The Shadow of Great Britain

Chapter 1416: Chapter 214: Russia’s Confucius (Part 2)

This sentence alone poses no problem, but when juxtaposed with the Western faction leader Pogokin’s statement ’Peter the Great made Russia a part of Europe and began to earn it respect’, it could easily ignite a war of words between the Slavists and the Westerners.

However, aside from these trivial debates, purely in terms of academic achievement, Karamzin is worthy of the status of a leading figure.

If it weren’t for Karamzin, many people wouldn’t even know the concept of ’Ancient Russia’, and the term itself was coined by Karamzin.

Everyone, even the ladies of high society, began to read the history of their country.

According to Pushkin: ”It was truly unexpected for everyone. You could say Karamzin discovered ancient Russia just as Columbus discovered the American continent.”

Especially in the context of the victory of the Patriotic War of 1812, it sparked a societal interest and pride in ancient Russia.

Before the publication of Karamzin’s works, many Russians who grew up under old beliefs always thought their history began in the era of Peter the Great. Now, they began to look back to distant times to find unexpected sources of strength for their country, thus giving rise to the Slavists.

In this regard, Karamzin’s influence in Russia is obviously greater than that of Sima Qian, who wrote ”Records of the Grand Historian,” reaching almost the level of Confucius.

Arthur’s daring conclusion is not without basis; his core arguments mainly reside in three points.

First, Karamzin and Confucius, in their conduct and ideological views, both belonged to the moderate conservatives. Neither had any intention of opposing the feudal system, and their political ideals were confined to the enlightened monarchy.

Second, both had a certain degree of reverence for antiquity. Confucius composed the ”Spring and Autumn Annals” lamenting the declining morals and hope to reestablish the singular authority of the ruler. Karamzin wrote ”Research on Ancient and Modern Russia,” believing that Catherine the Great’s autocratic rule was nearly perfect, criticizing the subsidy policies of the current Tsar and the bureaucracy brought about by Speransky’s reform.

Third, both have made outstanding contributions to the field of academia and have a large number of followers. Karamzin was the central figure in Russian language reform, regarded as the initiator and benchmark of Russia’s ’New Culture Movement.’ Famous poets like Rukovski, Bashukov, and Pushkin, along with the Minister of Education Uvarov and the President of the Peterburg Academy Budov were his most eager supporters. As for Confucius, there’s no need to mention the ten philosophers and seventy-two sages of the Confucian school, each adored in the temples.

The reason Karamzin is considered only half a Confucius is ultimately not his fault.

In this regard, he was primarily a victim of the times.

If you did the same thing in the BC era, you would be Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle.

However, trying to become Russia’s ’Sage King’ in the 19th century was heretical.

Because, to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Tsar is akin to the Ottoman Sultan to Islam.

According to the ”Religious Statute” issued by Peter the Great in 1721: The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate was officially abolished, and a religious committee parallel to other committees under the Council of State was established, with the Tsar himself serving as the ”Supreme Shepherd.”

Furthermore, with the fall of the Byzantine Empire, through the ”Religious Statute,” successive Tsars not only regarded themselves as the Grand Patriarchs of Moscow and All Russia’s Eastern Orthodox Church but also believed themselves to be the rulers and spiritual leaders of the entire Eastern Orthodox world.

And this is one of the key reasons why the Tsars have been at odds with the Ottoman Turks for centuries.

After all, according to the Tsar’s vision, the capital should be neither in Moscow nor in St. Petersburg but should be established in the heart of the Eastern Orthodox world—Constantinople. As the ”Third Rome,” they aspired not only to secure the Black Sea but also harbored the desire to restore the Roman Empire.

Of course, this Russian ambition was considered a spiritual affront by the French, Italians, Spaniards, Austrians, Germans, and even the British; it was something they could never agree to.

You’ve become the successor of Rome, so are we to call ourselves barbarians?

Fuck that.

Arthur spoke up: ”What? Does General Yermolov have any thoughts on Karamzin’s ’Russian National History’?”

Pushkin replied: ”He is not very satisfied with Karamzin’s book. Especially with Karamzin’s views on the fall of Kyiv Rus, Karamzin believes that the fall of Kyiv Rus was due to insufficient centralized power. During its over 200 years, various Grand Dukes failed to achieve centralization and unity, leading to unyielding nobility, fratricide, and thereby squandering the country’s strength, which ultimately led to its downfall. Pushing this logic further leads to the idea that the Mongol conquest is a ’blessing in disguise’ for Russia; the Mongol conquest brought destruction, death, and subjugation, which is the ’curse.’ At the same time, it forced Russia onto a path of centralized power and national unity, which is the ’blessing.’ General Yermolov could in no way accept such a viewpoint.”

Leaving aside the blessings and curses, at least when Arthur read this passage back in the day, he found Karamzin’s logic coherent. Moreover, he was not keen on getting entangled in debates on these issues; he was there to serve as a cultural advisor, not to study social science.