Kostomarov, Nikolai Ivanovich

The early years

Nikolai Kostomarov was born on May 4 (16), 1817 ^{[5] [6]} in the Yurasovka settlement of the Ostrogozhsky district of the Voronezh province ^[7] (now in the Olkhovatsky district of the Voronezh region ). Since he was born before the marriage of the local landowner Ivan Petrovich Kostomarov with the serf Tatyana Petrovna Melnikova ^{[* 1]} , then, according to the laws of the Russian Empire, he was considered a serf of his own father.

The retired military Ivan Petrovich Kostomarov (July 1769-14, 1828), at an age, chose a serf girl Tatyana Petrovna Melnikova (1800–1 February 1875) as his wife and sent her to Moscow to study in a private boarding school - with the intention of later marrying her. The parents of Nikolai Kostomarov were married in September 1817, after the birth of a son. Father was going to adopt Nicholas, but did not have time to do this ^[9] .

Ivan Kostomarov was a fan of 18th-century French literature, the ideas of which he tried to instill in his young son and his court ^[6] , but he treated the serfs very severely ^[10] . July 14, 1828 ^{[* 2]} he was killed by his yard people, who stole the capital accumulated by him ^{[12] [6]} . According to the official version, 59-year-old Ivan Kostomarov, who was returning to Yurasovka with the crew, was killed at night by his own coachman with accomplices, trying to imagine the murder as an accident ^[12] . The crime committed with the aim of enrichment was revealed in hot pursuit.

However, according to another version, the crime was not solved immediately. The Zemstvo police investigating the case did not produce any investigation into the loss of money, and the murder was recognized as an “accident." Only five years later, at the church on the grave of Ivan Kostomarov, the coachman who committed the murder publicly repented of the crime. As Nikolay Kostomarov himself writes:

The coachman was called Savely Ivanov; he was already over 60 years old. Man carried the sin in himself for years. Could not resist. He asked the priest to strike the bells and publicly confessed at the grave cross, told the whole truth about what had happened. The villains were tried, and during the interrogations the coachman said: “The master himself is to blame for having tempted us; it happened that she will begin to tell everyone that there is no God, that there will be nothing in the world, that only fools are afraid of the afterlife — we realized that if there is nothing in the next world, then everything can be done ” ^[13]

On the reasons that prompted the peasants to kill, there is no consensus in the memoirs of contemporaries and research literature. Kostomarov himself believes the version of the thirst for profit and the lack of fear of punishment in the afterlife among the peasants convincing. His opinion was confirmed by Zakhar Ivanovich Eremin, an old-timer from Yurasovka, who remembered from his grandfather's stories that “they did not hold evil against Kostomar. The stewards were unkind; everything evil from them. And he killed him, Mr. Pan, the coachman, a strong man. He killed because of wealth, he was too much for someone else. ” Murder with robbery is not the first case, unfortunately, and not the last in the human race. In the literature on Kostomarov there is another explanation for what happened. The historian N. Belyaev calls the master’s unjust cruelty the only reason for the murder. The peasants avenged him for mocking them, "put them on a chain chained to the deck." Apparently, in each statement there is some truth ^[14] . Archpriest Andrei Tkachev believed that Ivan Kostomarov was “to blame” for his murder, since he himself convinced his peasants of the absence of God and conscience:

The police searched for the killers and could not find. And after some time, the killers themselves confessed. These were the serfs of the deceased: the coachman and someone else. To the question: “Why did you obey?” They said: “Conscience was tortured. The master, they say, somehow convinced that there was no eternal torment, and there was no conscience, and there was no God. Do it, say what you want. Well, we killed. But God, it turns out, is. And there is a conscience - it torments us. And there is hell - we live in it. And in order to escape from the eternal hell, they decided to obey ” ^[15] .

The death of Ivan Kostomarov put his family in a difficult legal situation. Born “to the crown” ^[16] , Nikolai, as a serf, was now inherited by the closest relatives of his father - Rovnev ^{[* 3]} .

