Who wrote the history of the Russian state. N.M. Karamzin "History of the Russian State"

Moreover, written by a person who lived at the beginning of the 19th century, it seems outdated and not worth our time and attention.

eksmo editor. Common crawl en Raisa Khanukaeva does not agree with this approach and decided to answer frequently asked questions about Karamzin's books.

Was the "History of the Russian State" the first of its kind?

Of course not. In the middle of the 18th century, Vasily Tatishchev’s “History of Russia” was created (a caustic epigram - “Russian History from the most ancient times, collected and described by the late Privy Councilor and Astrakhan governor Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev with vigilant labors thirty years later”). Attempts to write something similar were also made by Prince Vasily Shcherbatov (“Russian History from Ancient Times”), Mikhail Lomonosov and many others.

Then why is Karamzin's work considered the main one?

Karamzin was called the "Columbus of Russian historiography", he was the first who spoke about this complex topic in an accessible language and, in fact, opened it to all readers. The key to success was a serious scientific approach and a literary text, and the consequence was the growth of national self-awareness in the country.

« The first eight volumes of Karamzin's "Russian History" have been published.<...>The appearance of this book (as it should have been) made a lot of noise and made a strong impression, 3000 copies sold out in one month (which Karamzin himself did not expect at all) - the only example in our land", - wrote Alexander Pushkin. Not everyone accepted Karamzin's work favorably. Future Decembrists, for example, accused the historian of excessive reverence for tsarist power. The same Pushkin issued a caustic epigram (" In his “History” elegance, simplicity / They prove to us without any partiality / The need for autocracy / And the charms of the whip”), and the journalist Nikolai Polevoy took up the creation of the History of the Russian People, which, however, did not have a small share of the success that Karamzin got.

Is "History ..." really propaganda of the autocracy?

Yes and no. Karamzin, as a witness of the Great French Revolution, was really sure that only autocracy could become a guarantee of the country's peace and prosperity. Despite this, he writes lovingly about republican free Novgorod and does not skimp on criticism of some of the great princes, and in particular the "conqueror" of Novgorod, Ivan the Terrible.

During his lifetime, Karamzin was called the main ideologist of the conservatives, but it was he who, in the Note on Ancient and New Russia, pointed out the mistakes of the reign of Catherine II and Paul I, criticized the economic, educational and political systems. Yes, he sharply opposed the ministries, but he argued this with the increased bureaucracy and the incompetence of officials.

What was unusual in the "History of the Russian State"?

Before Karamzin, no one dared to speak negatively about the monarch. But the tsarist historiographer (quite the official position of the writer) considered the flight of Kurbsky and other boyars to be natural and directly called the tsar a traitor: “ An amazing spectacle, forever memorable for the most distant offspring, for all peoples and rulers of the earth; striking proof of how tyranny humiliates the soul, blinds the mind with ghosts of fear, deadens forces both in the sovereign and in the state! The Russians have not changed, but the tsar has betrayed them!»

The fact is that the Romanovs considered themselves direct descendants of the Rurikovichs and put a lot of effort into “legalizing” this relationship. Therefore, an attack on the first Russian dynasty could also be regarded as an attack on the contemporary autocracy Karamzin.

Karamzin - a professional historian?

Fortunately, no. The concept of "scientific pop" did not exist then, so scientists with their complex treatises remained little accessible even to encyclopedic readers. Karamzin is also called by many the first writer, "domestic Stern". The Letters of a Russian Traveler brought him fame, and the story Poor Lisa strengthened her.

Sentimentalism Karamzin had a great influence on the work of Zhukovsky and Pushkin. The writer laid the foundation for the reform of the Russian language, but at the peak of his fame, after the publication of the story “Marfa the Posadnitsa, or the Conquest of Novagod”, he left the literary salons and locked himself in his office, starting work on the “History of the Russian State”.

Is 12 volumes a finished work?

No. The author worked on his main work from 1804 until his death in 1826, but even this time was not enough for him to complete such a colossal work. In each volume of the "History ..." there were many editions, Karamzin took up the alteration after the appearance of new documents, sometimes it happened to rewrite already finished volumes. As a result, he brought his story only to the interregnum of 1611-1612, although he dreamed of ending with the beginning of the reign of the Romanov dynasty.

And the main question: is it worth reading "History ..." today?

Costs. If only because it is really one of the simplest and most understandable "textbooks" of history, even for a modern reader. Do not be afraid of the myths about the "History of the Russian State", most of them dissipate already with a superficial acquaintance. Moreover, while working, Nikolai Karamzin studied many now lost sources, so modern historians have to take his word for it.

Chapter XI. Grand Duke Igor Olgovich Chapter XII. Grand Duke Izyaslav Mstislavich. d. 1146–1154 Chapter XIII. Grand Duke Rostislav-Mikhail Mstislavich. d. 1154–1155 Chapter XIV. Grand Duke George, or Yuri Vladimirovich, nicknamed Dolgoruky. d. 1155–1157 Chapter XV. Grand Duke Izyaslav Davidovich of Kyiv. Prince Andrei of Suzdal, nicknamed Bogolyubsky. d. 1157–1159 Chapter XVI. Grand Duke Rostislav-Mikhail for the second time in Kyiv. Andrei in Vladimir Suzdal. d. 1159–1167 Chapter XVII. Grand Duke Mstislav Izyaslavich of Kyiv. Andrei Suzdalsky, or Vladimirsky. d. 1167–1169 Volume III Chapter I. Grand Duke Andrei. d. 1169–1174 Chapter II. Grand Duke Michael II [Georgievich]. d. 1174–1176 Chapter III. Grand Duke Vsevolod III Georgievich. d. 1176–1212 Chapter IV. George, Prince of Vladimir. Konstantin Rostovsky. d. 1212–1216 Chapter V. Konstantin, Grand Duke of Vladimir and Suzdal. d. 1216–1219 Chapter VI. Grand Duke George II Vsevolodovich. d. 1219–1224 Chapter VII. State of Russia from the 11th to the 13th century Chapter VIII. Grand Duke George Vsevolodovich. d. 1224–1238 Volume IV Chapter I. Grand Duke Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich. d. 1238–1247 Chapter II. Grand Dukes Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Andrei Yaroslavich and Alexander Nevsky (one after the other). d. 1247–1263 Chapter III. Grand Duke Yaroslav Yaroslavich. d. 1263–1272 Chapter IV. Grand Duke Vasily Yaroslavich. d. 1272–1276. Chapter V. Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich. d. 1276–1294. Chapter VI. Grand Duke Andrei Alexandrovich. d. 1294–1304. Chapter VII. Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich. d. 1304–1319 Chapter VIII. Grand Dukes Georgy Daniilovich, Dimitri and Alexander Mikhailovich (one after the other). d. 1319–1328 Chapter IX. Grand Duke John Daniilovich, nicknamed Kalita. d. 1328–1340 Chapter X. Grand Duke Simeon Ioannovich, nicknamed the Proud. d. 1340–1353 Chapter XI. Grand Duke John II Ioannovich. d. 1353–1359 Chapter XII. Grand Duke Dimitry Konstantinovich. d. 1359–1362 Volume V Chapter I. Grand Duke Dimitry Ioannovich, nicknamed the Don. d. 1363–1389 Chapter II. Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich. d. 1389–1425 Chapter III. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich Dark. d. 1425–1462 Chapter IV. The state of Russia from the invasion of the Tatars to John III Volume VI Chapter I. Sovereign, Sovereign Grand Duke John III Vasilievich. d. 1462–1472 Chapter II. Continuation of the state of John. d. 1472–1477 Chapter III. Continuation of the state of John. d. 1475–1481 Chapter IV. Continuation of the state of John. d. 1480–1490 Chapter V. The continuation of the state of John. d. 1491–1496 Chapter VI. Continuation of the state of John. d. 1495–1503 Chapter VII. Continuation of the state of John. d. 1503–1505 Volume VII Chapter I. Sovereign Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich. d. 1505–1509 Chapter II. Continuation of the state Vasiliev. d. 1510–1521 Chapter III. Continuation of the state Vasiliev. d. 1521–1534 Chapter IV. State of Russia. d. 1462–1533 Volume VIII Chapter I. Grand Duke and Tsar John IV Vasilyevich II. d. 1533–1538 Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of John IV. d. 1538–1547 Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of John IV. d. 1546–1552 Chapter IV. Continuation of the reign of John IV. 1552 Chapter V. The continuation of the reign of John IV. d. 1552–1560 Volume IX Chapter I. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. d. 1560–1564 Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. d. 1563–1569 Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. d. 1569–1572 Chapter IV. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. d. 1572–1577 Chapter V. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. d. 1577–1582 Chapter VI. The first conquest of Siberia. d. 1581–1584 Chapter VII. Continuation of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. d. 1582–1584 Volume X Chapter I. The reign of Theodore Ioannovich. d. 1584–1587 Chapter II. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. d. 1587–1592 Chapter III. Continuation of the reign of Theodore Ioannovich. 1591 - 1598 Chapter IV. State of Russia at the end of the 16th century Volume XI Chapter I. The reign of Boris Godunov. d. 1598–1604 Chapter II. Continuation of Borisov's reign. d. 1600–1605 Chapter III. The reign of Feodor Borisovich Godunov. 1605 Chapter IV. The reign of False Dmitry. d. 1605–1606 Volume XII Chapter I. Reign of Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. d. 1606–1608 Chapter II. Continuation of Vasily's reign. d. 1607–1609 Chapter III. Continuation of Vasily's reign. d. 1608–1610 Chapter IV. The overthrow of Basil and the interregnum. d. 1610–1611 Chapter V. Interregnum. d. 1611–1612

