|
|
|
|
Map of Europe |
CIAO DATE: 03/02
Social Sciences
At the Sources of the "National Idea" in Russian Historiography
Tatyana Volodina
One of the authors of memoirs of the 18th century interested in history admitted that at the historical and philological department of Moscow University he had had occasion to study the past of "the Greeks, Romans, other peoples, their laws, religion, morals, internal institutions, intestine disagreements, discord, wars..., how and why these colossi were shaken and falling down"; he "admired Virgil, Horace, Tacitus"; while the study of Russian history, of Russian land was "so little, so superfluous that if we had been given a task to describe the battle of the Russian with the Tatars on the Kulikovo field I would have better agreed to describe Punic wars". 1 Student F. Lubyanovsky's confession was by no means coquetry or exaggeration but rather reflected the realities of life.
Historical education started making its first steps only in the 1750s. For the people of the 18th century the reforms of Peter the Great were a sort of a standard with which the whole further development was compared this way or the other. The coordinates of thinking themselves were changed in those times: metamorphosis required comprehension of the changes in historical terms. Russian people had to throw off the habitual norms of historical consciousness brought up by century-old religious and annalistic tradition, to master the ways of secular and rational thinking that quite often led to peculiar changes in historical consciousness.
In 1703 they waited for the czar to come in Moscow, a great welcome was under preparation. The professors of the Slav-Greek-Latin Academy erected triumphal gates and made a detailed description with the explanation of pictures and symbols. 2 Peter was compared to Hercules, and Alexey Mikhailovich-to the "new Russian Philip of Macedon". A question arises: were the Muscovites ready to perceive these difficult comparisons and symbols? Didn't those who still remembered pious and lucid Alexey Mikhailovich feel dizzy when they were offered to "recognize" Philip of Macedon in him?
In Peter the Great's times they did not know history as a discipline in schools with their utilitarianism at all. The czar-reformer was in a hurry, specialists were needed immediately, therefore the youth was first of all taught the professions of engineers and skippers. And it was not only the matter of pragmatism of the reforms because Peter understood the importance of history, not without reason he watched closely the translation of Samuel Pufendorf's works into Russian, the preparation of Geschichte des Schwedischen Kriegs.
There were difficulties in teaching history. The youths from the Slav-Greek-Latin Academy could get acquainted with Russian history with the help of Innokenty Giezel's Synopsis. However, this work did not fully satisfy the demand of Peter's times. Moreover, being the result of the historical thought of the 17th century, it could not connect historically Peter's Russia with the previous times; the czar thought that it was necessary to make a new text-book. 3 However, the problem came to a standstill.
In Peter's times numerous works devoted to "contemporaneity" were written: Considerations on the Causes of the Swedish War by P. Shafirov, The History of Emperor Peter the Great by F. Prokopovich, etc.; having been approved by the emperor, they were published in great copies and became a phenomenon of cultural and historical development. But the fate of the works devoted to the general history of Russia was not so brilliant. A. Mankiyev's and F. Polikarpov's works, for example, were not published at all. It is interesting that the czar himself ordered Polikarpov who headed the Moscow printers' house to write on Russian history. But Polikarpov did not play up. The head of the monastery department I. Musin-Pushkin told the author that the czar was not pleased with the history but still ordered to give him two hundred rubles for diligence.
The point was not in the personal inability of Polikarpov, in this case one can rather see the evidence of a cultural shock, inability of the people of Peter's times to comprehend themselves in the organic connection with the previous Russian history. The enthusiasm of transformations was based on the break with the tradition, on the alienation from the past, and it was very difficult to join the broken "bonds of time" when addressing this past. The ancient Russian history was breathing with olden times and tradition, while it was an epoch which rejected olden times and tradition. Russian culture was getting used to novelties, and national consciousness asked questions: "What is Russia? What is its way? Where did it start from and where did it come to?" Only historical science could find answers to these questions and offer them to the society, to the younger generation.
Already in the middle of the 18th century the idea of broad general education started to pave its way. It was reflected, for example, in the activities of military schools (the so-called cadet corps), first of all the Land Polish Gentry Corps. Contemporaries joked that military schools prepared officers who knew everything they would like but for what they needed. However, as soon as the task of training not just officers but educated people was realized history occupied solid positions in training programs at once. True, Russian history was not practically taught there. Cadets were acquainted with Tacitus and Plutarch, Hannibal and Julius Caesar but not with the battle of Kulikovo and Ivan the Terrible. Tatischev was already working on Russian history, German academicians were studying ancient annals but there was no course of Russian history for the youth up to M. Lomonosov.
