In the 50s of the last century, the well-known Russian and Ukrainian historian Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov (1817-1885), who lived in Saratov from the end of the 40s under police supervision, dealt with the problems of the history of the Saratov region.

The historical works of Kostomarov occupy a prominent place in Russian historical thought of the last century. They are distinguished by an interest in the past of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, a desire to penetrate into the essence and content of folk life, a great interest in popular movements, thoroughness and scrupulousness in working on historical sources ...

Nikolai Ivanovich ends up in Saratov as an already established historian and public figure. In 1837 he graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Kharkov University. At the turn of the 30-40s of the XIX century, he published several poetry collections. In 1841, Kostomarov submitted his master's thesis, banned by censorship, "On the Significance of the Union in the History of Western Russia," and by the spring of 1843 he had prepared and then defended a new dissertation, "On the History and Significance of Russian Folk Poetry."

For some time Kostomarov taught at secondary schools, and from the autumn of 1845 at Kiev University. In addition to teaching, he did a lot of ethnography, folklore, and literary activities. From the end of 1845, Kostomarov became a member of the secret anti-government "Cyril and Methodius Society", which fought for the elimination of serfdom, the abolition of estates, the unification of the Slavic peoples, a federal parliamentary republic with equal rights and political autonomy for each nationality. In 1847, he was arrested, spent a year in solitary confinement in the Peter and Paul Fortress, and then exiled to Saratov by order of the tsar, who approved the verdict of the commission of inquiry in the case of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood. “... Former adjunct professor of the University of St. Vladimir, collegiate assessor Nikolai Kostomarov, together with other persons, the document said, compiled in Kyiv the Ukrainian-Slavic Society, in which the unification of the Slavic tribes into one state was discussed, and, moreover, translated from the Polish language one manuscript of a criminal content”. He arrived in Saratov with an order “identify him for the service, but not for the scientific part”. They appointed him a translator under the provincial government on January 29, 1849.

The appearance of a young university professor in a provincial town was greeted with extreme interest by the local society. According to an eyewitness, “He was a man of medium height, about thirty, heavily built, but somewhat awkward, as he remained all his life. His clean-shaven face was very mobile; nervous twitchings were noticeable in it, so that sometimes it seemed that these were not spontaneous grimaces ”. The reason for the nervous movements of his face was not so much the trials he endured in prison, but the consequence of the shock he suffered at the age of ten, when his father was killed by thieves.

The life and work of Kostomarov in Saratov was complex and controversial. At various times, holding the positions of secretary of the provincial statistical committee, translator of the provincial government, editor of the Saratov Gubernskie Vedomosti, Kostomarov became quite close friends with the provincial administration, taking part, for example, in the punishment of several Saratov Jews for the so-called “ritual” murders.

On the other hand, Nikolai Ivanovich was also closely connected with the advanced Saratov intelligentsia, attracting everyone's attention as a political exile. In 1851, in the house of the writer M. Zhukova, Kostomarov met Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky, who came to him with a bow from their mutual friend, St. Petersburg Slavic professor I.I. Sreznevsky. “I found in him a person to whom I could not help but become attached”, Chernyshevsky reported to the professor in November 1851. Quite friendly relations were established between them, which lasted all their lives, although they did not develop into ideological closeness.

There is quite a lot of evidence from contemporaries that shed light on the relationship between Chernyshevsky and Kostomarov. So, A.N. Pypin in My Notes says that Nikolai Gavrilovich, who became a teacher at the local gymnasium in January 1851, "I became especially close with Kostomarov. They saw each other all the time; they were people of a fairly high scientific level, which was rare in the provinces. Chernyshevsky highly appreciated the works of Kostomarov and compared them with the works of the famous Thierry". A.I. Rozanov, Chernyshevsky's classmate at the seminary, naively believed that Chernyshevsky's fame as a freethinker began with friendship with Kostomarov: “So, as the historian N.I. Kostomarov was known in our Saratov as a man of extreme political views, then friendship with him did a lot of damage to N.G. Chernyshevsky in the eyes of the gymnasium authorities”. Nikolai Gavrilovich himself also spoke definitely: “We saw each other very often, sometimes for whole months every day, and almost every day we sat together ... My way of thinking was at the beginning of my acquaintance with him already quite long ago, And I found his way of thinking too firm ... Both in many ways he judged, in my opinion, either completely correctly, or incomparably more correctly than most Russian scientists of that time”. Even after three and a half decades, when their paths parted, Chernyshevsky still highly appreciated Kostomarov. In 1889, in the preface to the Russian translation of Weber's General History, Nikolai Gavrilovich said: “Kostomarov was a man of such extensive learning, such a mind, and so fond of the truth, that his works have a very high scientific merit. His ideas about the figures and events of Russian history almost always either coincide with the truth or are close to it”.

Chernyshevsky fairly soberly assessed the political views of Kostomarov. To the question of Olga Sokratovna: will Kostomarov participate in the revolutionary coup, Nikolai Gavrilovich answered with conviction : “He is too noble, poetic; he will be frightened by dirt, massacre.”

“... Here, - recalled the Saratov historian E.A. Belov, who was “on friendly terms” and with Chernyshevsky and Kostomarov, - there were frequent rumors about the events of this century and heated debates, especially about the events of the end of the 18th century. The process of formation of parties and their mutual clashes aroused heated debate. N.I. Kostomarov attributed terror to the death of the Girondins, N.G. Chernyshevsky and I argued that terror in unconscious self-confidence was prepared by the Girondins themselves”.

From disputes about the era of the French Revolution, they imperceptibly moved on to discussing the problems of national history. Chernyshevsky valued his conversations with Kostomarov. “Acquaintance with Nikolai Ivanovich...- he wrote to I.I. Sreznevsky, - takes up a lot of my time, which I, however, will by no means call lost”. At the same time, fundamental differences between the liberal and democratic views of the two friends were already revealed here. “He was a man of extremes, always striving to bring his direction to the last limits”, - Kostomarov will say in the mid-80s.

In Saratov, Kostomarov continued his intensive scientific activity. “Kostomarov's apartment- recalls one of his friends of that time, - was overwhelmed with a mass of books from which he drew data, supplementing them with his thoughts. With such labor, Kostomarov, while in Saratov, created folios of his own writing, which he took with him when he left for St. Petersburg, and served as an aid in his professorial work”. In Saratov, using previously collected materials, Kostomarov creates a monograph “Bogdan Khmelnitsky”, prepares materials about the “Time of Troubles”, about the bourgeois revolution in France, about Tadeusz Kosciuszka, writes historical and fiction works: the poem “On the Ruins of Panticapaeum” and the story “Son ".

Written during the period of closest proximity to Chernyshevsky, the dramatic poem “On the Ruins of Panticapaeum” contains a passionate, albeit masked by historical allegories, protest against the regime of Nicholas I. Published only in 1890, it was highly appreciated by Ivan Franko, who said that the poem “belongs to significant and deeply thought-out poetic works that Russian literature of the 19th century has the right to be proud of”.

Living in Saratov, Kostomarov at first continued to correspond with his bride, hoping to obtain permission for marriage. As can be seen from his memoirs, he wrote a letter to the bride's mother asking her to bring her daughter. However, she decided that the exiled professor was not a couple for Alina, and he never received an answer. He was not allowed to leave Saratov as a supervised person, and only on January 25, 1850, in a report addressed to the governor M.L. Kozhevnikova asked for a leave of absence for four months, citing ill health, which he intended to correct in hydropathic establishments in Kochetka, Kharkov province, or Lustdorf, near Odessa. With a "behaving well" notice, the governor sent a petition to the Ministry of the Interior. In March, the refusal came. At the end of the same year, Kostomarov, addressing the III department, repeated the attempt, but this time, probably on the advice of the governor, he put forward a different reason: to go to Kyiv to marry the daughter of the deceased Colonel Kragelsky. The answer from St. Petersburg signed by the chief of gendarmes Count Orlov - "... announce to Kostomarov that he can offer his bride to come to Saratov to marry him." In turn, the governor personally on December 31, 1850 turned to the Minister of the Interior. Having coordinated his decision with the head of the III department, the minister, in a response document dated May 4, 1851, allowed a trip to Kyiv, "but so that Kostomarov stays there for no more than three months and that police surveillance of him continues throughout his stay in Kyiv".

The trip took place. A.L. herself Kragelskaya later recalled how one day a gendarmerie officer came to their house, telling about Kostomarov's attempt to get a leave to Kyiv for marriage. It was necessary to sign a document confirming the request of the groom. Mother handed some paper - "seeing nothing in front of me, except for my mother's index finger, I automatically followed the order and signed". Most likely, Alina signed the refusal. Her mother found her a groom; on November 11, 1851, she married M.D. Kisel, with whom she lived until his death in 1870. Kostomarov probably learned about the groom during his trip to Kyiv. At least N.G. Chernyshevsky, who met Kostomarov in Saratov, testified: "More than six months before the marriage of his bride, he already considered himself to have lost her, I know this, because he told me this from the very beginning of my acquaintance with him".

One of Kostomarov's acquaintances conveys the details of the dramatic moment experienced by Kostomarov in connection with the loss of his bride: “He was in the full sense of the martyr: from heavy grief, he grabbed himself by his long hair; broke his fingers, was ready to beat his head against the wall; eyes filled with blood and went into a kind of frenzy; the lover was a living dead, close to insanity”.

Feeling for A.L. Kostomarov kept Kragelskaya for many years. Upon learning of her husband's death in 1875, he proposed to her. Their life together continued until the death of Kostomarov in 1885.

The names of the people surrounding Kostomarov in Saratov are known to us almost completely. First of all, this is A.D. Gorbunov, an adviser to the state chamber, who was fond of translation work (his translation of A. Mickiewicz's poem "Konrad Wallenrod" is known), and his brother P.D. Gorbunov. K A.D. Gorbunov Kostomarov appeared in 1848 with a letter of recommendation from one of the St. Petersburg officials and was warmly received by him. At the same time, Nikolai Ivanovich became closely acquainted with the family of the attorney D.E. Stupin, whose youngest daughter Natalya almost became his wife. In 1850, an acquaintance with the poetess A.N. Paskhalova, and in 1855 he met D.L. Mordovtsev, husband A.N. Paskhalova. They maintained a relationship until the end of the historian's life. Friends often gathered near Saratov at the dacha of cousin A.N. Paskhalova - I.D. Esmont. Doctor S.F. Stephanie, Prince V.A. Shcherbatov, official I.A. Gan, A.N. Beketov (brother of the former rector of St. Petersburg University), exiled Poles Minkevich and Khmelevsky, D.L. Mordovtsev and his brother I.L. Mordovtsev - such is the circle of persons close to Kostomarov, indicated by a contemporary.

Kostomarov's stay in Saratov forced him to turn to some problems of local history. He was avidly interested in Saratov folklore. Together with A.N. Paskhalova-Mordovtseva Kostomarov organized the collection and processing of folk songs, fairy tales, and legends. A significant part of them was published in the local press, and in 1862 - in the Chronicles of Russian Literature and Antiquity. Nikolai Ivanovich studied the development of local productive forces, was engaged in the processing of local statistical data. Nikolai Ivanovich analyzed the socio-economic processes that took place in the Saratov Volga region in the middle of the 19th century, sought to identify social contradictions. Kostomarov's interest in the history of the Saratov region is evidenced by a letter about him from the head of the province, sent to the spiritual department in October 1854: “... I ask the Spiritual Consistory to provide the designated official with accurate and satisfactory information and fulfill his legal requirements regarding statistics, geography, ethnography and history of the province entrusted to me”.

Kostomarov wrote essays about Petrovsk and Volsk, examined some local archives. A significant part of the collected documents (for example, about E. Pugachev) Kostomarov handed over to his student and successor in the study of the Saratov region Mordovtsev. “I gave the materials to D.L. Mordovtsev,- Nikolai Ivanovich himself later said, - but he himself did not dare to write Pugachev, since they announced to me that they would not give the necessary papers in the archive ”. Based on data from the Saratov Territory, Kostomarov, together with Mordovtsev, tried to prepare a collection of peasant uprisings in the first half of the 19th century, but the idea remained unfinished, since the governor banned the publication of the book.

Of particular interest is Kostomarov's historical monograph “Stenka Razin's Rebellion” written in Saratov, the first version of which, under the title “Stenka Razin and the daring fellows of the 17th century,” was published in 1853 on the pages of the Saratov Provincial Gazette. Some sections of this work are devoted to the events of the Razin uprising in the Saratov Volga region. The work of Kostomarov caused a great public outcry, was outlined by K. Marx, who learned about it from the Russian populist Danielson. A.M. speaks well about the strength of her artistic impact on readers. Gorky in the story "Konovalov": “As the historian drew the figure of Stepan Timofeevich with the artist’s brush and the “prince of the Volga freemen” grew out of the pages of the book, Konovalov was reborn. Previously boring and indifferent, with eyes clouded with lazy drowsiness, he, gradually and imperceptibly for me, appeared before me in a strikingly new form ... There was something lion-like, fiery in his figure compressed into a lump of muscles”.

