History of Russia fiction. Artistic features of the "History of the Russian State" N

The best books on the history of Russia allow a Russian person to know the fate of his state and feel the spirit of those times. The most important military, religious and political events associated with one of the great powers of the world are described in an accessible and clear language by prominent authors. The list includes not only scientific works, but also works of art of the historical genre, which are no less significant from a historical point of view. This is confirmed by many critics who analyzed these colossal works.

10. Russian history | A. S. Trachevsky

(A. S. Trachevsky) opens the top ten books on the history of Russia. The scientific work of the author is a two-volume work, which was created according to all the canons of those writers who were his predecessors. Among them are Karamzin, Solovyov and others. A carefully thought-out and written monumental work tells about the main and historically significant events that took place in the Russian state. The first part covers the history of ancient times up to the middle of the 17th century. The second part tells about the events up to the end of the 19th century.

9. Peter the Great | A. N. Tolstoy

(A. N. Tolstoy) - a historical novel that was not completed by the author due to his death. However, this fact does not deprive this work of historical significance for the Russian people. The writer managed to finish only the first two books, the third was started and brought to the event of the very beginning of the 18th century. The novel is written in the spirit of socialist realism and was the standard of the historical novel in Soviet times. Tolstoy in his work tries to draw parallels between Peter the Great and Joseph Stalin. He is trying to justify all the violence that happened under these two greatest rulers in the history of Russia. The writer begins the story with real historical events of the 17th century.

8. Bayazet | V. S. Pikul

(V. S. Pikul) is one of the best historical novels, which is dedicated to the tragic events that took place in Russia during the Russian-Turkish war. Bayazet Fortress, which went down in history under the name "Glorious Bayazet's seat" was under the defense of a small Russian garrison. The work describes the most significant political events of that time, as well as the courage and patriotism of the soldiers who defended their homeland.

7. Great Russian plowman and features of the Russian historical process | L. Milov

(L. Milov) - one of the best books on the history of Russia. The paper highlights large-scale important issues related to the historical fate of our state. The peculiarity of this historical work, first of all, is its structure and the way of considering the problem, which are not characteristic of this type of scientific monographs. The first part of the work includes a frontal study of the peasant economy. The work is based on scientific material of the 18th century. It took the author more than a decade to collect the necessary, reliable information and work it out.

6. From Russia to Russia | L. N. Gumilyov

(L. N. Gumilyov) is one of the most significant works of the writer, in which he covers the ethnic history of his Fatherland. The work is actually a continuation of his previous work "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe). In his enormous work, he makes generalizations that allow you to take a fresh look at historical factors. Events from the first century to the 18th century are described in a lively and very interesting language. The main task of the author was to captivate the reader, understand the main idea and make them read the book to the end. Gumilyov's voluminous work includes three parts: "The Kievan State", "In Alliance with the Horde", "The Kingdom of Moscow".

5. Great Russia | V. D. Ivanov

(V. D. Ivanov) is a novel-chronicle in which he tells about the historical events that unfolded in Russia in the 16th century. This period is marked by the time of the development of the Slavs and the exit of Kievan Rus to the European political level.

4. Sovereigns of Moscow | Balashov D. M.

(Balashov D.M.) - includes a series of books on the history of Russia. The first of them, entitled "The Younger Son", tells about the struggle for power that unfolds between two brothers Dmitry and Alexander Nevsky. The book also tells about the strengthening of the Moscow principality, which was facilitated by the youngest son of the throne - Daniil Nevsky. The second book, entitled The Great Table, describes the confrontation between Moscow and Tver in the first half of the 14th century. This is one of the most controversial periods in the history of Russia. In total, Balashov's multi-volume work includes 11 books.

3. Ice house | Lazhechnikov I. I.

(Lazhechnikov I. I.) is a fiction novel that has absorbed many historical facts related to the history of Russia. The action of the book takes place in the early 40s of the 18th century in the city of St. Petersburg. One of the main characters, Volynsky, has quivering feelings for the Moldavian princess Marioritsa Lelemiko. At the same time, strife occurs between him and the favorite of the Empress Anna Ioannovna - Biron. In the course of the unfolding intrigues, Volynsky's beloved dies, and then he himself. After his death, a child is born, who gives birth to Volynsky's wife. She returns from exile again to St. Petersburg. The erected ice house, on the orders of Anna Ioannovna, collapses, and the local residents take the surviving ice floes to their cellars.

