Author:
Cross Anthony G. Topics: Culture
01.02.2004
(Vestnik Evropy), 1802–3
Karamzin’s versatility and talent were revealed from the first number of the Moscow
Journal. As a journalist he showed his ability to produce a journal comparable
in presentation and content with the European models he so admired. He
introduced as a basic feature informed criticism of Russian and foreign books
and plays and
published carefully chosen and written translations from Western originals on a
wide range of subjects.
In the summer of 1790 the 23 year-old Nikolay Karamzin returned to Russia after
an extensive trip through Germany, Switzerland, France and England. Eager to
make his name as a writer and to pass on the fruits of his European education,
Karamzin resolved to publish the Moscow Journal (Moskovskiy zhurnal, 1791-2)
which became the broad-sheet of Russian sentimentalism and initiated what was
to be known as the
“Karamzin period of Russian literature”. In his memoirs Filipp Vigel saw the journal as the rallying-point for “all noble-minded youths and all truly sensitive women»”[1], and Piotr Vyazemsky considered that “Karamzin in the Moscow Journal destroyed the Gothic towers of a decaying
literature and on its ruins laid the foundations of a new European publication,
which awaited for its ultimate completion skilled, industrious hands
”[2].
Karamzin’s versatility and talent were revealed from the first number of the Moscow
Journal. As a journalist he showed his ability to produce a journal comparable
in presentation and content with the European models he so admired. He
introduced as a basic feature informed criticism of Russian and foreign books
and plays and
published carefully chosen and written translations from Western originals on a
wide range of subjects. H e mustered contributions from the leading poets of
the day and provided in his own Letters of a Russian Traveller (Pis
’ma russkogo puteshestvennika) and in sentimental stories such as Poor Liza
(Bednaya Liza) and Nathalie, the Boyar
’s Daughter (Natal’ya, boyarskaya doch’) examples of accomplished Russian prose writing, which caught the imagination
of the reading public and ensured the success of sentimentalism as a literary
vogue in Russia. Not least, the Moscow Journal heralded a stylistic revolution:
without the carefully wrought embroidery of what became known as the
“new style” (novyy slog) the emotional finesse and nuance on which sentimentalism relied
could not have been realized. The implications of sentimentalism as something
more than a literary style are equally evident in the journal: the spirit of
Karamzin
’s work is independent, enlightened and humane.
Although Karamzin’s activity as a writer extends over a period of more than forty years (from the
publication of his first translation in 1783 until his death in 1826, when he
was working on the twelfth volume of his monumental history of Russia) his
major literary output is concentrated in a period of thirteen years. It is a
period bounded by two important journals, the Moscow Journal and the Messenger
of Europe. In the 1790
’s Karamzin’s desire to encourage the development of Russian literature and to bring Russia
into line culturally with the West, inspired his stream of publications. He
strove to provide examples of entertaining and accomplished writing and to
fashion a literary language able to compete with French or English in its range
and richness.
Nevertheless, in this period his work and philosophy of life were affected by
political, non-literary events in Europe and Russia. Repressive measures under
Catherine and Paul threatened not only his friends but his own very existence
as a writer. After the unrelieved gloom of Paul
’s reign it is not surprising that Karamzin shared in the wave of optimism which
swept through Russia on Alexander
’s accession. Vigel described how “everyone felt a kind of moral expansion, looks became kinder, the walk bolder,
the breathing freer
»”[3]; Nikolay Grech sought to characterize the change by specific reference to
Karamzin
’s own sentiments:
“It is impossible to describe the astonishment, joy and, enthusiasm, aroused by
what was in fact an unfortunate and loathsome event (Paul
’s murder). Russia breathed freely. Nobody thought of pretending any more.
Karamzin remarked justly in his memoir on the state of Russia:
“Who was more unfortunate than Paul! Tears at his death were shed only within his
family
”. Not only in words but in writing, in print, particularly in poems, people
expressed their joyful feelings of release from his tyranny. Karamzin, in his
ode on Alexander
’s accession, said: “Hearts are ready to breathe in You: / Our spirit is revived by hope. / Thus does
the appearance of sweet spring / Bring with it oblivion / Of all the dark
horrors of winter
”[4].
Yet this did not, and could not, signal a complete return by Karamzin to the
beliefs and enthusiasms of his youth. He continued to speak as a Philalet,
advocating a philosophy of moderation and caution[5]. Karamzin
’s experiences and new interests in the decade between the Moscow Journal and the
Messenger of Europe modified his approach to journalism: in the earlier journal
he had been pre-eminently a man of letters; to this role he now added those of
an historian and a political publicist. His erstwhile propaganda for Russian
enlightenment took on a new nationalistic colouring. The Messenger of Europe is
the focal point of Karamzin
’s thought and work at the beginning of Alexander’s reign; it is the culmination of his years of work for Russian literature and
his swan song before his entry into
“the temple of History”[6]. Although his reputation and influence were considerable throughout
Alexander
’s reign, it was not until the publication of the first eight volumes of his
History of the Russian State (Istoriya gosudarstva rossiyskogo) in 1818 that
Karamzin again occupied the literary limelight.
Karamzin was both the editor and chief contributor of the Messenger of Europe;
he left his stamp on every aspect of its contents and presentation as indelibly
as he had done on his earlier journal. Karamzin himself was perhaps not fully
aware to what degree he assumed his new role as public tribune; in the foreword
to the first issue (as well as in an article at the end of 1802) he emphasized
his concern for literature and enlightenment and expressed the hope that the
political section
“for the sake of Europe will not be very rich and interesting”[7]. The journal is divided into two parts: “Literature and Miscellany” and “Politics”, but politics dominate the journal not only in the form of European news but
also as open discussion of Russia
’s internal reforms. “Literature and Miscellany” brings to a close Karamzin’s work as a poet, translator, story writer and reformer of the Russian literary
language, whereas
“Politics” concentrates his earlier scattered ideas and remarks on historical, political
and social questions into a comprehensive system and points to the future
development of his career.
I.
In certain respects the literary section of the Messenger of Europe continues
the traditions of the Moscow Journal. Of the original five features Karamzin
planned for his earlier journal, three
– Russian works in verse and prose, translations, and interesting anecdotes–remained; a fourth-critical reviews of Russian books – was continued with severe limitations in its scope and, consequently, in its
interest, and the fifth
– drama criticism – was completely rejected.
There is little that was new or interesting in the literary works Karamzin chose
to translate. He turned once more to Mme de Genlis, whose religiosity, cloying
moralizing and attacks on
“false” philosophers pervaded a series of stories appearing from part II of the
journal. Characteristic of the prevailing tastes of the day was the translation
of a tale by August Lafontaine[8], who rivaled Genlis, Marmontel and Kotzebue
in popularity with the Russian reading public. English, French and German
journals provided Karamzin with a wealth of Eastern allegories, moral fables
and news snippets of a literary nature.
Despite the orientation on foreign literature, which Karamzin had himself
indicated in an editorial at the end of 1802[9], original contributions from
Karamzin and his friends provided the main literary interest in the journal.
Ivan Dmitriyev, now living in retirement in Moscow and collaborating closely
with Karamzin, regularly contributed poems; there were also poems by Gavriil
Derzhavin, Michael Kheraskov and Yury Neledinsky-Meletsky, but the one poem of
particular note was Vasily Zhukovsky
’s version of Gray’s Elegy[10]. Karamzin’s own verse in the Messenger of Europe, which included the Hymn to Fools (Gimm
gluptsam), Melancholy (Melankholiya) and To Virtue (K dobrodeteli), formed a
distinctive and important coda to his work as a poet, but it is his prose
rather than his verse which marks the final stage of his role as a literary
innovator. A Knight of Our Time (Rytsar
’ nashego vremeni), Martha (Marfa-posadnitsa), My Confession (Moya ispoved’) and The Man of Feeling and the Cold-Blooded Man (Chuvstvitel’nyy i kholodnyy) reveal his search for new themes and narrative techniques[11].