Literary critics rightly say that Kostomarov's study, a detailed discussion of the details of this work, already at that time gave Chernyshevsky a historical perspective for comprehending the image of Rakhmetov. One of the characters in the novel “Prologue” Volgin recalls the song “We are not thieves, we are not robbers”, recorded by Kostomarov and published first in the Saratov Provincial Gazette, and then in a separate book about Razin.

In 1858, Kostomarov's work "Essay on the history of the Saratov region from its accession to the Russian state to the accession to the throne of Nicholas I" was published in the "Memorial book of the Saratov province" Kostomarov. Kostomarov tried to draw a broad, generalizing picture of the processes that took place in the Volga region in the 16th-18th centuries. Emphasizing the importance for the economic development of the Russian state of the Volga trade route, he raised the question of the settlement of the Saratov region as a consequence of state policy. Saratov, according to the historian, was founded in the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich on the left bank of the Volga. However, Nikolai Ivanovich avoided establishing a more precise date. At the end of the 17th century, Kostomarov believed, Saratov was moved to the right bank. Kostomarov finds out the significance of joining the Lower Volga region to the Russian state, emphasizing: “The Volga then became the only way of this newly discovered acquaintance of the West with the East”.

He agreed with the statements of A.F. Leopoldov and R.A. Fadeev that the need to develop the Volga trade raised the question of building Russian fortress cities along the banks of the Volga, among which was Saratov. Kostomarov singles out the presence of two opposing forces in the Saratov Volga region in the 16th-17th centuries: the Volga Cossacks, which was the expression of the “old veche freemen”, and the autocratic state, which sought to subordinate the Cossacks “under the radiant scepter of order and power to a new image of the political and domestic existence of Russia”. This clash, according to Kostomarov, determined the further development of this region. Having emerged in the second half of the 16th century, the Volga Cossacks, in the image of Kostomarov, represented a military organization based on pronounced democratic principles of governance. Thus, the problem of social differentiation of the Cossack army remained outside the field of view of the historian. He was unable to understand the internal processes taking place in the Cossack communities.

Since 1855, after the death of Nicholas I, the life of Nikolai Ivanovich began to change. He is allowed to travel to the capital to work in the central archives. And in 1859 he finally moved to St. Petersburg, where he became a professor of Russian history at St. Petersburg University.

According to contemporaries, in his old age Kostomarov "loved to talk about his past", and these stories undoubtedly concerned Saratov. "Poetic nature", "a great scientist and artistic talent" - this characteristic, which was fixed for Kostomarov, also had its source in his forced, but filled with young creative energy, Saratov decade.

Materials used: - Dechenko A. Ten years under supervision. - Monuments of the Fatherland: The Heart of the Volga Region. - M.: Monuments of the Fatherland, 1998.
- Demchenko A.N.I. Kostomarov in Saratov. - Saratov Volga region in the panorama of centuries: history, traditions, problems. Materials of inter-regional scientific readings of local lore April 7-8, 2000. - Saratov: Publishing House of SSU, 2000.

1. Basic biographical facts and socio-political views

2. Main scientific works

3. Historical concept and scientific methodology

4. Assessment of scientific heritage

Bibliography

1. Basic biographical facts and socio-political views

The life and creative path of Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov was by no means strewn with roses. Many times he had to overcome obstacles that could, if not break, then break a person.

He was born on May 4, 1817 from the marriage of a landowner with his serf. In 1828, the life of Ivan Petrovich Kostomarov was tragically cut short, he was killed by servants who decided to rob him. For the rest of his life, the bloodied body of his father remained in the memory of the child. A widowed mother had to make a lot of efforts to save her son from the fate of a serf: the nephews of the deceased strove to turn the boy into a lackey - the trouble was that his father did not have time to adopt him.

The next stage of life is Kharkov University, where Kostomarov spent four years, from 1833 to 1836. Against the gray background of mediocre professors of the university, professor of world history Mikhail Mikhailovich Lukin and the famous philologist, future academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences Izmail Ivanovich Sreznevsky stood out for their extraordinary talents. It was they who instilled in the student a love for history, literature and ethnography.

In 1840, Kostomarov successfully passed the exams for a master's degree, and a year later submitted a dissertation on the Brest Church Union of 1596. It was she who gave him yet another trouble. Her defense did not take place: the content of the work, his ideas were hostilely met by the Kharkov Archbishop Innokenty Borisov, they did not find support from the well-known historian of the conservation trend Nikolai Gerasimovich Ustryalov. The final verdict was delivered by the Minister of Education, Sergei Semyonovich Uvarov, who ordered that all printed copies of the dissertation be burned.

A new dissertation, this time on a less acute topic - "On the historical significance of Russian folk poetry" - Nikolai Ivanovich defended in 1844. In it, Kostomarov expressed the idea, which he later adhered to throughout his entire career, about the need to study the life of the people.

Kostomarov was appointed a history teacher at the Rivne Gymnasium. However, Nikolai Ivanovich had a chance to pull the strap of a provincial gymnasium teacher for only a few months. He quickly gained a reputation as a teacher who knew his subject and a brilliant lecturer, and this provided him with a new appointment - to the First Kyiv Gymnasium. But even here he did not stay long - the department of Russian history at Kiev University was waiting for him.

In Kyiv, Kostomarov met the collegiate secretary Nikolai Ivanovich Gulak, the author of the Kobzar, the poet Taras Grigoryevich Shevchenko. Communication resulted in the creation of a secret political organization, called the Cyril and Methodius Society - after the creators of Slavic writing. This happened in late 1845 - early 1846. Upon denunciation, members of the society were arrested. Kostomarov was guilty and with the consent of Nicholas I determined the punishment: after a year of imprisonment in the Peter and Paul Fortress, send him into exile in Saratov with a ban on publishing his works.

The arrest and exile of Kostomarov turned out to be a personal tragedy for him for many years. He was engaged to Alina Leontievna Krachelskaya. However, the wedding scheduled for March 30, 1847 did not take place due to the arrest of the groom. At the insistence of the mother, the daughter married in 1851.

The death of Nicholas I caused a change in the fate of the exile. On May 31, 1755, Kostomarov turned to Alexander II with a petition. Emperor Alexander II honored Nikolai Ivanovich with the "eye of compassion": he was allowed to move to the capital and publish works.

When Academician Ustryalov resigned, Kostomarov received the right to take the chair of the history of Russia at St. Petersburg University. On November 20, 1859, Nikolai Ivanovich gave an introductory lecture, which was enthusiastically received by the audience, and among them were not only students, but also professors and ministry officials. It would seem that another rise in the career of a scientist began. However, brilliantly and unexpectedly begun - after everything experienced - it just as suddenly broke off.

The triumph of Kostomarov's professorial popularity was interrupted by the same students who turned away from him in 1862. At the beginning of this year, the university stopped classes due to student unrest. The students organized courses of public lectures identical to those of the university. It was the so-called "free university", where Kostomarov also lectured.

On March 5, 1862, Professor P.V. Pavlov delivered a lecture entitled “The Millennium of Russia”. The next day, Pavlov was arrested and ordered to be exiled to Kostroma. The students, in protest, suggested that the professors stop lecturing. Kostomarov, along with other professors, petitioned the Minister of Public Education to release Pavlov from severe punishment, but did not want to refuse to lecture. Students condemned his act.

In 1875, Kostomarov was destined to meet Alina Leontievna again. By this time she was a widow and had three daughters. The groom (and he had not married all these years) turned 58. He looked sick, this half-blind man. However, mutual affection remained, and in May 1875 they got married. Nikolai Ivanovich spent the last 10 years of his life surrounded by the touching care of his wife. Moreover, she became an indispensable assistant for the half-blind historian - he, who had almost completely lost his sight, dictated his latest compositions to her.

2. Main scientific works

Kostomarov publishes in Sovremennik in 1860 “An Essay on the Domestic Life and Customs of the Great Russian People in the 16th and 17th Centuries”, and in the “Russian Word” the work: “Russian Foreigners. The Lithuanian tribe and its relationship to Russian history”, and, finally, in 1863, one of Kostomarov’s fundamental studies “Northern Russian people’s rule in the days of the appanage-veche way of Novgorod-Pskov-Vyatka” was published as a separate book.

Judging by the most complete bibliography of Kostomarov's works, compiled by F. Nikolaychik and published in the journal "Kyiv Starina" (1885), he wrote 158 original) works, the subject of which is devoted to the history of Russia, Ukraine, Poland, not counting his series "Russian History in the biographies of its main figures”, in six issues of which there are 31 “bios” of historical figures of our country for the 10th-16th centuries. and 19 figures for the 17th-18th centuries; most of the essays were written specifically for this edition. It's only in Russian. He is the author of up to a dozen works of art in Russian and more than a dozen in Ukrainian. Thus, every year, starting from 1858, Kostomarov published an average of ten works, not counting documentary publications. This is a real labor feat of a scientist.

The cycle of Kostomarov's works on the history of Ukraine in total makes up a good half of the historian's creative heritage. This gives the right to call Kostomarov the first historian of Ukraine, the founder of Ukrainian historiography. Until now, this merit of Kostomarov is interpreted incorrectly. In a touching unity, the historiographers of the Ukrainian nationalist school and Marxist-Leninist historiography “count” Kostomarov as the founder of Ukrainian nationalist historiography. Meanwhile, none of Kostomarov's major historical works contain any idea of ​​the superiority of Ukrainians over other nations, not a single characteristic of the exclusivity of this ethnic group, nor Russophobia, nor Polonophobia, nor anti-Semitism. This legend about Kostomarov's Ukrainian nationalism is a distant echo of the reaction of noble Russian and Polish historiography, as well as journalism, to Kostomarov's struggle for the right of Ukrainians to have their own history, develop their own culture, preserve and develop their national traditions.

3. Historical concept and scientific methodology

Kostomarov lacked a coherent system of views on the historical process. Historical views of Nikolai Ivanovich were distinguished by fragmentation, fragmentation, lack of understanding of the historical process, taken as a whole. In his writings, we will not find the complex interaction of all the elements that influenced the course of history. In contrast to the harmonious concept of S. M. Solovyov, contradictions and gaps can be found in Kostomarov's historical views. And if N. I. Kostomarov left a noticeable mark in Russian historical science, then thanks to talented studies of specific events in Russian history, and by no means his theoretical works.

The proportion of theoretical works in the work of N. I. Kostomarov is not large - they essentially include two small articles: “On the Relationship of Russian History to Geography and Ethnography” and “Thoughts about the Federative Beginning of Ancient Russia”.

A brief digression into the past of historical science allowed Kostomarov to outline the stages of its development. At the initial stage, it was distinguished by the "anecdotal nature of the presentation": the historian drew attention to events that "excited curiosity" that took place in the political sphere and the private life of people "standing on the forehead of management."

The next stage in the development of science is characterized by the desire of historians to establish internal connections between events. And since the state was the force that united these events into one whole, the attention of historians, as before, was focused on political history, convenient for a coherent presentation. The subject of coverage was royal courts, government receptions, wars, diplomacy, and legislation. At the same time, the life of the people in all its manifestations (habits, customs, concepts, domestic life, aspirations, etc.) was ignored. According to the figurative expression of Kostomarov, history was reduced to a description of the upper branches of a tree, without touching the trunk and roots.

At the third stage, historians turned to the description of the internal life. "Readers often praised such descriptions, but followed them and could not stand any of them." This happened because historians paid little attention to the "subtle differences in the place" where the events unfolded.

Ultimately, Nikolai Ivanovich passes a harsh sentence on his predecessors; they were not doing what they were supposed to be doing. "Historians depicted the signs of life, and not life itself, human objects and things, and not the people themselves." The object of study of history should be the moral organization of people, “the totality of human concepts and views, the motives that guided human deeds, the prejudices that bound them, the aspirations that carried them away, the physiognomy of their societies. In the foreground, the historian should have the active power of the human soul, and not what is done by man. The latter is the subject of another science - archeology. "The purpose of archeology is the study of the past human life and things, the purpose of history is the study of people's lives."

So, according to Kostomarov, the subject of history should not be historical events, their mutual connection and influence, but the motives of human deeds, the disclosure of the “human soul” or “folk spirit”. In Kostomarov's view, the "human soul" and "folk spirit" are not historical categories, but initially given to each nation, remaining unchanged throughout its history. From this follows the general conclusion about the paramount importance for the historian of ethnographic data. Since the historian does not have sources for studying the human soul in the distant past, he is given the opportunity to overturn the modern observations of ethnographers into this past. In other words, the historian must study contemporary life in order to start from the known and move towards the unknown.

If S. M. Solovyov derived the peculiarity of the historical development of peoples from the peculiarities of the geographical environment, and put the “nature of the tribe” in second place, then N. I. Kostomarov, on the contrary, attached decisive importance to the mental warehouse or, using modern terminology, mentality.

Guided by the thesis about the dominant influence of the psychological make-up of people on history, Kostomarov draws collective portraits of three Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Polish. The differences that currently exist between them developed in ancient times, in prehistoric times, but they make themselves felt in modern times.

The Russian people, according to Kostomarov, are endowed with such attractive qualities as discipline, organization, gravitation towards the state principle, culminating in the creation of a strong monarchical state. property, "where the innocent answered for the guilty, the industrious worked for the lazy." Nor did the Russians adorn the lack of firm faith in God, their adherence to "extreme unbelief, materialism."

