By decree of Alexander I, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was appointed official historiographer. Position of N.M. Karamzin on the reign of Alexander I

A new century began with a new reign. On the night of March 11-12, 1801, Paul I was killed. Alexander I was on the throne. Residents of the capitals rejoiced. The spirit of a politician awakened in Karamzin.

In 1801, Karamzin greeted the new emperor with a political moral lesson:

How difficult it is to rule autocratically,

And only give an account to the sky!...

But is it possible to love a slave?

Should we be grateful to him?

Love and fear do not go together;

The soul is free alone

Created for her feelings.

At the same time, at the turn of two centuries and two periods of his work, he wrote “Historical Eulogies to Catherine II.” The topic was suggested by the fact that Alexander I, in the manifesto announcing his accession to the throne, promised to reign “according to the laws and according to the heart of our august grandmother, Empress Catherine II.” How Karamzin imagined the reign of Catherine II, he himself told Alexander I later, in 1811, in the merciless “Note on Ancient and New Russia.” Now he preferred to draw an ideal image, a kind of monarchical utopia, under the name of Catherine. The "Word" is contradictory - it is a work of a transitional era. Karamzin defends autocracy as the only suitable form for a vast empire and for the current state of morality. This does not prevent him from emphasizing that, ideally, for a society brought up on civic virtue, a republic is preferable. But “A republic without virtue and heroic love for the fatherland is an inanimate corpse.” This was the formula of “republicanism in the soul,” to which Karamzin subsequently resorted more than once and which could not convince his revolutionary contemporaries. However, the tone of the essay is striking. It begins with an appeal not to “dear readers,” but as if it were to be read before a crowded meeting of patriots: “Fellow citizens!” This is probably the first time that a Russian writer addressed his readers in this way. Only a person who had imbibed the eloquence of the National Assembly could defend the autocracy in this way. Karamzin defended the power that limited freedom, but defended it as a free person. And autocracy in his presentation looked unusual. This was not unlimited despotism. The freedom and security of an individual, a private person, was the wall before which the power of any autocrat had to stop. Catherine, as depicted by Karamzin, “respected in her subject the dignity of a person, a moral being created for happiness in civil life.” “She knew that personal security is the first good for a person, and that without it our life, among all other ways of happiness and pleasure, is eternal, painful anxiety.” At the same time, Karamzin refers to the first manifesto of Catherine II and her Mandate - both documents, as he, of course, knew, were secretly disavowed by the government itself. Lotman Yu. M. The Creation of Karamzin. M., 1987.

In two odes written by Karamzin on the occasion of Alexander I’s accession to the throne and on the occasion of his coronation, he expressed approval of Alexander’s first steps in government and outlined the desired program for his reign. Karamzin gave a full statement of his political demands to the new autocrat in “Historical Eulogies to Catherine II.” “The Lay” was written by Karamzin in 1801 and through D.P. Troshchinsky was given to Alexander I. Kislyagin L.G. Formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin (1785-1803). M., 1976. P.157.

In an ode dedicated to the accession to the throne of Alexander I, Karamzin likens autocratic power to divine power: “Great as God is the legislator; he is the founder of peaceful societies and the benefactor of all ages.” In understanding the nature of autocratic power, he completely agrees with Catherine’s “Instruction,” and in the “Instruction” the monarch was considered as the creator of laws: he follows his “blessings, from which the laws flow and flow.”

“The sovereign is the source of all power in the monarchy; but this power must act through certain means, in a certain definite way: governments and laws are born that make the establishment of any state firm and immovable.”

The autocrat, according to Karamzin, is obliged to comply with the laws, otherwise his rule turns into tyranny, and such power is contrary to reason. Based on rationalist teachings about society, he argued that where there are no laws, there is no civil society. Here it is fundamentally important to establish what Karamzin understood by “society”, “citizens”, “people”? The fact is that often these concepts hide an ethnic whole - the Russian people, but sometimes they have a narrow class meaning, and then only the nobility is hidden behind them.

All the odes Karamzin addressed to the Russian autocrats contained a demand - a reminder to comply with the laws existing in the country. Kislyagina L.G. Formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin (1785-1803). M., 1976. P.162-163.

Since the issue of the peasantry in the first year of the reign of Alexander I became the focus of attention not only of the government, but also of the public, Karamzin found it necessary to speak out on this issue. In the article “Pleasant views, hopes and desires of the present time,” written in 1802 and published in the “Bulletin of Europe,” he pointed out that all projects for the emancipation of peasants are a violation not only of the rights of the nobility, which are based on their right of ownership of land, but also the historically established alliance between the nobility and the peasantry: “The Russian nobleman,” he wrote, “gives the necessary land to his peasants, is their defender in civil relations, an assistant in the disasters of chance and nature: these are his duties. For this, he demands from them half the working days of the week: that’s his right!” He also spoke out against any restrictions on the landowner’s power over the peasants, since “according to our very laws, it is not tyrant and unlimited.”

According to the state development scheme developed by Karamzin, the autocratic government must gradually change the position of all classes of the state. So far, he believed, the autocracy had given political rights only to the nobility. In the future, he believed, changes would occur in the position of the two lower classes. In the article “Pleasant views, hopes and desires of the present time,” Karamzin, guided by his scheme, pointed out to the government of Alexander I the need to act in this direction, and not to deal with the private peasant issue; not to get ahead of the development of society, but to begin to implement more general and urgent tasks. By creating new legislation, the government, in his opinion, would also resolve the peasant issue, guided by the general state interest and taking into account the level of moral development of society as a whole and individual classes. Kislyagina L.G. Formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin (1785-1803). M., 1976. P. 189.

In 1811, Karamzin compiled a “Note on Ancient and New Russia,” specifically intended for the emperor (which in itself largely determined its tone). Karamzin expresses here his view on the current state of Russia.

A. N. Pynin Karamzin: pro et contra: personality and creativity of N. M. Karamzin in the assessment of Russian. writers, critics, researchers: anthology / comp. Sapchenko L.A. - St. Petersburg, 2006., in essays on the social movement under Alexander I, determines that the “Note” has the task of presenting the internal political history of Russia and its current state. The main theme of the "Note" is to prove that all the greatness, the whole destiny of Russia lies in the development and power of the autocracy, that Russia flourished when it was strong and fell when it weakened. The lesson that followed from this topic for Alexander should have been that even at the present moment Russia does not need anything more, that liberal reforms are only harmful, that only “patriarchal power” and “virtue” are needed. “The present is a consequence of the past” - with these words Karamzin began his note: this past was supposed to provide him with the basis for his conclusions about the present - the whole essence of the note and its purpose lies in the examination and criticism of the reign of Alexander I.

