Karamzin’s attitude to the political transformations of the era of Alexander I. What is the reason for Karamzin’s appeal to the past

The historical basis of the story by N.M. Karamzin "Natalia, the boyar's daughter"

What caused Karamzin’s appeal to the historical past of the people in the story “Natalya, the Boyar’s Daughter”?

Hypothesis: Writers, seeing the injustice of their contemporary society, turned to the past to present readers with pictures of exemplary statehood.

Objectives: Find out in what era the writer lived. Find out what the historical basis of the story is. Understand why the author turned specifically to the era of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich.

Work on the project Read the text of the story. IN historical encyclopedia read about the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. We found material about the era of the reign of Catherine II. They found portraits of the Tsar, Empress, boyars, peasants, paintings of “golden-domed Moscow” and its environs. We found out who the boyars were.

Characteristics of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich “The Tsar cared only about the well-being of his subjects, he was merciful and condescending” (lines from the article “Let’s reflect on what we read...” by literary critic, specialist in 18th-century literature I.V. Fedorov) “A kind-hearted, sensitive tsar...”, “ good sovereign”, “in the throne city of the glorious Russian kingdom”, “the sensitive tsar was touched to the depths of his heart”, “the tsar meets him (the messenger)... and with a trembling hand he unfolds the letter of the military leaders... The first word is “victory”! "Victory!" - he exclaims in joy." (From the story by N.M. Karamzin)

From " School encyclopedia» History of Russia Boyars – upper layer society in Rus' in the 10th - early 18th centuries, occupying a dominant position in public administration after the great princes and kings. In the 15th-17th centuries. boyar is the highest official rank in the Russian state among “service people in the fatherland.” The boyars were members of the Boyar Duma, occupied the highest court, state and judicial positions, and headed orders.

Portrait of boyar B.I. Prozorovsky (artist E. Grube. 1694) “The Tsar’s close associate was a faithful and useful adviser to him, did not use his position for selfish intrigue, did not plunder the state treasury, was a patron and “protector” of poor neighbors.” (Lines from the article “Let’s reflect on what we read...” by literary critic, specialist in 18th-century literature I.V. Fedorov) Boyarin Matvey (From N.M. Karamzin’s story “Natalia, the Boyar’s Daughter”)

“...boyar Matvey, the tsar’s faithful servant, faithful friend of humanity...” “boyar Matvey Andreev, a rich, intelligent man... according to Russian custom, a great hospitable man. He owned many estates and was not an offender, but a patron and protector of his poor neighbors... The Tsar called him his right eye, and his right eye never deceived the Tsar... When he (the Tsar) had to sort out an important litigation, he called upon the boyar Matvey to help him , and boyar Matvey, placing a clean hand on a pure heart, said: “This one is right... according to my conscience...” - and his conscience was always in agreement with the truth and the royal conscience” “...On every twelfth holiday long tables were set up in his upper rooms... and the boyar... invited all the poor people passing by to dine...” Characteristics of the boyar Matvey

How does Karamzin imagine a “model reign”? Comparison of the era of the reign of Catherine II and the era of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

The era of the reign of Catherine II The difficult situation of the serfs: “It is announced publicly... Which of the landowners wants to send their people to hard labor, accept them and use them in hard work for as long as the landowners want them...” (from the decree of Empress Catherine II ) Admiration for everything foreign: “I always give preference to their (the people) undercuts and fur coats over the current and all Gallo-Albion outfits” Raising youth in the spirit of contempt for the people, for the national culture, for the native language.

The era of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich “... the king cared only about the well-being of his subjects, he was merciful and condescending, where the attractive simplicity of morals contrasted favorably with the licentiousness and depravity of Catherine’s court...” (V.I. Fedorov) Education in the national spirit, in love for one’s people , in the spirit of piety and mercy: “Who among us does not love those times when the Russians were Russians, when they dressed up in their own dress, walked with their own gait... lived according to their custom, spoke... as they thought” (from the introduction to the story)

Comparison of two eras The era of Catherine II The difficult situation of the serfs. Admiration for everything foreign. Raising youth in a spirit of contempt for the people, national culture, and native language. The era of Alexei Mikhailovich Caring for his people. Purity of morals. Education in the national spirit, in love for one’s people and language.

Conclusion: “The picture of state humanity and justice in the story “Natalia, the Boyar’s Daughter” clearly showed Catherine II and her favorites what monarchs, the empress herself and their entourage should be like.” (V.I. Fedorov, specialist in 18th century literature)

What is the significance of the description of Moscow and its environs in the story? “...look at the golden-domed Moscow, from which the radiant day removed the foggy cover of the night and which, like some huge bird awakened by the voice of the morning, shook off the brilliant dew in the breeze - look at the Moscow surroundings, at the gloomy, thick, vast Maryina Grove, which, like gray, curly smoke, was lost from sight in an immeasurable distance and where everyone lived then wild animals north, where a terrible roar drowned out the melodies of the singing birds. On the other hand, Natalya’s gaze saw the sparkling bends of the Moscow River, flowering fields and smoking villages, from where hardworking villagers went to work with cheerful songs...”

Why does the author paint pictures of the life of ordinary Russian people? “...the villagers, who to this day have not changed in anything, dress the same way, live and work the same way as they lived and worked before, and among all the changes and disguises they still present to us the true Russian physiognomy..”

Solution to the problem: The writer’s appeal to the historical past of the Russian people was caused by the writer’s patriotic desire to fight gallomania, which at that time became widespread among the Russian nobility. In the story, the author painted a picture of a “model” monarchy.

Bibliography: Literature, textbook-reader, grade 8. - M.: Prosveshchenie, 2002. School encyclopedias "Russica": "History of Russia 9-18 centuries", "History of Russia 19-20 centuries." - M.: "OLMA" -PRESS Education", 2003 Russian historical magazine "Motherland" Evgeny Osetrov. Your Kremlin. Publishing house "Malysh", M. - 1974.

Thank you for your attention!

N.M. Karamzin is known to readers as a writer and historian. "History of the Russian State" was the main work last period the life of the writer, but in some of his earlier stories, he also refers to the history of Russia. The story “Natalya, the Boyar’s Daughter” is also based on historical material.

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th century, Gallomania - imitation of the lifestyle and customs of the French - became widespread in Russian society. N.M. Karamzin wanted to contrast this with the glorious historical past of Russia, as a patriot, trying to fight for the national identity of Russian life and Russian literature. In the introduction to the story, he says: “Who among us does not love those times when Russians were Russians, when they dressed up in their own clothes, walked with their own gait, lived according to their own customs, spoke... as they thought.”

It is impossible to say exactly whose reign and what era are depicted in the story. Everything is quite conventional, mention is made of riots and unrest that disturbed the well-being of the kingdom thirteen years before the events taking place. It is about a Muslim country somewhere in the Volga region, where Alexei’s father died. A war breaks out with the Lithuanians, ending in the victory of the Russian army. It’s not even clear what century this is, but for the author this doesn’t matter. He paints a picture of pre-Petrine Russia, where some ideal tsar rules. This king also has enemies and must deal with the intrigues of his subjects, but he is merciful and generous. He is fair and kind. The main thing for him is to establish the truth and take care of the well-being of his people. He trusts the boyar Matvey, calling him “his right eye.” Boyar Matvey resolves all disputes according to his conscience, and does not seek any privileges or benefits for himself personally. The author calls him “the protector of poor neighbors,” “ true friend humanity." This situation, of course, is contrasted with the century of Catherine II, where favorites took bribes and plundered the state treasury.

The war with the Lithuanians causes a surge of patriotism among the entire people. People are ready to “die or conquer.” Such feelings arise in moments of special danger for the Motherland, which later manifested themselves in the War of 1812. People left to fight, those who could not, prayed for the victory of the Russian troops. Moscow is empty. And how joyfully she then greets the winners! The people rejoice, praising the name of the king.

“Sentimentalism Karamzin” - Contents. Abandoned by Erast, Lisa committed suicide by throwing herself into a pond. Monuments to N.M. Karamzin. Here, according to Dmitriev, “Karamzin’s education began, not only as an author, but also as a moral one.” Liza not only speaks like a book, but also thinks. Conclusion Conclusion The significance of N.M.’s creativity Karamzin IV.

“The Past” - Our ancient capital. How does a person learn about the past? Coins found in ancient treasures will end up on the table of numismatists. Historical sources. But the findings must be made to speak. Restorers and numismatists. 5) Who restores antique items? * Archaeologists * Numismatists * Restorers. History is the science of the past: about distant and recent events in people's lives.

“Karamzin Natalya Boyar's Daughter” - What, from the author’s point of view, is the main value in life? Topics of student research: Teach how to briefly express your thoughts. Why does N.M. Karamzin refer to the historical past of the Russian people in his story? Interpretation of the theme: "Life of the heart." Learn to do linguistic and stylistic analysis of text.

“Karamzin Poor Liza” - For Karamzin, as a sentimentalist writer, feelings are more important and stronger than reason. The meaning of the Simonov Monastery in the story “Poor Liza.” In our progmatic age, reason (and even calculation) often wins. Joyful soul. Who main character stories? Helpful. A. S. Pushkin “Reason and Love.” Erast's frivolity.

