Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T08:21:17.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

V. N. Karazin, the Gentry, and Kharkov University

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

James T. Flynn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is easy to ignore the career of Vasilii Nazarevich Karazin, and, indeed, most treatments of imperial Russia do so. When Karazin is mentioned, he is usually described as a rather ridiculous figure, the putative “Marquis Posa“ of Alexander I who had a spectacularly short public career, or simply as that “harebrained Ukrainian.“ Yet Karazin is hardly unknown; he is almost universally credited with being the founder of Kharkov University and is the subject of a number of works that picture him as an able, active public figure. The purpose of the present paper, however, is not to argue Karazin's importance or to decide whether or not he was “harebrained” but to explore his role in the foundation of Kharkov University as a useful case study of the relationship between the autocracy and the gentry in the early nineteenth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 1969 , pp. 209 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1969

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. For an excellent summary of what is generally known of Karazin, however, see Seton-Watson, Hugh, The Russian Empire, 1801-1917 (Oxford, 1967), p. 98–101.Google Scholar

2. Lang, D. M., The First Russian Radical: Alexander Radishchev (London, 1959), p. 254 Google Scholar, uses both terms to describe Karazin. See also Raeff, Marc, Michael Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772-1839 (The Hague, 1957), p. 23–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. The most important are Ia. Abramov, V., V. N. Karazin, osnovatel’ Khar'kovskago universiteta: Ego zhizn’ i obshchestvennaia deiatel'nost (St. Petersburg, 1891)Google Scholar; Sliusarsky, A. G., V. N. Karazin: Ego nauchaia i obshchestvennaia deiatel'nost (Kharkov, 1955)Google Scholar; Karazin, V. N., Sochineniia, pis'ma i bumagi, ed. Bagalei, D. I. (Kharkov, 1910)Google Scholar; Fadner, Frank, Seventy Years of Pan-Slavism in Russia: Karazin to Danilcvskii (Washington, D.C., 1962), pp. 73–89.Google Scholar See also articles by Sreznevsky, V., in Russkii biograficheskii slovar1 (St. Petersburg), 8: 486–99Google Scholar; Bagalei, D., in Entsikhpedicheskii slovar’ (St. Petersburg), 14: 424–25Google Scholar; Semevsky, V. I., in Entsikhpedicheskii slovar’, 7th ed. (Moscow), 23: 439–43.Google Scholar The writings of Karazin are the major source for all these works.

4. See Raeff, Speransky, pp. 29-46, especially pp. 41-43.

5. Bagalei, D. I., Opyt istorii Khar'kovskago universiteta (Kharkov, 1893-1904), 1: 44–50, 54-55Google Scholar; Lavrovsky, N. A., “Vasilii Nazarevich Karazin i otkrytie Khar'kovskago univefsiteta,” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia, 159 (1872): 61.Google Scholar

6. Shilder, N. K. (Schilder), Imperator Aleksandr Pervyi, ego shisn’ i tsarstvdvanie, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1904-5), 2: 32–36.Google Scholar The letter is reproduced on pp. 324-30. See also “Pervoe pisanie V. N. Karazina k imperatoru Aleksandru I-mu, 22 marta 1801 goda,” Russkaia starina, 4 (1871): 68-80; Karazin, Sochineniia, pp. 1-16.

7. Mikhailovich, Nikolai, Graf Pavel Aleksandrovich Stroganov, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1903), 2: 5–7.Google Scholar For the planning of the new educational system, see ibid., pp. 26-29, 144-48, 208-12, 225-26; Sukhomlinov, M. I., Issledovaniia i stat'i po ru$skoi literature i Prosveshcheniiu, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1889), 1: 42–59 Google Scholar; Rozhdestvensky, S. V., Istorichefkii obsor deiatel'nofti Ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia (St. Petersburg, 1902), pp. 39–57.Google Scholar

8. Mikhailovich, Nikolai, Imperatar Aleksandr I (Petrograd, 1914), p. 363 Google Scholar (Alexander to La Harpe, July 7, 1803).

9. See Bagalei, Opyt, 1: 53-54; Sliusarsky, V. N. Karazin, pp. 20-21; Lavrovsky, “Karazin i otkrytie Khar'kovskago universiteta,” pp. 61-62; Korolivsky, S. M., Khar*- kovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet (Kharkov, 1955), p. 9.Google Scholar

10. “Zapiska V. N. Karazina, predstavlennaia Imperatoru Aleksandru I chrez ministra vnutrennikh del gr. V. P. Kochubeia, 1820 g.,” Russkaia starina, 3 (1871): 22-26. The word translated here as “nobility” is dvortanstvo. One might question also how complete a convert to “equality” Alexander himself was. Inadequate academic preparation was the only bar to university admission given in the statutes. Zavadovsky tried to revise the law on Dorpat university to read that students from “every free class” would be accepted, but Alexander would not allow it, insisting that the law read “from every class.” See Rozhdestvensky, S, “Soslovnyi vopros v russkikh universitetakh v pervoi chertverti XIX veka,” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia, 9 (1907): 85.Google Scholar Yet it was obvious that the situation of the unfree classes, with their general lack of access to primary education, would continue to mean that inadequate academic preparation would be sufficient to bar all but the most extraordinary, and lucky, members of these classes from universities.

