Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:32:41.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Beginnings of Romantic Nationalism in Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Edward C. Thaden
Edward C. Thaden*
Affiliation:
Russian and Eastern European History
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most noticeable features of the nineteenth century was that nationalism played a much more important role in the lives of Europeans than ever before. The underlying causes for the increased importance of nationalism are to be sought in the general economic, social, and cultural history of the time. In the present study the last of these factors will be discussed under the title of “Romantic Nationalism” as it applies to one country, Russia.

The words “romanticism” and “nationalism” tend to be vague and have been used in varying contexts. Here the expression “romantic nationalism” will have two connotations: i) a romantic-outlook with regard to life in general and specifically to nationalism as opposed to the rationalism and cosmopolitanism of the Enlighten-ment; 2) historicism as defined by Meinecke in his Entstehung des Historismus.

The romantic outlook is one which exalts intuition, passion, and spontaneity, and defends feeling and freedom in general against the demands of reason, society, and the standards of classical esthetic criticism.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1954 , pp. 500 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Meinecke, F., Die Entstehung des Historismus (Munich, 1946), p. 5.Google Scholar

2 Cf.Ergang, R., Herder and the Foundations of German Nationalism (New York, 1931), especially Chap. Ill, for remarks on Herder.Google Scholar

3 For example, the criticism of gallomania in the writings of Novikov and Fonvizin, Lomonosov's quarrel with the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state, and the ideas expressed in Ščerbatov's Decline of Morals in Russia.

4 Karamzin, N., “Zapiska Karamzina o drevnej i novoj Rossii,” Russkij arkhiv, 1870, columns 2253–2254.Google Scholar

5 Miljukov, P., Očerki po istorii russkoj kultury (Paris, 1930), III, 405-12;Google Scholar Riasanovsky, V. A., Obzor russkoj kultury (New York, 1947), Part II, Issue 1, pp. 36–40;Google Scholar Dubrovin, , “Naši mistiki-sektanty,” Russkaja starina, 1894, pp. 158-91.Google Scholar

6 Jacimirskij, A. I., “Nikolai Mikhailovič Karamzin,” in Istorija russkoj literatury XIX veka, edited by Ovsianiko-Kulikovskij, D. N. (Moscow, 1908), I, 131-35;Google Scholar Turner, C. E., Studies in Russian Literature (London, 1882), p. 103.Google Scholar

7 Jacimirskij, p. 131.

8 Sakulin, P. N., “Literaturnye tečenija epokhi” [1801-1825], Istorija russkoj literatury (Moscow, 1908), I, 79.Google Scholar Žukovskij was then fourteen years old.

9 Sakulin, “V. A. Žukovskij,” op. cit., I, 144.

10 Ibid.

11 Vlom, M., Zhukovskii als Uebersetzer (Ann Arbor, 1945-50), vierter Teil, pp. 163-67;Google Scholar Mirsky, D. S., A History of Russian Literature (London, 1949), pp. 74–76;Google Scholar Ehrhard, M., Joukovski et le préromantisme russe (Paris, 1938), troisième partie, “L'oeuvre de traduction.“Google Scholar

12 See Chapter III (“Istoriki XVIII stoletija“) in P. Miljukov's Glavnye tečenija russkoj istoričeskoj mysli (St. Petersburg, 1913).

13 Tikhomirov, and Dmitrev, , Istorija SSSR (Moscow, 1948), I, 285-86.Google Scholar

14 Baye, and Giradin, , Karamzine et J. J. Rousseau (Paris, 1912), p. 43;Google Scholar Pypin, A., Die geistigen Beivegungen in Russland in der ersten Haelfte des XIX Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1894), p. 283.Google Scholar

15 Karamzin, , Sočinenija (St. Petersburg, 1848), III, 80.Google Scholar

18 It is possible that Karamzin might have been inspired by Herder in this connection, for he had read and admired Herder, as we can see from one letter he wrote from Weimar in his Pis'ma russkogo putešestvennika.