“Boris Godunov Karamzin” - Negative characteristics. N.M. Karamzin “History of the Russian State” (1803 – 1826). “The reign of Boris Godunov was marked by the beginning of a rapprochement between Russia and the West. What a treasure for language, for poetry!” V.A. Zhukovsky. In foreign policy, Boris Godunov proved himself to be a talented diplomat.”

The year 1816 was a turning point in Karamzin’s life. At the beginning of it, on the historiographer’s desk lay eight neatly copied volumes of “History of the Russian State” - the result of many years of tireless work in Ostafyev near Moscow and in the filmed winter time Moscow apartment. The blue sheets of paper covered with calligraphic handwriting involuntarily attracted the eye, giving rise to a barely restrained desire again and again (once again!) to at least briefly review what was written, correct it, and add to it. Behind were the difficult days of the beginning of the work, in the name of which famous writer and the publicist left the usual activities for his admirers: publishing the popular magazine “Bulletin of Europe”, creating stories and novels. For 12 years Karamzin was devoted to working on “History,” a work of which only his friends had so far convinced him of its success. Overcoming family adversity, he moved step by step with enviable persistence to complete his plan. Years of vague worries about the fate of the homeland, and then the time of the real, felt and seen first-hand danger of losing its national independence passed away, but they again and again, often “taking” him from the past, forced him to reflect with renewed vigor on the amazing turns of modern history.

There was a glimmer of hope ahead. Europe wearily freed itself from fear of the seemingly invincible Napoleon. The Congress of Vienna in 1815, which once again raised concerns about European peace, ended with the “Holy Alliance” against the peoples of European monarchs, who pledged to prevent further events like the French Revolution. Accompanied by a stream of praise, with the aura of a “monarch-transformer” caring for the “welfare of his subjects,” Alexander I returned to Russia from the Congress of Vienna, solemnly thanking “all classes” for their courage and sacrifices in the last war, promising “prosperity” to his subjects, peace and peace of mind for the state. Burnt, unsettled Moscow, which greeted Karamzin in the fall of 1813 after being evacuated in Nizhny Novgorod with the cold silence of streets and squares, was gradually rebuilt in the style of the same space and disorder dear to his heart and spirit. The doors of the English Club reopened, music began to sound again in the salons of the Moscow and St. Petersburg nobility, who enthusiastically greeted the participants of foreign campaigns covered with the dust of European roads, the best of whom were already beginning to think and talk about the need for decisive changes in the life of the country. The historiographer wanted to believe that the future of the recent 20-30-year past would remain forever on the island of St. Helena, and that instead of revolutions, the star of enlightenment, order and wise political “prudence” would shine over the world.

Karamzin’s mood on the eve of a decisive turn in his life is depicted in the poem “The Liberation of Europe and the Glory of Alexander I” - one of the few poetic works written during the period of work on “History”, and in fact the last, most significant in this genre in his work 1. If we discard the pathos dictated by the laws of the genre, and conventions as a tribute to the requirements of the time, the ideas of this poem can be reduced to the following.

1 (Works of Karamzin. Pg., 1917. T. 1. P. 305 - 318.)

The “order and law” that reigned in the life of Europe were violated by Napoleon, the fruit of “desperate freedom”, the product of the French Revolution. A man with unbridled ambition, he usurped autocratic power, became a tyrant, a “sovereign executioner,” proclaiming violence and the rejection of any legality as the basis of his policy. In Karamzin’s view in the Age of Enlightenment, when it was clear to everyone that the autocrat “must be the father of people, to love not power, but virtue,” Napoleon’s activities discredited not the idea of ​​autocratic power, the bearer of which he was the French emperor, but only him as a person unworthy to be on the throne.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that in the poem Napoleon is contrasted with Alexander I. Karamzin portrays him as a hero, a peace-loving ruler who protects Russia from wars with his wise policies, listening to the advice of the “visionary”. It is not difficult to notice that the enthusiastic description of the Russian emperor and his policies was far from what Karamzin wrote in his confidential “Note on Ancient and New Russia,” presented to Alexander I in 1811. In fact, the historian contrasted Napoleon with the image of an ideal monarch - statesman and a person whose features he diligently created both in the “Historical Laudatory Word” to Catherine II and in “History”. The “wisdom of the ages”—the muse of history, Clio—speaks about such a monarch. In Karamzin’s view, he should not be deluded by glory, keep peace,

Judge, give, uphold the laws, With a sword in hand - for defense From strangers and your enemies,

love education, be fair, remember that “in government, new things are dangerous,” etc.

The Patriotic War of 1812 for Karamzin was a people’s war, which gave rise to “crowds of heroes and leaders” and mass patriotism. With great enthusiasm he describes battle of Borodino And tragic picture leaving Moscow. In this part the poem becomes aphoristic:

Only a just war is famous for its victories. In your ruins the Enemy of the world will find the coffin of his victories. But whoever bears the shackles to us, We will die - or he himself will fall

etc. At the same time, Karamzin sees the origins of the victory over Napoleon in the patriarchal morals of the Russian people, in the national character, main feature which was that, according to Karamzin, the people “did not seek false freedom, but had everything they wanted.” Moreover, it seems to the historiographer that the victory over Napoleon had another reason. In Kutuzov’s maneuver after leaving Moscow, in the harsh winter, he sees the action of the power of providence, which chose the Russian people in order to punish not so much the invaders as the tyrant who despised human laws. For Karamzin, the heroism of the people and the talent of military leaders are just a manifestation of the divine principle, favorable to the young state with patriarchal foundations that was gaining strength.

Karamzin is also concerned about the fate of Europe in post-war period. The historiographer’s poem in this sense is imbued with pacifism and hopes for the triumph of enlightenment and the ideals of humanism. He greets liberation campaign Russian army to Europe, but warns: “Peoples are brothers! There is no anger.” The muse of history turns to European monarchs and Alexander I, calling on the kings to leave the “world power” to “God alone,” and advises the people to submit to power: “Do not be seduced by false freedom: it is a ghost, a deception of passions” 1 .

1 (Right there. pp. 308, 316.)

Karamzin's poem was openly anti-revolutionary. Recognizing folk character war of 1812, the historiographer, as already mentioned, was inclined to recognize the will of providence, an incomprehensible divine providence, as one of the reasons for victory in it. Once again, as in “Note on Ancient and New Russia,” Karamzin proclaimed his monarchical ideas, combined with elements educational ideology- faith in the triumph of goodness, reason, justice.

But this essay by Karamzin, written by his own admission “in delirium,” is notable for others. It reflected a change in the historiographer’s plans. In the distant past, he had previously found rich material for his own understanding of modernity, which always, above all, occupied him. And suddenly modernity turned out to be larger than the past in terms of tragedy, passions, struggles and heroics. Before our eyes, it was becoming history, from which Karamzin was so eager to learn “lessons.” It seemed to him that answers to the questions that worried him could clearly be obtained from completely fresh material. In the September days of 1812, when Karamzin’s dusty cart in a convoy with others was taking him away from burning Moscow, in the evacuation bustle of Nizhny Novgorod, the historiographer had a new idea: to publish the written volumes of his work and begin to describe the history of modern times with an emphasis on the story of the fight against Napoleon. By March 1814, Karamzin was taking steps to implement his plan. He establishes written contact with the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, intending through her to obtain personal permission from Alexander I to publish the History and describe the era of the struggle against Napoleon. For almost the entire year of 1814, Karamzin discussed plans for this with his patroness 1 . Alas, they were not destined to come true: “The great affects the small,” Karamzin remarked to his correspondent when he learned that Alexander I had gone to the Congress of Vienna.

1 (For more details, see: Tartakovsky A. G. At the origins of Russian historiography in 1812 // History and historians: Historiography. Yearbook, 1978. M., 1981. S. 80 - 81.)

By the beginning of 1816, as we have already noted, the situation had changed. The Emperor returned to St. Petersburg, and Karamzin decided to go to the capital to meet with him. Unfortunately, we know nothing about whether the historiographer was now thinking of offering his services in creating the history of 1812, which was already beginning to be actively developed by many participants in the war, as well as on an official basis - in a number of government agencies and military units 1. After 1815, there is no information at all about Karamzin’s new plan. However, one thing is indisputable: if Karamzin did not abandon his previous plans, they could only be realized after the publication of the eight written volumes of History.

1 (Right there. pp. 67 - 90.)

But the issue with their publication was not so simple. As is known, the decree of Alexander I in 1803 only appointed Karamzin to the position of “historiographer” Russian Empire"with an annual three thousandth "pension" equal to a professor's salary. The position-title of historiographer - traditionally existed in Russia and Western Europe form of organization historical research 1 . In Russia it became especially widespread at the beginning of the 19th century. as a response to the practical need for historical knowledge, which was acutely felt in connection with specific government activities in the field of internal and foreign policy. Gradually, a whole system of “industrial historiographers” emerged - specially appointed persons whose official duties included historical research of an industrial or problematic nature. Thus, in the Admiralty Department, the post of historiographer of the Russian fleet was occupied by second lieutenant Pozdnev, and then by the Decembrist N. A. Bestuzhev. The historiographers of the Russian-Turkish wars at different times were the Decembrists P. I. Pestel and I. G. Burtsev, as well as the military historian D. P. Buturlin, the historiographer of the Don Army was the Decembrist V. D. Sukhorukov. In 1816, a description of the events of 1812 - 1815. entrusted to the famous military theorist A. Zhomipi, who was assigned assistants, including the Decembrist N. M. Muravyov 2.