2. Princess Tarakanova | G. P. Danilevsky

(G.P. Danilevsky) is a novel in which there are many historical facts related to Russia. In the center of the work is Princess Tarakanova, who declared herself the heir to the Russian throne. The first part of the work of art is the diary of a naval officer who became a participant in the arrest of the main character of the novel. Danilevsky describes the "political impostor" and her life, but does not give an unequivocal answer to who this woman really was: the daughter of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna from her secret marriage or just a foreign adventurer.

1. History of the Russian state | N. M. Karamzin

(N. M. Karamzin) - the best book on the history of Russia. In a multi-volume work, the author describes the history of our state, from ancient times to the "Time of Troubles". It was this essay by Karamzin that was taken as a basis by other authors when writing books on Russian history. The writer worked on his work until his last breath, but did not have time to finish it. The work includes 12 volumes, the last of which ends at a chapter entitled "Interregnum 1611-1612". Karamzin planned to bring his work to the moment of the beginning of the reign of the Romanov dynasty, but the writer's plans were never destined to come true.

In the fates of great generals and conquerors there will always be contradictions and secrets that can nourish the doubts of descendants for centuries, excite the imagination of historians and demand more and more compromises.
Timur, Tamerlane, the Great Lame (1336-1405) -

the brightest and perhaps the most characteristic confirmation of this. His rise to power, military campaigns and rule are the quintessence of contradictions. On the one hand, constant attention to the sciences and scientists, patronage of the arts, striving for beauty, and on the other hand, cruelty, so fierce that it sweeps away any thought of the ability to show mercy.
What there is no doubt about is the genius of Tamerlane as a commander and military organizer. In this matter, a compromise is not needed - historians are unanimous. Only a genius can rally unconditionally devoted people around him, create a core that, like a magnet, attracts and holds nations in its orbit, no matter what their roots and faith. This is how Genghis Khan created his empire - the idol of Tamerlane and a role model.
Timur's army knew no equal on the battlefields, although his opponents were by no means "whipping boys." Both the Khan of the Golden Horde Tokhtamysh, who ravaged Moscow, and Sultan Bayazid I the Lightning, who more than doubled the possessions of the Ottoman Empire in a few years, both fell under the blows of Tamerlane's hordes. And the empire he created lasted for several centuries.
However, the issue has not been resolved. So who is he - Tamerlane? Historians have never reached a compromise. Some consider him a fiend of hell, others justify him, fitting him into the common formula of “the son of his era” ... Let historians argue!
And for us - Timur the Lame, like any genius, does not need excuses. He himself believed that he was acting on the orders of the Higher Forces: “God, who knows no equal to himself, who is the master of a fickle fate, put a bridle in my hands so that I could control the movement of the kingdoms of this world.” And, believing in his destiny, he entered into a struggle for power with a detachment of three hundred warriors and rose to the top - he became the Thunderstorm of the East and West, did not lose a single battle. And with this, he forever entered his name in History ...
“Timur’s Autobiography”, “Bogatyr Tales of Genghis Khan and Aksak-Temir” and “The Code of Tamerlane” are three unique written sources that tell about the life of an invincible commander whose conquests redrawn the map of the world and changed the course of history for a significant part of the earth. "To my children, happy conquerors of states, my descendants - the great rulers of the world," - with these words begins the famous code of Timur's laws - "The Code of Tamerlane." The great emir had something to tell about himself and the vast world, created entirely by his own efforts, because he not only conquered and destroyed, but also built; possessed not only the courage of a warrior and the talent of a commander, but also the wisdom of a ruler. That is why he is called "the last great conqueror in history", who managed to collect the greatest state in the world by force of arms, hold it and pass it on to descendants.
The electronic publication includes the full text of the paper book and a selected part of the illustrative documentary material. And for true connoisseurs of gift editions, we offer a classic book. Like all editions of the Great Generals series, the book is provided with detailed historical and biographical commentaries; the text is accompanied by hundreds of illustrations, many of which the modern reader will get acquainted with for the first time. Excellent printing, original design, the best offset paper - all this makes the books of the Great Generals gift series the best gift for a man for all occasions.

