Foreword
History is in a sense holy book peoples: main, necessary; a mirror of their being and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the covenant of ancestors to posterity; addition, explanation of the present and an example of the future.
Rulers, Legislators act according to the instructions of History and look at its sheets, like navigators look at the blueprints of the seas. Human wisdom needs experiments, but life is short-lived. One must know how from time immemorial rebellious passions agitated civil society and in what ways the beneficent power of the mind curbed their stormy striving in order to establish order, agree on the benefits of people and bestow on them the happiness possible on earth.
But even a simple citizen should read History. She reconciles him with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with an ordinary phenomenon in all ages; consoles in state disasters, testifying that there have been similar ones before, there have been even more terrible ones, and the State has not been destroyed; she feeds moral sense and with its righteous judgment disposes the soul to justice, which affirms our good and the consent of society.
Here is the benefit: what pleasures for the heart and mind! Curiosity is akin to man, both enlightened and wild. At the glorious Olympic Games, the noise was silent, and the crowds were silent around Herodotus, who was reading the traditions of the ages. Even without knowing the use of letters, the peoples already love History: the elder points the young man to a high grave and tells about the deeds of the Hero lying in it. The first experiments of our ancestors in the art of writing were devoted to the Faith and the Scriptures; darkened by the thick shadow of ignorance, the people eagerly listened to the tales of the Chroniclers. And I like fiction; but for complete pleasure one must deceive oneself and think that they are the truth. History, opening the tombs, raising the dead, putting life into their hearts and words into their mouths, rebuilding the Kingdoms from decay, and presenting to the imagination a series of centuries with their distinct passions, morals, deeds, expands the limits of our own being; her creative power we live with people of all times, we see and hear them, we love and hate them; not yet thinking about the benefit, we already enjoy the contemplation of diverse cases and characters that occupy the mind or nourish the sensitivity.
If any History, even unskillfully written, is pleasant, as Pliny says: all the more domestic. The true Cosmopolitan is a metaphysical being, or so extraordinary phenomenon that there is no need to talk about him, neither praise nor condemn him. We are all citizens, in Europe and in India, in Mexico and in Abyssinia; the personality of each is closely connected with the fatherland: we love it, because we love ourselves. Let the Greeks and Romans captivate the imagination: they belong to the family of the human race and are not strangers to us in their virtues and weaknesses, glory and disasters; but the name Russian has a special charm for us: my heart beats even stronger for Pozharsky than for Themistocles or Scipio. World History adorns the world with great memories for the mind, and Russian adorns the fatherland, where we live and feel. How attractive are the banks of the Volkhov, Dnieper, Don, when we know that in ancient times happened to them! Not only Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir, but also the huts of Yelets, Kozelsk, Galich become curious monuments and mute objects - eloquent. The shadows of past centuries paint pictures everywhere before us.
In addition to a special dignity for us, the sons of Russia, her chronicles have something in common. Let's take a look at the space of this only Power: the thought becomes numb; Never in its grandeur could Rome equal it, dominating from the Tiber to the Caucasus, the Elbe and the sands of Africa. Isn't it amazing how lands separated by eternal barriers of nature, immeasurable deserts and impenetrable forests, cold and hot climates, like Astrakhan and Lapland, Siberia and Bessarabia, could form one State with Moscow? Is the mixture of its inhabitants, of different tribes, varieties, and so remote from each other in degrees of education, less wonderful? Like America, Russia has its Wilds; like other European countries, is the fruit of a long-term civil life. You don’t have to be Russian: you just need to think in order to read with curiosity the traditions of a people who, with courage and courage, gained dominance over a ninth part of the world, discovered countries hitherto unknown to anyone, bringing them into common system Geography, History, and enlightened by the Divine Faith, without violence, without villainy, used by other zealots of Christianity in Europe and America, but the only example of the best.
We agree that the deeds described by Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy are more entertaining for any non-Russian in general, representing more spiritual strength and a livelier play of passions: for Greece and Rome were popular Powers and more enlightened than Russia; however, we can safely say that some cases, pictures, characters of our history are no less curious than ancient ones. Such are the essence of the exploits of Svyatoslav, the thunderstorm of Batyev, the uprising of the Russians at the Donskoy, the fall of Novgorod, the capture of Kazan, the triumph of popular virtues during the Interregnum. Giants of dusk, Oleg and son Igorev; the simple-hearted knight, the blind man Vasilko; friend of the fatherland, philanthropic Monomakh; Mstislav Brave, terrible in battle and an example of gentleness in the world; Mikhail of Tver, so famous for his generous death, the ill-fated, truly courageous, Alexander Nevsky; The hero is a young man, the winner of Mamaev, in the lightest outline, they strongly affect the imagination and heart. One state is a rare wealth for history: according to at least I do not know a Monarch worthy to live and shine in her sanctuary. The rays of his glory fall on the cradle of Peter - and between these two Autocrats is the amazing John IV, Godunov, worthy of his happiness and misfortune, the strange False Dmitry, and behind the host of valiant Patriots, Boyars and citizens, the mentor of the throne, the High Hierarch Filaret with the Sovereign son, the light-bearer in the darkness our state disasters, and Tsar Alexy, the wise father of the Emperor, whom Europe called the Great. Or all New story must remain silent, or the Russian has the right to attention.
I know that the battles of our specific civil strife, thundering incessantly in the space of five centuries, are of little importance for the mind; that this subject is neither rich in thought for the Pragmatist, nor in beauty for the painter; but History is not a novel, and the world is not a garden where everything should be pleasant: it depicts the real world. We see on the ground majestic mountains and waterfalls flowering meadows and valleys; but how many barren sands and dull steppes! However, traveling in general is kind to a person with a lively feeling and imagination; in the very deserts there are charming views.