Foreword

History is, in a certain sense, the sacred book of nations: the main, necessary; a mirror of their being and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the covenant of ancestors to posterity; addition, explanation of the present and an example of the future.

Rulers, Legislators act according to the instructions of History and look at its sheets, like navigators look at the blueprints of the seas. Human wisdom needs experiments, but life is short-lived. One must know how from time immemorial rebellious passions agitated civil society and in what ways the beneficent power of the mind curbed their violent striving in order to establish order, to agree on the benefits of people and to bestow on them the happiness possible on earth.

But even a simple citizen should read History. She reconciles him with the imperfection of the visible order of things, as with an ordinary phenomenon in all ages; consoles in state disasters, testifying that there have been similar ones before, there have been even more terrible ones, and the State has not been destroyed; it nourishes a moral sense and with its righteous judgment disposes the soul to justice, which affirms our good and the consent of society.

Here is the benefit: what pleasures for the heart and mind! Curiosity is akin to man, both enlightened and wild. At the glorious Olympic Games, the noise was silent, and the crowds were silent around Herodotus, who was reading the traditions of the ages. Even without knowing the use of letters, people already love History: the elder points the young man to a high grave and tells about the deeds of the Hero lying in it. The first experiments of our ancestors in the art of writing were devoted to the Faith and the Scriptures; darkened by the thick shadow of ignorance, the people eagerly listened to the tales of the Chroniclers. And I like fiction; but for complete pleasure one must deceive oneself and think that they are the truth. History, opening the tombs, raising the dead, putting life into their hearts and words into their mouths, rebuilding the Kingdoms from decay, and presenting to the imagination a series of centuries with their distinct passions, morals, deeds, expands the limits of our own being; By its creative power we live with people of all times, we see and hear them, we love and hate them; not yet thinking about the benefit, we already enjoy the contemplation of diverse cases and characters that occupy the mind or nourish the sensitivity.

If any History, even unskillfully written, is pleasant, as Pliny says: all the more domestic. The true Cosmopolitan is a metaphysical being or a phenomenon so extraordinary that there is no need to talk about him, neither praise nor condemn him. We are all citizens, in Europe and in India, in Mexico and in Abyssinia; the personality of each is closely connected with the fatherland: we love it, because we love ourselves. Let the Greeks and Romans captivate the imagination: they belong to the family of the human race and are not strangers to us in their virtues and weaknesses, glory and disasters; but the name Russian has a special charm for us: my heart beats even stronger for Pozharsky than for Themistocles or Scipio. World History adorns the world with great memories for the mind, and Russian adorns the fatherland, where we live and feel. How attractive are the banks of the Volkhov, Dnieper, Don, when we know what happened on them in ancient times! Not only Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir, but also the huts of Yelets, Kozelsk, Galich become curious monuments and mute objects - eloquent. The shadows of past centuries paint pictures everywhere before us.

In addition to a special dignity for us, the sons of Russia, her chronicles have something in common. Let's take a look at the space of this only Power: the thought becomes numb; Never in its grandeur could Rome equal it, dominating from the Tiber to the Caucasus, the Elbe and the sands of Africa. Isn't it amazing how lands separated by eternal barriers of nature, immeasurable deserts and impenetrable forests, cold and hot climates, like Astrakhan and Lapland, Siberia and Bessarabia, could form one State with Moscow? Is the mixture of its inhabitants, of different tribes, varieties, and so remote from each other in degrees of education, less wonderful? Like America, Russia has its Wilds; like other European countries, it is the fruits of a long-term civil life. You don’t have to be Russian: you just need to think in order to read with curiosity the traditions of a people who, with courage and courage, gained dominance over a ninth part of the world, discovered countries hitherto unknown to anyone, introducing them into the general system of Geography, History, and enlightened them with 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 deeds described by Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, are generally more entertaining for any non-Russian, representing more spiritual strength and a livelier play of passions: for Greece and Rome were popular Powers and more enlightened than Russia; however, we can safely say that some cases, pictures, characters of our history are no less curious than ancient ones. Such are the essence of the exploits of Svyatoslav, the thunderstorm of Batyev, the uprising of the Russians at the Donskoy, the fall of Novgorod, the capture of Kazan, the triumph of popular virtues during the Interregnum. Giants of dusk, Oleg and son Igorev; the simple-hearted knight, the blind man Vasilko; friend of the fatherland, philanthropic Monomakh; Mstislav Brave, terrible in battle and an example of gentleness in the world; Mikhail of Tver, so famous for his generous death, the ill-fated, truly courageous, Alexander Nevsky; The hero is a young man, the winner of Mamaev, in the lightest outline, they strongly affect the imagination and heart. One state is a rare wealth for history: at least I do not know a Monarch worthy to live and shine in her sanctuary. The rays of his glory fall on the cradle of Peter - and between these two Autocrats is the amazing John IV, Godunov, worthy of his happiness and misfortune, the strange False Dmitry, and behind the host of valiant Patriots, Boyars and citizens, the mentor of the throne, the High Hierarch Philaret with the Sovereign son, the light-bearer in the darkness our state disasters, and Tsar Alexy, the wise father of the Emperor, whom Europe called the Great. Either the entire New History should remain silent, or the Russian should have the right to attention.

