"I do not blame the Russians for what they are, but I blame them for pretending to be the same as we are." - Astolphe de Custine.
In 1839, the famous French traveler, the Marquis Astolphe de Custine, visited the Russian Empire and the following year wrote a book about his impressions of the trip, entitled La Russie en 1839 (Russia in 1839).
Astolphe de Custine.
Initially, the book was published only in French, and in Russian translation it was first published only almost a century later, under the title "Nikolaevskaya Russia".
For those who do not have time for such useful reading, I will allow myself to collect some important, in my opinion, excerpts from the book. After all, de Custine's work is not just the ordinary notes of a traveler.
The book was the cruellest and most categorical sentence to the Russian autocracy. The emperor's revelations and caresses and the courtesy of the Russian court had a very limited impact on the author's inquisitive and observant mind. The facts were too persistent in their eyes, the reality was too domineering to answer. Custine did not stop at the final conclusions:
The book of the Marquis de Custine gained scandalous fame immediately after it was written - when Emperor Nicholas I read it in French, he went into an indescribable rage, and was so angry that he threw the book on the floor.
Emperor Nicholas I.
Promotional video:
Immediately followed by a ban on mentioning the book in print. The booksellers who subscribed it to Russia were ordered to return all copies abroad. But the book flowed abundantly to Russia in illegal ways.
Painfully hurt by Custine, the Russian government made every effort to paralyze the effect of his book on European public opinion and to weaken the success it met among readers of all countries, in particular Russia.
To this end, works by Russian authors began to appear abroad, in French, German and English, with the close participation of the government (of course, carefully disguised), which contained toothless criticism of Custine and servile flattery to Emperor Nicholas. It was not for nothing that F. I. Tyutchev said about these "so-called defenders of Russia" that they seemed to him "people who, in an excess of zeal, are able to hastily raise their umbrella to protect the peak of Mont Blanc from the heat of the day."
It is not surprising that Custine's book was read by everyone up to the sons of the Famusovs and the Manilovs. “I don’t know a single house, a fair amount of content, where one cannot find Custine's works on Russia,” Herzen recalled in 1851.
These are exactly the feelings that Custine's book evoked in the Russian intelligentsia. And even Herzen could not completely free himself of this feeling.
It is believed that over time, Custine's book has lost its relevance, but I, on the contrary, find in it so much modern, so much in tune with today's Russia that it is difficult for me to compare it with any other work.
Take this short dialogue with the owner of a hotel in Lübeck, has anything changed today?
I foresee that this article will cause the outrage of the reader and especially my comments on the proposed quotations, if so, then everything was written by de Custine, and we are not far from Russia at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It does not matter that there are still shortcomings, if you see and accept them, then you can fix it.
Here is an excerpt from de Custine's conversation with Prince Kozlovsky, who talks about Russia as follows (I took the liberty of highlighting the areas that seemed especially important):
Most of us were brought up in such a way that we are sure that Russia at the beginning of the 19th century is practically a European state. Lavish balls, beautiful palaces, uniforms and dresses in French style, recognition of Europe after the triumphant victory over Napoleon, a strong state, but in reality it is still the same “wild and drowsy Asia” as it was many centuries ago. And even worse, a third-rate power ineptly imitating in the whole West, shackled with slavery, where neither the peasant, nor the nobleman, nor even the sovereign himself is free. And it is not surprising that foreigners look in her direction with apprehension and bewilderment. But not with the fear and fear with which they are afraid of the strong, but with the one with which, perhaps, they are wary of a madman who does not know what he can throw out in the next moment.
After a few days in St. Petersburg, Astolphe de Custine writes:
Nor is he delighted with the acquaintance with the life of the Petersburg nobility:
We are talking about serfdom, when the luxurious life of the nobility is paid for by the slavish hopeless labor of serfs.
Times change, but people remain the same. How many people today see their happiness in expensive trinkets and bragging about wealth in front of each other.