Let us not be superstitious in our high concept about the writings of antiquity. If we exclude fictitious speeches from the immortal creation of Thucydides, what remains? A naked story about the internecine strife of the Greek cities: the crowds are villainous, slaughtered for the honor of Athens or Sparta, as we have for the honor of Monomakhov or Oleg's house. There is not much difference, if we forget that these half-tigers spoke the language of Homer, had Sophocles' Tragedies and statues of Phidias. Does the thoughtful painter Tacitus always present us with the great, the striking? With tenderness we look at Agrippina, carrying the ashes of Germanicus; with pity for the bones and armor of the Varov Legion scattered in the forest; with horror at the bloody feast of the frantic Romans, illuminated by the flames of the Capitol; with disgust at the monster of tyranny, devouring the remnants of the Republican virtues in the capital of the world: but the boring litigation of cities for the right to have a priest in this or that temple and the dry Obituary of Roman officials occupy many pages in Tacitus. He envied Titus Livius for the richness of the subject; and Livy, smooth, eloquent, sometimes fills entire books with news of clashes and robberies, which are hardly more important than the Polovtsian raids. In a word, reading all the Stories requires some patience, more or less rewarded with pleasure.
The historian of Russia could, of course, having said a few words about the origin of its main people, about the composition of the State, present the important, most memorable features of antiquity in a skillful manner. picture and start detailed a narrative from the time of John, or from the fifteenth century, when one of the greatest state works in the world took place: he would easily have written 200 or 300 eloquent, pleasant pages, instead of many books, difficult for the Author, tedious for the Reader. But these reviews, these paintings do not replace chronicles, and whoever read only Robertson's Introduction to the History of Charles V does not yet have a solid, true concept about Europe in the Middle Ages. Little that smart man, glancing over the monuments of centuries, will tell us his notes: we ourselves must see the actions and those who act - then we know History. Will the boastfulness of the Author's eloquence and the bliss of the Readers condemn the deeds and fate of our ancestors to eternal oblivion? They suffered, and with their misfortunes they made our greatness, and we do not want to hear about it, nor know whom they loved, whom they blamed for their misfortunes? Foreigners can miss what is boring for them in our ancient history; but aren't good Russians obliged to have more patience, following the rule of state morality, which puts respect for ancestors in the dignity of an educated citizen? .. So I thought, and wrote about Igor, about Vsevolodakh, as contemporary looking at them in a dim mirror ancient Chronicle with tireless attention, with sincere reverence; and if, instead of alive, whole images represented only shadows, in excerpts, then it is not my fault: I could not supplement the Chronicles!
There is three kind of history: first modern, for example, Thukidides, where an obvious witness speaks of incidents; second, like Tacitov, is based on fresh verbal traditions at a time close to the described actions; third extracted only from monuments, like ours until the 18th century. (Only with Peter the Great do verbal traditions begin for us: we heard from our fathers and grandfathers about him, about Catherine I, Peter II, Anna, Elizabeth a lot that is not in the books. (Hereinafter, notes by N. M. Karamzin are marked. )) AT first and second the mind shines, the imagination of the Writer, who chooses the most curious, blooms, decorates, sometimes creates without fear of reproof; will say: i saw it that way, so heard- and silent Criticism does not prevent the Reader from enjoying the beautiful descriptions. The third the genus is the most limited for talent: not a single trait can be added to the known; one cannot question the dead; we say that our contemporaries have betrayed us; we are silent if they kept silent - or fair Criticism will block the mouth of the frivolous Historian, who is obliged to represent only what has been preserved from centuries in the Chronicles, in the Archives. The ancients had the right to invent speeches in accordance with the nature of people, with circumstances: a right that is invaluable for true talents, and Livy, using it, enriched his books with the power of the mind, eloquence, and wise instructions. But we, contrary to the opinion of Abbot Mabley, cannot now ordain in History. New advances in reason have given us the clearest conception of its property and purpose; common sense established unaltered rules and forever excommunicated the Epistle from the Poem, from the flower gardens of eloquence, leaving the former to be a true mirror of the past, a true recall of the words really spoken by the Heroes of the ages. The most beautiful fictitious speech will disgrace the History, dedicated not to the glory of the Writer, not to the pleasure of the Readers, and not even to moralizing wisdom, but only to the truth, which already becomes a source of pleasure and benefit by itself. Both natural and Civil History does not tolerate fiction, depicting what is or was, and not what to be could. But History, they say, is filled with lies: let us say better that in it, as in human affairs, there is an admixture of lies, but the character of truth is always more or less preserved; and this is enough for us to compose for ourselves general concept about people and activities. The more exacting and stricter is Criticism; it is all the more impermissible for the Historian, for the benefit of his talent, to deceive conscientious Readers, to think and speak for the Heroes, who have long been silent in the graves. What is left for him, chained, so to speak, to the dry charters of antiquity? order, clarity, strength, painting. He creates from the given substance: he will not produce gold from copper, but he must also purify copper; must know the whole price and property; to reveal the great where it is hidden, and not to give the small the rights of the great. There is no object so poor that Art can no longer mark itself in it in a way pleasing to the mind.
