7
herald of europe • September 2004
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 compa-
triots, 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 rich-
er 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 possi-
bilities. Thus the comparative immaturity of the Russian language was acknowl-
edged 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 enlight-
enment 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].
8
herald of europe • September 2004
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 sub-
jects in the way a talented man will write”[37].
Karamzin’s concern with national needs and virtues in matters of language and lit-
erature did not necessarily bring him into conflict with the basic tenets of his ear-
lier cosmopolitanism. The Messenger reveals his tendency to point out the failings
and inadequacies of other literatures, particularly of contemporary English litera-
ture[38], but Karamzin was far from renouncing his love of great writers and
thinkers, essential to his understanding of enlightenment. His theoretical admira-
tion for the true cosmopolitan mind is upheld in a translation he made of Herder’s
Gesprach uber eine unsichtbar-sichtbare Gesellschaft (1793) (Razgovor o nevidi-
mo-vidimom obshchestve). The desired society, unlike Freemasonry, was one
“which is not secret, not hidden from the light, but working openly, not with cer-
emonies 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 con-
flict between Peter’s revolutionary methods and Russian traditions, for Russian
history provided a further boost to Russian national pride and self-awareness: