The Emperor of the Europeans
Царь европейцев
L'imperatore degli Europei
L'empereur des Européens
Der Kaiser der Europaeer
Notwithstanding the change of Catherine’s mood towards Reforms after American and French Revolution, the relationships of the Russian Empire towards France and Napoleon was never completely negative.
The Czar Alexander 1st was a follower of Freemasonry. During the first part of his reign, he was considered as favorable to reforms, and, by the Tilsit Treaty, he tried even to reach an agreement with Napoleon. However, the decision, by the latter, to invade Russia, left to him no other choice than war. He was surrounded, from one side, by Freemason intellectuals of the most different orientations, and, from the other, by middle-of-the-way liberal reformers, such as Czartorysky and Novosiltsev, with whom he entertained complex relationships. In particular, Czartorysky, who had been active in the last struggles in Poland before the Third Partition, but who was a personal friend of the Tsar, had worked out, with the consent of the Emperor, a project, which merged the experiences of some pre-revolutionary constitutions, like the Polish “Konstytucja Trzeciego Maja” (which had the approval of Rousseau) and the final act of the Finnish Estactes of Borgå, with the project of Catherine II for a new Russian Legislation, so envisaging to introduce into Poland and into Finland some limited reforms, as an example to be followed lateron in other parties of the Empire (it would have been the first occasion for utilizing the term “Finlandisation”).
One has to recall that the Finnish-Swedish aristocracy had even fought a war against the Napoleonic Swedish for maintaining its “Constitution”. On the contrary, the Polish Constitution of 1815, which referred to the Old Constitution of 1791, was not accepted by mainstream Poland, since it reflected just the ideas of the higher aristocrats.
For Russia, the Napoleonic invasion in 1812 resulted in a unique experience, which deeply influenced its perception of the world. It had, on the self-consciousness of Russians, an impact similar to the one had in other countries of Europe (such as, e.g., Spain, Italy and Germany), i.e., the raising of the national feelings. However, this feelings were different in scope. In first instance, the special scope of Russia emerged from the fact itself that it was Russia, and Russia alone, which, with its resistance to Napoleon’s invasion, determined the fall of the latter. It was precisely the disbanding catastrophe followed to the invasion of Russia the reason why the French Army was no more in a position to overcome its European foes.
It is true, the invasion of Russia from the West had never succeeded, as experiences by the Poled and by the Swedes. However, after the invasion of Napoleon, this invincibility of Russia was put under the eyes of everybody in Europe. This was sufficient to give Russia a special standing. But this was not enough. In fact, Russian troops had proven to be very effective all over Europe. An example for all: already in 1796, Suvorov had been able to defeat Napoleon in Piedmont, to conquer Torino and to recall the King of Sardinia (who, however, declined his invitation). Especially, Suvorov, himself a typical “national-popular” military leader, outbalanced Napoleon also in his policy of aggregating, under “Austro-Russian” flags, the Italian national voluntaries, as well as counter-revolutionary guerrilla. In this sense, even if this role has never been recognized, he contributed, at least as much as Napoleon, to anticipate the birth of Italian nationalism, in the same way as this happened with the other ant-Napoleon military movements in Germany, Austria and Spain. Moreover, Suvorov conducted an extraordinary campaign in Switzerland, for which he was designed as “The Generalissimo”.
At the end of the war, Russia’s armies were present even in France, and Russia was in a position to influence heavily the overall results of the Congress of Vienna.
Thirdly, the Russian Empire was a multinational entity, which could avail itself of the far-reaching experience of people like Czartorysky, who had been an active part in the political life of another big country, like Poland, where the newest reform trends were hardly debated and had found a first concrete step in the “Konstytucja Treciego Maja”.
Finally, the liberation war against Napoleon, which was called “The Patriotic War”, allowed also Russia to forge its own nationalism.
During the XVIII Century, the original identity of the Muscovite State, which had been imprinted by the religious heritage of the “Third Rome”, had been profoundly shaken. The rationalist attitude, as well as the foreign nationality, of some monarchs (like Catherine II), together with the huge influence of Polish, German, Swedish and Tatar aristocrats, as well as of Italian, French, English and Scandinavian artists, architects and officials (who all spoke, among them, in French), had distanced the Court and the aristocracy from common people. By the way, it has to be remembered that personal serfdom was not a traditional Slavonic, or Russian, institution; on the contrary, it was consolidated precisely during the Catherine period, with something which can recall the idea of slave labor in the Americas and in the other European colonies worldwide of the same period. And, in fact, the revolts of Razin and Pugačiov recall, under many points of view, the contemporary anti-colonial revolts, such as the one of Tupac Amaru in Southern America, as well as the peasant revolts in the Austrian Galicia. On the contrary, the fact that, during the Napoleon wars, the aristocratic officials class had fought, side to side, together with peasants, for the defense of fatherland, had diffused a completely new mood. Intellectuals were encouraged to look for the “national soul” of the Russian people, alongside the ideals of Romanticism. This event raised, at the same time, the social consciousness of many aristocrats, like Prince Volkonskij, or the Decabrists, and the utilization of national language instead of French.
The growing importance of the peoples rendered it impossible to impeach also all the infinite other ethnic entities of the Empire (starting from Poles and Finns, but going down to Caucasians and to Lithuanians, up to Ukrainians and to Jews) to vindicate their respective nationalities, languages and identities, as well as an increased role for lower classes. It is the moment when Kalevala were written by Lömroeth and Pan Tadeusz and Dziady by Mickiewicz, and, and when Hadzi Muhammad and Chamil raised the Daghestanian and Chechnyan revolts.
No comments:
Post a Comment