Until now, the Ancients serve as models for us. No one has surpassed Livy in the beauty of the story, Tacitus in strength: that's the main thing! Knowledge of all the rights in the world, German learning, Voltaire's wit, not even Machiavele's deepest thought in the Historian can replace the talent to portray actions. The English are famous for Hume, the Germans for John Muller, and rightly so his Introduction, which can be called a Geological Poem): both are worthy co-workers of the Ancients, not imitators: for every century, every nation gives special colors to the skilful Writer of Genesis. “Do not imitate Tacitus, but write as he would write in your place!” There is a rule of Genius. Did Muller, often inserting moral apothegmas like Tacitus? Don't know; but this desire to shine with the mind, or seem profound, is almost contrary to true taste. The historian argues only in the explanation of cases, where his thoughts, as it were, complement the description. Note that these apothegms are for solid minds either semi-truths, or very ordinary truths that have no great price in History, where we look for actions and characters. There is skillful storytelling duty bytographer, but a good separate thought - gift: the reader demands the first and thanks for the second, when his demand has already been fulfilled. Didn't the prudent Hume also think so, sometimes very prolific in explaining the reasons, but to the point of avarice in thinking? The historian, whom we would call the most perfect of the New, were it not for shunned England, did not boast too much of impartiality and thus did not cool his elegant creation! In Thucydides we always see an Athenian Greek, in Libya we always see a Roman, and we are captivated by them, and we believe them. Feeling: we, our enlivens the narration - and just as a gross predilection, a consequence of a weak mind or a weak soul, is unbearable in the Historian, so love for the fatherland will give his brush heat, strength, charm. Where there is no love, there is no soul.
I turn to my work. Allowing myself no invention, I sought expressions in my mind, and thoughts only in monuments: I sought spirit and life in smoldering charters; I wanted to unite what has been given to us for centuries into a system, clear by the harmonious convergence of parts; depicted not only the disasters and glory of war, but everything that is part of the civil existence of people: the successes of reason, art, customs, laws, industry; was not afraid to speak with dignity about what was respected by the ancestors; wanted, without betraying his age, without pride and ridicule, to describe the ages of spiritual infancy, gullibility, fables; I wanted to present both the character of the time and the character of the Chroniclers: for one seemed to me necessary for the other. The less news I found, the more I valued and used what I found; the less he chose: for it is not the poor, but the rich who elect. It was necessary either to say nothing, or to say everything about such and such a Prince, so that he would live in our memory not with one dry name, but with a certain moral physiognomy. Diligently exhausting ancient materials Russian History, I encouraged myself with the thought that in the narrative of distant times there is some inexplicable charm for our imagination: there are the sources of Poetry! Our gaze, in contemplation of the great space, does not usually strive - past everything close, clear - to the end of the horizon, where the shadows thicken, grow dim and impenetrability begins?
The reader will notice that I am describing the acts not apart, by years and days, but copulating them for the most comfortable impression in memory. The historian is not a chronicler: the latter looks only at time, and the former at the quality and connection of deeds: he can make a mistake in the distribution of places, but he must indicate his place to everything.
The multitude of notes and extracts I have made terrifies me myself. Happy the Ancients: they did not know this petty labor, in which half the time is lost, the mind is bored, the imagination withers: a painful sacrifice made credibility but necessary! If all the materials in our country were collected, published, purified by Criticism, then I would only have to refer; but when most of them are in manuscript, in the dark; when hardly anything has been processed, explained, agreed upon, one must arm oneself with patience. It is up to the Reader to look into this motley mixture, which sometimes serves as evidence, sometimes as an explanation or addition. For hunters, everything is curious: an old name, a word; the slightest feature of antiquity gives rise to considerations. Since the 15th century, I have been writing less: the sources are multiplying and becoming clearer.
A learned and glorious man, Schlozer, said that our history has five main periods; that Russia from 862 to Svyatopolk should be called nascent(Nascens), from Yaroslav to the Mughals divided(Divisa), from Batu to John oppressed(Oppressa), from John to Peter the Great victorious(Victrix), from Peter to Catherine II prosperous. This idea seems to me more witty than solid. 1) The age of St. Vladimir was already the age of power and glory, and not of birth. 2) State shared before 1015. 3) If by internal state and the external actions of Russia must be marked by periods, then is it possible to mix at one time the Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich and the Donskoy, silent slavery with victory and glory? 4) The Age of Pretenders is marked more by misfortune than by victory. Much better, truer, more modest, our history is divided into ancient from Rurik to, on middle from John to Peter, and new from Peter to Alexander. The Destiny system was a character first era, unanimity - second, change in civil customs - third. However, there is no need to set limits where the places serve as a living tract.
With willingness and zeal, having devoted twelve years, and the best time my life, for the composition of these eight or nine volumes, I can weakly desire praise and fear condemnation; but I dare say that this is not the main thing for me. Love of glory alone could not give me the constant, long-term firmness necessary in such a matter, if I did not find true pleasure in the work itself and had no hope of being useful, that is, of making Russian History known to many, even to my strict judges. .
Thanks to everyone, both the living and the dead, whose intelligence, knowledge, talents, art served as a guide to me, I entrust myself to the indulgence of good fellow citizens. We love one thing, we desire one thing: we love the fatherland; we wish him prosperity even more than glory; we wish that the firm foundation of our greatness never change; Yes, the rules of the wise Autocracy and the Holy Faith more and more strengthen the union of the parts; may Russia bloom... at least for a long, long time, if there is nothing immortal on earth except the human soul!
December 7, 1815.
