FAR EASTERN STATE UNIVERSITY PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY L. Z. POLESCHUK HISTORY OF RUSSIAN LITERATURE Part 1 VLADIVOSTOK 2005 Tutorial developed at the Department of History of Russian Literature of Far Eastern State University. The course “History of Russian Literature” is an important link in the preparation of a philologist student, a specialist in the field of the Russian language and Russian culture. This course covers the time period from 1800 to 1917, marking the beginning of a new period of Russian literature (post-October). The features of this course determine the nature of independent work of philology students. Lists of sources and basic scientific literature on the issue are given in accordance with the program of the Russian history course literature of the 19th century century in universities. The textbook is intended for philology students. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ..................... 4 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOCIAL AND LITERARY LIFE OF RUSSIA (1801-1815). ORIGINALITY OF RUSSIAN ROMANTICism.................................................... ....................................... 6 LITERARY SOCIETIES, CIRCLES AND SALONS.... ........................................................ ........................... 8 ROMANTICISM.................. ........................................................ ........................................................ .......................................... 10 PERIODIZATION OF ROMANTICISM..... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................ 12 VASILY ZHUKOVSKY (1783-1852) .................. ........................................................ ........................................................ ......... 13 KONSTANTIN BATYUSHKOV.................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ . 20 DECEMBER MOVEMENT.................................................... ........................................................ ........................................ 23 WORK OF K. RYLEEV. DECEMBER ROMANTICISM.................................................... ........................................... 40 KONDRATY RYLEEV.... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................ 42 A.S. GRIBOEDOV “Woe from Wit” ................................................... ........................................................ .................................. 48 Literature:............. ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................... 52 ROMANTIC POETRY OF PUSHKIN.... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................... 53 A. PUSHKIN. ROMANTIC POEMS................................................................. ........................................................ ...... 62 PUSHKIN'S LYRICS. THEME OF THE POET AND POETRY.................................................... ................................... ........................... 73 Mikhailovskoe. "Count Nulin". "Boris Godunov" .................................................... ........................................................ 76 The tragedy of “Boris Godunov” .................................... ........................................................ ......................................... 80 “Belkin’s Stories”. Boldino autumn................................................... ........................................................ ............... 86 A. PUSHKIN “SMALL TRAGEDIES”.................................... ........................................................ ............................................... 93 Tragedy “Mozart and Salieri "................................................. ........................................................ ........................... 96 Tragedy “The Stone Guest” ................. ........................................................ ........................................................ ............ 98 Tragedy “Feast in the Time of Plague”.................................. ........................................................ ........................................ 100 A. Pushkin “ Queen of Spades» ..................................................... ........................................................ ........................... 102 A. Pushkin Novel in verse “Eugene Onegin” ........ ........................................................ ........................................... 103 LERMONTOV'S LYRICS..... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................... 105 M.Yu.LERMONTOV. NOVEL “HERO OF OUR TIME”.................................................... ........................................... 107 N. IN. GOGOL. THE STORY “OVERCOAT” .................................................... ........................................................ ........................... 108 COMEDY N.V. GOGOL “THE AUDITOR”.................................................. ........................................................ ........................... 109 N.V. GOGOL. POEM “DEAD SOULS” .................................................... ........................................................ ..................... 111 NATURAL SCHOOL AND ITS ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF RUSSIAN REALISM................................... .......................................... 114 Chronological boundaries of the school..... ........................................................ ........................................................ ............... 114 Philosophical and aesthetic foundations of the natural school................................. ................................................... 115 LITERATURE................................................. ........................................................ ........................................................ ....... 117 PERSONNEL.................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ............... 119 3 Introduction The history of Russian literature of the 19th century occupies important place in Russian culture. Literature, in the words of A. Herzen, plays the role of “ public department", it reflects the main stages in the development of social and cultural thought, and thus the history of Russian literature often combines the history of aesthetic teachings in Russia and the history of Russian philosophy, which is represented by Belinsky, Khomyakov, Herzen, Turgenev, Chernyshevsky, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy . The most important historical events who played special role in the development of social political life Russia in the first half of the 19th century: the Patriotic War of 1812 and the Decembrist movement naturally determined the course of literary process, the complexity of which lies in the fact that at the turn of the century ( late XVIII and the beginning of the 19th century) there is a mixture of different literary styles, the formation of new aesthetic systems, the development of new artistic methods. IN early XIX centuries continue creative activity Derzhavin and Krylov - last representatives Russian classicism; Karamzin and Dmitriev are the founders of Russian sentimentalism, however, after the first decade of the 19th century, new literary names appeared, like Zhukovsky, who became the first Russian romantic and the founder of Russian romanticism, who led the new literary direction. In the mid-20s of the 19th century, a realistic style began to take shape in the works of Griboyedov and Pushkin, which received further development in the works of Lermontov and Gogol. It is impossible not to notice that such an intensive development of Russian literature, the diversity of literary schools, which in polemical excitement discussed the issues of the uniqueness of the Russian national language, the problem national character, the problem of nationality, questions of the goals and objectives of literature determine a rather complex picture of the literary struggle, as a result of which the historical paths of development of the literary process were outlined. The literary process of the early 19th century is undoubtedly based on events historical era and above all, he was associated with two extremely important trends in Russian life and Russian literature: 1. The formation of Russian literary language; 2. The formation of artistic methods. The literature of the early 19th century was predominantly romantic - this is the “golden age” of Russian poetry. Romanticism became the leading artistic method, although at the end of the 30s of the 19th century leading place Realism will take over in literature. A process of aesthetic transformation of fiction is taking place, and the pan-European process, pan-European evolution is also taken into account. Meanwhile, Russian romanticism was also deprived of integrity and uniformity: depending on the socio-political situation in Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century, romanticism acquired new features, new trends were defined in it (the elegiac romanticism of Zhukovsky