Karamzin’s unwillingness to continue his drama and book reviews was rooted in his changed
attitude towards literary criticism. In the opening
‘Letter to the Editor’, which he wrote himself, Karamzin formulated his new position:
But does criticism really teach one how to write? Do not models and examples act
more strongly? And have not talents everywhere preceded learned and stern
judgement? La critique est aisee, et l
’art est difficile! Write who ever is able to write well: that is the best
criticism of bad books![12]
At the end of 1802 he was insisting:
As far as the criticism of new Russian books is concerned, we do not consider it
a true requirement of our literature (not to mention the unpleasantness of
dealing with the easily injured vanity of people). It is more useful for an
author to be judged than to judge. Good criticism is the luxury of literature;
it is born of great riches, and as yet we are not Croesuses. It is better to
add to the general estate than to be concerned with its evaluation[13].
Karamzin was now in direct opposition to the standpoint he had adopted in the
Moscow Journal in the dispute between Vasily Podshivalov and Fyodor Tumansky
over the value of criticism[14]. He had learnt from bitter experience how
resentful such writers as Tumansky and Nikolai Nikolev were of criticism: he
knew also that his critical reviews had been considered an impertinence by the
Moscow freemasons and parodied by Ivan Krylov and Alexander Klushin in their
Spectator (Zritel
’)[15]. Clear evidence of his volte-face was the exclusion of the exchanges
between Tumansky and Podshivalov from the second edition of the Moscow Journal,
which was published at this time (1802
–3). But Karamzin’s change of heart came equally from his new patriotic fervour and his conviction
that young Russian authors were to be encouraged rather than condemned:
“We are not aristocrats in literature: we do not look at names but at works, and
we are sincerely glad to help the emergence of young authors
”[16].
The change in emphasis in Karamzin’s attitude did not bring an absolute renunciation of criticism: although, as the
Soviet critic Georgy Makogonenko has demonstrated[17], Karamzin tended to
substitute for the review articles of a more generic nature. He stated:
“…we make no promise that sometimes we will not discuss old and new Russian books,
it is merely that we do not accept a definite obligation to be critics
”[18]. The criticism in the Messenger of Europe, unlike that in the Moscow
Journal, is indeed occasional and unsystematic, but nonetheless of considerable
extent and importance. Karamzin exercised restraint when reviewing Russian
works, but was outspoken with foreign literature.
Karamzin reviewed recent foreign, predominantly French, works, which were not
yet available in Moscow, such as Jean-Jaques Barthelemy
’s Voyage en Italie, Mme de Stael’s Delphine and Chateaubriand’s Genie du Christianisme.[19] Karamzin’s attack on Chateaubriand’s work is heavily ironical – and both the technique and tone are reminiscent of his review of Nikolev’s Spoilt Darling (Baloven’), in the Moscow Journal:
“We cannot imagine anything more foolish than this nonsense. Such is the way the
new French authors write. I assure readers that my new translation is as
faithful as any in the world
”[20].
Foreign works in Russian translation were also reviewed. Karamzin was
particularly enthusiastic about Nikolayi Strakhov
’s translation of Barthelemy’s Voyage du jeune Anacharsis, which he considered one of the most outstanding
works of the 18th Century[21], and he praised the
“zealous patriotism” of A. Storkh, whose historical survey of Russian trade was being translated
from German[22]. The third such review
– of a translation of Etienne Francois de Lantier’s Voyages d’ Antenor (Antenorovy puteshestviya po Gretsii i Azii, Moscow 1802), is
particularly interesting for its similarity to Karamzin
’s reviews of translated works in the Moscow Journal; it is even introduced under
the heading
“Criticism” and reveals his old techniques at every turn. An examination of the book’s contents is followed by close attention to the quality of the translation.
Nevertheless, aware that a review of this nature contradicted his new position,
Karamzin was at pains to minimize the effect of his criticism:
“But isn’t such criticism carping? We are not to blame if we find here no very important
mistakes; and thus discovering from our unsuccessful attempt at criticism that
the translator has taken measures to ensure against criticism, we close the
Russian Antenor
”[23].
These reviews apart, the main criticism in the Messenger is contained in two
major articles, one by Dmitriyev and the other by Karamzin. Dmitriyev
’s On Russian Comedies (O russkikh komediyakh) is the only dramatic criticism in
the journal: it advances a concept of genteel comedy in opposition to coarse
naturalism and attacks the vogue for vulgar farce and comedy[24]. Karamzin
’s article is devoted to the life and work of Ippolit Bogdanovich, whose death in
1802 occasioned a flood of inept epitaphs in the Messenger[25]. On Bogdanovich
and his Works (O Bogdanoviche i yego sochineniyakh) is a notable milestone in
the history of Russian literary criticism. Karamzin attempted to trace
Bogdanovich
’s development as an author, to analyse his main work Dushen’ka, and to compare it with La Fontaine’s Les Amours de Psyche et de Cupidon, which was its model. Uniting an exposition
of certain systematic theories on the nature and obligations of art, a wide
knowledge of his subject, and an ability to write in a lucid and engaging
style, Karamzin was obviously at the same time serving his basic thesis in the
Messenger
– applaud, rather than condemn, things Russian – and thereby modifying his true assessment of Bogdanovich’s worth. As late as 1800 Gavriil Kamenev heard Karamzin criticising Bogdanovich’s work, particularly certain lines from his translation of Voltaire’s poem on the Lisbon earthquake[26], although by 1803 he could write: “Bogdanovich translated [the poem] so successfully that many lines match the
beauty and strength of the French.[27]” In addition, Karamzin tended to re-create Bogdanovich in his own sentimentalist
image and basic facts from Bogdanovich
’s biography serve as a starting point for an exposition of Karamzin’s views on the joys of artistic creation, on the requirements for a peaceful
life, or even on the undesirability of stern criticism[28]. On the other hand,
Karamzin
’s comparison of the relative values of prose and verse on the basis of concrete
examples and his assessment of Bogdanovich
’s contribution to Russian literature are objective and valuable.
II.
Karamzin’s desire to review Russian literature more indulgently than he had done in the
1790s and to relate its development to post-Petrine Russia
’s advance towards enlightenment was already evident in the “Pantheon of Russian Authors” (Panteon rossiyskikh avtorov, 1801-2) which, although conceived in Paul’s reign, is pre-eminently in the spirit of Alexander’s. Karamzin in fact reviewed his “Pantheon” in the Messenger and printed in full his notes on Prokopovich, Trediakovsky and
Lomonosov. These are prefaced by his attempt at a periodization of 18th Century
Russian literature:
Feofan and Kantemir comprise this first epoch: this is followed by Lomonosov and
Sumarokov; the third must be termed the reign of Catherine the Great, already
rich in the number of authors; and we are still awaiting the fourth[29].
Karamzin was engaged not only in formulating an apology for earlier Russian
literature but in directing Russia
’s immediate literary development. The fourth period was to be the reign of
Alexander, which he had described in his programme for the Messenger as a time
when the sciences and arts by their rapid progress promise even greater
successes; when talents, in free peace and ease, can devote themselves to all
subjects which are useful and dear to the soul; when in the present
intellectual climate, literature should have a greater influence than ever
before on morality and happiness[30].
Despite the fact that there was still a lack of talent and taste in Russian
authors, he believed that
“in Russia literature can be even more useful than in other lands: feeling is
newer and fresher in us; the beautiful therefore acts more strongly on the
heart and bears greater fruit
”[31].
Karamzin had clearly rejected his view of literature as private consolation for
the poet and his friends, to which he had been driven by adverse conditions in
Russia and Europe. His path to a utilitarian and patriotic view of art was both
logical and predictable. The disillusionment he had suffered from events in
France bolstered his patriotic feeling and suggested the important role that
Russia might play in European affairs. The task of literature was therefore not
only to consolidate Russia
’s eminence in the eyes of Europe but also to inspire pride in Russians:
“It is nearer and dearer for Russian talent to praise what is Russian in this
happy time, when the Monarch and Providence itself call us to true glory.
Russians must be taught to respect what is their own; they must be shown how it
can become the subject for an artist
’s inspiration and for the strong effects of art on the heart. Not only the
historian and the poet, but also the painter and the sculptor are organs of
patriotism
”[32].
