French Nineteenth-Century Travel Literature On Russia

(1)

1

2016/2017

FRENCH NINETEENTH-CENTURY TRAVEL

LITERATURE ON RUSSIA

Master in East European Studies

Amsterdam, 3 July 2017

(2)

2

There are no foreign lands. It is the traveller only who is foreign.

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Christian Noack, for his help, feedback and interest in my progress during my Master thesis and during

the East European Studies Master program. Furthermore, I would like to thank everyone at the University of Amsterdam who has accompanied me during the year. Finally, I wish to

(4)

4

Introduction

The intellectual curiosity for Russia was already instigated during the eighteenth century, the Age of Enlightenment in Europe. This included the quite unexplored Russian Empire, at that time still a remote area of the world. Especially when political instability occurred due to the French Revolution and Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, Russia became a more common destination among French writers, due to an improved transport system which made travel become easier in the course of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, after Napoleon’s forced retreat out of Moscow, Russia’s status as a great power was solidified with the Congress of Vienna, becoming the warrant of the conservative European order against the disorder of revolutions.

The aim of this study is to examine the travel accounts of seven French writers who visited Moscow and St. Petersburg during the nineteenth century. On their journey, they wrote about their experiences, adventures and, above all, their perceptions of Russia and its people. The aim is to uncover the French attitude towards Russia and to measure to what extent these travellers recognised or evaluated the elements they encountered according to a scheme that juxtaposed Europe and the Orient.

Thus, the primary subject of this thesis is the nineteenth century French perspective on Russia. Travel writing not only informs its readers on the discovery of new lands, but describes them as either converging or diverging with the readers’ culture(s) and values. Too often, as Alessandro Vitale pointed out, the descriptions of Russia given by Westernizers or Slavophiles within Russia reflect too much on geopolitical aspirations, rather than on interpretations of lifestyle and cultural patterns.1 Travel accounts might thus provide a useful alternative to interpret if nineteenth century Russia was depicted as European or Oriental in French travel

writings. In order to provide a clear structure for the theoretical framework, the key concepts

associated with this thesis and the research question will be discussed in this chapter. The ideas of Otherness (‘Self and Other’), Orientalism, Europeanness, and Euro-Orientalism are the conceptual foundation of this thesis. More generally, the concept of othering, recognized in the four principles listed above, is a means of consolidating one’s own identity, in this case, the

1_{Alessandro Vitale, “Russia and the West: The Myth of Russian Cultural Homogeneity and the ‘Siberian}

Paradox,’” Telos Press, accessed February 24, 2017, http://www.telospress.com/russia-and-the-west-the-myth-of-russian-cultural-homogeneity-and-the-siberian-paradox/.

(7)

7

French identity. Several general works on these concepts are concrete examples for this study: the works of Venner, Vergara, and Adamovsky will be discussed in more detail below.

The theory that will be applied to the research question is concerned with the creation of the ‘Other’ in order to conceive an identity for the Self. Nineteenth-century travel literature was in part written with the intention of discovering and recording the unknown parts of the world. By doing so, it has created a psychological distance between the writer and the discovered land. This phenomenon has been theoretically developed, for example in the book

Orientalism of Edward Said, which led to polemic debates on Western superiority and the

(mis)representation of the Orient by the West. The theoretical framework of this study consists of articles and books which elaborate for the most part on Said’s Orientalism.

Prior to Said’s work, Simone de Beauvoir already stated in her work The Second Sex that “Otherness is a fundamental category of human thought. Thus it is that no group ever sets itself up as the One without at once setting up the Other against itself.”2_{This duality of ‘Self}

and Other’ manifested itself in the encounters between the peoples of the Western empires and the inhabitants of new lands (the Orient), in the age of imperialism and colonialism. According to Said’s classical study of Orientalism of 1978, the notion of duality between Self and Other occurs and his study focuses on the perception of the East by the West during the colonisation of the Oriental territories. His book interprets the process of othering, in this case, the othering of the Orient.

Dominique Venner extended the notion of the Western identity by explaining that “all of history testifies that Europe is a very old community of civilizations.”3_{He enumerated the}

historical events and the concepts of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, colonialism, and nationalism, among others, which had propagated through the whole of Europe, without skipping one nation. He continued by stating that “every great movement in one country of Europe immediately found its equivalent among its sister countries and nowhere else.”4_These

quotes from Venner’s book showed that the European identity could only be found in Europe and that it found its origins centuries ago, because according to him “identity is born from the threat of otherness”.5_{With consideration of the hypotheses concerning the Orient in Said’s}

2_{Simone de Beauvoir, De tweede sekse (Bijleveld, 2000).}

3_{Dominique Venner, “Dominique Venner, ‘Europe and Europeanness,’” Counter-Currents Publishing, accessed}

February 24, 2017, http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/06/europe-and-europeanness/.

4_Ibid. 5_Ibid.

(8)

8

book, it is possible to apply the same process of orientalising the Orient in order to Europeanise that what is inherent to the Europeans.

Javier Vergara further developed the concept of the European identity and explained in

The History of Europe and its Constituent Countries: Considerations in Favour of the New Europe the feeling of belonging to Europe.6 Just as Venner, Vergara enumerated the phenomena that shaped Europe into the formation of its actual identity. He discussed an important factor, the civilising ideal. A strong European ideal which promoted democracy, and other values that the West ascribed to itself. Said did indeed criticise the colonial Empires (and later the West) on their democracy promotion, cynically stating that “it had a mission to enlighten, civilise, bring order and democracy, and that it used force only as a last resort.”7_{This nevertheless}

helped create the identity of a civilised European entity.

Adamovsky began with an examination of the French perception of the social classes in Eastern Europe in depth. According to Adamovsky, Western civilisations were linked to the liberal-bourgeois ideology. The intention was to examine how the Russian civilisation was perceived from this ideological point of view, once the Self and Other were being defined. It is important to consider that higher social classes within the Russian Empire may be regarded as more ‘civilised’ than the lower classes. In the second chapter of his article on Euro-Orientalism

and the Making of the Concept of Eastern Europe in France8, Adamovsky developed his theory on Euro-Orientalism, which responded to the debate on the differences between the West and the Orient, mentioned in the theories here above. He discussed several phenomena within the Occidental perception of the East. Another transferable element in Adamovsky’s works was whether the author included Russia into Europe or whether the important aspects of Russia’s society were used to separate it from ‘civilised’ Europe. This element was thus interwoven with the perception of social and cultural differences between Western Europe and Russia. Such differences, entirely apart from the portrayal of social class in the sources, will occupy an important place in this thesis as well, mainly because the nineteenth-century French travelogues treat them as discrepancies from the European norm.

6_{Javier Vergara, “The History of Europe and Its Constituent Countries. Considerations in Favour of the New}

Europe,” JSSE-Journal of Social Science Education 6, no. 1 (2007).