In 1757 Lomonosov became the counselor of the Academic Chancellery, and soon all "scientific and training part" of the Academy was at his disposal. In the late 1750s he displayed feverish activity in the Academic grammar school and University. It is not incidentally that it was at that time that The Abridged Russian Annalist appeared (it was written in 1759 and published in 1760) and served as a text-book in Russian history during the further decades.
The Abridged Russian Annalist appeared because two factors coincided in time: Lomonosov's work on Russian history and the task of improving the situation in the Academic grammar school and University. All his life Lomonosov was obsessed with one ardent passion which can be expressed in one word-Russia. It made him devote himself to the studies of Russian history, it made Lomonosov stubbornly and persistently struggle for the improvement of the education of the Russian youth. These two lines-History and Education-came together resulting in the publication of The Abridged Russian Annalist.
When working on it Lomonosov did not start from scratch. The documents of the Academic Chancellery, Lomonosov's annual reports testify to that already in 1751 he was seriously preoccupied with historical subjects. The direct impulse was given by the dispute waged in the Academy in connection with the discussion of the dissertation of G.-F. Mueller "The Origin of the Name and People of Russia" in 1749-1750. The story lasted for more than a year, academicians held extraordinary meetings, presented their remarks, G.-F. Mueller answered them, these answers caused objections. Lomonosov was the most uncompromising and consistent critic of Mueller.
In the polemic with Mueller a typical feature of Lomonosov's concept characteristic of his later historical works manifested itself. Reacting to Lomonosov's objections Mueller got, maybe, the main point in his differences with the famous author of odes and panegyrics: "He wants everyone write only about what relates to glory. Does he think that it depends upon a historian to write whatever he wants? Or doesn't he know the difference between a historical dissertation and a panegyric speech? Where did he take the rule that one should pass over in silence the fact not related to glory?... But between glory and infamy there is a vast field for history occupied by a great number of facts and events... They comprise the origin of tribes-mostly dark one, the beginning of a state-with small things, savage morals of ancestors, unlucky wars, oppression on the part of neighbors, vices of individual persons sometimes rather fatal for the state, social calamities and many other things which, according to historians, relates neither to glory, nor to infamy; no one can pass it over in silence in a truly historical description". Lomonosov wrote on the margins of the records of the discussion in this place: "I do not demand a panegyric but claim that clear contradictions insulting for the Slavic tribe cannot be put up with". 4 Of all Lomonosov's remarks this is practically the only one where he, in fact, agrees with Mueller and proudly states that he will not tolerate anything insulting in Russian history. The question was what should be considered "insulting" and how in general such approach corresponded to the scientific character of a historical research.
Knowing Lomonosov's character we may easily suppose that he could not be satisfied with the role of the critic of Mueller. The dispute made him study the works of ancient authors, Lomonosov was creating his vision of history, all this should not have been lost in vain. On September, 1751 he recalled in his letter to Shuvalov: "I am making a plan of Russian history". 5 The work progressed even faster when in 1753 Empress Elizabeth encouraged his historical studies and expressed her desire to see history written "in his words". Thus, Lomonosov worked on his own will and on behest of the empress. As a result, there appeared The Ancient Russian History, the first volume of which was ready in 1758, and The Abridged Russian Annalist was its peculiar offshoot, a sort of thesis reproduction.
The Abridged Russian Annalist is composed of three parts. The first one entitled by Lomonosov "Testimony of Russian Antiquity Abridged From the Composing Extensive Russian History" shortly sets forth Lomonosov's views on the question of the "grandeur" of the Slavs and the Chud (an ancient Finnish tribe) and of the Slavic origin of the Varangian Rosses. The national patriotic idea is fully represented here. Its components are clear and distinct: the origin which dates back to the remote antiquity, primordiality of the people, the size of the territory occupied by it in olden times, as well as military might prove its grandeur.