And here's another - deafeningly true and humiliatingly biting remark:
De Custine also writes about the peculiarity of Russians to shyly hush up objectionable milestones in history and consign to oblivion the once great names, as well as the names of those who dare to express themselves critically about the modern system and power. Do you see any changes?
And here's another conclusion:
About the fleet
I must confess that I have never looked at the glorious history of the Russian fleet from this point of view. Although the idea is clear and difficult to argue. The peoples living along the shores of, say, the southern Mediterranean Sea, are simply doomed to succeed in navigation, and we, with our harsh nature, had only to constantly catch up with them and constantly copy them.
Petersburg
In the 19th century, a European traveler is surprised at the inappropriateness of the choice for the capital of a huge empire of a swampy black place, not adapted for human life, where the royal palaces are abandoned, packs of hungry wolves run past them, and only in the short 3 months of summer there appears some kind of life …
Indeed, there is no other city like St. Petersburg in Russia. It is possible to argue who imitated whom, but in the "alternative versions" about city-cities, about the original, antediluvian Petersburg, it is precisely this fact that confuses me. There are many cities in Europe where you can find buildings of a similar style and even better, and in Russia there is only one Petersburg. Yes, Isaac, yes, the Pillar of Alexandria, yes, granite embankments. I love Peter myself very much, and?
The bronze rider on the thunder-stone did not cause him enthusiasm either.
Here is another sarcastic remark about Russian history:
This is a strong image, although it was, as it were, about the Mikhailovsky Castle, in which Pavel was killed.
Mikhailovsky Castle from the side of the Summer Garden. 1910-1915
Astolph admires the view of the Neva, although he also notes that the city has been restored and will be restored more than once.
Vereshchagin Petr Petrovich - View of the Neva embankment near the Academy of Arts on a summer day.
On the whole, he has a very depressing and not flattering opinion about Petersburg.
Astolphe de Custine saw not a city, but some kind of artificial, absurd in its purpose and form of education, where everything is subordinated to a truly military order. Where Petersburgers, regardless of ranks and titles, live according to a strict schedule, like soldiers, like robots, performing strange, strange and sometimes ridiculous actions, according to the rules of the new capital.
About the winter palace
Perrot F. V., View of the Winter Palace from the Southwest. 1841 year.
The fact is that on December 17, 1837, a fire broke out in the Winter Palace. They could not extinguish it for three days and almost everything burned out.
Greene B., Fire in the Winter Palace in December 1837. 1838
The dry lines of history only say that on December 25, a Commission for the Renewal of the Winter Palace was created. The restoration of the facades and the decoration of the ceremonial interiors were entrusted to the architect V. P. Stasov. AP Bryullov was entrusted with the personal chambers of the imperial family.
But here is what de Custine writes:
Whatever the reader thinks, I sincerely love Russia, my goal was not to humiliate not the current government, not the then, not the Russian people, not their customs and habits. But it is strange and scary how many parallels I have found between today's Russia and that country of the early 19th century.
Why was a foreigner, who is far from our homeland, so acutely worried about the Russian people and was immediately able to grasp the essence behind the screen of palaces and gilded stucco? How is it that caring for a person still often gives way to false ostentation and a servile desire to please the authorities or a visiting foreigner, “if only they didn’t think something,” but not to their people, to their loved ones?
Will we ever finally be able to admit that it is not a matter of sovereigns or nobles, and not of harsh nature, but of us? Or, just like many years ago, let's shout "Bastard!" and throw de Custine's book into a corner in anger?
Astolphe de Custine not only criticized Russia, but also sincerely admired many things in it. I did not set myself the goal of choosing from the book the harshest and most unpleasant of his statements, but only to interest the reader in our not so long history.
Let me remind you that the entire book is on the site - read, analyze.
Write in the comments, if anyone found this article interesting, but there is no time to read the whole book, I will continue and tell you about Moscow, as de Custine saw it, about Nizhny Novgorod and the Tatar khans.
Author: Sil2