1 (Kireeva R. A. Study of domestic historiography in pre-revolutionary Russia With mid-19th V. before 1917. M., 1983. P. 79.)

2 (For more details, see: Afiani V. Yu., Kozlov V. P. From concept to publication of “History of the Russian State” // Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State. M., 1989. T. 1.)

Karamzin's "rank" as a historiographer of the "empire" was much higher. However, the decree on his appointment was not accompanied by the regulation of any duties, what and how to write and by when. Despite this, the social order that was proposed to Karamzin met with an emphatically responsible attitude on his part. True, as an experienced writer, he decided not to publish what he had written in separate volumes even while he was still working. However, apparently, the historiographer hesitated with which volume to begin the publication. For example, in 1806, the well-informed I. I. Dmitriev informed D. I. Yazykov that Karamzin intended to begin publishing “History” after completing its fourth volume 1 . By the beginning of 1816, circumstances changed the historiographer’s original plan: Karamzin wrote most of his work, and the ninth volume, dedicated to the “epochs of executions” of Ivan the Terrible, was next in line. Karamzin could begin publishing, but in this case he immediately fell under general censorship, and there was no guarantee that everything written would reach readers without hindrance. Two other circumstances played an important role: the lack of funds for publication and the intention to give greater authority to many years of work. All this is in accordance with the existing in Russia early XIX V. practice could only be permitted by one thing: the publication of “History” with “the highest permission.”

1 (Works of Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriev. St. Petersburg, 1895. T. 2. P. 205.)

So, the decision was made, and at the beginning of February 1816, Karamzin, for the first time after a twenty-five-year break, together with his friends P. A. Vyazemsky and the poet V. L. Pushkin, who accompanied him, arrived in St. Petersburg. On the eve of his departure, as sources testify, the historiographer did not have much hope for a successful outcome of his plan. On the contrary, he was worried about the uncertainty of the situation in which he found himself. Not so much years as epoch-making events separated the present from those memorable meetings of Karamzin with Alexander I in Tver, during which the select circle of the Tver salon Grand Duchess Catherine Pavlovna listened with genuine delight to excerpts from “History,” and the emperor himself read Karamzin’s “Note on Ancient and New Russia.” Then, on the wave of noble discontent with the internal and foreign policy Alexander I, Karamzin decided to sharply criticize the activities of the emperor and his ministers. And although, obviously, this criticism played a role in the subsequent actions of Alexander I, in particular in the decision to resign and exile Secretary of State M. M. Speransky, former soul planned constitutional reforms, the emperor, as evidenced by a number of people close to Karamzin, was dissatisfied with this work of the historiographer 1 . In the literature about Karamzin, including Soviet literature, one can even find an opinion about the disgrace of the historiographer that followed the “Note” 2 . It is difficult to judge how true this opinion is. The very fact that there were no contacts between Karamzin and Alexander I after 1811 does not mean anything: events developed so rapidly that there simply might not have been an opportunity for meetings.

1 (Korf M. The Life of Count Speransky. St. Petersburg, 1861. T. 1. P. 133.)

2 (Bernov P.N. Problems of historical development of literature. L., 1981. P. 254)

And yet Karamzin felt the uncertainty of the fate of his work. He is trying to convince himself and his friends that now that eight volumes of “History” are ready, their publication requires the “last sacrifice” - to achieve a meeting with Alexander I and consent to the publication of “History” with “the highest permission.” So, in any case, he says in a letter to Count S.P. Rumyantsev, an intelligent skeptic, the author of the sensational law on “free cultivators” that changed little in the situation of serf peasants 1 . The same motive is heard in a letter to an old friend, director of the Moscow archive of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs A.F. Malinovsky: “If I go to St. Petersburg, I will take with me a supply of patience, humiliation, and poverty of spirit” 2 . And finally, a confession to his brother, a distant Simbirsk correspondent, who was constantly and keenly interested in the affairs of the historiographer - a confession with frankness about his personal affairs, unusual for Karamzin in family correspondence: “I know that I can go and return with nothing. At least, it’s necessary, It seems like I’ll experience this: it’s no longer time to put off printing the History; I’m getting old and weaker not so much from age as from sadness” 3.

1 (Letters from Karamzin to Count S.P. Rumyantsev // Rus. arch. 1869. No. 7. P. 589 - 590.)

2 (Letters from Karamzin to Alexei Fedorovich Malinovsky and letters from Griboyedov to Stepan Nikolaevich Begichev. M., 1860. P. 6.)

3 (Correspondence of N. M. Karamzin from 1799 to 1826 // Athenaeum. 1855. Part 3. P. 644.)

Petersburg greeted Karamzin with an enthusiastic bustle of young literary fans - members of the unofficial progressive social and literary association "Arzamas" (who immediately elected their "patriarch" as honorary members), hospitable tea parties and dinners in the homes of long-time friends and good acquaintances with confidential conversations about the fate of "History" ", the polite wariness of high-ranking visitors to the salons of the capital's nobility and the official courtesy of official receptions. However, I also had to listen to frank judgments that were far from respectful. “However, know,” Karamzin was once forced to admit to his wife, “that there was one person, an old acquaintance, who received him very coldly and announced that he knew my way of thinking, contraire aux idees liberates (contrary to freedom-loving thoughts. - VC.), that is, the way of thinking of Fouche, Carnot, Gregoire" 1. And at the same time, keep in mind that the trustee of Moscow University, his long-time ill-wisher P.I. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, according to rumors, "tried to deliver a note to Count Arakcheev with new denunciations" 2.

1 (Letters from N. M. Karamzin to his wife from St. Petersburg to Moscow, 1816 R. // Rus. arch. 1911. No. 8. P. 569.)

2 (Right there. pp. 570, 584.)

Karamzin made no secret of his plans for the publication of History. Moreover, in an apparent effort to create a positive social atmosphere around it, he decided to publicly read passages for the first time. There were at least eight such performances: three times at the philanthropist and famous lover of antiquities Count N. P. Rumyantsev, twice at Arzamas, once at A. I. Turgenev, in the salon of Countess A. G. Laval and Finally, he read excerpts from the eighth volume for more than three hours to the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna. “The action satisfied my pride,” Karamzin reports to his wife, who was anxiously awaiting news in Moscow. There is no need to doubt the words of the historiographer. Even many years later, A.S. Sturdza, who had not lost his wary attitude towards Karamzin as a “liberal”; recalled that during such “home readings” “the author was showered with praise everywhere, which he accepted without pleasure or delight, simply, with inimitable virtue” 1 .

1 (Sturdza A. Memories of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin // Moskvityanin. 1846. Part V. P. 147.)

And yet, despite the success of such readings, the main thing Karamzin sought - a meeting with the emperor - was postponed. More than once the historiographer heard rumors that Alexander I was about to receive him; more than once he deliberately did not leave the house during the day, kindly provided by E.F. Muravyova, the wife of the late friend and patron of M.N. Muravyov; hopes and expectations turned out to be in vain. In his letters to Zhenya, Karamzin no longer hid his resentment and, perhaps, hoping that they would be read at the St. Petersburg post office, he pointedly said that he was “being kept here uselessly and in almost the most insulting manner” 1 . More and more becoming aware of the St. Petersburg palace atmosphere, reminding himself of “his own moral dignity,” he was already preparing to return to Moscow, where he dreamed of continuing his work. “I tell everyone who wants to listen to me that I have only one thought - about leaving. They shower me with roses, but they choke me. I can’t lead such a lifestyle for a long time. I’m too much of a show, I talk too much,” Karamzin told his wife 2.

1 (Letters from N. M. Karamzin to his wife... P. 581.)

2 (Right there. P. 582.)

In the meantime, in the opinion of many, an acceptable alternative to Karamzin’s intentions appeared: Count N.P. Rumyantsev, who widely financed historical research, including the publication of historical sources and works, offered the historiographer 50 thousand rubles in the event of Alexander I’s refusal. - an amount sufficient to publish the History, with the only condition: to put your coat of arms on the book. In difficult days for himself, Karamzin decided to be consistent in his plans, rejecting the offer of a retired minister and state chancellor, which was so flattering for dozens of other researchers. The motive was still the same: the “honor” of the historiographer requires only the “highest permission” for printing; the main thing in publishing “History” is not money, but the official sanction of the emperor. In letters to his wife, this idea is formulated categorically: “I am glad that we have such boyars, but I would rather throw my “History” into the fire than take 50 thousand from a particularist. I want only what is due and fair, and not favors and gifts.”1 .

1 (Right there. P. 567.)