Pursuing this aim in another essay, On Love of One’s Country and National Pride (O lvubvi k otechestvu I narodnoy gordosti), he
exaggerated the importance of certain (unspecified) works of Russian
literature:
“The successes of our literature […] show the great ability of Russians. Have we not long known what style in verse
and prose is?
– and we can in certain respects already compare ourselves with foreigners.
Already in the 16th Century in France Montaigne was philosophising and writing
– is it any wonder that in general they write better than we do? On the other
hand, isn
’t it a wonder that some of our works can be placed alongside the best of theirs
and for us in truth, dear compatriots, to feel the value of our own
”[33].
He follows this with an eulogy of the Russian language:
“Our language is expressive not only for lofty rhetoric, for loud, colourful
poetry but also for tender simplicity, for the sounds of the heart and
sensibility. It is richer in harmony than French and more able to render tones
in the outpouring of the soul; it offers more analogous words, i.e. in accord
with the action being expressed
– an advantage enjoyed only by root languages. Our misfortune is that we all wish
to speak French and do not think of perfecting our own language: is it
surprising that we are thus unable to express in it certain subtleties in
conversation?[34]”
Karamzin reiterated these views in an important essay directly concerned with
the problems of Russian literature and language. Why Are There Few Writers of
Talent in Russia? (Ot chego v Rossii malo avtorskikh talantov?) In his analysis
of literary backwardness in Russia, Karamzin sought the causes
“not in the climate, but in the circumstances of Russian civic life”[35]. He demanded application and study from the aspiring writer and an ability
to understand and use language. In contrast to the previous essay, Karamzin was
now concerned with realities rather than possibilities. Thus the comparative
immaturity of the Russian language was acknowledged as well as the lack of
inspiring models in most literary genres. He saw the normal solution to the
problem of the development of a language in the spoken word, but stressed that
society women, the usual source for attractive language, spoke only French. He
did not consider, however, going beyond polite society to the Russian-speaking
classes, for this would be to bypass the gentry whose enlightenment and
advancement were his political concerns. Consequently his solution was
intellectual and artificial. It relied on the example of fully developed
European languages and the potentialities within the Russian language that a
man of talent or genius might reveal:
“What is there left for an author to do? Invent and devise expressions, sense the
best choice of words, give to the old a certain new sense, present them in a
new combination, but so skillfully as to deceive readers and conceal from them
the unusualness of the expression
”[36].
These were the principles Karamzin followed consistently, founded on his view
that
“the French write as they speak, and Russians still have to speak on many
subjects in the way a talented man will write
”[37].
Karamzin’s concern with national needs and virtues in matters of language and literature
did not necessarily bring him into conflict with the basic tenets of his
earlier cosmopolitanism. The Messenger reveals his tendency to point out the
failings and inadequacies of other literatures, particularly of contemporary
English literature[38], but Karamzin was far from renouncing his love of great
writers and thinkers, essential to his understanding of enlightenment. His
theoretical admiration for the true cosmopolitan mind is upheld in a
translation he made of Herder
’s Gesprach uber eine unsichtbar-sichtbare Gesellschaft (1793) (Razgovor o
nevidimo-vidimom obshchestve). The desired society, unlike Freemasonry, was one
“which is not secret, not hidden from the light, but working openly, not with
ceremonies and symbols, but with lucid words and deeds, not confined to two or
three nations, but everywhere where there is true enlightenment
”[39]. Above national prejudices and petty strife, the society would draw its
inspiration from the world of books and a love of humanity.
“In conversation with Homer, Plato, Xenophon, Tacitus, Bacon, Fenelon, I do not
think of what state they belonged to, what class they were from, and what
temples they prayed in
”[40].
Retaining his love of such ideals, Karamzin stressed the nobility of patriotism.
Truly great writers, for instance, are shown to be great patriots; Klopstock
“attempted to shame his pitiful fellow citizens and ceaselessly praised love for
one
’s country in a land where for several decades the nation had respected only what
was foreign
”[41]. Karamzin was sensitive to the negative connotations of the word “cosmopolitan” and contrasted sham cosmopolitan with the inspiring example of Peter the Great:
“He was a Russian in his soul and a patriot; and those gentlemen anglomaniacs or
gallomaniacs wish to call themselves cosmopolitans. Only we ordinary people
cannot soar with our minds above base patriotism; we stand on the earth.
Russian earth; we look at the world not through the spectacles of systematic
philosophers but with our own natural eyesight
”[42].
Peter was central to Karamzin’s concept of Russian enlightenment; his reforms marked the beginning of Russia’s accelerated advance towards equality with the West and his example, according
to Karamzin
’s thesis, inspired Catherine and Alexander. Reviewing a poem by Andre Chenier on
enlightenment, Karamzin pointedly added the footnote:
“And Peter the Great?” to Chenier’s tribute to Frederick the Great as the supreme national enlightener[43]. At the
same time Karamzin
’s interest in pre-Petrine Russia increased and he attempted to show how deep
went the roots of Russian culture and history. As yet he chose to see no
conflict between Peter
’s revolutionary methods and Russian traditions, for Russian history provided a
further boost to Russian national pride and self-awareness:
I do not trust that love for country which despises its chronicles or is not
interested in them: we must know the present; we should be informed about the
past[44].
III.
Karamzin’s interest in history was becoming his major preoccupation; already in 1801, he
saw clearly his future career as an historian, as his first ode to Alexander
shows. During his editorship of the Messenger he took the opportunity to share
the fruits of his study with his readers, hereby serving both his personal
interests and the wider aims of the journal.
Nathalie, the Boyar’s Daughter, The Bird of Paradise, (Rayskaya ptichka, 1791), the opening pages of
Poor Liza, as well as the unfinished poem Il
’ya Muromets (1794), showed Karamzin’s willingness to use (or abuse) Russian history and legend; but Martha was his
first true historical tale. In December 1802, the month before he published
Martha, he gave what might be regarded as the theoretical as well as the
patriotic justification for such attempts. His essay On the Incidents and
Characters in Russian History, Which May Provide Subjects for the Arts (O
sluchayakh i kharakterakh v rossiyskoy istorii, kotoryye mogut byt
’ predmetom khudozhestv) is primarily concerned with possible subjects for
painting, but Karamzin
’s suggestions were directed at all creative artists. Closely linked with this
article and with the fictional re-creation of Martha is another essay by
Karamzin, entitled Information on Martha the Burgomistress from the Life of St
Zosima (Izvestiye o Marfe Posadnitse, vzyatoye iz zhitiya Zosimy, June 1803).
Apart from the new information it gives on Martha
’s character, the essay is a call to “a skilled pen” to “represent for us a gallery of Russian women, famed in history or deserving of
this honour
”[45]. His list of such women essentially continues the earlier one containing
suggestions for suitable subjects for painting. Karamzin was possibly prompted
once more by foreign example; Mme de Genlis, in an article translated by
Karamzin, had written:
“Most of all I would like to represent with my brush the most famous women in
history, their main traits and virtues, their lives
”[46].
As a result of his historical studies Karamzin came to acknowledge the
importance of preserving folk songs and proverbs. He said with approval of
Bogdanovich that
“he published Russian proverbs in which were preserved the valuable remains of
our forefathers
’ thought, their true conceptions about good and their wise rules for life”[47]. Karamzin himself printed a Yakut folk song which “depicts with simplicity and life the attachment of these good-natured people to
animals, which are indeed worthy of man
’s gratitude”[48]. Karamzin saw the need to collect all manner of historical anecdotes and
legends; indeed, this was a patriotic duty:
“How good it would be to collect all Russian legends which are related either to
history or old customs! I would praise the Russian who would undertake to
travel round some of the regions of our fatherland with such an intention
…”[49]
He regretted that the oral accounts of old people who remembered Peter the
Great, Anne and Elizabeth had not been copied down and religiously
preserved[50]. He himself recorded an alleged meeting with an old couple, who
had been married more than eighty years; his old peasant is made to utter a
string of proverbs and near-proverbs
– obviously indicative of antique wisdom – in a typically stylized sentimental manner:
“Ya khotel znat’ lyubyat li oni drug druga?” – “Kak ne lyubit’! muzh da zhena bol’she, chem brat da sestra”. “Boites’ li vy smerti?” – “Chego boyat’sya? My, slava Bogu, pozhili. Smert’ ne beda”. “Tebe ne zhal’ budet starushki?” – “Chego zhalet’! Komu nibud’ nadobno umeret’ prezhde.” – “A yesli ona perezhivyot tebya?” – “Nu chto zhe? v svete ne bez dobrykh lyudey; dadut yey ugolok”[51].