The part of the “Note” dedicated to Alexander I is the most decisive denial of those liberal enterprises that filled the first years of his reign.

We have seen that these enterprises were often very untenable, due to the indecisiveness of the emperor himself and the lack of real information from himself and his assistants. When some time passed, these properties of the matter began to reveal themselves, and therefore it was not particularly difficult to see their weaknesses and contradictions; and Karamzin often points them out quite skillfully.

Pointing out that at the beginning of the reign two opinions dominated in the minds: one that wanted to limit autocracy, the other that wanted only to restore Catherine’s system, Karamzin joins the latter and laughs at those who thought “to put the law above the sovereign.”

Karamzin threatens that with the change of the state charter, Russia must perish, that autocracy is necessary for the unity of a huge empire consisting of various parts, that, finally, the monarch does not have the right to legally limit his power, because Russia handed his ancestor an indivisible autocracy; finally, even assuming that Alexander prescribes some kind of charter to the authorities, will his oath be a bridle for his successors, without other means that are impossible or dangerous for Russia? “No,” he continues, “let’s leave the student’s philosophies and say that our sovereign has only one sure way to curb his heirs in abuses of power: let him reign virtuously! Let him teach his subjects to goodness! Then saving customs will be born; rules, popular thoughts, which best of all mortal forms will keep future sovereigns within the limits of legitimate power... By what? - by fear of arousing universal hatred in the event of a contrary system of reign..." Karamzin N.M. A note on ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations. M., 1991. P.49.

Karamzin finds only one way to “keep future sovereigns within the limits of legitimate power” - this is the fear of popular hatred, of course, with its consequences.

Having resolved this first question, Karamzin moves on to consider the external and internal activities of the government. Having pointed out how all the “Russians” agreed in a good opinion about the qualities of the monarch, his zeal for the common good, etc., Karamzin gathers his fortitude to “tell the truth” that “Russia is filled with dissatisfied people: they complain in the wards and in the huts , have neither power of attorney nor zeal for government, and strictly condemn its goals and measures..."

Karamzin begins with a severe condemnation of foreign policy and diplomatic and military mistakes. He condemns in particular the embassy of Count Markov, his arrogance in Paris and the warlike fervor of some people at court.

In analyzing internal transformations, Karamzin finds even more reasons for condemnation. There was nothing to change, according to him, all he had to do was restore Catherine’s order, and everything would be fine. “This system of government was not inferior in improvement to any other European one, containing, in addition to what was common to all, some features consistent with the local circumstances of the empire” Karamzin N.M. A note on ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations. M., 1991. P.57.. This should have been adhered to. But, “instead of abolishing what is unnecessary, adding what is necessary, in one word correcting it after thorough reflection, Alexandrov’s advisers wanted news in the main methods of royal action, ignoring the rule of the wise that any news in the state order is an evil to which one must resort only in necessity: for one time gives the proper firmness to the statutes; for we respect more what we have respected for a long time and we do everything better from habit.”

Moving on to particulars, Karamzin strictly criticizes Alexander’s new institutions, for example, the establishment of ministries, measures for the Ministry of Public Education, the structure of the police, assumptions about the liberation of the peasants, financial measures, legislative projects, etc.

The measures taken by the Ministry of Public Education again evoke the harshest condemnation of Karamzin. Emperor Alexander “used millions for the formation of universities, gymnasiums, and schools; unfortunately, we see more losses for the treasury than benefits for the fatherland. They discharged professors without preparing students; among the former there are many worthy people, but few useful ones; students do not understand foreign teachers, for they know the Latin language poorly and their number is so small that professors lose the desire to go to classes" Karamzin N.M. A note on ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations. M., 1991. P.66.. “The whole trouble is because we formed our universities in German, without recognizing that the circumstances here are different.” There are many listeners there, but with us - “we have no hunters for higher sciences. Nobles serve, and merchants want to know essential arithmetic or foreign languages for the benefit of their trade;... our lawyers and judges do not need knowledge of Roman rights; ours priests are educated somehow in seminaries and do not go further,” and the benefits of the “learned state” are still unknown.

Karamzin criticized a number of real steps taken by the government of Alexander I, the initiator of which was Speransky: the establishment of ministries, a decree on a new procedure for promotion to the rank of collegiate assessor. Karamzin called Speransky’s “Project Code” “a translation of the Napoleonic Code.” But still, the main thing that he rejected was the possibility of legislative limitation of autocracy through the institution of representation without undermining the foundations of the Russian monarchy. Speransky proposed to achieve the strengthening of the political system by reforming the management system, up to the renunciation of the unlimited nature of monarchical power, but Karamzin resolutely rejected the usefulness of such reforms. Mirzoev E.B. “Note” N.M. Karamzin and projects of M.M. Speransky: two views on the Russian autocracy // Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 8: History. 2001. No. 1. P.74.

But, condemning Speransky’s project, Karamzin, nevertheless, himself recognized the need for a “systematic” code, only he wanted to build it not on Napoleon’s code, but on Justinian’s laws and the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. This was the dispute, and, of course, conceiving the plan for a new systematic code not with archaeological purposes, it was more natural to think about the new European legislation than about the Byzantine and that old Russian, where Karamzin considered it necessary to correct some, especially criminal laws, “cruel, barbaric” - and are they the only criminals? - which, although they were not executed, existed “to the shame of our legislation.” This shame was seriously felt by the people who chose to look for a model in the Napoleonic Code. If this systematic legislation turned out to be too difficult, Karamzin, as is known, proposed a simple collection of existing laws - just as Speransky proposed the same thing, in the worst case.

Having indicated in two words several more erroneous measures of the government, Karamzin comes to the following general conclusion about the state of affairs: “...Is it surprising that the general opinion is so unfavorable to the government? Let’s not hide evil, let’s not deceive ourselves and the sovereign, let’s not repeat, that people usually love to complain and are always dissatisfied with the present, but these complaints are striking in their agreement and effect on the disposition of minds in the whole state."

He then offers his own opinions about what should have been done for the welfare of Russia and what the essence of government should have been. He sees the main mistake of the new legislators in “excessive respect for the forms of state activity”; business is no better conducted, only in places and by officials of a different name. In his opinion, it is not the forms that are important, but the people: ministries and the council can, perhaps, exist, and will be useful, if only they contain “men famous for intelligence and honor.” Therefore, Karamzin’s main advice is to “look for people,” and not only for ministries, but especially for gubernatorial positions.

Secondly, he advises the elevation of the clergy. He “does not propose to restore the patriarchate,” but wants the synod to have more importance, so that it contains, for example, only archbishops, so that it, together with the Senate, convenes to listen to new laws, to accept them into its repository and promulgate them, “of course , without any contradiction." In addition to good governors, we need to give Russia good priests: “we’ll get by without anything else and won’t envy anyone in Europe.”