Among the diverse aspects of the ideological and artistic problems of the "History of the Russian State", one should also note the problem of the national character, which Karamzin uncovered in a peculiar way. The very term "people" in Karamzin is ambiguous; it could be filled with different content.

So, in the article of 1802 "On love for the fatherland and national pride" Karamzin substantiated his understanding of the people - the nation. “Glory was the cradle of the Russian people, and victory was the herald of its being,” the historian writes here, emphasizing the originality of the national Russian character, the embodiment of which, according to the writer, are famous people and heroic events of Russian history.

Karamzin does not make social distinctions here: the Russian people appear in the unity of the national spirit, and the righteous "rulers" of the people are the bearers of the best features of the national character. Such are Prince Yaroslav, Dmitry Donskoy, such is Peter the Great.

The theme of the people - the nation occupies an important place in the ideological and artistic structure of the "History of the Russian State". Many provisions of the article "On Love for the Fatherland and National Pride" (1802) were deployed here on convincing historical material.

The Decembrist N. M. Muravyov, already in the ancient Slavic tribes described by Karamzin, felt the forerunner of the Russian national character - he saw the people, "great in spirit, enterprising", containing "some kind of wonderful desire for greatness."

The description of the era of the Tatar-Mongol invasion, the disasters that the Russian people experienced, and the courage that they showed in their striving for freedom, are also imbued with a deep patriotic feeling.

The people's mind, says Karamzin, "in the greatest embarrassment, finds some way to act, like a river blocked by a rock, looking for a current, although under the ground or through stones it oozes in small streams." With this bold poetic image, Karamzin ends the fifth volume of the History, which tells about the fall of the Tatar-Mongol yoke.

But turning to the internal, political history of Russia, Karamzin could not avoid another aspect in covering the topic of the people - the social one. A contemporary and witness to the events of the Great French Revolution, Karamzin sought to understand the causes of popular movements directed against the “legitimate rulers”, to understand the nature of the rebellions that filled the slave history of the initial period.

In the noble historiography of the XVIII century. there was a widespread idea of ​​the Russian rebellion as a manifestation of the "savagery" of an unenlightened people, or as a result of the intrigues of "rogues and swindlers." This opinion was shared, for example, by V. N. Tatishchev.

Karamzin takes a significant step forward in understanding the social causes of popular uprisings. He shows that the forerunner of almost every revolt is a disaster, sometimes more than one, that falls on the people: this is crop failure, drought, disease, but most importantly, “oppression of the strong” is added to these natural disasters. “Deputies and tiuns,” notes Karamzin, “plundered Russia like the Polovtsy.”

And the consequence of this is the woeful conclusion of the author from the testimony of the chronicler: “the people hate the king, the most good-natured and merciful, for the rapacity of judges and officials.” Speaking about the formidable power of popular uprisings in the era of the Time of Troubles, Karamzin, following chronicle terminology, sometimes calls them heavenly punishment sent down by providence.

But this does not prevent him from definitively naming the real, quite earthly causes of popular indignation - "the violent tyranny of the twenty-four years of Ioannov, the hellish game of Boris's lust for power, the disasters of fierce hunger ...". Complex, full of tragic contradictions, Karamzin painted the history of Russia. The thought about the moral responsibility of rulers for the fate of the state relentlessly arose from the pages of the book.

That is why the traditional Enlightenment idea of ​​the monarchy as a reliable form of political structure for vast states - an idea shared by Karamzin - received new content in his History. True to his educational convictions, Karamzin wanted the History of the Russian State to become a great lesson for the reigning autocrats, to teach them statesmanship.

But that did not happen. Karamzin's "History" was destined otherwise: it entered the Russian culture of the 19th century, becoming, first of all, a fact of literature and social thought. She revealed to her contemporaries the enormous wealth of the national past, a whole artistic world in the living form of past centuries.

The inexhaustible variety of themes, plots, motives, characters determined the attractive force of the History of the Russian State for more than one decade, including for the Decembrists, despite the fact that they could not accept the monarchist concept of Karamzin's historical work and subjected it to sharp criticism.

The most insightful contemporaries of Karamzin, and above all Pushkin, saw in the History of the Russian State another, his most important innovation - an appeal to the national past as a prehistory of modern national existence, rich in instructive lessons for him.

