literature, society, and the intelligentsia 1801-1856

Social Role of Literature in 19th-century Russia

Literature focused on Russia’s fate due to limited political participation. Writers discussed past/future, criticized national institutions (church, local government, merchants), and covered events like the Napoleonic invasion (Tolstoy), Decembrists (Pushkin), and Crimean War (Tolstoy).

Mostly young Russian nobles and army officers, under 30, low ranks. Motivated by opposition to autocracy, lack of constitution, oppression, and succession confusion (Alexander I → Constantine → Nicholas I). Some influenced by Western ideas; others by loyalty/duty. Most inexperienced; only a few traveled to Europe or joined secret societies.

Government and Writers

Writers faced repression: Ryleev executed with Decembrists; Pushkin exiled, monitored, and restricted from travel; Herzen spent more time abroad. Nicholas I controlled publications, but many magazines thrived, making his reign a literary “golden age.”

Social Position of the Intellectual Elite

Mostly nobles, cosmopolitan, isolated from peasant culture. Educated in Western ideas; French Revolution influenced the Onegin generation. Oversupply of educated men led to limited prestigious jobs; Napoleonic Wars stimulated cultural creativity.

Siberian exile created martyr narratives (e.g., “Zerentui Conspiracy”). Stories of resistance, sometimes exaggerated, inspired later revolutionaries. Nicholas I overreacted, fearing plots everywhere. Exiles monitored, some relocated; some forced confessions shaped revolutionary myths.

Education and Literacy

Literacy increased under Shishkov’s oversight: 62k (late 18th c.) → 250k (1830) → 450k (mid-19th c.). Non-noble intelligentsia small (15–20k by 1840). Education spread intellectual culture and ideas despite censorship.

Golden Age of Russian Literature

Creative explosion in poetry, music, and literature in the capital; supported by salons run by noble women. Three intellectual fields: language, poetry, religion. Debate between archaizers (Church Slavonic, traditional) and modernizers (everyday language, French influence).

Alexander Pushkin

Father of modern Russian literature; boyar background, African ancestry through Abram Hannibal. Published revolutionary ideas in 1814; wrote Evgenii Onegin in exile. Established Russian literary language for 19th-century literature.

Rise of the Reading Public and Professionalization of Writing

Book production: 450/year (18th c.) → 944/year (1840s). Growth of literary journals and periodicals created discussion forums. Writers moved from patronage to market, became professionals, and retained property rights over works. Literacy grew: 62k → 250k (1830) → 450k (mid-19c). Non-noble intelligentsia small (~15–20k). Book production: 450/year → 944/year (1840s).

Literary Circles (Kruzhki)

Social networks fostering intellectual growth: Stankevich Circle (Romanticism), Petrashevsky Circle (French utopian ideas). Encouraged political, cultural, and literary debate in a “whispering culture.”

Formation of the Russian Intelligentsia

Mostly noble origins, educated in Western thought, marginalized from society. Critically thinking minority, morally committed to people, radical ideas due to lack of political participation, influenced by German Romantic philosophy. Strengths: idealism, seriousness; Weaknesses: intolerance, schematic thinking, secular zeal.

Three fields: language, poetry, religion. Archaizers: Church Slavonic, traditional style, anti-French. Modernizers: everyday Russian, open to French influence. Pushkin: father of Russian literature, wrote Evgenii Onegin in modern language, set standard for 19th-century literature. Zhukovskii extended Karamzin’s modernizing ideas.

Slavophiles vs Westernisers

Slavophiles: valued ancient Russian traditions, rural life, religion, folk culture; critical of Peter I’s Westernization. Westernisers: emulated Western culture, critical of unrealistic Russian idealization. Both sought freedom of speech/press; lines blurred (e.g., Herzen shifted between both). Shared noble, educated background and philosophical ties.

Isaiah Berlin, Russia, and 1848 (1976)

• Main argument: The Revolutions of 1848 in Europe profoundly shaped Russian intellectual life, leading Nicholas I to tighten bureaucratic and police control, crush liberal ideas, and create a culture of fear; the failure of liberalism fostered more radical Russian revolutionary thought.

• Key points:

  • Nicholas I reinforced control due to fear of revolutionary contagion (Polish rebellion, Paris 1830, 1848 revolutions).

  • Russia lacked a bourgeoisie or social conditions necessary for liberal reform; reforms were abandoned post-1848.

  • Education and intellectual freedom curtailed: universities forced to follow Orthodox doctrine, philosophy removed, students restricted.

  • Censorship and secret committees (e.g., Second of April Committee) punished critics; Petrashevsky Affair illustrates this repression (Dostoevsky sent to Siberia).

  • Russian thinkers influenced by Western philosophy (Hegel, Mill, Comte) adapted ideas to pan-Slavist and Russian nationalist needs.

  • Outcome: older liberals lost faith; younger radicals like Nikolai Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, and Pisarev developed specifically Russian revolutionary ideas, focusing on serfdom and peasant conditions.

Derek Offord, Russian Intellectual Life in the 1840s and 1850s (Published 1991)

• Main argument: Despite severe autocracy and censorship under Nicholas I, Russian intellectual life flourished in literature, philosophy, and political thought, split between Slavophiles, Westernisers, liberals, and radicals, laying the groundwork for later reform and revolutionary movements.

• Key points:

  • Nicholas I’s autocracy: Third Section secret police (Count Benkendorf), hierarchical control, serfdom preserved (“flagrant evil” admitted but not remedied).

  • Doctrine of Official Nationality (Uvarov): “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality” upheld state control.

• Intellectual life:

  • Literature blossomed: Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol (1820s–1830s).

  • Chaadayev criticized Russian history as chaotic; Slavophiles (Khomyakov, Kireyevsky, Aksakov) promoted Orthodox moral and spiritual order (concept of sobornost’).

  • Westernisers (Belinsky, Bakunin, Herzen) promoted rationalist, Hegelian, and socialist ideas; exposed contradictions in Russian society.

• Radical vs liberal currents:

  • Chernyshevsky and other radicals focused on practical social change, rejecting Western bourgeois liberalism; argued Russia could achieve socialism via the commune without following Western historical stages.

  • Liberals emphasized formal political rights but lacked mass support; radicals prioritized material conditions and societal restructuring.

• Impact of 1848 and Crimean War:

  • 1848 revolutions led to “dismal seven years” (mrachnoye semiletiye) of repression until 1855.

  • Emancipation of serfs (1861) partially fulfilled radical aims but also created new capitalist dynamics; liberal influence declined.

  • Literature (Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Nekrasov) continued to critique society and develop Russian national consciousness.