In his conclusion, Karamzin repeats his opinions about the dangers of innovation, about the need for saving severity, about the choice of people, about various private measures, and expresses hope for correcting mistakes and calming discontent. He once again combined his conservative program into the following words: “the nobility and the clergy, the Senate and the Synod, as the repository of laws, the sovereign is above all, the only legislator, the only source of power. This is the basis of the Russian monarchy, which can be confirmed or weakened by the rules of the reigning... "

"The History of the Russian State" is not only the creation of a great writer, but also the feat of an honest man.

A. S. Pushkin

It turns out that I have a Fatherland!

The first eight volumes of the History of the Russian State were published all at once in 1818. They say that, having slammed the eighth and final volume, Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American, exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!” And he wasn't alone. Thousands of people thought, and most importantly, felt this very thing. Everyone read “History” - students, officials, nobles, even society ladies. They read it in Moscow and St. Petersburg, they read it in the provinces: distant Irkutsk alone bought 400 copies. After all, it is so important for everyone to know that he has it, the Fatherland. Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin gave this confidence to the people of Russia.

Need a story

In those days, at the beginning of the 19th century, ancient, age-old Russia suddenly turned out to be young and new. She was about to enter the big world. Everything was born anew: the army and navy, factories and manufactories, science and literature. And it might seem that the country has no history - was there anything before Peter except the dark ages of backwardness and barbarism? Do we have a story? “Yes,” answered Karamzin.

Who is he?

We know very little about Karamzin’s childhood and youth - no diaries, no letters from relatives, no youthful writings have survived. We know that Nikolai Mikhailovich was born on December 1, 1766, not far from Simbirsk. At that time it was an incredible wilderness, a real bear corner. When the boy was 11 or 12 years old, his father, a retired captain, took his son to Moscow, to a boarding school at the university gymnasium. Karamzin stayed here for some time, and then entered active military service - this was at the age of 15! The teachers prophesied for him not only the Moscow - Leipzig University, but somehow it didn’t work out.

Karamzin's exceptional education is his personal merit.

Writer

I didn’t do military service - I wanted to write: compose, translate. And at the age of 17, Nikolai Mikhailovich was already a retired lieutenant. You have your whole life ahead of you. What should I dedicate it to? Literature, exclusively literature - decides Karamzin.

What was it like, Russian literature of the 18th century? Also young, a beginner. Karamzin writes to a friend: “I am deprived of the pleasure of reading much in my native language. We are still poor in writers. We have several poets who deserve to be read.” Of course, there are already writers, and not just a few, but Lomonosov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, but there are no more than a dozen significant names. Are there really not enough talents? No, they exist, but it became a matter of language: the Russian language has not yet adapted to convey new thoughts, new feelings, or describe new objects.

Karamzin focuses on the lively spoken language of educated people. He writes not scholarly treatises, but travel notes ("Notes of a Russian Traveler"), stories ("Bornholm Island", "Poor Lisa"), poems, articles, and translates from French and German.

Journalist

Finally, they decide to publish a magazine. It was called simply: "Moscow Journal". The famous playwright and writer Ya. B. Knyazhnin picked up the first issue and exclaimed: “We didn’t have such prose!”

The success of "Moscow Magazine" was enormous - as many as 300 subscribers. A very large figure for those times. This is how small not only writing and reading Russia is!

Karamzin works incredibly hard. He also collaborates in the first Russian children's magazine. It was called "Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind." Only FOR this magazine Karamzin wrote two dozen pages every week.

Karamzin was the number one writer of his time.

Historian

And suddenly Karamzin takes on the gigantic task of compiling his native Russian history. On October 31, 1803, Tsar Alexander I issued a decree appointing N.M. Karamzin as a historiographer with a salary of 2 thousand rubles a year. Now for the rest of my life I am a historian. But apparently it was necessary.

Chronicles, decrees, codes of law

Now - write. But for this you need to collect material. The search began. Karamzin literally combs through all the archives and book collections of the Synod, the Hermitage, the Academy of Sciences, the Public Library, Moscow University, the Alexander Nevsky and Trinity-Sergius Lavra. At his request, they are looking for it in monasteries, in the archives of Oxford, Paris, Venice, Prague and Copenhagen. And how many things were found!

Ostromir Gospel of 1056 - 1057 (this is still the oldest dated Russian book), Ipatiev and Trinity Chronicles. Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, a work of ancient Russian literature “The Prayer of Daniil the Prisoner” and much more.

They say that having discovered a new chronicle - the Volyn one, Karamzin did not sleep for several nights with joy. Friends laughed that he had become simply unbearable - all he talked about was history.

What will it be like?

The materials are being collected, but how to take on the text, how to write a book that even the simplest person can read, but from which even an academician will not wince? How to make it interesting, artistic, and at the same time scientific? And here are these volumes. Each is divided into two parts: in the first - a detailed story written by a great master - this is for the common reader; in the second - detailed notes, links to sources - this is for historians.

This is true patriotism

Karamzin writes to his brother: “History is not a novel: a lie can always be beautiful, but only some minds like the truth in its garb.” So what should I write about? Set forth in detail the glorious pages of the past, and only turn over the dark ones? Maybe this is exactly what a patriotic historian should do? No, Karamzin decides, patriotism does not come at the expense of distorting history. He doesn’t add anything, doesn’t invent anything, doesn’t glorify victories or downplay defeats.

By chance, drafts of volume VII-ro were preserved: we see how Karamzin worked on every phrase of his “History”. Here he writes about Vasily III: “in relations with Lithuania, Vasily... always ready for peace...” It’s not the same, it’s not true. The historian crosses out what was written and concludes: “In relations with Lithuania, Vasily expressed peace in words, trying to harm her secretly or openly.” Such is the impartiality of the historian, such is true patriotism. Love for one's own, but not hatred for someone else's.

Ancient Russia seemed to be found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus

The ancient history of Russia is being written, and modern history is being made around it: Napoleonic stinks, the Battle of Austerlitz, the Peace of Tilsit, the Patriotic War of 12, the fire of Moscow. In 1815, Russian troops enter Paris. In 1818, the first 8 volumes of the History of the Russian State were published. Circulation is a terrible thing! - 3 thousand copies. And everything sold out in 25 days. Unheard of! But the price is considerable: 50 rubles.

The last volume stopped at the middle of the reign of Ivan IV, the Terrible.

Some said - Jacobin!

Even earlier, the trustee of Moscow University, Golenishchev-Kutuzov, submitted to the Minister of Public Education a document, to put it mildly, in which he thoroughly proved that “Karamzin’s works are filled with freethinking and Jacobin poison.” “If only he should have been given an order, it would have been time to lock him up long ago.”

