DIMITRI UZNADZE ABOUT CARDINAL RICHELIEU

Abstract

According to Blaise Pascal, “Cardinal Richelieu did not want to be guessed.” Indeed, when evaluating the life and work of Cardinal Richelieu, there is a difference of opinion among historians, one praising and glorifying him, while the other, on the contrary, takes a diametrically opposite position and considers Richelieu’s name only in a negative context. Reaching a consensus between them will not be an easy task and this dispute will probably last a long time and will not end. Therefore, we think, therefore, we think, it will not be without interest to find out what the attitude of the Georgian scientist Dimitri Uznadze towards Cardinal Richelieu might have been. This issue has not been studied in this regard. This is a novelty, it has a Georgian context and it seems to be the first attempt to cover this issue.
The coverage of Richelieu’s life and work in Georgia has its own history and covers a relatively larger section than it was thought during the Soviet years. This was a reality that, thanks to the efforts of the totalitarian Bolshevik regime, could not be seen by the general public. In 1918-1921, the interest in the life and work of Cardinal Richelieu in the Democratic Republic of Georgia acquired a popular scientific character and, above all, was reflected in the first national school textbooks of modern history. Against the background of the current Georgian reality, this was a serious step forward, and to keep it silent should not seem justified. It does not give us an adequate picture of this issue.
Our main source on this issue is the first national textbook of “New History” by Dimitri Uznadze and Ivane Gvelesiani. No other more tangible material will be found. So we have to believe in what we have. The nihilistic attitude towards this information is inappropriate.
We will try to find out two issues: 1. How informed were the authors of the textbook, Dimitri Uznadze and Ivane Gvelesiani, about the life and work of Richelieu. 2. How they valued the work of Cardinal Richelieu. It’s important to find out and make the cognitive load of this section of the textbook.
From today’s point of view, it should not be advisable to judge their reasoning on this topic harshly, it would be an easy way to go and we find it hypercritical.
Strict scientific criteria are not measurable here. They faced a much more modest task. This is a school textbook. It has a purely cognitive load. The authors of this cultural mission guide can not be misunderstood. The main thing, that’s it. The importance of their discussion on this topic, we think, should lie in this. This material would help the Georgian society, first of all, what kind of hair it needs, the student youth and would help to form a general idea about this issue. This minimum information was fully in line with the requirements of the textbook.
The authors of the textbook, Dimitri Uznadze and Ivane Gvelesiani, should have seemed quite informed and had an insight into Richelieu’s activities. Underline its key moments. This, obviously, is not very good, it is not accidental and it appears as a logical result of empirical, factual, knowledge of the material. A positive assessment of Cardinal Richelieu’s work should be perfectly legitimate. Undoubtedly, it contains a rational grain of truth, and is another plus of their reasoning on this subject. They must have been well aware of the progressive historical significance of Richelieu’s work. This must have been due to two circumstances.
The successes of Richelieu’s policies and the fact that they were well aware of the importance of the role of the individual in history. Further refinement of some issues, in our opinion, should not be ruled out, first of all we consider such a low assessment of the personality of Louis XIII. A sense of inadequacy was reflected in the coverage of Cardinal Richelieu’s foreign policy.