Russian-French relations in the 18th century. Russian-French relations. Cooperation between France and the Russian Federation in the field of international security
Short annotate
problem of the image of Russia in France is topical at the moment, when political and economic stabilization in Russia allows us to speak about the prospects of cooperation between Russia and European countries. That is why it is necessary to investigate the image of Russia in France and to promote it effectively.objects of our research are political relations between Russia and France and their cultural links in XVIII - XX centuries. The subject is the image of Russia in France during this period. The main purpose of the research is to investigate the evolution of the image of Russia in France and its influence on Russian-French relationship during this period. main conclusions of our research were the following. The evolution of the image of Russia in France was not consistent process. Firstly, the image of Russia in France depends on some objective factors: climate, the size of the territory, geographical position, the type of government, the level of education in Russia. But some subjective factors also had a great influence: the balance of powers, the situation on the international arena. That is why the positive image of Russia could be easily changed for the negative one, if Russia and France became rivals in international relations. There were some periods which were favorable for the image of Russia in France: the period when Ekaterina II was a Russian emperor, the period which followed after the War of 1812, the period when Russian-French alliance was formed in the end of the XIX century. And there were some period when Russia was perceived especially negative in France. The period which followed after the July monarchy was especially complicated for bilateral relations because Russian Emperor Nikolai I refused to admit Louis Philipp as a legitimate ruler of France. The period before the Crimea War was also problematic in the relations between Russia and France. The French press called Nikolai II a fool and painted Russia as a barbarian, despotic country. several stereotypical images of Russia were formed in France in the XVIII-XIX centuries. These were the motives of Russian barbarism and illiteracy, the view of Russia as a despotic country where people are devoted of their natural rights and the personality is of no value. But on the other hand the French admired the architecture of Russian cities, Russian literature, the reforms of some Russian emperors and thought it was a country with a great spiritual potential. these images were developed in the XX century also. French authors wrote that the Russian revolution was not something utterly new but had deep roots in the past. The censorship which was introduced by the new revolution government they called the worst evil of the tsar s regime . They said that Russian people are not just Bolsheviks but first of all Russian people. The relationship between Russia and France were not very good during the period right after the revolution. But subsequently because of the links which existed between communist parties of both countries, they became allies in the international arena. But it did not prevent the French from criticizing Russia because of some realities of internal life in the USSR. But they still praised soviet literature and estimated positively some trends of life in the USSR, like perestroika or otteppel .
Introduction
The problem of the image of Russia in France is, of course, relevant at the moment, when political and economic stabilization in Russia allows us to talk about the prospects for the development of cooperation between Russia and Western countries. In this regard, it is necessary to study the image of Russia in other countries and its effective promotion. ObjectThe research is Russian-French political relations and cultural ties between Russia and France in the 18th - 20th centuries. Subject- the image of Russia in France during this period. Targetresearch: consider the evolution of the image of Russia in France during the period of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries, and its influence on the development of bilateral relations. Tasks:
trace the evolution of the image of Russia in France during the 18th - 20th centuries; assess the influence of the image of Russia in France on the development of bilateral relations; identify its stable components and variable characteristics that may change depending on the specific foreign policy situation; to assess in general the degree of positivity and negativity of the image of Russia in France that had developed by the end of the period under review. In this work, we tried to consider the image of Russia in France as comprehensively as possible: we present the opinions of various travelers, journalists, writers, diplomats, both about the political structure of the country, and about the level of education in Russia from the point of view of representatives of France, and about the national character of Russians. Chronological and geographical framework The lower chronological boundary of our study is the 18th century. This choice is explained by the fact that it was in the 18th century, when the reforms of Peter I turned Russia into a great power and it became a country open to the outside world, it began to be actively visited by foreigners who formed their own opinions about its socio-political structure, culture and traditions . Until this time, cultural contacts between the two countries were generally insignificant, and Russia seemed to Europeans to be a country as distant and exotic as China or Japan. The upper chronological limit of our study is the end of the 20th century, namely, 1991, the year of the collapse of the USSR. Initially, we planned to limit our research to the beginning of the 20th century, that is, to consider the image of Russia in France and Russian-French relations only in the period of pre-revolutionary Russia. But in the process of studying the material, it became obvious that there