and Batyushkov; the civil romanticism of the Decembrist poets Ryleev, Kuchelbecker, Katenin, Raevsky, Glinka, philosophical; romantic poetry Baratynsky, Venevitinov). The specificity of Russian romanticism lies not only in its diversity, but also in its content, which was largely determined by 1812: 1825 - the year Decembrist uprising on Senate Square- “roots” go back to 1812. Decembrist Muravyov-Apostol said: “We are children of the 12th year.” This era will be called the era of “freedom,” “freethinking.” This is a time of poetry, free-thinking, literary and socio-political circles, the rapid development of the country’s literary life, the creation of the Russian literary language, because Pushkin’s language is so different from Derzhavin’s language. Russian poetry of the first third of the 19th century went its own way in a special way– through translations: Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Pushkin, Lermontov translated English, French, German, Italian poets, poets of Antiquity (Ariosto, Petrarch, Goethe, Schiller, Byron, Parni, etc.). Thus, the Russian language is, as it were, “washed” by European languages, and little-known names are recreated. At the beginning of the 19th century, there was movement in Russian cultural life, there was no ossified traditionalism, all foundations were being broken, starting with language, the problem of the Russian literary language was extremely relevant, since the Russian language was a language everyday communication, was not allowed into the higher cultural sphere, which is why they strive to create a language that would absorb the rigor of English and the philosophical nature of German. Poetic translations Zhukovsky, Pushkin, Lermontov were not translations in the strict sense of the word, they were transformations, adaptation to Russian soil and the movement of Russian literature towards its own romanticism. At the same time, Russian romanticism was significantly different from European romanticism; it was different, although, undoubtedly, it was based on the artistic achievements that were achieved in Western European romanticism. Russian romanticism was optimistic in its pathos, based and based on faith in the individual, his spiritual capabilities; Russia has not yet suffered disappointment; faith in the possibility of transformation, faith in man, in a new social life, illuminated Russian romanticism with a special light. In the 30s years XIX century, the trend of realistic art is gaining strength, which declared itself in the works of Pushkin in the 30s, in the works of Lermontov and Gogol in the late 30s and early 40s of the 19th century. In Pushkin’s work, the synthesis sought by Russian literature of the early 19th century, which it was mastering at that time, was realized Western Europe with national traditions of Russian culture. Based on this experience, constant comparison of the cultural and historical experience of Russia with the experience Western European countries, Pushkin covered all the pressing issues of our time. Pushkin accomplished this on the basis of the creative assimilation and implementation of what was achieved along this path by his predecessors, starting from Feofan Prokopovich and Trediakovsky and ending with Karamzin and Zhukovsky. Thus, Pushkin’s work is the result of the enormous path traveled by Russia and its literature from the era of Peter the Great to the era of the Patriotic War of 1812 and the Decembrist movement. Pushkin’s work completed the process of national self-determination of Russian literature among others European literatures. An attempt to understand the world from the standpoint of historicism, objectivity, and true nationality gave rise to new artistic thinking and a new artistic style– realistic. According to Merezhkovsky, Pushkin is the expression of everything Russian and national, it was Pushkin who “gave everything Russian a truly European measure.” The features of this course determine the nature independent work philology students, in particular, those offered control tests, their problematics, analytical direction contribute to the assimilation of such concepts as Russian romanticism and its varieties, Russian realism and its originality, understanding of the patterns of historiosophical issues in the works of Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, as well as problems about the ways of social restructuring of the Russian world. The proposed test system allows philology students to get acquainted with various types of research - examples of classical Russian criticism, literary classics, monographic type analysis and analysis of one issue covered in books, articles, collections, etc. All this undoubtedly contributes to the development of independent thinking skills and the development of first independent research, working on your own style, so necessary for a specialist in his professional activities. Test tasks are a type of not only independent, but also creative work philology students, their main task– in the study of any one problem of a given course in the history of literature. The goal is to teach a philology student to work with literary texts, critical literature, and reference books. Each topic should be analyzed in a specific direction, using the most complete list specified research literature. The list of scientific literature can be expanded, but cannot be narrowed: for each topic, the necessary, selected, and brought to a minimum literature on the problem under study is given. Before you begin studying the tasks specified in the tests, you should familiarize yourself with the entire course as a whole in order to present the entire complex of historical, literary and aesthetic problems. In this regard, it is necessary to turn to educational and methodological literature: History of Russian literature: in 4 TT. – M.-L.: Science, 1980-1983. T.2-3; Sokolov A.N. History of Russian literature of the 19th century (first half). – M.: Education, 1978; History of world literature in 9 TT. T.5-6. – M., 1989-1991. History of the Russian novel: in 2 TT. T.1. – M. - L., 1962-1964. When working on a test task in the case when it is necessary to clarify any theoretical concept, for example, genre, style, image of the author, lyrical hero, – you should refer to the reference manuals: Brief literary encyclopedia: at 10 TT. – M., 1961; Dictionary literary terms. – M., 1974; Poetic dictionary of A.P. Kvyatkovsky. – M., 1966; Literary encyclopedic dictionary. Reflecting on a literary text in line with the problem posed, independently analyzing it, trying to create your own opinion about it, it is necessary to compare the initial idea with how this issue was resolved by scientists whose works are listed in the bibliography. Further, comprehending your observations, relying on reference and scientific literature When arguing with researchers or sharing their point of view, you should correctly construct your answer. When answering the tasks specified in the test, you should rely on literary text, prove all the theoretical provisions of your independent research in the text, freely navigating it, 5 demonstrating knowledge of the chosen issue; When answering, it is important to fully demonstrate professional skills. General characteristics of the social and literary life of Russia (1801-1815). The originality of Russian romanticism The beginning of the 19th century is the “golden age” of Russian literature, everything more significant in Russian literature has its “roots” in the “golden age”; this is a period of interesting historical events that predetermined the history of Russian society, the Russian state: a coup d'etat, a change of rulers in 1801, the era of " Napoleonic wars"(1805-1807), Patriotic War of 1812, noble revolt of 1825 on Senate Square. The 19th century began with a new reign: in 1801, Alexander I ascended the Russian throne. Alexander I, young, twenty-four years old, brought up on the ideals of the French Enlightenment (Alexander was educated by the Swiss Laharpe), presented a striking contrast with Paul I. The enthusiasm in noble circles was universal , according to the memoirs of contemporaries, people kissed on the streets and congratulated each other, it was considered good that “there was no need to be afraid to be afraid,” as under Paul, one could hope for the best, one could even submit projects to the sovereign for the liberation of the peasants, for the establishment Constitution. Everyone was “crazy” about Alexander, the poets in chorus composed madrigals and odes in his honor. It was “a wonderful beginning to the Alexandrov days.” The spirit of new trends penetrated everywhere and excited minds. Alexander I, the favorite of his grandmother, Catherine the Great, supported her political course and defended the rights of the nobility. Catherine II gave the Russian nobility unlimited power over the peasants. Alexander I was raised by the Swiss emigrant Laharpe, a representative of the liberal and republican trend. Laharpe raised Alexander on the principles of truth and justice, deep respect for human dignity. Even in his youth, a close circle of people