On the question of the formation of a scientific literary language in N. A. Polevoy’s "History of the Russian People"
Authors:   Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Solntsev Nikolay I. ,   Dobrolyubov State Linguistic University
Published: December 2024

In 1829 the publication of the ‘History of the Russian People’ by N.A. Polevoy began. In his work the author openly points out the shortcomings of the very popular ‘History of the Russian State’ by N.M. Karamzin. This causes an open scandal in the society and brings down a barrage of criticism on the work. The composition of N.A. Polevoy was declared groundless. This circumstance determined the extreme scarcity of the historiographical base of the study. In the 19th century Polevoy gained a reputation as a skeptical historian, and Soviet historiography speaks of the weakness of the author's philosophical and methodological base. However, one important detail escapes the attention of critics: the dryness and asceticism of the literary language of N. A. Polevoy. The claim is surprising, since the author enters the history of Russian literature of the 19th century as a talented prose writer and master of the historical novel. This circumstance allows us to assert that N.A. Polevoy deliberately departs from the literary standards inherent in the era of N.M. Karamzin and tries to create a work of a different conceptual orientation, with its inherent scientific and historical language. The author undertakes to implement his plans without paying attention to a number of aspects that reduce the cognitive perception of the text.
First, at the beginning of the 19th century, the literary and narrative aspect in the presentation of historical events becomes the main part of the work and reader's perception of the text depends on how carefully it is executed. By removing the narrative in his work, the author reduces the level of understanding of the information contained in it. Secondly, the text as a communication between the author and the reader is determined by the level of artistry of the language. Artistic communication is better perceived by the reader, as it is consistent with his inner experiences. Nonartistic communications are focused on the addressee who is interested in obtaining specific information. Moving away from the artistry, N.A. Polevoy turns the dialogue with the reader into his own monologue, which was not perceived by an unprepared reader reasonably and adequately.
Thirdly, in search of objectivity, N.A. Polevoy rejects N.M. Karamzin's sentential conclusions, declaring them abstract reflections. This deprives the text of both edification and the conclusion that determines the significance of the historical moment, and excursions into European philosophical systems, complicates the reader's overall perception of the research idea. As a result, the reader did not accept the concept of the work and could not understand the author's intention. However, the ‘History of the Russian People’ created an alternative to the large-scale history of N.M. Karamzin. Russian history for the first time gets a variety in the ways of presenting historical material. N.A. Polevoy made the first attempt to free a scientific text from the stylistics of fiction.