Why is this so? First of all - for independence of judgment. Not everyone likes this.

There is an opinion that Nikolai Mikhailovich has never betrayed his soul even once in his life.

Monarchist! - exclaimed others, young people, future Decembrists.

Yes, the main character of Karamzin’s “History” is the Russian autocracy. The author condemns bad sovereigns and sets good ones as examples. And he sees prosperity for Russia in an enlightened, wise monarch. That is, we need a “good king”. Karamzin does not believe in revolution, much less a quick one. So, before us is truly a monarchist.

And at the same time, the Decembrist Nikolai Turgenev would later remember how Karamzin “shed tears” when he learned about the death of Robespierre, the hero of the French Revolution. And here is what Nikolai Mikhailovich himself writes to a friend: “I do not demand either a constitution or representatives, but in my feelings I will remain a republican, and, moreover, a loyal subject of the Russian Tsar: this is a contradiction, but only an imaginary one.”

Why then is he not with the Decembrists? Karamzin believed that Russia’s time had not yet come, the people were not ripe for a republic.

Good king

The ninth volume has not yet been published, and rumors have already spread that it is banned. It began like this: “We begin to describe the terrible change in the soul of the king and in the fate of the kingdom.” So, the story about Ivan the Terrible continues.

Previous historians did not dare to openly describe this reign. Not surprising. For example, Moscow’s conquest of free Novgorod. Karamzin the historian, however, reminds us that the unification of the Russian lands was necessary, but Karamzin the artist gives a vivid picture of exactly how the conquest of the free northern city was carried out:

“John and his son were tried in this way: every day they presented to them from five hundred to a thousand Novgorodians; they beat them, tortured them, burned them with some kind of fiery mixture, tied them with their heads or feet to a sleigh, dragged them to the bank of the Volkhov, where this river does not freeze in winter, and They threw whole families into the water, wives with husbands, mothers with infants. Moscow warriors rode in boats along the Volkhov with stakes, hooks and axes: whoever of those thrown into the water floated up was stabbed and cut into pieces. These killings lasted five weeks and concluded by common robbery."

And so on almost every page - executions, murders, burning of prisoners upon the news of the death of the tsar's favorite villain Malyuta Skuratov, the order to destroy an elephant who refused to kneel before the tsar... and so on.

Remember, this is written by a man who is convinced that autocracy is necessary in Russia.

Yes, Karamzin was a monarchist, but during the trial the Decembrists referred to the “History of the Russian State” as one of the sources of “harmful” thoughts.

December 14

He didn't want his book to become a source of harmful thoughts. He wanted to tell the truth. It just so happened that the truth he wrote turned out to be “harmful” for the autocracy.

And then December 14, 1825. Having received news of the uprising (for Karamzin this is, of course, a rebellion), the historian goes out into the street. He was in Paris in 1790, was in Moscow in 1812, in 1825 he walks towards Senate Square. “I saw terrible faces, heard terrible words, five or six stones fell at my feet.”

Karamzin, of course, is against the uprising. But how many of their rebels are the Muravyov brothers, Nikolai Turgenev Bestuzhev, Kuchelbecker (he translated “History” into German).

A few days later Karamzin would say this about the Decembrists: “The delusions and crimes of these young people are the delusions and crimes of our century.”

After the uprising, Karamzin fell fatally ill - he caught a cold on December 14. In the eyes of his contemporaries, he was another victim of that day. But he dies not only from a cold - the idea of the world has collapsed, faith in the future has been lost, and a new king has ascended to the throne, very far from the ideal image of an enlightened monarch.

Karamzin could no longer write. The last thing he managed to do was, together with Zhukovsky, he persuaded the tsar to return Pushkin from exile.

And volume XII froze during the interregnum of 1611 - 1612. And here are the last words of the last volume - about a small Russian fortress: “Nut did not give up.”

Now

More than a century and a half has passed since then. Today's historians know much more about ancient Russia than Karamzin - how much has been found: documents, archaeological finds, birch bark letters, finally. But Karamzin’s book - a history-chronicle - is one of a kind and there will never be another like it.

Why do we need it now? Bestuzhev-Ryumin said this well in his time: “A high moral feeling still makes this book the most convenient for cultivating love for Russia and goodness.”

Bibliography

E. Perekhvalskaya. Karamzin N. M. The first Russian historian .

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

1. Nikolay Karamzin born in the Simbirsk province, in the village of Znamenskoye, which is now called Karamzinka. Father of the future historian, Mikhail Egorovich Karamzin, belonged to a family of nobles descended from the Tatar Kara-Murza.

2. Nikolai Karamzin’s father dreamed that his son would make a military career, therefore, at his insistence, Karamzin Jr. entered service in the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment, but soon retired. However, it was during his military service that Karamzin wrote his very first literary works.

3. In Moscow, the aspiring writer Karamzin was a member of the “Friendly Scientific Society” and participated in the publication of the first Russian magazine for children, “Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind.”

4. In 1789-1790, Nikolai Karamzin made a trip to Europe, during which he visited Immanuel Kant in Königsberg, was in Paris during the French Revolution. As a result of this trip, “Letters of a Russian Traveler” were written, after the publication of which the author immediately became one of the leading writers in Russia. Karamzin is considered the founder of Russian “travel literature.”

5. In 1791, Nikolai Karamzin became the publisher of the Moscow Journal, the first Russian literary magazine. Among the works first published in the Moscow Journal was Karamzin’s most famous literary and artistic work, the story “Poor Liza.”

6. October 31, 1803 Emperor Alexander I by personal decree appoints Nikolai Karamzin as an official Russian historiographer, setting his annual salary at 2,000 rubles. The title of historiographer in Russia was not renewed after Karamzin’s death. This appointment radically changed the life of Karamzin, who, in order to create a large-scale historical work, actually moved away from fiction.

7. Nikolai Karamzin’s main historical work, “History of the Russian State,” is unfinished. The first eight volumes were created by 1816-1817, and went on sale in 1818. Over the next six years, Karamzin created three more volumes. The text of the manuscript of volume 12 ends at the chapter “Interregnum 1611-1612”.

The first edition of Karamzin’s “History” in Polish Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org / Alma Pater

8. Nikolai Karamzin was not the first Russian historian to create a large-scale description of the history of Russia from ancient times to the Time of Troubles. However, Karamzin, an experienced writer, was the first to create a work in which the facts were presented in a form accessible to a wide educated public. In today's terms, his History became a bestseller. At the same time, Karamzin was the first scientist to publish many extracts from hitherto unknown historical manuscripts. “The History of the Russian State” is all the more valuable due to the fact that some of the documents with which Karamzin worked have not survived to this day.