I know that the battles of our specific civil strife, thundering incessantly in the space of five centuries, are of little importance for the mind; that this subject is neither rich in thought for the Pragmatist, nor in beauty for the painter; but History is not a novel, and the world is not a garden where everything should be pleasant: it depicts the real world. We see majestic mountains and waterfalls on earth, flowering meadows and valleys; but how many barren sands and dull steppes! However, traveling in general is kind to a person with a lively feeling and imagination; in the very deserts there are charming views.

Let us not be superstitious in our lofty conception of the Ancient Scriptures. If we exclude fictitious speeches from the immortal creation of Thucydides, what remains? A naked story about the internecine strife of the Greek cities: the crowds are villainous, slaughtered for the honor of Athens or Sparta, as we have for the honor of Monomakhov or Oleg's house. There is not much difference, if we forget that these half-tigers spoke the language of Homer, had Sophocles' Tragedies and statues of Phidias. Does the thoughtful painter Tacitus always present us with the great, the striking? With tenderness we look at Agrippina, carrying the ashes of Germanicus; with pity for the bones and armor of the Varov Legion scattered in the forest; with horror at the bloody feast of the frantic Romans, illuminated by the flames of the Capitol; with disgust at the monster of tyranny, devouring the remnants of the Republican virtues in the capital of the world: but the boring litigation of cities for the right to have a priest in this or that temple and the dry Obituary of Roman officials occupy many pages in Tacitus. He envied Titus Livius for the richness of the subject; and Livy, smooth, eloquent, sometimes fills entire books with news of clashes and robberies, which are hardly more important than the Polovtsian raids. In a word, reading all the Stories requires some patience, more or less rewarded with pleasure.

The historian of Russia could, of course, having said a few words about the origin of its main people, about the composition of the State, present the important, most memorable features of antiquity in a skillful picture and start detailed a narrative from the time of John, or from the fifteenth century, when one of the greatest state works in the world took place: he would easily write 200 or 300 eloquent, pleasant pages, instead of many books, difficult for the Author, tedious for the Reader. But these reviews, these paintings do not replace the annals, and whoever read only Robertson's Introduction to the History of Charles V does not yet have a solid, true understanding of Europe in the Middle Ages. It is not enough that an intelligent person, looking over the monuments of centuries, will tell us his remarks: we ourselves must see the actions and those who act - then we know History. Will the boastfulness of the Author's eloquence and the bliss of the Readers condemn the deeds and fate of our ancestors to eternal oblivion? They suffered, and with their misfortunes they made our greatness, and we do not want to hear about it, nor know whom they loved, whom they blamed for their misfortunes? Foreigners may miss what is boring to them in our ancient History; but are not good Russians obliged to have more patience, following the rule of state morality, which puts respect for ancestors in the dignity of an educated citizen? .. So I thought, and wrote about Igor, O Vsevolodakh, How contemporary looking at them in the dim mirror of the ancient Chronicle with tireless attention, with sincere reverence; and if, instead of alive, whole images represented only shadows, in excerpts, then it is not my fault: I could not supplement the Chronicles!

Eat three kind of history: first modern, for example, Thukidides, where an obvious witness speaks of incidents; second, like Tacitov, is based on fresh verbal traditions at a time close to the described actions; third extracted only from monuments, like ours until the 18th century. (Only with Peter the Great do verbal traditions begin for us: we heard from our fathers and grandfathers about him, about Catherine I, Peter II, Anna, Elizabeth a lot that is not in the books. (Hereinafter, notes by N. M. Karamzin are marked. )) IN first And second the mind shines, the imagination of the Writer, who chooses the most curious, blooms, decorates, sometimes creates without fear of reproof; will say: i saw it that way, so heard- and silent Criticism does not prevent the Reader from enjoying the beautiful descriptions. Third the genus is the most limited for talent: not a single trait can be added to the known; one cannot question the dead; we say that our contemporaries have betrayed us; we are silent if they kept silent - or fair Criticism will block the mouth of the frivolous Historian, who is obliged to 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 nature of people, with circumstances: a right that is invaluable for true talents, and Livy, using it, enriched his books with the power of the mind, eloquence, and wise instructions. But we, contrary to the opinion of Abbot Mabley, cannot now ordain in History. New advances in reason have given us the clearest conception of its property and purpose; common sense established unaltered rules and forever excommunicated the Epistle from the Poem, from the flower gardens of eloquence, leaving the former to be a true mirror of the past, a true recall of the words really spoken by the Heroes of the ages. The most beautiful invented speech will disgrace the History, dedicated not to the glory of the Writer, not to the pleasure of the Readers, and not even to the wisdom of moralizing, but only to the truth, which already becomes a source of pleasure and benefit by itself. Both Natural and Civil History do not tolerate fiction, depicting what is or was, and not what to be. could. But History, they say, is filled with lies: let us say better that in it, as in human affairs, there is an admixture of lies, but the character of truth is always more or less preserved; and this is sufficient for us to form a general idea of ​​people and deeds. The more exacting and stricter is Criticism; it is all the more impermissible for the Historian, for the benefit of his talent, to deceive conscientious Readers, to think and speak for the Heroes, who have long been silent in the graves. What is left for him, chained, so to speak, to the dry charters of antiquity? order, clarity, strength, painting. He creates from the given substance: he will not produce gold from copper, but he must also purify copper; must know the whole price and property; to reveal the great where it is hidden, and not to give the small the rights of the great. There is no object so poor that Art can no longer mark itself in it in a way pleasing to the mind.

Until now, the Ancients serve as models for us. No one has surpassed Livy in the beauty of the story, Tacitus in strength: that's the main thing! Knowledge of all the rights in the world, German learning, Voltaire's wit, not even Machiavele's deepest thought in the Historian can replace the talent to portray actions. The English are famous for Hume, the Germans for John Müller, and rightly so his Introduction, which can be called a Geological Poem): both are worthy co-workers of the Ancients, not imitators: for every age, every nation gives special colors to the skilful Writer of Genesis. “Do not imitate Tacitus, but write as he would write in your place!” There is a rule of Genius. Did Muller, often inserting moral apothegmas like Tacitus? Don't know; but this desire to shine with the mind, or seem profound, is almost contrary to true taste. The historian argues only in the explanation of cases, where his thoughts, as it were, complement the description. Let us note that these apothegms are for solid minds either half-truths, or very ordinary truths, which have no great value in History, where we are looking for actions and characters. There is skillful storytelling duty bytographer, but a good separate thought - gift: the reader demands the first and thanks for the second, when his demand has already been fulfilled. Didn't the prudent Hume also think so, sometimes very prolific in explaining the reasons, but to the point of avarice in thinking? The historian, whom we would call the most perfect of the New, were it not for shunned England, did not boast too much of impartiality and thus did not cool his elegant creation! In Thucydides we always see an Athenian Greek, in Libya we always see a Roman, and we are captivated by them, and we believe them. Feeling: we, our enlivens the narration - and just as a gross predilection, a consequence of a weak mind or a weak soul, is unbearable in the Historian, so love for the fatherland will give his brush heat, strength, charm. Where there is no love, there is no soul.