11. Bagalei, Opyt, 1: 57; Sliusarsky, V. N. Karazin, pp. 21-22; “Rech' V. N. Karazina v sobranii Khar'kovskago dvorianstva 11 avgusta 1802 g.,” Russkie universitety v ikh ustavakh i vospominaniiakh sovremennikov, ed. I. M. Soloviev (St. Petersburg, 1914), p. 77.

12. Bagalei, Opyt, 1: 59-61; Sliusarsky, V. N. Karazin, pp. 22-24; Sukhomlinov, Izsledovaniia, 1: 64-65. The plan and speech are in “Vasilii Nazarovich Karazin, osnovatel1 Khar'kovskago universiteta,” Russkaia starina, 12 (1875): 333-37. (This article was published in installments through several issu es of Russkaia starina.)

13. Bagalei, Opyt, 1: 73-74; Lavrovsky, “Karazin i otkrytie Khar'kovskago universiteta,” pp. 68-70﹜ Karazin, Sochineniia, pp. 534-38 (Karazin's speech to the gentry, Sept. 1, 1802), pp. 616-18 (Karazin to troshchinsky, Sept. % 1802); “Karazin, osnovatel',” 12 (1875): 337-38, 13 (1875): 61-63, is the gentry protocol of Sept. 1, 1802.

14. Bagalei, Opyt, 1: 75-80; Sliusarsky, V. N. Karazin, p. 29; Korolivsky, Khar'- kovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, pp. 10-1 i; Lavrovsky, “Karazin i otkrytie Khar'kovskago universitet,” p. 70; “Karazin, osnovatel',” 13 (i875): 64-65; Sbornik rasporiashenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia (St. Petersburg, 1866-1901), 1: 94.

15. Bagalei, Opyt, 1: 81, 91 (quotation), 92-93, 95-96; Lavrovsky, “Karazin i otkxytie Khar'kovskago universiteta,” p. 73.

16. Karazin, Sochineniia, p. 538 (Karazin to Alexander, Oct. 28, 1802).

17. Fadner, Pan-Slavism, says: “It is difficult to know what, precisely, lost for Karazin the tsar's high esteem and confidence …” (p. 76). It is hoped that this article makes it fairly easy to understand what cost Karazin Alexander's confidence. The other works cited in note 3 also discuss the reasons Karazin fell from favor, concluding that there was some sort of cabal against him in high places. Scholars basing their works on Karazin's writings have difficulties because Karazin tended to overstate his case (and importance) and also never admitted that his plans and those of the tsar were in conflict. His constant assertion of his devotion to Alexander leaves the impression that he and Alexander were in fundamental agreement but that the machinations of Novosiltsev and others blocked his work. See, for example, a “historical letter” on the foundation of Kharkov University, written in October 1804, in Karazin, Sochineniia, pp. 538-42.

18. “Karazin, osnovatel',” 14 (1875): 186-87, 190.

19. Sbornik postanovlenii po Ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia (St. Petersburg, 1875-1901), 1: 13-21.

20. Bagalei, Opyt, 1: 98-100; Sukhomlinov, Izsledovaniia, 1: 84; Sliusarsky, V. N. Karazin, pp. 32-33; Korolivsky, Khar'kovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, pp. 11-12; Lavrovsky, “Karazin i otkrytie Khar'kovskago universiteta,” pp. 77-78; “Karazin, osnovatel1,” 14 (1875): 268-79.

21. Karazin, Sochineniia, pp. 636-38 (Mar. 24, 1803).

22. Sbornik postanovlenii, 1: 67-68.

23. Karazin, Sochineniia, pp. 642-44, 647.

24. Sliusarsky, V. N. Karazin, pp. 33-36; Korolivsky, Khar'kovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, pp. 13-14; “Karazin, osnovatel',” 14 (1875): 472-73.

25. Karazin, Sochineniia, pp. 649-52; “Karazin, osnovatel',” 14 (1875): 474-76.

26. It may have been important, given Alexander's usual reaction to criticism, that these were not only harsh things to say, but most of them were also perfectly true.

27. Karazin, Sochineniia, p. 654.

28. Lavrovsky, “Karazin i otkrytie Khar'kovskago universiteta,” pp. 90-92.

29. Sliusarsky, V. N. Karazin, p. 38; Rozhdestvensky, Obzor Ministerstva, p. 45. F. V. Karazin says that Alexander released his father “on leave” as a favor, asking him what rewards he wanted. When Karazin replied that he had not worked in hope of reward, Alexander was so pleased with Karazin that he then “hugged him.” “Iz zapiski F. V. Karazina ob ego ottse V. N. Karazine, osnovatele Khar'kovskago universiteta,” Russkie universitety, ed. Soloviev, pp. 76-77. This is especially curious, because in 1810 Karazin complained to Speransky, “they threw me out on the street with no mercy at all.” Abramov, V. N. Karazin, p. 47.

30. Karazin, V. N., “Pis'mo k doktoru Remanu, 1810 g. ,” Russkaia starina, 12 (1875): 751.Google Scholar

31. For an excellent discussion of this topic, see Raeff, Marc, Origins of the Russian Intelligentsia: The Eighteenth Century Nobility (New York, 1966), especially pp. 93-121.Google Scholar

32. Bagalei, Opyt, 1: 189-202; Sukhomlinov, Issledovaniia, 1: 64, 118.

33. The statutes for Moscow, Kharkov, and Kazan universities, dated November 5, 1804, are printed as one law (Sbomik postanovlenii, 1: 295-331), since the differences between them were so few and minor. In no case do even these slight variations represent the influence of local opinion.