9. In 1862, the Millennium of Russia monument was unveiled in Veliky Novgorod in honor of the anniversary of the calling of the Varangians to Rus'. Among the 129 figures of the most outstanding personalities in Russian history on the monument is Nikolai Karamzin.

10. Now famous work merchant and traveler Afanasy Nikitin“Walking across Three Seas” remained unknown until Nikolai Karamzin discovered it, publishing excerpts from the book in 1818 in the notes of one of the volumes of “History of the Russian State.”

11. In 1811, Nikolai Karamzin wrote “A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations,” which reflected the views of conservative layers of society dissatisfied with the liberal reforms of Emperor Alexander I. Karamzin argued that the well-being of Russia can only be ensured by the inviolability of the autocratic system. This work by Karamzin is called the first manifesto of Russian conservatism.

12. Nikolai Karamzin's work as an official historiographer had a beneficial effect on his descendants. Grandson of a historian, advisor and consultant to governments Alexandra III And Nicholas II, Prince Vladimir Meshchersky more than half a century after the death of his grandfather, he received an increase in his own salary, which was established for the relatives of the historiographer of the Russian Empire.

1847 History of the Russian State

Born in 1766 (died in 1826) near Simbirsk in the family of a hereditary nobleman, a poor provincial landowner. He was educated at home and studied a little at a private boarding school. He enlisted in the Preobrazhensky Guards Regiment at the insistence of his father. His own aspirations were at odds with his father's. Karamzin resigned at the first opportunity. He settled in Moscow and entered Novikov’s circle. Having joined this circle, Novikov paid great attention to the development of interest in intellectual culture. He did not like the clannish nature of the Masons. He was a loner intellectual. He got rid of the influence of the Freemasons and went abroad in 1789 to Europe. It turned out to be very long - 18 months. He went on his own initiative, without direction. "The first Russian tourist in Europe." I saw another world, the everyday life of this world, the atmosphere of this world. He greedily grabbed knowledge. He visited the German lands, England, France, Switzerland, met Kant, saw Goethe, Lavater. 1789 - witnessed the revolution in France. He wanted to make his compatriots... - the first major work, “Letters of a Russian Traveler.” These were letters indicating the place and date - formalized. Karamzin first came across the idea of the need to write the history of Russia. In Paris, he came across Leveque’s book “Russian History”; he read it and was disappointed by what he read. A strong patriotic feeling flared up - it became a shame that Russian authors did not write about the history of Russia. Karamzin returns to his homeland. Becomes a writer, creates the literary “Moscow Magazine”. Editor and educator. Fictional works – “Poor Liza.” He became a reformer of the Russian language - he became the first. I came up with the letter E.

Life of Karamzin the historian. October 31, 1803 - edge, new Karamzin. Decree of Alexander 1 – appointment of Karamzin as court historiographer (37 years old). He himself wanted this and was able to influence this decree through influential acquaintances. The ability to contact any authority for documents and manuscripts. Alexander did not make strict demands. Life of an anchorite (monk). He stopped social life and led the life of a hermit. He creates his work slowly and does not strive to publish it. He had Prince Shcherbatov’s “Russian History” at hand: he collected sources.

1811 – meeting of Alexander and Karamzin in Tver. Karamzin read the chapters of the work, presented “A Note on Ancient and New Russia” - he did not speak well of the policies of Alexander 1.

1812 – Karamzin’s library was destroyed in a fire. The necessary manuscripts were taken away.

I wrote 8 volumes and decided to publish them. In 1816, Karamzin considered it possible to publish the manuscript, went to St. Petersburg, began to seek funding for the publication, and sought a meeting with the emperor. The Emperor allocated funds from the treasury for publication. The first 8 volumes went out of print in 1818 year. The publication turned out to be expensive, but the historical work was in demand (3 thousand copies) - it sold out in 25 days. Need a second edition. Many people became interested, incl. ladies.

Volume 9 in 1821, progressed slowly - the second half of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Showed Ivan as a despot. This volume stood out. For the Russian public, it held revolutionary views - against autocracy, a negative example. Tom came out without any censorship, according to the highest command. Volumes 10-11 by 1823. Karamzin's forces are weakening. Having reached the end of the 16th century, he decides to bring it to 1613. The last volume 12 is unfinished. 1611 - the manuscript ends. 1829 – posthumous publication.

In May 1826 he died.

Structure: printed by the highest order, dedication to the emperor. “The history of the people belongs to the king.” A ruler must know history to govern his people. Preface (must read) - we are talking about the principles of Karamzin the historian:

· Love for the Fatherland, patriotism, interest in the history of one’s people and one’s country.

· Following the truth of history, no matter how bitter it is.

· The desire to comprehend events from the inside, to see them through the eyes of a contemporary (immerse yourself in texts, sources).

· Artistic embodiment of the history of the native country. Make it readable.

Karamzin’s concept: the main thing is the Russian state. The driving force of the historical process of development is state power. The entire Russian historical process is a struggle between the autocratic principles and other manifestations of power: popular rule, oligarchic rule (aristocratic), appanage tendencies. First there was the formation of autocracy, and then autocracy.

Karamzin divides the entire history of Russia into three periods: Ancient history from Rurik to John III (Karamzin’s favorite character), Middle history from John to Peter, New history from Peter and beyond. Each period has its own main feature. For the first period - a system of appanages, the second - autocracy, the third - a change in civil customs.

What is autocracy for Karamzin? Autocracy is the highest arbiter of society, the resultant force between all tendencies of society. The main purpose of strong governance is to create conditions for the maximum development of human abilities. The image of the fatherland, the basis of the well-being of the fatherland is enlightenment (especially of the king). Autocracy is not the absence of laws (not despotism!), but a certain order and law. The main duty of the autocrat. The sovereign must fulfill his sacred duties - an ideal sovereign (this did not happen).

Karamzin was very critical and impartial in his assessment of real rulers who differed from the ideal. He is often accused of moralizing. Drew conclusions at the end of each reign.

Source base of Karamzin’s work:

“On the sources of Russian history until the 17th century” - characteristics. 14 points: chronicles (PVL), degree book, chronographs (Western sources) = general history according to Byzantine chronicles, lives of saints - hagiography, sources of a special kind - ancient coins, medals, inscriptions, folklore, foreign modern sources (Byzantine, Scandinavian, ... ) together with the news of travelers, state papers of foreign archives, ...

He was reproached for not being critical of the chronicles. Such a statement is not entirely fair. Karamzin was critical of the chronicles (Karamzin disavowed - deprived of the status of a reliable source - the Joachim Chronicle, used by V.N. Tatishchev). The chronicle is a falsification of the 17th century, he calls it a joke.