Karamzin was anxious not only to preserve information about the past but also to
have recorded in print all the glorious deeds of the present for the
edification of posterity:
“We are to blame for having as yet no collection of true anecdotes about Russian
national virtue which would disarm all misanthropes.
I would not include in such a collection anything fictional or untrue – nor anything exaggerated: truth by itself is attractive”[52].
There was a tendency to find Russian equivalents for anything the West could
offer and English example in all things pro bono patriae seemed to present a
particular challenge to Russian patriotism. The third article in the opening
number of the Messenger told of an English scheme to erect a monument to the
country
’s past glories and victories[53], and a footnote to a later translation recorded
the dedication of a monument in Westminster Abbey by a
“grateful King and Country» to a fallen soldier[54]. Karamzin formulated the need for such information
about Russia to be recorded in the first story of Russian
“Good Deeds” (blagodeyaniye) to be printed in the Messenger:
“Acts of philanthropy are an adornment of their age and country. Whenever and
wherever men act virtuously, every sensitive heart rejoices; but the nearer the
philanthropist is to us the greater our pleasure. If a Russian touches me with
his magnanimity, then I rejoice as a man and still more as a son of Russia. A
patriot who loves virtue in all lands worships it in his own country; it is the
greatest service to the state, and its example is not only consoling but useful
in civil relations, since it has a salutary influence on general morals
”[55].
He ended by inviting “all patriots, all friends of mankind, to send him information about events that
are consoling for the feeling heart
”[56]. Soon stories of unsung Russian virtues were being printed in increasing
numbers in the Messenger. The honesty of the Russian peasant was extolled
together with the generosity of the gentry[57].
If Karamzin collected proverbs, folk-songs, anecdotes of the past and present
out of a belief in their patriotic and historical value, he also contributed
historical articles which were the fruit of careful research and documentation.
He brought to his essays a high degree of literary art, attempting to make
Russian history living and real for his readers. In a sense, he was the first
outstanding populist of Russian history. He gave examples of earlier Russian
history, such as of a recent Moscow earthquake[58], informed his readers of the
historical associations of places and buildings in and around Moscow[59],
explained the origin and function of the Secret Chancellery[60], and analysed
the causes of the Moscow revolt of 1648[61]. Karamzin was seemingly intent on
shaming his fellow Russians for their ignorance of Russia
’s past and at the same time preparing the way for his future career as an
historian. His historical essays refer to the rudimentary state of Russian
historiography, the limitations of the chronicles and the prejudices of foreign
travellers[62]; he corrected mistakes made by his immediate predecessors
Vassily Tatishchev and Michael Shcherbatov[63], attacked foreigners like P.-C.
Levesque for writing ill-informed works on the history of Russia[64], and
regretted that the Professor of Russian History in the Russian Academy had been
a foreigner[65]. He believed that
“because we have no respectable history, the great and wondrous deeds of our
forefathers are little known to us; but there is sufficient for an eloquent pen
”[66]: Karamzin saw, and rightly, that pen as his[67]. His comments on the tasks
facing the historian anticipate features of his yet unwritten history: on the
one hand, there is his strong interest in character and on the other, the
yardstick of virtue and morality. He translated the views of other historians
on the writing of history and in the early volumes of his own work he was
obviously aware of Antoine Thomas
’ belief that “an historian should not describe in detail those events which cannot be
described dramatically; i.e. divided into statement, development and
conclusion. Otherwise such descriptions will be tedious and can only interest
contemporaries, who have sympathy for them because of their involvement
”[68]. Making a distinction between historians and chroniclers, Karamzin declared
that
“our chroniclers are not Tacituses: they did not judge tsars; they related not
all their deeds, only the most brilliant
– military successes, evidence of religious devotion, etc.”[69]: it was precisely because he detected elements of both types of writer in
him that Pushkin was to term Karamzin
“our first historian and last chronicler”[70].
IV.
Combining the moral and emotional aspects of enlightenment and patriotism with a
specific interest in social and political institutions was Karamzin
’s concern for Russian advances in education. He regarded education as an
internal, patriotic matter and was heavily sarcastic of foreign attempts to
criticize or influence Russian methods. In
‘An Aberration’ (Strannost’) he ridiculed a Frenchman’s scheme to set up a school near Paris, where among other subjects young
Russians would be taught their native language; Karamzin insisted on the need
for Russians to be brought up and educated in Russia:
We know that everyone should grow up in his homeland and early on become
accustomed to its climate, habits, character of its people, way of life and
government; we know that in Russia alone it is possible to become a good
Russian
– and for our national happiness neither the French nor the English are necessary
to us[71].
In My Confession he criticized the sort of gentry edcation that could lead to
contempt for one
’s country[72]. He was therefore very ready to praise all measures to improve
educational facilities within Russia. Karamzin had praised Catherine for her
national schools, the importance of which he emphasized again in his
“Historical Panegyric to Catherine II” (Istoricheskoye pokhval’noye slovo Yekaterine II, 1802)[73], and when Alexander introduced a number of
educational reforms Karamzin heralded them with a series of essays in the
Messenger[74].
In his role as an enlightened patriot Karamzin agitated for the replacing of
foreign tutors by Russians for
“there will never be perfect moral education until we have good Russian teachers,
who alone are able to instill the feelings and principles of a good Russian
into a young heart
”[75]. His fervour for the cause of enlightenment made him condemn ignorance as “antipatriotic, even a sign of opposition to the Tsar” for “It hinders every enactment of the ruler’s benevolent intentions at every step, stops it, removes the strength from great
and wise laws, encourages abuses, injustices and in a word, does not allow the
state to enjoy its general internal prosperity which alone deserves to be the
aim of a truly great, that is to say virtuous, monarch[76].
Although Karamzin saw enlightenment as a progressive force, destroying
prejudice, ignorance and reaction, he believed that it would lead not to
revolution but to a strengthening of the social status quo; his views recall
strongly the prevalent masonic attitude towards enlightenment as manifest in
“Children’s Reading for the Heart and Mind” (Detskoye chteniye dlya serdtsa i razuma, 1785–9), where encouragement of learning went hand-in-hand with a defence of the
class system.
Karamzin in the Messenger assumed the role of apologist of the Russian gentry – a role which allowed him to criticize, indulgently, existing abuses within that
class in the name of its ideal function and character. He believed that
“The gentry is the soul and noble image of the whole nation. I love to imagine
the Russian gentry not only with a sword in its hands, not only with the scales
of Themis, but also with the laurels of Apollo as well as with the symbols of
the goddess of agriculture
”[77].
Although he recognize that a learned member of the gentry was a rarity in any
country and that teachers would have to be found from among the lower
classes[78], he was soon proudly publishing details about the first
“gentleman-professor” in Russia – Grigory Glinka of Derpt University[79]. Such events gave force to his thesis
that
“excellent knowledge is necessary to affirm the illustrious rights of the gentry”[80].
Turning to the central critical question of the relationship between master and
serf, Karamzin saw enlightenment leading to a decrease in arbitrary power:
“Those loathsome tyrants, comfortingly for the good heart few in number, who
forget that, for a true member of the gentry to be a good master is to be the
father of one
’s subjects, could no longer act in darkness”[81].
He expanded this view in what is perhaps the most optimistic and idyllic essay
he wrote for the Messenger
– “Pleasing Prospects, Hopes and Desires of the Present Time” (Priyatnyye vidy, nadezhdy I zhelaniya nyneshego vremeni):
“Enlightenment destroys the abuse of a master’s power, which even according to our existing laws is not tyrannical and
unlimited. A member of the Russian gentry gives necessary land to his peasants;
he is their protector in civil affairs and their helper in accidental or
natural disasters: these are his duties! For this he demands from them half the
working days in a week: this is his right!
