No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
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.
1. Both versions of the name are used in reference works. Although the Russian version predominates, literary historians known for accuracy use the Polish version. Buiharyn, even after he had settled in Russia permanently, used both versions. Because this article includes only the beginning of Bulharyn’s literary career in Russia, when his ties with Poland were still strong, the Polish version of the name is used throughout.
2. Serejski, Marian Henryk, Joachim Lelewel : Z dziejów postępowej myśli historycznej w Polsce (Warsaw, 1953), p. 26.Google Scholar
3. Mościcki, Henryk, Pod berlem carów (Warsaw, 1924), p. 97.Google Scholar
4. Raeff, Marc, Michael Speransky, Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772-1839 (The Hague, 1957), p. 176.Google Scholar
5. Walicki, Andrzej, W kręgu konserwatywnej utopii : Struktura i prsemiany rosyjskiego siozvianofilstwa (Warsaw, 1964), p. 30.Google Scholar
6. Ibid., pp. 30-31.
7. Karamzin, N. M., A Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia : The Russian Text, ed. Pipes, Richard (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar
8. Walicki, W kręgu, p. 32.
9. Raeff, Michael Speransky, p. 176.
10. Walicki, W kręgu, pp. 31, 37.
11. Raeff, Marc, Origins of the Russian Intelligentsia (New York, 1966), pp. 157 ff.Google Scholar
12. Ibid., p. 236.
13. Walicki, W kręgu, p. 48.
14. Raeff, Michael Speransky, p. 239.
15. Mościcki, Pod berlem carów, p. 94.
16. Ibid. Praga, a suburb of Warsaw, was the scene of a bloody battle preceding the occupation of Warsaw by the Russian army under Suvorov. The Third (and final) Partition of Poland followed.
17. Chodakowski, Zorian Dolęga, “Razyskaniia kosatelnoi russkoi istorii,” Vestnik Evropy, 1819, no. 7, pp. 277-302.Google Scholar
18. Assorodobraj, Nina, “Komentarze,” in Joachim Lelewel, Dziela, 8 vols. (Warsaw, 1957-64), vol. 2, pt. 2 : Pisma metodologicne, p. 692.Google Scholar
19. Sobolevsky, A. I., Perevodnaia literatura Moskovskoi Rusi XIV-XVH vv. : Bibliograficheskie materialy (St. Petersburg, 1903), pp. 53, 79, 81.Google Scholar
20. Handelsman, Marceli, Historyka : Zasady metodologii i poznania historycznego (Warsaw, 1928), p. 81.Google Scholar
21. Assorodobraj, “Komentarze,” p. 692.
22. Serejski, Joachim Lelewel, p. 18.
23. Więckowska, Helena, “Wstęp,” in Joachim Lelewel, Wybór dziel historycznych (Wroclaw, 1949), p. xiv Google Scholar
24. Handelsman, Historyka, p. 87.
25. Ibid., p. 89.
26. Serejski, Joachim Lelewel, p. 14.
27. Ibid., p. 21.
28. M. H. Serejski, “Wsętp,” in Lelewel, Dziela, vol. 3 : Wyklady kursowe s historii powszechnej w Uniwersytecie Wileńskim, 1822-1824, p. 12.
29. Assorodobraj, “Komentarze,” pp. 692-94.
30. Bulgarin, F. V., Vospominaniia (St. Petersburg, 1846-49), 1 : 3.Google Scholar
31. Ibid., p. 313.
32. It was this fact which was always held against Bułharyn in Russia, and which was the source of many controversies surrounding him later in that country. It is not the purpose of this paper to investigate those controversies.
33. Grech, Nikolai, Zapiski o moei zhizni (St. Petersburg, 1886), p. 444.Google Scholar
34. Pedrotti, Louis, Józcj-Julian Sckowski : The Genesis of a Literary Alien (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965), p. 9.Google Scholar
35. Bulgarin, Vospominaniia, 3 : 70.
36. Bieliński, Józef, Uniwersytet Wilenski, 1579-1831 (Cracow, 1899-1900), 2 : 440.Google Scholar
37. Walicki, W kr#x0119;gu, p. 205.
38. Serejski, M. H., ed., “Wstęp,” in Lelewel, Joachim, Wyb#x00F3;r pism politycznych (Warsaw, 1954), p. vi.Google Scholar
39. Bazanov, V. G., Uchenaia respublika (Moscow and Leningrad, 1964), p. 444.Google Scholar
40. Karamzin, N. M., “Predislovie,” Istoriia gostudarstva rossiiskago, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1842-45), vol. 1 (bks. 1-4), pp. ix ff.Google Scholar
41. A. Bestuzhev, “Vzgliad na russkuiu slovesnost‧ v techenie 1823 goda,” Poliarnaia zvezda, 1824, p. 270.
42. Bazanov, Uchenaia respublika, p. 39S.
43. Ibid., p. 447.
44. Bulgarin, , “Raznyia izvestiia,” Severnyi arkhiv, 1822, no. 4, pp. 373–74.Google Scholar
45. Severnyi arkhiv, 1822, no. 19, p. 81.
46. Lelewel, Joachim, “Razsmotrenie Istorii gosndarstva rossiiskago g. Karamzina,” Severnyi arkhiv, 1822, no. 23, pp. 402–34.Google Scholar
47. Lelewel, Dziela, 3 : 80-81.
48. Ibid., 2, pt. 2 : 899.
49. Lelewel, “Razsmotrenie Istorii,” pp. 411-12.
50. Ibid, , pp. 409, 410, 413 ff.
51. Karamzin, “Predislovie,” pp. ix ff.
52. Lelewel, “Razsmotrenie Istorii,” p. 434.
53. F. V. Bulgarin, “K chitateliam, ot Izdatelia Severnago arkhiva,” Severnyi arkhiv, 1822, no. 23, pp. 402-3.
54. Joachim Lelewel, “Vvedenie : Zamechanie na predislovie iz Istorii : Tsel' kritiki na vse sochinenie,” Severnyi arkhiv, 1822; no. 23, pp. 408-34.