Left with a very modest income, his mother transferred Nikolai from a Moscow boarding school (where, having just begun to study, for the brilliant abilities he received the nickname of French Enfant miraculeux - a miracle child) to a boarding school in Voronezh, closer to home. Education in it was cheaper, but the level of teaching was very low, and the boy barely hatched boring lessons that gave him practically nothing. Having stayed there for about two years, he was expelled for “pranks” from this guesthouse and transferred to the Voronezh gymnasium (1831) ^[18] . Having graduated from the course here in 1833, Nikolai became a student of the Faculty of History and Philology ^{[18] of} Kharkov University ^[6] .

Students

Already in the first years of his studies, Kostomarov’s brilliant abilities affected him from the teachers of the Moscow boarding school, where he had not studied for a long time, the nickname “enfant miraculeux” (from the French - “ miracle child ”) ^[6] . The natural liveliness of Kostomarov’s character, on the one hand, and the low level of teachers of that time, on the other, did not give him the opportunity to seriously get involved in classes. The first years of his stay at Kharkov University , the historical and philological faculty of which did not shine at that time as professor talents, differed little in this respect from Kostomarov's gymnasium. Kostomarov himself worked hard, being carried away either by classical antiquity, or by new French literature , but these works were carried out without proper guidance and system, and later Kostomarov called his student life “messy”. Only in 1835, when M. M. Lunin appeared at the Department of General History in Kharkov, did Kostomarov’s studies become more systematic. Lunin's lectures had a strong influence on him, and he passionately devoted himself to the study of history .

Nevertheless, he was so vaguely aware of his real vocation that upon graduation he entered the military ^{[* 4]} . His inability to the latter soon became, however, clear to both his superiors and himself ^[19] .

Fascinated by the study of the archive of the local district court preserved in Ostrogozhsk , where his regiment stood, Kostomarov decided to write the history of suburban Cossack regiments . On the advice of his superiors, he left the regiment and in the autumn of 1837 again appeared in Kharkov with the intention of replenishing his historical education ^[19] .

At this time of intensified studies with Kostomarov, partly under the influence of Lunin, a view began to take shape of history, in which there were original features compared with the prevailing views among Russian historians. According to the latest words of the scientist himself, he “ read a lot of all kinds of historical books, thought about science and came to the following question: why in all stories do they talk about outstanding statesmen, sometimes about laws and institutions, but seem to neglect the life of the masses? The poor peasant farmer-laborer does not seem to exist for history; why does history not tell us anything about his life, about his spiritual life, about his feelings, the way of his joys and sorrows ? ” The idea of ​​the history of the people and their spiritual life, in contrast to the history of the state, has since then become the main idea in the circle of Kostomarov’s historical views. Modifying the concept of the content of history, he spread the circle of its sources. As he wrote, “ Soon I came to the conclusion that history should be studied not only from dead chronicles and notes, but also among living people .” He learned the Ukrainian language , re-read the published Ukrainian folk songs and printed literature in the Ukrainian language, then very little, undertook "ethnographic excursions from Kharkov to neighboring villages, along the tires." He spent the spring of 1838 in Moscow, where listening to the lectures of S. P. Shevyrev further strengthened his romantic attitude towards the people ^[19] .

In the second half of the 1830s, he began to write in Ukrainian, under the pseudonym Jeremiah Galk , and in 1839-1841 he published two dramas and several collections of poems, original and translated ^[19] .

His history classes were advancing rapidly. In 1840, Kostomarov passed the master's exam ^[19] .

In 1842, he published a dissertation " On the Importance of Union in Western Russia ." The dispute already appointed has not taken place as a result of the message of the Archbishop of Kharkov Innokenty about the outrageous content of the book. Although only a few unsuccessful expressions were discussed, Petersburg professor N. G. Ustryalov , who, on the instructions of the Ministry of Public Education, was examining Kostomarov’s work, gave such a comment about him that the book was ordered to be burned ^{[19] [* 5]} .

Kostomarov was allowed to write another master's thesis, and at the end of 1843 he submitted to the faculty a work entitled “ On the Historical Importance of Russian Folk Poetry, ” which he defended at the beginning of next year ^[20] . The ethnographic aspirations of the researcher found a vivid expression in this work, which took on a more definite form due to its rapprochement with a circle of young Ukrainians ( Korsun , Korenitsky , Betsky , etc.), who, like him, dreamed of a revival of Ukrainian literature ^[19] .