Shcherbatov uses 21 chronicles, Karamzin - 40. He put into circulation: the Laurentian Chronicle, the Trinity Chronicle (burned in a fire in 1812, extracts were made).

Anyone who studied the history of Russia determined their attitude towards Karamzin. Depending on this, historians can be divided into groups: those who admire Karamzin - “Karamzinists” - Pogodin M.P.; did not accept Karamzin (minority), found weaknesses, mistakes, flaws - “anti-Karamzinists”.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

History department

Department of Russian History and Archeology

in historiography

The era of Alexander I as assessed by N.M. Karamzin

Samara 2011

Introduction

Chapter 1. Formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin.

Chapter 2. Position of N.M. Karamzin on the reign of Alexander I.

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The personality of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin occupies one of the central places in the public life of Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century. His political views still give rise to ambiguous assessments and interpretations among researchers. One can, however, pay attention to the presence of a completely established opinion in the literature: Karamzin (at least in his mature period of social activity and creativity) was a supporter of an exclusively autocratic monarchy and criticized Alexander I for liberalism. Meanwhile, it seems to us that this thesis requires significant reservations. The desire to objectively evaluate Karamzin’s ideological position, as well as its place in the history of Russian social thought, dictates the need to address the republican theme in his writings.

The relevance of the research topic is due to the need to analyze the views of N.M. Karamzin on the reign of Alexander I. Indeed, in modern historiography there is no precise opinion on this issue.

The object of the study is the era of Alexander I in the works of N.M. Karamzin.

The subject of the study is the formation of N.M. Karamzin's opinions about Alexander I.

The purpose of the bottom work is to study the era of Alexander I in the assessment of N.M. Karamzin.

Achieving this goal is carried out by solving the following tasks:

.to study the formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin;

.explore the position of N.M. Karamzin on the reign of Alexander I.

Chapter 1. Formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born on December 1, 1766 into a family of service nobles of the Simbirsk province. His father, Mikhail Egorovich Karamzin, was a participant in the Turkish and Swedish campaigns, was dismissed as a captain and was granted lands in the Orenburg province for his service. Karamzin's mother, Ekaterina Petrovna Pazukhina, died young, leaving four small children.

Karamzin's childhood years were spent on his father's Orenburg estate, in the village of Mikhailovskoye, or Preobrazhenskoye "identity"; The village was located near Buguruslan, about 250 km from Orenburg.

In the village, Karamzin learned to read and write from the village sexton and early became addicted to reading. Soon all the novels left by the mother were read. At the age of ten he was assigned to study at the Fauvel boarding school in Simbirsk, but already in 1777 or 1778 he was sent to Moscow to Professor Schaden, in whose boarding house he continued his education.

The German scientist, Doctor of Philosophy I. Schaden was a professor at the Imperial Moscow University and taught not only philosophy, but also logic, literature, rhetoric, German literature, and taught ancient and modern languages. A teacher by vocation, Schaden was the director of two university gymnasiums and had a private boarding school.

In the boarding school, as I. S. Tikhonravov reports, there were eight pupils. In addition to Schaden himself, other teachers taught there. Particular attention was paid to the study of foreign languages, so Karamzin left the boarding school thoroughly prepared in German, French and English. This gave him the opportunity to further become acquainted with Western European literature in the originals. Schaden paid a lot of attention to literary education, moral and political education of his pupils.

Apparently, in the last two years of his stay at the boarding house, Karamzin attended lectures at Moscow University. Having no inclination for military service, he thought to continue his education, but at the insistence of his father, after graduating from the Schaden boarding school, he entered military service in 1781. According to the customs of that time, he was enlisted in the army for eight years, i.e. in 1774, and began serving in 1781 in St. Petersburg, with the rank of ensign in the Preobrazhensky Life Guards Regiment. Here his friendship began with I.I. Dmitriev, whose aunt was Karamzin’s stepmother. Already at this time, both showed interest in literature and literary pursuits, turning to translations.

Karamzin's military service did not last long. Already in 1784, due to the death of his father, he retired with the rank of lieutenant and settled in Simbirsk. According to I. I. Dmitriev, Karamzin led an “absent-minded” social life there, but nevertheless did not give up his literary studies and tried to translate Voltaire. In Simbirsk, Karamzin joined the “Golden Crown” Masonic lodge, founded by the famous Moscow freemason I. P. Turgenev, who, having become closely acquainted with Karamzin, persuaded him to go to Moscow, where he introduced him to the circle of Moscow masons.

Arriving from provincial Simbirsk to Moscow, Karamzin found himself in the heart of the country's public life, since it was Moscow, remote from the official and bureaucratic St. Petersburg, that became the center of social movements, science and literature. The 80s of the 18th century were a time of social upsurge in Russia. Scientific societies were formed at Moscow University. The work of literary circles of Masonic lodges has revived. Russian writers and public figures became more active, and their anti-serfdom sentiments intensified. The 80s were the heyday of the creativity of D. I. Fonvizin, A. N. Radishchev, N. I. Novikov.

Karamzin also found himself among the Moscow Freemasons when he was 19 years old. For him, the years spent in their society (1785-1789) were a time of intense self-education, during which he experienced various influences, coming both from Freemason friends and from the books with which he became acquainted during this period.

Finding himself surrounded by mystical-minded Freemasons, Karamzin paid tribute to mysticism.

In 1787, the mystical influences on Karamzin weakened. At this time, Karamzin often visited Novikov’s house and, under his influence, became involved in the activities of Novikov’s circle. N.I. Novikov, appreciating Karamzin’s talent, attracted him to work in the first magazine for children he founded, “Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind.” Novikov, by involving Karamzin in the work of publishing the magazine, thereby directed his energy to generally useful activities and thereby contributed to the fact that his mystical moods recede into the background.

Karamzin's collaboration in Children's Reading ended in May 1789, when he went on a trip to Western Europe. Collaboration in “Children's Reading” played a significant role in determining Karamzin’s future life path. Here he tried his hand as a translator and journalist.

The journey was conceived by Karamzin back in 1787, and finally, in May 1789, having passed Tver, Petersburg, Riga, Karamzin crossed the Russian border. For a year and two months, he traveled to Germany, Switzerland, France, England, and visited the best cities of Western Europe: Konigsberg, Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden, Frankfurt am Main, Strasbourg, Geneva, Lausanne, Lyon, Paris and London.

The four years Karamzin spent in the society of Moscow Freemasons were not in vain. A European-educated young man went abroad. He knew not only languages, but was well acquainted with European literature, history, and philosophy.

