Suchergebnisse

The intellectual debate which was taking place in Russia during the reign of Alexander I included a polemic which, although little known today, involved the most important Russian and Polish historians of the time, Karamzin and Lelewel, as well as other historians, writers, and journalists. Among the latter, the transplanted Pole, Tadeusz Bulharyn (Faddei V. Bulgarin), played a crucial part. The polemic developed into a controversy touching on the leading issues of the day, and it produced a sensation commanding the interest of the highest official and intellectual circles, including, reportedly, Alexander I himself. The polemic was largely provoked by the political views of Karamzin.According to Marc Raeff, the political ideas of Nikolai M. Karamzin (1766-1826) are a subject by themselves—still needs investigation. A writer of immensely popular sentimental stories, an innovator in the area of the Russian language, and a member of the progressive literary circle "Arzamas," Karamzin nevertheless had become the spokesman of the old-fashioned, conservative, serf-owning nobility. It seems that Karamzin's first conservative leanings were a reaction to the later, more radical, phase of the French Revolution. They were voiced, subsequently, in his historical novels. Later, the Napoleonic Wars on the one hand and Alexander's liberal aspirations on the other further strengthened Karamzin's conservative feelings, which were finally provoked, under the influence of the Grand Duchess Catherine, Alexander's ambitious sister, by current projects for the reorganization of Russia.

The paper analyses the evolution of N. M. Karamzin's ideas from the position of moderate westernism and liberalism to organic conservatism. Special attention is given to Karamzin's understanding of the philosophy of history, where the main emphasis was made on the splendor of monarchical Russia. N. M.Karamzin was critical about the early liberal reforms of Alexander I and proposed the introduction of a "sound" state system, based on national values and exercising caution to the new developments. The paper also analyses Karamzin's conceptualization of the dynamics of the historical process. It is noted that he assign special importance to autocracy in the harmonious development of Russia, it is precisely the monarch who needs to create conditions for increasing the efficiency of the state apparatus. The monarch's policy must, by the inevitability of punishment, compel officials (of high and lower ranks) to comply with the laws. A significant role in society should also belong to the Church, which, according to N. Karamzin, needs to be given more attention. Overall, the scholar sees the secret to the prosperity of Russia In the synergy of strong state leadership, government apparatus, and priests. The pedagogical views of Karamzin are another focus of the present work, as well as his understanding of national education and the interplay of the universal and nationally specific features in it. Opposing isolationism, the scholar, nevertheless, advanced the idea that Russia needs to have its own way in development by means of improving the educational system, introducing the continuity of its stages, and enhancing the quality of preparing teachers. The paper arrives at a conclusion about the relevance of N. Karamzin's ideas for modern Russian society.

Although his poetry enjoyed considerable contemporary popularity, Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin belonged to the generation of poets characterized by Ivan Rozanov as "interesting precisely for its attempts and strivings: we find almost no attainments here." Despite the curious fact that Karamzin's verse has been reprinted in the present century more frequently than his prose, its interest for the modern reader is of an essentially historical nature. Professor Iurii M. Lotman, editor of the recent authoritative and complete collection of Karamzin's poetry, has stressed in his excellent introduction that "it is impossible to understand Karamzin the prose writer and ignore Karamzin the poet," but his ultimate conclusion that "his poetic gift, perhaps, manifested itself with even greater force in his prose" reestablishes the primacy of the prose. Karamzin in his poetry was a stikhotvorets rather than a poet—a conscious craftsman who introduced new themes, brought a fresh approach to traditional subjects and genres, and experimented with language, form, and meter.

The purpose of this study is to identify the peculiarities of Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin's perception of Nikolay Karamzin's creative work. In the first stories by Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, traces of his aesthetic polemic with Nikolay Karamzin are already visible, expressed in a rethinking of fundamental ideas about the role of nature and upbringing, about the importance of the environment and society in the formation of human character. In the first story "Contradictionsˮ, Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin rethought the ideas of neo-stoicism regarding character formation, achievement of happiness and bliss, assimilated and transmitted by Nikolay Karamzin in the psychological essay "Sensitive and Coldˮ. Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin concluded that the main misconception of the Stoics and their followers was a simplified idea of the nature and character of a person, and the Russian author called for the need to move from speculative abstract upbringing and sentimentalist ideas about humanity to an attentive and detailed analysis of the actual life surrounding each individual and laying the foundations of its personality.