The Ukrainian people, Kostomarov believed, on the contrary, are characterized by sincerity, love for freedom, craving for nature, "a developed feeling in the co-presence of God." As a result, the Russian people created their own statehood, while the Ukrainian people could not do this and had to be content with joining other states - first Poland, and then Russia.

The mental properties of the Poles Kostomarov explained the fate of the Commonwealth, its disappearance from the geographical map. However, the fact that the mental make-up of people cannot obscure the need to study, first of all, social relations, follows at least from the fact that historians have developed completely different ideas about this mental make-up of the people. And this is understandable: the influence of the subjective perception of the object is especially strong here. Solovyov, for example, emphasized other properties of the character of the Russian and Ukrainian than Kostomarov. The South Russian squad, according to Solovyov, was distinguished by the swiftness of the attack, but was deprived of stamina. On the contrary, the population of Northern Russia could not boast of the swiftness of the onslaught, impetuous movements, but it was characterized by stamina, slowness, deliberation and caution in protecting what was acquired. The South Russians, in the words of the chronicle cited by Solovyov, “bred the Russian land”, established its borders, while the protection of the acquired, the creation of the unity of the Russian lands, fell to the lot of the northerners.

The next subject of study of history is the study of the federal system of the Russian lands. “The Russian state,” Kostomarov wrote in Autobiography, “was made up of parts that had previously lived their own independent lives, and for a long time after that the life of the parts was expressed by excellent aspirations in the general state system. Finding and capturing these features of the folk life of the Russian state was for me the task of my studies in history.

Kostomarov counted six nationalities that existed in Russia in the specific-veche period; South Russian, Seversk, Great Russian, Belarusian, Pskov and Novgorod. The differences between them caused centrifugal forces, the desire to separate themselves, but centrifugal forces were opposed by centripetal forces that supported the unity of the Russian land. There were three such forces: “1) origin, way of life and language; 2) a single princely family; 3) the Christian faith and the one church.” As a result of the interaction of these forces in Russia, a federal system was formed, the stronghold of which became the southern Russian lands. However, the federal principle turned out to be powerless to resist the statehood of the Great Russians, which was being formed under the auspices of the Mongol-Tatars, and, ultimately, fell.

Kostomarov recalled the federal beginning in "The Revolt of Stenka Razin". Kostomarov considered this movement as a belated action of forces that expressed the federal principle: the freedom of the individual, the will of the living people against uniformity, in which there was a "preponderance of duty over personal freedom." "In the struggle between these two ways of Russian life - the specific veche and the sovereign - all the ins and outs of our old descriptive writings." The federal beginning in the 16th-17th centuries acquired a new look, it found expression in the Cossacks, who frantically resisted the new order. It resurrected "the old half-extinguished elements of the veche freemen", who fought against the autocracy. But this freeman lacked creative beginnings, she was outrageous, terrified, and ultimately was barren.

The historical views of N. I. Kostomarov were formed in the years when the so-called state school was gaining strength in Russian historiography. For Solovyov and the “statists”, the creator of history was the state, to the study of which the attention of historians should be riveted. In contrast to this concept - harmonious and encompassing the main aspects of the life of human society - Kostomarov cut off from historical science its main content: the study of the results of human activity. He gave history only a limited right to explore the human soul and such an amorphous concept as the people. It is no coincidence that therefore Kostomarov did not have supporters, and his calls to study the soul and the federal principle did not find followers. This happened, probably, also because the fulfillment of Kostomarov's calls required from historians the same writing talents that God bestowed on him. As a result, the state school flourished until the revolution, while with the death of Kostomarov in 1885, his calls also went into oblivion.

The popularity of N. I. Kostomarov was created not by his excursions into the theory of historical science, but by his specific studies. After the death of Karamzin and before the zenith of fame of V. O. Klyuchevsky, Nikolai Ivanovich was the second historian in Russia who won the hearts of readers with his writings. His writings have been reprinted many times. He was pleased to provide their pages to magazines that published essays with a continuation in several issues. The monographs of Nikolai Ivanovich were published in separate editions and reprinted. Finally, the collected works of N. I. Kostomarov were published in three editions under the general title “Historical Monographs and Researches”.

What drew you to his work? First of all, his desire to reveal the motives of human actions, to explore not the processes, but the living features of human nature. Possessing the gift of an artist of the word, he created not iconic images, but living people with their advantages and disadvantages. Vividly reproducing the era under study, the historian empathized with the events described, tried to visualize how they developed.

While working on the monograph "The Time of Troubles in the Muscovite State at the Beginning of the 17th Century", Kostomarov went to Kostroma and Yaroslavl, where the most important events of those times took place. Work on "The Rebellion of Stenka Razin" called him on the road to the Saratov province to repeat the path of the Razin bands. He visited Novgorod and Pskov, carefully studying their topography before sitting down to the table and describing the last days of the independent existence of these feudal republics.

On the pages of the works of N. I. Kostomarov there are many dialogues and monologues borrowed from sources, quotations from sources, colorful descriptions of events. All this enlivens the text and increases the reader's interest in it.

Of no small importance in the work of Kostomarov was the choice of topics. The object of his study, Nikolai Ivanovich, as a rule, chose not the daily life of society, often gray and monotonous, but critical eras, saturated with drama.

Kostomarov's critics have noticed that he is not always accurate in reproducing facts, is overly trusting in folklore, and is able to pass off rumors as a reliable fact. There is a lot of truth in these accusations. Before the author of a historical work, using the fictionalization of the events described, the question has always arisen: how to overcome the contradiction between the artistry of the form and the accurate presentation of facts and events. N. I. Kostomarov did not give up his right to conjecture. He answered his critics: "If some fact had never happened, but there would be faith and conviction that it happened, it was also an important historical fact for me."

4. Assessment of scientific heritage

The huge creative heritage of N.I. Kostomarov is far from being equivalent, just as his views are ambiguous. Therefore, the reader, "discovering" Kostomarov for himself, should be oriented in all the complexities of the worldview of this outstanding personality.

All his works are permeated by the idea of ​​the people as the subject of history and the main object of interest of historical science. At the very beginning of his creative career, Kostomarov became convinced that in historical literature “the poor peasant, the farmer-worker, as if does not exist for history” and set himself the task of returning to the “muzhik” his place in the historical existence of the fatherland.

Kostomarov saw in the natural historical development of Russia the formation of a system of "people's rule", which was forcibly interrupted by an external force - the Tatar-Mongol invasion and yoke, which led to "monocracy". Of course, the federative principle in Ancient Russia and the system of "people's rule" that Kostomarov idealized do not look so ideal in modern historiography, but the fact that Kostomarov showed the alternativeness of the two forms of development of the state structure of Russia was and remains his great merit.

The weakness of this conceptual scheme was that Kostomarov, firstly, from the internal reasons due to which the autocracy was established in Russia, put forward only the factor of the character traits of Russians and Ukrainians. In general, Kostomarov's ethnographism, as a reflection of his fundamental idea of ​​"folk history", always let him down when the historian tried to explain certain major historical events by purely ethnographic reasons.

Kostomarov was the founder of the scientific historiography of Ukraine. In the collection of his works "Historical Monographs and Researches" he included 11 monographs on the history of Ukraine, including the monograph "Bogdan Khmelnytsky", which makes up three volumes of this collection. These works explored the dramatic history of Ukraine from ancient times to the 18th century. Kostomarov introduced into scientific circulation a huge number of new sources on the history of the Ukrainian lands and the Ukrainian people, he was one of the first source experts and archaeographers of the richest body of monuments, ranging from chronicles and clerical documentation to folk "thoughts".

The creative heritage of Kostomarov the historian falls into three groups of works: the first - purely research monographs; the second - popular science books included in the series "Russian history in the biographies of its main figures"; the third is historical journalism. If the first group of works is an important contribution to Russian historiography, then the second one is distinguished, first of all, by the narrative skill of their author, his rare ability to combine elements of research with a certain compilability.

As BG Litvak rightly notes, admiring Kostomarov's narrative skill, the reader should not forget about the need for a critical attitude towards his heritage, as, indeed, to the heritage of other classics of historical science.

Bibliography

1. Zamlinsky V.A. Life and work of N.I. Kostomarov // Questions of History.-1991.-№1.-P.234 - 242.

2. Historians of Russia. Biographies. / Comp. A.A. Chernobaev. – M.: ROSSPEN, 2001.

3. Kostomarov N.I. Collected works. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1996.

4. Pavlenko N. The thorny path to glory // Science and life. - 1994. - No. 4. - S. 86 - 94.

5. Portraits of historians: time and fate / Ed. G.N. Sevostyanova. – S.: Jerusalem, 2000.

6. Fedorov V.A. Historian, ethnographer, writer (to the 180th anniversary of the birth of N.I. Kostomarov) // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Story. - 1997. - No. 6. - P. 3 - 21.

7. Cherepnin L.V. domestic historians. – M.: Nauka, 1984.

© Placement of material on other electronic resources only accompanied by an active link

History test

May 17, 1817 (Yurasovka, Voronezh province, Russian Empire) - April 18, 1885 (St. Petersburg, Russian Empire)

Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov - Russian historian, ethnographer, publicist, literary critic, poet, playwright, public figure, corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, author of the multi-volume publication "Russian History in the Biographies of Its Figures", researcher of the socio-political and economic history of Russia and the modern territory of Ukraine, called by Kostomarov "southern Russia" or "southern edge". Pan-Slavist.

Biography of N.I. Kostomarov

Family and ancestors

N.I. Kostomarov

Kostomarov Nikolai Ivanovich was born on May 4 (16), 1817 in the Yurasovka estate (Ostrogozhsky district, Voronezh province), died on April 7 (19), 1885 in St. Petersburg.

The Kostomarov family is noble, Great Russian. The son of the boyar Samson Martynovich Kostomarov, who served in the oprichnina of John IV, fled to Volhynia, where he received the estate, which passed to his son, and then to his grandson Peter Kostomarov. In the second half of the 17th century, Peter participated in Cossack uprisings, fled to the Muscovite state and settled in the so-called Ostrogozhchina. One of the descendants of this Kostomarov in the 18th century married the daughter of an official Yuri Blum and received as a dowry the suburb of Yurasovka (Ostrogozhsky district of the Voronezh province), which was inherited by the father of the historian, Ivan Petrovich Kostomarov, a wealthy landowner.

Ivan Kostomarov was born in 1769, served in military service and, after retiring, settled in Yurasovka. Having received a poor education, he tried to develop himself by reading, reading "with a dictionary" exclusively French books of the eighteenth century. I read to the point that I became a convinced "Voltairian", i.e. supporter of education and social equality. Later, N.I. Kostomarov in his "Autobiography" wrote about the passions of the parent:

Everything that we know today about the childhood, family and early years of N.I. Kostomarov is gleaned exclusively from his “Autobiographies”, written by the historian in different versions already in his declining years. These wonderful, in many ways artistic works, in places resemble an adventure novel of the 19th century: very original types of characters, an almost detective story with a murder, the subsequent, absolutely fantastic repentance of criminals, etc. Due to the lack of reliable sources, it is practically impossible to separate the truth from childhood impressions, as well as from the author's later fantasies. Therefore, we will follow what N.I. Kostomarov himself considered necessary to inform his descendants about himself.

According to the autobiographical notes of the historian, his father was a tough, wayward, extremely quick-tempered man. Under the influence of French books, he did not put noble dignity in anything and, in principle, did not want to be related to noble families. So, already in his old age, Kostomarov Sr. decided to marry and chose a girl from his serfs - Tatyana Petrovna Mylnikova (in some publications - Melnikova), whom he sent to study in Moscow, in a private boarding school. It was in 1812, and the Napoleonic invasion prevented Tatyana Petrovna from getting an education. Among the Yurasovo peasants for a long time lived a romantic legend about how the "old Kostomar" drove the best three horses, rescuing his former maid Tanyusha from burning Moscow. Tatyana Petrovna was clearly not indifferent to him. However, soon the courtyard people turned Kostomarov against his serf. The landowner was in no hurry to marry her, and son Nikolai, being born even before the official marriage between his parents, automatically became his father's serf.

Until the age of ten, the boy was brought up at home, according to the principles developed by Rousseau in his Emile, in the bosom of nature, and from childhood fell in love with nature. His father wanted to make him a freethinker, but his mother's influence kept him religious. He read a lot and, thanks to his outstanding abilities, easily assimilated what he read, and his ardent imagination made him experience what he got acquainted with from books.

In 1827, Kostomarov was sent to Moscow, to the boarding school of Mr. Ge, a lecturer in French at the University, but was soon taken home due to illness. In the summer of 1828, young Kostomarov was supposed to return to the boarding school, but on July 14, 1828, his father was killed and robbed by the servants. For some reason, his father did not have time to adopt Nikolai in 11 years of his life, therefore, born out of wedlock, as a serf of his father, the boy was now inherited by his closest relatives - the Rovnevs. When the Rovnevs offered Tatyana Petrovna a widow's share for 14 thousand acres of fertile land - 50 thousand rubles in banknotes, as well as freedom for her son, she agreed without delay.