The situation around Karamzin and his work at this time is depicted in the memoirs of the Decembrist F.N. Glinka. Chairman and active member of the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, one of the legal pre-Decembrist associations, he, having met a historiographer in St. Petersburg, considered it his duty to inform him of “the views of different parties and significant units” on “History.” As Glinka writes, “Nikolai Mikhailovich had already heard and knew about other things, he guessed about other things, and some things were still new to him. Both empresses were already on Karamzin’s side, many influential people stood for him, but something was still missing” 1 . “What was missing,” as Glinka testifies and as his St. Petersburg friends directly told Karamzin, was the recommendation of the all-powerful temporary worker Count A. A. Arakcheev to Alexander I. Karamzin himself understood this perfectly: even on the eve of his trip to St. Petersburg, he stated with bitter irony in a letter to his brother that in Russia now only Arakcheev is the only and all-powerful nobleman. Meanwhile, Arakcheev could have grounds for hostility towards Karamzin: according to some sources, 2 he was familiar with the “Note on Ancient and New Russia”, where Karamzin’s criticism of the ministers of Alexander I extended to him as Minister of War.

1 (Quote by: Grot K. Ya. N. M. Karamzin and F. N. Glinka. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 6.)

2 (Ikonnikov V.S. Count Mordvinov. St. Petersburg, 1878. P. 106.)

Going to St. Petersburg, Karamzin relied on the will of Providence to resolve the issues that worried him. Now this providence was completely real face, represented by one of the darkest figures of the reign of Alexander I. The historiographer’s reluctance to enlist the support of a temporary worker is clearly visible in his correspondence with friends and relatives. This was not posturing; rather, it was dictated by a certain “code of honor for a historiographer,” which Karamzin demonstratively tried to follow in the future. "What should I expect?" - he asks in one of his letters to his wife. And he answers, as if reassuring himself too: “Respect for you and yours. I don’t want to offend anyone with rudeness, but is it my business to go wrong” 1 . Further events turned out to be remarkable for understanding Karamzin’s position: Arakcheev himself invited the historiographer, who was already completely desperate, but proud of his independence. The meeting turned out to be short, but promising: the count stated that he would petition Alexander I to receive Karamzin.

1 (Letters from N. M. Karamzin to his wife... P. 586.)

On March 16, after more than a month and a half of trouble, Karamzin was received by the emperor. According to the historiographer, Alexander I was kind and emphatically businesslike in resolving the issue of publishing “History.” On the same day, Karamzin was promoted from collegiate councilor to state councilor, awarded the Order of St. Anna of the first degree, and received 60 thousand rubles from the imperial office for the publication of History. All this automatically freed him from censorship. Funds from the future sale of "History" were at the complete disposal of the author. In addition, for the spring and summer months, Karamzin was provided with a house in Tsarskoe Selo, where one of the residences of the ruling dynasty was located. Such was the generous gesture of the emperor, who did not even have time to familiarize himself with Karamzin’s work in the manuscript.

There was obvious political calculation in this. flirting with public opinion, statements about attention to education were not uncommon during the reign of Alexander I. Donations to science and culture were intended to demonstrate the emperor’s concern for educational affairs, subordinating them to the tasks of strengthening the authority of autocratic power. With funds allocated from the imperial cabinet, a number of books were published, including those that played positive role in the development of domestic science and education. But against the background of such donations, the episode with “History” looked unusual. You should listen to the words close friend Karamzina, former minister Justice I.I. Dmitriev that “not one of our monarchs has awarded authorial merits with such brilliance and not one of our writers has been distinguished with such honor,” although, he emphasizes, Karamzin did not strive for this 1 .

1 (Dmitriev I. I., A look at my life: Notes of the actual Privy Councilor Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriev. M., 1866. P. 240.)

The incident with Karamzin served as a reason for another stream of praise addressed to the monarch. (The monarch's charity played a political role.) Contemporaries were clearly shown how an autocrat could “benefit” a loyal subject. Even the Minister of Internal Affairs O.P. Kozodavlev 1 unofficially reported this to Karamzin with genuine amazement before the decree of Alexander I; soon his St. Petersburg correspondent N.M. Longinov wrote the same thing to Count S.R. Vorontsov in London about sensational news 2 . However, according to the later testimony of Count D.N. Bludov 3, this generous encouragement followed not for the eight volumes of “History”, but for the “Note on Ancient and New Russia,” which still remained unknown to a wide circle of contemporaries.

1 (TsGIA USSR. F. 951. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 1.)

2 (Archive of Prince S. M. Vorontsov. M., 1882. T. 23. P. 362.)

3 (Eidelman N. Ya. The last chronicler. M., 1983. P. 88.)

So, despite the slow progress towards the goal, Karamzin ultimately had every reason to be satisfied with his trip. In May 1816, he moved with his family to St. Petersburg, intending to live here for no more than two years, during which he thought of putting an end to typographical troubles. Summer passes in finalizing what was written and in search of a printing house. The latter turned out to be not an easy task: either the high price for printing or the quality of the typesetting did not satisfy. The historiographer was ready to give up on this and move again to Moscow, where the printing house of S. A. Selivanovsky, which had long been familiar to him, was located, when suddenly Alexander I again made a broad gesture. According to Karamzin, “without my request” he “ordered” the publication of “History” in the printing house of the War Ministry.

However, after the manuscript was transferred to the printing house of the War Ministry, its typesetting was suspended by order of General L.A. Zakrevsky. Zakrevsky demanded public censorship of the manuscript. A letter from Karamzin to the Minister of Spiritual Affairs and Education, Prince A.N. Golitsyn, has been preserved, reflecting this curious episode in the history of printing the historiographer’s work. Karamzin, citing the highest permission, as well as the fact that academicians and professors do not submit their works to public censorship, asked for the emperor’s help in freeing his work from “captivity in the hands of the Tatars.” At the same time, he assured of the good intentions of the History. A state historiographer, Karamzin writes, “must understand what and how to write; his own responsibility is not inferior to that of the censor; I hope that in my book there is nothing against faith, the sovereign and morality; but, perhaps, that the censors will not allow me, for example, speak freely about the cruelty of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. In that case, what will happen to history" 1. Karamzin’s letter had the proper effect: on October 23, 1816, A.P. Golitsyn informed him that he “reported to the emperor regarding the printing of your Russian history, and him imperial majesty“You have deigned to order with the highest authority to print it without censorship, which highest will has already been communicated by me to those who should have been fulfilled” 2.

1 (Note from Karamzin to an unknown person // Rus. arch. 1866. No. 11/12. S. 1765 - 1766.)

2 (TsGIA USSR. F. 951. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 1.)

The conflict with the printing house of the War Ministry was only the peak of those “misunderstandings” that continued later. “The printing house,” Karamzin wrote to I.I. Dmitriev, “is looking at me like a bear” 1 . Zakrevsky allocated the worst quality paper for the publication. The already mentioned Longinov reported this to London as an outrageous event to Count S.R. Vorontsov. “Recently,” he wrote, “I was present at the last settlement made by Karamzin and Zakrevsky on the publication of the first volume of “History.” Zakrevsky took special care to choose the worst quality paper and the blackest, on the grounds that it costs only 13 rubles This stinginess outraged me." 2 Soon, slow typing and lack of sufficient font were added. The Notes had to be printed in different fonts. To speed up publication, the dissatisfied Karamzin transferred part of the volumes to two other printing houses: the Medical Department and the Senate. “I am unspeakably glad,” V.A. Zhukovsky wrote in connection with this episode to A.I. Turgenev, “at the displeasure that our Arzamas patriarch had with the printing house: it separated him from it and handed over his “History” to the right hands.” 3. The historiographer even had the thought of publishing the work without “notes,” that is, without “Notes,” which made up more than half of the volume of “History,” but, as I. I. Dmitriev admitted, in the end he did not have the courage to do so. Difficulties with printing indicate that the matter of publishing “History” was far from being as painless as they sometimes try to imagine 4 . They were based, if not political, then, in any case, on some personal motives for an unfriendly attitude towards Karamzin. After this, Karamzin concluded for himself: “many are waiting for my “History” to attack me. It is published without censorship” 5 .

1 (Letters from N. M. Karamzin to I. I. Dmitriev. St. Petersburg, 1866. P. 197.)

2 (Archive of Prince S. M. Vorontsov. T. 23. pp. 375 - 376.)

3 (Letters from V. A. Zhukovsky to Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, M., 1895. P. 165.)

4 (Minaeva Ya. V. European legitimism and the evolution of political ideas of N. M. Karamzin // History of the USSR. 1982. No. 5. P. 157 - 158.)

5 (Letters from N. M. Karamzin to I. I. Dmitriev. P. 206.)

Tiring reading of proofs of several volumes at the same time, meetings and disputes with young “liberalists” from “Arzamas”, who, despite fundamental differences with Karamzin in their views on the path of development of Russia and Europe, were drawn to the venerable writer and scientist, social receptions and visits - This is the way of life of the historiographer in subsequent years. Contacts with the imperial family also became closer and closer, which, however, Karamzin himself was not inclined to idealize.

In September 1817, Karamzin wrote a “Note on Moscow Monuments” for the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna. This interesting journalistic document attracted little attention from researchers. Considering the role he played in the development of the controversy around “History,” we will dwell on him in more detail.