I turn to my work. Allowing myself no invention, I sought expressions in my mind, and thoughts only in monuments: I sought spirit and life in smoldering charters; I wanted to unite what has been given to us for centuries into a system, clear by the harmonious convergence of parts; depicted not only the disasters and glory of war, but everything that is part of the civil existence of people: the successes of reason, art, customs, laws, industry; was not afraid to speak with dignity about what was respected by the ancestors; wanted, without betraying his age, without pride and ridicule, to describe the ages of spiritual infancy, gullibility, fables; I wanted to present both the character of the time and the character of the Chroniclers: for one seemed to me necessary for the other. The less news I found, the more I valued and used what I found; the less he chose: for it is not the poor, but the rich who elect. It was necessary either to say nothing, or to say everything about such and such a Prince, so that he would live in our memory not with one dry name, but with a certain moral physiognomy. Diligently exhausting materials of ancient Russian History, I encouraged myself with the thought that in the narrative of distant times there is some inexplicable charm for our imagination: there are sources of Poetry! Our gaze, in contemplation of the great space, does not usually strive - past everything close, clear - to the end of the horizon, where shadows thicken, fade and impenetrability begins?

The reader will notice that I am describing the acts not apart, by years and days, but copulating them for the most comfortable impression in memory. The historian is not a chronicler: the latter looks only at time, and the former at the quality and connection of deeds: he can make a mistake in the distribution of places, but he must indicate his place to everything.

The multitude of notes and extracts I have made terrifies me myself. Happy the Ancients: they did not know this petty labor, in which half the time is lost, the mind is bored, the imagination withers: a painful sacrifice made credibility but necessary! If all the materials in our country were collected, published, purified by Criticism, then I would only have to refer; but when most of them are in manuscript, in the dark; when hardly anything has been processed, explained, agreed upon, one must arm oneself with patience. It is up to the Reader to look into this motley mixture, which sometimes serves as evidence, sometimes as an explanation or addition. For hunters, everything is curious: an old name, a word; the slightest feature of antiquity gives rise to considerations. Since the 15th century, I have been writing less: the sources are multiplying and becoming clearer.

A learned and glorious man, Schlozer, said that our history has five main periods; that Russia from 862 to Svyatopolk should be called nascent(Nascens), from Yaroslav to the Mughals divided(Divisa), from Batu to John oppressed(Oppressa), from John to Peter the Great victorious(Victrix), from Peter to Catherine II prosperous. This idea seems to me more witty than solid. 1) The age of St. Vladimir was already the age of power and glory, and not of birth. 2) State shared before 1015. 3) If, according to the internal state and external actions of Russia, it is necessary to designate periods, then is it possible to mix at one time the Grand Duke Dimitri Alexandrovich and the Donskoy, silent slavery with victory and glory? 4) The Age of Pretenders is marked more by misfortune than by victory. Much better, truer, more modest, our history is divided into ancient from Rurik to, on middle from John to Peter, and new from Peter to Alexander. The Destiny system was a character first era, unanimity - second, change in civil customs - third. However, there is no need to set limits where the places serve as a living tract.

Having willingly and zealously devoted twelve years, and the best time of my life, to the composition of these eight or nine volumes, I can weakly desire praise and fear condemnation; but I dare say that this is not the main thing for me. Love of glory alone could not give me the constant, long-term firmness necessary in such a matter, if I did not find true pleasure in the work itself and had no hope of being useful, that is, of making Russian History known to many, even to my strict judges. .

Thanks to everyone, both the living and the dead, whose intelligence, knowledge, talents, art served as a guide to me, I entrust myself to the indulgence of good fellow citizens. We love one thing, we desire one thing: we love the fatherland; we wish him prosperity even more than glory; we wish that the firm foundation of our greatness never change; Yes, the rules of the wise Autocracy and the Holy Faith more and more strengthen the union of the parts; may Russia bloom... at least for a long, long time, if there is nothing immortal on earth except the human soul!

December 7, 1815.

On the sources of Russian history before the 17th century

These sources are:

I. Chronicles. Nestor, monk of the Monastery of Kiev Pechersk, nicknamed father Russian History, lived in the XI century: gifted with a curious mind, he listened with attention to the oral traditions of antiquity, folk historical tales; I saw the monuments, the graves of the Princes; talked with the nobles, the elders of Kyiv, travelers, residents of other regions of Russia; read the Byzantine Chronicles, church notes and became first chronicler of our fatherland. Second, named Vasily, also lived at the end of the 11th century: used by Vladimir Prince David in negotiations with the unfortunate Vasilko, he described to us the generosity of the latter 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, consecrated by Bishop Nifont in 1144; another in Vladimir on the Klyazma under Vsevolod the Great; the third in Kyiv, a contemporary of Rurik II; the fourth in Volhynia around 1290; the fifth at the same time in Pskov. Unfortunately, they did not say everything that is curious for posterity; but, fortunately, they did not invent, and the most reliable of the Chroniclers of foreign countries agree with them. This almost uninterrupted chain of Chronicles goes up to the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. Some of them have not yet been published or have been printed very faulty. I was looking for the oldest lists: the best of Nestor and his successors are charate, Pushkin and Troitsky, XIV and XV centuries. Notes are also worthy. Ipatiev, Khlebnikov, Koenigsberg, Rostov, Voskresensky, Lvov, Arkhivsky. In each of them there is something special and truly historical, introduced, as one might think, by contemporaries or from their notes. Nikonovsky most of all distorted by insertions of senseless scribes, but in the XIV century he reports probable additional news about the Tver Principality, then it already resembles others, yielding to them, however, in good condition, - for example, Arkhivsky.

II. power book, composed in the reign of Ivan the Terrible according to the thought and instruction of Metropolitan Macarius. It is a selection from the annals with some additions, more or less reliable, and is called by this name for what is indicated in it. degrees, or generations of sovereigns.

III. So called Chronographs, or General History according to the Byzantine Chronicles, with the introduction of our own, very brief. They have been curious since the 17th century: there are already many detailed contemporary news that is not in the annals.

IV. Lives of the Saints, in patericon, in prologues, in menaias, in special manuscripts. Many of these Biographies have been written in modern times; some, however, for example, St. Vladimir, Boris and Gleb, Theodosius, are in the charate Prologues; and the Patericon was composed in the thirteenth century.

v. Special writings: for example, the legend of Dovmont of Pskov, Alexander Nevsky; contemporary notes by Kurbsky and Palitsyn; news about the Pskov siege in 1581, about Metropolitan Philip, and so on.

VI. Discharges, or the distribution of governors and regiments: start from the time. These handwritten books are not rare.

VII. Pedigree book: there is printed; the most correct and complete, written in 1660, is stored in the Synodal Library.

VIII. Written Catalogs of metropolitans and bishops. - These two sources are not very reliable; they need to be compared with the annals.

IX. Epistles of the Saints to princes, clergy and laity; the most important of these is the Epistle to Shemyaka; but in others there is much to remember.

X. The Ancients coins, medals, inscriptions, fairy tales, songs, proverbs: the source is scarce, but not completely useless.