7_{Edward W. Said, Orientalism (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2014), Preface, XXI.} 8_{Ezequiel Adamovsky, “E}

uro‐Orientalism and the Making of the Concept of Eastern Europe in France, 1810–1880,” The Journal of Modern History 77, no. 3 (September 2005): 591–628.

(9)

9

The topic of this thesis concerns all notions mentioned above but differs from the initial research done on those topics of ()Orientalism and Otherness. Adamovsky’s Euro-Orientalism focused on geographical Eastern Europe as a whole, which cannot be seen as being identical with Russia. They are nevertheless both applicable to the thesis subject when interpreting these theories regarding aspects in which the distinction between Self and Other can be made. In the case of monuments, one could see, through a Western lens, for example, an exoticism inarchitecture. By exploring the French travelogues and letters on Russia, the aim will be to find passages in which one can read comparable descriptions, either claiming the “Europeanness” or “non-Europeanness” of the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg and their inhabitants. Moreover, this thesis suggests a different timeframe than the works mentioned above, namely the nineteenth century between the travel account of Madame de Staël of 1812 and Armand Silvestre’s book of impressions of 1890. Its primary focus will lie on seven published books of travel literature that were published in this century. These include the diaries of Madame de Staël, the letters of Jacques Ancelot, the four volumes of Astolphe de Custine, the illustrated book of Charles de Saint-Julien, the two volumes of Théophile Gautier, the book of impressions of Alexandre Dumas (père) and lastly, the account of the journey of Armand Silvestre.

Both the Selfand Other are important in the collective identity produced in the travel literature by these French writers, through which Russia can be depicted in or outside the European borders. Travel literature consisted of giving a detailed description of the land- or cityscapes, referring to earlier published accounts, confirming or challenging their observations. The border crossings of these writers into Russia is an important momentum, marking the first contact with this foreign land, of which they had only heard of through books and stories. The entrance into the country is, therefore, a way of getting acquainted with the writers and to assess their general mindset before moving to the first chapter. This first chapter will describe Moscow’s monuments as perceived by the Frenchmen of that time. By contrast, the second chapter focusses on the monuments in St. Petersburg. The third chapter will provide an image of the Russian people inhabiting both cities as perceived through a French lens, before displaying their departure from Russia as a conclusive remark.

(10)

10

Methods of research

Moscow and St. Petersburg share many features, both have been the capital of Russia and represented Russia’s most important cities. The choiceof examining these two cities is therefore not surprising. However, the two cities also differ in a wide range of aspects, some of which will be highlighted in this thesis, such as the characteristics of the architecture and monuments. Furthermore, the social aspects of the Russian people as a whole will be outlined. The primary focus will thus lie on the division between European and Oriental features.

Two methods of research will be used, namely a discourse analysis of the travel literature in combination with a comparative approach. The comparisons will be made between the different French perceptions of the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg and the Russian people in general in the nineteenth century based on what is European and what are Oriental features. The use of these methods will enhance the understanding of the different perceptions of these cities and on their population. The two capital cities are chosen because they were the most important cities and the most visited parts of Russia at that time. Furthermore, nowadays Moscow and St. Petersburg are seen as two opposites, which makes the analysis of anterior perceptions interesting, principally to examine if Russia can be ascribed to a continent, and if so to one or more.

(11)

11

Border crossing into Russia

The first contact with the country of destination seems of secondary importance, however it can reveal the intentions and feelings of the traveller, and allows these foreigners to bring forth their first impression of the country.

Madame de Staël

Madame de Staël arrived in the Russian Empire, by passing through the Austrian border into what is now Ukraine, on 14 July 1812, the anniversary of the first day of the French Revolution. She felt that, once she entered Russia, “the circle of the French history, which started on 14 July 1879, closed.”9_{Her negative perspective on Napoleon, as an émigré,}

resonated through her account, which brought positivity towards her perception of Russia. This started when she passed the border by stating “We were not used to consider Russia as Europe’s freest state: but the yoke that the French Emperor weighs on all nations of the continent is so huge, that we believe ourselves to be in a republic once we arrive in a country where Napoleon’s tyranny cannot be felt anymore.”10_{She swore that she would never put foot again in a country}

subject in any way to the Emperor Napoleon and thus questioned her ever returning to France again.11 As to her Russian hosts, Madame de Staël was surprised that they remained courteous towards her, even when Napoleon had already entered the country.

Jacques Ancelot

Before arriving in St. Petersburg by boat in May 1826, Ancelot made some stops in the Courland area. On the one hand, he complained about the long journey, but by contrast the road was not that long “when thinking about the menacing power of this colossal empire, I was tempted to consider the Cosacks in Palanga [city in Lithuania] far too close to the French borders.12_{The minute he arrived in the capital, he wondered if he would have the time to}

“examine the traditions of this nation which I came to observe from far.”13

9_{Germaine de Staël-Holstein, Mémoires de Mme de Staël : Dix Années D’exil : Ouvrage Posthume Publié En}

1818 (Hachette Livre, 1861), chapter X, 394.

10_Ibid. 11_Ibid.

12_{François Ancelot, Six mois en Russie: lettres écrites à M. X.-B. Saintines, 1826, à l’époque du couronnement}

de S.M. l’empereur (Dondey-Dupré, 1827), lettre VI, 34.

(12)

12

Astolphe de Custine

Astolphe de Custine also took a boat to arrive at his first destination in Russia, St. Petersburg. He recalled the number of formalities he had to undergo, which would not have been in place when traveling by land.14 The border security interrogated all foreigners and de Custine was not the least amused, so he stated the exact conversation between him and a border guard, to emphasise that he had the impression of being at a Tribunal. “It seemed to me that they [border guards] put a big inequality in the manner of treating the travellers.”15_{He explained}

that his ‘new enemies’ did not search him, but they searched his belongings, confiscating almost all of his books. He called their methods “useless formalities.”16

Charles de Saint-Julien

Like Ancelot and de Custine, Charles de Saint-Julien crossed the Baltic Sea to enter St. Petersburg by boat, and travelled from there on to Moscow, the Caucasus and eventually Siberia among others. The view of the new capital bewildered him, he had nothing but positive remarks on this “monumental and picturesque ensemble”, which did not exist 150 years ago.”17

Alexandre Dumas (père)

Dumas was invited at a wedding in St. Petersburg. It was therefore not surprising that he travelled by boat from Stettin to Petersburg. His first contact with the Russian mainland was the Courland area, which belonged to Russia at that time (located in Latvia now). He only mentioned a short summary of historical events that had occurred in the region before perceiving the Russian fleet and then got off the large boat in Cronstadt. When perceiving the contours of the city, Dumas recognised beauty and ugliness, but did not reveal much more in detail, which will characterise his account. He was received very well by his friends and could immediately take a car to his destination in Bezborodko for that evening. He said: “what should surprise a stranger before all else when entering St. Petersburg are the droshkies, the horse-drawn carriages.”18

14_{Astolphe de Custine, La Russie en 1839 (Paris: Librairie d’Amyot, 1843), tome I, 251.} 15_{Ibid., tome I, 253.}

16_{Ibid., tome I, 254.}

17_{Charles de Saint-Julien, Voyage Pittoresque En Russie (Paris, 1852), 22–23.} 18_{Alexandre Dumas, Impressions de voyage en Russie (Paris: F. Bourin, 1989), 151.}

(13)

13

Théophile Gautier

Gautier reached St. Petersburg with “its beautiful silhouette and its crenelated crown of walls.” The most beautiful diadem of golden sequins and sparkling needles a city could wear.”19

He immediately recognised some of the major buildings the city embellished and “nothing was more splendid than this golden city on the silver horizon.”20_{The first thing he described were}

the Mujiks who took care of the luggage and who wore strange costumes made out of animal skin. He filled in the formalities at the border guard and was happy to leave the silent sea behind him. During his short ride to the hôtel de Russie, his curiosity prevailed.