formed around the future tsar (Kochubey, Stroganov, Novosiltsev, Czartoryski), brought up on the educational literature of the 18th century, in highest degree honest, not seeking any benefits for themselves personally, eager to serve the benefit of the Fatherland. They all saw the backwardness of Russia and longed for progressive changes. Alexander I, a sovereign who took the position of the Enlightenment, ascended the throne as a result of a palace coup: on March 11, 1801, Paul I was strangled in the Mikhailovsky Castle. Paul I was a complex and contradictory personality, in Europe he was called the “Russian Hamlet”, he was a Knight of Malta Order, he changed a lot in politics, curtailed the rights of the nobility, which aroused the hatred of the noble elite. The era of Paul I is contradictory, dark: he returned political exiles from exile - Radishchev, Novikov, Freemasons; issued many decrees to make life easier for the peasantry, and began reforming the army. It seemed these good intentions should have been supported. Yu. Tynyanov dedicated the book “Lieutenant Kizhe” to this period of Russian culture; in it, Paul I appears as an unbridled tyrant who cannot be a politician, since his decisions changed within an hour. According to Tynyanov, Pavel is ruled by mood, and not by sober, cold, political prudence. Under Paul I, everything that resembled French Revolution, the use of these words was even punishable by execution, many magazines were closed and educational institutions, as not inspiring confidence in the government - all this led to the fact that the noble elite perceived Paul as an obscurantist, as a mentally unstable person. At the same time, works are currently appearing that “shed light” on the dark events of that time. After all, at the same time, Paul I laid down a number of reforms that government circles would reflect on for half a century. Dmitry Merezhkovsky dedicated the drama of the same name “Paul the First” to Paul I, in which the Russian Tsar is presented as a mystic who foresees his own tragic death: Paul incessantly complained about tight collars, which, as it seemed to him, “strangled him,” and on the eve of the conspiracy, in last evening In his life, Pavel, looking into the mirror and seeing his reflection in it, said that “the mirror is strange,” since in it “the neck seems to be curled.” D. Merezhkovsky in the novel “Alexander I” writes that Alexander in his mature years, at the end of his reign, experiences pangs of conscience for his murdered father, and March 11 is a terrible day for him; Alexander perceives the death of his young children as punishment sent down to him from above for his murdered father. According to legend, Alexander I fled from the Russian throne, unable to withstand its hardships, unable to bear the burden of power, became a wanderer and died under the name of the wanderer Fyodor Kuzmich. In the novel, Merezhkovsky writes about how the Russian Tsar dreams of leaving the throne, how he wants to become a wanderer, moving away from all worldly affairs, from 6 friends and enemies. This legend will also be described by L. Tolstoy (unfinished story “Notes of the Wanderer Fyodor Kuzmich”). Alexander I had a difficult task: reforming the political life of Russia. In 1801, it became clear that this could not continue: all of Europe, with the exception of Russia, was free, only in Russia the peasants were serfs. Therefore, Alexander I’s move towards liberal reforms. First of all, the reforms were related to abolishing serfdom in individual provinces (Livonia - Baltic states); Preparatory work was underway in the Kharkov and Novgorod provinces. At the head of these preparatory work was Mikhail Speransky, from a priestly background, not belonging to the nobility, but one of the educated and smartest people in Russia. The State Council was inaugurated, which was conceived as the Upper House of the Russian Parliament, Ministries were established, a course was set for young people, many ambassadors, generals, and dignitaries were 30-40 years old. A contemporary of the era, Major General Engelhardt, wrote in his memoirs about the beginning of Alexander’s reign: most of all, Russia was delighted that in the manifesto on his accession to the throne, the sovereign announced that “he would reign after the heart of his grandmother, the Great Catherine”; there was general joy, they congratulated and hugged each other, “as if Russia had been threatened by a barbarian invasion and had freed itself.” Alexander I began by immediately making peace with England; the English fleet under the command of Nelson arrived at Revel; ordered the release of all those exiled to Siberia during the previous reign and held in fortresses; resumed the Conscientious Courts, established by Catherine II and destroyed by Paul I. The celebration of the coronation was magnificent: Alexander - young, handsome, in a crown and robe, seemed to be the ideal of a monarch who promised to be an example of all sovereigns and the father of his subjects. Alexander's coronation took place in Moscow, and the people greeted him with the greatest admiration and joy. During the reign of Alexander, the Secret Chancellery was destroyed, universities were established in Kazan, Kharkov, Dorpat, Vilna, St. Petersburg, Moscow University was transformed according to a special plan. A Medical-Surgical Academy was established in Moscow, a Lyceum was opened in Tsarskoye Selo (it was initially assumed that the Grand Dukes would study at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum), and the Imperial Public Library was opened in St. Petersburg; free fishing in the Caspian Sea was restored, “people of all ranks were allowed to acquire land,” and landowners were allowed to set free peasants in entire villages, calling them “free cultivators”; a department of water and land communications was established - as if all the rusty parts of the mechanism were in motion. The spirit of new trends penetrated everywhere, and above all it affected literature. With the accession of Alexander to the throne in various parts huge empire as if a thaw had begun. Liberal innovations were proposed, promising reform projects were discussed - this gave rise to hope that the noble ideals of the Enlightenment would finally strengthen on Russian soil. The first sign of this was the unprecedented rapid inclusion of new layers of the population in the active reading public and the associated expansion publishing activities. Indeed, much has shifted in the spiritual existence of Russia, new paths and opportunities have been prepared for its development. Literature felt new currents of life, the number of literary magazines and almanacs, the first professional publishers and journalists appear, although earning money from literature is still considered shameful. Russian criticism and journalism - the expression of public opinion - are emerging. During the same period, there was a very noticeable revival in all spheres of literary life. Literature, absorbing new ideas, acquires more close ties with the pressing demands of the time, with the political events taking place at that time. A characteristic feature of literature has become increased interest to political and public life countries. The leading questions of the time are government system and serfdom. These questions excited the minds of contemporaries, were passionately discussed in the social and literary organizations that existed at that time, and penetrated the pages of periodicals: “Bulletin of Europe”, “Son of the Fatherland”. As early as the 1800s total number of such publications reaches 60 and has been steadily increasing over the next decade. Important public role played at the beginning of the 19th century by periodicals in which they found their continuation best traditions advanced Russian journalism of the 18th century (“Northern Bulletin” and “Journal of Russian Literature” by Brusilov). If in the era of the 1800s - mid-1810s, Moscow magazines were most popular (Bulletin of Europe, 1802), then in the late 1910s and the first half of the 20s of the 19th century, those published in St. Petersburg acquired special weight progressive publications “Son of the Fatherland” and “Competitor of Education and Charity.” In the 20s of the 19th century, advanced literary frontiers were firmly conquered by almanacs. WITH broad program Enlightenment and national-cultural transformation were made at the very beginning of the 19th century by the “Bulletin of Europe”, which was published in 1802-1803. was Karamzin. It was during these years that the magazine was formed as periodical a new type, its pages covered modern political news, both Russian and European; were published and understood the most famous works Russian literature. The presentation of the material combined liveliness, accessibility and seriousness. Karamzin (as later Zhukovsky, who edited the “Bulletin of Europe” in the 1808-1810s) saw the main task of his publication in introducing broad layers of Russian society to the achievements European culture. According to Karamzin, the magazine was supposed to contribute to the further rapprochement