was significant continuity in the ideas of the enlightened part of French society about Russia before and after the revolution, which will be discussed in our work. This determined our choice of the upper chronological boundary of the study. The geographical scope of the study is already defined in its title and is limited to two countries - Russia and France. To solve these problems, we analyzed the following sources and literature. Literature We have studied literature that gives a general idea of the development of Russian-French political and cultural relations in the period of the 18th -19th centuries, in particular: collections of articles devoted to diplomacy and culture of the countries in question, edited by A. S. Namazova, Russian-French cultural relations in the Age of Enlightenment, edited by S. Ya. Karp, relations between Russia and France in the European context in the 18th-20th centuries. edited by V. Berelovich. When considering relations between Russia and France in the last two decades of the 18th century, M. Strange's monograph on the issues of the French Revolution of 1789 - 1794 helped us a lot. Since it was the French Revolution that had a largely decisive influence on the development of Russian-French relations and the formation of the image of Russia in France at the end of the 18th century, this plot required a more detailed study. Articles by E. Dmitrieva, S. Letchford, T. Partanenko, E. Reo were also used, which cover issues of Russian-French relations in the 18th-19th centuries. We also studied materials from various collections of articles devoted to cultural and political relations between Russia and Europe, such as “Russia - East - West” edited by N. I. Tolstoy and “Russia and Europe: diplomacy and culture” edited by A. S. Namazova. Materials from the website http:/www.europe.rsuh.ru on the Internet, covering a number of episodes in Russian-French relations in the 20th century, also turned out to be very useful to us. We can name the following scientists who previously worked on the topic of Russian-French relations and the image of Russia in France in different periods: professors of cultural studies at St. Petersburg State University T. Partanenko and E. Dmitrieva, history teacher at Saratov State University S. Letchford, historians S. . Reo and P. Cherkasova. Sources We paid special attention to the novel “Germinal” by the French writer Emile Zola, which presents a vivid, from a socio-political point of view, image of a Russian nihilist who devoted his life to the revolutionary struggle. L. N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” made it possible to look at the problem from a different angle, to consider the attitude towards France in Russian society at the beginning of the 19th century. Chateaubriand's notes about Alexander I helped us form a fairly clear picture of the influence the Patriotic War of 1812 had on the formation of the image of Russia in France. The study of Joseph de Maistre's book “Four Chapters on Russia” also contributed to the consideration of the ideas of the enlightened part of French society about Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Of particular value for our research are the materials of correspondence between French and Russian writers from Moscow and Paris archival funds, published in the collection of the Gorky Institute of World Literature “Dialogue of Writers: from the history of Russian-French cultural relations of the 20th century, 1920-1970.” . Work structure The work consists of three chapters, introduction, conclusion, list of sources and literature. In the first chapter, dedicated to the evolution of the image of Russia in France in the 18th century, we consider a number of the most interesting historical subjects from the point of view of the development of Russian-French relations and France’s ideas about Russia: the response of French public opinion to the “Order” of the laid down commission of the Russian Empress Catherine II, Russian-French relations during the French Revolution of 1789-1794, as well as the image of Russia on the pages of the politically engaged newspaper “Moniteur Universel” during Suvorov’s Italian campaign of 1799. In the second chapter we study the most revealing episodes that reveal the nature of Russian-French political and cultural ties in the 19th century: the French’s ideas about Russia during the Patriotic War of 1812, then in the 20s of the 19th century, when there was a radical conservative turn in both the domestic and foreign policies of Alexander I, Russian-French relations during the July War monarchy, the rapprochement of the two countries during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which ended with the conclusion of the Franco-Russian Union in 1894. Our goal is to highlight the continuity in the development of the image of Russia in France in relation to the 18th century, as well as new trends, the influence of the changed political situation to form certain ideas. Here we present opinions about Russia of famous travelers, writers - feminist Olympia Odouard, Slavist scholar Louis Léger, historian Leroy-Beaulieu and others. The third chapter is devoted to the consideration of how Russia was seen in France in the 20th century, first of all, what was the reaction of the progressive part of French society to the radical socio-political changes that occurred in the country during this period. Such well-known representatives of the French creative intelligentsia as Georges Duhamel, Romain Rolland, Jean-Paul Sartre, Nathalie Sarraute, Maurice Druon and many others, in their publications, books and letters to their colleagues from the USSR, share ideas about the nature of the Russian revolution, collectivization and industrialization in the USSR, about political repressions of the 1930s, about the “thaw” and “perestroika”. The future of the study is a more detailed study of the image of Russia in France at the present stage based on the French press. Chapter 1. The evolution of the image of Russia in France in the 18th century