Armand Silvestre

Silvestre entered Russian territory in Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) where Russian border guards inspected his luggage and controlled his passport. Unlike the other writers he took a train through the Baltic region to St. Petersburg. He left Germany with “a feeling of deliverance.”21_{The reason for his discomfort in Germany may have resulted from the}

Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

19_{Théophile Gautier, Voyage En Russie (Paris: Charpentier, 1867), tome I, 108.} 20_{Ibid., tome I, 109.}

21_{Armand Silvestre, La Russie. Impressions. Portraits. Paysages (Paris: Edition Nationale Emile Testard & Cie,}

(14)

14

I - Moscow in nineteenth-century travel literature

In order to study the French nineteenth-century travel literature in context, a short summary will be provided of the events that occurred in this century. At the end of the eighteenth century, the French Revolution took place in France. Many fled the country for different reasons. During the century that followed the French Revolution, republics and monarchies alternated. This resulted in the escape of prominent figures into exile, and in the tradition of keeping travel diaries, or road journals, which were later published for the public. This chapter will follow the journey of prominent and less famous French travellers to Moscow during the nineteenth century. Different events, such as Napoleon’s invasion into Moscow and the fire of 1812 as well as the impact of the Crimean Wars during 1855-1856, have affected their points of view on Moscow and on the Russian society. Moreover, a short summary of the changing circumstances in Moscow and St. Petersburg will provide a necessary understanding of the characteristics these cities possessed. The aim of the analyses of the travelogues is the search for similarities and contrasts in their interpretation of the city’s monuments.

Moscow had to give up its title as the capital of the Russian Empire because Tsar Peter the Great established St. Petersburg as its new capital, this lasted from 1721 until 1917. One of the reasons for this change included the travels of Peter the Great to Europe in the late seventeenth century and his Western/European thinking. After his visits to England and Holland he became aware of Russia’s backwardness and thus his primary aim was to improve military engineering, shipbuilding and reorganise the government and its resources.22 The experiences abroad made him want to modernise the Russian Empire and therefore he established a new capital, St. Petersburg or Petrograd, on a newly acquired territory on the Baltic Sea. He moved all important persons, art and institutions to St. Petersburg and opened a “window to Europe”. At that time, the country had to face threats from different sides, among which the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Tatars, and Sweden. Tsar Peter I was determined to protect and even expand his lands. While he primarily focussed on building the city of St. Petersburg, it will be interesting to examine if Moscow too underwent changes during that period.

The travel accounts of several French writers, assisted by their guides and translators to make the journey safe, will take us to Moscow.

22_{“Peter the Great and the Russian Empire,” accessed April 7, 2017,}

(15)

15

Madame de Staël

Madame de Staël was among the first to enter Moscow, just before Napoleon’s arrival in 1812. In her Dix Années d’Exil, she first described anecdotes of her life in Paris and continued by providing a chronology of events during her journey from Coppet in Switzerland, through Austria, Poland, Russia and to Sweden, before her arrival in England. Therefore her travel accounts on Moscow and St. Petersburg were quite restricted and formed only a small part of her book. She had read earlier published travel journals just as her younger peers, and with the ideas of the Enlightenment and some sort of superiority in mind, she left revolutionary France. Even before she arrived in the city of Moscow, “the golden domes already announce Moscow.”23_{She immediately linked the golden ornaments, such as the cupolas, to the Orient,}

but also revealed that “Asia and Europe are united in this huge city.”24_{The churches bore the}

imprint of luxury which they obtained from Asia. Moreover, although she perceived the Orient as a place where wealth was omnipresent, she referred without hesitation to disorder. Further, the Orient was a space unlike orderly Europe, where the monuments had bizarre forms and the people looked primitive. This primitivism was ascribed to the ruler (Alexander I), the system as well as to the people.

She wrote about the Kremlin that its strange forms and structure reminded her more of Turkish minarets than of a fortress as they were known in the West. And although the construction seemed Oriental from the outside, the “footprint of Christianity is visible through the multitude of venerated churches within the Kremlin.”25

As we will witness in the other travel accounts, de Staël perceived that “the commercial establishments are of an Oriental nature; men with turbans or other diverse costumes coming from the Orient display the rarest products.”26

Madame de Staël also questioned Peter the Great’s decision on changing Russia’s capital. Was it to hide the Oriental traditions so visible in Moscow? She was not sure whether he made the right choice in relocating the capital at the extremity of his empire and suggested that “this is a big question which probably needs centuries of reflection.”27

1818 (Hachette Livre, 1861), 418.

24_Ibid. 25_{Ibid., 421.} 26_{Ibid., 424.} 27_{Ibid., 423.}

(16)

16

Jacques Ancelot

Jacques Ancelot travelled to Moscow in 1826 and his published book Six mois en Russie was nothing more than a collection of letters he wrote to his friend Xavier Saintines. These letters were initially not made to be published because Ancelot was anxious about the criticisms he would receive as he explained in his foreword, but a year later he still decided to make his observations available to anyone who might be interested. He explained that as an impartial traveller he might provide diverging experiences that could benefit the debate on Russia.

Ancelot primarily paid attention to the architecture and was astonished by the irregularity of the buildings, and their unusual forms. He stated that: “these strange constructions belong to no existing system of architecture in the world, and one is still searching for these models in different parts of the world”.28_{He went further into detail when examining}

Saint-Basil Cathedral and came to the conclusion that “this piece of art transcends one’s most peculiar imagination.”29_{Like the other writers, he made the comparison with colourful fruit.}

According to Ancelot and many others, the domes on top of these Christian churches provided them with an Oriental physiognomy.

About the Kremlin, he was less affirmative, concluding that “the architects who have raised this mass of buildings did only obey to the caprices of their imagination, but the ensemble pleases the eye anyway because of its varied oddness.”30

Astolphe de Custine

De Custine wrote that most people travel because they are bored, but he would not identify with that attitude and recognised that, in this world, the differences were becoming increasingly rare, due to an increased modernising West (Russia included), so one had to treasure them for the moment.31 Reasonably, he argued that the next generations of travellers would do better than the early travellers of the nineteenth century and that the spaces within Russia would be increasingly uncovered and explored.