Killers I.P. Kostomarov presented the whole case as if an accident had happened: the horses were carried away, the landowner allegedly fell out of the cab and died. The loss of a large amount of money from his box became known later, so there was no police inquiry. The true circumstances of the death of Kostomarov Sr. were revealed only in 1833, when one of the murderers - the master's coachman - suddenly repented and pointed out to the police his accomplices-lackeys. N.I. Kostomarov wrote in his Autobiography that when the perpetrators were interrogated in court, the coachman said: “The master himself is to blame for tempting us; it used to start telling everyone that there is no god, that there will be nothing in the next world, that only fools are afraid of the afterlife punishment - we took it into our heads that if there is nothing in the next world, then everything can be done ... "

Later, the courtyards stuffed with “Voltairian sermons” led the robbers to the house of the mother of N.I. Kostomarov, who was also completely robbed.

Left with little money, T.P. Kostomarova sent her son to a rather poor boarding school in Voronezh, where he learned little in two and a half years. In 1831, his mother transferred Nikolai to the Voronezh gymnasium, but even here, according to Kostomarov's memoirs, the teachers were bad and unscrupulous, they gave him little knowledge.

After graduating in 1833 from a course at a gymnasium, Kostomarov first entered Moscow and then Kharkiv University at the Faculty of History and Philology. The professors at that time in Kharkov were unimportant. For example, Russian history was read by Gulak-Artemovsky, although a well-known author of Little Russian poems, but distinguished, according to Kostomarov, in his lectures by empty rhetoric and bombast. However, Kostomarov worked diligently even with such teachers, but, as is often the case with young people, he succumbed by nature to one or another hobby. So, having settled with the professor of the Latin language P.I. Sokalsky, he began to study classical languages ​​and was especially carried away by the Iliad. The works of V. Hugo turned him to the French language; then he began to study Italian, music, began to write poetry, and led an extremely chaotic life. He constantly spent his holidays in his village, taking a great interest in horse riding, boating, hunting, although natural myopia and compassion for animals interfered with the last lesson. In 1835, young and talented professors appeared in Kharkov: in Greek literature A. O. Valitsky and in world history M. M. Lunin, who lectured very excitingly. Under the influence of Lunin, Kostomarov began to study history, spent days and nights reading all kinds of historical books. He settled at Artemovsky-Gulak and now led a very secluded life. Among his few friends was then A. L. Meshlinsky, a well-known collector of Little Russian songs.

The beginning of the way

In 1836, Kostomarov graduated from the course at the university as a real student, lived for some time with Artemovsky, teaching history to his children, then passed the exam for a candidate and at the same time entered the Kinburn Dragoon Regiment as a cadet.

Service in the regiment Kostomarov did not like; with his comrades, due to a different way of life, he did not get close. Fascinated by the analysis of the affairs of the rich archive located in Ostrogozhsk, where the regiment was stationed, Kostomarov often skimped on the service and, on the advice of the regimental commander, left it. Having worked in the archives throughout the summer of 1837, he compiled a historical description of the Ostrogozhsk Sloboda regiment, attached many copies of interesting documents to it, and prepared it for publication. Kostomarov hoped to compile the history of the entire Sloboda Ukraine in the same way, but did not have time. His work disappeared during the arrest of Kostomarov and it is not known where he is and even if he survived at all. In the autumn of the same year, Kostomarov returned to Kharkov, again began to listen to Lunin's lectures and study history. Already at that time, he began to think about the question: why is so little said in history about the masses of the people? Wanting to understand folk psychology, Kostomarov began to study the monuments of folk literature in the publications of Maksimovich and Sakharov, and was especially carried away by Little Russian folk poetry.

Interestingly, until the age of 16, Kostomarov had no idea about Ukraine and, in fact, about the Ukrainian language. The fact that there is a Ukrainian (Little Russian) language, he learned only at Kharkov University. When in the 1820-30s in Little Russia they began to be interested in the history and life of the Cossacks, this interest was most clearly manifested among representatives of the educated society of Kharkov, and especially in the environment around the university. Here, at the same time, the influence on the young Kostomarov of Artemovsky and Meshlinsky, and partly of Gogol's Russian-language stories, in which the Ukrainian color is lovingly presented, affected. “Love for the Little Russian word more and more captivated me,” Kostomarov wrote, “I was annoyed that such a beautiful language was left without any literary processing and, moreover, was subjected to completely undeserved contempt.”

An important role in the “Ukrainization” of Kostomarov belongs to I. I. Sreznevsky, then a young teacher at Kharkov University. Sreznevsky, although a native of Ryazan, also spent his youth in Kharkov. He was a connoisseur and lover of Ukrainian history and literature, especially after he had visited the places of the former Zaporozhye and had heard enough of its legends. This gave him the opportunity to compose the "Zaporozhian Antiquity".

Rapprochement with Sreznevsky had a strong effect on the novice historian Kostomarov, strengthening his desire to study the peoples of Ukraine, both in the monuments of the past and in the present life. To this end, he constantly made ethnographic excursions in the vicinity of Kharkov, and then further. Then Kostomarov began to write in the Little Russian language - first Ukrainian ballads, then the drama "Sava Chaly". The drama was published in 1838, and the ballads a year later (both under the pseudonym "Jeremiah Galka"). The drama evoked a flattering response from Belinsky. In 1838, Kostomarov was in Moscow and listened to Shevyrev's lectures there, thinking of taking the exam for a master of Russian literature, but fell ill and returned to Kharkov again, having managed to study German, Polish and Czech during this time and print his Ukrainian-language works.

Thesis by N.I. Kostomarov

In 1840 N.I. Kostomarov passed the exam for a master's degree in Russian history, and the following year presented his dissertation "On the Significance of the Union in the History of Western Russia." In anticipation of a dispute, he left for the summer in the Crimea, which he examined in detail. Upon returning to Kharkov, Kostomarov became close with Kvitka and also with a circle of Little Russian poets, among whom was Korsun, who published the collection Snin. In the collection, Kostomarov, under his former pseudonym, published poems and a new tragedy, "Pereyaslavskaya Nich".

Meanwhile, the Kharkiv Archbishop Innokenty drew the attention of the higher authorities to the dissertation already published by Kostomarov in 1842. On behalf of the Ministry of Public Education, Ustryalov assessed it and recognized it as unreliable: Kostomarov's conclusions regarding the emergence of the union and its significance did not correspond to the generally accepted one, which was considered mandatory for Russian historiography of this issue. The matter took such a turn that the dissertation was burned and its copies now constitute a great bibliographic rarity. However, in a revised form, this dissertation was later published twice, although under different names.

The history of the dissertation could forever end Kostomarov's career as a historian. But there were generally good reviews about Kostomarov, including from Archbishop Innokenty himself, who considered him a deeply religious person and knowledgeable in spiritual matters. Kostomarov was allowed to write a second dissertation. The historian chose the topic "On the historical significance of Russian folk poetry" and wrote this essay in 1842-1843, being an assistant inspector of students at Kharkov University. He often visited the theater, especially the Little Russian one, placed Little Russian poems and his first articles on the history of Little Russia in the collection “Molodik” by Betsky: “The First Wars of the Little Russian Cossacks with the Poles”, etc.

Leaving his position at the university in 1843, Kostomarov became a teacher of history at the Zimnitsky men's boarding school. Then he began to work on the history of Bogdan Khmelnitsky. On January 13, 1844, Kostomarov, not without incident, defended his dissertation at Kharkov University (it was also later published in a heavily revised form). He became a master of Russian history and first lived in Kharkov, working on the history of Khmelnitsky, and then, not having received a department here, he asked to serve in the Kyiv educational district in order to be closer to the place of his hero's activity.

N.I. Kostomarov as a teacher

In the autumn of 1844, Kostomarov was appointed as a history teacher at a gymnasium in the city of Rovno, Volyn province. On the way, he visited Kyiv, where he met the reformer of the Ukrainian language and publicist P. Kulish, with the assistant trustee of the educational district M. V. Yuzefovich and other progressive-minded people. In Rovno, Kostomarov taught only until the summer of 1845, but he gained the general love of both students and comrades for his humanity and excellent presentation of the subject. As always, he used every free time to make excursions to the numerous historical places of Volyn, to make historical and ethnographic observations and to collect monuments of folk art; such were brought to him by his disciples; all these materials collected by him were printed much later - in 1859.

Acquaintance with historical areas gave the historian the opportunity to later vividly depict many episodes from the history of the first Pretender and Bogdan Khmelnitsky. In the summer of 1845, Kostomarov visited the Holy Mountains, in the fall he was transferred to Kyiv as a history teacher at the 1st gymnasium, and at the same time he taught in various boarding schools, including women's boarding schools - de Melyana (Robespierre's brother) and Zalesskaya (the famous poet's widow), and later at the Institute of Noble Maidens. His pupils and pupils recalled his teaching with delight.

Here is what the famous painter Ge says about him as a teacher:

"N. I. Kostomarov was everyone's favorite teacher; there was not a single student who did not listen to his stories from Russian history; he made almost the whole city fall in love with Russian history. When he ran into the classroom, everything froze, as in a church, and the lively old life of Kyiv, rich in pictures, flowed, everything turned into a rumor; but - a call, and everyone was sorry, both the teacher and the students, that the time had passed so quickly. The most passionate listener was our comrade Pole... Nikolai Ivanovich never asked too much, never put points; sometimes our teacher throws us some paper and says quickly: “Here, we need to put points. So you already do it yourself,” he says; and what - no one was given more than 3 points. It’s impossible, ashamed, but there were up to 60 people here. Kostomarov's lessons were spiritual holidays; everyone was waiting for his lesson. The impression was that the teacher who took his place in our last class did not read history for a whole year, but read Russian authors, saying that after Kostomarov he would not read history to us. He made the same impression at the women's boarding school, and then at the University.

Kostomarov and the Cyril and Methodius Society

In Kyiv, Kostomarov became close friends with several young Little Russians, who formed a circle part of the pan-Slavic, part of the national direction. Imbued with the ideas of pan-Slavism, which then emerged under the influence of the works of Shafarik and other famous Western Slavists, Kostomarov and his comrades dreamed of uniting all the Slavs in the form of a federation, with independent autonomy of the Slavic lands, into which the peoples inhabiting the empire were to be distributed. Moreover, in the projected federation, a liberal state system, as it was understood in the 1840s, was to be established, with the mandatory abolition of serfdom. A very peaceful circle of thinking intellectuals, who intended to act only by correct means, and, moreover, deeply religious in the person of Kostomarov, had an appropriate name - the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. He, as it were, indicated by this that the activity of the holy Brothers, religious and educational, dear to all Slavic tribes, can be considered the only possible banner for Slavic unification. The very existence of such a circle at that time was already an illegal phenomenon. In addition, its members, wanting to “play” either conspirators or Masons, deliberately gave their meetings and peaceful conversations the character of a secret society with special attributes: a special icon and iron rings with the inscription: “Cyril and Methodius”. The brotherhood also had a seal on which was carved: "Understand the truth, and the truth will set you free." Af. V. Markovich, later a well-known South Russian ethnographer, writer N. I. Gulak, poet A. A. Navrotsky, teachers V. M. Belozersky and D. P. Pilchikov, several students, and later - T. G. Shevchenko, whose work was so reflected in the ideas of the pan-Slavic brotherhood. Random “brothers” also attended meetings of the society, for example, the landowner N.I. Savin, who was familiar to Kostomarov from Kharkov. The infamous publicist P. A. Kulish also knew about the brotherhood. With his peculiar humor, he signed some of his messages to members of the Hetman Panka Kulish brotherhood. Subsequently, in the III branch, this joke was assessed as three years of exile, although the "hetman" Kulish himself was not officially a member of the brotherhood. Just not to be intrusive...

June 4, 1846 N.I. Kostomarov was elected an associate professor of Russian history at Kiev University; classes in the gymnasium and other boarding schools, he now left. His mother also settled in Kyiv with him, selling the part of Yurasovka that she inherited.

Kostomarov was a professor at Kyiv University for less than a year, but the students, with whom he kept himself simple, loved him very much and were fond of his lectures. Kostomarov taught several courses, including Slavic mythology, which he printed in Church Slavonic type, which was partly the reason for its ban. Only in the 1870s were its copies printed 30 years ago put on sale. Kostomarov also worked on Khmelnitsky, using materials available in Kyiv and from the famous archaeologist Gr. Svidzinsky, and was also elected a member of the Kyiv Commission for the analysis of ancient acts and prepared the chronicle of S. Velichka for publication.

At the beginning of 1847, Kostomarov became engaged to Anna Leontievna Kragelskaya, his student from the boarding house de Melyan. The wedding was scheduled for March 30th. Kostomarov was actively preparing for family life: he looked after a house for himself and the bride on Bolshaya Vladimirskaya, closer to the university, ordered a piano for Alina from Vienna itself. After all, the historian's bride was an excellent performer - Franz Liszt himself admired her game. But ... the wedding did not take place.

On the denunciation of the student A. Petrov, who overheard Kostomarov's conversation with several members of the Cyril and Methodius Society, Kostomarov was arrested, interrogated and sent under the protection of gendarmes to the Podolsk part. Then, two days later, he was brought to say goodbye to his mother's apartment, where the bride, Alina Kragelskaya, was waiting all in tears.