XI. Certificates. The oldest authentic writing was written around 1125. Archival New Year's letters and soul records princes begin from the XIII century; this source is already rich, but there is still much richer.

XII. collection of so-called Article lists, or Embassy Affairs, and letters in the Archives of the Foreign Collegium from the 15th century, when both incidents and methods for describing them give the Reader the right to demand even greater satisfaction from the Historian. - They are added to this property of ours.

XIII. Foreign contemporary chronicles: Byzantine, Scandinavian, German, Hungarian, Polish, along with the news of travelers.

XIV. Government Papers of Foreign Archives: most of all I used extracts from Koenigsberg.

Here are the materials of History and the subject of Historical Criticism!

Famous writer, historian, poet, publicist. Founder of "History of the Russian State".

Family. Childhood

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was born in the Simbirsk province into a family of poor, educated nobles. He received a good education at home. At the age of 14, he began to study at the Moscow private boarding school of Professor Shaden. At the end of it in 1783 he went to St. Petersburg to serve in. In the capital, Karamzin met the poet and future collaborator of his Moscow Journal, Dmitriev. At the same time, he published the first translation of S. Gesner's idyll "Wooden Leg". After serving in the army for less than a year, Karamzin, in the low rank of lieutenant, resigned in 1784 and returned to Simbirsk. Here he led an outwardly secular life, but at the same time he was engaged in self-education: he studied history, literature and philosophy. Family friend Ivan Petrovich Turgenev, a freemason and writer, who was in great friendship with, played a certain role in the life of the future writer. On his advice, Nikolai Mikhailovich moved to Moscow and became acquainted with Novikov's circle. Thus began a new period in his life, covering the time from 1785 to 1789.

Moscow period (1785-1789). Travel to Europe (1789-1790)

In Moscow, Karamzin translated fiction, since 1787 he regularly published his translations of Thomson's Seasons, Janlis's Village Evenings, Julius Caesar's tragedy, and Lessing's tragedy Emilia Galotti. He also begins to write for the magazine Children's Reading for the Heart and Mind, published by Novikov. In 1789, Karamzin's first original story "Eugene and Yulia" appeared in it.

Soon, Nikolai Mikhailovich decides to go on a trip to Europe, for which he lays down a hereditary estate. It was a bold step: it meant giving up living on the income from the hereditary estate and providing for oneself at the expense of the labor of serfs. Now Nikolai Mikhailovich had to earn a living by his own work as a professional writer. Abroad, he foresees about a year and a half. During this time, he visits Germany, Switzerland, France, where he observes the activities of the revolutionary government. In June 1789, Karamzin moved from France to England. During the whole journey, the writer gets acquainted with interesting and outstanding people. Nikolai Mikhailovich is interested in people's homes, historical monuments, factories, universities, street festivities, taverns, village weddings. He evaluates and compares the characters and mores of a particular nationality, studies the features of speech, recording various conversations and his own reflections.

At the origins of sentimentalism

In the autumn of 1790, Karamzin returned to Moscow, where he undertook the publication of the monthly Moscow Journal, in which his stories (such as Liodor, Natalya, the Boyar's Daughter, Flor Silin), critical articles and poems were published. The famous "Letters of a Russian Traveler" and the story "Poor Liza" were also printed here. Karamzin attracted Dmitriev and Petrov, Kheraskov and others to cooperate in the journal.

In his works of this period, Karamzin asserts a new literary trend - sentimentalism. This trend declared feeling, not reason, to be the dominant of “human nature”, which distinguished it from classicism. Sentimentalism believed that the ideal of human activity was not the "reasonable" reorganization of the world, but the release and improvement of "natural" feelings. His hero is more individualized, his inner world is enriched by the ability to empathize, sensitively respond to what is happening around.

In the 1790s, the writer published almanacs. Among them are "Aglaya" (parts 1-2, 1794-1795), "Aonides", written in verse (parts 1-3, 1796-1799), as well as the collection "My trinkets", which includes various stories and poems. Fame comes to Karamzin. He is known and loved throughout Russia.

One of the first works of Karamzin written in prose is the historical story "Marfa Posadnitsa" published in 1803. It was written long before the fascination with the novels of Walter Scott began in Russia. This story showed Karamzin's attraction to antiquity, the classics as an unattainable ideal of morality. In an epic, antique form, Karamzin presented the struggle of the Novgorodians with Moscow. Posadnitsa touched upon important ideological issues: about the monarchy and the republic, about the people and leaders, about the “divine” historical predestination and disobedience to it by an individual. The author's sympathies were clearly on the side of the people of Novgorod and Martha, and not of monarchist Moscow. This story also revealed the ideological contradictions of the writer. Historical truth was undoubtedly on the side of the Novgorodians. However, Novgorod is doomed, bad omens are harbingers of the imminent death of the city, and later they are justified.

But the story Poor Lisa, published in 1792 and becoming a landmark work of sentimentalism, had the greatest success. Often found in Western literature of the eighteenth century, the story of how a nobleman seduced a peasant or bourgeois woman was first developed in Russian literature in this story by Karamzin. The biography of a morally pure, beautiful girl, as well as the idea that such tragic fates can also occur in the reality around us, contributed to the enormous success of this work. It was also important that N.M. Karamzin taught his readers to notice the beauty of their native nature and love it. The humanistic orientation of the work was invaluable for the literature of that time.

In the same year, 1792, the story "Natalia, the Boyar's Daughter" was born. It is not as well known as "Poor Lisa", but it touches on very important moral issues that worried N.M.'s contemporaries. Karamzin. One of the most important in the work is the problem of honor. Alexei, beloved of Natalia, was an honest man who served the Russian Tsar. Therefore, he confessed to his "crime", that he had kidnapped the daughter of Matvey Andreev, the sovereign's beloved boyar. But the tsar blesses their marriage, seeing that Alexei is a worthy person. The girl's father does the same. Finishing the story, the author writes that the newlyweds lived happily ever after and were buried together. They were distinguished by sincere love and devotion to the sovereign. In the story, the question of honor is inseparable from serving the king. Happy is he whom the sovereign loves.

Significant for Karamzin and his work was 1793. At this time, the Jacobin dictatorship was established in France, which shocked the writer with its cruelty. It aroused in him doubts about the possibility for mankind to achieve prosperity. He condemned the revolution. The philosophy of despair and fatalism permeates his new works: the novels "Bornholm Island" (1793), "Sierra Morena" (1795), the poems "Melancholy", "Message to A. A. Pleshcheev", etc.

By the mid-1790s, Nikolai Karamzin became the recognized head of Russian sentimentalism, which opened a new page in Russian literature. He was an indisputable authority for, Batyushkov, the young.

"Bulletin of Europe". "Note on old and new Russia"

In 1802-1803, Karamzin published the journal Vestnik Evropy, which was dominated by literature and politics. In his critical articles of this time, a new aesthetic program emerged, which contributed to the formation of Russian literature as a nationally original one. Karamzin saw the key to the identity of Russian culture in history. The most striking illustration of his views was the story "Marfa Posadnitsa" mentioned above. In his political articles, Karamzin made recommendations to the government, pointing out the role of education.