In his travel account La Russie en 1839, Marquis de Custine experienced Moscow in summer and appreciated the environment, and noticed that Russia, “in the luminescence of the

de S.M. l’empereur (Dondey-Dupré, 1827), lettre XXVIII, 249.

29_{Ibid., lettre XXVIII, 253.} 30_{Ibid., lettre XXIX, 260.}

(17)

17

sun, is neither European nor Asian, but uniquely Russian.”32 He described the light in Moscow as different from any light he had seen in Europe. Highly interesting as well is that de Custine’s travel stories were written from a particular critical point of view which will be examined in more detail below, nevertheless, he seemed to admire the singularity of the buildings in Moscow more than he could criticise it. Astolphe de Custine, who had visited St. Petersburg before Moscow, called Moscow “the Christian Orient”, which showed to which extent European and Asian characteristics were attributed to this city.33 He shared his astonishment and admiration concerning the domes of all different kinds, “recalling tropical fruit.”34_{The Frenchman even}

compared the domes of the churches to the tsars, who were keeping an eye on the population in this way. According to him, the Russians would not escape from this invisible prison, even the climate was an accomplice.35 He referred to the mass of buildings which encircled the people, combined with the permanent surveillance of the emperor, which restrained their freedom. The cold climate in winter only facilitated the construction of frightening massive buildings in which the people were kept warm, instead of light religious edifices which appealed to the eye. Notably, unlike his peers, he disliked the Saint-Basil Cathedral which was in his eyes only pretty from far.

De Custine seemed to be intrigued by the Kremlin as a whole. He liked to call it “the prison of the ghosts [sic]”, and referred more than once to a prison.36_{He attempted to trace the}

origin of this intriguing space, which led him to Ivan the Terrible. According to him, no absolute reign matched the reign of Ivan the Terrible, and in his words “our world will never see another piece of art resembling the Kremlin”. In his eyes, “the Kremlin without the tsars is like a theatre without light and actors.”37_{He suggested that Moscow should be the only natural capital of the}

Russian Empire, principally because of the Kremlin. He even stated that Moscow (or the Kremlin) “served as border between the West and the Orient: the ancient and the new world are present: under the successors of Genghis Khan, Asia has waded into Europe one last time; and, when it withdrew, it kicked the ground, resulting in the rise of the Kremlin!”38_{He clearly}

noticed that both Europe and Asia were present in the monument.39 De Custine contradicted himself several times. He compared Moscow to Persepolis, Bagdad, Nineveh, Babylon, and

32_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXVII, 415.} 33_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXIV, 255.} 34_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXV, 289-290.} 35_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXV, 291.} 36_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXV, 286.} 37_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXVII, 394.} 38_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXIV, 269.} 39_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXV, 293.}

(18)

18

Palmyra, thus anything but European. He also asserted that the Russians played an important role in the aspects of the city, that they liked vanity and appearance, which was expressed in the style of Moscow’s buildings.40_{He perceived the Kremlin as disproportionate and not in}

harmony with the needs of a modern civilisation, and called it a Northern Acropolis, a barbaric Pantheon or the Alcazar of the Slavs.41 Furthermore, he mainly described the Kremlin as disorderly and as violent as can be. He primarily blamed Ivan the Terrible and his successors for this, who had been ruling and controlling the people. As to the Treasure Room in the Kremlin, the marquis described it as a ridiculous, incoherent and outright ugly space. What the writers such as de Custine perceived as the core of the Kremlin was a construct the “Enlightened West” did not want to face anymore, despotism, cruelness, fanaticism, barbarism, and stagnation.42

Charles de Saint-Julien

Charles de Saint-Julien was a quite unknown traveller and writer in the nineteenth century and had lived in Russia for over fifteen years. He travelled again to St. Petersburg and Moscow in 1851 and wrote his Voyage pittoresque en Russie. De Saint-Julien had devoted a whole chapter on Moscow in his over 520-page book, thus making it a very broad read. His travelogue showed great care with regard to history, he gave a detailed historical account of Moscow’s origins and its rulers. He also included and described the roads taken between the different cities.

First of all, Saint-Julien divided Moscow into three aspects: a religious, architectural and commercial aspect.43 He categorised Moscow as an industrial city, which did not marry well with the military. That is maybe why all military structures were to be found in St. Petersburg.44 The religious aspect involved the Russian popular religious practices even more so than the churches that Moscow possessed. In his account, the Russians breathed religion in the way they expressed themselves, by signs and rituals. Almost all writers referred to the present religiosity, probably as an implicit contrast to Europe. Moreover, as a recurring phenomenon, when he spoke of the religious monuments, he was unable to categorise the style

40_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXVIII, 427.} 41_{Ibid., Tome III, lettre XXV, 288.}

42_{Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, “Why the ‘Othering’ of Russia Is Neither Historical Analysis Nor Helpful,”}

Muftah, April 14, 2015, http://muftah.org/why-the-othering-of-russia-is-neither-historical-analysis-nor-helpful/.

43_{Charles de Saint-Julien, Voyage Pittoresque En Russie (Paris, 1852), 177-178,}

http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015026685597.

(19)

19

of architecture he perceived, knowing that “it is not gothic art, nor Moorish or Byzantine; even less so classical art of the Antiquity: it is some kind of composite art, in which the imagination of the architects inspired by the Orient, has melted in all lines and ornaments.”45 Unlike some other writers, de Saint-Julien detected some harmony in the middle of these strange decorations which pleased the eye of the visitor and explained that “if the crosses would not have been on top of the domes, he certainly would assume they were minarets and mosques”.46 Because the cupolas clearly were Oriental imitations.47

The third aspect manifested itself in the many markets Moscow possessed. Saint-Julien noticed “the traders gazing at the buyers from the doorstep of their stands, with their floating beards and long kaftans, which would even amaze the bazaars of Baghdad and Basra.”48 He admitted that the city’s beauty belonged to a different civilisation, closer to Byzantium or India than to contemporary Europe and explicitly linked the Kremlin to the “old Muscovite genius”, whereas St. Petersburg represented a more modern idea.49_{Indeed, he remarked, like those of}

some other writers suggesting that, instead of destroying buildings to improve the view on historical buildings, the Russians built new constructions next to the ingenious Kremlin and other highly aesthetic edifices.50_{When mentioning the Kremlin, he firstly admitted that “this}

style of architecture can only be found in the Kremlin or in some Oriental poem” and that “the singular irregularity is not without harmony, this extraordinary fantasy of the artist which imagines the mind in a world of dreams and chimeras.”51_{Within the Kremlin walls, describing}

the Treasury, he enlisted the objects in this room with accuracy. It included gold, diamonds, and next to it Middle-Age byzantine art and semi-barbaric art from an unknown Orient.52 He mentioned the strange association these artefacts evoke. He compared it to an exhibition of objects coming from an enchanted palace from Arabic tales.53

