The false historian Karamzin. Part 3

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

On June 6, Karamzin writes to his brother Vasily Mikhailovich: "I would like to take on the most important work, in Russian history, in order to leave a not bad monument to my fatherland." Karamzin only cared about the glorification of his name.

In the preface to "History" Karamzin writes: "And fictions are pleasant. But for complete pleasure one must deceive oneself and think that they are the truth" - a phrase that explains everything.

To restore the genealogy of their homeland, to restore the picture of events bygone long ago is the most important task of a historian and a citizen. But Karamzin did not study what he found in the sources, but looked for in the sources, what he wanted to tell about, and if he did not find this either, then he simply "completed" the necessary … " History of Russian Goverment"- not a scientific, but a political work. Mikhail Efimov in his work" Karamzinskaya is absurd "writes:" Let's start with where the idea of writing "History" arose. At the beginning of the great atrocities of the French Revolution of 1789-92. Karamzin finds himself in Western Europe. … "If providence will spare me, if something more terrible than death, that is, arrest, does not happen, I will deal with history." "The source base of the new volumes also expanded thanks to the appearance of memoir testimonies like the notes of Andrei Kurbsky (a defector and traitor - the first Russian dissident)), and Palitsin and the testimonies of knowledgeable foreigners. The latter carried important, often unique, unique information, but differed in one-sidedness, subjectivity, and sometimes with obvious tendentiousness, sometimes taking the form of Russophobia. Unfortunately, the hypnosis of the name of Karamzin on Russian professional historians has not dissipated to this day. " So, Russian history is written on materials saturated with dislike and often hatred for everything Russian.

Karamzin never treated Russian antiquity and the shrine with respect: "Sometimes I think where to have a gulbisch worthy of the capital, and I don't find anything better on the bank of the Moskva River between the stone and wooden bridges, if it was possible to break the Kremlin wall there … Kremlin wall not in the least amusing to the eyes. " His colleague in the Novikov bed, the architect V. I. Bazhenov began to take practical steps towards the implementation of this barbaric plan: the Kremlin wall and towers along the Moskva River were dismantled, and only the decree of Catherine II on the removal of Bazhenov from business and on the restoration of the architectural ensemble prevented them from achieving what they wanted.

On June 8, 1818 Artsybashev, in a letter to DI Yazykov, expresses his impression of acquaintance with Karamzin's book: “The third day I received the History of Karamzin, cut its pages eagerly and began to read it with attention. What did it appear to my eyes? She-she, I still don’t believe myself - an ugly mixture of extraneousness, lack of evidence, indiscriminateness, talkativeness and the most stupid guesswork! you a historiographer and a long-awaited story! Read, Russian people, and take comfort!.. What will the enlightened peoples think of us when they read it with criticism? By the grace of the old housekeeper, who, sitting on the stove, crushed cockroaches and popularly told silly tales and us storytellers. My heart bleeds when I think about it. " Artsybyshev expounded his "Notes" simply and concretely: he indicated the volume and page of "History", cited a quote from the main Karamzin text, compared it with the text of Karamzin's "Notes", quoted the sources published at that moment and drew conclusions: here Karamzin fantasizes, here distorts the text, is silent here,here it speaks as precisely established that which can only be assumed, here such and such data can be interpreted in a different way. N. S. Artsybashev writes that Karamzin has "sometimes set annual numbers for good luck." Nikolai Sergeevich notes and corrects a lot of errors in the historiographer: "it is quite beautiful, but only unfair", "we are left to marvel at Mr. historiographer that he did not miss adding here from himself", "Mr. historiographer has so splendidly spoiled the words of the haratic lists." "No need to fantasize!" - such is his claim to Karamzin.

VP Kozlov writes: “For the characterization of Karamzin's textual techniques in the Notes, omissions in the published texts are of interest. Sometimes the omissions were associated with those parts of the sources that contradicted the historical concept of Karamzin … The reductions made forced Karamzin to carry out a kind of literary processing: put prepositions, pronouns, archaize or modernize the texts of documents and even introduce his own additions into them (sometimes without any reservations) As a result, sometimes completely new, never existed text appeared in the Notes. " So, according to M. T. Kachenovsky, described by N. M. Karamzin's adventures, Marina Mnishek's "can be extremely entertaining in a novel, seem bearable in a biography," but are not suitable for the History of the Russian State. Friends of Karamzin reacted immediately: they declared Kachenovsky the "moral protector" of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. A familiar story …

Karamzin reinforced in the minds of contemporaries and even some historians the slander launched by the German adventurers Taube and Kruse, that one of the wives of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich - Martha Vasilyevna Sobakina, the daughter of the Kolomna boyar's son - was allegedly the daughter of a simple Novgorod merchant. "… It seems strange," wrote F. V. Bulgarin, "that Margeret, Petrei, Ber, Paerle, many Polish writers and authentic acts are quoted arbitrarily, in support of the opinions of the venerable historiographer, without any proof why, in one case, they should be believed, and in the other - not to believe."