“The scene was tearing,” Kostomarov wrote in his Autobiography. “Then they put me on the crossbar and took me to St. Petersburg ... The state of my spirit was so deadly that I had the idea to starve myself to death during the journey. I refused all food and drink and had the firmness to drive in this way for 5 days ... My quarterly escort understood what was on my mind and began to advise me to leave the intention. “You,” he said, “do not inflict death on yourself, I will have time to take you, but you will hurt yourself: they will begin to interrogate you, and from exhaustion you will become delirium and you will say too much both about yourself and others.” Kostomarov heeded the advice.

In St. Petersburg, the chief of the gendarmes, Count Alexei Orlov, and his assistant, Lieutenant General Dubelt, spoke with the arrested person. When the scientist asked permission to read books and newspapers, Dubelt said: "You can't, my good friend, you read too much."

Soon, both generals found out that they were not dealing with a dangerous conspirator, but with a romantic dreamer. But the investigation dragged on all spring, as Taras Shevchenko (he received the most severe punishment) and Nikolai Gulak hindered the case with their "intractability". There was no court. Kostomarov learned the decision of the tsar on May 30 from Dubelt: a year of imprisonment in a fortress and an indefinite exile "to one of the remote provinces." Kostomarov spent a year in the 7th cell of the Alekseevsky ravelin, where his already not very good health suffered greatly. However, the mother was allowed to see the prisoner, they were given books and, by the way, he learned ancient Greek and Spanish there.

The wedding of the historian with Alina Leontyevna was completely upset. The bride herself, being a romantic nature, was ready, like the wives of the Decembrists, to follow Kostomarov anywhere. But marriage to a "political criminal" seemed unthinkable to her parents. At the insistence of her mother, Alina Kragelskaya married an old friend of their family, the landowner M. Kisel.

Kostomarov in exile

“For compiling a secret society in which the union of the Slavs into one state was discussed,” Kostomarov was sent to serve in Saratov, with a ban on printing his works. Here he was assigned as the translator of the Provincial government, but he had nothing to translate, and the governor (Kozhevnikov) entrusted him with the charge, first of the criminal, and then of the secret table, where mainly schismatic cases were carried out. This gave the historian the opportunity to get to know the schism thoroughly and, although not without difficulty, to get closer to its followers. Kostomarov published the results of his studies of local ethnography in the Saratov Provincial Gazette, which he temporarily edited. He also studied physics and astronomy, tried to make a balloon, even engaged in spiritualism, but did not stop studying the history of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, receiving books from Gr. Svidzinsky. In exile, Kostomarov began to collect materials for the study of the internal life of pre-Petrine Russia.

In Saratov, a circle of educated people gathered near Kostomarov, partly from exiled Poles, partly from Russians. In addition, Archimandrite Nikanor, later Archbishop of Kherson, I. I. Palimpsestov, later a professor at Novorossiysk University, E. A. Belov, Varentsov, and others were close to him in Saratov; later N. G. Chernyshevsky, A. N. Pypin, and especially D. L. Mordovtsev.

In general, Kostomarov's life in Saratov was not bad at all. Soon his mother came here, the historian himself gave private lessons, made excursions, for example, to the Crimea, where he participated in the excavation of one of the Kerch burial mounds. Later, the exile quite calmly went to Dubovka to get acquainted with the split; to Tsaritsyn and Sarepta - to collect materials about the Pugachev region, etc.

In 1855, Kostomarov was appointed clerk of the Saratov Statistical Committee, and published many articles on Saratov statistics in local publications. The historian collected a lot of materials on the history of Razin and Pugachev, but did not process them himself, but handed them over to D.L. Mordovtsev, who later, with his permission, used them. Mordovtsev at that time became Kostomarov's assistant on the Statistical Committee.

At the end of 1855, Kostomarov was allowed to go on business to St. Petersburg, where he worked for four months in the Public Library on the era of Khmelnitsky, and on the inner life of ancient Russia. At the beginning of 1856, when the ban on publishing his works was lifted, the historian published in Otechestvennye Zapiski an article about the struggle of the Ukrainian Cossacks with Poland in the first half of the 17th century, which was a preface to his Khmelnytsky. In 1857, Bogdan Khmelnitsky finally appeared, although in an incomplete version. The book made a strong impression on contemporaries, especially with its artistic presentation. Indeed, before Kostomarov, none of the Russian historians seriously addressed the history of Bogdan Khmelnitsky. Despite the unprecedented success of the research and positive reviews about it in the capital, the author still had to return to Saratov, where he continued to work on studying the internal life of ancient Russia, especially on the history of trade in the 16th-17th centuries.

The coronation manifesto freed Kostomarov from supervision, but the order forbidding him to serve in the scientific field remained in force. In the spring of 1857, he arrived in St. Petersburg, submitted his research on the history of trade for publication, and went abroad, where he visited Sweden, Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland and Italy. In the summer of 1858, Kostomarov again worked at the St. Petersburg Public Library on the history of the rebellion of Stenka Razin and at the same time wrote, on the advice of N.V. Kalachov, with whom he then became close, the story “Son” (published in 1859); He also saw Shevchenko, who returned from exile. In the fall, Kostomarov took the place of a clerk in the Saratov Provincial Committee for Peasant Affairs and thus connected his name with the liberation of the peasants.

Scientific, teaching, publishing activities of N.I. Kostomarov

At the end of 1858, N.I. Kostomarov’s monograph “The Rebellion of Stenka Razin” was published, which finally made his name famous. Kostomarov's works had, in a certain sense, the same meaning as, for example, Shchedrin's Provincial Essays. They were the first scientific works on Russian history in which many issues were considered not according to the until then mandatory template of an official scientific direction; at the same time, they were written and presented in a remarkably artistic manner. In the spring of 1859, St. Petersburg University elected Kostomarov as an extraordinary professor of Russian history. After waiting for the closing of the Committee on Peasant Affairs, Kostomarov, after a very cordial farewell in Saratov, appeared in St. Petersburg. But then it turned out that the case about his professorship did not work out, it was not approved, because the Sovereign was informed that Kostomarov had written an unreliable essay about Stenka Razin. However, the Emperor himself read this monograph and spoke very favorably of it. At the request of the brothers D.A. and N.A. Milyutin, Alexander II allowed N.I. Kostomarov as a professor, but not at Kiev University, as previously planned, but at St. Petersburg University.

Kostomarov's introductory lecture took place on November 22, 1859, and received a standing ovation from the students and the audience. Kostomarov did not stay long as a professor at St. Petersburg University (until May 1862). But even in this short time, he established himself as a talented teacher and an outstanding lecturer. From the students of Kostomarov came out several very respectable figures in the field of science of Russian history, for example, Professor A. I. Nikitsky. The fact that Kostomarov was a great artist-lecturer, many memories of his students have been preserved. One of Kostomarov's listeners said this about his reading:

“Despite his rather motionless appearance, his quiet voice and not entirely clear, lisping pronunciation with a very noticeable pronunciation of words in the Little Russian way, he read remarkably. Whether he portrayed the Novgorod Veche or the turmoil of the Battle of Lipetsk, it was enough to close your eyes - and in a few seconds you yourself seem to be transported to the center of the depicted events, you see and hear everything that Kostomarov is talking about, who, meanwhile, is standing motionless on the pulpit; his eyes look not at the listeners, but somewhere in the distance, as if seeing something at that moment in the distant past; the lecturer even seems to be a man not of this world, but a native of the next world, who appeared on purpose in order to report on the past, mysterious to others, but so well known to him.

In general, Kostomarov's lectures had a great effect on the imagination of the public, and their enthusiasm can be partly explained by the strong emotionality of the lecturer, which constantly broke through, despite his outward calmness. She literally “infected” listeners. After each lecture, the professor was given an ovation, he was carried out in his arms, etc. At St. Petersburg University, N.I. Kostomarov taught the following courses: History of ancient Russia (from which an article was printed on the origin of Russia with the Zhmud theory of this origin); ethnography of foreigners who lived in ancient Russia, starting with the Lithuanians; the history of the ancient Russian regions (part of it is published under the title "Northern Russian People's Rights"), and historiography, from which only the beginning, devoted to the analysis of the chronicles, has been printed.

In addition to university lectures, Kostomarov also read public lectures, which also enjoyed tremendous success. In parallel with his professorship, Kostomarov was working with sources, for which he constantly visited both St. Petersburg and Moscow, and provincial libraries and archives, examined the ancient Russian cities of Novgorod and Pskov, and traveled abroad more than once. The public dispute between N.I. Kostomarov and M.P. Pogodin also dates back to this time because of the question of the origin of Russia.

In 1860, Kostomarov became a member of the Archaeographic Commission, with the task of editing the acts of southern and western Russia, and was elected a full member of the Russian Geographical Society. The commission published under his editorship 12 volumes of acts (from 1861 to 1885), and the geographical society - three volumes of "Proceedings of an ethnographic expedition to the West Russian region" (III, IV and V - in 1872-1878).

In St. Petersburg, a circle was formed near Kostomarov, to which belonged: Shevchenko, however, who soon died, the Belozerskys, the bookseller Kozhanchikov, A. A. Kotlyarevsky, the ethnographer S. V. Maksimov, the astronomer A. N. Savich, the priest Opatovich and many others. In 1860, this circle began to publish the Osnova magazine, in which Kostomarov was one of the most important employees. His articles are published here: “On the Federative Beginning of Ancient Russia”, “Two Russian Nationalities”, “Features of South Russian History”, etc., as well as many polemical articles about attacks on him for “separatism”, “Ukrainophilism”, “ anti-Normanism, etc. He also took part in the publication of popular books in the Little Russian language (“Metelikov”), and for the publication of Holy Scripture, he collected a special fund, which was subsequently used to publish a Little Russian dictionary.

"Duma" incident

At the end of 1861, due to student unrest, St. Petersburg University was temporarily closed. Five "instigators" of the riots were expelled from the capital, 32 students were expelled from the university with the right to take final exams.

On March 5, 1862, a public figure, historian and professor of St. Petersburg University, P.V. Pavlov, was arrested and administratively sent to Vetluga. He did not give a single lecture at the university, but at a public reading in favor of needy writers, he ended his speech on the millennium of Russia with the following words:

In protest against the repressions of the students and the expulsion of Pavlov, professors of St. Petersburg University Kavelin, Stasyulevich, Pypin, Spasovich, Utin resigned.

Kostomarov did not support the protest against Pavlov's expulsion. In this case, he went the "middle way": he offered to continue classes to all students who wished to study, and not to rally. In place of the closed university, due to the efforts of professors, including Kostomarov, a “free university” was opened, as they said then, in the hall of the City Duma. Kostomarov, despite all the persistent "requests" and even intimidation from the radical student committees, began to give his lectures there.

The "advanced" students and some of the professors who followed his lead, in protest against the expulsion of Pavlov, demanded the immediate closure of all lectures in the City Duma. They decided to announce this action on March 8, 1862, immediately after Professor Kostomarov's crowded lecture.

A participant in the student unrest of 1861-62, and in the future a well-known publisher, L.F. Panteleev, in his memoirs, describes this episode as follows:

“It was March 8, the large Duma hall was crowded not only with students, but also with a huge mass of the public, since rumors about some kind of upcoming demonstration had already managed to penetrate into it. Here Kostomarov finished his lecture; there was the usual applause. Then the student E. P. Pechatkin immediately entered the department and made a statement about the closing of the lectures with the motivation that had been established at the meeting with Spasovich, and with a reservation about the professors who would continue the lectures. Kostomarov, who did not have time to move far from the department, immediately returned and said: “I will continue lecturing,” and at the same time he added a few words that science should go its own way, without getting entangled in various everyday circumstances. There were applause and hissing at the same time; but then, under the very nose of Kostomarov, E. Utin blurted out: “Scoundrel! the second Chicherin [B. N. Chicherin then published, it seems, in Moskovskie Vedomosti (1861, Nos. 247,250 and 260) a number of reactionary articles on the university question. But even earlier, his letter to Herzen made the name of B. N. extremely unpopular among young people; Kavelin defended him, seeing in him a major scientific value, although he did not share most of his views. (Note by L.F. Panteleev)], Stanislav on the neck! The influence that N. Utin used apparently did not give rest to E. Utin, and then he climbed out of his skin to declare his extreme radicalism; he was even jokingly nicknamed Robespierre. E. Utin's trick could blow up even a not so impressionable person as Kostomarov was; unfortunately, he lost all self-control and, returning to the pulpit again, said, among other things: “... I don’t understand those gladiators who want to please the public with their suffering (it’s hard to say who he meant, but these words were understandable as an allusion to Pavlov). I see the Repetilovs in front of me, from which the Rasplyuevs will come out in a few years. Applause was no longer heard, but it seemed that the whole hall hissed and whistled ... "

When this egregious case became known in wide public circles, it aroused deep disapproval, both among the university professors and among the students. Most of the teachers decided to continue lecturing by all means - now out of solidarity with Kostomarov. At the same time, indignation at the behavior of the historian increased among the radical student youth. Adherents of Chernyshevsky's ideas, the future figures of "Land and Freedom", unequivocally excluded Kostomarov from the lists of "guardians for the people", labeling the professor as a "reactionary".