Subsequently, the visit of the Saint-Basil Cathedral was being reviewed. According to de Saint-Julien, “it is the most marvellously unusual construction one can imagine.”54 And the

45_{Ibid., 193.} 46_{Ibid., 166.} 47_{Ibid., 194.} 48_{Ibid., 202.} 49_{Ibid., 166.} 50_{Ibid., 185.} 51_{Ibid., 183.} 52_{Ibid., 186.} 53_{Ibid., 190.} 54_{Ibid., 207.}

(20)

20

irregularity and incoherence of the composition would be called barbaric if the artistic aesthetics did not overwhelm the entire construction.55

Alexandre Dumas (père)

Alexandre Dumas was one of the most famous French writers of his century. In September 1858, he spent two weeks in Moscow, but his Impressions de voyage en Russie narrated only a minimum on the city of Moscow itself. The book was an extensive gathering of anecdotes and encounters with Russians Dumas experienced and did not read like a description of places. On Moscow, he hastily spoke of the Saint-Basil Cathedral as “the dream of a sick spirit, executed by an insane architect.”56_{Furthermore, he felt like “he had finally reached the}

old Russia, the real Russia, when entering Moscow, and not some counterfeit Russia like St. Petersburg.”57

Théophile Gautier

Théophile Gautier was a French artist of renown and had travelled many places before visiting the Russian Empire. During the winter of 1858, he finally spent time both in St. Petersburg and Moscow and discovered the country under thick layers of snow. An interesting fact is that he and Ancelot, discussed above, both called Moscow “Russia’s real capital.”58

Gautier’s narrative concentrated mainly on the climatic conditions within the country and its snowy landscapes. Throughout his travelogue, he stayed primarily neutral and objective. Gautier restrained himself most of the time from dividing certain aspects of Moscow into Oriental and Occidental spheres, except for some monuments and their architecture.

For instance, although Gautier perceived not much difference between the housing in the two cities, he could not possibly avoid the polychromatic domes of the hundreds of churches. In front of the Saint-Basil Cathedral, he seemed to be confused as if it were a fantastic mirage, which would fade with a gentle breeze. He abandoned the attempt to try to compare this cathedral which obviously had no equal.59 He nevertheless identified numerous elements when entering Moscow’s most perplexing construction. Gautier saw a mix of Catholic worship and Orthodox saints, combined with Byzantine elements, which gave the whole a quite

55_{Ibid., 208.}

56_{Alexandre Dumas, Impressions de voyage en Russie (Paris: F. Bourin, 1989), 480.} 57_{Ibid., 507.}

58_{Théophile Gautier, Voyage En Russie (Paris: Charpentier, 1867), volume 2, 1.} 59_{Ibid., volume 2, 29.}

(21)

21

primitive appearance.60 At the same time, he emphasised that the domes of this church could be Hindu, Chinese or Tibetan. He complimented the beauty of the artefact, declaring that there was nothing more splendid, beautiful and rich than the Saint-Basil Cathedral. His concluding remarks included the original primitivity of the Kremlin, which he considered being of real Muscovite taste.61 Yet, he also judged the Kremlin from the outside as Oriental.

Gautier’s writings were poetic, which made his critique on the constructions less apparent, but in reality whilst giving the impression of staying objective, he utilised the noun primitivism more than any other writer.

Armand Silvestre

Armand Silvestre went to Russia in 1890 and wrote La Russie. Impressions. Portraits.

Paysages which was published in 1892. The writer and poet Silvestre was less famous than

some other writers that have been reviewed above, he nonetheless had written a lot of prose, poems, and pieces of theatre with influence and in an attempt to shed a new light on Russia, his travel account was reasonably original being one of the last of the nineteenth century.

Interesting is that religion took a central place in his accounts, calling, for example, the religious buildings “Christian mosques.”62_{He designated Moscow as a land full of mysticisms,}

on the “doorstep of the jealous sentinel Orient.”63_{He linked the buildings within the Kremlin}

to different kinds of religions. “Within the Kremlin, the heart of Holy Moscow never stops beating, even under the yoke of the conqueror”.64_{For him, the Kremlin was the centre of}

religious life in Moscow.65 He called one of the cathedrals within the Kremlin of a Greek-Oriental style, with Byzantine elements and referred to the architecture of the churches within the Kremlin as Mount Athos style, with Muscovite austerity.66 More general, he overall conceived Russian contemporary art as missing a sense of aesthetics.67

60_{Ibid., volume 2, 33.}

61_{Ibid., volume 2, 65.}

62_{Armand Silvestre, La Russie. Impressions. Portraits. Paysages (Paris: Edition Nationale Emile Testard & Cie,}

1892), 98. 63_{Ibid., 102.} 64_{Ibid., 113.} 65_{Ibid., 117.} 66_{Ibid., 111.} 67_{Ibid., 119.}

(22)

22

Armand Silvestre watched the domes of the Saint-Basil Cathedral shining in gold and compared Moscow and this church particularly to “a curtain which opens itself to the Orient.”68

According to him, the monument descended from a ‘wild Orient’.

He did not come across the Occidental Catholic tradition in Russia, because “the gothic architecture within Catholicism symbolises harmony which has no place in Moscow, a madly sun-kissed Oriental city, in which all forms take the shape of different sorts of fruits.”69 Moreover, he criticised the practice of Christianity, which was of a liturgical nature; the real Christian Christianity, inspired by the holy word was nowhere to be found.

Comparison

The travelogues that are analysed above have influenced each other and most travellers have visited St. Petersburg, which enabled them to compare the two main cities of the Russian Empire. De Custine travelled to Moscow in 1839, so twenty-seven years after Madame de Staëls’ journey. He criticised her writings because of her fame. He suggested that famous persons kept a diary purely for societal purposes, whereas less famous travellers depicted the reality better because of their willingness to keep one.

In the first place, what fascinated, or at least surprised the travellers were Moscow’s monuments. The monuments were immediately linked to the reign of Ivan the Terrible in most of the travel accounts. The monuments at the centre of attraction were the Saint Basil’s Cathedral, on the Red Square, the Kremlin, and its Treasury. In general, as European visitors could not identify with the unusual models of architecture which were omnipresent in the city and they all seemed to agree that this was either a mix of Oriental and European structures or a style of architecture whose origins had not been categorised by art-historians.

More specifically, the travellers of the Romantic period often referred to the scenes of

Thousand and One Nights, to come to terms with the strange architecture constructions and the

inexhaustible sense of imagination the Russians and their rulers supposedly possessed. The foreigners identified golden pyramids and bell towers in the form of minarets. Many ascribed a Byzantine or Asian style to the palaces and temples and attributed an Oriental twist to the churches and their bulbous domes. In some cases, this was considered to be of bad taste.