Russian-French relations have their roots in the distant past. Back in the middle of the 11th century, Anna of Kiev, the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, having married Henry I, became the queen of France, and after his death she exercised regency and ruled the French state. But until the 18th century, Russian-French contacts did not affect broad sections of society. In order to study the process of formation of the image of Russia in France in the 18th century, let us consider a number of the most revealing (from our point of view) episodes in this regard: the reaction of French public opinion to the era of the reign of the enlightened Empress Catherine II in Russia, in particular to her “Order...” The laid down commission of 1768, France's perception of Russia during the era of the French Revolution of 1789-1794, as well as the image of Russia in the public opinion of France during Suvorov's Italian campaign of 1799. In this case, these stories are considered from the point of view of the opinions of the most enlightened people of the time, representatives of high society: thinkers, philosophers, diplomats, as well as the French press. When analyzing the last story, dedicated to the relations of the parties and the perception of Russia in France during Suvorov’s Italian campaign, materials from the French press were used. Russia By and large, it first attracted the attention of Europe under Peter I. IN 1717, when Peter I signed the credentials of the first Russian ambassador to France, diplomatic relations were established between the two countries. Since then, France has always been one of Russia’s most important European partners, and Russian-French relations largely determined the situation in Europe and in the world. Pre-Petrine Russia, despite Russian-French contacts in previous centuries, was generally a distant, exotic country for Europeans, like China or Japan. All the greater was the amazement when a gigantic empire suddenly arose on the eastern borders of the continent, imperiously declaring its claims to the status of a great European power. Destruction invincible Sweden, Russian interference in the affairs of Poland and Germany required reflection. Meanwhile, the “Age of Enlightenment” was already beginning in France. The enlighteners took upon themselves the task of assessing the “Russian phenomenon.” Their assessment was mostly positive. Voltaire and Diderot saw in the historical destinies of Russia confirmation of their vision of progress associated with the successes of education and the reform activities of the “philosopher monarchs.” Peter I and Catherine II were set as an example to other autocrats as examples of “enlightened rulers” who correctly understood their mission. Of course, this reflected the extremely poor knowledge of the mentioned philosophers of the true Russian reality. They noticed only the “showcase” of the empire, entwined with the laurels of military victories, without delving into the details of its internal life. Also, there were many nuances in the enlighteners’ perception of contemporary Russia, which will be discussed below in the process of more detailed consideration of the position of Voltaire and some other representatives of high society in France at that time. Studying how the image of Russia was formed in France during the reign of enlightened monarchs, primarily Catherine II, it is necessary to consider what kind of calls in French society at that time the “Order ...” of the Empress of the Statutory Commission of 1768 generated. Initially, it caused delight in French public opinion. The Empress's French correspondents were the first to be privy to her creative plans and learned about the "Order..." long before its promulgation. In July 1766, Catherine told Voltaire that she was working on “a great order to the committee that will remake our laws.” The fragment about religious tolerance she quoted in this letter delighted Voltaire: he called the Russian empress “the brightest star of the North.” (Here it would be appropriate to say that geographically Russia has always been associated by the French with the North, which is understandable, since France itself is located in the southwest of Europe). The empress’s writing became part of the Russian mirage, which captivated many minds with hopes for profound transformations in an awakening Russia, and in France the echo of the Nakaz sounded especially clearly. However, this work of Catherine was officially banned in this country. The empress herself was not so much indignant as she was flattered that her work shared the fate of “philosophical works.” French censorship put her on a par with J.-J. Rousseau, D. Diderot, S. L. Montesquieu and other masters of minds. The Empress willingly shared this news about the ban with her correspondents. This is what Voltaire wrote to Catherine in his letter dated October 30, 1769: “I know... that it (the Mandate...) should be hidden from the French; this is too strong a reproach to our old, ridiculous and barbaric judicial system.” In another letter to Catherine, admiring the “Order...” Voltaire continued to criticize the order existing in his homeland in a somewhat exaggerated and derogatory manner, resorting to some historical analogies for graphic and expressive purposes: “I read that in one Western country, called the country of the Velkhs (more anciently barbarian tribe that lived in what is now Eastern Europe), the government banned the import of the best, most worthy book. In a word, it is no longer allowed to transport across the border the ideas of the sublime and wise “Order...”, which bears Catherine’s signature. I couldn't believe it. Such a barbaric act seemed too absurd to me.” “A Dutch publisher is printing this “Mandate...”, Voltaire continued, “which should have become a guide for all kings and for all courts in the world. The book is given to some pathetic censor to read, as if it were an ordinary book, as if any Parisian slacker has the right to judge the orders of the empress, again I am among the Velkhs! I breathe their air! Forced to speak their language! No, even in the Mustafa empire they would not have committed