On the sources of Russian history before the 17th century
These sources are:
I. Chronicles. Nestor, monk of the Monastery of Kiev Pechersk, nicknamed father Russian History, lived in the XI century: gifted with a curious mind, he listened with attention to the oral traditions of antiquity, folk historical tales; I saw the monuments, the graves of the Princes; talked with the nobles, the elders of Kyiv, travelers, residents of other regions of Russia; read the Byzantine Chronicles, church notes and became first chronicler of our fatherland. Second, named Vasily, also lived at the end of the 11th century: used Vladimir Prince David in negotiations with the unfortunate Vasilko, described to us the generosity of the latter and other modern deeds southwestern Russia. All other chroniclers remained for us nameless; one can only guess where and when they lived: for example, one in Novgorod, Priest, consecrated by Bishop Nifont in 1144; another in Vladimir on the Klyazma under Vsevolod the Great; the third in Kyiv, a contemporary of Rurik II; the fourth in Volhynia around 1290; the fifth at the same time in Pskov. Unfortunately, they did not say everything that is curious for posterity; but, fortunately, they did not invent, and the most reliable of the Chroniclers of foreign countries agree with them. This almost uninterrupted chain of Chronicles goes up to the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. Some of them have not yet been published or have been printed very incorrectly. I was looking for ancient lists: the best of Nestor and his successors are charatees, Pushkin and Trinity, XIV and XV centuries. Notes are also worthy. Ipatiev, Khlebnikov, Koenigsberg, Rostov, Voskresensky, Lvov, Arkhivsky. In each of them there is something special and truly historical, introduced, as one might think, by contemporaries or from their notes. Nikonovsky most distorted by insertions of meaningless scribes, but in the XIV century he reports probable additional news about the Tver Principality, then it already resembles others, yielding to them, however, in good condition, - for example, Arkhivsky.
II. power book, composed in the reign of Ivan the Terrible according to the thought and instruction of Metropolitan Macarius. It is a selection from the annals with some additions, more or less reliable, and is called by this name for what is indicated in it. degrees, or generations of sovereigns.
III. So called Chronographs, or General history according to the Byzantine Chronicles, with the introduction of our own, very brief. They have been curious since the 17th century: there are already many detailed contemporary news that is not in the annals.
IV. Lives of the Saints, in patericon, in prologues, in menaias, in special manuscripts. Many of these biographies were written in modern times; some, however, for example, St. Vladimir, Boris and Gleb, Theodosius, are in the charate Prologues; and the Patericon was composed in the thirteenth century.
v. Special writings: for example, the legend of Dovmont of Pskov, Alexander Nevsky; contemporary notes by Kurbsky and Palitsyn; news about the Pskov siege in 1581, about Metropolitan Philip, and so on.
VI. Discharges, or the distribution of governors and regiments: start from the time. These handwritten books are not rare.
VII. Pedigree book: there is printed; the most correct and complete, written in 1660, is stored in the Synodal Library.
VIII. Written Catalogs of metropolitans and bishops. - These two sources are not very reliable; they need to be compared with the annals.
IX. Epistles of the Saints to princes, clergy and laity; the most important of these is the Epistle to Shemyaka; but in others there is much to remember.
X. The Ancients coins, medals, inscriptions, fairy tales, songs, proverbs: the source is scarce, but not completely useless.
XI. Certificates. The oldest authentic writing was written around 1125. Archival New Year's letters and soul records princes begin from the XIII century; this source is already rich, but there is still much richer.
XII. collection of so-called Article lists, or Embassy Affairs, and letters in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium from the 15th century, when both incidents and methods for describing them give the Reader the right to demand even greater satisfaction from the Historian. - They are added to this property of ours.
XIII. Foreign contemporary chronicles: Byzantine, Scandinavian, German, Hungarian, Polish, along with the news of travelers.
XIV. Government papers foreign archives : most of all I used extracts from Koenigsberg.
Here are the materials of History and the subject of Historical Criticism!
Genre: ,
Language:Publisher:
Publication city: Moscow
The year of publishing:
ISBN: 978-5-373-04665-7 The size: 45 MB
Description
In the proposed edition, the reader can get acquainted with the most interesting episodes of the "History of the Russian State", written by the writer and historiographer N.M. historical material. Karamzin devoted over two decades to his multi-volume book. In 1816–1829 it was first published and Russian society with great interest got acquainted with the history of his own country.
But five years before the start of the publication of the "History", in 1811, at the request of the sister of Emperor Alexander, Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, Karamzin creates a treatise (Note) “On the ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations". Emphasizing that “the present is a consequence of the past,” Karamzin analyzes the events of Russian life and evaluates the results of the ten-year activity of Alexander I. This assessment was quite critical, and, obviously, therefore, Karamzin’s treatise was not published in the 19th century .. More than a hundred years have passed, before he saw the light. We present this interesting document Karamzin for the information of readers.
The book is richly illustrated, which creates a more voluminous idea of the events and heroes of the era described.
For those who are interested in the history of our Motherland, for the general reader.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin
"History of Russian Goverment"
Foreword
History is, in a certain sense, the sacred book of nations: the main, necessary; a mirror of their being and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the covenant of ancestors to posterity; addition, explanation of the present and an example of the future.
Rulers, Legislators act according to the instructions of History and look at its sheets, like navigators look at the blueprints of the seas. Human wisdom needs experiments, but life is short-lived. One must know how from time immemorial rebellious passions agitated civil society and in what ways the beneficent power of the mind curbed their stormy striving in order to establish order, agree on the benefits of people and bestow on them the happiness possible on earth.
But even a simple citizen should read History. She reconciles him with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with an ordinary phenomenon in all ages; consoles in state disasters, testifying that there have been similar ones before, there have been even more terrible ones, and the State has not been destroyed; it nourishes a moral sense and with its righteous judgment disposes the soul to justice, which affirms our good and the consent of society.
Here is the benefit: what pleasures for the heart and mind! Curiosity is akin to man, both enlightened and wild. At the glorious Olympic Games, the noise was silent, and the crowds were silent around Herodotus, who was reading the traditions of the ages. Even without knowing the use of letters, the peoples already love History: the elder points the young man to a high grave and tells about the deeds of the Hero lying in it. The first experiments of our ancestors in the art of writing were devoted to the Faith and the Scriptures; darkened by the thick shadow of ignorance, the people eagerly listened to the tales of the Chroniclers. And I like fiction; but for complete pleasure one must deceive oneself and think that they are the truth. History, opening the tombs, raising the dead, putting life into their hearts and words into their mouths, rebuilding the Kingdoms from decay, and presenting to the imagination a series of centuries with their distinct passions, morals, deeds, expands the limits of our own being; By its creative power we live with people of all times, we see and hear them, we love and hate them; not yet thinking about the benefit, we already enjoy the contemplation of diverse cases and characters that occupy the mind or nourish the sensitivity.
