Defining a Russian Nation: Mikhail Katkov and the 'Invention' of National Politics

SEER,Vol. 8i, No.4, October 2003 Defining a Russian Nation: Mikhail Katkov and the 'Invention' of National Politics1 ANDREAS RENNER STUDIES of Russian nationalism frequently associate its individual strandswith individual proponents who can be alternately classified, canonized or anathematized. Among these proponents, Dostoevskii probably figures most prominently as the prophet of an enigmatic Russian idea; others are forgotten and some denounced, even if they cannot simply be ignored.2Dostoevskii'spublisher, Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov, belongs in this second category. In I856 he founded the 'thick' (i.e. literary, learned and political)journal RusskiiVestnik and, from I863, was editor of and the most productive contributor to the widely circulated newspaper, Moskovskie Vedomosti. Although he held a philosophy degree, Katkov'sthoughtson the Russiannationwere more eclectic than profound;he was neither a political actor nor has he ever been counted among the classic exponents of national culture. Yet it was Katkov who, in the I86os, set the course for a new period in the history of Russian nationalism, defending the integrity of Russia, foremostlyagainstthePolishinsurrectionof I863. This articleexamines why and by what means Katkov succeeded in redefining traditional imperial unity as national unity (albeit one yet to be achieved), and what exactly he meant when he evoked the idea of the Russian nation. It will also trace how this idea comports with older and competing concepts. Katkov'simpact on public opinion will be ascertainedby the analysis of sales-figuresand other periodicals and censorship reports. Katkov's success cannot be explained simply by his considerable demagogic andjournalisttalents,for Russia'sspecialsituationafterthe Andreas Renner is Research Fellow in the Department of East European History, University of Cologne. 1 I am grateful to Martina Rokitta, Charles Thorpe, John Dracup and especially the General Editor and Assistant Editor of SEER for helping to 'anglicize' this essay. 2 See H. Kohn's essay on Dostoevskii in Kohn, Prophets and Peoples:Studiesin NineteenthcentugyNationalism , New York, 1946. For recent works on nationalism in Russia, see A. Kappeler, 'Nationsbildung und Nationalbewegungen im Russlandischen Reich', Archiv fur Sozialgeschichte, 40, 2000, pp. 67-go; G. Hosking and R. Service (eds), RussianNationalism: PastandPresent,London, I 998. A short summary of Russian nationalism in the second half of the nineteenth century has been written by T. Weeks, 'Official and Popular Nationalism: Imperial Russia i 863- I9I4', in U. von Hirschhausen and J. Leonhard (eds), Nationalismen inEuropa.West-undOsteuropa im Vergleich, Gottingen, 2001, pp. 4I0-32. 66o KATKOV AND RUSSIAN NATIONAL POLITICS Crimean War must also be taken into account. Katkov entered a vibrant intellectual debate over the reforms which were needed to rebuild defeated Russia, and he clearly benefited from the remarkable growth of the Russian readingpublic and the contemporaneous rise of newspaperjournalism. Traditionally, Katkov has been reproached for having done little more than launch scathingattacksagainstthe criticsof autocracy.I will argue, however, that Katkov deserves renewed attention for three reasons. First,studyof his vigorous attackson alleged separatistsin the Russian Empire contributesto a currenttheme of researchon Russian nationalism the heterogeneity of the Russian Empire. Katkov made this a lasting political issue. Uncovering 'Polish intrigues' wherever conceivable, his MoskovskieVedomosti became uncompromisingly obsessed with the national integrity of the state. Katkov's passion for catchy phrases and summaryverdicts soon made him the enfant terrible of Russianjournalism. His adversariesbranded him either a shallow opportunistwho had changed his anglophileliberalismfora nationalist monomania, or a reactionarylibeller,writingin blood ratherthan ink. Katkovcaredlittlefor such cliches, and he made no attemptto hide his contacts with government and censorship officials, nor his contempt for opinions other than his own. Most historianshave shied away from Moskovskie Vedomosti on account of its vehement support during the I88os of TsarAlexanderIII's'reactionary'effortsto counter the 'Great Reforms' of his father.3More recent studieshave identifiedKatkov as an ideologist of reformistautocracy and as an advocate of modernization from above particularly in the time of the reforming Tsar Alexander11.4 Secondly, Katkov'sstridentdefence of the GreatRussian nation has largely been passed over in silence as a mere aspect of his eccentric thinking.5But if we see the Russian nation as the core of Katkov's worldview,we will find it to be as inconsistentas any nationalismof its time. Farfrom being simplyan aggressive,narrow-mindedideology of 3 Katkov has been subject more to polemics than...