Panslavism

Immediately after completing his second dissertation, Kostomarov undertook new work on the history of Bogdan Khmelnitsky and, wishing to visit the places where the events he described, began to become a teacher at the gymnasium first in Rovno ^[19] (1844 ^[21] ), then (1845) in Kiev ^{[ 19]} . In 1846, the Council of Kiev University elected Kostomarov a teacher of Russian history, and in the fall of this year he began his lectures, which immediately aroused deep interest of the audience ^[19] .

In Kiev, as in Kharkov, a circle of people formed around him devoted to the idea of ​​Slavic unity, creating an ideal federation of Slavic peoples on the basis of estate equality, freedom of the press and religion ^{[21] [19]} . This circle included P. A. Kulish , Af. V. Markevich, N. I. Gulak , V. M. Belozersky , T. G. Shevchenko ^[19] , A. A. Navrotsky ^[21] .

The reciprocity of the Slavic peoples , in our imagination, was not limited to the field of science and poetry, but began to appear in images in which, as it seemed to us, it should have been embodied for future history. In addition to our will, the federal system began to appear to us, as the happiest course of the social life of the Slavic nations ... In all parts of the federation, the same basic laws and rights, equal weight, measures and coins, the absence of customs and free trade, the universal destruction of serfdom and slavery in which Whatever the form, a single central authority in charge of relations outside the union, army and navy, but the complete autonomy of each unit with respect to internal institutions, internal administration, and legal proceedings and public education ^[19] .

In order to disseminate these ideas, the friendly circle was transformed into a society called the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood ^[19] .

The panslavistic dreams of young enthusiasts were soon cut short. Student Petrov, who overheard their conversations, informed them; they were arrested in the spring of 1847, charged with a state crime and subjected to various punishments ^[19] .

The heyday of activity

After spending a year in the Peter and Paul Fortress , Kostomarov was “transferred to service” in Saratov and placed under the supervision of the local police, and for the future he was forbidden both teaching and printing his works. The link indicated to Kostomarov the true dimensions of the abyss between his ideals and reality, but she did not kill him either idealism or energy and ability to work ^[19] . In Saratov, he continued to write his Bogdan Khmelnitsky, began a new work on the internal life of the Russian state of the 16th – 17th centuries, made ethnographic excursions, collecting folk songs and traditions, as he had done in Little Russia, met schismatics and sectarians ^[22] . In 1855, he was allowed a vacation in Petersburg, which he used to finish his work on Khmelnitsky; in 1856, the ban on publishing his works was lifted and then his supervision was removed. Having made a trip abroad ^{[* 6]} , Kostomarov again settled in Saratov, where he wrote “The Stenki Razin Riot” and took part as a clerk of the provincial committee for improving the life of peasants in the preparation of peasant reform. In the spring of 1859, he was invited by the University of St. Petersburg to occupy the department of Russian history, which was released upon Ustryalov's resignation. The prohibition of pedagogical activity that still burdened Kostomarov was lifted at the request of Minister B. P. Kovalevsky, and in November 1859 he opened his lectures at the university ^{[* 7]} . This was the time of the most intensive work in the life of Kostomarov and his greatest popularity ^[24] . However, as KF Golovin pointed out, “Kostomarov’s voice and his manner of reading strongly resembled the toothless shamming of an old woman. I can’t say that in his lectures there was anything especially fascinating, reminiscent, at least from a distance, of Granovsky’s brilliant lectures ... But I can say one thing: Kostomarov managed to make Russian chronicles extremely popular among students. ”

Known to the Russian public as a talented writer, he now acted as a professor with a powerful and original talent for exposition and conducting independent and new views on the tasks and essence of history. These views were closely related to those views that he had developed in Kharkov. Kostomarov himself formulated the main idea of ​​his lectures ^[24] :

Entering the department, I set out to think in my lectures to highlight the life of the people in all its private manifestations ... The Russian state consisted of parts that had previously lived their own independent lives, and long after that the life of the parts was expressed by excellent aspirations in the general state system. To find and catch these features of the national life of parts of the Russian state was for me the task of my studies in history ^[24] .

