Foreign Reviews on the History of the Russian State in the Perception of Nikolay Karamzin

The perception of Karamzin's History of the Russian State by the European literary and scientific community continues to be a problem of current interest in modern Karamzin studies. The article gives an overview of the French and German reviews mentioned and reflected upon in the letters of Karamzin and his closest associates. Not responding to criticism, Karamzin nevertheless quite closely watched the appearing reviews on his History of the Russian State. Recognition by European reviewers of Karamzin's liberalism (which Russian radical readers refused to do, blaming him for monarchism) particularly moved him, for he considered internal freedom to be one of the main features in his character, in his work, and called himself “a Republican in his heart”. The reviews Karamzin noted primarily attracted him by the reviewer's ability to rise above the evil of the day and to look at the historical work from the perspective of the future, to anticipate the verdict of the descendants and to foresee the assessment that new generations of its readers will provide. The reviewers compared Karamzin's grandiose work to works of ancient and modern authors and blamed the latter if they did not correspond to the level of the scientific and moral height set in Karamzin's History. Moreover, open confessions of historians in their party sympathies raised a deserved distrust of their biased judgments and gave a legitimate reason to counterpose them with the impartiality of the Russian historiographer who wrote without prejudice, without self-interest, without hatred, without passion, except for hatred of crime and passion for virtue. The article makes a conclusion that the reviews of foreign historians and journalists contained, in addition to discussions of a number of specific issues, several of the most important points that were equally important for both the reviewers and the reviewed author. This, firstly, is an indisputable recognition that the situation of the country on the world arena which had changed at the beginning of the nineteenth century required to look closely at Russian history. Secondly, it is the question of what is more necessary for a historian's writing about his state: impartiality or patriotism. Thirdly, it is the ability of the reader of the History to embrace the great work with a glance from the future, to foresee its significance for the descendants, to understand the soul of the Russian historiographer and to feel his love for his motherland and humanity. The analysis of the foreign reviews in terms of their perception by the Russian historiographer and his closest associates not only reflects the public resonance caused by the History of the Russian State, but also helps to identify the principles of Karamzin's work, his author position and his understanding of the goals and tasks of a historical work.

Keywords

Authors

References