68_{Ibid., 98.}

(23)

23

In relation to the monuments, one could find the importance of the aspect of seasons. Dumas, for example, witnessed Moscow in winter whereas most of the other Frenchmen saw Moscow in summer, which enhanced the link made between Moscow and the Orient. For that matter, most of the writings contained the same vocabulary in describing the city and it is true that the French writers who spent time in Moscow shared the view that the colourful image Moscow possessed in the nineteenth century came from the Orient. They often referred to Asia when mentioning the commercial markets and seemed to have ideas on what the Orient looked like. At the same time, nearly all of them also underlined the fact that Moscow could neither be compared to Europe nor to Asia. The travel accounts of Madame de Staël, Astolphe de Custine, and Théophile Gautier among others showed this inability to categorize Moscow in existing frames.

Furthermore, it was common to compliment Moscow on being the real embodiment of Russia, very unlike the new capital city of St. Petersburg. This had been noticed by Ancelot and Dumas and rightly put into question by Madame de Staël. The travellers have attempted to label the religious traditions and constructions as well as the religious mores of the population. This has sometimes resulted in an amalgam of analysing the ethical values instead of the religious values inherent to the Orthodox faith. Lastly, considering the origins of the writers, Napoleon and the fire of 1812 were implicitly or explicitly referred to more than once. They have shown their curiosity towards the events that happened in the early nineteenth century and were eager to discover the impact this had on the city and its people.

(24)

24

II - St. Petersburg in nineteenth century travel writings

This chapter will take the study of the writings of the French travellers, whose work on Moscow has been examined in the first chapter, to the northern capital, St. Petersburg. The overall focus will lie on the cityscape of St. Petersburg, and the prominent monuments, such as the Summer and Winter Palace, the various cathedrals and the Peter and Paul Fortress. St. Petersburg’s nature, by contrast, was often represented through descriptions of the river Neva and the seasonal climate changes. Obviously, most of the visitors did not forget to mention the role of Peter the Great, who built the city at the beginning of the eighteenth century.

This chapter has the intention to establish the viewpoints of the French writers on the outlook of St. Petersburg, which may or may not existentially vary from the perspectives on Moscow. The main aim is to detect what the authors focus on, and to what extent they refer to Oriental or European influences. It might just as well appear that the setting is considered as Russian in nature. This could mean that the writers identified features inherent to Russia, that could neither be ascribed to a European nor an Oriental style.

Madame de Staël

Most of the travellers visited St. Petersburg before travelling to Moscow. This was not the case for Madame de Staël, who had to escape from France after Napoleon had declared her a persona non grata. Due to the political instability in contemporary Europe and, mainly, Napoleon’s conquests, she was not able to reach England, so she had to take a detour on her journey, passing through Kyiv, Moscow, St. Petersburg and Stockholm before arriving at her destination in England. Most of the time she was followed by the invading French Army, which arrived just days after her visit to Moscow in 1812.

De Staël was remarkably positive about St. Petersburg. In her account she referred to St. Petersburg as the city of the tsars, she added that it was “one of the finest cities in the world” and argued that magically “all the wonders of Europe and Asia [sic] start up from the middle of the deserts”.70_{This was a strikingly positive note on the origin of the capital of the Russian}

empire, with which most of the other writers discussed here could not agree because of the barbarity of the act of building a city that cost so many lives. De Staël went even further as to

(25)

25

say that “this magnificent labour of man is worthy of the transparent water which adorns it”, only to conclude on a slightly critical note, that “had Peter I directed similar undertakings towards the South of his empire, he would not have obtained what he wished for, a navy; but he would perhaps have better conformed to the character of his nation.”71_{She probably alluded}

to the cold climate, which seemed to be incompatible with the nature of the people, who generally liked to spend their days outside, as they were used to in the rest of the country. Furthermore, by raising such a navy on the outskirts of Russia, the Emperor seemed not to have taken into account the aspects of the nature specific to that part of the Empire.

She was invited more than once to Russian dinners and larger parties which allowed her to assess the interiors of Petersburg townhouses, and her judgment was that “the plants of the South, the perfumes of the Orient, and the divans of Asia embellish these residences.”72_The

noblewoman was aware of the modern streets and she found that “the buildings still possess a dazzling whiteness”, so she compared them to phantoms in the moonlight.73_{Nonetheless, she}

did not further provide detailed judgements on the buildings, palaces, and other monuments.

Jacques Ancelot

Jacques Ancelot arrived in St. Petersburg in May 1826 and stayed for about two or three months. In his letters, he was eager to report to his friend Xavier-Boniface Saintines what he was about to see. Before coming to St. Petersburg he was aware of the history of the foundation of the city and called it “an improvised city of monotone regularity”74_{and underlined that he}

only recognised Moscow as Russia’s true capital. He criticised the way Peter the Great crowned St. Petersburg as capital of the Russian empire, stating that “even if we imagine that the court of France or England receded from Paris or London, the newly chosen cities will become merely the seats of government, Paris and London will nevertheless remain the capital cities of these two kingdoms.”75_{Ancelot implied here that the features of Moscow would invariably represent}

the Russian Empire better than St. Petersburg.

He also articulated that “if the tsar was to decide to change his residence today, it would only take a few years before this majestic scaffolding collapsed; and this city; which does not

71_{Ibid., chapter XVI, 434.}

72_{Ibid., chapter XVI, 435.} 73_{Ibid., chapter XVI, 433-434.}

de S.M. l’empereur (Dondey-Dupré, 1827), lettre VII, 40.

(26)

26

uphold the affection of the peoples, will soon become a simple port”.76_{It showed that Ancelot}

had little appreciation for this pompously built city. He made it even clearer by repeatedly formulating in his letters that “even if my eyes were dazzled, my soul was not satisfied at all.”77

He did not deny that, at first sight, he was amazed by the appearance of the city but “I soon got bored of being astonished and apprehensive of the grandeur of the city, what is left after every step is that there is neither place for happiness, nor for liberty.”78_{He clearly pointed to the}

absence of historical origins when he wrote that he could only visit the innumerable structures which decorated St. Petersburg because “one should renounce at studying anything but the objects of these magnificent and sad conquests of a hasty civilisation, an apparent victory against the sea by the might of only one will, […]”.79

Ancelot visited the monuments in the city and reported on the Peter and Paul Fortress, the Neva river, the Winter Palace, the Hermitage, and the Catherine Palace in Tsarskoe Selo. The Peter and Paul Fortress was built by Peter the Great to protect his city from invaders and to lock up prisoners. Ancelot briefly described the fortress only by enumerating the buildings he perceived within the fortress, such as the Mint and the Saint Peter and Paul Cathedral. Within the cathedral, the remains of the rulers after Peter I lay in their tombs, but Ancelot was more impressed by the trophies on the walls which reminded him of the achievements of these emperors, more than the epitaphs on their graves. He distinguished “these luxurious shields, clubs, halberds, these Persian, Moldavian or Turkish banners, which envelop the royal tombs with a glorious shadow”.80_{There is an assumed connotation of the Orient in this description}

because the objects represented Russian conquests in the Orient, rather than objects of Northern conquests like the ones in Sweden or Finland.