Trying to influence Tsar Alexander I in this direction, Karamzin handed him his "Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations" (1811), which reflected the views of conservative strata of society that did not approve of the sovereign's liberal reforms. The note irritated the latter. In 1819, the writer submitted a new note - "The Opinion of a Russian Citizen", which caused even greater displeasure of the tsar. However, Karamzin did not abandon his faith in the salvation of the enlightened autocracy and later condemned the Decembrist uprising. Despite this, Karamzin the artist was still highly regarded by young writers who did not even share his political convictions.

"History of Russian Goverment"

In 1803, through his friend and former teacher of the young emperor, Nikolai Mikhailovich received the official title of court historiographer. This was of great importance to him, because now, thanks to the pension appointed by the sovereign and access to the archives, the writer could carry out the work he had planned on the history of the fatherland. In 1804, he left the literary field and plunged headlong into work: in the archives and book collections of the Synod, the Hermitage, the Academy of Sciences, the Public Library, Moscow University, the Alexander Nevsky and Trinity-Sergius Lavra, he read manuscripts and books on history, sorted out ancient folios (, Trinity Chronicle, Sudebnik of Ivan the Terrible, "Prayer" and many others) wrote out, compared. It is hard to imagine what a great job the historian Karamzin did. Indeed, the creation of twelve volumes of his "History of the Russian State" took more than twenty years of hard work, from 1804 to 1826. The presentation of historical events here was distinguished, as far as possible, by impartiality and reliability, as well as by an excellent artistic style. The story has been brought to . In 1818, the first eight volumes of "History" were published, in 1821 the 9th volume, devoted to reign, was published, in 1824 - the 10th and 11th, about Fyodor Ioannovich and. Death interrupted the work on the 12th volume and did not allow the large-scale plan to be carried out to the end.

The 12 volumes of The History of the Russian State that came out one after another evoked numerous reader responses. Perhaps, for the first time in history, a printed book provoked such a surge in the national consciousness of the inhabitants of Russia. Karamzin opened his history to the people, explained his past. It was said that, having closed the eighth volume, he exclaimed: “It turns out that I have a Fatherland!”. Everyone read the "History" - students, officials, nobles, even secular ladies. They read it in Moscow and St. Petersburg, they read it in the provinces: for example, 400 copies were bought in Irkutsk.

But the content of the work was perceived ambiguously. Thus, freedom-loving youth was inclined to challenge the support of the monarchical system, which Karamzin showed on the pages of the History of the Russian State. And the young Pushkin even wrote daring epigrams for a respectable historian in those years. In his opinion, this work proved "the necessity of autocracy and the charm of the whip." Karamzin, whose books left no one indifferent, was always restrained in response to criticism, calmly perceived both ridicule and praise.

Last years

Having moved to live in St. Petersburg, Karamzin, since 1816, spends every summer with his family. The Karamzins were hospitable hosts, hosting such famous poets as Zhukovsky and Batyushkov (they were members of the Arzamas society, created in 1815 and defending the Karamzin direction in literature), as well as educated youth. Young A.S. often visited here. Pushkin, listening to the elders read poetry, caring for his wife N.M. Karamzina Ekaterina Andreevna (she was the second wife of the writer, the couple had 9 children), no longer young, but charming and intelligent woman, to whom he even decided to send a declaration of love. The wise and experienced Karamzin forgave the young man's trick, as well as his impudent epigrams to the "History". Ten years later, Pushkin, already a mature person, will take a different look at the great work of Nikolai Mikhailovich. In 1826, while in exile in Mikhailovskoye, he wrote in a “Note on Public Education” that the history of Russia should be taught according to Karamzin, and he would call this work not just the work of a great historian, but also the feat of an honest man.

In general, the last years of the life of the historian and writer can be called happy. He was connected by friendship with Tsar Alexander. Together they often walked, talking, in the Tsarskoye Selo park. The event that overshadowed these years was. December 14, 1825 Karamzin was present at Senate Square. The historian, of course, was against the uprising, although he saw among the rebels the familiar faces of the Muravyovs,. A few days after the speech, Nikolai Mikhailovich said: "The errors and crimes of these young people are the errors and crimes of our century."

Karamzin himself became a victim of the events of December 14: standing on Senate Square, he caught a terrible cold and died on May 22, 1826.

Memory

In 1848, the Karamzin Public Library was opened in Simbirsk. In Novgorod, on the monument "1000th Anniversary of Russia" (1862), among the 129 figures of the most prominent personalities in Russian history, there is the figure of N.M. Karamzin. In Moscow in honor of N.M. Karamzin named a passage, in Kaliningrad - a street. A monument to the historian was erected in Ulyanovsk, and a memorial sign was erected in the Ostafyevo estate.

Compositions

Selected works in 2 vols. M.-L., 1964.

History of Russian Goverment. SPb., 1818-1826.

Complete works in 18 vols. M., 1998-2008.

Complete collection of poems / Entry. Art., prepared. text and notes. Yu. M. Lotman. L., 1967.

How the "great" "Russian" "historians" Miller, Schlözer, Bayer and Kuhn destroyed historical documents and mystified Russian history. The creation of a "Russian" academy with 28 members no less than Miller "Russians" and no less than Bayer "historians" who for a hundred years continued to mystify and destroy historical documents testifying to the great past of Russia.

Today, the founders of Russian history are the great "Russian" "historians": Gottlieb Bayer (1694-1738), Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705-1783), August Schlozer (1735-1809), Arist Kunik (1814-1899), who made us happy with the Norman "theory" of the origin of the Russians. This also includes V.N. Tatishchev, although the “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” written by him actually disappeared, and today we have Tatishchev’s “drafts” published by Miller under this heading.

One cannot trust such a source of Russian history as the works of M.V. Lomonosov. As soon as he took up the ancient history of Russia, he unexpectedly died suddenly at the age of 54, being a completely healthy person. And the work on history published by Miller after his death under his name was corrected in the right direction, where there were no longer any discrepancies between Lomonosov and Miller. Lomonosov was the first critic of the Norman "theory" that Miller and Co. tried to impose on us, although in the works of Lomonosov published by Miller, not a word is said about the criticism of this theory.

Western scientists still adhere to the Norman theory, although already in 1917 in Russia it was recognized as anti-scientific. But if you remember what kind of criticism of Miller M.V. Lomonosov was sentenced to death by hanging and spent a year in prison awaiting the verdict, until the royal pardon came, it is clear that the leadership of the Russian state was interested in falsifying Russian history. Russian history was written by the Germans, or rather by the Catholics, specially ordered for this purpose by Emperor Peter I from Germany. And already in the time of Elizabeth, Miller became the most important “chronicler”, who also became famous for the fact that, under the guise of an imperial letter, he traveled to Russian monasteries and destroyed all the surviving ancient historical documents.