Under the influence of this idea, Kostomarov had a special look at the history of the formation of the Russian state, which sharply contradicted the views expressed by the Slavophile school and S. M. Solovyov . Equally far from the mystical worship of the people and from a one-sided passion for the idea of ​​statehood, Kostomarov tried not only to reveal the conditions that led to the formation of the Russian political system, but also to determine closer the nature of this system, its relation to the life that preceded it and its influence on the masses. Considered from this point of view, the history of the Russian state was drawn in darker colors than in images by other historians, especially since Kostomarov’s critical attitude to its sources very soon led him to the idea of ​​invalidating certain brilliant episodes that were considered before since then firmly established. Kostomarov set forth some of his conclusions in the press, and they brought strong attacks on him; but at the university, his lectures were unprecedented success, attracting a lot of both students and outsiders ^[24] .

В эту же пору Костомаров был избран членом археографической комиссии и предпринял издание актов по истории Малороссии XVII века . Подготавливая эти документы к изданию, он начал писать по ним ряд монографий, которые должны были в результате составить историю Малороссии со времени Хмельницкого ; эту работу он продолжал до конца жизни. Кроме того, Костомаров принимал участие в некоторых журналах (« Русское слово », « Современник »), печатая в них отрывки своих лекций и исторические статьи. В эту эпоху своей жизни Костомаров стоял довольно близко к прогрессивным кружкам петербургского университета и журналистики, но полному слиянию его с ними мешало их увлечение экономическими вопросами, тогда как он сохранял романтическое отношение к народности и украинофильские идеи ^[24] . Наиболее близким для него журналом явился учреждённый собравшимися в Петербурге некоторыми из бывших членов Кирилло-Мефодиевского общества « Основа » ^[24] , где он поместил ряд статей, посвящённых по преимуществу выяснению существования «двух русских народностей» и полемике с отрицавшими такое значение польскими (« Правда полякам о Руси ») и великорусскими писателями. Как писал сам Николай Иванович:

Оказывается, что русская народность не едина; их две, а кто знает, может быть их откроется и более, и тем не менее оне — русския… Очень может быть, что я во многом ошибся, представляя такия понятия о различии двух русских народностей, составившияся из наблюдений над историей и настоящей их жизнию. Дело других будет обличить меня и исправить. Но разумея таким образом это различие, я думаю, что задачею вашей Основы будет: выразить в литературе то влияние, какое должны иметь на общее наше образование своеобразные признаки южнорусской народности. Это влияние должно не разрушать, а дополнять и умерять то коренное начало великорусское, которое ведет к сплочению, к слитию, к строгой государственной и общинной форме, поглощающей личность, и стремление к практической деятельности, впадающей в материальность, лишенную поэзии. Южнорусский элемент должен давать нашей общей жизни растворяющее, оживляющее, одухотворяющее начало. Южнорусское племя, в прошедшей истории, доказало неспособность свою к государственной жизни. Оно справедливо должно было уступить именно великорусскому, примкнуть к нему, когда задачею общей русской истории было составление государства. Но государственная жизнь сформировалась, развилась и окрепла. Теперь естественно, если народность с другим противоположным основанием и характером вступит в сферу самобытнаго развития и окажет воздействие на великорусскую.

— ^[25]

По словам историка Ивана Лаппо :

Kostomarov, a supporter of federalism, always loyal to the Little Russian nationality of his mother, without any reservations recognized this nationality as an organic part of the united Russian people, which “the national element of the whole Russian”, by his definition, “in the first half of our history” is “a combination of six major nationalities, namely: 1) South Russian, 2) Seversky, 3) Great Russian, 4) Belorussian, 5) Pskov and 6) Novgorod ”. At the same time, Kostomarov considered it his duty to “point out those principles that made a connection between them and served as a pretext that they all bore and should have been called the common Russian Earth, belonged to the same general composition and were aware of this connection, despite the circumstances, inclined to the destruction of this consciousness. These principles: 1) origin, life and languages, 2) a single princely family, 3) the Christian faith and the united Church. ”