”[82]
Given just masters and such an understanding of his position, the peasant was to
be content with his lot and serve his country as his station in life allowed.
Enlightenment, Karamzin argued, allowed the peasant to see the justice of his
position; educated European peasants who
“bless their modest lot in civil society, consider themselves not its victims but
beneficiaries like other classes, all of which must work, if in different ways,
for their own and their country
’s benefit”[83].
In his defence of the Russian social system Karamzin was consciously reacting
against what he considered were ill-informed attacks and criticism from
foreigners[84]; his most open defence of serfdom,
“The Letter of a Country Dweller” (Pis’mo sel’skogo zhitelya) rejects foreign travellers’ explanation of the laziness of the Russian peasant as a consequence of the
evils of slavery. Karamzin saw the serf as
“lazy by nature, habit and ignorance of the advantages of industry”[85]. In addition, they had an incorrigible weakness for drinking, the bete
noire to which Karamzin pointed in any discussion of emancipation without
enlightenment[86]. Karamzin was heavily critical of the study-bound scholar
’s pipe-dreams, the systematic philosopher’s theories, which ignored realities[87]; faithful to his gospel of the middle
way, Karamzin saw change coming gradually, unhurriedly:
“Time moves forward the reason of nations, but quietly and slowly; woe to the
lawgiver who flies ahead! The wise man goes step by step, looking around him.
God sees whether I love mankind and the Russian people; whether I am prjdiced,
whether I worship the loathsome idol of self-interest
– but for the true prosperity of our peasants I wish only that they have good
masters and the means to enlightenment, which alone will make possible all that
is good
”[88].
Karamzin was firmly opposed to immediate emancipation. He was unable to envisage
freeing the peasants without land
– and this he considered at that time impracticable; equally he believed that
without some degree of education and awareness of the many problems facing
them, the peasants would abuse their liberty with idleness and drink. His
caution was apt to be interpreted as reactionary by a generation of eager young
reformers, his defence of serfdom as a preference for slavery over freedom[89].
V.
Karamzin’s defence of gentry supremacy and serfdom was one aspect of a comprehensive
statement on the type of government and society he envisaged for Russia. It was
based on certain beliefs fundamental even to his early writings, but modified
by his experiences, both public and private, during the reigns of Catherine and
Paul. Karamzin
’s writings in the first years of Alexander’s reign reveal him to be a consummate political publicist.
He greeted Alexander’s accession as he had Paul’s – with an ode. Encouraged by the gift of a signet ring from the Tsar, he wrote a
further ode for Alexander
’s coronation and by the end of 1801 he had completed for publication his
Historical Panegyric to Catherine II. These three works outline Karamzin
’s demands on the young tsar and anticipate the main arguments of the Messenger
of Europe. The burden of his odes is the need for a code of civil laws that
would ensure the freedom of the individual and define the responsibilities of
the citizen[90]. There is no suggestion that the law was above the monarch, for
he was supreme and answerable only to God; nevertheless, fear of history
’s judgement was an incentive for a monarch to be virtuous:
To tyrants my scroll is frightening;
To good monarchs it is kind[91].
Karamzin’s panegyric to Catherine was an attempt to veil his demands on the new reign
under praise for certain aspects of Catherine
’s; Karamzin was prompted to this stratagem by promises contained in Alexander’s first manifesto:
“Accepting the throne, We accept the responsibility of governing the nation
entrusted to Us by God according to the laws and heart of Our most august
grandmother, the Empress Catherine the Great
”[92].
Karamzin’s allegedly historical survey of Catherine’s achievements is a fantasy of what might have been; he elected to forget the
reasons for his limited praise during her reign and portray Catherine in an
ideal light. She became an indispensable part of his scheme of Russian
development, which linked her name with those of Peter the Great and Alexander.
For his new tasks of civic oratory Karamzin used all the devices and pathos of
his sentimental style, as a contemporary satirist clearly recognized[93].
Following a short introduction, in which he drew attention to the “immortal pages” of Montesquieu’s Esprit des lois, a work of immense importance for both Catherine’s and his own political concepts[94], Karamzin reviewed Catherine’s achievements under the three heads of victories, law-giving and institutions.
The result, however, is essentially an outline of Karamzin
’s own political and social views, to be illustrated not only from the pages of
the Messenger but from such later writings as the Memoir on Ancient and Modern
Russia (Zapiski o drevney i novoy Rossii, 1811), the Opinion of a Russian
Citizen (Mneniye russkogo grazhdanina, 1819) and Thoughts on True Freedom
(Mysli ob istinnoy svobode, 1826). Karamzin justified Catherine
’s wars as necessary for Russia’s security, attacked “impudent and malicious Poland”[95], and when praising Catherine’s wise choice of military leaders carefully omitted to mention Potyomkin – possibly a survival of the old masonic antipathy toward him[96]. The third
section, where Karamzin extolled such institutions as the Academy of Arts, the
National Schools, the Orphans
’ Home and even the wise censorship[97], was the Russian response to the social
institutions which Karamzin considered to be one of England
’s glories[98]. It is, however, the discussion of Catherine the lawgiver that is
the most revealing source of Karamzin
’s views on systems of government and the relationship of the individual and the
state. Karamzin portrayed Catherine as favouring comprehensive laws and opposed
to all arbitrary power:
“Since She knew that personal security is the first blessing of a man and that
without it our life is an eternal torturing worry amidst all the other forms of
happiness and enjoyment. This mild spirit in government, proof of Her love and
respect for mankind, was to be the main characteristic of Her decrees
”[99].
Karamzin dwelt at length on Catherine’s arguments in favour of autocracy contained in her Nakaz and attempted to
illustrate their justice by examples: he pointed to the sorry failure of
contemporary France to rule itself and its need of a
“Corsican soldier” to save itself from utter collapse[100]. Simultaneously with his support for
autocracy Karamzin reaffirmed his love of the great Republicans of history.
Although he had himself rejected the possibility of realizing the ideal
republic in the modern world[101], he admired the republican virtues.
Nevertheless, the demands on the individual in a republic were too high; and
loss of civic virtue brought the downfall of a republic:
“Either people have to be angels or every complex form of government based on the
action of different wills becomes eternal dissension and the people become the
unhappy instrument of a few ambitious men, who sacrifice their country for
their own personal benefit
”[102].
The idea of autocracy as the time-hallowed and only fitting form of government
for Russia was propounded by Karamzin throughout the Messenger. Whenever
possible, Karamzin praised Alexander as the wise autocrat and connected Russia
’s imminent glory with his personal rule and example[103]. He was particularly
anxious that false courtiers or advisers should not blind Alexander to his true
obligations to his country or attempt to impinge upon his power. In his first
ode Karamzin spoke of these
“sly flatterers”[104]; in his essay on the Moscow revolt of 1648 he painted the picture of a
good tsar, a
‘little father’ to his people but prevented from helping them by the machinations of his
favourites[105]. As distinct from their position, Karamzin
’s was that of a loyal well-intentioned patriot, one of the “unhypocritical friends of good / Able to speak the truth”[106]. The picture emerges of a Russia ruled by a wise autocrat, beneath whom
the gentry, the ever-increasing bourgeoisie and the peasantry performed their
duties loyally and virtuously, respecting the contribution of every member of
society to the general prosperity and content with their position: for the
rejected western models of republics and constitutional monarchies Karamzin
substituted his own autocratic Arcadia.
VI.
Behind Karamzin’s persuasive and insistent arguments in favour of what Pushkin was to call the “necessity of autocracy / And the charms of the knout”[107] stood a fear of upheaval, of tyranny by one man or many, or more
specifically, the spectre of the French Revolution which had haunted and
influenced his thought for more than a decade:
“The Revolution has elucidated ideas: we have seen that the civil order is holy
even in its most local or chance defects, that authority is not tyranny for
nations but protection from tyranny, that when it shatters the beneficent
aegis,
people become the victim of terrible disasters which are incomparably more evil
than all the usual abuses of authority, that even Turkish rule is better than
anarchy, which is always the consequence of state conflict, that all the bold
theories of the mind, which from the study wishes to prescribe new laws for the
moral and political world, must remain in books, together with other more or
less curious products of wit, that the institutions of antiquity have a magical
force, which cannot be replaced by any force of intellect, that only time and
the good will of a legal government should correct the imperfections in civil
societies, and that with this trust in the action of time and the wisdom of the
authorities, we private citizens must live peacefully, obey willingly and
perform all possible good around us
”[108].