However, in his attempts to prove the grandeur and autochthonous character of the Slavic people Lomonosov used the methods which show that he was trying to make Russian history "more ancient". He writes, for example: "The Slavs and the Chud, according to our writers, and the Sarmatians and Scythians, according to foreign authors, were ancient inhabitants of Russia". Yes, different sources call the inhabitants of one and the same (approximately) territory differently but "the common origin of the Slavs with the Sarmatians, the Chud with the Scythians is indisputable for many clear proofs". Thus, already the whole millennium was added to the Slavic history, and then nobody will consider strange Lomonosov's statement that the antiquity of the Russians "dates back even to the fabulous Hellenic times and is known since the Trojan war", because, according to him, the Slavs took part in the defense of Troy, and "before the Trojan war and after it the ancestors of the Slavic peoples moved to Western and Boreal countries and propagated there". 6 Certainly, it is rather difficult to date the battle between Achilles and Hector but it appeared that already in the second millennium B. C. the Slavs were a powerful and noticeable people on the international arena.
Having proved the antiquity of the Russians it was necessary to raze normanism to the ground. And he did that job brilliantly-the very word "Normans" was not even mentioned in The Abridged Russian Annalist. Lomonosov solved the Varangian problem stating that "the Varangians-Rosses were named Rocksolans or Rossolans in ancient times". According to Lomonosov, they belonged to the Slavic tribe and became famous for their military victories yet in the reign of Mithridates VI Eupator (the 2nd-1st centuries B. C.), then they migrated to the southern coast of the Baltic Sea where from Rurik with his troops was called for, so the founder of the dynasty should be considered a primordial Slav. The part of the Rosses who stayed on the old place started to be called Porossians (Prussians), they were invaded by knights and Poles. Having solved the Varangian question, Lomonosov turned to modern times and used to stress the importance of the problem: "These ancestral lands of original sovereigns are now subject to the Russian power by the blessed arms of the great Elizabeth" 7 (it was in that time, during the Seven-year war, that the Eastern Prussia was occupied by Russian troops).
However, even the statement on Rurik's Slavic origin did not solve the problem completely. Because if one connects the beginning of state power with the calling for Rurik in the 9th century, then the state history of Russia proper was indecently shortened. We can already guess what Lomonosov's next step would be-he finds the "owners and founders of cities" long before Rurik: Kiy and his brothers in the South, and Slaven and Russ in the North. While Kiy with Scheck and Khoriv are known to all contemporary readers, the names of Slaven and Russ can be a puzzle. The matter is that Lomonosov in this case based himself on the apocryphal text of the so-called Novgorod Annalist introduced into scientific circulation by P. Kryokshin. It was a beautiful story about two brothers, Slaven and Russ, who founded the city of Slavensk in olden times, and only much time later, after the desolation of Slavensk, the city of Novgorod appeared on its place; about Slaven's son Volkhv who turned into a crocodile and devoured those swimming in the river which acquired the name of Volkhov. It was already Mueller who doubted the truth of this source, and Karamzin proved later that the text about Slaven and Russ was composed at the end of the 17th century (perhaps, the legends about Romulus and Remus did not let somebody sleep quietly), however, Lomonosov grounded his confidence saying that "although at first this annalist has much incredible news but one cannot reject everything". 8 We will remark that the first part of The Abridged Russian Annalist was a sort of quintessence of the ideas and provisions developed by Lomonosov in more detail in his Ancient Russian History.
The second part of The Abridged Russian Annalist having no special title is a "chronology of sovereigns" in a sort of a table indicating the ordinal "number" of a ruler, his "line of descent" as regards Rurik, the years of rule and the most important events of his reign. This part of the book is written in accordance with the medieval tradition of positioning events by the degree of proximity of a ruler to the founder of the dynasty. And the method of the description of events has much in common with the annalist tradition. The periodization in this part of the Annalist is represented with subtitles appearing throughout the whole text: the Great Kiev and Novgorod principality-this section includes the description of the rulers from Rurik to Andrey Bogolyubsky. The Great Vladimir and Novgorod principality-from Andrey Bogolyubsky to Ivan Kalita. The Great Moscow principality-from Ivan Kalita to Ivan the Terrible. The All-Russian czardom-from Ivan the Terrible to the death of Peter the Great.