of Russia with Europe, to be a “messenger” of all the most outstanding things in the life of European countries, to keep the Russian reader informed about international political events and cultivate its national identity. An exponent of other tendencies, largely opposed to Europeanism and the breadth of Karamzin’s journal, was Glinka’s “Russian Messenger”, published since 1808, which defended the patriarchal foundations of national existence and fiercely fought against the Frenchmania of the Russian nobility. Glinka's magazine played important role during the era of anti-Napoleonic campaigns and especially in Patriotic War 1812. Glinka sought to attract the attention of the Russian public to national history, the origins Russian art, jealously protected everything truly “Russian” from the invasion of foreign things, which he believed were alien to everything Russian. Sometimes it went to extremes: Glinka, for example, did not accept poems in his journal that contained mythological names. "Russian Messenger" found itself in a purely defensive position; the magazine was liquidated by the publisher himself in 1824. On the general wave of patriotic upsurge, “Son of the Fatherland” appeared in 1812 (the initiators of the publication were Olenin, Uvarov, Timkovsky, and the numerous permanent editor was Grech). At first, the magazine was filled with news about the progress of military operations. Throughout the 1810s - 1820s. “Son of the Fatherland”, together with “Competitor of Enlightenment and Charity”, the Decembrist almanacs “Polar Star”, “Mnemosyne” contributed to the consolidation of advanced social and literary forces, defended and defended the principles of the formation of Decembrist romanticism. Magazines and almanacs were concentrated around certain literary and social groups. They were original centers of circle, social and literary associations. In an atmosphere of social upsurge, the civic consciousness of Russian literature is significantly increasing. V. Zhukovsky expressed his views on the purpose of literature in a letter: “A writer who respects his title is as useful a servant of his Fatherland as a warrior who defends it.” A.F. Merzlyakov, recalling the revival of public hopes in the early 1800s, wrote that “at this time, the desire and inclination for literature was brilliantly revealed in every rank...”. This tendency caused an influx of fresh forces into literature. Literary societies, circles and salons Literary life Russia of this period developed rapidly, among writers and politicians the main question was: What kind of Russia should it be? Monarchy? Republic? What should a literary language be like? After all, Pushkin’s language is so different from Derzhavin’s. The Russian literary language was created at the beginning of the 19th century. Literary societies and circles make it possible to see the general progressive development of Russian literary social thought. The earliest of such associations is the Friendly Literary Society, which arose in January 1801. It is not by chance that this literary society arose in Moscow, which at the beginning of the 19th century was the center of the best literary forces of that era. The “Friendly Literary Society” grew out of a student circle consisting of students from Moscow University and the university’s Noble boarding school. This society included Andrei and Alexander Turgenev, Kaisarov, V. Zhukovsky, A. Voikov, S. Rodzianka, A.F. Merzlyakov. In their person a new generation of writers declared itself. The participants of the “Friendly Literary Society” were characterized by common aspirations: a passionate interest in the fate of Russia, its culture, hostility to inertia, a desire to contribute as much as possible to the development of education, the idea of civil and patriotic service to the Motherland. “Friendly community” formed the basis of this association; the society’s meetings were characterized by an informal, relaxed tone, an atmosphere of heated debate, anticipating organizational forms"Arzamas", the main core of which was made up of participants of the "Friendly Literary Society". 8 How did a friendly circle of like-minded young writers begin their activities and “ Free Society lovers of literature, science and art", created in St. Petersburg in 1801. Yazykov, Ermolaev, Pnin, Vostokov became participants in the “Free Society”; they sought to declare themselves publicly, sought to achieve official recognition: Pnin was the author of the treatise “An Experience on Enlightenment in Relation to Russia.” The treatise was presented to Alexander I and received the “highest approval.” Participants in the Free Society dreamed of developing education and social reforms in Russia. Members of the society published the almanac “Scroll of the Muses” (1802-1803). In 1804-1805, K. Batyushkov, A. Merzlyakov, N. Gnedich, V. L. Pushkin became members of the society. In 1812, the “Free Society” ceased its activities, but in 1816 the activities of the society were resumed, headed by a new President, Izmailov. This period of activity of the “Free Society” is called “Izmailovsky”. Members of the Izmailovsky Society were K. Ryleev, A. Bestuzhev, V. Kuchelbecker, A. Raevsky, O. Somov. The future Decembrists sought to actively influence the contemporary social and literary movement. The “Union of Salvation” and the “Union of Welfare” first focus on the “Free Society”. " Moscow Society lovers of Russian literature” existed for more than 100 years. Created at Moscow University, it included in its ranks teachers, Moscow writers and simply lovers of literature. The “Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” was established in 1811; in general, the position of the society gravitated towards classicism, the defenders of the principles of which were the organizers and leaders of the society (especially A.F. Merzlyakov). The time of greatest literary flourishing for the society was 1818, when, according to Dmitriev, prominent St. Petersburg poets took part in its work: Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, F. Glinka. In 1811, the literary society “Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word” (1811-1816), an association of St. Petersburg writers, arose. The organizer and head of the “Conversation” was Admiral Shishkov, a defender of classicism, author of the famous “Discourse on the Old and New Syllable Russian language"(1803). Admiral Shishkov, not being a writer himself, led the famous writers of Russia: members of the “Conversation” were Derzhavin and Krylov. The meetings of the society were solemn: tailcoats, ballroom costumes. Writers read new works. Krylov and Derzhavin were a unique decoration of “Conversation”. The Russian language, from the point of view of Besedchikov, should develop according to national tradition, the basis of the language should be ancient chronicles, and all European tracings must be destroyed and replaced with the Russian version. "Besedchiki" opposed the Russian language to develop in the spirit European languages, since it has its own national channel. Shishkov is a theorist and defender of the “old style”; this trend was directed primarily against the European traditions of the Russian Enlightenment. “Besedchiki” were fierce defenders of everything Russian and national from the “destructive influence” of Western European culture. However, the process of Europeanization of Russian spiritual culture has enriched it with a huge number of new social and philosophical ideas, aesthetic and moral ideas, artistic forms, without the mastery of which its further development and self-determination would have been impossible. The central issue in literary struggle“The days of Alexander’s wonderful beginning” became the question of literary language, or “syllable”. After the publication of “Reflections on the Old and New Syllables of the Russian Language” by the defender of classicism Shishkov, the controversy about the Russian literary language did not subside until the early 20s of the 19th century. This polemic characterizes the demarcation and struggle between the two main ideological and aesthetic tendencies of Russian literature. Belinsky called this period the “Karamzin period.” One of them was represented by the “Karamzinists”, adherents of the “new style”. Nikolai Karamzin headed the Arzamas literary society. The “Karamzinists,” unlike the “Besedchiki,” saw a different path of development and continued the European traditions of the Russian Enlightenment, “built” their own etiquette of communication and meetings; they were all younger than the “Besedchiki.” The youngest of them was Alexander Pushkin. Each of the members of the Arzamas society had a nickname, they wore nicknames from V. Zhukovsky’s ballads: Vasily Pushkin was called “Chub”, Mikhail Orlov was called “Rhine”. It was a kind of “brotherhood” in which there was no hierarchy, and where freedom, equality and brotherhood reigned. The Arzamas people were extremely diverse in their representation; the society included politicians. The literary society "Arzamas" at first opposed "Conversation", and the people of Arzamas did a lot for the