Of course, Kostomarov could well return to the university and continue teaching, but, most likely, he was deeply offended by the "Duma" incident. Perhaps the elderly professor simply did not want to argue with anyone and once again prove his case. In May 1862, N.I. Kostomarov resigned and forever left the walls of St. Petersburg University.

From that moment on, his break with N.G. Chernyshevsky and circles close to him also took place. Kostomarov finally switches to liberal-nationalist positions, not accepting the ideas of radical populism. According to people who knew him at that time, after the events of 1862, Kostomarov seemed to have “cooled off” to the present, completely turning to the plots of the distant past.

In the 1860s, the Kyiv, Kharkov and Novorossiysk universities tried to invite a historian among their professors, but, according to the new university charter of 1863, Kostomarov did not have formal rights to a professorship: he was only a master. Only in 1864, after he published the essay “Who was the first impostor?”, Kyiv University gave him a doctorate degree honoris causa (without defending a doctoral dissertation). Later, in 1869, St. Petersburg University elected him an honorary member, but Kostomarov never returned to teaching. In order to financially provide for the outstanding scientist, he was assigned the corresponding salary of an ordinary professor for his service in the Archaeographic Commission. In addition, he was a corresponding member of the II Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and a member of many Russian and foreign scientific societies.

Leaving the university, Kostomarov did not leave scientific activity. In the 1860s he published "Northern Russian People's Rights", "History of the Time of Troubles", "Southern Russia at the end of the 16th century." (reworking of a destroyed dissertation). For the study "The Last Years of the Commonwealth" ("Bulletin of Europe", 1869. Books 2-12) N.I. Kostomarov was awarded the Academy of Sciences Prize (1872).

last years of life

In 1873, after traveling around Zaporozhye, N.I. Kostomarov visited Kyiv. Here he accidentally found out that his ex-fiancee, Alina Leontievna Kragelskaya, by that time already widowed and bearing the name of her late husband, Kisel, lives in the city with her three children. This news deeply disturbed the 56-year-old Kostomarov, already exhausted by life. Having received the address, he immediately wrote a short letter to Alina Leontievna asking for a meeting. The answer was positive.

They met after 26 years, like old friends, but the joy of a date was overshadowed by thoughts of lost years.

“Instead of a young girl, as I left her,” N.I. Kostomarov wrote, “I found an elderly lady, and at the same time sick, the mother of three half-adult children. Our date was as pleasant as it was sad: we both felt that the best time of life in separation had irrevocably passed.

Kostomarov has not grown younger over the years either: he has already suffered a stroke, his eyesight has deteriorated significantly. But the former bride and groom did not want to part again after a long separation. Kostomarov accepted Alina Leontyevna's invitation to stay at her Dedovtsy estate, and when he left for St. Petersburg, he took Alina's eldest daughter, Sophia, with him in order to enroll her in the Smolny Institute.

Only difficult everyday circumstances helped the old friends finally get closer. At the beginning of 1875, Kostomarov fell seriously ill. It was thought to be typhus, but some doctors suggested, in addition to typhus, a second stroke. When the patient lay delirious, his mother Tatyana Petrovna died of typhus. Doctors hid her death from Kostomarov for a long time - her mother was the only close and dear person throughout the life of Nikolai Ivanovich. Completely helpless in everyday life, the historian could not do without his mother even in trifles: to find a handkerchief in a chest of drawers or to light a pipe ...

And at that moment Alina Leontyevna came to the rescue. Upon learning of the plight of Kostomarov, she abandoned all her affairs and came to St. Petersburg. Their wedding took place already on May 9, 1875 in the estate of Alina Leontievna Dedovtsy, Priluksky district. The newlywed was 58 years old, and his chosen one was 45. Kostomarov adopted all the children of A.L. Kissel from his first marriage. His wife's family became his family.

Alina Leontievna did not just replace Kostomarov's mother, taking over the organization of the well-known historian's life. She became an assistant in work, a secretary, a reader and even an adviser in scientific matters. Kostomarov wrote and published his most famous works when he was already a married man. And in this there is a share of the participation of his wife.

Since then, the historian spent the summer almost constantly in the village of Dedovtsy, 4 versts from the town of Pryluk (Poltava province) and at one time was even an honorary trustee of the Pryluky men's gymnasium. In winter he lived in St. Petersburg, surrounded by books and continuing to work, despite the breakdown and almost complete loss of vision.

Of his recent works, he can be called "The Beginning of Autocracy in Ancient Russia" and "On the Historical Significance of Russian Song Folk Art" (revision of the master's thesis). The beginning of the second was published in the journal "Conversation" for 1872, and the continuation of the part in "Russian Thought" for 1880 and 1881 under the title "History of the Cossacks in the monuments of South Russian folk songwriting." Part of this work was included in the book "Literary Heritage" (St. Petersburg, 1890) under the title "Family Life in the Works of South Russian Folk Song Art"; part was simply lost (see Kyiv Starina, 1891, No. 2, Documents, etc., Art. 316). The end of this large-scale work was not written by a historian.

At the same time, Kostomarov wrote "Russian History in the biographies of its main figures", also unfinished (ends with a biography of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna) and major works on the history of Little Russia, as a continuation of previous works: "The Ruin", "Mazepa and Mazepintsy", "Paul Polubotok. Finally, he wrote a number of autobiographies that have more than just personal significance.

Constantly ill since 1875, Kostomarov was especially hurt by the fact that on January 25, 1884, he was knocked down by a carriage under the arch of the General Staff. Similar cases had happened to him before, because the half-blind, and besides, the historian, carried away by his thoughts, often did not notice what was happening around him. But before that, Kostomarov was lucky: he escaped with minor injuries and quickly recovered. The incident on January 25 knocked him down completely. At the beginning of 1885, the historian fell ill and died on April 7. He was buried at the Volkovo cemetery on the so-called "literary bridges", a monument was erected on his grave.

Personality assessment of N.I. Kostomarov

In appearance, N. I. Kostomarov was of medium height and far from handsome. Pupils in boarding schools, where he taught in his youth, called him a "sea scarecrow". The historian had a surprisingly awkward figure, liked to wear overly spacious clothes that hung on him like on a hanger, was extremely absent-minded and very short-sighted.

Spoiled from childhood by his mother's excessive attention, Nikolai Ivanovich was distinguished by complete helplessness (mother herself tied her son's tie and handed a handkerchief all her life), but at the same time, he was unusually capricious in everyday life. This was especially evident in adulthood. For example, one of Kostomarov's frequent companions recalled that the aged historian was not shy about being capricious at the table, even in the presence of guests: I didn’t see how whitefish or ruffs or pike perch were killed, and therefore I proved that the fish was bought inanimate. Most of all, he found fault with the oil, saying that it was bitter, although he was taken in the best store.

Fortunately, Alina Leontyevna's wife had the talent to turn the prose of life into a game. Jokingly, she often called her husband "my junk" and "my spoiled old man." Kostomarov, in turn, also jokingly called her "lady".

Kostomarov had an extraordinary mind, very extensive knowledge, and not only in those areas that served as the subject of his special studies (Russian history, ethnography), but also in such areas, for example, as theology. Archbishop Nikanor, a notorious theologian, used to say that he did not even dare to compare his knowledge of Holy Scripture with that of Kostomarov. Kostomarov's memory was phenomenal. He was a passionate esthetician: he was fond of everything artistic, pictures of nature most of all, music, painting, theater.

Kostomarov also loved animals very much. It is said that while working, he constantly kept his beloved cat near him on the table. The creative inspiration of the scientist seemed to depend on the fluffy companion: as soon as the cat jumped to the floor and went about its cat business, the pen in Nikolai Ivanovich’s hand froze impotently...

Contemporaries condemned Kostomarov for the fact that he always knew how to find some negative property in a person who was praised in his presence; but, on the one hand, there was always truth in his words; on the other hand, if under Kostomarov they began to speak ill of someone, he almost always knew how to find good qualities in him. The spirit of contradiction often showed in his behavior, but in fact he was extremely mild-mannered and soon forgave those people who were guilty before him. Kostomarov was a loving family man, a devoted friend. His sincere feeling for his failed bride, which he managed to carry through the years and all the trials, cannot but arouse respect. In addition, Kostomarov also possessed outstanding civic courage, did not give up his views and beliefs, never followed the lead of either the authorities (the story of the Cyril and Methodius Society), or the radical part of the students (“Duma” incident).

Remarkable is Kostomarov's religiosity, which does not stem from general philosophical views, but is warm, so to speak, spontaneous, close to the religiosity of the people. Kostomarov, who knew well the dogma of Orthodoxy and its morality, was also fond of every feature of church rituals. Attending a church service was for him not just a duty, from which he did not shirk even during a severe illness, but also a great aesthetic pleasure.

The historical concept of N.I. Kostomarov

Historical concepts of N.I. Kostomarov for more than a century and a half have been causing ongoing controversy. The works of researchers have not yet developed any unambiguous assessment of its multifaceted, sometimes controversial historical heritage. In the extensive historiography of both the pre-Soviet and the Soviet period, he appears as a peasant, noble, noble-bourgeois, liberal-bourgeois, bourgeois-nationalist and revolutionary-democratic historian at the same time. In addition, it is not uncommon to characterize Kostomarov as a democrat, a socialist, and even a communist (!), a pan-Slavist, a Ukrainophile, a federalist, a historian of folk life, a folk spirit, a populist historian, and a truth-seeking historian. Contemporaries often wrote about him as a romantic historian, lyricist, artist, philosopher and sociologist. Descendants, savvy in Marxist-Leninist theory, found that Kostomarov was a historian, weak as a dialectician, but a very serious historian-analyst.

Today's Ukrainian nationalists willingly raised Kostomarov's theories to the shield, finding in them a historical justification for modern political insinuations. Meanwhile, the general historical concept of the long-dead historian is quite simple and it is completely pointless to look for manifestations of nationalist extremism in it, and even more so - attempts to exalt the traditions of one Slavic people and downplay the importance of another.

Historian N.I. Kostomarov put opposition in the general historical process of development of Russia between the state and the people. Thus, the innovation of his constructions consisted only in the fact that he acted as one of the opponents of the “state school” of S.M. Solovyov and her followers. The state principle was associated by Kostomarov with the centralization policy of the great princes and tsars, the people's principle was associated with the communal principle, the political form of expression of which was the people's assembly or veche. It was the veche (and not the communal, as among the “populists”) that embodied in N.I. Kostomarov, the system of the federal structure that most corresponded to the conditions of Russia. Such a system made it possible to use to the maximum extent the potential of the people's initiative, the true driving force of history. The state-centralization principle, according to Kostomarov, acted as a regressive force, weakening the active creative potential of the people.

According to Kostomarov's concept, the main driving forces that influenced the formation of Muscovite Rus were two principles - autocratic and specific veche. Their struggle ended in the 17th century with the victory of the great power. The specific-veche beginning, according to Kostomarov, "clothed in a new image", i.e. image of the Cossacks. And the uprising of Stepan Razin was the last battle between the people's democracy and the victorious autocracy.

It is the Great Russian people that Kostomarov embodies the principle of autocracy, i.e. a set of Slavic peoples who inhabited the northeastern lands of Russia before the Tatar invasion. The South Russian lands experienced foreign influence to a lesser extent, and therefore managed to preserve the traditions of people's self-government and federal preferences. In this regard, Kostomarov's article "Two Russian Nationalities" is very characteristic, in which it is argued that the South Russian nationality has always been more democratic, while the Great Russian has other qualities, namely, a creative principle. The Great Russian nationality created a monocracy (i.e., a monarchical system), which gave it a paramount importance in the historical life of Russia.

The opposite of the “folk spirit” of “South Russian nature” (in which “there was nothing forcing, leveling; there was no politics, there was no cold calculation, firmness on the way to the appointed goal”) and “Great Russians” (who are characterized by a slavish willingness to obey autocratic power, the desire to “give strength and formality to the unity of their land”) determined, according to N.I. Kostomarov, various directions of development of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples. Even the fact of the flourishing of the veche system in the “Northern Russian governments of the people” (Novgorod, Pskov, Vyatka) and the establishment of an autocratic system in the southern regions of N.I. Kostomarov explained by the influence of the “South Russians”, who allegedly founded the northern Russian centers with their veche freemen, while such freemen in the south were suppressed by the northern autocracy, breaking through only in the lifestyle and love of freedom of the Ukrainian Cossacks.

Even during his lifetime, the "statesmen" hotly accused the historian of subjectivism, the desire to absolutize the "people's" factor in the historical process of the formation of statehood, as well as the deliberate opposition of the contemporary scientific tradition to him.

Opponents of “Ukrainization”, in turn, already then attributed nationalism to Kostomarov, justification of separatist tendencies, and in his passion for the history of Ukraine and the Ukrainian language they saw only a tribute to the pan-Slavic fashion that captured the best minds of Europe.

It will not be superfluous to note that in the works of N.I. Kostomarov, there are absolutely no clear indications of what should be taken with a plus sign and what should be displayed as a minus. He nowhere unambiguously condemns autocracy, recognizing its historical expediency. Moreover, the historian does not say that specific veche democracy is definitely good and acceptable for the entire population of the Russian Empire. Everything depends on the specific historical conditions and characteristics of the character of each people.