Starting from 1725, when the Russian Academy was created, and until 1841, the foundation of Russian history was remade by the following “benefactors” of the Russian people who arrived from Europe, who spoke Russian poorly, but quickly became experts in Russian history, who flooded the historical department of the Russian Academy:

Col Peter (1725), Fischer Johann Ebergard (1732), Kramer Adolf Bernhard (1732), Lotter Johann Georg (1733), Leroy Pierre-Louis (1735), Merling Georg (1736), Brehm Johann Friedrich (1737), Tauber Johann Gaspard (1738), Crusius Christian Gottfried (1740), Moderach Karl Friedrich (1749), Stritter Johann Gotgilf (1779), Hackmann Johann Friedrich (1782), Busse Johann Heinrich (1795), Vauvillers Jean-Francois (1798), Klaproth Heinrich Julius (1804), Hermann Carl Gottlob Melchior (1805), Krug Johann Philipp (1805), Lerberg August Christian (1807), Köhler Heinrich Karl Ernst (1817), Fren Christian Martin (1818), Graefe Christian Friedrich (1820), Schmidt Issac Jacob (1829), Shengren Johann Andreas (1829), Charmois Frans-Bernard (1832), Fleischer Heinrich Leberecht (1835), Lenz Robert Christianovich (1835), Brosse Marie-Felicite (1837), Dorn Johann Albrecht Bernhard (1839) .In parentheses is the year the named foreigner entered the Russian Academy.

As you can see, in the hundred and ten years of the existence of the Russian Academy, out of its 28 members, the “creators” of Russian history, not a single Russian surname, and only since 1841, out of 42 full members of the Russian Academy, 37 are already Russian. But what's the point. The history of Russia has already been rewritten, and the history of all Mankind was invented by the above "specialist historians". They were not only specialists in the falsification of stories, they were also specialists in the fabrication and forgery of chronicles.

Therefore, everything that Bayer, Miller, Schlozer, who had done things even before the creation of the “Russian” academy, wrote, does not correspond to any reality. These same specialists created German history, the history of Rome and Greece, linking them, or rather making them independent of the history of the Russian State. Therefore, today's historians wonder how N.A. Morozov does not believe in the history of Egypt, Rome, Greece, China, because there are chronicles. But the fact of the matter is that most of the ancient chronicles were written in St. Petersburg in the 18th-19th centuries, and all the ancient chronicles of Russia were forged by the same historians and “chroniclers”, who penetrated into all confessions where only chroniclers were required.

The fact that there is a single center for falsifying chronicles and rewriting history convinces us of such a fact as the constant edition of the sacred book of earthlings - the Bible, which, nevertheless, turns out to be equally redone, both among Catholics and Protestants, as among Orthodox , and among the Old Believers.

For example, Macavey's books, which existed back in the 19th century, simultaneously disappeared from Catholic and Orthodox publications. This is without any ecumenical councils and verdicts of the metropolitan or the pope. They wanted to, they took it and crossed it out and did not even look at the fact that in the Holy Scriptures you can’t cross out anything and in general you can’t redo a single word. But if the sacred scripture is forged and altered, then God himself ordered the history to be altered. Moreover, this is done regardless of the opinion and knowledge of the people. For example, today we learn from the school textbook of modern history introduced to us by Soros that the Americans won the Second World War, and Russia and its peoples have nothing to do with it.

The German historian Miller, the author of the “masterpiece” of Russian history, tells us that Ivan IV was from the Rurik family. Having made such an uncomplicated operation, Miller made it easy for the Rurik family, which had already broken off, with their non-existent history, to acclimate to the history of Russia. Rather, cross out the history of the Russian kingdom and replace it with the history of the Kiev principality, in order to later make a statement that Kiev is the mother of Russian cities (although Kiev, according to the laws of the Russian language, was supposed to be the father, well, forgive him for his poor knowledge of the Russian language). But this phrase makes it possible today for our enemies to pit people against each other.

Ruriks have never been kings in Russia, because such a royal family never existed. There was a rootless conqueror Rurik, who tried to sit on the Russian throne, but was killed by Svyatopolk Yaropolkovich. Similarly, Kyiv has never been and could not be the capital of Russia. In the Russian language, a proverb has been preserved: “Language will bring you to Kyiv”, from which it is clear that Kyiv is not exalted here, but the language is exalted. If they wanted to glorify this city, they would say, for example, that all roads lead to Kyiv or something like that. And in order to glorify the language, it was necessary in this proverb to name a city from such a wilderness, from such a Darkness of the Tarakani, that everyone pronouncing this proverb understood the importance of the language, thanks to which one can even reach such a hole as Kiev.

Looking ahead, we can also say that Ukraine has never been an independent territory and has always been part of Russia and there was no reunification of Russia with Ukraine, which happened only in Miller's inflamed brain. From time to time, Ukraine, like other territories of Russia, was captured by crusaders and other conquerors, and its liberation by Russian troops can hardly even be called reunification, because the word “liberation” is not equal to the Russian word “reunification” and only for those who do not understand Russian well, these two the words are identical.

There was only one royal dynasty in Russia: the Great Magols (magus + ol = great ministers). They ruled in Byzantium, Turkey, Iran, India, China and naturally in Russia.

The falsification of Russian history is immediately evident when reading the "Russian" "chronicles". The abundance of names of princes who ruled in different places in Russia, which are given to us as the centers of Russia, is striking. If, for example, some prince of Chernigov or Novgorod ended up on the Russian throne, then there must have been some kind of continuity in the dynasty. But this is not, i.e. we are dealing either with a hoax, or with a conqueror who reigns on the Russian throne. Since those who rewrite history, as a rule, are deprived of a soul (since a person with a soul simply cannot do this), such a person cannot, by definition, create and create. All he can do is shuffle the dynastic deck and add new characters. Therefore, we quite easily restored the dynasty of Russian tsars, called the Great Moghuls.

The fact that the Russian tsars were also called presbyters suggests that spiritual and secular power before Ivan the Terrible were not yet separated and the royal throne and church power were in the same hands. The royal court and the government were in Tsargrad (later Tsaritsin, then Stalingrad, and now Volgograd), which was the capital of the World.

The name of Russia, which allegedly appeared only in the 16th century under Ivan the Terrible, and before that, according to Mr. Miller, it was called Rus, in fact does not correspond to any reality. Because only parts of Russia were called that way, it was: White Russia, Kievan Rus, Black Russia (Montenegro), Pegaya Rus (China), Et Rus (Etruscan), Bor Rus (Borussia is a still preserved region in Germany), Per Rus (modern Prussia), etc. How easy it is to deceive our historians, who even from this example cannot see that Russia is only a part of Russia, but not all of Russia.

The word Rus comes from the name of Rus, the first Savior (who are now called Christs), who gave people the Russian language. His real name was Prometheus. And he was named Rus because the asuras after the titanomachy (i.e. the war with the giants) were sharply opposed to people. Prometheus, being a titan (asura), supposedly gave us fire, but headlights, where farengite comes from, i.e. fire tongue. In other words, Prometheus glorified himself among Mankind by giving us the divine language of the Asuras, which was called Russian. Prometheus was not just an asura for us, but he was Russian (reverse reading of the asuras), i.e. asura who is for people. In Russian, a change in the direction of reading often led to the opposite meaning, for example: “dazh” - giving, and “zhad” - miser, i.e. "not giving", or "god" - the one to whom they give, and "gob", from where gobino - what they receive in return (the old Russian name for fate). Before Prometheus, the priests used Devanagari, and after his gift, the priests switched to Asura, i.e. Russian language.