He admitted that all the outstanding minds of the day had desired «great changes and novelties in the constitution of societies», but they had learnt that «revolution was the abuse of freedom”[109]. To provide an example of a great European mind, seduced by the French
Revolution and eventually rejecting it, Karamzin chose to translate an article
on Klopstock by Archenholz. Not only is the central passage an apology for
Karamzin
’s own attitude to the Revolution, but the article as a whole echoes many of
Karamzin
’s ideas on both patriotism and literary works: Klopstock, like all true
philanthropists and all people of unusual intelligence, who are not egoists but
friends of the general good, was a friend of the French Revolution, when it
seemed a beneficial change in human destiny in France. Together with others he
hoped that a strong and enlightened nation could be its own wise lawgiver: at
that time much appeared captivating, especially from afar. Above all, his
humane heart was enraptured by the famous decree of the National Assembly that
France would forever reject wars of aggression
– a decree made in the dawn of this great event but soon mocked and forgotten by
the new rulers of France. But this passionate love for the new freedom of the
French gradually died as a result of subsequent events and finally disappeared
completely during the terrors of the Convention[110].
Karamzin’s desire to exorcise the French influence is apparent from the very first number
of the Messenger. In addition to a translation entitled A History of the French
Revolution, Selected from Latin Authors (Istoriya frantsuzskoy revolyutsii,
izbrannaya iz latinskikh pisateley), in which the horrors and excesses of each
stage of the Revolution were illustrated by quotations from Tacitus, Sallust
and others[111], the piece Alcibiades to Pericles (Al
’tsibiad k Periklu) was full of obvious allusions to the pseudo-wisdom of the
revolutionary leaders[112]. A third article Ladies
’ Wigs (Zhenskiye pariki) linked the fashion for wigs with the “unfortunate victims” of the Revolution; Karamzin in an original essay On the Light Dress of
Fashionable Beauties (O lyogkoy odezhde modnykh krasavits XIX veka), published
three months later in April 1802, attacked Russian women for imitating the
shameless French women,
“who danced contredanses on the graves of their parents, husbands and lovers!”[113]
Karamzin sighed for the civilization of pre-revolutionary days; he was anxious
to record all that suggested the return of gentle morals and amiability.
Translated articles such as On Habit (O privychke) and On Politeness and Bon
Ton (Ob uchtivosti i khoroshem tone)[114], together with remarks about the
“bad taste of the nouveaux riches” and the wish to see “social subtleties” reintroduced[115], recall Karamzin’s aphorism from 1793 that “politeness, affability, is the flower of society”[116] and stress his constant desire to encourage such qualities among the
Russian gentry.
VII.
Articles about French personalities and life in Paris, as well as more general
works from French sources, fill a considerable part of the
“Literature and Miscellany” section of the Messenger. Not unexpectedly, the political fortunes of France
occupy a prominent place in the journal
’s “Politics” section. It is this section which truly justifies the journal’s title by informing the Russian public of the internal affairs of European
countries.
It was not, however, merely a process of translating interesting articles from
the foreign press; Karamzin was involved in European events but was equally
intent on using foreign material to comment on Russia
’s internal problems. To this aim Karamzin often re-edited or freely translated
foreign originals. So that external authority seemingly supported opinions he
had expressed elsewhere or felt unable to voice openly. This technique has been
convincingly demonstrated by Yury Lotman with reference to translated articles
on widely differing topics[117], but Lotman
’s article apart, little attention has been paid to Karamzin’a political translations and especially his original political surveys.
Karamzin began his political commentaries with a detailed survey of a decade of
upheaval in Europe, in which he stressed the desire of all countries for
prolonged peace and stable government. His attention was directed above all to
France, and particularly to Napoleon. It is Napoleon who dominated the
Messenger both as a personality and as the key to European peace. In this
opening essay Karamzin characterized his as a
“new Caesar, a new Clovis”[118] and observed that:
“the dangerous and foolish Jacobin principles, which brought the rest of Europe
to arms against the Republic, have disappeared in their own homeland, and
France, despite the name and a few republican forms of government, is now in
fact nothing other than a true monarchy
”[119].
It was, among other things, the realisation of Napoleon’s autocratic designs that led to a change in Paul’s attitude to France; Alexander, although carefully wooed by the English
government, was also well disposed towards Napoleon. Karamzin was therefore
reflecting the official line, and indeed Karamzin
’s attitudes to Napoleon reflect the numerous changes in Russian opinion towards
him in the years 1800
–12. Nevertheless, Napoleon’s restitution of the monarchy in all but name seemed to support Karamzin’s thesis of the one, and one only, historically justified form of government for
a country. Every issue of the Messenger contained references to Napoleon and
during the two years of Karamzin
’s editorship over thirty articles dealt directly with him and his actions.
Napoleon met Karamzin
’s demands on a Great Man, such as he had set out in his Historical Panegyric to
Catherine II:
“They decide the fate of mankind, determine its path; with inexplicable force
they draw millions of people to some aim designed by Providence; they create
and destroy kingdoms; they form epochs, of which all others are but the
consequence; in a sense, they form a chain in the immensity of centuries,
stretching their hands one to another, and their life is the history of peoples
”[120].
Napoleon possessed what Montaigne had called “un peu de folie”[121], without which nothing great was achieved in life, for “fundamental rationalism was never a merit in heroes of ambition”[122]. Although Karamzin saw Napoleon as a great general and leader of men, he
also detected certain human weaknesses in him which denied him the accolade of
great and virtuous:
“By killing the monster of the Revolution, he had earned the eternal gratitude of
France and even of Europe. In this respect we shall always thank him willingly
as a great doctor, who has cured heads of a dangerous giddiness. We shall
regret that he has not the legislative wisdom of Solon and the pure virtue of
Licurgus, who having formed Sparta, banished himself forever from his homeland!
That is an heroic action before which all the Lodis and Marengos of the world
disappear! After two thousand seven hundred years it still fires the mind and a
good youth reading the life of Licurgus weeps in rapture.
… Evidently it is far easier to be a skilful general and a cunning politician
than to be a great, that is to say, heroically virtuous man
”[123].
Despite the blemishes, Karamzin was ready to acclaim Napoleon, especially when
he re-established the authority of the church or helped the advancement of
enlightenment[124].
Karamzin followed closely French legislative decrees as well as France’s sponsoring of the constitution mania which affected in particular Switzerland
and Italy. In 1802 he expressed the wish that independence be restored to the
Swiss for
“republican freedom and independence belong to Switzerland as much as her granite
and snow-covered mountains: man does not destroy the works of nature
”[125]. Therefore, when the Landammann Alois Reding organized a secessionist
movement among the small Swiss cantons, Karamzin was enraged by this rejection
of history:
“It is a pity that such cruel and ambitious men influence the fate of that good
but simple people, who lived for so many centuries in happy union with the
large cantons, and who now, following the promptings of one malicious egoist,
demand partition
”[126].
The strife that followed in Switzerland caused him to reiterate his view that
without national virtue a Republic was doomed:
“That is why a monarchy is far more happy and reliable; it does not put excessive
demands on its citizens and can raise itself from a degree of morality at which
republics would fall
”[127].
Karamzin’s hostility towards Reding continued from issue to issue[128], but in March 1803
he translated a German article, in which Reding was praised as a selfless and
dedicated patriot[129]. This is essentially an illustration of Karamzin
’s desire to present an objective picture of European events, although his own
point of view was clearly stated in his
“News and Comments” (Izvestiya I zamechaniya) column. Karamzin also made use of German material for
“external” criticism of both France and Germany. Certain German journalists were strongly
pro-English and delighted in revealing the
“hypocrisies” of French policy[130]; Karamzin himself found satisfaction in playing off the
French press against its English counterpart, pointing out their readiness to
abuse and libel their opponents[131].