One's attention is immediately attracted to author's evident desire to trace the succession in the political development which is being expressed in a sort of geographical migration of "autocracy" over Russia. Rurik established it in Novgorod, then "autocracy" moved to Kiev. Later its weakening inevitably brought troubles to Russia, while its strengthening-a lot of good. This concept of Russian history is characteristic of the historical science of the 18th century as a whole. The periodization in The Abridged Russian Annalist is full of surprising contradictions. If autocracy was established in Rurik's times, then it is absolutely not clear why the whole history of Russia up to Andrey Bogolyubsky is viewed through the prism of two political centers: Kiev and Novgorod. There is no logic, since if we recognize "autocracy", then there can be no two centers simultaneously. It is even more difficult to see the succession of political power in the 12th-14th centuries, and that is why The Abridged Russian Annalist in fact becomes enmeshed characterizing this period as "the Great Vladimir and Novgorod principality", while saying that "Moscow started preparing to become the all-Russian capital". 9
The part of the book devoted to the times of Peter the Great strikingly differs from the rest of the text: dry laconic words are replaced here with rich rhetoric reminding of a "Panegyric to Peter the Great".
Peter is Lomonosov's favorite figure of Russian history. The enthusiasm of Peter's transformations is deeply in tune with the historical disposition of Lomonosov himself: urbis et orbis Russia proved its ability for military and state grandeur having made a gigantic breakthrough at the limit of its forces. (The breakthrough made by Lomonosov at the limit of his forces-from a Kholmogor fisherman to academician-became possible only in the new, post-Peter Russia.) Lomonosov with his insight measures the scale of events comparing them with Peter's times. It is interesting that with all piety for the czar-reformer he stressed the succession of Peter's deeds from his predecessors' concerns.
The third part of the Annalist is the "Genealogy" of Russian sovereigns, that is a list of rulers indicating who married whom and also the posterity of these conjugal unions. For the historians of the 18th century the tracing of genealogical ties meant a sort of reaction to the call of time because the sphere of historians' attention included first of all the political development, and with the hereditary principle of monarchic power genealogical research appeared as the most important element of historian's work. Genealogy was perceived so sharply that in connection with it there were serious battles. In 1746-1747 the whole Academy discussed genealogical tables compiled by Kryokshin in which he proved the direct origin of the dynasty of the Romanovs from the Rurikoviches. Mueller, in his turn, was reproached for compiling "genealogy" for aristocracy. Young Sumarokov, whose "ardor for antiquities" made him the most prominent historical playwright, also started his historical studies with the composition of "Genealogy". 10
Lomonosov's high interest to the conjugal unions of our rulers with foreign dynasties attracts the reader's attention. The detailed coverage of genealogical ties with foreign courts emphasized the prestige and importance of the Russian dynasty on the international arena. However, genealogy, especially in Russia in the 18th century with its palace coups, was at the same time a delicate and very dangerous matter, and Lomonosov did not try to follow scrupulously historical facts.
The Abridged Russian Annalist was by all means claimed by the society. The number of copies of circulation is shocking. Though all printing copies have one date of publication (1760), in fact from June, 1760 to April, 1761 there were printed three editions with the total circulation of nearly 6,000 copies. 11 Even taking into consideration Lomonosov's stable position in the Academy at that time, it is difficult to suppose that his influence extended so far that he might make the Academy to print the book "into the table." It is even less credible because the Academic publishing house and a book-shop was headed by I. Taubert who was at daggers drawn with Lomonosov and who would not hesitate to pay high persons' attention to useless expenditure of public money. Thus we may suppose that The Abridged Russian Annalist was in high demand.
To evaluate this phenomenon fully let us recall that the circulation of Karamzin's History of Russian State which surprised the contemporaries was 3,000 copies. The average circulation of historical books at the beginning of the 19th century was 600 copies. According to V. Kozlov's estimates, the total number of people writing on historical themes at the beginning of the 19th century was 529. 12 The number of those writing on history and those reading it seems approximately the same; the people preoccupied with history somewhat shut themselves within their own community. Karamzin is deemed to have broken this seclusion when "everybody, even women of the world, rushed to read" his history. Though the fate of The Abridged Russian Annalist was also enviable. Its wide circulation can be partly explained by that it was used as a text-book; though it was very laconic and not free from mistakes and shortcomings even at the level of science of the 18th century but it was read.