To the Dowager Empress, who was traveling to Moscow with royal family to lay the foundation stone for a temple in honor of the victory over Napoleon, Karamzin advises visiting the Kremlin, where “among the ruins of the civil order the idea of ​​a saving autocracy arose..., jealousy of state independence flared up..., autocracy began and was established” 1, examine Moscow archives and libraries, and also Kuntsevo, the villages of Arkhangelskoye and Taininskoye. The historiographer recalls the pages of the history of these places, noting the unsatisfactory condition of many historical monuments: “the house of A.L. Naryshkin in Kuntsevo is rotting and falling down, on the site of Elizaveta Petrovna’s palace in Taininsky, “in the garden there are wormwood and nettles, and in the ponds there is mud” 2. He recalls how he himself once sought inspiration for historical studies here, and not far from the Simonov Monastery in his distant youth he composed “Poor Liza” - “a very simple fairy tale, but so happy for young author, that thousands of curious people traveled and went there to look for traces of the Lizas" 3.

1 ([Karamzin N. M.], Note on the sights of Moscow // Ukr. Vestn. 1818. Part 10. P. 132 (in the text - the title of the Note" given by Karamzin).)

2 (Right there. pp. 246, 249; and etc.)

3 (Right there. P. 142.)

Karamzin pays a lot of attention in this “Note” current state Moscow. He notes the “ruins” in which Moscow University is located, which, in his opinion, was once “more useful for Russia than St. Petersburg Academy.” He strongly condemns the construction of a temple on the Sparrow Hills in honor of the victory in 1812, designed by the architect Vitberg. “Now,” he writes, “as we hear, they want to build a huge church there. It’s a pity! It won’t admire the lovely view and will seem less magnificent in his (city. - VC.) splendor. The city, not nature, is decorated with a rich church. Once or twice a year the people will go to pray in this new temple, having much more zeal for the ancient churches. In summer there is solitude, in winter there is solitude and drifts of snow around the porticos and colonnades: this is sad for a magnificent building." 1

1 (Right there. P. 143.)

The final words of “Notes on Moscow Monuments” are noteworthy, where Karamzin, defining the place of Moscow in the state body of Russia, sharply contrasts the former capital with the new one - St. Petersburg. There is no direct condemnation of Peter I's founding of the capital on the banks of the Neva, as was the case in the "Note on Ancient and New Russia." However, from a comparison of the recent past and the current situation of Moscow and St. Petersburg, the historiographer’s sympathies become obvious. It is Moscow, in his opinion, being “the center of the kingdom, all movements of trade, industry, and the civil mind,” giving the country “goods, fashion, and a way of thinking,” which will always be the real capital of the state. "Her (Moscow. - VC.) semi-Asian physiognomy, a mixture of splendor with untidiness, huge with small, ancient with new, education with wildness, presents to the eyes of the observer something curious, special, characteristic. Anyone who has been to Moscow knows Russia." 1 Residents ancient capital, according to Karamzin, are committed to antiquity, unchanging in their thoughts in favor of autocracy and intolerant of the “Jacobins”. Unlike Moscow, where there is complete freedom “not in thoughts, but in life,” St. Petersburg seems to the historiographer to be a center of frivolity and idleness. Here, he writes, “minds are entertained by the court, the duties of the service, quests, personalities.”

1 (Right there. pp. 251 - 253.)

This seemingly innocent guide to Moscow for the Empress was another response of the historiographer to the events of the internal life of Russia. Karamzin's historical, literary, autobiographical passages bore barely hidden symbolism. In the discussions about the construction of the temple on the Sparrow Hills, a reproach was heard: instead of spending huge amounts of money on a “magnificent” monument, it would be better to use it to restore what was destroyed by the invaders. Moscow, as the historiographer seemed to say, and with it the whole of Russia, after the troubles that have befallen them, demand not glorification, but active work in overcoming the consequences of the war with Napoleon. Otherwise, the temple on Sparrow Hills may become not a monument to victory, but a symbol of wastefulness, intolerable in the difficult situation of the state.

Karamzin’s arguments about Moscow and St. Petersburg are also noteworthy. They reflected his attitude to at least two pressing issues. Among the public of that time, the issue of moving the capital, in particular to Nizhny Novgorod, was vigorously debated. In the draft of the so-called Charter - the constitution, developed at the direction of Alexander I, Nizhny Novgorod was supposed to be made the capital of the Russian Empire. The same city was proclaimed the capital in the constitutional draft of the Decembrist N.M. Muravyov. Karamzin’s “Note on Moscow Monuments” contained a completely unambiguous attitude towards such plans: only Moscow, as a symbol of Russian statehood, can be the “true” capital of Russia. That is why the historiographer contrasts Moscow and St. Petersburg as carriers of two different state principles- tested by the life of an autocrat and inspired by fashionable the latest teachings Republican There is no doubt that in the latter case Karamzin had in mind his young St. Petersburg opponents, who were burning (as he wrote to I.I. Dmitriev) with “free thinking.” The historiographer transparently hinted that he himself was once under the influence of utopian constructions, which, as it now seems to him, “one could be surprised only in thoughts, and not in deeds” 1. He contrasts St. Petersburg with the patriarchal morals of the inhabitants of Moscow and the life experience of the “wise elders,” who once also did not escape republican hobbies, but now argue from the standpoint of their experiences in favor of autocratic foundations.

1 (Right there. P. 131.)

The “Note on Moscow Monuments,” like the “Note on Ancient and New Russia,” again testified to Karamzin’s opposition to certain measures of the government of Alexander I. Moreover, in discussing the temple on the Sparrow Hills, she directly condemned the emperor, who back in 1812 made the decision to build the temple in the event of victory over Napoleon. At the same time, the "Note" reacted to new changes in the public consciousness of Russia - the emergence and formalization of the Decembrist ideology, the widespread dissemination of liberal constitutional ideas, which Karamzin, although without militant hostility, hastened to declare baseless, illusory dreams inherent in every thinking person only in his youth .

By the beginning of 1818, the printing of the History was completed, and in February of this year all eight volumes went on sale simultaneously 1 . There is no need to talk in detail about the sharp increase in the first quarter of the XIX V. interest in national history, especially after 1812. This fact is well known 2 and is associated with processes of national development.

1 (Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State. St. Petersburg, 1816 - 1818. T. I - VIII.)

2 (See, for example: Eidelman N. Ya. Decree. op. pp. 48 - 49.)

One of the indicators of this interest can be considered the circulation of historical literature, which was determined by reader demand, which was their unique regulator. If we exclude educational literature on history, we can see: the circulation of historical literature ranged from 300 to 1200 copies. For example, historical publications of the Rumyantsev Circle 1 and Moscow University 2 had such circulations. The average circulation of history books at that time was 600 copies. According to contemporaries, provided that it was fully implemented, not only self-sufficiency was achieved, but also the profitability of publications - that “fee” in which authors were increasingly showing interest. This figure (600 copies) corresponds to the approximate number of persons (about 592 people) who wrote on historical topics in 1789 - 1825 Such a circulation could satisfy every hundredth literate person in Russia, although the process of selling copies of a number of history books, even with well-established sales, sometimes dragged on for many years. This was mainly specialized literature.

1 (Kozlov P.P. Columbuses of Russian antiquities. M., 1981. P. 142.)

2 (Kleimenova R.P. Publishing activity of Moscow University in the first quarter of the 19th century. // Book: Research and materials. M., 1981. Issue. 43. P. 80.)

Against this background, the publication and implementation of Karamzin’s “History” turned out to be a unique phenomenon. Its circulation amounted to 3 thousand copies. Having decided on such a circulation, which was five times higher than the self-sufficiency of publications of that time, Karamzin took a certain risk: the sale of the book could be delayed. After all, the demand even for popular historical, literary and literary magazines, with well-established sales, was satisfied with circulations of up to 1,200 copies. (best case scenario). For comparison, we point out that another wonderful book, published simultaneously with “History” and going through another edition, “An Experience in the Theory of Taxes” by N. I. Turgenev, was originally published in a circulation of 600 copies.

In accordance with existing practice, back in 1817 a subscription to “History” was announced. By December 1817, according to Karamzin, there were “over 400” subscribers outside St. Petersburg. Taking into account the data on the number of subscribers at this time to other publications, it can be assumed that the total number of subscribers to “History” could not significantly exceed 500. For example, in 1819, 260 people subscribed to the magazine “Competitor of Education and Charity”, to the magazine "Blagomarnenny" in the same year - 262, the magazine "Beehive" in 1811 - 131, the magazine "Ukrainian Herald" in 1816 - 226, "The Journal of Ancient and Modern Literature" in 1818 - 117 people. T. Vozdvizhensky’s book “Historical Review of the Ryazan Province” had about 350 subscribers in 1822, and G. I. Uspensky’s monograph “The Experience of Narrating Russian Antiquities,” published in 1818 in its second edition in Kharkov, had over 572 subscribers (almost half of the copies ended up in educational establishments as a teaching aid). Thus, the main circulation of “History” obviously went on sale directly, with the most significant part of it in St. Petersburg. Part of the circulation (at least 25 copies) was purchased by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and sent to Russian embassies abroad 1.

1 (North mail. 1818. No. 10. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs allocated 1,400 rubles for the purchase of “History”.)