development of the Russian literary language; according to members of the society, the Russian language should develop in the bosom of other European languages 9 should absorb features of other languages. “Besedchiki” were classicists, “Arzamas people” were sentimentalists and romantics, therefore, the style itself was different. Where the classicists wrote: “The moon has risen”; sentimentalists and pre-romanticists will write: “Hecate has risen.” Thus, pretentiousness and sophistication of style were inherent in them, and this is what caused criticism from the “talkers”; all these battles became literary. An important circumstance of the culture of that time was that in the sphere of intellectual communication the spoken language not only of the “society”, but of all educated people was French, and this basically had nothing to do with “Gallomania”, cosmopolitanism, or disdain for the people . The reason was the huge gap between the spiritual needs of the educated strata of Russian society and the semantic structure of the Russian language. The problem of the Russian language was extremely relevant, since the Russian language was the language of everyday communication, it was not allowed into the highest cultural sphere: it was impossible to speak in Russian as beautifully, gracefully as in French: there was no equivalent. Pushkin in the 30s of the 19th century writes letters to his wife Natalie French. That's why educated people Russian writers and poets strive to create a language that would absorb “the rigor of English, the philosophical nature of German,” and the elegance of French. Romanticism Russian romanticism was an organic part of pan-European romanticism, which was a movement that covered all spheres of the spiritual life of society. Romanticism brought emancipation of the individual, the human spirit, and creative thought. Romanticism did not reject the achievements of previous eras; it arose on a humanistic basis, absorbing much of the best that was achieved by the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. The most important principle of the aesthetics of romanticism was the idea of the self-worth of the individual. Romanticism was the discovery of a hitherto unknown poetic world of beauty and was a kind of stimulus for the flowering of the arts. The Romantic movement began in the 1790s in Germany (Schelling, Tieck, Novalis, Goethe, Schiller); from the 1810s - in England (Byron, Shelley, W. Scott, Blake, Wordsworth), and soon the romantic movement covered all of Europe, including France. Romanticism is a purely historical phenomenon, not reduced to single or even unambiguous principles. This phenomenon was understood and interpreted differently by the romantics themselves. Romanticism is not just a movement in literature - it is, first of all, a worldview, a worldview. Romanticism is characterized by the opposition of dreams and reality, ideal and reality. Romanticism contrasts the real, rejected reality with a certain higher, poetic principle. The antithesis “dream - reality” becomes constructive among the romantics, it organizes art world romantic work, is characteristic and defining for romantic art. The antithesis “dream - reality” brought romantic art to life; it lies at its very origins. The negation of what exists, what is actually given, is the ideological premise of romanticism. It was not by chance that Romanticism as a movement arose at the border of the 18th and 19th centuries. In “Confession of a Son of the Century” (confession of a romantic), Musset named two reasons that gave rise to the tragic and at the same time romantic dual world his contemporary: “The illness of our century comes from two reasons: the people who went through 1793 and 1814 bear two wounds in their hearts...” The shocks of the revolution and the shocks of the Napoleonic wars in France posed many acute and insoluble questions to each individual and society as a whole , forced us to reconsider previous concepts and values. Musset wrote: “It was some kind of denial of everything heavenly and everything earthly, a denial that can be called disappointment or, if you like, hopelessness.” From the romantic’s point of view, the world was split into “soul” and “body”, sharply opposed to each other and hostile. Contrary to the brightest hopes and expectations, the revolution did not abolish the centuries-old oppression of man by man; the bourgeoisie brought with them the principles of profit and material gain into life. Great expectations gave way to no less great disappointments. The vulgarity of bourgeois reality began to be perceived as the vulgarity of life in general, so the unconditional and absolute denial reality. The romantics saw it not in the arguments of reason, but in poetic revelation closest way to the truth. Novalis wrote: “A poet comprehends nature better than the mind of a scientist.” From the romantic denial of reality arises a special romantic hero. Previous literature did not know such a hero. This is a hero in hostile relationship with society, opposed to the prose of life, opposed to the “crowd”. This is a person out of everyday life, extraordinary, restless, lonely and 10
The literary Russian language began to take shape many centuries ago. There are still debates in science about its basis, about the role of the Church Slavonic language in its origin. Russian language refers to Indo-European family. Its origins go back to the existence and collapse of the common European (proto-Slavic) language. From this pan-Slavic unity (VI–VII centuries) several groups are distinguished: eastern, western and southern. It was in the East Slavic group that the Russian language would later emerge (XV century).
IN Kiev state a mixed language was used, which was called Church Slavonic. All liturgical literature, being copied from Old Slavonic Byzantine and Bulgarian sources, reflected the norms Old Slavonic language. However, words and elements of the Old Russian language penetrated into this literature. In parallel to this style of language, there was also secular and business literature. If examples of the Church Slavonic language are the “Psalter”, “Gospel” and so on, then an example of secular and business language Ancient Rus'“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, “The Tale of Bygone Years”, “Russian Truth” are considered.
This literature (secular and business) reflects the linguistic norms of living spoken language Slavs, their oral folk art. Based on the fact that Ancient Rus' was so complex dual system language, it is difficult for scientists to explain the origin of the modern literary Russian language. Their opinions differ, but the most common is the theory of the academician V. V. Vinogradova . According to this theory, two types of literary language functioned in Ancient Rus':
1) book Slavonic literary language, based on Old Church Slavonic and used primarily in church literature;
2) a folk literary language based on living Old Russian language and used in secular literature.
According to V.V. Vinogradov, these are two types of language, not two special language, i.e. in Kievan Rus there was no bilingualism. These two types of language long time interacted with each other. Gradually they became closer, and on their basis in the 18th century. a single literary Russian language was formed.
The beginning of the stage of development of the Russian literary language is considered to be the time of the work of the great Russian poet Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, who is sometimes called the creator of the modern Russian literary language.
A. S. Pushkin streamlined the artistic means of the Russian literary language and significantly enriched it. He managed, based on various manifestations vernacular, create in their works a language that was perceived by society as literary.
Pushkin’s work is truly a definite milestone in the history of the literary Russian language. We still read his works with ease and pleasure, while the works of his predecessors and even many of his contemporaries do so with some difficulty. one feels that they were writing in a now outdated language. Of course, a lot of time has passed since the time of A.S. Pushkin and a lot has changed, including the Russian language: some of it has left, a lot of new words have appeared. Although great poet did not leave us grammarians, he was the author of not only artistic, but also historical and journalistic works, he clearly distinguished between the author’s speech and characters, i.e., he practically laid the foundations for the modern functional-style classification of the literary Russian language.
The further development of the literary language continued in the works of great Russian writers, publicists, and in the diverse activities of the Russian people. Late XIX V. to the present - the second period of development of the modern literary Russian language. This period is characterized by well-established language norms However, these standards are being improved over time.
http://www.lib.ru
Annotation
“The History of Karamzin” is one of the greatest monuments of Russian national culture.