Ancelot poetically admired the Neva river, in a season “when the ice on the Neva breaks, the shiny city is no longer separated from Europe’s trade.”81_{This happening was celebrated by}

the entire population, a part of whom would be able to exchange the city for a boat for a short period of time, leaving them with a feeling of being free. Soon after, Ancelot observed “the

76_{Ibid., lettre VII, 41.}

77_{Ibid., lettre VII, 43.} 78_Ibid.

79_Ibid.

80_{Ibid., lettre XXII, 168.} 81_{Ibid., lettre XXII, 168-169.}

(27)

27

zigzagging boats, happy with the awakening of nature, saluting the sun as a long lost friend, who they were hoping to see again, but who would only stay for a short while.”82

The French playwright then visited the Winter Palace, where the imperial family habitually resided. Since Catherine II, the Hermitage museum had been located there as well. Ancelot immediately criticised the costs of the construction of the Winter Palace for the number of people that perished while building it, while adding that, in his point of view, “the regrets as to the appearance of this building […] of bad taste” would only accumulate over the years.83 Moreover, he further criticised the residence as “belonging to the century of degeneration and affectation, […], of extravagance and luxury.”84_{This critique also appeared in the description}

of the Winter Palace by Gautier and Silvestre.

Ancelot’s reviews on the Hermitage, its library and its theatre, were more warm-heartedly, acknowledging that “the curiosity of the travellers is awakened by the innumerable number of objects the Hermitage contains.”85_{His close attention to, and his admiration for the}

numerous paintings of foreign artists could be explained by the fact that they generally emanated from the West, a civilisation he was part of and could identify with while being far from home. Thus, although St. Petersburg looked European, Ancelot ‘orientalised’ the city in a way, by exclusively recognising objects that truly originated from Europe.

The summer residence of the tsars, also called the Catherine Palace, was located in Tsarskoe Selo, less than 30 kilometres South from the city centre of St. Petersburg. Next to the palace, the Frenchman perceived “a Chinese village, distinguishable by the strange ornaments of Asian taste.”86_{It is notable that this was one of the only passages in which he explicitly}

described something Oriental in taste in the surrounding area of St. Petersburg, and promptly used the word bizarre without hesitation. Besides the contrast between the small village and the baroque palace, he once more recognised the uniformity of the park in Tsarskoe Selo “which insinuated art was achieved and nature was subverted.” Furthermore, as in Petersburg, “the long straight avenues corresponded to its majestic architecture.”87_{As to the interiors of the palaces}

82_{Ibid., lettre XXII, 169.}

83_{Ibid., lettre XXV, 198.} 84_{Ibid., lettre XXV, 199.} 85_{Ibid., lettre XXV, 198.} 86_{Ibid., lettre XVII, 120.} 87_{Ibid., lettre XVII, 121.}

(28)

28

he had visited in the Russian capital, they were “marvels of luxury and power, who looked the same everywhere”, but did not procure him with passion or interest on his part.88

Astolphe de Custine

The marquis de Custine reached St. Petersburg in July 1839. His narrative on the monuments and the city’s nature were closely intertwined. Taking the example of the Winter Palace, for example, which was still partly covered in scaffoldings after the fire in December 1837, he instantly made clear how he perceived St. Petersburg. For him, it was an expression of “the pride of one man, who was inclined to build extraordinary things by the force of men, against the laws of nature.”89_{In one sentence, he underlined Peter the Great’s narcissism, the}

beauty of the constructions, the cost of human lives for the sake of building this new capital, and the unfavourable grounds and climate which would have made such a project inconceivable under any other circumstances.

Astolphe de Custine shared the generally negative impression of the flatlands on which St. Petersburg had been built with his fellow travellers of the nineteenth century. He criticised the imperturbable regularity and the grandeur of the avenues, which made it, according to him, the most monotone capital of Europe. Like Ancelot, he could not agree with St. Petersburg being the real capital of the Russian empire. He described “a city without character, more pompous than imposing, rather colossal than beautiful, filled with edifices exempt of style or taste, without any historical significance.”90

The Frenchman warned his reader several times that “the imitation of the classic monuments will shock you when you consider the climate in which these models are awkwardly transplanted.”91_{Yet, he did not only refer to the lack of harmony between these creations of}

mankind on the one hand, and the severe nature on the other but also expressed his aversion as to the character of the imitation that he ascribed to the city’s architecture. For example, he mentioned that the monuments in the style of classic antiquity “did neither fit the nature of the soil, nor the climate or the costumes and traditions of these people”.92_{Furthermore, he}

continued that “to imitate that what is perfect, is to spoil it, we should copy the models strictly

88_Ibid.

89_{Astolphe de Custine, La Russie en 1839 (Paris: Librairie d’Amyot, 1843), tome I, lettre VIII, 257.} 90_{Ibid., tome II, lettre XIV, 178.}

91_{Ibid., tome I, lettre VIII, 246.} 92_{Ibid., tome I, lettre VIII, 247.}

(29)

29

or invent them anew”.93_{His tirade did not stop here, as he added that “nature and history are}

nowhere to be found in the Russian civilisation; nothing has come up out of the ground or from the people; there has been no progress, one fine day all of it was imported from abroad.”94 This was a harsh critique on the imperial family who was, in de Custine’s eyes, unsuccessfully attempting to imitate the West. In his opinion, all structures in the city were made “out of self-love and not for the self-love of art.”95_{The irony in his writing indicated his revulsion towards a}

man like Peter the Great, who was responsible for the death of thousands of men, “just for the sake of owning a European city and acquiring the renown of a great people.”96

Although de Custine did not approve of the imitations and the poor taste of the monuments, he showed some sort of admiration towards this city that had emerged from the sea.97 He realised that “few political crises would cause as much damage as this annual revolt of nature against an incomplete and impossible civilisation.”98_{Moreover, De Custine attempted}

to depict two different images of Petersburg, one by day and one by night. He perceived that “in the opposition of Petersburg’s two faces [day and night], there was a symbolical sense to be found”, linking day-time to the modern city and the future, and night-time to the old city and the past.99_{He was very pleased with the light effects of dusk and dawn during these white}

nights, which was only to be found in the North, and watched and described the sun set and rise more than once.