Kostomarov was called a "national romantic", close to the Slavophiles. Indeed, his views on the historical process largely coincide with the main provisions of the Slavophile theories. This is a belief in the future historical role of the Slavs, and, above all, those Slavic peoples who inhabited the territory of the Russian Empire. In this respect, Kostomarov went even further than the Slavophiles. Like them, Kostomarov believed in uniting all the Slavs into one state, but in a federal state, with the preservation of the national and religious characteristics of individual nationalities. He hoped that with long-term communication, the difference between the Slavs would be smoothed out in a natural, peaceful way. Like the Slavophiles, Kostomarov was looking for an ideal in the national past. For him, this ideal past could only be a time when the Russian people lived according to their own original principles of life and were free from the historically noticeable influence of the Varangians, Byzantines, Tatars, Poles, etc. Guess these fundamental principles of folk life, guess the very spirit of the Russian people - this is the eternal goal of Kostomarov's work.

To this end, Kostomarov was constantly engaged in ethnography, as a science capable of acquainting the researcher with the psychology and the true past of each people. He was interested not only in Russian, but also in general Slavic ethnography, especially in the ethnography of Southern Russia.

Throughout the 19th century, Kostomarov was honored as a forerunner of "populist" historiography, an oppositionist to the autocratic system, a fighter for the rights of small nationalities of the Russian Empire. In the 20th century, his views were recognized in many respects as "backward". With his national-federal theories, he did not fit into either the Marxist scheme of social formations and class struggle, or the great-power politics of the Soviet empire reassembled by Stalin. The difficult relations between Russia and Ukraine in recent decades once again impose on his works the stamp of some "false prophecies", giving ground to the current especially zealous "independent" to create new historical myths and actively use them in dubious political games.

Today, everyone who wants to rewrite the history of Russia, Ukraine and other former territories of the Russian Empire should pay attention to the fact that N.I. Kostomarov tried to explain the historical past of his country, meaning by this past, first of all, the past of all the peoples inhabiting it. The scientific work of a historian never involves calls for nationalism or separatism, and even more so - the desire to put the history of one people above the history of another. Those who have similar goals, as a rule, choose a different path for themselves. N.I. Kostomarov remained in the minds of his contemporaries and descendants as an artist of words, a poet, a romantic, a scientist, who until the end of his life worked on understanding the new and promising for the 19th century problem of the influence of ethnos on history. It makes no sense to interpret the scientific heritage of the great Russian historian in any other way, a century and a half after the writing of his main works.

Nikolai Kostomarov was born before the marriage of the local landowner Ivan Petrovich Kostomarov with the serf Tatyana Petrovna Melnikova and, according to the laws of the Russian Empire, became the serf of his own father.

Nikolai Kostomarov was born on May 5 (17), 1817 in the Yurasovka settlement of the Ostrogozhsky district of the Voronezh province (now the village of Yurasovka).

The retired military man Ivan Kostomarov, already at the age, chose the girl Tatyana Petrovna Melnikova as his wife and sent her to Moscow to study at a private boarding school - with the intention of marrying her later. The parents of Nikolai Kostomarov got married in September 1817, after the birth of their son. The father was going to adopt Nikolai, but did not have time to do so.

Ivan Kostomarov, an admirer of French literature of the 18th century, the ideas of which he tried to instill in both his young son and his household. On July 14, 1828, he was killed by his yard people, who stole the capital he had accumulated. The death of his father put his family in a difficult legal position. Born out of wedlock, Nikolai Kostomarov, as a serf of his father, was now inherited by his closest relatives - the Rovnevs, who were not averse to taking their souls away, mocking the child. When the Rovnevs offered Tatyana Petrovna a widow's share for 14 thousand acres of fertile land - 50 thousand rubles in banknotes, as well as freedom for her son, she agreed without delay.

Left with a very modest income, his mother transferred Nikolai from a Moscow boarding school (where he, just starting to study, received the nickname fr. Enfant miraculeux- a miracle child) to a boarding house in Voronezh, closer to home. Education in it was cheaper, but the level of teaching was very low, and the boy barely sat through boring lessons, which practically did not give him anything. After staying there for about two years, he was expelled for "pranks" from this boarding school and moved to the Voronezh gymnasium. Having completed a course here in 1833, Nikolai became a student at the Faculty of History and Philology at Kharkov University.

After graduating from the course at the Voronezh gymnasium, in 1833 Kolya became a student at Kharkov University. Already in the first years of his studies, Kostomarov's brilliant abilities made themselves felt, giving him the nickname "enfant miraculeux" from the teachers of the Moscow boarding school, in which he did not study for long during his father's lifetime. The natural liveliness of his character and the low level of teachers of that time prevented him from being seriously carried away by studies. The first years of his stay at Kharkov University, whose Faculty of History and Philology did not shine at that time with professorial talents, differed little in this respect for Kostomarov from gymnasium teaching. He was fond of classical antiquity, then new French literature, but he worked without proper guidance and system; Kostomarov later called his student life "chaotic".

In 1835, the historian Mikhail Mikhailovich Lunin appeared at the Department of World History in Kharkov. His lectures had a strong influence on Kostomarov; he gave himself up to the study of history with ardor, but was still vaguely aware of his real vocation, and after graduating from the university he entered the military service.

His incapacity for the latter soon became, however, clear to both his superiors and to himself. Fascinated by the study of the archive of the local county court, preserved in the city of Ostrogozhsk, where his regiment was stationed, Kostomarov decided to write the history of the suburban Cossack regiments. On the advice of his superiors, he left the regiment and in the autumn of 1837 again appeared in Kharkov with the intention of replenishing his historical education.

At this time of intense studies, Kostomarov, partly under the influence of Lunin, began to take shape in a view of history that was very different from the views then prevailing among Russian historians. According to the later words of the scientist himself, he " I read many different kinds of historical books, pondered over science and came to the following question: why is it that in all histories they talk about outstanding statesmen, sometimes about laws and institutions, but seem to neglect the life of the masses of the people? It is as if the poor muzhik-farmer-worker does not exist for history; why history does not tell us anything about his way of life, about his spiritual life, about his feelings, the way of his joys and sorrows"?

The idea of ​​the history of the people and their spiritual life, in contrast to the history of the state, has since become the main idea in the circle of Kostomarov's historical views.

Modifying the concept of the content of history, he expanded the range of its sources. " Soon he writes, I came to the conclusion that history should be studied not only from dead chronicles and notes, but also from living people". The main content of Russian history, and, therefore, the main subject of study of the past, according to Kostomarov, is the study of the development of the people's spiritual life, for here is "the basis and explanation of the great political event, here is the verification and judgment of any institution and law." Spiritual life people is manifested in their concepts, beliefs, feelings, hopes, suffering.But historians, he was indignant, do not say anything about this.Kostomarov was one of the first to undertake a study of the social and domestic life of the people.

The life of the people, Kostomarov argued, is in peculiar ways: specific-veche (federal) and sovereign. The struggle of these two principles is the content of his concept of Russian history. The federal system of ancient Russia, under the influence of external circumstances, the Tatar-Mongol yoke, is replaced by autocracy. From Ivan III "begins the existence of an independent monarchical Russian state. The freedom of the community and individuals is sacrificed. Peter completed, in his opinion, what had been prepared for centuries previous and "led the autocratic statehood to its full apogee." This led to the isolation of the state from people. It "made up its own circle, formed a special nationality that joined power" (upper layers). Thus, two nationalities arose in Russian life: the nationality of the state and the nationality of the masses.

A distinctive feature of Kostomarov's works is that he began to study all the peoples that make up Russia: the Ukrainian people and the Great Russian, Belarusian, South Russian, Novgorod and others. “If we say,” he wrote, “the history of the Russian people, then we accept this word in the collective sense as a mass of peoples connected by the unity of one civilization and constituting a political body.”

He learned the Little Russian language, re-read the published Little Russian folk songs and printed literature in Little Russian, then very small; undertook "ethnographic excursions from Kharkov to neighboring villages along the taverns." " Love for the Little Russian word more and more fascinated me, - Kostomarov recalled, - I was annoyed that such a beautiful language was left without any literary processing and, moreover, was subjected to completely undeserved contempt". He began to write in Little Russian, under the pseudonym of Jeremiah Galka, and in 1839 - 1841 he published two dramas and several collections of poems, original and translated.

In 1840, Nikolai Ivanovich passed the master's exam and in 1842 published a dissertation "On the Significance of the Union in Western Russia." The dispute already scheduled did not take place, due to the message of the Archbishop of Kharkov Innokenty Borisov about the outrageous content of the book. It was only about a few unfortunate expressions, but Professor Ustryalov, who, on behalf of the Ministry of Public Education, analyzed Kostomarov's work, gave such a review of him that the book was ordered to be burned.

Nikolai Kostomarov wrote another dissertation: "On the historical significance of Russian folk poetry", which he defended in early 1844. Immediately upon completion of his second dissertation, N.I. Kostomarov undertook a new work on the history of Bohdan Khmelnitsky and, wanting to visit the areas where the events he described took place, he decided to be a gymnasium teacher, first in Rivne, then in 1845 in Kyiv.

In 1846, the Council of Kyiv University elected Kostomarov as a teacher of Russian history, and from the autumn of that year he began his lectures, which immediately aroused deep interest in the audience. In Kyiv, as in Kharkov, a circle of people formed around him, devoted to the idea of ​​nationality and intending to put this idea into practice. This circle included Panteleimon Aleksandrovich Kulish, Af. Markevich, Nikolai Ivanovich Gulak, Vasily Mikhailovich Belozersky, Taras Grigorievich Shevchenko.

The members of the circle, fascinated by the romantic understanding of the people, dreamed of pan-Slavic reciprocity, combining with the latter the wishes of internal progress in their own fatherland. “The reciprocity of the Slavic peoples,” Kostomarov wrote later, “in our imagination was no longer limited to the sphere of science and poetry, but began to appear in images in which, as it seemed to us, it should have been embodied for future history. In addition to our will, a federal build as the happiest course of the social life of the Slavic nations" In all parts of the federation, the same basic laws and rights were assumed, equality of weight, measures and coins, the absence of customs and freedom of trade, the general abolition of serfdom and slavery in any form, a single central authority in charge of relations outside the union, the army and fleet , but complete autonomy of each part in relation to internal institutions, internal administration, judiciary and public education. In order to spread these ideas, the friendly circle was transformed into a society called Cyril and Methodius. The student Petrov, who overheard the conversations of the members of the circle, denounced them; they were arrested (in the spring of 1847), accused of a state crime and subjected to various punishments.

Kostomarov, after spending a year in the Peter and Paul Fortress, was "transferred to serve" in Saratov and placed under the supervision of the local police, and for the future he was forbidden both teaching and publishing his works. Without losing either idealism or energy and ability to work, Kostomarov in Saratov continued to write his "Bogdan Khmelnitsky", began a new work on the internal life of the Moscow state of the 16th-17th centuries, made ethnographic excursions, collected songs and legends, got acquainted with schismatics and sectarians . In 1855, he was allowed a vacation in St. Petersburg, which he took advantage of to complete his work on Khmelnitsky. In 1856, the prohibition to print his works was lifted and supervision was removed from him.

Having made a trip abroad, Nikolai Kostomarov again settled in Saratov, where he wrote "The Rebellion of Stenka Razin" and took part, as a clerk of the provincial committee for improving the life of the peasants, in the preparation of the peasant reform.

In the spring of 1859, he was invited by St. Petersburg University to take the chair of Russian history. It was the time of the most intense work in Kostomarov's life and his greatest popularity. Already known to the Russian public as a talented writer, he now appeared as a professor with a powerful and original talent for exposition and for conducting independent and new views on the tasks and essence of history. Kostomarov himself formulated the main idea of ​​his lectures in the following way: “Entering the department, I set out to bring the people’s life in all its particular manifestations to the fore in my lectures ... The Russian state was formed from parts that had previously lived their own independent lives, and long after In addition, the life of the parts was expressed by excellent aspirations in the general state system. To find and capture these features of the people's life of the parts of the Russian state was for me the task of my studies in history. "

In 1860, he accepted the challenge of Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin to a public debate on the origin of Russia, which Kostomarov brought out of Lithuania. Held within the walls of the university on March 19, this dispute did not give any positive result: the opponents remained unconvinced. At the same time, Kostomarov was elected a member of the archaeographic commission and undertook the publication of acts on the history of Little Russia in the 17th century.

Preparing these documents for publication, he began to write a series of monographs on them, which were supposed to make up the history of Little Russia since the time of Khmelnitsky; he continued this work until the end of his life. He also took part in magazines ("Russian Word", "Contemporary"), publishing excerpts from his lectures and historical articles in them. He was then quite close to the progressive circles of St. Petersburg University and journalism, but his complete merging with them was prevented by their passion for economic issues, while he retained a romantic attitude towards the people and Ukrainophile ideas.

The organ closest to Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov was the Osnova, established by some of the former members of the Cyril and Methodius Society gathered in St. Petersburg, where he placed a number of articles devoted primarily to clarifying the independent significance of the Little Russian tribe and polemics with Polish and Great Russian writers who denied such significance.

