copies. - ISBN 5-02-009482-X
• Polevoy N.A. Review of the "History of the Russian State" N. M. Karamzin // Collection of materials on the history of historical science in the USSR (late 18th - first third of the 19th century): Textbook. manual for universities / Comp. A. E. Shiklo; Ed. I. D. Kovalchenko. - M .: Higher school, 1990 .-- S. 153-170. - 288 p. - 20,000 copies. - ISBN 5-06-001608-0* in lane)

Links

• Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment: at 12, etc.- SPb. , 1803-1826; ; ; ...

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what the "History of the Russian State" is in other dictionaries:

History of the Russian state ... Wikipedia

History of the Russian state Genre Historical film Country Russia Television channel "TV Center" (Russia) Number of episodes 500 On screens ... Wikipedia

The history of the Russian Armed Forces is divided into several periods. Military uniforms from the X to the XVIII century Contents 1 From ancient times to the XIII century 1.1 V VIII centuries ... Wikipedia

At the very beginning of his reign, Emperor Alexander I appointed Nikolai Karamzin as his official historiographer. All his life Karamzin will work on the "History of the Russian State". This work was appreciated by Pushkin himself, but the "Karamzinskaya" story is far from flawless.

Ukraine is the birthplace of the horse

"This great part of Europe and Asia, now called Russia, in its temperate climates has been inhabited from time immemorial, but by wild peoples immersed in the depths of ignorance, who have not commemorated their existence with any of their own historical monuments" - with these words Karamzin's narration begins and already contains a mistake in myself.
It is difficult to overestimate the contribution made by the tribes that inhabited the south of modern Karamzin Russia in ancient times to the general development of mankind. A huge amount of modern data indicates that in the territories of present-day Ukraine in the period from 3500 to 4000 BC. NS. for the first time in world history, the domestication of the horse took place.
This is probably the most excusable mistake of Karamzin, because there was still more than a century left before the invention of genetics. When Nikolai Mikhailovich began his work, he could not know at all that all horses in the world: from Australia and the Americas to Europe and Africa are distant descendants of horses with whom our not so wild and ignorant ancestors "made friends" in the Black Sea steppes.

Norman theory

As you know, "The Tale of Bygone Years", one of the main historical sources on which Karamzin relies in his work, begins with a lengthy introductory part from biblical times, which inscribes the history of the Slavic tribes in a general historical context. And only then does Nestor set out the concept of the origin of Russian statehood, which will later be called the "Norman theory".

According to this concept, the Russian tribes originate from Scandinavia during the Viking times. Karamzin omits the biblical part of the Tale, but repeats the main provisions of the Norman theory. The controversy around this theory began before Karamzin and continued after. Many influential historians either completely denied the "Varangian origin" of the Russian state, or assessed its degree and role in a completely different way, especially in terms of the "voluntariness" of calling the Varangians.
At the moment, among scientists, the opinion is strengthened that, at least, everything is not so simple. Karamzin's apologetic and uncritical repetition of the "Norman Theory" looks, if not an obvious mistake, then an obvious historical simplification.

Ancient, Middle and New

In his multivolume work and scientific polemics, Karamzin proposed his own concept of dividing the history of Russia into periods: “Our history is divided into the Ancient, from Rurik to John III, into the Middle, from John to Peter, and the New, from Peter to Alexander. The system of destinies was the character of the first era, autocracy was the second, and the change in civil customs was the third. "
Despite some positive responses and support from such prominent historians as, for example, S.M. Soloviev, the Karamzin periodization did not take root in Russian historiography, and the initial prerequisites for the division were recognized as erroneous and inoperative.

Khazar Kaganate

In connection with the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, the history of Judaism is of keen interest to scientists in different parts of the world, because any new knowledge on this topic is literally a matter of "war and peace". The increasing attention of historians is paid to the Khazar Kaganate - a powerful Jewish state that existed in Eastern Europe, which had a significant impact on Kievan Rus.
Against the background of modern research and our knowledge on this topic, the description of the Khazar Kaganate in Karamzin's work looks like a dark spot. In fact, Karamzin simply bypasses the Khazar problem, thereby denying the degree of influence and significance of their cultural ties with Slavic tribes and states.