The fact that already in the 60s two books containing The Abridged Russian Annalist were published practically simultaneously in Moscow and Petersburg testifies to the high degree of authority and importance of Lomonosov's text-book. In Petersburg it was connected with the second edition of The Introduction to the General History by Guilmar Courasse (it was the Courasse's Geography recommended by Lomonosov for use in grammar-schools). Courasse's work told in the form of questions and answers the world history starting "from Adam" to the first decades of the 18th century. The book was published in Russian translation already in 1747 but there was no Russian history in it. The circulation was already out of print, and the Academic Chancellery reprinted the book having corrected the translation and added Russian history to it. The edition published in 1762 was entitled: The Abridged Universal History of Guilmar Courasse Containing all Memorable in the World Cases since the Creation of the World to Nowadays, with Many Additions, Newly Translated and with the Addition of Short Russian history, Questions and Answers for the Benefit of the Studying Youth.
On a commission from the Academy of Sciences the translation and preparation of the book for publication was made by the Academic translator I. Barkov. What were the materials used by Barkov in his work on the history of Russia of the 9th-18th centuries? The comparison of Barkov's text and The Abridged Russian Annalist shows their practically total identity, Barkov only gave an account of Lomonosov's text in catechismal form.
The Petersburg story with the preparation of a new text-book uniting general and national history was repeated several years later in Moscow. In January, 1766 the Conference of the Moscow University commissioned Kh. Chebotaryov who just graduated from the University to prepare a new text-book. To this end he had to translate General History by Freyer and supplement it with Russian developments. He fulfilled the task having used The Abridged Russian Annalist. Chebotaryov wrote in the preface that he used Lomonosov's book "from cover to cover."
The facts connected with the publication of Courasse's and Freyer's books make one wonder. First, the very choice of the people commissioned with the preparation of new text-books is surprising. By all means a fresh student had not yet any scientific authority among Moscow professors, while Barkov had a scandalous reputation and could hardly be fit for the role of the author of a text-book.
So, neither Chebotaryov nor Barkov could be the "authors" of Russian history in the eyes of scientific bosses. Why then were they chosen? The influence of several factors coincided here. In both cases the commission was of public character, it did not suppose independent work on history or independent preparation of a text-book. On the contrary, it was clear to everyone that it should have been the repetition of The Abridged Russian Annalist. Barkov's manuscript with the text of Short Russian History and I. Taubert's editing remarks may serve as an evidence of it. 13 Taking into account the hostile relations between Taubert and Lomonosov, the fact that when editing Barkov's manuscript Taubert tried to make it closer to The Abridged Russian Annalist seems to be even more important. So, in the 60s of the 18th century nobody could even think of challenging Lomonosov's text-book, trying to offer one's own vision of Russian history. On the one hand, the circle of people dealing with history was still very narrow, and these studies had yet an imprint of public service on themselves. On the other hand, this proves once again that The Abridged Russian Annalist established a reputation of the "right" text-book in the eyes of the society.
Yet in Lomonosov's lifetime the book was translated into German by Stehlin, published in Leipzig and republished twice in Riga; soon there appeared an English translation; the translation into French made on the order of Shuvalov was sent to Voltaire who was writing at that time (actually on the order of the Russian government) a work about Peter the Great. 14 True, it was this Shuvalov's act that irritated Voltaire deeply, and Lomonosov who felt hurt by Voltaire stopped taking part in the preparation of materials on Russian history for "Ferney recluse". The matter is that Voltaire in his reply to Shuvalov gave a very low appraisal of the work sent to him. Voltaire did not make a mistake when he had seen the weak points of Lomonosov's work. The Russian academician was so carried away with national patriotic feeling that he could not calmly weigh the facts on the balances of historical criticism. In patriotic ardor he did not reckon with means proving the grandeur of Russian people.
There was so much poison and even political denunciation in Lomonosov's attacks on G. Z. Bayer and Mueller who doubted the authentic character of the legend about Andrey Pervozvanny. As far as Mueller was concerned Lomonosov made direct hints on the political danger and harm of his scientific research: "His opinion might be followed by some criticism of the wise establishment by Peter the Great of the cavalier Order of Saint Apostle Andrey." 15 Lomonosov should have felt that he had used a forbidden trick, but his ardor and desire to prove the grandeur of Russia in the past and in the present were so great.