All eight volumes of History were sold at prices ranging from 50 to 55 rubles. For comparison, you can give prices for other books of this time. So, for example, the publication of the works of Greek classics translated by I. I. Martynov by subscription cost 67 rubles, annual subscriptions to magazines (depending on the binding and quality of paper) “Northern Archive” - from 40 to 45 rubles, “Domestic Notes” - from 25 to 30, “Competitor of education and charity” - from 30 to 37 rubles. 12 parts of “Russian History” by S. N. Glinka were sold at a price of 50 rubles. etc. Thus, the price of Karamzin’s work corresponded to the average prices on the Russian book market of the 10-20s of the 19th century.

The bookselling success of “History” turned out to be impressive: the circulation was sold in less than a month, which was noted by many contemporaries as an “unprecedented” phenomenon, including Karamzin himself, not without surprise. The authoritative and well-known testimony of A.S. Pushkin conveys the excitement that first of all gripped St. Petersburg society 1 . With delight, but not without irony, I. I. Dmitriev reported this to Prince P. A. Vyazemsky in Warsaw: “The history of our dear historiographer is in the hands and on the lips of everyone: the enlightened and the profane, the literary and verbal, and the author there is no longer a single copy. An exemplary triumph of Russian craftsmanship" 2. According to V.L. Pushkin, “History” was quickly sold out in Moscow, and at a “high price.” In one of the first notes about “History,” the author said that now it can be obtained “with great difficulty and for almost double the price” 3. According to the memoirs of the Decembrist N.V. Basargin, volumes of “History” passed from hand to hand at the School of Column Leaders.

1 (Pushkin A, S, Complete. collected, op., 2nd ed. M., 1958, T, VII, S, 61)

2 (Letters from I. I. Dmitriev to Prince P. A. Vyazemsky, 1810 - 1836. St. Petersburg.. 1898. P. 11.)

3 ([Grech Ya.I.] New books // Son of the Fatherland. 1818. Part 43. P. 251.)

Contemporaries were amazed by both the quick sale and the multi-thousand-dollar fee received by the author. The historiographer testifies that in addition to the sold edition, applications were received for another 600 copies. Karamzin agreed with the proposal of the St. Petersburg booksellers the Slenin brothers to sell them the rights to the second, revised edition of “History” for 50 thousand rubles. with payment in installments for five years (a thing, as the Decembrist V.I. Shteingel recalled, “unprecedented in Russia”), although he was skeptical about its sales. Based on the most approximate calculations, we can conclude: the sale of eight volumes, minus the amount spent on publication (about 10 thousand rubles), brought Karamzin at least 130 - 140 thousand rubles. net income, to which you need to add 50 thousand rubles. Slenins. Thus, having received about 180 - 190 thousand rubles for eight volumes of History. net income, the historiographer could rightfully please his friends - this calmed his “economic concern” for at least five years.

In April 1818, typesetting of the second edition began in the famous St. Petersburg private printing house of N. I. Grech. Its first volume was published in the same year, the eighth - two years later 1 . Along with subscription, this publication was sold not only in St. Petersburg, but also in Moscow, Kyiv, Mitau at a higher price (from 75 to 80 rubles) than the first edition. The sale was obviously not as impressive as Karamzin had foreseen. According to K. A. Polevoy, the second edition “settled” with the Olenins and “was finally sold after the death” of the brothers 2 .

1 (Karamzin Ya. M. History of the Russian State. 2nd ed., revised, and additional. St. Petersburg, 1818 - 1820. T. I - VIII.)

2 (Notes of Ksenophon Alekseevich Polevoy. St. Petersburg, 1888. P. 287.)

Subsequent events also began to develop unusually. Almost simultaneously with the publication of the first edition of “History,” the famous German writer and playwright A. Kotzebue published excerpts from Karamzin’s work in the magazine he published in Germany and announced his intention to translate it entirely into German. Prospects for translations of “History” from Paris began to arrive in Russia ( famous writers Fussy-Laisneux and Julien) - into French, Vraunschweig (by the writer Soltau) - into German and Warsaw (G. Buchinsky) - into Polish. Later, translations of Karamzin's work into Greek, Italian, and English began. “I don’t know what to do with the translations of my “History”...,” Karamzin wrote to Dmitriev in August 1818. “I didn’t look for them” 2. Concerned about the quality of these translations, he decided to take part in the preparation of Russian editions French translation, which was started in St. Petersburg by Joffre and Saint-Thomas 3 , and German, which was carried out already from the second edition of “History” by the director of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum Gauenschild together with Doctor of Philosophy Ertel 4 . In the 20s, the Chinese language expert Z. F. Leontievsky made a popular translation of the first three volumes of Karamzin’s work into Chinese. The translation remained in manuscript 5. Finally, in 1826, the famous Serbian figure G. Magareshevich, having published the third chapter of the first volume of “History,” announced his intention to translate Karamzin’s entire work into Serbian and publish it. No domestic historical work had known such success abroad before.

1 (For more information about translations of “History”, see: Afiani V. Yu., Kozlov V. P. Decree. op.)

2 (Letters from N. M. Karamzin to I. I. Dmitriev. P. 247.)

3 (State Historical Museum. F. 247. D. 2. L. 148 - 148 vol.)

4 (Serbinovich K. S. Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin // Rus. old man. 1874. No. 9. P. 59; N. N. About translations of "History" Russian state" // Son of the Fatherland. 1818. No. 38. P. 255 - 261.)

5 (Peshtich S. L., Tsiperovich I. E. “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin in Chinese // Peoples of Asia and Africa. 1986. No. 6. P. 125.)

The public and literary resonance of the first eight volumes of History turned out to be so significant that even the Russian Academy, a long-time stronghold of Karamzin’s literary opponents, for a long time which ignored him as a possible candidate for its membership, in the same year, 1818, elected the historiographer to its composition, albeit in a “fallen place,” that is, in the vacancy of the deceased G.R. Derzhavin. And in December 1818, an event occurred that was completely out of the ordinary: at the suggestion of the president of the academy A.S. Shishkov, Karamzin gave a speech here 1 .

1 (Karamzin N. M. Speech delivered at the ceremonial meeting of the Russian Academy // Son of the Fatherland. 1819. No. 1, Part 51. P. 3 - 32. Quote. from: Literary criticism 1800 - 1820. M., 1980.)

Karamzin's speech touched upon wide circle literary and socio-political issues. It contained his reflections on the ways and destinies of the development of Russian literature, criticism, their role in the life of society, in the development national identity. The historiographer’s speech, perhaps like no other work of his during the period of work on “History,” was imbued with optimism, sincere faith in the power of his country, in the future greatness of its science and culture. Magnificent in style, it truly appeared as a revelation of his thoughts and dreams.

Russia, Karamzin said, after Peter I became a European state. Any regrets about this are useless, no matter how you treat pre-Petrine Rus', no matter how you extol the patriarchal foundations that are close to the Russian heart and mind, which saved it in Hard times. The impetus for the development of the country along a new path, given by Peter's reforms, justified itself. The Russian state strengthened its power and greatness. But, the historiographer warned, the greatness of the state is not limited only to its military power, capable of intimidating its neighbors. "Is it for this reason that powers are formed, or for this reason that they rise to the top? globe, in order solely to amaze us with the formidable colossus of power and its sonorous fall, so that one, overthrowing the other, after several centuries with its vast grave would serve instead as the foot of a new power, which in its turn will inevitably fall? " 1. The purpose of social existence is to create conditions for the maximum development of a person’s abilities, be it a farmer, a writer, a scientist, and the satisfaction of his aspirations. military force, changeable, as history shows, the state should be famous for, and the creation of opportunities for “discovering the great abilities of the human soul,” which, in turn, are the basis for the progress of not only individual peoples, but also of all humanity, leading to the rapprochement of all peoples. Bypassing the issue of serfdom, Karamzin in his speech essentially proclaimed the idea of ​​enlightenment, typical of the ideology of the Enlightenment, as the main goal and basis of human progress.

1 (Right there. P. 43.)

The success of the first eight volumes of History became that important support for Karamzin, which gave him new strength for further work. Outwardly, he tried to be pointedly indifferent to the flow of oral and written judgments that his work caused. Some saw arrogance in this position, others - silent agreement, third - the desire to be above momentary disputes, not devoid, perhaps, of personal bias 1. Tolerance of praise and criticism, distrustful, wearily skeptical attitude towards the ideas of the young “liberalists” who attacked him at meetings of Arzamas, at the English Club, in salons and living rooms, and even in his own apartment and Tsarskoye Selo house during friendly receptions, emphasized independence in relations with the capital's nobility, in judgments about political problems during increasingly frequent meetings with Alexander I - this seems to be Karamzin's public position at this and subsequent times. This is confirmed by frank letters to I. I. Dmitriev, imbued with a bright sense of friendship, as well as numerous and unanimous testimonies of contemporaries, to whom the position of a historiographer, in the words of the famous memoirist F. F. Wigel, seemed “the most sublime, separate from everyone, inaccessible to intrigue and critics" 2.

1 (Eidelman N. Ya. Decree. op. pp. 112 - 119.)

2 (Notes of F. F. Vigel. M., 1892. Part 6. P. 56.)