If any History, even unskillfully written, is pleasant, as Pliny says: all the more domestic. The true Cosmopolitan is a metaphysical being or a phenomenon so extraordinary that there is no need to talk about him, neither praise nor condemn him. We are all citizens, in Europe and in India, in Mexico and in Abyssinia; the personality of each is closely connected with the fatherland: we love it, because we love ourselves. Let the Greeks and Romans captivate the imagination: they belong to the family of the human race and are not strangers to us in their virtues and weaknesses, glory and disasters; but the name Russian has a special charm for us: my heart beats even stronger for Pozharsky than for Themistocles or Scipio. World History adorns the world with great memories for the mind, and Russian adorns the fatherland, where we live and feel. How attractive are the banks of the Volkhov, Dnieper, Don, when we know what happened on them in ancient times! Not only Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir, but also the huts of Yelets, Kozelsk, Galich become curious monuments and mute objects - eloquent. The shadows of past centuries paint pictures everywhere before us.
In addition to a special dignity for us, the sons of Russia, her chronicles have something in common. Let's take a look at the space of this only Power: the thought becomes numb; Never in its grandeur could Rome equal it, dominating from the Tiber to the Caucasus, the Elbe and the sands of Africa. Isn't it amazing how lands separated by eternal barriers of nature, immeasurable deserts and impenetrable forests, cold and hot climates, like Astrakhan and Lapland, Siberia and Bessarabia, could form one State with Moscow? Is the mixture of its inhabitants, of different tribes, varieties, and so remote from each other in degrees of education, less wonderful? Like America, Russia has its Wilds; like other European countries, it is the fruits of a long-term civil life. You don’t have to be Russian: you just need to think in order to read with curiosity the traditions of a people who, with courage and courage, gained dominance over a ninth part of the world, discovered countries hitherto unknown to anyone, introducing them into the general system of Geography, History, and enlightened them with Divine Faith, without violence , without the atrocities used by other zealots of Christianity in Europe and America, but the only example of the best.
We agree that the deeds described by Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, for any non-Russian in general, are more entertaining, representing more spiritual strength and a livelier play of passions: for Greece and Rome were popular Powers and more enlightened than Russia; however, we can safely say that some cases, pictures, characters of our history are no less curious than ancient ones. Such are the essence of the exploits of Svyatoslav, the thunderstorm of Batyev, the uprising of the Russians at the Donskoy, the fall of Novgorod, the capture of Kazan, the triumph of popular virtues during the Interregnum. Giants of dusk, Oleg and son Igorev; the simple-hearted knight, the blind man Vasilko; friend of the fatherland, philanthropic Monomakh; Mstislav Brave, terrible in battle and an example of gentleness in the world; Mikhail of Tver, so famous for his generous death, the ill-fated, truly courageous, Alexander Nevsky; The hero is a young man, the winner of Mamaev, in the lightest outline, they strongly affect the imagination and heart. One reign of John III is a rare wealth for history: at least I do not know a Monarch worthy to live and shine in her sanctuary. The rays of his glory fall on the cradle of Peter - and between these two Autocrats is the amazing John IV, Godunov, worthy of his happiness and misfortune, the strange False Dmitry, and behind the host of valiant Patriots, Boyars and citizens, the mentor of the throne, the High Hierarch Filaret with the Sovereign son, the light-bearer in the darkness our state disasters, and Tsar Alexy, the wise father of the Emperor, whom Europe called the Great. Either the entire New History should remain silent, or the Russian should have the right to attention.
I know that the battles of our specific civil strife, thundering incessantly in the space of five centuries, are of little importance for the mind; that this subject is neither rich in thought for the Pragmatist, nor in beauty for the painter; but History is not a novel, and the world is not a garden where everything should be pleasant: it depicts the real world. We see majestic mountains and waterfalls on earth, flowering meadows and valleys; but how many barren sands and dull steppes! However, traveling in general is kind to a person with a lively feeling and imagination; in the very deserts there are charming views.
Let us not be superstitious in our lofty conception of the Ancient Scriptures. If we exclude fictitious speeches from the immortal creation of Thucydides, what remains? A naked story about the internecine strife of the Greek cities: the crowds are villainous, slaughtered for the honor of Athens or Sparta, as we have for the honor of Monomakhov or Oleg's house. There is not much difference, if we forget that these half-tigers spoke the language of Homer, had Sophocles' Tragedies and statues of Phidias. Does the thoughtful painter Tacitus always present us with the great, the striking? With tenderness we look at Agrippina, carrying the ashes of Germanicus; with pity for the bones and armor of the Varov Legion scattered in the forest; with horror at the bloody feast of the frantic Romans, illuminated by the flames of the Capitol; with disgust at the monster of tyranny, devouring the remnants of the Republican virtues in the capital of the world: but the boring litigation of cities for the right to have a priest in this or that temple and the dry Obituary of Roman officials occupy many pages in Tacitus. He envied Titus Livius for the richness of the subject; and Livy, smooth, eloquent, sometimes fills entire books with news of clashes and robberies, which are hardly more important than the Polovtsian raids. - In a word, reading all the Stories requires some patience, more or less rewarded with pleasure.