According to de Custine, the only monuments carrying some originality were the Russian churches, as he pointed to his readers. “Soon you will be struck by the number of steeples, towers, metallic needles who appear everywhere: this at least is national architecture,”100_{as “the golden ornaments these churches possess are part of the national}

tradition.”101_{He was more forthcoming towards the imported Byzantine style, because, as the}

Russians are Greek in religion, their borrowing is justified.102 Other than that, he stated that “these churches had maintained their primitive originality”, which was meant to be positive. 103

93_{Ibid., tome I, lettre VIII, 248.} 94_{Ibid., tome II, lettre XIV, 165.} 95_{Ibid., tome II, lettre XI, 45.} 96_{Ibid., tome II, lettre XIV, 160.} 97_{Ibid., tome I, lettre VIII, 250.} 98_{Ibid., tome II, lettre XIV, 166.} 99_{Ibid., tome III, lettre XXI, 131.} 100_{Ibid., tome I, lettre VIII, 246.} 101_{Ibid., tome III, lettre XXI, 221.} 102_Ibid.

(30)

30

By attributing this national originality to the Orthodox churches, de Custine did orientalise Russia, whose heritage was closer to Byzantine Greece than to Europe in his mind.

Charles de Saint-Julien

Charles de Saint-Julien started his narrative on St. Petersburg by emphasising that “we have a false and too absolute opinion on Russia which we have inherited from Voltaire”, he meant by this the idea that Peter the Great was “the first Muscovite prince who had the idea to introduce the Western civilisation into Russia; […].”104 According to de Saint-Julien, Peter I had only developed the thoughts of Ivan III, Ivan IV, Boris Godunov and Tsar Alexis.105 As to the creation of St. Petersburg, de Saint-Julien accurately remarked that it was about “conquering nature after having conquered these men,” referring to the Swedes.106

De Saint-Julien visited St. Petersburg in June, so he was also present to witness the city’s white nights which occurred during summer. He admired the sky “purely enlightened by the most tender tints, at a moment in which the Western skies are plunged into darkness.”107_He

could not draw nor explain the image that presented itself in front of him, while these white nights were something he had never seen before.

Furthermore, he was surprised to see such a magnificent city, which could have been created by magic. In his own words, “St. Petersburg wears, as imprinted on all edifices, this will power, this spirit of persistence inherent to the Russian nation.”108 He linked art with magic in the capital of Russia, where “art has done it all: it is the magic wand that has created this enchantment.”109_{However, in his description of the Winter Palace, he found that the}

“imagination and the fantasy of the artist dominated too much as if he had forgotten the rules of a natural taste.”110_{Otherwise, his description remained quite objective and he attempted only}

to mention the historical events of the monuments.

De Saint-Julien concluded that “winter is coming and will perhaps erase that what is too European in the city of Peter the Great, to imprint this eminently national stamp in order to compete with the antique Moscow.”111_{De Saint-Julien suggested in this paragraph that the}

104_{Charles de Saint-Julien, Voyage Pittoresque En Russie (Paris, 1852), 23.} 105_Ibid. 106_{Ibid., 25.} 107_{Ibid., 44.} 108_{Ibid., 21.} 109_{Ibid., 49.} 110_{Ibid., 39.} 111_{Ibid., 69–70.}

(31)

31

intrinsic winter climate of St. Petersburg was the only way to bring back Russian originality in this European inspired city. Therefore, the climate was put on the same level of importance as the monuments in determining the character of the nation.

Alexandre Dumas (père)

The famous novelist spent the summer months of 1858 in St. Petersburg. He thought that the city was much less picturesque than Moscow, because of its flat underground. “With the shortcomings of immobile flat terrains, only the lovely masses of vegetation bring charm to it.”112_{In contrast to the green vegetation, Dumas disliked the green colour, which, in his eyes}

“is a disease that all Petersburgians suffer from”.113_{He obviously alluded to the green roofs of}

the houses and other structures.

He briefly mentioned the Tauride Palace and qualified the convent of Smolny, being infused with oriental influences, as St. Petersburg’s most beautiful religious edifice. He may have implied that the Oriental beauty of the monument suited the cityscape and the spirit of the nation better than the European imitations he was used to seeing.

Furthermore, he compared the sailing boats on the Neva river to “agile multi-coloured fish, in green, yellow and red, caricatures of the rowing boats of Constantinople”, which presupposed the Oriental character of the naval models. 114

He described the Peter and Paul Fortress as “constructed, like all fortresses, to be a visible symbol of antagonism between the people and its sovereign”.115_{He also called it the}

Bastille of St. Petersburg. When Dumas wrote the Count of Monte-Cristo in 1844, he referred to the prison of Chateau d’If, near Marseille, to compare to the Peter and Paul Fortress. “One day, it will speak like the Château d’If. From that day on, Russia will have a history; until now, she only possesses legends.”116_{The French writer concluded that the events that had occurred}

in the Peter and Paul Fortress were still myths, there did not exist a common truth yet. This obstructed the creation of Russian history.

Although Dumas père spent quite some time in St. Petersburg, his stories concentrated more on large anecdotes on his acquaintances with the Russian bourgeoisie, than on detailed

112_{Alexandre Dumas, Impressions de voyage en Russie (Paris: F. Bourin, 1989), 157.} 113_{Ibid., 158.}

114_{Ibid., 157.} 115_{Ibid., 250.} 116_Ibid.

(32)

32

descriptions of monuments and touristic matters. From this point of view, his travel account could thus be compared to Madame de Staël’s diary. Her travelogue is also quite short on the descriptions and more extensively focussed on the social activities.

Théophile Gautier

Théophile Gautier, another renowned French writer, visited St. Petersburg in the early winter of 1858, in the same year as Dumas. When peace returned after the Crimean war of 1855, in which France and England were involved, and the death of Tsar Nicolas I, the country became easier to visit again for the more famous Frenchmen. As Gautier had travelled through Spain, Italy, Greece, and Turkey among other places, he had some substantial travel experience to compare with. It was not strange therefore that he called the city a northern Venice, as it was built on twelve islands. Gautier’s account was very descriptive and fairly objective, which made it particularly complete. As a result, he was able to recognise Greek influences, Louis XV sceneries and German-English housing styles from his previous travels. For Gautier, St. Petersburg’s theatres were of muscovite-byzantine style, illustrating that he clearly distinguished the Byzantine Greek from the Greek of classical Athens.117

When he crossed the city at high speed on a droshky (horse-drawn carriage), he recalled that “the modernity of this city formed a magnificent and Babylonian scene.”118_{It is remarkable}

that he labelled the city as Babylonian because Babylon was often seen as the symbol of the vainglory of men. Moreover, he added that “the city was created all at once from the swamp it covered, by the will of someone who did not experience obstacles”.119_{He clearly referred to}

Peter the Great’s power as an absolute monarch.

St. Petersburg’s climate and its nature occupied also an important place in his account. This was primarily due to the season in which he experienced the city. He was surprised when in autumn the Neva river scenery totally changed within a range of a few days, “from the most vivid animation to the immobility of death”, with the frozen river becoming one of the main streets of the city of the tsars.120 He was also able to participate in a ceremony for the

117_{Théophile Gautier, Voyage En Russie (Paris: Charpentier, 1867), 244.} 118_{Ibid., 115.}

119_{Ibid., 123.} 120_{Ibid., 156.}

French Nineteenth-Century Travel Literature On Russia

2016/2017