It turns out that the Russian people are not united; there are two of them, and who knows, maybe more of them will be opened, and nevertheless one is Russian ... But understanding this difference in this way, I think that the task of your Foundation will be: to express in literature the influence that they should have on our common education peculiar signs of the South Russian nationality. This influence should not destroy, but supplement and moderate that fundamental Great Russian principle, which leads to unity, to fusion, to a strict state and communal form that absorbs the individual, and the desire for practical activity that falls into materiality, devoid of poetry. The South Russian element should give our common life a dissolving, revitalizing, spiritualizing beginning.

After the closure of St. Petersburg University in 1861, caused by student unrest, several professors, including Kostomarov, organized (in the city duma) systematic public lectures, known in the then press under the name of the Free or Mobile University; Kostomarov lectured on ancient Russian history. When Professor Pavlov, after a public reading about the Millennium of Russia, was expelled from St. Petersburg, the committee for organizing Duma lectures decided, in protest, to stop them. Kostomarov refused to comply with this decision, but at his next lecture (March 8, 1862), the uproar raised by the public forced him to stop reading, and further readings were forbidden by the administration.

Having left the professorship of St. Petersburg University in 1862, Kostomarov could no longer return to the department, since his political reliability was again suspected, mainly due to the efforts of the Moscow "protective" press. In 1863, he was invited to the department by Kyiv University, in 1864 - by Kharkov University, in 1869 - again by Kiev University, but Nikolai Kostomarov, on the instructions of the Ministry of Public Education, had to reject all these invitations and limit himself to one literary activity.

In 1863, "Northern Russian People's Rights" were published, which was an adaptation of one of the courses read by Kostomarov at St. Petersburg University; in 1866 the "Vestnik Evropy" published "The Time of Troubles of the Muscovite State", later "The Last Years of the Commonwealth" was published in the same place.

The interruption of archival studies in 1872, caused by the weakening of vision, was used by Kostomarov to compile "Russian history in the biographies of its main figures." In 1875, he suffered a serious illness that greatly undermined his health. In the same year he married Al. L. Kisel, nee Kragelskaya, who in 1847 was his bride, but after his exile she married another.

The works of the last years of Kostomarov's life, for all their great merits, bore some traces of the shattered strength of talent: they contain fewer generalizations, less liveliness in presentation, and sometimes a dry list of facts takes the place of brilliant characteristics. During these years, Kostomarov even expressed the view that the whole historian is reduced to the transmission of the facts he found in the sources and verified facts. He worked with tireless energy until his death.

He died on April 7 (19), 1885, after a long and painful illness. Nikolai Ivanovich was buried in St. Petersburg on the Literary bridges of the Volkovsky cemetery.

Kostomarov, as a historian, both during his lifetime and after his death, was repeatedly subjected to strong attacks. He was reproached for the superficial use of sources and the errors resulting from this, for the one-sidedness of his views, for his partisanship. There is a grain of truth in these reproaches, however, a very small one. Minor blunders and errors, inevitable in every scientist, are perhaps somewhat more common in the writings of Nikolai Ivanovich, but this is easily explained by the extraordinary variety of his activities and the habit of relying on his rich memory.

In those few cases when Kostomarov's partisanship really manifested itself - namely, in some of his works on Little Russian history - this was only a natural reaction against even more partisan views expressed in literature from the other side. Not always, furthermore, the very material on which Kostomarov worked gave him the opportunity to realize his views on the task of the historian. A historian of the internal life of the people, in his scientific views and sympathies, it was precisely in his works devoted to Little Russia that he involuntarily represented external history. In any case, the overall significance of Kostomarov in the development of Russian historiography can, without any exaggeration, be called enormous. He introduced and persistently pursued in all his works the idea of ​​folk history. The historian himself understood and carried it out mainly in the form of studying the spiritual life of the people.

Later studies expanded the content of this idea, but Kostomarov's merit does not diminish from this. In connection with this main idea of ​​Kostomarov, he had another one - about the need to study the tribal characteristics of each part of the people and create a regional history. If in modern science a somewhat different view of the national character has been established, denying the immobility that Kostomarov attributed to him, then it was the work of the latter that served as the impetus, depending on which the study of the history of the regions began to develop. Introducing new and fruitful ideas into the development of Russian history, independently investigating a number of issues in its field, Kostomarov, thanks to the peculiarities of his talent, aroused, at the same time, a keen interest in historical knowledge among the masses of the public. Thinking deeply, almost getting used to the antiquity he studied, he reproduced it in his works with such bright colors, in such convex images that it attracted the reader and cut into his mind with indelible features.

Beware - history!
To the 200th anniversary of Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov / May, 2017

If Nikolai Ivanovich, a native of the Voronezh province, a corresponding member of the Imperial Academy, a real state councilor, had learned how his legacy would be disposed of in the 20th and 21st centuries, he could perhaps reconsider his Ukrainophile views. If Kostomarov could have foreseen that Kharkov, whose university he graduated from, would end up on the territory of a state hostile to Russia, it is likely that he would not have organized the secret Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood - a kind of headquarters for the "liberation of Ukraine." Yet Kostomarov and dill

Nikolay Kostomarov. Artist Nikolai Ge. 1870

However, today Kostomarov can be perceived almost as the banner of the Maidan. Under Soviet rule, he was rightly attributed to the fighters against serfdom, talented popularizers of folk culture. Populism with Little Russian flavor was a special form of the Fronde in the 19th century. Completely Russian people, who absolutely did not know the Little Russian culture, the local dialect, rushed to learn the “Ukrainian language”. Kostomarov was from this cohort, and, for example, the Russian noblewoman Maria Vilinskaya, who became a classic of Ukrainian literature under the pseudonym Marko Vovchok...
Ukrainianism is a form of liberalism of the 19th century, a kind of dissidence. The same phenomenon, adjusted for the wind of change, we observed during perestroika. The Russian-speaking liberal intelligentsia of the Ukrainian SSR rushed to destroy the Soviet Union in partnership with Bandera, and now they are grieving over the abolished research institutes, outraged by the revival of Nazism ... Is the outstanding Russian historian guilty? Nikolai Kostomarov in the tragic events of recent history in the Ukrainian direction? Of course no. But the bizarre fate of his theories proves that the historian has a special responsibility. Responsibility for the future.

Illustrations for "N. I. Kostomarov: biographical information"

Was he Russian or Ukrainian?
200 years ago, on May 16, Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov was born / Present past / People and time

Two beginnings
Andrey Teslya, historian

The fate of Nikolai Kostomarov, including the posthumous one, developed both bizarrely and naturally. To begin with, it is difficult to determine whether he was "Russian" or "Ukrainian", even if guided by his own assessments.

When Kostomarov was the founder and one of the key actors of the Cyril and Methodius Society (1845-1847), the first modern Ukrainian nationalist movement, he defined himself as a “Russian”, “Great Russian”, and in the 1870s, when his nationalist position became much more compromise, moderate, he already considered himself a "Ukrainian".

Later, in the first half of the 20th century, historians will intensively discuss the question of whether it should be included in the course of Russian historiography or whether it belongs to Ukrainian, and if both, then how to divide its scientific and educational heritage between two national historiographies.

A similar situation is typical for the figures of the “borderland”: they simultaneously belong to different communities. And at the same time, each of the communities (national, cultural, etc.) is forced to discard or “shadow” those features that prevent a straightforward interpretation.

Kostomarov was a typical - in the sense of by no means "average", but the completeness of the manifestation of the type - a romantic historian: the goal of historical work for him was to reproduce the past, he sought to convey the "spirit" of the past, while understanding the latter not as "bright events" and " great personalities”, but first of all the history of the “people”. It was the people that acted for him as the true hero of history, about him, about his past, science had to tell - in order to be an instrument of self-consciousness in the present.

What has been said outwardly contradicts the list of Kostomarov's main works - starting with Bogdan Khmelnitsky (1858), which made him famous throughout reading Russia, to the later Russian History in the Biographies of Its Main Figures. Kostomarov always wrote either about great personalities, at least persons notable in history, or about large-scale events - such as the Time of Troubles or the Last Years of the Commonwealth. And yet for him there was no contradiction in this - the people manifest themselves in their outstanding people, they become visible in great events. And in order to understand, to realize these events, it is necessary to know and understand everyday life, the usual, ordinary way of life - hence his extensive everyday descriptions.

Russian history was seen by him as the history of the confrontation between two principles successively replacing each other - federalist, veche and state, autocratic. The first lasted the longest in the south, among the "South Russian people", the second found its bearer in the Muscovite state, created by the Great Russians. Late manifestations of the first beginning Kostomarov saw in popular riots, in the Cossacks.

“We sympathize with them,” Kostomarov argued, “because they are an expression of the desire for freedom, but their success, if they were to win, would only be another expression of the same principle against which they fought.” The beginning of Moscow, according to Kostomarov, is monstrous - and at the same time historically inevitable, the statesmen of Moscow evoke a feeling of moral indignation, but only such could achieve historical success.

Kostomarov's books were read with a sympathetic eye - the reader often read even more than the author had in mind, it is no coincidence that his writings were so popular among populists. They saw in them not so much a story about the Cossack freemen, but about the history of past Russian freedom - in Ukraine, Novgorod, Pskov, as well as the ability of Russian people to decide their own fate, which they proved during the Time of Troubles.

misunderstood
Oleg Nemensky, historian, publicist

There are at least two Kostomarovs - in Russia he is known as a Russian historian, and in Ukraine as one of the fathers of the Ukrainian nation. But now few people hear the real Kostomarov. He is politically irrelevant here and there, and some of his texts are now read quite differently than they were during his lifetime.

His writings are often reprinted, although these are the texts of a man who clearly did not understand and did not like Great Russian life. He felt himself a representative of the Little Russian people, the care of which he gave a lot of effort.

In 1846, having founded the secret Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood in Kyiv, Kostomarov, together with P. Kulish, wrote short essays, where for the first time they spoke about a special Ukrainian people. This gave rise to the movement of Ukrainophilism, which is considered to be a kind of early version of Ukrainian nationalism. However, all further activities of both Kostomarov and Kulish rather indicate the opposite.

The lands of Southwestern Russia at the beginning of the 19th century felt the impact of the imperial center, which came here with its own standards, including in the field of culture and historical memory. The most important text on history, which became the canon of both the literary language and the model of the past, was the History of the Russian State by N. Karamzin, which was published throughout the first quarter of the century. It was not the history of the people, but the history of statehood, reduced to the history of rulers. Western Russia, which until recently lived as part of other states, simply fell out of consideration, and, as a result, out of public attention. All the many years of experience of its history, culture - all this turned out to be insignificant, as it were. And now there were people who wished to protect the originality of Little Russian life.

Kostomarov set a goal - to reveal the historical features of different parts of the Russian people, regardless of their participation in state building. He wrote: "To find and capture these features of the folk life of parts of the Russian state was for me the task of my studies in history." But it is very important to emphasize that Kostomarov never spoke about the non-Russian nature of the Ukraine he describes. On the contrary, he tried to give ideas about the Russian people a more complex character, taking into account “peculiar features of the South Russian people”: “It turns out that the Russian people are not united; there are two of them, and who knows, maybe more will be opened, and yet they are Russians, ”he wrote in the program text“ Two Russian Nationalities ”.

Unlike later Ukrainian nationalists, Kostomarov declared the need to "think in a common Russian language" and emphasized his Russian identity. He spoke about the “belonging” of Ukrainians “to the common Russian world”, about their “ancient connection with the common Russian world”, with the “Russian mainland”. Now, for such views in Ukraine, one can easily get into the list of "enemies of the nation." Unlike the nationalists, Kostomarov did not advocate separation from this mainland, but, on the contrary, opposed “Moscow particularism,” as he called the desire of the Great Russians to consider only themselves, their history and tradition, truly Russian. He wanted to see Southwestern Russia as an equal part of a single Russian community: “The Little Russians were never conquered and annexed to Russia, but from ancient times they were one of the elements that made up the Russian state body.”

Now Kostomarov’s words about the ideas of separating Ukraine from Russia look like an evil mockery and reproach: “Only with a deep ignorance of the meaning of our past history, with a lack of understanding of the spirit and concepts of the people, one can reach absurd fears of terminating the connection between the two Russian nationalities with their equal rights.” “The idea of ​​separating Little Russia from the empire,” he noted, “... is equally absurd as the idea of ​​the originality of any specific reign into which the Russian land was once divided ...”

Yes, his desire to justify the equality and interdependence of the “two Russian peoples” played a cruel joke on him: describing their historical characters as directly opposite (and therefore mutually complementary in a common state), he largely set the tone for other works whose authors tried to describe the opposition of Ukrainians to Russians is already an argument in favor of disengagement. But behind this lies a much bigger problem: it is difficult to deny the local tradition the right to defend its own identity, but how to prevent the evolution of this defense into open confrontation? This question is still relevant today, but the works of Kostomarov, and especially their further fate, unfortunately, do not give us an answer.

And yet, the model he set for different “Russian nationalities”, of which he eventually found as many as six, makes us think about a lot. Now, when a war of identities is going on in Ukraine, the question is being decided who will get it - those who see themselves as special Russians - yes, not Great Russians, but the heirs of the local Russian tradition, or those for whom everything Russian is seen as evil, subject to destruction. In this conflict, Kostomarov is clearly not on the side of the latter.