Karamzin's Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia


Book Description

Russian history was typically studied through liberal or socialist lenses until Richard Pipes first published his translation of Karamzin's Memoir. Almost fifty years later, it is still the only English-language edition of this classic work. Still fresh and readable today, the Memoir-in which Alexander I's state historian elaborates his arguments for a strong Russian state-remains the most accessible introduction to the conservatism of Russia's ancien regime. This annotated translation is a "faithful rendition of the letter and spirit of the original," which not only introduces readers to the sweep of Karamzin's ideas, but also weaves together a fascinating version of Russia's rich history. With a new foreword by Richard Pipes, Karamzin's Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia is a touchstone for anyone interested in Russia's fascinating and turbulent past. Richard Pipes is Baird Professor of History at Harvard University. Nikolai M. Karamzin (1766-1826) was a Russian historian, poet, and journalist. He was appointed court historian by Tsar Alexander I.










Karamzin's Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia


Book Description

The single most important source on the history of Russian conservatism










Nicholas Karamzin and Russian Society in the Nineteenth Century


Book Description

Nicholas Karamzin (1766–1826) was a remarkably active thinker and writer during a time that was trying to all Europeans. A first-hand witness to the French Revolution, Napoleonic suzerainty over Europe, the burning of Moscow, and the Decembrist revolt in St. Petersburg, he presented in his voluminous correspondence and published writings a world view that recognized the weaknesses of the Russian Empire and at the same time foresaw the dangers of both radical change and rigid autocracy. Russian conservatism owes much to this man, even though he would have agreed with very few of those who came after him and were called conservative: he supported autocracy, but was committed to enlightenment; he abhorred constitutions. The fact that his writing had lasting significance has rarely been challenged, but the social and political nature of that contribution has never before been demonstrated. Previous studies of Karamzin have dealt with his literary career. This monograph focuses on the final third of his life, on his career at court (1816–26) and on the cultural heritage he left to the Russian Empire. As the historian of Russia most widely read by his and later generations, his historical interpretations mirrored and helped shape the image Russians had of themselves. Professor Black’s study of Karamzin is crucial to any examination of Russia’s enlightenment, conservatism, historical writing, and national self-consciousness.




Nicholas Karamzin and Russian Society in the Nineteenth Century


Book Description

This monograph focuses on the final third ofNicholas Karamzin'slife, on his career at court (1816-26) and on the cultural heritage he left to the Russian Empire."




The Making of Holy Russia


Book Description

This book is a critical study of the interaction between the Russian Church and society in the late 19th and early 20th century. While other studies exist that draw attention to the voices in the Church typified as liberal in the years leading up to the Revolution, this work introduces a wide range of conservative opinion that equally strove for spiritual renewal and the spread of the Gospel. Grounded in original research conducted in the newly accessible libraries and archives of post-Soviet Russia, this study is intended to reveal the wider relevance of its topic to an ongoing discussion of the relationship between national or ethnic identities on the one hand, and the self-understanding of Orthodox Christianity as a universal and transformative faith on the other.




Michael Speransky Statesman of Imperial Russia 1772–1839


Book Description

"An autocracy tempered by assassination", clever foreigners used to say about the Russian empire in the 18th and 19th centuries. With this bon mot the average curiosity about the Tsars' government was satisfied and there seemed to be no need to look further into the matter. There was, on the surface of things, some justification for such a definition: many rulers had suffered violent death and little did the autocracy abate between 1725 and 1905. The impression created by travelers, by historians and journalists, as well as by Russia's own discontented intelligentsia was that nothing really ever changed in Russia, that the autocracy was the same in 1905 as it had been at the death of Peter the Great in 1725. Not that the outside world had remained ignorant of the efforts at reform, the changes, and the modernization wrought in Russia since the day Peter I had "cut a window into Europe. " But the prevailing opinion was that such changes as occurred were merely external and did not affect the fundamental structure of the government or of society.