“Before the publication of Volume IX of the History of the Russian State,” says Ustryalov, “we recognized John as the great sovereign: they saw in him the conqueror of the three kingdoms and an even wiser, patronizing legislator.” Karamzin, however, portrays John as a despot and a tyrant: “John and his son were judged in this way: every day they presented them from five hundred to a thousand Novgorodians; they beat them, tortured them, burned them with some kind of fiery composition, tied them with their heads or feet to a sleigh, dragged them to the Volkhov bank, where this river does not freeze in winter, and whole families were thrown from the bridge into the water, wives with husbands, mothers with infants. These murders lasted five weeks and consisted of general robbery. " Some executions, murders, the burning of prisoners, the order to destroy the elephant that refused to kneel before the king … "I describe Ivashka's atrocities" - this is how Karamzin wrote in letters to friends about his work. It was this personality that was key for him: "… Perhaps the censors will not allow me, for example, to speak freely about the cruelty of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. In this case, what will be history?" Back in 1811, Karamzin wrote to Dmitriev: "I work hard and I'm getting ready to describe the times of Ivan Vasilyevich! This is just a historical subject! Until now, I have only been cunning and wise, extricating myself from difficulties … ". How much hatred and contempt for the Russian Tsar. Karamzin deliberately distorts the history of the reign of John IV, since he is the true enemy of everything Russian.

But especially "colorfully" he describes the myth of the murder of Ivan IV of his son. Again, not taking into account the chronicles, which are only talking about the fact of death: "… Repose Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich of all Russia …" and nothing about murder. In all the annals there are only the words "repose", "repose" … And nowhere is there a single word about murder! The Frenchman Jacob Margeret, who served in Russia for about 20 years, returned to France and wrote his memoirs: "Some believe that the tsar killed his son. In fact, this is not the case. The son died during a pilgrimage trip from illness." But Karamzin pays attention only to hostile foreign versions and versions of representatives of the anti-Moscow group, for whom even the dates of death do not coincide with the real date. And in our time, irrefutable evidence has appeared that both the prince and the tsar were poisoned. In the early 60s, the tombs of Tsar Ivan, Tsarevich Ivan were opened and it was found that their bones contain a large amount of mercury and arsenic, the amount of toxic substances is 32 times higher than the maximum permissible norm. And this proves the fact of poisoning. Some, of course, say (for example, the professor of medicine Maslov) that John had syphilis and was treated with mercury, but no traces of the disease were found in the bones. Moreover, the head of the Kremlin Museum, Panova, cites a table from which it is clear that both John's mother and his first wife, most of the children, including Tsarevich Ivan and Tsar Fyodor, the Tsar's second son, were all poisoned, since the remains contain a huge amount of poisonous substances … This is so, for reference.

The historian Skrynnikov, who has devoted several decades to the study of the era of Ivan IV, proves that under the tsar in Russia a "mass terror" was carried out, during which about 3-4 thousand people were killed. And the Spanish kings Charles V and Philip II, the king of England Henry VIII and the French king Charles IX in the most cruel way executed hundreds of thousands of people. From 1547 to 1584, in the Netherlands alone, under the rule of Charles V and Philip II, "the number of victims … reached 100 thousand." Of these, "28,540 people were burned alive." In Henry VIII's England, 72 thousand vagrants and beggars were hanged for "vagrancy" along the highways alone. " In Germany, when the peasant uprising of 1525 was suppressed, more than 100,000 people were executed. And yet, oddly enough, Ivan "the Terrible" appears as incomparable, unique tyrant and executioner.

And yet, in 1580, the tsar carried out another action that put an end to the well-being of the German settlement. The Pomeranian historian Pastor Oderborn describes these events in dark and bloody tones: the king, both of his sons, the oprichniks, all in black clothes, burst into a peacefully sleeping settlement at midnight, killed innocent residents, raped women, cut off their tongues, pulled out nails, pierced people white with red-hot spears, they burned, drowned and plundered. However, the historian Walishevsky believes that the data of the Lutheran pastor is absolutely unreliable. Oderborn wrote his "work" in Germany and was not an eyewitness to the events, but he had a pronounced dislike for John because the tsar did not want to support the Protestants in their struggle against Catholic Rome. The Frenchman Jacques Margeret describes this event in a completely different way: “The Livonians, who were captured and taken to Moscow, professing the Lutheran faith, having received two churches inside the city of Moscow, sent public services there; but in the end, because of their pride and the vanities of the said temples … were destroyed and all their houses were ravaged. haughty, and their clothes were so luxurious that they could all be mistaken for princes and princesses … The main profit they were given the right to sell vodka, honey and other drinks, on which they make not 10%, but a hundred, which seems incredible, however this is true ".