Karamzin’s interest in English affairs is the counterbalance to his absorption with
Napoleon; he himself made the revealing opposition that
“in the one we are curious to know about national affairs and in the other, the
actions of Consul Bonaparte
”[132]. His interest was primarily in English patriotism, in social institutions
rather than political forms[133]. He tended to point out that the much vaunted
English political system, especially Parliament and democratic elections, were
not so ideal or worthy of imitation. In an amusing account of an English
election Karamzin quoted Rousseau
’s remark that this was the only time Englishmen enjoyed true freedom, but warned
that
“these elections may be called merely a ceremony: the ministers control them
unseen, in agreement with the best people in each district
”[134].
Karamzin’s political commentary in the Messenger coincided with a brief period of peace
in Europe. The first number announced the imminent meeting at Amiens, but the
last issues were filled with apprehension lest hostilities resumed. As Napoleon
prepared to invade England, Karamzin was led to wonder whether victory for
France or England would be the better outcome for Europe; admiration for
Napoleon conflicted with his love of England:
“England abuses its dominance at sea, but who would wish the French to conquer
this most fortunate country in the world, where wise laws reign and the
citizens prosper
”[135].
Yet it is important to note that the prospects of a new European conflict did
not plunge Karamzin into despair and anguish
– as the events of the Terror and the Revolutionary Wars had done. The reason
behind his comparative equanimity was his patriotic faith in Russia and his new
independence of Europe. His confidence was founded not only on Russia
’s internal strength and identity, given to it by the accession of Alexander, but
also on its European mission and influence:
It can despise the usual tricks of diplomacy and, elected by Fate, can, it
seems, be a true intermediary between nations[136].
He proudly recorded that Russia’s intervention, into German affairs made it “an object of universal respect, universal trust”, that the Corfu islanders had welcomed Russian help and that even England
acknowledged Russia
’s might[137].
VIII.
The Messenger of Europe offered the Russian public a rich variety of reading
matter, but it was a journal dominated by the personality and interests of one
man, given unity both by his style and by the persistence of certain themes and
ideas. Compared with the Moscow Journal, the Messenger is pre-eminently a
political rather than a literary journal; Karamzin
’s desire for cultural enlightenment is linked with his propaganda for a
particular social and political system, within which his ideals could be
realized. The journal was the messenger of European affairs to the degree that
European experience could demonstrate, negatively or positively, a course for
Russian development; it is essentially the testament of a man who had learnt
and taken much from Western culture but who now felt the tide to be turning and
wished to encourage Russians to an awareness of their greatness and potential.
Karamzin had himself lived happily under the influence of Western literature and
thought since his schooldays and had freely acknowledged in his story Liodor
(1792) that Russians were still apprentices of the West in all things, even in
literature[138]. Now he felt assured of his standing as a writer in Russia and
abroad; he was the one contemporary Russian author widely known in the West and
in the period 1797
–1803 translations of the Letters, stories and articles appeared in Danish,
English, French, German, Greek and Polish[139]. Karamzin drew attention to
English, French and German versions of his work in the pages of the
Messenger[140], and it was from the Messenger that Johannes-Gottfried Richter,
already the translator of the Letters translated articles and stories for
publication in his Russische Miszellen (1803
–4)[141].
The Messenger of Europe occupies a distinguished place in the history of Russian
journalism as the first of the tolstyye zhurnaly and its importance was
immediately recognized by Karamzin
’s contemporaries. It was initially published in 600 copies, but was so
successful that the first number was republished and the monthly printing
doubled to 1200 copies. Of the tributes to Karamzin
’s achievement perhaps the most impressive, because it was unexpected, came from
an opponent, the Shishkovite and Decembrist Wilhelm Kyukhel
’beker, who read in exile the works Karamzin had written in the 19th Century.
Although he was fundamentally opposed to Karamzin
’s views[142], he felt obliged to acknowledge the merits of the Messenger:
“It must be admitted that for its time this journal is extremely good; and even
today it would not occupy the last place among our publications for the
attractiveness of its articles, and almost the first place for its language
”[143].
A month later, in June 1832, he admitted:
“They have brought me two volumes of Karamzin’s Messenger and two of his successors’. What a difference! One must be just to Karamzin that as a journalist he was a
master of his craft
”[144].
* FORUM FOR MODERN LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. V.№ 1. January 1969
5. In the second volume of his literary almanac Aglaya (1795) Karamzin published
an exchange of letters between Melodor and Philalet, illustrating the
philosophical crisis he underwent as a result of the Reign of Terror in France.
Melodor represented Karamzin the disillusioned idealist and Philalet the
worldly-wise guarded optimist. The debate was continued in the Dialogue on
Happiness (Razgovor o shchastii, 1797).
6. Sochineniya Karamzina, 3 vols., St Petersburg, 1848, I, p.210. (Note:
Whenever possible, subsequent references are made to this edition, which
includes Karamzin
’s major articles from the Messenger of Europe: Karamzin, followed by volume and
page.)
11. An analysis of Karamzin’s prose fiction in the journal lies outside the scope of the present article.
Its importance, however, has been recognized in a number of recent studies,
e.g. V.I. Fyodorov,
“Istoricheskaya povest N.M. Karamzina “Marfa Posadnitsa’» (Uchonyye zapiski Moskovskogo gorodskogo ped. instituta, LXII, № 6, Moscow,
1957, pp. 109-20); Yu.M. Lotman,
«Puti razvitiya russkoy prozy 1800–1810-kh godov» (Uchonyye zapiski Tartuskogo gos. universiteta, vypusk 104, Tartu, 1961, pp. 3–57); Istoriya russkogo romana, I, Moscow-Leningrad, 1962, pp. 71–83; F.Z. Kanunova, “K evolyutsii sentimentalizma N.M. Karamzina (“Marfa Posadnitsa”)” (Uchonyye zapiski Tomskogo gos. universiteta, № 50, 1965, pp. 3–13); F.Z. Kanunova, “Evolyutsiya sentimentalizma Karamzina (“Moya ispoved”)” (Rol’ i znacheniye literatury XVIII veka v istorii russkoy kul’tury. XVIII vek, sbornik 7, Moscow-Leningrad, 1966, pp. 286–290).
13. Ibid., VI, December, № 23, pp. 228–9. (Karamzin’s new views on criticism were embraced by Zhukovsky, who began editing the
Messenger in 1808:
“Criticism and luxury are the daughters of wealth; but we are not yet Croesuses
in literature!
”: ibid., 1808, January, № 1, p. 9.)
15. Ya.L. Barskov, Perepiska moskovskikh masonov XVIII-go veka, 1780–1792, Petrograd, 1915, p. 90; Zritel’, II St Petersburg, 1792, June, pp. 158-9.
17. G.P. Makogonenko, “Literaturnaya positsiya Karamzina v XIX veke” (Russkaya literatura, Leningrad, 1962, № 1, p. 90).
19. Ibid., III, 1802, May, № 10, pp. 103-19; VII, 1803, January, № 2, pp. 136–40; III, 1802, June, № 11, pp. 242–4.
21. Ibid., X, 1803, July, № 13, pp. 57-8. (Cf. A. G. Cross, “N.M. Karamzin and Barthelemy’s Voyage du jeune Anacharsis” in Modern Language Review, LXI, 1966, July, № 3, pp. 467–72.)
24. Ibid., II, 1802, April, № 7, pp. 232–236. (Cf. Karamzin’s remarks to Dmitriyev on Klushin’s Laughter and Grief (Smekh i gore) in 1793: Pis’ma N.M. Karamzina k I. I. Dmitriyevu, St.Petersburg, 1866, pp. 36-7.)
25. The response was so great that Dmitriyev wrote ‘An Epitaph on Epitaphs’ (Epitafiya Epitafiyam, sochinyonnaya odnim iz avtorov epitafiy): Vestnik
Evropy, IX, 1803, May, № 9, p. 46. The standard may be judged from the fact
that Karamzin was obliged to make two grammatical corrections in an epitaph of
two lines! : ibid., VIII, 1803, March, № 6, p. 140.