Thus, Karamzin's many years and multi-volume work was the most significant step for its time towards the formation of civic consciousness in Russian social and literary thought and the establishment of historicism as a necessary method of social self-knowledge.

This gave Belinsky every reason to say that The History of the Russian State "will forever remain a great monument in the history of Russian literature in general and in the history of the literature of Russian history", and to give "gratitude to the great man for having given the means to recognize the shortcomings of his time , moved forward the era that followed him.

History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983

Principles of artistic narration in the "History of the Russian State" by N. M. Karamzin

With all his spiritual development, Karamzin turned out to be internally prepared for a deep and critically sober analysis of the events of our time, and above all, the main event of the era - the French Revolution. He understood: ʼʼThe French Revolution is one of those events that determine the fate of people for many centuriesʼʼ. Thinkers of the 18th century, incl. Rousseau, ʼʼforesawʼʼ the revolution, but they could not predict its results and consequences. The degeneration of republican France into the empire of Napoleon is, according to Karamzin, a phenomenon that needs to be comprehended both from the point of view of the reality of certain political forms, and from the standpoint of moral truths associated with certain state institutions.

Karamzin was well acquainted with the political concept of the French Enlightenment, formulated in the writings of Montesquieu and Rousseau and suggesting three types of government: republic, monarchy and despotism. The latter is one of the "wrong" political systems that needs to be destroyed. The republic, according to Montesquieu, is an ideal, but practically impracticable type of government. The monarchy was presented to the thinkers of the XVIII century. the most "reasonable" political system that meets the needs of the current state of society. The concept of a republic was also connected with the idea of ​​republican virtue - a high moral principle of human community. Carefully observing the course of events in Europe, Karamzin is convinced that the principle of modern society is different: ʼʼfirst money, and then virtue!ʼʼ. The ascetic ideal of republican virtue turns out to be impossible: ʼʼ... it is not for nothing that all philosophy now consists in commerceʼʼ. ʼʼThe spirit of tradeʼʼ, according to Karamzin, leads to a general hardening of hearts. That is why it is in the interests of the people themselves to abandon the utopian, albeit attractive, dream of freedom and equality. Karamzin contrasts the futility of utopian dreams with the extreme importance of studying the experience of history and solving the political problems of our time in accordance with it.

The question of "what is history" and where lies the line between freedom and the extreme importance of a historical act did not arise in Karamzin's mind by chance. His entire previous path as a writer, publicist, politician and philosopher led to a kind of synthesis of thought, to the contact of ideas that are different in nature. There is an urgent desire to overcome the unreliability of human knowledge about the world, the one-sidedness of its perception, and, according to Karamzin, such a synthesis is possible in a historical work, where the creative imagination of the artist and the strict logic of the fact come into contact. The historian's method of work turns out to be extremely attractive for Karamzin.

In the policy article of 1802 ᴦ. ʼʼAbout the cases and characters in Russian history that are the subject of artʼʼ, speaking about the importance of the historical theme in art, Karamzin raised a fundamental question for himself: the possibility of contact between the creative imagination of the artist and the analytical thought of the historian. ʼʼ In all ancient chronicles, - says Karamzin, - there are fables consecrated by antiquity and respected by the most enlightened historian, especially if they represent the living features of the time ʼʼ. The desire to understand the past not rationalistically, speculatively, but through the "living features of time" - this was the task that came to the fore in Russian literature at the beginning of the century.

Starting work on ʼʼHistoryʼʼ, Karamzin strictly defined for himself the boundaries of the permissible author's fantasy, which should not have touched on the actual speeches and actions of historical characters. “The most beautiful invented speech will disgrace a story dedicated not to the glory of the writer, not to the pleasure of readers, and not even to moralistic wisdom, but only to the truth, which already becomes a source of pleasure and benefit of itself.” Rejecting ʼʼfictionʼʼ, Karamzin develops the basis of his historical method as a synthesis of the strict logic of fact and the emotional image of ʼʼpast centuriesʼʼ. What was this image made of? What was its aesthetic nature? Contrasting history with the novel, Karamzin significantly rethought the traditional rationalistic concept of ʼʼtruthʼʼ. The experience of a sentimentalist writer, who appeals not only to reason, but also to feeling in the process of cognizing reality, turned out to be necessary. ʼʼIt is not enough that an intelligent person, looking over the monuments of centuries, will tell us his notes; we must see for ourselves the actions and the actors: then we know the historyʼʼ (1, XVII). That is why the task of reproducing the past in its truth, without distorting any of its features, posed special tasks for Karamzin, incl. and artistic-cognitive nature.