17 Karamzin, , Sočinenija, III, 439, 441.Google Scholar

18 See Grot, I., Očerk dejatel'nosti i ličnosti Karamzina (St. Petersburg, 1867), p. 18;Google Scholar Baechtold, R., Karamzins Weg zur Qeschichte (Basel, 1946), pp. 43–48.Google Scholar

19 Grot, p. 27; Karamzin, , “Strannost',” Sočinenija, III, 607.Google Scholar

20 Grot, p. 27.

21 Karamzin, , “O novom obrazovanii narodnogo prosveščenija v Rossii,“ Sočinenija, VIII, 221-31.Google Scholar

22 Grot, p. 24.

23 Karamzin, , “O slučajakh i kharakterakh, kotorye mogut byt’ predmetom khudožestv,” Sočinenija, VII, 122.Google Scholar

24 Bol'šaja sovetskaja ènciklopedija (Moscow, 1937), article on Karamzin.Google Scholar

25 Maistre, Joseph de, Mémoires politiques (Paris, 1858), p. 347.Google Scholar

26 Orlov, V., Russkie prosvetiteli 1790-1800-x godov (Moscow, 1950), p. 247.Google Scholar

27 See ibid., p. 464; Koyre, A., La philosophic et le probleme nationale en Russie (Paris, 1929), p. 24;Google Scholar Turgenev, N., La Russie et les Russes (Paris, 1847), Vol. I, Note D.Google Scholar

28 Karamzin, “Zapiska o drevnej i novoj Rossii,” column 2272.

29 Ibid., column 2282.

30 Ibid., column 2291.

31 See Meinecke, Friedrich, Vom geschichtlichen Sinn der Geschichte (Stuttgart, 1951), Chap. II (“Rankes politisches Gespraech“), esp. pp. 32–33.Google Scholar

32 Ehrhard, p. 68.

33 Brueckner, , A Literary History of Russia (London and Leipzig, 1908), pp. 143-44.Google Scholar

34 Ehrhard, p. 128.

35 Sakulin, , “Literaturnye tečenija epokhi” [1801-1825], op. cit., pp. 102-03; Mirsky, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

36 Koyre, p. 21.

37 See, for example, Karamzin, , Istorija gosudarstva rossijskogo (St. Petersburg, 1892), V, 226-27.Google Scholar

38 Zenkovskij, V. V., Istorija russkoj filosofii (Paris, 1948), I, 140-52; Koyre, pp. 88–90, 137-40, and Chapter III;Google Scholar Sečkarev, V., Schelling! Einfluss in der russischen Literatur der 2oer und $oer Jahre des XIX Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1939).Google Scholar

39 Kuechelbecher, W., “O napravlenii našej poezii,” Mnmiozina, No. n, p. 116. Cited by Koyre, p. 149.Google Scholar

40 Sakulin, , Iz istorii russkogo idealizma. Knjaz’ Odoevskij. My'slitel'-pisatel' (Moscow, 1913), I, part 1, p. 104.Google Scholar

41 Koyre, pp. 150-52.

42 Miljukov, , Qlavnye tečenija russkoj istoriceskoj mysli (St. Petersburg, 1913), pp. 278-79.Google Scholar

43 Seckarev, pp. 3-4.

44 Barsukov, N. P., Žizr' i trudy M. P. Pogodina (St. Petersburg, 1888-1919), I, 279-80.Google Scholar

45 Quenet, C., Tchaadaev et les lettres philosophiques (Paris, 1931), p. 183.Google Scholar

46 Miljukov, pp. 282-88.

47 Sečkarev, for example, writes concerning the Aphorisms: “One constantly … feels the influence of Schelling, but the ideas of Schelling are either not understood or incorrectly applied.” Seckarev, p. 74.

48 See Barsukov, I, 29-30.

49 Miljukov, pp. 288-91.

50 Sečkarev, pp. 66-69.

51 Miliukov, p. 299.

62 Riasanovsky, V., Obzor russkoj kultury, Part II, Issue I, p. 304.Google Scholar

53 Sakulin, , Knjaz’ Odoevskij, I, Part II, 217-20; 267-69.Google Scholar

54 Odoevskij, , Russkie noči (St. Petersburg, 1913), pp. 350-55; Sakulin, pp. 271-72.Google Scholar

55 Odoevskij, p. 418.

56 Ibid., pp. 416-23 and 341-46; Sakulin, p. 271.