Karamzin was interested in the political life of European states. He became acquainted with the political structure of the Swiss cantons, in revolutionary Paris he attended a meeting of the National Assembly, in London - in parliament and the Supreme Court.

During the trip, Karamzin kept a travel journal in which he wrote down everything he saw, heard, thought and dreamed about. This is how “Letters of a Russian Traveler” was born, Karamzin’s largest literary work, which brought him fame.

Acquaintance with the life of Western Europe and meetings with leading public figures in Germany strengthened his desire to serve society by spreading education in his country.

There is no doubt that it was during the trip that Karamzin finally came to the idea about the need to publish a magazine in order to acquaint broad layers of Russian society with modern literature and art.

Karamzin’s transition to new ideological positions was reflected in “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” which he began publishing in the Moscow Journal.

At first glance, it seems that Karamzin’s magazine is of a purely literary direction. But the literature of the 18th century posed and solved social problems, and philosophical and political treatises took on artistic form. Karamzin, following the tradition of the 18th century, looked at a work of art as a means of promoting philosophical, social and political ideas.

Karamzin in “Letters of a Russian Traveler” and in “Moscow Journal” formulated his demands on state power and its bearers.

According to the political concept of the Enlightenment, only two political forms of government are reasonable: an enlightened monarchy and a republic, which, according to the Enlightenment, guarantee the freedom of citizens.

Karamzin, following the Enlightenment, recognizing an enlightened monarchy as the most acceptable in modern conditions, considered the republican system to be the ideal state system. And in this case, he again followed the Enlightenment theory, according to which the republic was the first form of government and most responsive to natural human rights.

In “Letters of a Russian Traveler” we find very flattering, although not without a touch of irony, reviews of the Swiss Republic: “May their republic be a beautiful toy on the globe for many, many years.” Karamzin noted with approval that “a Zurich resident who has the right of citizenship is as proud of him as the tsar is of his crown,” although he considered it necessary to stipulate that the majority of residents of the Zurich canton do not enjoy civil rights and the privileges associated with them. Karamzin saw shortcomings in the republican system of contemporary Switzerland, but on the whole he assessed it quite positively. In the same essay, he spoke with undisguised disappointment about another republic - the French. However, Karamzin’s criticism was primarily focused not so much on the republican system of France, but on the revolution with its cruelties, overthrow of traditions, and unrest.

Raised on the humanistic ideals of the Enlightenment, Karamzin was disgusted by the horrors of revolutionary lawlessness and chaos: “Every civil society, established for centuries, is a shrine for good citizens, and in the most imperfect one one must be amazed at the wonderful harmony, improvement, order: All violent upheavals are disastrous, and every rebel prepares a scaffold for yourself." These lines should not at all be understood as a denial of the republic. As will be shown below, Karamzin could consider not only a monarchy, but also a republic in some states as a “civil society established for centuries.” It should be taken into account that it was the French Republic that aroused skepticism among contemporaries for theoretical reasons. Following Montesquieu and other modern philosophers, Karamzin believed that a republican system may be acceptable for small states such as the Swiss Union, but not for such vast countries as France. Karamzin, following Montesquieu, considered another condition for the well-being of the republic to be a high level of education and, in modern language, the civil legal consciousness of its citizens. The Russian traveler found neither one nor the other in France.

Even in his panegyric to the Russian autocrat Catherine II, Karamzin did not completely reject the idea of a republic. In “Historical Eulogies to Catherine the Second,” published in 1802, Karamzin found room for very controversial discussions about modern republics. Here he very unflatteringly characterized the state of affairs in the republic with a “complex government”, the people of which, according to the author, are doomed to become “the unfortunate instrument of some power-hungers who sacrifice the fatherland for their personal benefit.” Behind these words it is easy to see a condemnation of the French Revolution, but at the same time they characterize Karamzin’s already noted negative attitude towards the republic in a vast state (the essay is dedicated to the ruler of the Russian Empire). However, Karamzin continued: “May this wild republican independence live in places like it, wild and inaccessible, on snowy Alpine mountains... where a person, not knowing many needs, can be content with a few laws of Nature!” Considering the genre of the essay, we should not be surprised that the author calls republican independence “savage.” Karamzin emphasized here not the “barbaric” character, but the poverty and simplicity of the morals of the Swiss republicans. In fact, as in “Letters of a Russian Traveler,” even against the backdrop of the horrors of the French Revolution, he welcomed the republic in the Swiss Alps.

The republic remained an ideal, a dream for Karamzin; it was possible, in his opinion, “only if the conditions necessary for its existence were present: freedom (or liberty), brotherhood and virtue of all members of society. Violation of these conditions entails the fall of the republic and the establishment of the worst forms of government - despotism and tyranny.

Karamzin considered an enlightened monarchy as the most reasonable form of government under existing conditions. In contemporary Europe, constitutional England served as a model of an enlightened state.

Karamzin imagined Russia only within the framework of the existing social order and monarchical system. He had no hesitation in this. First of all, this affected his attitude towards serfdom, the issue of which had already been put on the agenda by anti-serfdom thought in Russia.

Accepting the foundations of the autocratic serfdom system, believing it to be legitimate, Karamzin, however, “did not believe that everything was going well in the Russian Empire. From the text of “Letters of a Russian Traveler” it can be understood that Karamzin considered Russia as a backward country in comparison with Western European states and in terms of the level of development of education, which seemed especially important to him, and in terms of the level of development of agriculture and industry. What struck the Russian traveler in the countries of Western Europe contrasted sharply with what was in Russia: good roads and road service, comfortable cities , clean villages, well-cultivated fields, well-fed, prosperous peasants.

Karamzin did not deny the slow progressive movement of society towards a more perfect future. Karamzin's idea of the progressive development of society was based on faith in a good providence, which determined the development of the world from imperfection to perfection. This faith was somewhat shaken by the revolution, but during these years he retained his faith in the goodness of Providence. Karamzin obviously sincerely believed in the progress of mankind and hoped for the establishment of a more perfect society in which all people, regardless of their social status, should find happiness. It’s hard to say what he thought of this “ideal” system. During these years, Karamzin often mentioned the republic of the sages, “Plato’s” republic, as his dream.

Chapter 2. Position of N.M. Karamzin on the reign of Alexander I

In 1801, Karamzin greeted the new emperor with a political moral lesson:

How difficult it is to rule autocratically,

And only give an account to the sky!...

But is it possible to love a slave?

Should we be grateful to him?

Love and fear do not go together;

The soul is free alone

Created for her feelings.