In his reflections on history, Karamzin came to the conclusion that it was necessary to write ʼʼ about Igors, about Vsevolodsʼʼ as a contemporary would write, ʼʼ looking at them in the dim mirror of ancient chronicles with tireless attention, with sincere reverence; and if, instead of living, whole images, I presented only shadows, in fragments, then it was not my fault: I could not supplement the annals!ʼʼ (1, XVII-XVIII). The conscious limitation of oneself in the possibilities of artistic representation was also dictated by the understanding of the objective aesthetic value of the monuments of the past. ʼʼNot allowing myself any invention, I was looking for expressions in my mind, and thoughts only in monuments ... I was not afraid to speak with importance about what was respected by my ancestors; wanted, without betraying his age, without pride and ridicule, to describe the ages of spiritual infancy, gullibility, fables; I wanted to present both the character of the time and the character of the chroniclers, for one seemed to me necessary for the otherʼʼ (1, XXII–XXIII).

Thus, it was not just about the ʼʼpoeticityʼʼ of historical monuments, but also about the duty of the modern historian to reproduce the worldview of the ʼʼancientʼʼ captured in these monuments, a task that is exceptional in its significance, because in essence it anticipates the artistic position of Pushkin - the author of ʼʼBoris Godunovʼʼ.

However, it would be wrong to think that from the first to the last volume of his history, Karamzin consistently and rigorously adhered to precisely those principles and considerations that he expressed in the preface. By their nature, the ʼʼʼʼʼ elements of the ʼʼHistory of the Russian stateʼʼ are far from unambiguous and go back to different sources: these are the traditions of ancient historiography, and a kind of refraction of Hume's historical analyticism, and Schiller's philosophical and historical views. Karamzin could not but take into account the traditions of Russian historiography of the 18th century, and listen to those judgments about the principles and tasks of historical writing that were expressed by his contemporaries. Its own narrative system did not take shape immediately and did not remain unchanged for twelve volumes. Keeping in mind all the real complexity and diversity of aesthetic colors that Karamzin sometimes used contrary to his own theoretical assumptions, one can nevertheless speak of the main and most important trend in the narrative style of ʼʼHistoryʼʼ - its specific ʼʼchronicleʼʼ coloring.

In the Russian chronicle, Karamzin opened up a world with philosophical and ethical dimensions that were unusual and in many ways incomprehensible to the "enlightened" mind, but the historian was obliged to understand this difficult logic of the chronicler. The two systems of thought inevitably came into contact, and Karamzin, realizing this, from the very beginning admitted two independent and self-valuable narrative principles: the ʼʼchronicleʼʼ, suggesting a naive and ingenuous view of things, and the historical one, as if commenting on the ʼʼchronicleʼʼ. Citing, for example, in the first volume the chronicler's story about the "revenge and tricks of the Olgins", Karamzin simultaneously explains why he, the historian, repeated the "Nestor's simple legends". “The chronicler,” says Karamzin, “tells us many details, partly disagreeing neither with the probabilities of reason, nor with the importance of history ... but as a true incident should be their basis, and the very ancient fables are curious for an attentive mind, depicting customs and the spirit of the times, then we will repeat Nestor's simple stories…ʼʼ (1, 160). What follows is a retelling of the legend, sustained in an exceptionally accurate poetic tone. There are many such "retellings" in the first volumes, and in them the amazing aesthetic sensitivity of the historian attracts attention: the rather stingy data of the annals under his pen take on plastic outlines. So, in the story about ʼʼOlgaʼʼ's tricks, we have before us an image of the insidious wife of the murdered prince, who conceived cruel revenge on the Drevlyans, extremely close to the chronicle. To the simple-hearted invitation of the Drevlyansk ambassadors to become the wife of their prince, ʼʼOlga answered with affection: “Your speech is pleasant to me. I can't revive my husband anymore. Tomorrow I will do you all due honor. Now return to your boat, and when my people come for you, tell them to carry themselves in their arms ... ". Meanwhile, Olga ordered to dig a deep hole in the courtyard of the tower and the next day to call the ambassadorsʼʼ (1, 161). Karamzin does not stylize his ʼʼretellingʼʼ as a chronicle, but strives to maximally objectify that view of things, which clearly appears in the narration of the ancient chronicler. And Karamzin would like to teach his reader to perceive the past in all the simplicity and artlessness of ancient ideas: ʼʼWe must judge the heroes of history by the customs and mores of their timeʼʼ (1, 164).

