Obituaries to Nikolay Karamzin: The formation of the writer’s posthumous image in the literary process of the 1820s

One of the main elements in the formation of a posthumous literary reputation in the first half of the 19th century was an obituary to a writer. However, the effectiveness of its use always depended on the contemporary situation within the literature of the period when the need arose to perpetuate a writer’s name. The literary process, gradually becoming more complex during the first half of the 19th century, also problematized the poetics of the obituary statement. For example, the lack of consensus on reputation led to lengthy disputes and made it difficult to enter the national canon. This was precisely the nature of the discourse around the death of Nikolay Karamzin, one of the most significant authors of the turn of the 19th century. The material of the study was obituaries to Karamzin published in May-June 1826 in Moskovskiy Telegraf, Vestnik Evropy, Damskiy Zhurnal, and Severnaya Pchela. Each of them is analyzed to reveal the key intention and describe the features of poetics. The obituaries offered well-thought-out and varied models: a messianic biographical narrative by N.A. Polevoy, a personality essay by M.T. Kachenovsky, an intimate remark by P.I. Shalikov, finally, an analytical review by N.I. Grech. Differing in approaches, these texts fixed in memory a very close set of motifs: human dignity, nobility and attractiveness, a concentrated study of literature and history, transformation of language and literature, discovery of national history, recognition of merits by society and the court. All these motifs will continue to determine Karamzin’s memorial discourse. Nevertheless, the collective opinion turned out to be dissatisfied with the obituaries, and statements of contemporaries literally disavowed them, either assessing them directly negatively, or simply ignoring them. Thus, in the presence of the initial posthumous image of Karamzin created by obituaries and the formed general opinion about the significant place of the writer in the national literary pantheon, the final canonization did not occur. This shows that the memorial culture of the system of friendly communities in the 1820s in functional terms was not always effective, despite the fact that this system itself was on an obvious rise. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References