The historian of Russia could, of course, having said a few words about the origin of its main people, about the composition of the State, present the important, most memorable features of antiquity in a skillful manner. picture and start detailed a narrative from the time of John, or from the fifteenth century, when one of the greatest state works in the world took place: he would easily have written 200 or 300 eloquent, pleasant pages, instead of many books, difficult for the Author, tedious for the Reader. But these reviews, these paintings do not replace the annals, and whoever read only Robertson's Introduction to the History of Charles V does not yet have a solid, true understanding of Europe in the Middle Ages. It is not enough that an intelligent person, looking over the monuments of centuries, will tell us his notes: we ourselves must see the actions and those who act - then we know History. Will the boastfulness of the Author's eloquence and the bliss of the Readers condemn the deeds and fate of our ancestors to eternal oblivion? They suffered, and with their misfortunes they made our greatness, and we do not want to hear about it, nor know whom they loved, whom they blamed for their misfortunes? Foreigners may miss what is boring to them in our ancient History; but aren't good Russians obliged to have more patience, following the rule of state morality, which puts respect for ancestors in the dignity of an educated citizen? .. So I thought, and wrote about Igor, about Vsevolodakh, as contemporary looking at them in the dim mirror of the ancient Chronicle with tireless attention, with sincere reverence; and if, instead of alive, whole images represented only shadows, in excerpts, then it is not my fault: I could not supplement the Chronicles!
At the very beginning of his reign, Emperor Alexander I appointed Nikolai Karamzin as his official historiographer. All his life Karamzin will work on the "History of the Russian State". This work was appreciated by Pushkin himself, but Karamzin's story is far from flawless.
Ukraine - the birthplace of the horse
"Siya great part Europe and Asia, now called Russia, in its temperate climates was from time immemorial inhabited, but by wild peoples, plunged into the depths of ignorance, who did not mark their existence with any of their own. historical monuments”, - Karamzin’s narrative begins with these words and already contains an error.
The contribution made by the tribes that inhabited in ancient times the south of modern Karamzin Russia, in general development humanity is hard to overestimate. Great amount modern data indicates that in the territories of present-day Ukraine in the period from 3500 to 4000 BC. e. For the first time in world history, the domestication of the horse took place.
This is probably the most forgivable mistake of Karamzin, because more than a century remained before the invention of genetics. When Nikolai Mikhailovich began his work, he could not possibly have known that all the horses in the world, from Australia and both Americas to Europe and Africa, are distant descendants of horses with whom our not-so-wild and ignorant ancestors “made friends” in the Black Sea steppes.
Norman theory
As you know, The Tale of Bygone Years, one of the main historical sources on which Karamzin relies in his work, begins with a lengthy introductory part from biblical times, which inscribes the history of the Slavic tribes in a general historical context. And only then Nestor sets out the concept of origin Russian statehood, which will be called " Norman theory».
According to this concept, Russian tribes originate from Viking times Scandinavia. Karamzin omits the biblical part of the "Tale", but repeats the main provisions of the "Norman theory". Disputes around this theory began before Karamzin and continued after. Many influential historians either completely denied the “Varangian origin” of the Russian state, or assessed its degree and role in a completely different way, especially in terms of the “voluntary” calling of the Varangians.
AT this moment among scientists, the opinion has strengthened that, at least, everything is not so simple. Karamzin's apologetic and uncritical repetition of the Norman Theory looks, if not an obvious mistake, then an obvious historical simplification.
Ancient, Middle and New
In his multi-volume work and scientific controversy, Karamzin proposed own concept dividing the history of Russia into periods: “Our history is divided into the Ancient, from Rurik to John III, the Middle, from John to Peter, and the New, from Peter to Alexander. The system of destinies was the character of the first era, autocracy - the second, the change in civil customs - the third.
Despite some positive feedback and support from such prominent historians as, for example, S.M. Solovyov, Karamzin's periodization was not established in national historiography, and the initial prerequisites for division were recognized as erroneous and non-working.
Khazar Khaganate
In connection with the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, the history of Judaism is of great interest to scholars in different parts of the world, because any new knowledge on this topic is literally a matter of "war and peace." All more attention historians is given to the Khazar Khaganate - a powerful Jewish state that existed in Eastern Europe, which had a significant impact on Kievan Rus.
On the background contemporary research and our knowledge on this topic, the description of the Khazar Khaganate in Karamzin's work looks like a dark spot. In fact, Karamzin simply bypasses the problem of the Khazars, thereby denying the degree of influence and significance of their cultural ties co Slavic tribes and states.
"Fiery Romantic Passion"
The son of his age, Karamzin looked at history as a poem written in prose. In his descriptions of the ancient Russian princes feature looks like what one of the critics will call "ardent romantic passion."
Terrible villainy, accompanied by no less terrible atrocities, committed quite in the spirit of his time, Karamzin describes as Christmas carols, they say, well, yes - the pagans have sinned, but they have repented. In the first volumes of the "History of the Russian State" there are rather not really historical, but literary characters as Karamzin saw them, firmly standing on a monarchist, conservative-protective position.
Tatar-Mongol yoke
Karamzin did not use the phrase "Tatar-Mongols", in his books either "Tatars" or "Mongols", but the term "yoke" is an invention of Karamzin. For the first time this term appeared 150 years after the official end of the invasion in Polish sources. Karamzin transplanted him to Russian soil, thereby planting a time bomb. Almost 200 years have passed, and the disputes of historians still do not subside: was there a yoke or not? and what was, can be considered a yoke? what is it all about?
There is no doubt about the first, aggressive campaign against Russian lands, the ruin of many cities and the establishment of vassalage. specific principalities from the Mongols. But for feudal Europe of those years, the fact that a signor could be of a different nationality, by and large, is a common practice.