In December 1820, Karamzin completed work on the ninth volume of History. It told about the second half of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, which was characterized by the historiographer as “a terrible change in the soul of the king and the fate of the kingdom.” In the volume, for the first time in Karamzin’s work (but not for the first time in Russian historical and fiction, not to mention foreign) the theme of despotism and tyranny as a perversion of the idea of ​​autocratic power was posed and developed. Karamzin could not help but foresee that the public response to this volume would be even greater than to the first eight volumes. He could be convinced of this at least on January 8, 1820, when he read excerpts from it in the presence of about 300 people at ceremonial meeting Russian Academy. The listeners were amazed at what they heard; It is no coincidence that the reading itself at the Academy became possible only after its cautious president had previously agreed on the topic of the speech with Alexander I. After the speech, rumors began to circulate around St. Petersburg about a certain “opinion” according to which it was premature to publish what Karamzin had written. So, for example, in July 1820, N.I. Turgenev wrote to his brother Sergei that in St. Petersburg “many people find that it is too early to publish the story of the horrors of Ivan Tsar” 1 . “Someone here disclosed,” Karamzin reported to Dmitriev, that the ninth volume was even “banned” 2 .

1 (Decembrist N.I. Turgenev: Letters to his brother S.I. Turgenev, 1811 - 1821. M.; L., 1936. P. 349.)

2 (Letters from N. M. Karamzin to I. I. Dmitriev. P. 306.)

For a long time, the historiographer had doubts about the decision to publish this volume. “Something is stopping me,” he shared with Dmitriev, “The spirit of the time, is it the wind. And the wind changes. Contrary to your opinion, you cannot write in such a way that it is impossible to cling to” 1. Doubts were dispelled when the emperor himself, in one of his conversations with Karamzin, in accordance with the “spirit of the times,” assured him that he was “not inclined to interfere with historical frankness.” The familiarization of the Minister of Internal Affairs V.P. Kochubey with Golitsyn’s letter of 1816, which authorized the publication of the first eight volumes without censorship, decided the fate of the ninth volume: on November 9, 1820, Kochubey informed Karamzin that regarding the publication of the continuation of his work “has already been given to the owner of the printing house, Mr. I want proper permission" 2. At this point the subscription was announced again. At the end of May 1821, it went on sale 3 and began to be sent out through the St. Petersburg Post Office to subscribers at a price of 15 rubles, and together with eight volumes of the second edition at a price of 87 rubles. in St. Petersburg, 95 in Moscow and 100 in other cities. How successful the implementation of the ninth volume was, we do not know anything.

1 (Right there. P. 300.)

2 (TsGIA USSR. F. 951. Op. 1. D. 15. L. 1.)

3 (Karamzin Ya. M. History of the Russian State. St. Petersburg, 1821, T. IX.)

Meanwhile, Karamzin “hurried to the goal” - “to put the Romanovs on the throne and look at his descendants to our time, even to pronounce the names of Catherine, Paul and Alexander with historical modesty.” In March 1821, he began work on the tenth volume, in August of the same year he was “all in Godunov,” and in September he began describing the events associated with the death of Tsarevich Dmitry. At the beginning of 1822, the historiographer “approached the end of Theodore’s reign,” and in November he worked on chapters related to the events of the reign of False Dmitry. At the end of this year, Karamzin abandoned his original intention to publish the tenth volume: “... it seems better,” he wrote to Dmitriev, “to finish the story of the Pretender and then publish it in full: during Godunov’s reign he was just beginning to act” 1 .

1 (Letters from N. M. Karamzin to I. I. Dmitriev. P. 340.)

True to his once chosen tactics, Karamzin did not miss the opportunity to publicly read excerpts from what he had written. It wasn't just his friends who listened to them. In October 1822, Karamzin read the chapter on the election of Boris Godunov to the kingdom in the salon of the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, and, in his words, “Gatchina society did not sleep” 1 .

1 (Right there. P. 339.)

Finally, on January 14, 1823, another reading took place at the Russian Academy. If not worried, then, in any case, already intrigued by the responses to the ninth volume and the reading of excerpts from the tenth, now Alexander I remembered his rights as a “sovereign censor” and expressed a desire to get acquainted with what Karamzin had written.

In February 1823 he demanded the manuscript of the tenth volume; later, going to Warsaw, he took away the chapters dedicated to the reign of Godunov and his son, in January 1824 he left with him the chapters about False Dmitry, already completely rewritten.

Judging by the fragmentary information that has survived, Alexander I’s remarks primarily concerned the softening of subjects that were distinguished by their sharp political resonance at that time. The historiographer reported to Dmitriev about one of them, which was of fundamental importance for Karamzin’s historical and journalistic concept regarding the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich, in the hope that his trusted friend would understand him perfectly.

The fact is that Karamzin’s description of the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich turned out to be surprisingly “similar” to the first years of the reign of Alexander I. For Karamzin’s contemporaries, the weak-willed Fyodor was involuntarily associated with Alexander I; Boris Godunov's path to power resembled the position and career of M. M. Speransky before 1812, etc. While preparing the tenth volume, Karamzin took the analogy even further. By this time, the reactionary clergy, whose leaders were the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Seraphim and the abbot of the Novgorod St. George's Monastery Photius, began to strongly influence the government course of Alexander I. Karamzin’s attitude towards them was clearly negative. In an effort to teach the emperor a “lesson” from the past, Karamzin inserted into the text of “History” the idea that “the weak Fedor had to depend on the nobles or(emphasis added by us. - VC.) monks." Alexander I immediately drew attention to this: "...the latter,” he wrote in Karamzin’s broadcast, “won’t it offend our black clergy?” 1. In the printed text, the phrase is slightly changed while maintaining its basic meaning. others, to which the emperor drew attention, excluding Karamzin’s amendments unknown to us “in two places.” One of Karamzin’s answers to the remarks of Alexander I has been preserved. “Following your gracious remark,” the historiographer wrote, “I looked with special attention at those places where it was said about the Poles, allies of False Dmitry; no, it seems, not a word of offense to people, only the bad deeds of individuals are described and in the way that Polish historians themselves described or judged them: I refer to note 522 of the 11th volume. I did not spare the Russians when they committed crimes or disgraced themselves. I prefer to use the name Poles because it is shorter, more pleasant to the ear, and at this time (that is, in the 16th and 17th centuries) was usually used in Russia" 2 .

1 (Right there. P. 347.)

2 (Karamzin N. M. Unpublished works and correspondence. St. Petersburg, 1862. P. 29.)

By the end of 1823, Karamzin had a final idea about the structure of the remaining part of the “History”: in the tenth volume he included the events of the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich with a chapter on the state of Russia in the 16th century, in the eleventh - chapters on the reign of Boris Godunov, False Dmitry and the election to the kingdom of Vasily Shuisky. The last, twelfth volume was supposed to contain a description of the events of the early 17th century. before the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom. In November 1823, the tenth and eleventh volumes were submitted for collection. In March of the following year they went on sale for 20 and 30 rubles. (depending on paper quality) 1 .

1 (Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State. St. Petersburg, 1823 - 1824. T. X - XI.)

Several evidences of the sale of these volumes survive. On March 14, 1824, A.I. Turgenev wrote to P.A. Vyazemsky: “On the Semenovsky Bridge you only see people laden with volumes of Karamzin’s History. Already 900 copies have been sold in three days” 1 . But already on March 25, the same Turgenev informed his correspondent that Karamzin “was very upset by the cold analysis of his two volumes and in annoyance said that he would stop writing “History.” Imagine that four, five copies a day are being sorted... He forced to give in to the booksellers for a period of time... Many here visit Karamzin almost every day and do not take his “History”! Others ask to read "2. By mid-1824, about 2 thousand copies were sold, and by October 1825, the historiographer had 1,800 copies left unsold out of the entire circulation, which he was forced to hand over to commission in 50-100 copies. V bookstores L. L. Sveshnikova, I. V. Slenina and M. I. Zaikin with a discount of up to 4% from 1 rub. Thus, we have before us a clear decrease in the bookselling success of the last volumes of Karamzin’s work compared to the first eight (of course, if the circulation of the last two was equal to or slightly exceeded the circulation of the first eight volumes, which can only be guessed at).

1 (Ostafevsky archive. St. Petersburg, 1899. T. 3. P. 19.)

2 (Right there. P. 26.)

The last, twelfth volume of the History was not completed. Anticipating his death, Karamzin wrote it without “Notes”, which were an important part of the entire work. After the death of the historiographer, this volume was prepared for publication by his friends and was published in the spring of 1829 1.

1 (Karamzin Ya. M. History of the Russian State. St. Petersburg, 1829, T. XII.)

To understand the role that “History” played in the social life of Russia in the first decades of the 19th century, to understand the controversy that unfolded around it, it is of interest to identify the readership of Karamzin’s work and the geography of the distribution of “History” at that time. The only source is the list of subscribers published during the second edition of the eight volumes of the History. The list cannot be considered sufficiently representative. Firstly, it includes only part of the subscribers to the first edition, and, obviously, the wealthiest ones, who decided to purchase, in addition to the first, the second edition. The less wealthy part, naturally, was content with the first edition. Secondly, the list includes the names of only 283 “persons”. Even if we assume that the circulation of the second edition was up to 1200 copies, it becomes clear that the list of subscribers is only about a quarter total number owners of this publication. Finally, we do not know whether this list contains all subscribers to the second edition, or whether, when including the names of those who signed it, Karamzin proceeded from some criteria known only to him.