- The origin of the Ukrainian ideology of modern times

After the closure of St. Petersburg University caused by student unrest (1861), several professors, including Kostomarov, arranged (in the city duma) systematic public lectures, known in the then press as a “free” or “moving” university: Kostomarov lectured on the ancient Russian history. When Professor Pavlov, after a public reading about the millennium of Russia, was expelled from St. Petersburg , the committee on the organization of Duma lectures decided, in the form of a protest, to stop them. Kostomarov refused to obey this decision, but at his next lecture (March 8, 1862), the noise raised by the public forced him to stop reading, and further lectures were forbidden by the administration ^[24] .

In the spring and summer of 1862, Kostomarov took a trip around Russia, visiting famous historical sites with archaeological and archaeological goals. In particular, on the bank of the Sheloni tributary of the dried-up Drani River (now the Dryan Stream) he discovered and superficially examined the mass grave of the soldiers of Veliky Novgorod who died in the battle on the Shelon River in 1471, and later lost ^{[26] [27]} .

Having left the professors of St. Petersburg University in 1862, Kostomarov could no longer return to the department, as his political trustworthiness was again suspected, mainly due to the efforts of the Moscow “security” press. In 1863, he was invited to the department by the University of Kiev, in 1864 - Kharkov, in 1869 - again Kiev, but Kostomarov, according to the instructions of the Ministry of Education, had to decline all these invitations and limit himself to one literary activity, which, with the termination of "Fundamentals" ", Also closed in a closer framework. After all these hard blows, Kostomarov seemed to have cooled to the present and ceased to be interested in it, having finally gone into the study of the past and in archival work. One by one, his works appeared, devoted to major issues on the history of Little Russia, the Russian state and Poland ^[24] . In 1863, the "Northern Russian Democratic Rights" were printed, which represented the processing of one of the courses taught by Kostomarov at St. Petersburg University; in 1866, in the "Bulletin of Europe" appeared "The Time of Troubles of the Moscow State", then "The Last Years of the Commonwealth." In the early 1870s, Kostomarov began work “On the Historical Importance of Russian Song Folk Art”. The interruption of archival studies in 1872, caused by the weakening of vision, gave Kostomarov an occasion to compile "Russian History in the Biographies of Its Most Important Figures" ^[28] .

Recent years

In February 1875, Kostomarov suffered from typhus , which greatly undermined his health (at the same time his mother died of pneumonia). On May 9, 1875, he married Alina Leontyevna Kisel (nee Kragelskaya ) (1830–1907), who was his bride before his arrest in 1847, but married another one after his exile ^[29] .

The works of the last years of Kostomarov’s life, for all their great merits, bore on themselves, however, some traces of the shaken strength of talent: they have less generalizations, less liveliness in presentation, sometimes a dry list of facts, somewhat reminiscent of Soloviev’s style, replaces the place of brilliant characteristics. During these years, Kostomarov even expressed such a point of view that the historian’s whole task is to transmit the facts he has found in sources. He worked with indefatigable energy until his death.

Kostomarov N.I. died on April 7 (19), 1885 , after a long and painful illness ^[28] . Nikolai Ivanovich was buried in St. Petersburg on the Literary bridges of the Volkovsky cemetery ^[30] .

Kostomarov’s reputation as a historian, both during his life and after his death, was repeatedly subjected to strong attacks. He was reproached for the superficial use of sources and the errors resulting from this, in the one-sidedness of views, in partisanship. These reproaches contain a grain of truth. Any scholar’s ​​inevitable mistakes and mistakes may be a little more often found in the works of Kostomarov, but this, according to Myakotin , is explained by the unusual variety of his studies and the habit of relying on his rich memory. In the few cases when partisanship really manifested itself in Kostomarov — namely, in some of his works on Little Russian (Ukrainian) history — this was only a natural reaction against even more party views expressed in literature on the other side. Not always, further, the material itself, on which Kostomarov worked, gave him the opportunity to adhere to his views on the task of the historian. According to his scientific views and sympathies, the historian of the people’s inner life, in his works devoted to Ukraine, he should have been a portrayer of external history ^[28] .