The very concept of “yoke” implies the existence of a certain single Russian national and almost state space, which was conquered and enslaved by the interventionists, with whom a stubborn struggle is being waged. liberation war. AT this case this seems to be at least somewhat of an exaggeration.
And Karamzin’s assessment of the consequences of Mongol invasion: “The Russians came out from under the yoke, more with a European than an Asian character. Europe did not recognize us: but for the fact that it has changed in these 250 years, and we have remained as we were.
Karamzin gives a categorically negative answer to the question he himself posed: “The domination of the Mongols, except harmful effects for morality, whether it left any other traces in folk customs, in civil law, in domestic life, in the language of Russians? “No,” he writes.
Actually, of course, yes.
King Herod
In the previous paragraphs, we talked mainly about the conceptual errors of Karamzin. But there is also one big factual inaccuracy in his essay, which had big consequences and influence on Russian and world culture.
"No no! You can’t pray for Tsar Herod - the Mother of God does not order, ”the holy fool sings in Mussorgsky’s opera“ Boris Godunov ”to the text of the drama of the same name by A.S. Pushkin. Tsar Boris recoils in horror from the holy fool, indirectly admitting to committing a crime - the murder of the legitimate heir to the throne, the son of the seventh wife of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the teenage prince Dmitry.
Dmitry died in Uglich, under unclear circumstances. The official investigation was conducted by the boyar Vasily Shuisky. The verdict is an accident. The death of Dmitry was beneficial to Godunov, as it cleared the way for him to the throne. Popular rumor did not believe in official version, and then several impostors, False Dmitriev, appeared in Russian history, claiming that there was no death either: “Dmitry survived, I am it.”
In The History of the Russian State, Karamzin directly accuses Godunov of organizing Dmitry's murder. Pushkin will pick up the version of the murder, then Mussorgsky will write a brilliant opera, which will be staged at all the largest theater venues in the world. With light hand galaxy of Russian geniuses Boris Godunov will become the second most famous King Herod in world history.
The first timid publications in defense of Godunov would appear during the lifetime of Karamzin and Pushkin. At the moment, his innocence has been proven by historians: Dmitry really died in an accident. However, this will not change anything in the public mind.
The episode with the unfair accusation and subsequent rehabilitation of Godunov is, in a sense, a brilliant metaphor for the entire work of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin: a brilliant artistic concept and fiction sometimes turns out to be higher than the chicane truth of facts, documents and authentic testimonies of contemporaries.
Karamzin, Nikolai Mikhailovich - famous Russian writer, journalist and historian. Born December 1, 1766 in Simbirsk province; grew up in the village of his father, a Simbirsk landowner. The first spiritual food of an 8-9-year-old boy was old novels, which developed natural sensitivity in him. Already then, like the hero of one of his stories, "he loved to be sad, not knowing what," and "could play with his imagination for two hours and build castles in the air." In the 14th year, Karamzin was brought to Moscow and sent to the boarding school of the Moscow professor Shaden; he also attended the university, where one could then learn "if not the sciences, then Russian literacy."
He owed Shaden a practical acquaintance with German and French. After finishing his studies with Shaden, Karamzin hesitated for some time in his choice of activity. In 1783, he tries to enter the military service, where he was enrolled as a minor, but at the same time he retires and in 1784 is fond of secular successes in the society of the city of Simbirsk. At the end of the same year, Karamzin returned to Moscow and, through his countryman, I.P. Turgenev, draws closer to Novikov's circle. Here began, according to Dmitriev, "Karamzin's education, not only the author's, but also moral." The influence of the circle lasted 4 years (1785 - 88). Serious work on oneself, which Freemasonry demanded, and which Karamzin's closest friend, Petrov, was so absorbed in, is not noticeable in Karamzin, however. From May 1789 to September 1790, he traveled around Germany, Switzerland, France and England, stopping mainly in big cities like Berlin, Leipzig, Geneva, Paris, London. Returning to Moscow, Karamzin began to publish the Moscow Journal (see below), where Letters from a Russian Traveler appeared. The Moscow Journal ceased in 1792, perhaps not without connection with the imprisonment of Novikov in the fortress and the persecution of Masons. Although Karamzin, starting the Moscow Journal, formally excluded articles "theological and mystical" from his program, but after Novikov's arrest (and before the final verdict) he published a rather bold ode: "To Mercy" ("As long as a citizen is calm, without fear he can fall asleep, and freely dispose of life to all your subjects; ... as long as you give freedom to everyone and do not darken the minds of light; as long as the power of attorney to the people is visible in all your affairs: until then you will be sacredly revered ... nothing can disturb the tranquility of your state ") and hardly did not come under investigation on suspicion that the Masons sent him abroad. Most Karamzin spent 1793-1795 in the village and prepared two collections here called "Aglaya", published in the autumn of 1793 and 1794. In 1795, Karamzin limited himself to compiling a "mixture" in the Moscow Vedomosti. "Having lost the will to walk under black clouds," he set out into the world and led a rather dispersed life. In 1796, he published a collection of poems by Russian poets, entitled "Aonides". A year later, the second book "Aonid" appeared; then Karamzin decided to publish something like an anthology foreign literature("Pantheon of Foreign Literature"). By the end of 1798, Karamzin had barely gotten his "Pantheon" through the censorship, which forbade the publication of Demosthenes, Cicero, Sallust, etc., because they were republicans. Even a simple reprint of Karamzin's old works met with difficulties from the side of censorship. Thirty-year-old Karamzin apologizes to readers for the ardor of feelings of the “young, inexperienced Russian traveler” and writes to one of his friends: “There is a time for everything, and the scenes change. dreams… So soon poor muse mine will either retire completely, or ... will translate Kant's metaphysics with the Platonic Republic into verse. "Metaphysics, however, was just as alien to Karamzin's mental make-up as was mysticism.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
VOLUME I
Chapter I. About the peoples who have inhabited Russia since ancient times. About the Slavs in general.