According to some new chronologists, the word "Rus" is a synonym for the word "horde", but one cannot agree with this. We now see that the social structure of the country is divided into three levels: district, region, republic, and this is not the arbitrariness of the Bolsheviks or governments, but the laws of synergetics, the triple level is easier to manage. And in ancient times, the levels of division of the country were called differently: horde (republic), rus, or more correctly urus, which was later changed to "ulus", meaning principality, both in Russia and in Byzantium (the same as a province or region), and kingdom. In my study “Magi” it is shown that the prince (the one who passed the horse) was higher in level than the king (since the king was in the 1st horse), and the king was ten orders of magnitude higher than the prince. And each, according to his level of achievement, was admitted to the appropriate place in the management of society, i.e. “There was also a hat according to Senka.”

Ruriks, Helmariki, Elmariki - these are all royal family names, which were abundant in Europe, divided into many kingdoms (counties), then united into small principalities (Uruses or Russ, i.e. regions) such as: Holland, Germany, Denmark and etc. Therefore, an attempt to establish an identity between Russia and Russia does not correspond to any real history. Russia has never been a principality; Urus, or as they say now Rus. It has always been a huge country, consisting of hordes, uruses and kingdoms (districts), which were respectively headed by pan, prince, king, while the king was at the head of the whole country (Table 1.). It was not difficult for Miller to replace pans with khans in order to further confuse the story.

	Territorial division	Territory characteristics
	Kingdom (county)	One city with surroundings
	Urus (Rus, district)	Several counties (cities, kingdoms)
	Horde (region, region)	Several principalities
	Country (State)	united all the hordes

Table. Territorial division of ancient Russia and administrative representatives

Today we are stubbornly told that the Masons and their Jewish allies are to blame for all social failures. You can write as much as you like about how bad these uncles and aunts are, but it is absolutely impossible to write about the true causes and true culprits of our current situation. Because both the Freemasons and the Jews are just a bogey, and if you want windmills, which you unsuccessfully fought against, if you remember, the famous character of Cervantes is Don Quixote. In the 19th century, the gypsies were such a bogey, and a century earlier, the Lelya people, which by today have been almost completely exterminated.

Moreover, all our so-called enemies are just for that estate, which is being prepared as a scapegoat, for releasing the public steam of indignation that has been accumulating for so long. We can say without preamble that it’s not even the Catholics who are to blame for the whole mess that is happening, who made the October Revolution in Russia and for 30 years stood at the helm of the NKVDesh Inquisition, organizing torture, executions, tortures, imprisonment, through which almost the entire population of the country went through, with the exception of only those who collaborated with the Inquisition or worked in it. Those who stand above the Inquisition are to blame for everything. And they are no longer people.

The reforms of Catherine II and Peter I, which affected the Orthodox faith, are completely Catholic transformations. The reformation of Orthodoxy by Ivan the Terrible and his brother Ivan Podkova is a Protestant transformation, which, as you know, in its content is practically no different from atheism.

Our mutilated and perverted history of Russia, even through the thickness of multiple Miller's hoaxes, screams about the dominance of foreigners. And although it has been carefully cleaned up about the essence of the ongoing reforms, nevertheless, in previous studies we have restored the content of the ancient Orthodox faith, which has been practiced on Earth from time immemorial. Therefore, today we can talk about what kind of transformations were nevertheless made with the Orthodox faith, in what and whom it did not suit, and why it had to be transformed.

From the book of Vladimir Shemshuk - Borean Rus'. The stolen history of Russia.

An electronic version of the text can be downloaded from the website.

T ores of all life. The poet, writer, creator of the first Russian literary magazine and the last Russian historiographer worked on a work of 12 volumes for more than twenty years. He managed to give the historical work a "light style" and create a real historical bestseller of his time. Natalya Letnikova studied the history of the creation of the famous multi-volume book.

From travel notes to the study of history. The author of Letters from a Russian Traveler, Poor Liza, Martha Posadnitsa, a successful publisher of the Moscow Journal and Vestnik Evropy, became seriously interested in history at the beginning of the 19th century. Studying chronicles and rare manuscripts, I decided to combine invaluable knowledge into one work. He set the task - to create a complete printed public presentation of Russian history.

Historiographer of the Russian Empire. Emperor Alexander I appointed Karamzin to the honorary position of the country's chief historian. The writer received an annual pension of two thousand rubles and admission to all libraries. Karamzin did not hesitate to leave the Vestnik, which brought in three times more income, and devoted his life to The History of the Russian State. As Prince Vyazemsky noted, “he took his hair as a historian.” Karamzin preferred the archives to secular salons, and the study of documents to invitations to balls.

Historical knowledge and literary style. Not just a statement of facts mixed with dates, but a highly artistic historical book for a wide range of readers. Karamzin worked not only with primary sources, but also with the style. The author himself called his work "historical poem". Extracts, quotations, retellings of documents, the scientist hid in notes - in fact, Karamzin created a book within a book for those who are especially interested in history.

First historical bestseller. Eight volumes the author gave to print only thirteen years after the start of work. Three printing houses were involved: military, senatorial, medical. The lion's share of the time was taken by proofreading. Three thousand copies came out a year later - at the beginning of 1818. Historical volumes were sold out no worse than sensational romance novels: the first edition sold out to readers in just a month.

Scientific discoveries in between. At work, Nikolai Mikhailovich discovered truly unique sources. It was Karamzin who found the Ipatiev Chronicle. The notes of Volume VI included excerpts from Afanasy Nikitin's Journey Beyond the Three Seas. “Until now, geographers did not know that the honor of one of the oldest described European travels to India belongs to Russia of the Ioannian century ... It (the journey) proves that Russia in the 15th century had its Taverniers and Chardenis, less enlightened, but equally bold and enterprising”- wrote the historian.

Pushkin about the work of Karamzin. “Everyone, even secular women, rushed to read the history of their fatherland, hitherto unknown to them. She was a new discovery for them. Ancient Russia seemed to have been found by Karamzin, just as America was found by Columbus. For some time they didn’t talk about anything else ... "- wrote Pushkin. Alexander Sergeevich dedicated the tragedy "Boris Godunov" to the memory of the historiographer, he drew material for his work, including from Karamzin's "History".

Assessment at the highest state level. Alexander I not only gave Karamzin the broadest authority to read "all ancient manuscripts relating to Russian antiquities" and a financial allowance. The emperor personally financed the first edition of the History of the Russian State. At the highest command, the book was sent to ministries and embassies. The cover letter said that the sovereign's husbands and diplomats are obliged to know their history.

Whatever the event. Waiting for the release of a new book. The second edition of the eight-volume book was published a year later. Each subsequent volume became an event. Historical facts were discussed in society. So Volume IX, dedicated to the era of Grozny, became a real shock. "Well, Grozny! Well, Karamzin! I don’t know what is more surprising, whether the tyranny of John or the talent of our Tacitus., - wrote the poet Kondraty Ryleev, noting both the horrors of the oprichnina themselves and the beautiful style of the historian.

The last historiographer of Russia. The title appeared under Peter the Great. The honorary title was awarded to Gerhard Miller, a native of Germany, an archivist and author of the History of Siberia, who is also famous for Miller's portfolios. The author of the History of Russia from Ancient Times, Prince Mikhail Shcherbatov, held a high post. Sergei Solovyov, who devoted 30 years to his historical work, and Vladimir Ikonnikov, a prominent historian of the early twentieth century, claimed it, but, despite petitions, they never received the title. So Nikolai Karamzin remained the last historiographer of Russia.