In any case, the general significance of Kostomarov in the development of Russian historiography can, without any exaggeration, be called enormous. He introduced and persistently carried out in all his works the idea of ​​folk history. Kostomarov himself understood and carried it out mainly in the form of studying the spiritual life of the people. Later researchers pushed the content of this idea, but Kostomarov’s merit does not decrease. In connection with this main idea of ​​Kostomarov’s work, he had another one - about the need to study the tribal characteristics of each part of the people and create a regional history. If modern science has established a slightly different view of the national character, which denies the immobility that Kostomarov attributed to him, then it was the work of the latter that served as the impetus, depending on which the study of the history of regions began to develop. Introducing new and fruitful ideas into the development of Russian history, independently exploring a number of issues in its field, Kostomarov, thanks to the peculiarities of his talent, aroused, at the same time, a lively interest in historical knowledge and among the public. Thinking deeply, almost getting used to the antiquity he studied, he reproduced it in his works with such bright colors, in such convex images that it attracted the reader and crashed into his mind with indelible features. In the person of Kostomarov, the historian-thinker and artist successfully combined - and this provided him not only one of the first places among Russian historians, but also the greatest popularity among the reading public ^[28] .

Kostomarov’s views are used in the analysis of modern Asian and African societies. So, for example, the modern orientalist S.Z. Gafurov pointed out in his article on the Third World Theory of the Libyan leader M. Gaddafi :

It is interesting to note that the semantics of the word “Jamahiriya” are associated with concepts that Kropotkin considered the early forms of anarchism . For example, he noted that the Russian historian Kostomarov used the concept of " rule of law ", which may well be a successful translation of the Arabic word - the new formation "Jamahiriya" into Russian

- ^[31]

In 1885, A. A. Khovansky , editor of Philological Notes , published an obituary about Kostomarov in his journal.

• Streets in the cities are named after N.I. Kostomarov:

• Cornflowers in the Kiev region in Ukraine
• Voronezh in Russia
• Dnieper in Ukraine
• Kovel in Volyn region in Ukraine
• Lviv in Ukraine
• Priluki in the Chernihiv region in Ukraine
• Kharkov in Ukraine

• The name of N. I. Kostomarov is a street in his small homeland, in the village of Yurasovka .
• A memorial plaque installed in 1996 on the building of the former provincial gymnasium where N.I. Kostomarov studied
• Name N. N. Kostomarov named the audience number 558 of the historical faculty of Kharkiv National University. V.N. Karazina
• In 2017, the National Bank of Ukraine issued a commemorative coin with a face value of 2 hryvnias dedicated to N.I. Kostomarov

• Kostomarov N.I. Autobiography .

• Kostomarov N.I. Russian history in the biographies of its most important figures. - M .: Eksmo, 2011 .-- 1024 p. - 5,000 copies. - ISBN 978-5-699-33756-9 .
• Kostomarov N.I. Collected Works. Prince 1-8. - SPb. 1903-1906.
• Kostomarov N. Historical monographs and studies . - SPb. : Publishing by D. E. Kozhanchikov, Printing House of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1863–1872. - T. I — XII.
• Kostomarov N.I. Kholop (1878) . Archived April 20, 2017 on Wayback Machine
• Kostomarov N.I. Kudeyar. - SPb. , ed. Suvorin, 1882.
• Kostomarov N.I. Riot Stenki Razin.
• Kostomarov N.I. Pavel
• Kostomarov N.I. Hetmanism of Vygovsky.
• Kostomarov N.I. Hetmanism of Yuri Khmelnitsky.
• Kostomarov N.I. Autocratic boy.
• Kostomarov N. I. On the significance of Veliky Novgorod in Russian history.
• Kostomarov N. I. Thoughts on a federal beginning in Ancient Russia.
• Kostomarov N.I. Heroes of the Time of Troubles . - Berlin, 1922. - 152 p. ^{[* eight]}
• Kostomarov N. I. Figures of the Russian Church in the old days. - Munich, 1922.