As he worked on ʼʼHistoryʼʼ, Karamzin peered more closely into the figurative and stylistic structure of the ancient Russian monument, whether it was a chronicle or ʼʼThe Tale of Igor's Campaignʼʼ, excerpts from which he translated in the third volume. In his narration, he skillfully intersperses chronicle figurative expressions, thereby giving a special coloring and his author's intonation.

One of the most severe critics of Karamzin, the Decembrist N. I. Turgenev, wrote in his diary: “I am reading the third volume of the History of Karamzin. I feel an inexplicable charm in reading. Some incidents, like lightning penetrating into the heart, make them related to the Russians of ancient times ...ʼʼ.

From volume to volume, Karamzin made his task more difficult: he was trying to convey the general color of the era, to find a connecting thread of past events and at the same time ʼʼexplainʼʼ the characters of people, especially since the circle of sources became wider, it was possible to choose any interpretation. Karamzin was fascinated by the opportunity not just to state the actions of historical heroes, but to psychologically substantiate one or another of their actions. It was from this point of view that Karamzin created the most artistically full-blooded characters of his ʼʼHistoryʼʼ - Vasily III, Ivan the Terrible, Boris Godunov. It is noteworthy that when creating the last volumes, Karamzin internally correlated his methods and tasks with the principles that Walter Scott embodied at the same time in his historical novels. Of course, Karamzin was not going to turn the "History of the Russian State" into a novel, but this rapprochement was legitimate: both in the novels of Walter Scott and in Karamzin's "History" a new quality of artistic thinking was developed - historicism.

Enriched with the experience of many years of communication with historical sources, Karamzin proceeds to depict the most difficult historical era - the so-called Time of Troubles, trying to reveal it mainly through the prism of Boris Godunov's character.

Karamzin was often accused of taking the chronicle version of the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri and developing it as a reliable fact. But in using this version, Karamzin proceeded primarily from the psychological motivation of Boris' criminal plans. ʼʼThe death of Dimitriev was inevitableʼʼ, - writes Karamzin, because, according to the historian, Godunov, blinded by ambition, could no longer stop before the last obstacle separating him from the royal throne. Even though he was brought to this milestone by the elemental force of historical circumstances, Karamzin does not relieve him of the entire burden of guilt. ʼʼThe fate of people and peoples is the secret of providence, but things depend on us solelyʼʼ (9, 7–8) - this criterion for assessing the human personality, put forward in ʼʼMarfa Posadnitsaʼʼ, Karamzin remained true to ʼʼHistory of the Russian Stateʼʼ. That is why, in creating the inherently tragic characters of the tyrannical tsars Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov, Karamzin judges them by the court of history from the standpoint of the highest moral law, and his stern ʼʼyes, we shudder!ʼʼ (9, 439) sounds like a lesson and a warning to the autocrats.

Among the diverse aspects of the ideological and artistic problems of the ʼʼHistory of the Russian Stateʼʼ, one should also note the problem of a national character that Karamzin uncovered in a peculiar way. Karamzin's very term ʼʼpeopleʼʼ' is ambiguous; it could be filled with different content. So, in the article of 1802 ᴦ. ʼʼOn love for the fatherland and national prideʼʼ Karamzin substantiated his understanding of the people - the nation. “Glory was the cradle of the Russian people, and victory was the herald of its existence,” the historian writes here, emphasizing the originality of the national Russian character, which, according to the writer, is embodied by famous people and heroic events of Russian history. Karamzin does not make social distinctions here: the Russian people appear in the unity of the national spirit, and the righteous ʼʼrulersʼʼ of the people are the bearers of the best features of the national character. Such are Prince Yaroslav, Dmitry Donskoy, such is Peter the Great.