So was Voltaire right? By all means he was if one appraises Lomonosov from the point of view of the scepsis of Enlightenment. Causticity and bitter mockery were Voltaire's weapons in the struggle against the whole decrepit "old order", and the author of an aphorism about God who "should have been invented" must have considered funny Lomonosov's arguments for the reality of the appearance of Andrey Pervozvanny. And at the same time Voltaire was wrong. He talked with Russian grands who surprised him with their knowledge of French; he corresponded with refined Ivan Shuvalov but did not take into account that in spite of surface gloss, the historical disposition of educated Russian people, their perception of their country and the world still bore the traces of recent drastic changes.
An average representative of the educated layer of the Russian society which appeared as a result of Peter's reforms perceived Lomonosov's interpretation of Russian history with full approval and to a great extent as a reflection of his own outlook. Lomonosov was far from being alone in his stubborn desire to prove not only equality but leadership of Russia in the past and in the present to the whole world. There is much evidence of that. The great popularity of Lomonosov as a poet was mostly stipulated (naturally, apart from purely literary merits) by the fact that the genre of ode, or rather the ardor of ode, was internally in tune with his historical disposition. It is from here that his appeal to the youth appeared:
Just dare having been encouragedSo, dare... to show and prove! And to prove it not only in the present but also in the past of Russia. This is the enthusiasm with which both literary and historical creative work of Lomonosov is colored. Wouldn't many Lomonosov's contemporaries sign under these lines? V. Trediakovsky, a man of great erudition, was left in the memory of posterity first of all as an author of indigestible poems. His attitude towards Lomonosov was hostile, to put it mildly; Trediakovsky's zeal and diligence sank in comparison with Lomonosov's talent; asserting that Lomonosov did not know a thing in history, Trediakovsky, in fact, repeated Lomonosov in his historical works. Not without reason the collection of his historical articles was entitled: "Three considerations on three most important Russian antiquities, namely: I) on the preeminence of the Slavic language over Teutonic, II) on the primordial origin of the Rosses, III) on the Varangian Russes. Slavic titles, families and language." The comprehension of Russian history strikingly coincided with Lomonosov's ideas.
To show with your zeal
That Russian land can give birth
To Platoes of its own
And quick-minded Newtons.
The same motives can be seen in the epic "Rossiad" by M. Kheraskov-one of the most famous poems of the 18th century. Without taking into consideration these features of national self-consciousness one cannot understand the great popularity of A. Sumarokov-another Lomonosov's literary opponent. Sumarokov's tragedies dominated in theatrical repertoire of the middle of the 18th century and brought deserved fame to the author, and almost all of them were written on historical themes. The genre of tragedy in the esthetics of classicism supposed address to history by itself but Sumarokov addressed to Russian history. Spectators saw Rurik and Kiy, Demetrius the Impostor and Askold, Gostomysl and Oleg on the scene. Certainly, there was no question of historical truth in Sumarokov's works: the heroes of ancient Rus pronounced pathetic monologues on the struggle of love passion and civil duty. Though the interest to national history and the address to it are noteworthy.
One can object that all said relates to the figures of literature, science and art. However, there is evidence which allows to extend these conclusions to an "average" representative of the Russian educated society. With all scarcity of the 18th century with the materials on training and upbringing of youth, on the process of transmitting historical presentation and values to it The Notes by S. Poroshin present an exclusive interest. Being a graduate of the Land Polish Gentry Corps, he was a teacher and tutor in the house of the Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich.
Poroshin kept a diary where he accurately put down everything that, to his mind, was remarkable in his disciple's life. The notes relating to 1764-1765 are sometimes full of details but they have interesting evidence of all studies of the Grand Duke, deliberations and conversations of those having dined with the Grand Duke.
And there were prominent people who went down in history in this way or the other-they were P. Panin, P. Rumyantsev, G. Orlov, A. Stroganoff. They made history and liked to talk on it. The rank of G. Teplov and A. Sumarokov was a little bit lower but they were not the last persons in Petersburg of those times. History was always a constant topic of conversation. The circle of the themes being discussed was very wide: anecdotes of former reigns, historical features of Turkey or England, historical works of the past and the present. Poroshin's notes testify to that he knew the historical literature of his time, and his historical presentations, in fact, coincided with those of Lomonosov. It is from these positions that Poroshin himself estimated Russian history and he tried to form the historical ideas of the Grand Duke, accordingly.