• Ksenia Borisovna Godunova (Regarding the painting by the artist Nevrev) // Historical Bulletin , 1884. - T. 15. - No. 1. - P. 7-23. (illustration)
• False Dmitry First. Regarding his contemporary portrait . 1606 // Russian antiquity , 1876. - T. 15. - No. 1. - S. 1-8.
• Features of resistance to power under Peter the Great // Russian Antiquity, 1875. - V. 12. - No. 2. - P. 381-383.

Comments

Sources

In Russian

pre-reform spelling

• Brief biographical essay by N.I. Kostomarov // Kievskaya antiquity. Year Four: Magazine. - Kyiv: Printing house Korchak-Novitskago, 1885. - V. 12 , No. 5 . - S. II — IX .
• Vashkevich G. Iz iz memoirs of Nikolaѣ Ivanovichѣ Kostomarovѣ // Kievskaya antiquity. Year fourteen: magazine. - Kiev: Printing house Korchak-Novitskago, 1895. - T. 49 , No. 4 . - S. 34-62 .
• Kostomarova A. The last days of the life of Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov // Kiev Old. Year fourteen: magazine. - Kiev: Printing house Korchak-Novitskago, 1895. - T. 49 , No. 4 . - S. 1-19 .
• Podorozhny N. Iz iz memorabilia (Memoirs of N.I. Kostomarovѣ) // Old Kiev. Year fourteen: magazine. - Kiev: Printing house Korchak-Novitskago, 1895. - T. 49 , No. 4 . - S. 20–33 .
• Polevoy P. N. Historian-idealist // Istoricheskiy vѣstnik: zhurnal. - 1891. - T. 43 , No. 2 . - S. 501-576 .
• Shcherbina F. K biography N. I. Kostomarova // Kiev Old. Year fourteen: magazine. - Kiev: Printing house Korchak-Novitskago, 1895. - T. 49 , No. 4 . - S. 63-75 .
• See the autobiographical note in the Dictionary of Professors of the University of St. Vladimir ", an autobiography in" Rus. Thoughts ”(1885, Nos. 5 and 6) and more detailed“ Literary Heritage ”( St. Petersburg , 1891).
• Obituaries and memoirs: " Kiev Old Man " (1885 and 1895, No. 4); " Nov " (1885); " Russian Old Man ", 1885; “ Russian Archive ” (1890, No. 10, A. A. Korsun ). See also: Yunge E. Memoirs of N. I. Kostomarov // Kievan antiquity, 1890. - v. 28. - No. 1. - P. 22—34.

modern spelling

• Kostomarov Nikolai Ivanovich / Butakov Y. A., Kireeva R. A. // Congo - Baptism. - M .: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 2010. - P. 470. - ( Great Russian Encyclopedia : [in 35 vols.] / Ch. Ed. Yu. S. Osipov ; 2004—2017, vol. 15). - ISBN 978-5-85270-346-0 .
• Manoilenko A.S., Manoilenko Yu.E. Participants in the Cyril and Methodius Society in the Peter and Paul Fortress (1847–1848) // History of Petersburg. - 2014. - No. 1. - S. 18-22.
• Al Markevich. Kostomarov, Nikolai Ivanovich // Russian Biographical Dictionary : in 25 volumes. - SPb. - M. , 1896-1918.
• A. N. Pypin “History of Russian Ethnography” (vol. III).

In Ukrainian

• Kozachok Ya. V., Gorlenko O.A. Zabuttyu is not a fool. Mikola Kostomarov and the Cyril-Methodius Society. - K .: NAU, 2007.
• Pinchuk Yu. A. Historical Studios Mikoli Kostomarova is a form factor of self-determination of Ukrainian nationality. - K., 2009.
• Pinchuk Yu. A. Vibrani studії z kostomaroznavstva. - K., 2012.

• B. M — n . Kostomarov, Nikolai Ivanovich // Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary : in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - SPb. , 1895. - T. XVI (31): Concord - Koyalovich. - S. 401-404. (Retrieved March 29, 2015)
• Profile of Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov on the official website of the RAS
• Rostovtsev E.A., Sosnitsky D.A. (ed.): Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov (neopr.) . Biography of St. Petersburg State University . history.spbu.ru. Date of treatment May 1, 2015.
• Works by N. I. Kostomarov on the site "Literature and Life".