And yet, analysis of the list of subscribers to the second edition of “History” gives interesting picture, to some extent typical of the characteristics of the circle of readers and other historical and literary works of this time.

The list shows that the main reader of Karamzin's History was the nobility. The nobility was the main reader of other historical and historical-literary publications of this time. Analyzing the composition of subscribers to “History” (as well as other books and magazines), one should not exaggerate the role of representatives of the merchants among them. Many merchants subscribed to literature in the hope of reselling it for more high price. So, for example, of the four merchants who subscribed to the “Journal of Ancient and Modern Literature” (1818), two purchased 25 and 10 copies, respectively. magazine. We see the same picture in the subscription to “History”: Moscow merchant N. O. Vorobev purchased 10 copies, merchants P. A. Plavilshchikov, I. P. Glazunov, Sveshnikovs - 11 copies each. The limited number of subscribers from other classes is obviously explained by the price of the book. An interesting testimony has been preserved by M. P. Pogodin (who came from a wealthy family of a peasant tax farmer) about how he, a student at Moscow University, was forced to use many tricks in order to collect the amount necessary to purchase eight volumes of the first edition of “History.” “Before it came out,” he recalled, “the priest gave me 80 rubles for exemplary essays, and I was ashamed to ask him for another 55 rubles. I only had 8 rubles or even less. I told him that I had 35 rubles and that only 20 rubles were missing, he gave them to me. With this money I went to V.G.I., who loved me very much, and told him that I needed 10 rubles to buy "History". He gave me 12 rubles , I already had 40. I gave these 40 rubles to A-vu, asked him to buy it, and, knowing that “History” costs 55 rubles, I told him that it can be bought for 35. If not, then he added his own as much as was needed. But at that time there was no longer a single copy in Moscow, and he returned 40 rubles to me. I begged him for a loan of 10 rubles, assuring him that one of my friends had a copy for sale, and I It was 55 rubles. My God! And now I can’t remember what these requests cost me, with what a clenched heart I approached and pronounced the hated name of money in such a case... However, all the unsuccessful “History” was already sold out. Finally, the priest wrote to an acquaintance in St. Petersburg, and they already bought it there for 70 rubles, which he paid" 1 .

1 (OR GBL. F. 231. Map. 1. D. 31. L. 84.)

The geography of subscribers to Istoriia was also typical for publications of this time. Among them we meet residents not only of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov, Yaroslavl, Chernigov, Kazan, Tambov, Vilno, Dorpat and other centers of cultural life in Russia, but also less noticeable places in this regard, such as Yelna, Oboyan, Kamenets -Podolsky, Brailov, Venev, Bakhmut, Kyakhta, Kirsanov, Chembar, Irkutsk, Omsk, Epifan, etc. - in total over 60 cities and towns of the country. For comparison, we can, for example, point out that the magazine "Blagomarnenny" in 1819 had subscribers from 129 places, the magazine "Competitor of Education and Charity" in the same year - from 105 places, the magazine "Ukrainian Bulletin" in 1816 - from 81 places, G.I. Uspensky’s book “The Experience of Narrating Russian Antiquities” - from 99 places.

Thus, the bookselling success of Karamzin’s work turned out to be significant. Compared to other publications of the 10s - 20s of the 19th century. "History" was distinguished by its circulation, the speed of its implementation, reprinting and translation into foreign languages. But all this was only part of what gave contemporaries the basis to call the publication, distribution and success of “History” an “unprecedented phenomenon” and what other meaning was hidden behind these words and will be discussed in the following chapters.

Hypothesis: Writers, seeing
injustice of modern
them societies, addressed to
past to imagine
readers of the picture exemplary
statehood.

Tasks:

Find out what era the writer lived in.
Find out what the historical background is
stories.
Understand why the author contacted
precisely to the era of the reign of Alexei
Mikhailovich.

Project work

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Read the text of the story.
In the historical encyclopedia we read about
during the reign of Alexei
Mikhailovich.
Found material about the reign era
Catherine II.
They found portraits of the Tsar, Empress, boyars,
peasants, paintings of “golden-domed Moscow” and
its surroundings.
We found out who the boyars were.

Characteristics of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

“The king cared only about the well-being of his
subjects, was merciful and condescending"
(lines from the article “Let’s reflect on
read..." literary critic, specialist in
literature of the 18th century I.V. Fedorov)
"Kind-hearted, sensitive king...",
“good sovereign”, “in the throne city
glorious Russian kingdom", "sensitive king
was touched to the depths of my heart", "the king meets
him (the messenger) ... and with a trembling hand unfolds
letter from military leaders... The first word is
"victory"! "Victory!" - he exclaims in joy."
(From the story by N.M. Karamzin)

From the “School Encyclopedia” History of Russia

Boyars - the highest stratum of society in Rus' in the 10th century
the beginning of the 18th century, which occupied the dominant
position in government
after the great princes and kings.
In the 15th-17th centuries. boyar - the highest official rank
in the Russian state among the “servicemen”
people in their own country." The boyars were members
Boyar Duma, occupied the highest
courtiers, state and judicial
positions, headed orders.

Portrait of boyar B.I. Prozorovsky (artist E. Grube. 1694)

Boyarin Matvey
(From N.M. Karamzin’s story “Natalia, the Boyar’s Daughter”)
Portrait of a boyar
B.I.
Prozorovsky
(artist E.
Grube. 1694)
"The Sovereign's close associate was
faithful and useful to him
advisor, haven't used it
its position for
selfish intrigue, not
stole from the state
treasury, was the patron and
"protector" of poor neighbors."
(Lines from the article “Let’s Reflect
over what you read..."
literary critic, specialist in
literature of the 18th century I.V.
Fedorov)

Characteristics of the boyar Matvey
“...boyar Matvey, the royal servant, faithful friend
humanity..."
“boyar Matvey Andreev, a rich, smart man...
Russian custom, great hospitable man. He owned many
estates and was not an offender, but a patron and
protector of his poor neighbors... The king called him
with his right eye, and the right eye will never be a king
deceived... When he (the king) had to sort out
important litigation, he called upon the boyar to help him
Matvey, and boyar Matvey, placing a clean hand on a clean
heart, said: “This one is right... according to my conscience...” - and
his conscience was always in agreement with truth and conscience
royal"
“...On every twelfth holiday they supplied
long tables in his upper rooms... and the boyar... called to him
dine all the poor people passing by...”

10. How does Karamzin imagine a “model reign”?

Comparison of the reign era
Catherine II and
era of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

11. The era of the reign of Catherine II

The plight of the serfs:
“It is announced publicly... Which of the
landowners will want to give their people to
hard labor, such to accept and use
into hard work for as long as
the landowners will want them..." (from the decree of the Empress
Catherine II)
Admiration for everything foreign: “I always give
the advantages of their (the people) undermining and fur coats over
current and all Gallo-Albion outfits"
Raising youth in a spirit of contempt for the people, for
national culture, native language.

12. The era of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich

“...the king cared only about
the well-being of his subjects, was
merciful and forgiving, where
attractive simplicity of morals
compares favorably with promiscuity
and the depravity of Catherine's
yard..." (V.I. Fedorov)
Education in the national spirit, in
love for your people, in spirit
piety and mercy: "Which of
we don't like those times when
Russians were Russians when they were in
dressed up in their own clothes,
walked at their own pace... lived according to
their custom, they said... how
thought" (from the introduction to the story)

13. Comparison of two eras

The era of Catherine The era of Alexei
II
Mikhailovich
1.
2.
3.
Difficult situation 1.
serf peasants.
Worship before 2.
to all foreigners.
3.
Upbringing
youth in the spirit
contempt for the people
national
culture, native
language.
Taking care of your own
people.
Purity of morals.
Raising in
national spirit,
in love for one's
people, language.

14. Conclusion:

“The picture of state humanity and
justice in the story “Natalia,
boyar's daughter" unambiguously
showed Catherine II and her
favorites as they should be
monarchs, the empress herself and their
close." (V.I. Fedorov,
specialist in 18th century literature)

15. What is the significance of the description of Moscow and its environs in the story?

“...look at the golden-domed Moscow, from which the radiant
the day lifted the foggy cover of the night and which, like
some huge bird, awakened by the voice of the morning, in
the breeze shook off the shiny dew, look at the Moscow surroundings, at the gloomy, thick,
the boundless Maryina Grove, which, like a gray, curly
the smoke was lost from sight at an immeasurable distance and where they lived
then all the wild beasts of the north, where the terrible roar from
drowned out the melodies of the singing birds. On the other side
the sparkling bends of the Moskvyreka, flowering fields and smoking villages appeared to Natalya’s gaze, from where
hardworking villagers rode out with cheerful songs
their works..."

16. Why does the author paint pictures of the life of ordinary Russian people?

“...villagers who to this day have no
have changed, dress the same, live the same and
work as they lived and worked before, and among everyone
changes and faces are still presented to us
true Russian physiognomy.."

17. Problem solution:

1.
2.
The writer's appeal to the historical
the past of the Russian people was
caused by patriotic desire
writer to fight gallomania,
received at that time among the Russian
nobility widespread.
In the story the author painted a picture
"model" monarchy.