The first volume of “History of the Russian State” includes 10 chapters: I - About the peoples who lived in Russia since ancient times, II - About the Slavs and other peoples, III - About the physical and moral character of the ancient Slavs, IV - Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, V - Oleg the Ruler, VI - Prince Igor, VII - Prince Svyatoslav, VIII - Grand Duke Yaropolk, IX - Grand Duke Vladimir, X - On the state of Ancient Rus'. The first volume of this set contains comments, an index of names, an index of geographical and ethnic names, an index of literary and documentary sources, church holidays and events, and a list of abbreviations used in indexes.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin
"History of the Russian State"
Volume I
Preface
History, in a sense, is the sacred book of peoples: the main, necessary; a mirror of their existence and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the covenant of ancestors to posterity; addition, explanation of the present and example of the future.
Rulers and Legislators act according to the instructions of History and look at its pages like sailors at drawings of the seas. Human wisdom needs experience, and life is short-lived. One must know how from time immemorial rebellious passions agitated civil society and in what ways the beneficial power of the mind curbed their stormy desire to establish order, harmonize the benefits of people and give them the happiness possible on earth.
But an ordinary citizen should also read History. She reconciles him with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with an ordinary phenomenon in all centuries; consoles in state disasters, testifying that similar ones have happened before, even worse ones have happened, and the State was not destroyed; it nourishes a moral feeling and with its righteous judgment disposes the soul towards justice, which affirms our good and the harmony of society.
Here is the benefit: how much pleasure for the heart and mind! Curiosity is akin to man, both the enlightened and the wild. At the glorious Olympic Games, the noise fell silent, and the crowds remained silent around Herodotus, reading the legends of the centuries. Even without knowing the use of letters, peoples already love History: the old man points the young man to a high grave and tells about the deeds of the Hero lying in it. The first experiments of our ancestors in the art of literacy were devoted to Faith and Scripture; Darkened by a thick shadow of ignorance, the people greedily listened to the tales of the Chroniclers. And I like fiction; but for complete pleasure one must deceive oneself and think that they are the truth. History, opening the tombs, raising the dead, putting life into their hearts and words into their mouths, re-creating Kingdoms from corruption and imagining a series of centuries with their distinct passions, morals, deeds, expands the boundaries of our own existence; by its creative power we live with people of all times, we see and hear them, we love and hate them; Without even thinking about the benefits, we already enjoy the contemplation of diverse cases and characters that occupy the mind or nourish sensitivity.
If any History, even unskillfully written, is pleasant, as Pliny says: how much more domestic. The true Cosmopolitan is a metaphysical being or such an extraordinary phenomenon that there is no need to talk about him, neither to praise nor to condemn him. We are all citizens, in Europe and in India, in Mexico and in Abyssinia; Everyone’s personality is closely connected with the fatherland: we love it because we love ourselves. Let the Greeks and Romans captivate the imagination: they belong to the family of the human race and are not strangers to us in their virtues and weaknesses, glory and disasters; but the name Russian has a special charm for us: my heart beats even stronger for Pozharsky than for Themistocles or Scipio. World History with great memories decorates the world for the mind, and the Russian one decorates the fatherland where we live and feel. How attractive are the banks of the Volkhov, Dnieper, and Don, when we know what happened on them in ancient times! Not only Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir, but also the huts of Yelets, Kozelsk, Galich become curious monuments and silent objects - eloquent. The shadows of past centuries paint pictures before us everywhere.
In addition to the special dignity for us, the sons of Russia, its chronicles have something in common. Let us look at the space of this only Power: thought becomes numb; Rome in its greatness could never equal her, dominating from the Tiber to the Caucasus, the Elbe and the African sands. Isn’t it amazing how lands separated by eternal barriers of nature, immeasurable deserts and impenetrable forests, cold and hot climates, like Astrakhan and Lapland, Siberia and Bessarabia, could form one Power with Moscow? Is the mixture of its inhabitants less wonderful, diverse, diverse and so distant from each other in degrees of education? Like America, Russia has its Wild Ones; like other European countries it shows the fruits of long-term civic life. You don’t need to be Russian: you just need to think in order to read with curiosity the traditions of the people who, with courage and courage, gained dominance over a ninth part of the world, discovered countries hitherto unknown to anyone, bringing them into common system Geography, History, and enlightened by the Divine Faith, without violence, without the atrocities used by other zealots of Christianity in Europe and America, but the only example of the best.
We agree that the acts described by Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy are generally more interesting for any non-Russian, representing more spiritual strength and lively game passions: for Greece and Rome were popular Powers and more enlightened than Russia; however, we can safely say that some cases, pictures, characters of our History are no less curious than the ancients. These are the essence of the exploits of Svyatoslav, the thunderstorm of Batu, the uprising of the Russians at Donskoy, the fall of Novagorod, the capture of Kazan, the triumph of national virtues during the Interregnum. Giants of the twilight, Oleg and son Igor; the simple-hearted knight, the blind Vasilko; friend of the fatherland, benevolent Monomakh; Mstislavs Brave, terrible in battle and an example of kindness in the world; Mikhail Tversky, so famous for his magnanimous death, the ill-fated, truly courageous, Alexander Nevsky; The young hero, the conqueror of Mamaev, in the lightest outline, has a strong effect on the imagination and heart. The reign of John III alone is a rare treasure for history: at least I don’t know a monarch more worthy to live and shine in its sanctuary. The rays of his glory fall on the cradle of Peter - and between these two Autocrats the amazing John IV, Godunov, worthy of his happiness and misfortune, the strange False Dmitry, and behind the host of valiant Patriots, Boyars and citizens, the mentor of the throne, High Hierarch Philaret with the Sovereign Son, a light-bearer in the darkness our state disasters, and Tsar Alexy, the wise father of the Emperor, whom Europe called Great. Either all of New History should remain silent, or Russian History should have the right to attention.
I know that the battles of our specific civil strife, rattling incessantly in the space of five centuries, are of little importance to the mind; that this subject is neither rich in thoughts for the Pragmatist, nor in beauty for the painter; but History is not a novel, and the world is not a garden where everything should be pleasant: it depicts the real world. We see majestic mountains and waterfalls, flowering meadows and valleys on earth; but how many barren sands and dull steppes! However, travel is generally kind to a person with a lively feeling and imagination; In the very deserts there are beautiful species.
Let us not be superstitious in our lofty concept of the Scriptures of Antiquity. If we exclude fictitious speeches from the immortal creation of Thucydides, what remains? A bare story about the civil strife of the Greek cities: crowds commit villainy, are slaughtered for the honor of Athens or Sparta, just as we have for the honor of Monomakhov or Oleg’s house. There is not much difference if we forget that these half-tigers spoke in the language of Homer, had Sophocles’ Tragedies and statues of Phidias. Does the thoughtful painter Tacitus always present to us the great, the striking? We look with tenderness at Agrippina, carrying the ashes of Germanicus; with pity for the bones and armor of Varov's Legion scattered in the forest; with horror at the bloody feast of the frantic Romans, illuminated by the flames of the Capitol; with disgust at the monster of tyranny devouring the remnants of Republican virtues in the capital of the world: but the boring litigation of cities about the right to have a priest in this or that temple and the dry Obituary of Roman officials take up many pages in Tacitus. He envied Titus Livy for the wealth of the subject; and Livy, smooth and eloquent, sometimes fills entire books with news of conflicts and robberies, which are hardly more important than the Polovtsian raids. - In a word, reading all the Stories requires some patience, which is more or less rewarded with pleasure.