The theme of Peter the Great appears often on the pages of the diary. One can see that Poroshin tried to create the idealized image of the emperor in his disciple's consciousness.
One may suppose that Poroshin just could not ignore Lomonosov's works which were deeply in tune with his own state of mind. And, indeed, he reads Lomonosov's odes and grammar, his "Panegyric to Peter the Great" to his disciple. And, certainly, he could not do without The Abridged Russian Annalist. He reports: "After dinner I read to His Highness in the annalist of Mr. Lomonosov a short description of the features possessed by the Sovereign Peter the Great, his great-grandfather. Having noticed that he listened with pleasure I read the same two more times." Poroshin should have attached great importance to this book if he had read it thrice to his disciple.
Poroshin's interest to history is brightly colored with exclusively Russian priorities. Both his desire to see foreigners translating Russian books and the apology of Tatischev are wonderfully added to this. He had a painful reaction to any attempts to diminish the importance of the concept of the Russian in the eyes of his disciple. Any nuance of scepsis relating to anything Russian is rejected by Poroshin as a dangerous and corroding soul poison.
In a certain sense Poroshin can be called Lomonosov's "double". He was craving for the history presented by the author of The Abridged Russian Annalist and can be regarded as an "average" educated Russian nobleman. However, there was "somebody" who was pouring the poison of scepsis into Pavel's soul. In April, 1765 Poroshin wrote down: "When I came I told him (Pavel-T. V.) about Lomonosov's death. He answered: there is no use feeling sorry about a fool who only ravaged the treasury and did nothing." 17 In any case we may express an assumption about this "somebody" whose opinion is echoed in the cruel words of the heir. Most likely, it was count A. Stroganoff, one of the richest men of those times. Well-educated, independent in opinions and judgments, he could consider himself belonging not only to the number of the first nobles of Russia but also to the intellectual elite of Europe. On the one hand, this generation of Russian aristocracy so often overthrew czars and czarinas and bring the new ones to the throne to feel piety towards state power. On the other hand, it was too close and directly contacted with Europe to distrust it. People like Stroganoff were really confident in themselves and their superiority and were not going to prove anything to anybody.
In 1760 there was a noteworthy conflict between Stroganoff and Lomonosov. The speech of the French abbot J.-F. Lefebvre in Stroganoff's salon on the achievements of fine arts in Russia became the apple of discord. Lefebvre admired Russian literature, praised Lomonosov and Sumarokov calling them "creators of genius", and then smoothly passed over to his main, one should think, task-the praising of Elizabeth and purely diplomatic question of the "unity of our sovereigns," that is about the military and political alliance of Petersburg, Vienna and Paris courts which existed in those times.
Stroganoff asked Mueller to publish Lefebvre's speech in the academic journal Monthly Compositions. The request met with no problems, academicians voted for it, but when Lomonosov read the galley he was filled with utter indignation. How can one "put in parallel those who cannot be in parallel", that is to make equal him, Lomonosov, with Sumarokov? And there is the main point-how can a foreigner, a Frenchman, reason on the questions of Russian versification? Lomonosov gained a victory, and not only a moral one; the composed matter was liquidated. Stroganoff was very much irritated, he sincerely did not understand Lomonosov and soon he published Lefebvre's speech at his cost abroad. 18 So, the aristocrat and the academician did not understand each other. What one considered unacceptable, the other one regarded as quite normal. Stroganoff's peculiar "cosmopolitanism" contradicted Lomonosov's national enthusiasm.
By the end of the century these "Stroganoff's" features became stronger in the historical disposition of Russian noblemen, while in the middle of the 18th century Lomonosov's passionate aspiration to prove the grandeur of Russian history and culture was closer to the historical consciousness of Russia.
How can one evaluate The Abridged Russian Annalist by Lomonosov bearing in mind that it really served for several decades as a text-book for those learning national history? It was by no means free from shortcomings. At the beginning of the 19th century, for example, caustic August Ludwig von Schloezer spoke of this Lomonosov's work as "a skeleton compiled of names and years." 19 This reference reflected not the old enmity but rather the real weak points of the Annalist.