Chapter II. About the Slavs and other peoples who made up the Russian State.
Chapter III. about the physical and moral character ancient Slavs.
Chapter IV. Rurik, Sineus and Trubor. 862-879
Chapter V. Oleg - Ruler. 879-912
Chapter VI. Prince Igor. 912-945
Chapter VII. Prince Svyatoslav. 945-972
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Yaropolk. 972-980
Chapter IX. Grand Duke Vladimir, named Vasily in baptism. 980-1014
Chapter X. On the state of Ancient Russia.
VOLUME II
Chapter I. Grand Duke Svyatopolk. 1015-1019
Chapter II. Grand Duke Yaroslav, or George. 1019-1054
Chapter III. Russian Truth, or Laws of Yaroslavna.
Chapter IV. Grand Duke Izyaslav, named Dmitry in baptism. 1054-1077
Chapter V. Grand Duke Vsevolod. 1078-1093
Chapter VI. Grand Duke Svyatopolk - Mikhail. 1093-1112
Chapter VII. Vladimir Monomakh, named Vasily in baptism. 1113-1125
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke Mstislav. 1125-1132
Chapter IX. Grand Duke Yaropolk. 1132-1139
Chapter X. Grand Duke Vsevolod Olgovich. 1139-1146
Chapter XI. Grand Duke Igor Olgovich.
Chapter XII. Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavovich. 1146-1154
Chapter XIII. Grand Duke Rostislav-Mikhail Mstislavovich. 1154-1155
Chapter XIV. Grand Duke George, or Yuri Vladimirovich, nicknamed Dolgoruky. 1155-1157
Chapter XV. Grand Duke Izyaslav Davidovich of Kyiv. Prince Andrei of Suzdal, nicknamed Bogolyubsky. 1157-1159
Chapter XVI. Grand Duke Svyatopolk - Mikhail.
Chapter XVII. Vladimir Monomakh, named Vasily in baptism.
VOLUME III
Chapter I. Grand Duke Andrei. 1169-1174
Chapter II. Grand Duke Michael II [Georgievich]. 1174-1176
Chapter III. Grand Duke Vsevolod III Georgievich. 1176-1212
Chapter IV. George, Prince of Vladimir. Konstantin Rostovsky. 1212-1216
Chapter V. Konstantin, Grand Duke of Vladimir and Suzdal. 1216-1219
Chapter VI. Grand Duke George II Vsevolodovich. 1219-1224
Chapter VII. State of Russia from the 11th to the 13th centuries.
Chapter VIII. Grand Duke George Vsevolodovich. 1224-1238
VOLUME IV
Chapter I. Grand Duke Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich. 1238-1247
Chapter II. Grand Dukes Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Andrei Yaroslavich and Alexander Nevsky (one after the other). 1247-1263
Chapter III. Grand Duke Yaroslav Yaroslavich. 1263-1272
Chapter IV. Grand Duke Vasily Yaroslavich. 1272-1276
Chapter V. Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich. 1276-1294
Chapter VI. Grand Duke Andrei Alexandrovich. 1294 -1304
Chapter VII. Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich. 1304-1319
Chapter VIII. Grand Dukes Georgy Daniilovich, Dimitri and Alexander Mikhailovich. (one after the other). 1319-1328
Chapter IX. Grand Duke John Daniilovich, nicknamed Kalita. 1328-1340
Chapter X. Grand Duke Simeon Ioannovich, nicknamed the Proud. 1340-1353
Chapter XI. Grand Duke John II Ioannovich. 1353-1359
Chapter XII. Grand Duke Dimitry Konstantinovich. 1359-1362
VOLUME V
Chapter I. Grand Duke Dimitry Ioannovich, nicknamed the Don. 1363-1389
Chapter II. Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich. 1389-1425
Chapter III. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich Dark. 1425-1462
Chapter IV. The state of Russia from the invasion of the Tatars to John III.
VOLUME VI
Chapter I. Sovereign, Sovereign Grand Duke John III Vasilyevich. 1462-1472
Chapter II. Continuation of the state of John. 1472-1477
Chapter III. Continuation of the state of John. 1475-1481
Chapter IV. Continuation of the state of John. 1480-1490
Chapter V. The continuation of the state of John. 1491-1496
Chapter VI. Continuation of the state of John. 1495-1503
Chapter VII. Continuation of the reign of John. 1503-1505
VOLUME VII
Chapter I. Sovereign Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich. 1505-1509
Chapter II. Continuation of the state Vasiliev. 1510-1521
Chapter III. Continuation of the state Vasiliev. 1521-1534
Chapter IV. State of Russia. 1462-1533
VOLUME VIII
Chapter I. Grand Duke and Tsar John IV Vasilyevich II. 1533-1538
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of John IV. 1538-1547
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of John IV. 1546-1552
Chapter IV. Continuation of the reign of John IV. 1552
Chapter V. The continuation of the reign of John IV. 1552-1560
VOLUME IX
Chapter I. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1560-1564
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1563-1569
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1569-1572
Chapter IV. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1572-1577
Chapter V. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1577-1582
Chapter VI. The first conquest of Siberia. 1581-1584
Chapter VII. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. 1582-1584
VOL X
Chapter I. The reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1584-1587
Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1587-1592
Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1591-1598
Chapter IV. The state of Russia in late XVI century.
VOLUME XI
Chapter I. The reign of Boris Godunov. 1598-1604
Chapter II. Continuation of Borisov's reign. 1600 -1605
Chapter III. The reign of Theodore Borisov. 1605
Chapter IV. The reign of False Dmitry. 1605-1606
VOLUME XII