Similar data is given by a German merchant from the city of Lubeck, not just an eyewitness, but also a participant in the events. He reports that although the order was only to confiscate the property, the perpetrators still used the whip, so he got it too. However, like Margeret, the merchant does not speak of murder, rape, or torture. But what is the fault of the Livonians, who lost their estates and profits overnight? German Heinrich Staden, who has no love for Russia, reports that the Russians are forbidden to trade in vodka, and this trade is considered a great disgrace among them, while the tsar allows foreigners to keep a tavern in the courtyard of his house and trade in alcohol, since "foreign soldiers are Poles, Germans, Lithuanians … by their very nature they love to drink. " This phrase can be supplemented with the words of a Jesuit and a member of the papal embassy Paolo Kompani: "The law prohibits the sale of vodka in public in taverns, as this would contribute to the spread of drunkenness." Thus, it becomes clear that the Livonian immigrants, having acquired the right to produce and sell vodka to their compatriots, abused their privileges and "began to corrupt Russians in their taverns." Michalon Litvin wrote that “in Muscovy there are no shanks anywhere, and if at least a drop of wine is found with some householder, then his whole house is ruined, the estate is confiscated, the servants and neighbors living on the same street are punished, and the owner himself is forever imprisoned to prison … Since the Muscovites abstain from drunkenness, their cities abound with craftsmen diligent in various clans, who, sending us wooden bowls … saddles, spears, jewelry and various weapons, rob our gold."

So this was Ivan IV's fault. So for whom was the history of the Russian State written? Moreover, Karamzin's Peter I is almost a saint, again, for whom? For foreigners, yes. But for the Russian land and the Russian people - by no means … Under Peter, everything Russian was destroyed and alien values were implanted. This was the only period when the empire's population declined. Russia was forced to drink and smoke, shave off beards, wear wigs and uncomfortable German clothing. It is believed that about 200,000 people died during the construction of St. Petersburg. And that Peter also killed his son - doesn't count? Why are these privileges? For what? The answer is clear.

Here is what Karamzin writes: “The monarch declared war on our ancient customs, firstly, because they were rude, unworthy of their age; secondly, and because they prevented the introduction of other, even more important and useful foreign news. It was necessary, so to speak, to turn the head of inveterate Russian stubbornness in order to make us flexible, able to learn and adopt. The Germans, the French, the British were ahead of the Russians for at least six centuries; Peter moved us with his powerful hand, and in a few years we almost caught up with them We are not like our shabby ancestors: so much the better! External and internal rudeness, ignorance, idleness, boredom were their share in the highest state - all paths to the refinement of reason and to noble spiritual pleasures are open for us. The main thing is to be people, not Slavs. What is good for people, it cannot be bad for the Russians, and what the British or Germans invented for the benefit, benefit of man, it is mine, for I am human. dexterous! But how much effort it cost the monarch to defeat our stubbornness in ignorance! Consequently, the Russians were not disposed, were not ready to be educated. We are grateful to foreigners for their enlightenment, for many clever ideas and pleasant feelings that were unknown to our ancestors before their connection with other European lands. Showering guests with affection, we love to prove to them that students are hardly inferior to teachers in the art of living and dealing with people. That's the whole story. You don't even have to comment …

And this was the beginning of a project to deprive our people of historical memory. How the enemies want us, looking at the history of our Motherland, to be ashamed of them at our roots. They want us to be sure that the Russian tsars were like filthy maniacs who staged public executions, and the Russian people looked at it with tenderness and awe. Marasmus…

Every Russian can ask himself, is this really so? And try to figure it out. Himself, not "someone"! They have already done this for us, and more than once. Enough, it's time to start thinking and realizing your roots, and after realizing, go forward with your head held high! We deserve it! All peoples inhabiting our Motherland are worthy, because we are one whole for it. We are all her children. And only together we will be able to defend her and return her Great past. After realizing its unity, any enemy is insignificant. So let us understand this, finally, and do not disgrace the memory of our Great ancestors!

Literature (sources):

D. Nefedov "Historical detective. Simbirsk masons and demons of the revolution"

E. I. Sturgeon "Three lives of Karamzin"

V. P. Kozlov "History of the Russian State" N. M. Karamzin in the assessment of his contemporaries

E. K. Bespalova, E. K. Rykova "Simbirsk clan of the Turgenevs"

R. Epperson "The Invisible Hand. An Introduction to the Conspiracy View of History"

A. Romanov "The first historian and the last chronicler"

M. Efimov "Karamzinskaya is absurd"

Yu. M. Lotman "The Creation of Karamzin"

N. Ya. Eidelman, "The Last Chronicler"

N. Sindalovskiy "Blood Kinship, or Where the Roots of St. Petersburg Internationalism Go"

V. V. Sipovsky "On the ancestors of N. M. Karamzin"

N. M. Karamzin "Letters from a Russian Traveler"

G. V. Nosovsky, A. T. Fomenko "Reconstruction of the world history"

Russian Bulletin: "A picture of blood, or how Ilya Repin of Tsarevich Ivan" 2007-27-09

Russian Bulletin: "Karamzinskaya is absurd" 2005-22-02

People's newspaper: "Ghosts of the Goncharovskaya pavilion" 2007-06-12

Ulyanovsk literary and local history magazine "Monomakh" 02.12.2006

Russian portraits of the 18th-19th centuries 22.02. 2010

"Golden Lion" No. 255-256

Simbirsk courier 2012-06-03