Annalist mostly focuses on the actions of rulers, we will not find here any analysis of internal structure of the state, description of morals, traditions, etc. But such was the level of our historical science. Maybe, it is very hard to compile a guide for others while one has just taken the difficult path of the research of the past and is roaming over dark and tangled tracks.
But nevertheless The Abridged Russian Annalist depicts in a peculiar way the state of the historical disposition of the Russian society in the middle of the 18th century. Such text-book could not appear in Peter's times when Russia feverishly mastered European novelties. A symbolic scene after the battle of Poltava when Peter raised a cup to the Swedish teachers relates not only to the art of war. It reflects the peculiarities of national psychology at the moment of dramatic modernization. Russia was learning, and, psychologically, a disciple, even the one who gained the victory over his teacher, is unable to prove that he, in fact, thought out everything for himself long time ago.
It is also difficult to imagine such a text-book at the end of the 18th century. The grandeur of Russia was proved with other arguments in those times, and what is more important-without unhealthy passion and vehemence. In the prime of the reign of Catherine the Great optimistic confidence in our forces rather than nervous suspiciousness was characteristic of our historical self-sensation and disposition. The Abridged Russian Annalist is a sort of intermediate link connecting these two stages. The nation is already trying to part with the self-sensation of a disciple but cannot yet do away with the inferiority complex.
Endnotes:
Note 1: F. Lubyanovsky. "Reminiscences". In the book: Moscow University in the Reminiscences of Contemporaries. Moscow, 1989, p. 48 (in Russian). Back.
Note 2: See: Panegyric Literature of Peter's Times. Moscow, 1979, pp. 135-149 (in Russian).Back.
Note 3: G. Yesipov. "Extracts from Memory Notes of Peter the Great". Istoricheskiy vestnik 1881, vol. 5, pp. 182-185.Back.
Note 4: M. Lomonosov. Complete Collection of Works in 10 volumes. Moscow-Leningrad, 1955.Back.
Note 5: &nbs;pIbid. Vol. 10, p. 471.Back.
Note 6: Ibid. Vol. 6, pp. 293-294.Back.
Note 7: Ibid. Vol. 6, p. 295.Back.
Note 8: The Legends of Russian Original Annals. Annexes. Moscow, 1878, pp. 15-22 (in Russian); N. Karamzin. The History of Russian State. Vol. 1, Note 70, 91 (in Russian); M. Lomonosov. Op. cit. Vol. 6, p. 296.Back.
Note 9: M. Lomonosov. Op. cit. Vol. 6, p. 311.Back.
Note 10: See: S. Peshtich. Russian Historiography of the 18th Century. Part 3, Leningrad, 1971, p. 97 (in Russian).Back.
Note 11: M. Lomonosov. Op. cit. Vol. 6, p. 588.Back.
Note 12: V. Kozlov. "The Status of History in Russia at the End of the 18th-the First Quarter of the 19th Century". In the book: The World History and the East. Collection of articles. Moscow, 1989, p. 218 (in Russian).Back.
Note 13: G. Moiseyeva. "Composition of Ivan Barkov on Russian History". In the book: The Pages of History of Russian Literature. Moscow, 1971, pp. 274-275 (in Russian).Back.
Note 14: Kurzgefasstes Jahrbuch der Russischen Regenden. Leipzig, 1765; A Chronological Abridgment of the Russian History. L., 1767; F. Priyma. "Lomonosov and History of the Russian Empire of Peter the Great by Voltaire". In the book: The 18th Century. Collection 3, Moscow- Leningrad, 1958, pp. 170-186 (in Russian).Back.
Note 15: M. Lomonosov. Op. cit. Vol. 6, pp. 31, 80.Back.
Note 16: S. Poroshin. Notes Serving to the History of His Emperor's Highness Sovereign Czarevitch the Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich. Saint-Petersburg, 1881 (in Russian).Back.
Note 17: Ibid. columns 96-99, 301.Back.
Note 18: See: M. Lomonosov. Op. cit. Vol. 9, p. 634; vol. 10, pp. 538-539.Back.
Note 19: Cit. by: D. Tolstoy. City Colleges in the Reign of Empress Catherine the Second. Saint-Petersburg, 1886, p. 86 (in Russian).Back.