28. Ibid., pp. 615, 643-4, 647. (Cf. Karamzin’s conversation with Wieland in the Letters when all three topics were discussed:
ibid., II, p. 149.)
29. Vestnik Evropy, V, 1802, October, № 20, p. 285. (In his notes on Kantemir in
the
“Pantheon” Karamzin had divided the 18th Century into four periods.)
37. Ibid., p. 529. The idea of “writing as one speaks” was taken up by adherents of Karamzin, such as Batyushkov, but had been
expressed as early as 1778 by Fyodor Karin, a follower of Sumarokov: V.I.
Saitov,
“Fyodor Grigor’yevich Karin. Odin iz maloizvestnykh pisateley vtoroy poloviny XVIII veka”(Fyodor Grigor’yevich Karin. One of less known writers of the second half of 18th Century)
(Bibliograf, St. Petersburg, 1893, № 1, p. 16).
48. Vestnik Evropy, VI, 1802, November, № 22, p. 133 (A detailed analysis of
Karamzin
’s changing attitude to folk literature is given by N.N. Trubitsyn, O narodnoy
poezii v obshchestvennom i literaturnom obikhode pervoy treti XIX veka,
St.Petersburg, 1912, pp. 328
–32.)
51. Ibid., p. 470. “I wanted to know if they love each other?” – “Of course we do love! Husband and wife are more than brother and sister”. “Are you afraid of Death?” – “Why be afraid? We, thank God, have lived. Death is no Misfortune”. “Will you not pity the old woman?” – “Why pity?! Someone has to die first”. – “What if she outlives you?” – “And so what? There are kind people in the world; they will give her a place”.
57. Ibid., VIII, 1803, March, № 5, pp. 39-42; April, № 7, pp.227-9; № 8, pp.
298-301; IX, May, № 10, pp. 124
–6; June, № 11, p. 235; № 12, pp. 291–4; XII, November, Nos. 23–4, pp.268–75.
58. ‘On the Moscow Earthquake of 1802’ (O moskovskom zemletryasenii 1802 goda): Karamzin, III, pp. 581–4.
59. “A Journey around Moscow” (Puteshestviye vokrug Moskvy): Karamzin, I, pp. 448–57; “Historical Reminiscences and Observations on the Way to the Holy Trinity
Monastery
” (Istoricheskiye vospominaniya i zamechaniya na puti k Troitse): ibid., pp. 458–501.
61. “On the Moscow Revolt in the Reign of Aleksey Mikhaylovich” (O moskovskom myatezhe v tsarstvovaniye Alekseya Mikhaylovicha): ibid.m pp. 398–418.
67. Karamzin had himself in mind at the end of his essay on Martha: “a gallery of famous women could be a highly attractive work if an author of
talent and taste would present these characters with the lively colours of love
for the fair sex and the homeland. Is it necessary to say who should be
entrusted with such a work in our time?
”: ibid., p. 387.
71. Karamzin, III, p. 607. (Cf. Karamzin’s letter to Alexander Turgenev on the same subject in September 1816: ibid., p.
740.)
74. “On the New Schools for the Nobility, Established in Russia” (O novykh blagorodnykh uchilishchakh, zavodimykh v Rossii): Vestnik Evropy, II,
1802, April, № 8, pp. 358
–66; “On the New Organization of National Enlightenment in Russia” (O novom obrazovanii narodnogo prosveshcheniya v Rossii): Karamzin, III, pp.
348
–359; “On a Reliable Method of Acquiring Sufficient Teachers in Russia” (O vernom sposobe imet’ v Rossii dovol’no uchiteley): Karamzin, III, pp. 340–347; “On the Public Teaching of the Sciences at Moscow University” (O publichnom prepodavanii nauk v Moskovskom universitete): ibid., III, pp. 611–7.
79. Vestnik Evropy, IX, 1803, June, № 11, pp. 197–9. (Karamzin later printed part of Glinka’s first work, “The Temple of Svetovid” (Khram Svetovida), a laboured investigation into the gods of Slavic mythology:
ibid., X, August, № 15, pp.173
–86.)
87. In his Historical Panegyric to Catherine II Karamzin revealed clearly the
distinction he made between philosophical theorizing and political expediency:
“… even good in a philosophical sense may be harmful in politics, as soon as it is
out of step with the civil state of a nation. A sad truth, but demonstrated by
experience!
”: ibid., I, p. 370.
89. Cf. Pushkin’s account of a conversation he had with Karamzin on this subject and Karamzin’s violent rejection of the accusation: A.S. Pushkin, Polnoye sobraniye
sochineniy, XII, 1949, p. 306.
90. In a later essay Karamzin said «a full methodical collection of civil laws, clearly and wisely written» was Russia’s most pressing need: Karamzin, III, p. 592.
93. “Odin s ulybkoyu umil’noy / Zhelal dela tvoi vospet’ / I slov pustya potok obil’nyy / Mnil slavu Tomasa imet’. / K romanam, k pastoral’nu slogu / Imeya strast’ – skroil eklogu / I slovo milaya vkleil / Tvoi i lavry i trofei / I khramy vse, I
mavzoley / Slezoyu nezhnoy okropil.
”: Russkaya starina, XCII, St.Petersburg, 1897, November, p. 306.
95. Karamzin, I, p. 289. (Karamzin’s antipathy towards Poland also informs his Opinion of a Russian Citizen.)
97. He stressed the need for censorship because reason might stray from truth;
he had been quick to forget the excesses of censors under Catherine and Paul.
101. Nevertheless, true to the theories of Montesquieu and Rousseau on the
suit-ability of a republic for a small country, Karamzin defended Switzerland
’s system: ibid., I, pp. 313, 320.
105. Ibid., pp. 402–3. (Cf. Karamzin’s translation of an article giving a similar view of Louis XVI)
106. Ibid., p. 203. (Cf. his epigraph to the Memoir on Ancient and Modern
Russia:
“There is no flattery on my tongue”.)
107. This epigram on Karamzin’s History is not included in the Academy edition of Pushkin’s work, but Pushkin’s authorship of it is well argued by B. V. Tomashevsky, Pushkin. Issledovaniya I
materially, I, Moscow-Leningrad, 1956, pp. 208
–15.
117. Yu. M. Lotman, “Evolyutsiya mirovozzreniya Karamzina (1789–1803)”, Uchonyye zapiski Tartuskogo gos. universiteta, vypusk 51, Tartu, 1957, pp. 150–5.
119. Ibid., p. 530. (Karamzin also translated a speech by Baron Nekker favouring
monarchy over a republic: Vestnik Evropy, V, 1802, October, № 20, pp. 301
–19.)
120. Ibid., I, pp. 276–7. (Cf. “Not the French people but Providence placed this astonishing man at such a
degree of greatness
”: Vestnik Evropy, III, 1802, June, № 11, p. 270.)
122. Karamzin was here referring to Napoleon’s plans to invade England: Vestnik Evropy, X, 1803, August, № 15, p. 230.
130. Particularly Archenholz, whom Karamzin called in the Letters “this well-known anglomaniac”: Karamzin, II, p. 691.
131. Vestnik Evropy, II, 1802, April, № 8, p. 386; IV, August, № 15, p. 247; VI,
November, № 22, p. 165.
133. See A. G. Cross, “Karamzin and England” (Slavonic and East European Review, XLIII, 1964, № 100, December, pp. 101–6).
139. S. Ponomaryov, Materialy dlya bibliografii literatury o N.M. Karamzine, St
Petersburg, 1883, pp. 46
–51.
140. Vestnik Evropy, VII, 1803, February, № 3, p. 229; X, August, № 15, pp. 195–8; XI, October, № 20, p. 291; XII, November, Nos. 21–2, p. 50.
141. V.I. Kuleshov, “Iz istorii russko-nemetskikh literatur-nykh svyazey” (Vestnik Evropy N.M. Karamzina i Russische Miszellen I.G. Rikh-tera)” (Slavyanskaya filologiya, V, Moscow, 1963, pp. 436–51).