The theme of the people - the nation occupies an important place in the ideological and artistic structure of the ʼʼHistory of the Russian Stateʼʼ. Many of the provisions of the article ʼʼOn Love for the Fatherland and National Prideʼʼ (1802) were deployed here on convincing historical material. The Decembrist N. M. Muravyov, already in the most ancient Slavic tribes described by Karamzin, felt the forerunner of the Russian national character - he saw the people, "great in spirit, enterprising", containing "some kind of wonderful desire for greatness" ʼʼ. The description of the era of the Tatar-Mongol invasion, the disasters that the Russian people experienced, and the courage they showed in their striving for freedom are also imbued with a deep patriotic feeling. The people's mind, Karamzin says, "in the greatest embarrassment, finds some way to act, like a river blocked by a rock, looking for a current, although under the ground or through stones it oozes small streams" (5, 410). With this bold poetic image, Karamzin ends the fifth volume of ʼʼHistoryʼʼ, which tells about the fall of the Tatar-Mongol yoke.

But turning to the internal, political history of Russia, Karamzin could not avoid another aspect in covering the topic of the people - the social one. A contemporary and a witness to the events of the Great French Revolution, Karamzin sought to understand the causes of popular movements directed against the “lawful rulers” and to understand the nature of the rebellions that filled the slave history of the initial period. In the noble historiography of the XVIII century. there was a widespread idea of ​​the Russian rebellion as a manifestation of the ʼʼwildnessʼʼ of an unenlightened people, or as a result of the machinations of ʼʼrogues and swindlersʼʼ. This opinion was shared, for example, by V. N. Tatishchev. Karamzin takes a significant step forward in understanding the social causes of popular uprisings. He shows that the forerunner of almost every revolt is a disaster, sometimes more than one, that falls on the people: this is crop failure, drought, disease, but most importantly, the “oppression of the strong” is added to these natural disasters. ʼʼDeputies and tiuns, - Karamzin notes, - plundered Russia, like the Polovtsiansʼʼ (2, 101). And the consequence of this is the author's woeful conclusion from the chronicler's testimonies: ʼʼthe people hate the king, the most good-natured and mercifulʼʼ, for the rapacity of judges and officials (3, 29-30). Speaking about the formidable power of popular uprisings in the era of the Time of Troubles, Karamzin, following chronicle terminology, sometimes calls them heavenly punishment sent down by providence. But this does not prevent him from definitively naming the real, quite earthly causes of popular indignation - the "violent tyranny of the twenty-four years of John, the hellish game of Boris's love of power, the disasters of fierce hunger ..." (11, 120). Complex, full of tragic contradictions, Karamzin painted the history of Russia. The thought about the moral responsibility of rulers for the fate of the state relentlessly arose from the pages of the book. That is why the traditional enlightenment idea of ​​the monarchy as a reliable form of political structure for vast states - an idea shared by Karamzin - received new content in his ʼʼHistoryʼʼ. True to his educational convictions, Karamzin wanted the History of the Russian State to become a great lesson for the reigning autocrats, to teach them state wisdom. But that did not happen. Karamzin's ʼʼHistoryʼʼ was destined otherwise: it entered the Russian culture of the 19th century, becoming, first of all, a fact of literature and social thought. She revealed to her contemporaries the enormous wealth of the national past, a whole artistic world in the living form of past centuries. The inexhaustible variety of themes, plots, motives, characters for more than one decade determined the attractive force of the ʼʼHistory of the Russian Stateʼʼ, incl. and for the Decembrists, despite the fact that they could not accept the monarchist concept of Karamzin's historical work and subjected it to sharp criticism. The most insightful contemporaries of Karamzin, and above all Pushkin, saw in the History of the Russian State another, his most important innovation - an appeal to the national past as a prehistory of modern national existence, rich in instructive lessons for him. Thus, Karamzin's many years and multi-volume work was the most significant step for its time towards the formation of citizenship in Russian social and literary thought and the establishment of historicism as an extremely important method of social self-knowledge. This gave Belinsky every reason to say that the “History of the Russian State” ʼʼ ʼʼ will forever remain a great monument in the history of Russian literature in general and in the history of the literature of Russian history ʼʼ, and to give ʼʼ gratitude to the great man for having given the means to recognize the shortcomings of his time, moved forward the era that followed him.

The principles of artistic narration in the "History of the Russian State" by N. M. Karamzin - the concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Principles of artistic narration in the "History of the Russian State" by N. M. Karamzin" 2017, 2018.