"Ardent romantic passion"

The son of his century, Karamzin looked at history as a poem written in prose. In his descriptions of ancient Russian princes, a characteristic feature looks like what one of the critics calls "an ardent romantic passion."

The terrible atrocities, accompanied by no less terrible atrocities, committed quite in the spirit of his time, Karamzin describes as Christmas carols, they say, well, yes - pagans, sinned, but they repented. In the first volumes of the "History of the Russian State," there are more literary characters that are not really historical, but literary characters, as Karamzin saw them, who firmly stood on monarchist, conservative-protective positions.

Tatar-Mongol yoke

Karamzin did not use the phrase "Tatar-Mongols", in his books either "Tatars" or "Mongols", but the term "yoke" is an invention of Karamzin. For the first time this term appeared 150 after the official end of the invasion in Polish sources. Karamzin transplanted it onto Russian soil, thereby planting a time bomb. Almost 200 years have passed, and the disputes of historians still do not subside: was there a yoke or not? and what was, can it be considered a yoke? what are we talking about?

There is no doubt about the first campaign of conquest against the Russian lands, the devastation of many cities and the establishment of vassal dependence of the appanage principalities on the Mongols. But for the feudal Europe of those years, the fact that the signor could be of a different nationality, in general, is a widespread practice.
The very concept of "yoke" implies the existence of a certain single Russian national and almost state space, which was conquered and enslaved by the interventionists, with whom a stubborn liberation war is being waged. In this case, it looks like at least some exaggeration.
And Karamzin's assessment of the consequences of the Mongol invasion sounds completely wrong: “The Russians came out of the yoke, more with a European than an Asian character. Europe did not recognize us: but for the fact that it has changed in these 250 years, and we have remained as we were ”.
Karamzin gives a categorically negative answer to his own question: "The domination of the Mongols, apart from harmful consequences for morality, did it leave any other traces in folk customs, in civil legislation, in domestic life, in the language of Russians?" “No,” he writes.
In fact, of course, yes.

King Herod

In the previous paragraphs, we talked mainly about Karamzin's conceptual mistakes. But there is also one big factual inaccuracy in his work, which had great consequences and impact on Russian and world culture.
"No no! You cannot pray for Tsar Herod - the Mother of God does not order, "the holy fool sings in Mussorgsky's opera Boris Godunov to the text of the drama of the same name by A.S. Pushkin. Tsar Boris in horror recoils from the holy fool, indirectly confessing to the crime - the murder of the legitimate heir to the throne, the son of the seventh wife of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the adolescent Tsarevich Dmitry.
Dmitry died in Uglich, under unclear circumstances. The official investigation was carried out by the boyar Vasily Shuisky. The verdict is an accident. The death of Dmitry was beneficial to Godunov, as it cleared the way for him to the throne. Popular rumor did not believe in the official version, and then several impostors, False Dmitrys, appeared in Russian history, claiming that there was no death: "Dmitry survived, I am that."
In The History of the Russian State, Karamzin directly accuses Godunov of organizing the murder of Dmitry. The version of the murder will be picked up by Pushkin, then Mussorgsky will write a brilliant opera, which will be staged at all the largest theatrical venues in the world. With the light hand of a galaxy of Russian geniuses, Boris Godunov will become the second most famous Tsar Herod in world history.
The first timid publications in defense of Godunov appeared during the lifetime of Karamzin and Pushkin. At the moment, his innocence has been proven by historians: Dmitry really died in an accident. However, in the popular mind, this will not change anything.
The episode with the unfair accusation and subsequent rehabilitation of Godunov is, in a sense, a brilliant metaphor for the entire work of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin: a brilliant artistic concept and fiction sometimes turns out to be higher than the hook-made truth of facts, documents and genuine testimonies of contemporaries.