At the same time, at the turn of two centuries and two periods of his work, he wrote “Historical Eulogies to Catherine II.” The topic was suggested by the fact that Alexander I, in the manifesto announcing his accession to the throne, promised to reign “according to the laws and according to the heart of our august grandmother, Empress Catherine II.” How Karamzin imagined the reign of Catherine II, he himself told Alexander I later, in 1811, in the merciless “Note on Ancient and New Russia.” Now he preferred to draw an ideal image, a kind of monarchical utopia, under the name of Catherine. “The Lay” is contradictory - it is a work of a transitional era. Karamzin defends autocracy as the only suitable form for a vast empire and for the current state of morality. This does not prevent him from emphasizing that, ideally, for a society brought up on civic virtue, a republic is preferable. But “A republic without virtue and heroic love for the fatherland is an inanimate corpse.” This was the formula of “republicanism in the soul,” to which Karamzin subsequently resorted more than once and which could not convince his revolutionary contemporaries. However, the tone of the essay is striking. It begins with an appeal not to “dear readers,” but as if it were to be read before a crowded meeting of patriots: “Fellow citizens!” This is probably the first time that a Russian writer addressed his readers in this way. Only a person who had imbibed the eloquence of the National Assembly could defend the autocracy in this way. Karamzin defended the power that limited freedom, but defended it as a free person. And autocracy in his presentation looked unusual. This was not unlimited despotism. The freedom and security of an individual, a private person, was the wall before which the power of any autocrat had to stop. Catherine, as depicted by Karamzin, “respected in her subject the dignity of a person, a moral being created for happiness in civil life.” “She knew that personal security is the first good for a person, and that without it our life, among all other ways of happiness and pleasure, is eternal, painful anxiety.” At the same time, Karamzin refers to the first manifesto of Catherine II and her Mandate - both documents, as he, of course, knew, were secretly disavowed by the government itself.

In two odes written by Karamzin on the occasion of Alexander I’s accession to the throne and on the occasion of his coronation, he expressed approval of Alexander’s first steps in government and outlined the desired program for his reign. Karamzin gave a full statement of his political demands to the new autocrat in “Historical Eulogies to Catherine II.” “The Lay” was written by Karamzin in 1801 and, through D.P. Troshchinsky, was presented to Alexander I.

All the odes Karamzin addressed to the Russian autocrats contained a demand - a reminder to comply with the laws existing in the country.

A. N. Pynin, in his essays on the social movement under Alexander I, determines that the “Note” has the task of presenting the internal political history of Russia and its current state. The main theme of the "Note" is to prove that all the greatness, the whole destiny of Russia lies in the development and power of the autocracy, that Russia flourished when it was strong and fell when it weakened. The lesson that followed from this topic for Alexander should have been that even at the present moment Russia does not need anything more, that liberal reforms are only harmful, that only “patriarchal power” and “virtue” are needed. “The present is a consequence of the past” - with these words Karamzin began his note: this past was supposed to provide him with the basis for his conclusions about the present - the whole essence of the note and its purpose lies in the examination and criticism of the reign of Alexander I.

The part of the “Note” dedicated to Alexander I is the most decisive denial of those liberal enterprises that filled the first years of his reign.

Karamzin finds only one way to “keep future sovereigns within the limits of legitimate power” - this is the fear of popular hatred, of course, with its consequences.

In analyzing internal transformations, Karamzin finds even more reasons for condemnation. There was nothing to change, according to him, all he had to do was restore Catherine’s order, and everything would be fine. “This system of government was not inferior in improvement to any other European one, containing, in addition to what was common to all, some features consistent with the local circumstances of the empire.” This is what we should have stuck to. But, “instead of abolishing what is unnecessary, adding what is necessary, in one word correcting it after thorough reflection, Alexandrov’s advisers wanted news in the main methods of royal action, ignoring the rule of the wise that any news in the state order is an evil to which one must resort only in necessity: for one time gives the proper firmness to the statutes; for we respect more what we have respected for a long time and we do everything better from habit.”

The measures taken by the Ministry of Public Education again evoke the harshest condemnation of Karamzin. Emperor Alexander “used millions for the formation of universities, gymnasiums, and schools; unfortunately, we see more losses for the treasury than benefits for the fatherland. They discharged professors without preparing students; among the former there are many worthy people, but few useful ones; students do not understand foreign teachers, for they know the Latin language poorly and their number is so small that professors lose the desire to go to classes.” “The whole trouble is because we founded our universities in German, without recognizing that the circumstances here are different.” There are many listeners there, but with us - “we have no hunters for higher sciences. Nobles serve, and merchants want to know essential arithmetic or foreign languages for the benefit of their trade;... our lawyers and judges do not need knowledge of Roman rights; ours priests are educated somehow in seminaries and do not go further,” and the benefits of the “learned state” are still unknown.

Conclusion

With the accession of Alexander I N.M. Karamzin in his odes writes a program that he would like to see during the reign of the young monarch. Karamzin hopes that Alexander will rule like Catherine II.

After the Great French Revolution, Karamzin increasingly sympathized with the autocratic form of government and negatively assessed the transformations that Alexander I outlined.

In “A Note on Ancient and New Russia,” the writer sharply criticized all the activities carried out by the government, considering them untimely and contrary to the “spirit of the people” and historical tradition. While advocating enlightenment, he at the same time defended autocracy, arguing that Russia “was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord, but was saved by a wise autocracy.” He argued that giving freedom to the peasants meant harming the state. Expressing some sympathy for the republican form of government, Karamzin considered a strong monarchical government based on laws and carrying out moral education and enlightenment of the people as an ideal for Russia. Karamzin opposed the division of power. All power should be united by the sovereign, the “father and patriarch” of the people. It is not formal changes that can help matters, not the creation of a system of representative institutions, but the correct choice of rulers, selected according to their qualities, abilities and devotion to the throne and Russia.

But still, Karamzin evaluates Alexander I positively and attributes his criticism primarily to the monarch’s circle. The era of Alexander is an era of change that is ahead of the development of society. According to N.M. Karamzin, there should be development, but it should be gradual. In comparison with the era of Paul I, the era of Alexander is hope for the future of Russia.

List of sources and literature used

Karamzin political historian writer

1. Karamzin N.M. A note on ancient and new Russia in its political and civil relations. M., 1991.

2. Karamzin: pro et contra: the personality and creativity of N. M. Karamzin in the assessment of Russian. writers, critics, researchers: anthology / comp. Sapchenko L.A. - St. Petersburg, 2006.

Kislyagina L.G. Formation of socio-political views of N.M. Karamzin (1785-1803). M., 1976.

Lotman Yu. M. The Creation of Karamzin. M., 1987.

Mirzoev E.B. “Note” N.M. Karamzin and projects of M.M. Speransky: two views on the Russian autocracy // Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 8: History. 2001. No. 1. P.74.