A historian of Russia could, of course, say a few words about the origin of its main people, about the composition of the State, present the important, most memorable features of antiquity in a skillful picture and start thorough a narrative from John's time or from the 15th century, when one of the greatest state creations in the world took place: he would have easily written 200 or 300 eloquent, pleasant pages, instead of many books, difficult for the Author, tedious for the Reader. But these reviews, these paintings do not replace chronicles, and whoever has read only Robertson’s Introduction to the History of Charles V still does not have a thorough, true understanding of Europe in middle times. It is not enough that an intelligent person, looking around the monuments of centuries, will tell us his notes: we must see the actions and the actors ourselves - then we know History. The boastfulness of the Author's eloquence and bliss Will the readers be condemned to eternal oblivion of the deeds and fate of our ancestors? They suffered, and through their misfortunes they created our greatness, and we don’t even want to hear about it, or know who they loved, who they blamed for their misfortunes? Foreigners may miss what is boring for them in our ancient History; But aren’t good Russians obliged to have more patience, following the rule of state morality, which places respect for ancestors in the dignity of an educated citizen?.. This is how I thought and wrote about Igor, O Vsevolodakh, How contemporary, looking at them in the dim mirror of the ancient Chronicle with tireless attention, with sincere respect; and if, instead alive , whole represented the only images shadows , in excerpts, then it’s not my fault: I couldn’t supplement the Chronicles!
Eat three kind of stories: first modern, for example, Thucydides, where an obvious witness talks about incidents; second, like Tacitov, is based on fresh verbal traditions at a time close to the actions described; third extracted only from monuments like ours until the 18th century. (Only with Peter the Great do verbal legends begin for us: we heard from our fathers and grandfathers about him, about Catherine I, Peter II, Anna, Elizabeth, much that is not in the books. (Here and below are notes by N. M. Karamzin. )) IN first And second the mind and imagination of the Writer shines, who chooses the most curious, blossoms, decorates, sometimes creates, without fear of reproof; will say: that's what I saw , that's what I heard- and silent Criticism does not prevent the Reader from enjoying the beautiful descriptions. Third the genus is the most limited for talent: you cannot add a single feature to what is known; you cannot question the dead; we say that our contemporaries betrayed us; we remain silent if they remain silent - or fair Criticism will block the lips of a frivolous Historian, obliged to present only what has been preserved from centuries in the Chronicles, in the Archives. The ancients had the right to invent speeches in accordance with the character of people, with circumstances: a right that is invaluable for true talents, and Livy, using it, enriched his books with the power of mind, eloquence, and wise instructions. But we, contrary to the opinion of Abbot Mably, cannot now orbit History. New advances in reason have given us the clearest understanding of its nature and purpose; common taste established unchanged rules and forever separated the Description from the Poem, from the flower beds of eloquence, leaving it to the former to be a faithful mirror of the past, a faithful response to the words actually spoken by the Heroes of the Ages. The most beautiful fictitious speech disgraces History, which is dedicated not to the glory of the Writer, not to the pleasure of the Readers, and not even to moralizing wisdom, but only to the truth, which itself becomes a source of pleasure and benefit. Both Natural and Civil History does not tolerate fiction, depicting what is or was, and not what is to be could. But History, they say, is filled with lies: let’s say better that in it, as in human affairs, there is an admixture of lies, but the character of truth is always more or less preserved; and this is enough for us to make up our minds general concept about people and actions. The more demanding and stricter the Criticism; it is all the more inadmissible for the Historian, for the benefit of his talent, to deceive conscientious Readers, to think and speak for Heroes who have long been silent in their graves. What remains for him, chained, so to speak, to the dry charters of antiquity? order, clarity, strength, painting. He creates from a given substance: he will not produce gold from copper, but must also purify copper; must know the price and properties; to reveal the great where it is hidden, and not to give the small the rights of the great. There is no subject so poor that Art cannot mark itself in it in a way that is pleasing to the mind.
Until now, the Ancients serve as models for us. No one has surpassed Livy in the beauty of storytelling, Tacitus in power: that’s the main thing! Knowledge of all the Rights in the world, German erudition, Voltaire's wit, not even the most profound thought of Machiavellian in the Historian do not replace the talent to depict actions. The English are famous for Hume, the Germans for John Müller, and rightly so (I am speaking only about those who wrote the entire History of Nations. Ferreras, Daniel, Maskov, Dalin, Mallet are not equal to these two Historians; but while zealously praising Müller (the Historian of Switzerland), experts do not praise his Introduction, which can be called a Geological Poem): both are worthy collaborators of the Ancients, - not imitators: for every century, every people gives special colors to the skillful Writer of Genesis. “Do not imitate Tacitus, but write as he would write in your place!” There is a rule of genius. Did Muller want to, by frequently inserting moral issues into the story? apophegma, be like Tacitus? Don't know; but this desire to shine with intelligence, or to appear thoughtful, is almost contrary to true taste. The historian argues only to explain things, where his thoughts seem to complement the description. Let us note that these apothegms are for thorough minds either half-truths or very ordinary truths that do not have much value in History, where we are looking for actions and characters. There is skillful storytelling duty writer of everyday life, and a good individual thought - gift: the reader demands the first and thanks for the second when his demand has already been fulfilled. Didn’t the prudent Hume think so too, sometimes very prolific in explaining reasons, but stingily moderate in his reflections? A historian whom we would call the most perfect of the New Ones, if he were not excessively shunned England, did not unduly boast of impartiality and thus did not cool his elegant creation! In Thucydides we always see the Athenian Greek, in Libya we always see the Roman, and we are captivated by them and believe them. Feeling: we, our enlivens the narrative - and just as gross passion, the consequence of a weak mind or a weak soul, is unbearable in the Historian, so love for the fatherland will give his brush heat, strength, charm. Where there is no love, there is no soul.
I turn to my work. Not allowing myself any invention, I sought expressions in my mind, and thoughts only in monuments: I sought spirit and life in smoldering charters; I wanted to unite what had been faithful to us for centuries into a system, clear by the harmonious rapprochement of parts; depicted not only the disasters and glory of war, but also everything that is part of the civil existence of people: the successes of reason, art, customs, laws, industry; was not afraid to speak with importance about what was respected by his ancestors; I wanted, without betraying my age, without pride and ridicule, to describe the centuries of spiritual infancy, gullibility, and fabulousness; I wanted to present both the character of the time and the character of the Chroniclers: for one seemed to me necessary for the other. The less news I found, the more I valued and used what I found; the less he chose: for it is not the poor, but the rich who choose. It was necessary either not to say anything, or to say everything about such and such a Prince, so that he would live in our memory not just as a dry name, but with some moral physiognomy. Diligently exhausting materials of ancient Russian History, I encouraged myself with the thought that in the narration of distant times there is some inexplicable charm for our imagination: there are sources of Poetry! Doesn't our gaze, in contemplating the great space, usually tend - past everything close and clear - to the end of the horizon, where the shadows thicken, fade and impenetrability begins?