55. Lelewel, Dzieia, vol. 1 : Materialy autobiografiiczne, p. 143.
56. Pis'ma N. M. Karamzina k 1.1. Dmitrievu (St. Petersburg, 1886), pp. 342–43.
57. Pogodin, Mikhail P., “Nechto protiv oproverzheniia g. Lelewela,” Vestnik Evropy, 1824, no. 5, pp. 19–29.Google Scholar
58. “Vzgliad na Istoriiu rossiiskago gosudarstva g. Karamzina,” Severnyi arkhiv, 1822, no. 24, pp. 486-504.
59. Severnyi arkhiv, 1823, no. 1, pp. 91-100.
60. Masanov, I. F., Slovar psevdonimov russkikh pisatelei, uchenykh i obshchestvennykh deiatelei, 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1956-60), 4 : 86.Google Scholar
61. Lisovsky, N. M., Bibliografia russkoi periodicheskoi pechati, 1703-1900 gg. (Petrograd, 1915), p. 37.Google Scholar
62. Piksanov, N., “Iz arkhiva F. V. Bulgarina” (Pis'ma M. T. Kachenovskago k F. V. Bulgarinu, 1823-1824), Russkaia starina, 116 (1903) : 603.Google Scholar
63. Letter of January 2, 1823. Ibid., p. 602.
64. “Literaturno-esteticheskie pozitsii ‘Poliarnoi zvezdy, ’” in Bazanov, V. G., ed., Poliarnaia zvezda izdannaia A. Bestuzhevym i K. Ryleevym (Moscow and Leningrad, 1960), pp. 821, 864-65.Google Scholar
65. Bulgarin, Vospominaniia, p. x.
66. Severnyi arkhiv, 1823, no. 19, pp. 52-80.
67. Quoted in Lelewel, Dziela, 2, pt. 2 : 694-95, and in Bazanov, ed., Poliarnaia zvezda, p. 951.
68. Lelewel, , “Obshchaia kritika tselago sochineniia : Sravnenie Karamzina s pervym Pol'skim Istorikom Narushevichem,” Severnyi arkhiv, 1823, no. 19, pp. 52–80; no. 20, pp. 147-60; no. 22, pp. 287-97.Google Scholar
69. Assorodobraj, “Komentarze,” p. 696. (A relatively minor incident in Wilno, in connection with the anniversary of the May Third Constitution, provoked a full-scale investigation, during which the existence of certain student societies was discovered. The discovery was blown out of proportion and served as an excuse for a vicious anti-Polish campaign, conducted by Senator Novosiltsev. Many students and ex-students, including Adam Mickiewicz, were arrested and, after a long interrogation, deported to Russia in 1824 “for spreading nonsensical Polish nationalism.” Both Lelewel and Bulharyn were involved in the investigation.)
70. Skwarczyński, Zdzislaw, Kazimiers Kontrym : Tomvarzyswo Szubrawców : Da studia (Wroclaw, 1961), p. 196.Google Scholar
71. Bułharyn to Lelewel, Oct. 22, 1822. Quoted in Assorodobraj, “Komentarze,” p. 696.
72. Buł haryn to Lelewel, Apr. 11, 1823. Ibid.
73. Lelewel to Bułharyn, Nov. 25, 1823. Ibid.
74. Lelewel, “Porównanie Karamzina z Naruszewiczem,” in Dziela, 2, pt. 2 : 588-628.
75. Bestuzhev, “Vzgliad na russkuiu slovesnost',” p. 270.
76. Joachim Leiewel, “Razsmotrenie Istorii gosudarstva rossiiskago soch. Karamzina, g. Lelewelem,” Seveyi arkhiv, 1824, no. 1, pp. 42-57; no. 2, pp. 91-103; no. 3, pp. 165-72.
77. Severnyi arkhiv, 1824, no. 4, p. 236.
78. Assorodobraj, “Komentarze,” p. 696.
79. Lelewel, Dziela, 1 : 67; also “Nowosilcow w Wilnie,” Dziela, vol. 8 : Historia Polski nowożytnej, pp. 545-605.
80. Severnyi arkhiv, 1824, no. 15, pp. 132-43; no. 16, pp. 187-95.
81. Lelewel, , “Ob obrazovannosti Variagov i Slavian,” Severnyi arkhiv, 1824, no. 15, pp. 132 ff.Google Scholar
82. Severnyi arkhiv, 1824, no. 19, pp. 47-53.
83. Assorodobraj, “Komentarze,” p. 694.
84. N.D., “N. I. Grech, F. V. Bulgarin i A. Mitskevich : Materialy dlia ikh biografii, “ Russkaia starina, 116 (1903) : 334-37.