The reader will notice that I am describing the actions not apart, by year and day, but copulating them for the most convenient impression in memory. The historian is not a Chronicler: the latter looks only at time, and the former at the nature and connection of actions: he may make a mistake in the distribution of places, but must indicate his place to everything.
The multitude of notes and extracts I made frightens me. Happy are the Ancients: they did not know this petty labor, in which half the time is lost, the mind is bored, the imagination withers: a painful sacrifice made reliability, but necessary! If all the materials were collected, published, and purified by Criticism, then I would only have to refer; but when most of them are in manuscripts, in the dark; when hardly anything has been processed, explained, agreed upon, you need to arm yourself with patience. It is up to the Reader to look into this motley mixture, which sometimes serves as evidence, sometimes as an explanation or addition. For hunters, everything is curious: an old name, a word; the slightest feature of antiquity gives rise to considerations. Since the 15th century I have been writing less: the sources are multiplying and becoming clearer.
A learned and glorious man, Schletser, said that our History has five main periods; that Russia from 862 to Svyatopolk should be named nascent(Nascens), from Yaroslav to the Mughals divided(Divisa), from Batu to John oppressed(Oppressa), from John to Peter the Great victorious(Victrix), from Peter to Catherine II prosperous. This idea seems to me more witty than thorough. 1) The century of St. Vladimir was already a century of power and glory, and not birth. 2) State shared and before 1015. 3) If according to the internal state and external actions Russia needs to mean periods, then is it possible to mix at one time the Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich and Donskoy, silent slavery with victory and glory? 4) The Age of the Impostors is marked by more misfortune than victory. Much better, truer, more modest, our history is divided into the oldest from Rurik to John III, on average from John to Peter, and new from Peter to Alexander. The Lot system was a character first era, autocracy - second, change in civil customs - third. However, there is no need to put boundaries where places serve as living tracts.
Having willingly and zealously devoted twelve years, and best time of my life, for the composition of these eight or nine Volumes, I can, out of weakness, desire praise and fear condemnation; but I dare say that this is not the main thing for me. The love of fame alone could not have given me the constant, long-term firmness necessary in such a matter, if I had not found true pleasure in the work itself and had not had the hope of being useful, that is, of making Russian History more famous for many, even for my strict judges .
Thanks to everyone, both living and dead, whose intelligence, knowledge, talents, and art served as my guidance, I entrust myself to the condescension of good fellow citizens. We love one thing, we desire one thing: we love the fatherland; We wish him prosperity even more than glory; We wish that the solid foundation of our greatness never changes; may the rules of the wise Autocracy and the Holy Faith strengthen the union of parts more and more; May Russia bloom... at least for a long, long time, if there is nothing immortal on earth except the human soul!
December 7, 1815. On the sources of Russian history until the 17th century
These sources are:
I. Chronicles. Nestor, monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, nicknamed father Russian History, lived in the 11th century: gifted with a curious mind, he listened with attention to the oral traditions of antiquity, folk historical tales; saw monuments, graves of Princes; talked with nobles, elders of Kyiv, travelers, residents of other Russian regions; read the Byzantine Chronicles, church notes and became first chronicler of our fatherland. Second, named Vasily, also lived at the end of the 11th century: used by Prince David of Vladimir in negotiations with the unfortunate Vasilko, he described to us the latter’s generosity and other modern deeds of southwestern Russia. All other chroniclers remained for us nameless; one can only guess where and when they lived: for example, one in Novgorod, Priest, dedicated by Bishop Nifont in 1144; another in Vladimir on the Klyazma under Vsevolod the Great; the third in Kyiv, a contemporary of Rurik II; the fourth in Volynia around 1290; the fifth was then in Pskov. Unfortunately, they did not say everything that might be of interest to posterity; but, fortunately, they did not make it up, and the most reliable of the foreign chroniclers agree with them. This almost continuous chain of Chronicles goes up to the statehood of Alexei Mikhailovich. Some have not yet been published or were printed very poorly. I was looking ancient lists: the best of Nestor and his successors are the Haratei, Pushkin and Trinity, XIV and XV centuries. Notes are also worthy Ipatievsky, Khlebnikovsky, Koenigsbergsky, Rostovsky, Voskresensky, Lvovsky, Archivsky. In each of them there is something special and truly historical, introduced, one must think, by contemporaries or from their notes. Nikonovsky most distorted by the insertions of meaningless copyists, but in the 14th century it reports probable additional news about the Tver Principality, then it is already similar to others, but inferior to them in serviceability, - for example, Archivsky .
II. Degree book, composed during the reign of Ivan the Terrible according to the thoughts and instructions of Metropolitan Macarius. It is a selection from the chronicles with some additions, more or less reliable, and is called by this name for what is indicated in it degrees, or generations of sovereigns.
III. The so-called Chronographs, or General History according to the Byzantine Chronicles, with the introduction of ours, very brief. They have been curious since the 17th century: there are already many detailed modern news that is not in the chronicles.
IV. Lives of the Saints, in the patericon, in prologues, in menaions, in special manuscripts. Many of these Biographies were composed in modern times; some, however, for example, St. Vladimir, Boris and Gleb, Theodosius, are in the Charatean Prologues; and the Patericon was composed in the 13th century.
V. Special descriptions: for example, the legend of Dovmont of Pskov, Alexander Nevsky; modern notes by Kurbsky and Palitsyn; news about the Pskov siege in 1581, about Metropolitan Philip, etc.
VI. Rank, or distribution of Voivodes and regiments: begin from the time of John III. These handwritten books are not rare.
VII. Pedigree book: printed; The most correct and complete one, written in 1660, is kept in the Synodal Library.
VIII. Written Catalogs of metropolitans and bishops. - These two sources are not very reliable; they need to be checked against the chronicles.
IX. Epistles of the saints to princes, clergy and laity; the most important of these is the Epistle to Shemyaka; but in others there is also much that is memorable.
X. Ancients coins, medals, inscriptions, fairy tales, songs, proverbs: the source is meager, but not entirely useless.
XI. Certificates. The oldest authentic one was written around 1125. Archival New Town certificates and Soul recordings princes begin in the 13th century; This source is already rich, but there is still a much richer one.
XII. A collection of so-called Article lists, or Ambassadorial affairs, and letters in the Archive of the Foreign Collegium from the 15th century, when both incidents and methods for describing them give the Reader the right to demand greater satisfaction from the Historian. - They are adding to this property of ours.
XIII. Foreign contemporary chronicles: Byzantine, Scandinavian, German, Hungarian, Polish, along with news from travelers.
XIV. State papers of foreign archives: I mostly used extracts from Koenigsberg.
Here are the materials of History and the subject of Historical Criticism!