such a stupid tactlessness. Madam, I'm only a mile from the Velkh border, but I don't want to die among them. Their latest trick will force me, in the end, to prefer the temperate climate of Taganrog. Before finishing the letter, I re-read the “Mandate”: “The government should be such that one citizen does not have to fear another citizen, but so that everyone fears the laws. Laws should prohibit only what can be harmful to everyone individually or to society as a whole.” So here they are, the divine commandments, which the Velkhs did not want to hear! They deserve. they deserve they deserve what they have! Let us consider the opinions about the “Nakaz” expressed by various publishers, diplomats, and representatives of French high society in the second half of the 18th century. The Parisian publisher Grasse, for example, credits Catherine II with the fact that she, in his opinion, moved from the creation of individual laws to the construction of an integral “legislative system” covering “all aspects of life”, based on “justice” and aimed at weakening despotism . He emphasized the consultative nature of the empress's legislative initiative, referring to the words from the “Instruction”: “when developing laws, one must follow the spirit of the nation and take into account the opinion of the nation itself.” Grasset also drew the reader's attention to the fact that “the main and invaluable purposes of the laws” in the “Order.” freedom and security of citizens were proclaimed: “laws should strive to ensure that life, honor and property become as inviolable as the political system.” Grasse especially highly appreciated the humaneness of the criminal legislation proposed in the Order. But the Minister of Foreign Policy, Duke Degilion, expressed his “greatest surprise” with the order for the reason that, as it was subsequently stated by Khotinsky in a letter to Panin, “judging by the content, it must be assumed that Her Imperial Majesty deigned to read a lot and with fruit.” This is unlikely to be the opinion about “Nakaz.” can be considered flattering in all aspects. On the one hand, of course, “Order.” was a highly intellectual work, and recommended the Empress of All-Russia Catherine II as an enlightened empress, thoroughly familiar with the works of such French educators as J.-J. Rousseau, D. Diderot, S. L. Montesquieu. This, to one degree or another, shaped the idea of Russia as a country in which, in any case, representatives of the upper class, especially monarchs, are highly educated people. But, on the other hand, in the author’s words one can also feel genuine amazement at the high education of a representative of that nation, which until quite recently the French were inclined to consider a nation of “northern barbarians”, for whom the interest in reading is, to say the least, surprising. (However, when making arguments of this kind, we should not forget that the Russian Empress was German by birth). And yet, in conversations between the French minister (Degilion) and the Russian charge d'affaires, this should have sounded like a compliment, and such compliments in this situation, of course, were inevitable. It is quite possible that in the Parisian salons the discussion of the book was less disingenuous. It is, of course, quite difficult today to reconstruct the informal judgments voiced there. Their faint echo reached us through Voltaire. In April 1769, he admitted to the poet and playwright Soren that it was only at the prompting of Madame Du Deffant that he discerned the compilative nature of the “Nakaz.”, which had previously brought him into indescribable admiration: “You have hurt me. I re-read “The Spirit of the Laws” (Montesquieu’s work) and completely share the opinion of Madame Du Deffant that this is just the “spirit of the laws.” Thus, Voltaire, after a while, also sees the declarative nature of the “Mandate.”, which, willy-nilly, inspires fears that those proclaimed in the “Mandate.” ideas will be put into practice. Animated “Order.” was also discussed in the French-language press, although it cannot be considered an expression of purely French public opinion - most of these newspapers were published outside France. Anonymous journalists in their assessments of “Nakaz.” were freer than the empress's personal correspondents or diplomats. And their articles sometimes contained the skepticism characteristic of the era. Whoever the author was, a monarch or a commoner, by publishing a book, he brought his work to a public court and had to hear the verdict. However, the court could show generosity and leniency, especially since we were talking about a distant “barbarian” people: “No matter how one evaluates this book, it still serves as proof of the progress of philosophy in the North. The laws that the Russian Empress bestows on her people are not dictated by necessity. They owe only to her mercy and humanity,” wrote Mercure de France. The Gazette de deux Ponts echoed him in almost the same terms: “The darkness of ignorance that had hung over the North for so long has finally dissipated. Barbaric laws, born of centuries of barbarism, must finally give way to new ones, dictated by humanity.” It is quite obvious that in France Russia is considered a civilization of a completely different specificity, as evidenced, in particular, by the following remark: “Each nation has special laws, they correspond to its morals and customs, its state structure,” agreed the author of Mercure. “If these laws do not seem to us the best of the best, then at least we can assume that they are exactly what is suitable for a given nation, and it is not for foreigners to judge them.” Gazette considered it necessary to retell certain articles of “Nakaz.”, attracting the reader’s special attention to them. Among the first was Article 9, which spoke about the sole nature of power in Russia. Apparently, in the eyes of the Gazette author, it most fully reflected the uniqueness of the political system of Russia and the peculiarities of Russian lawmaking that flowed from it. In order to reconcile the reader, accustomed to discussions about “fundamental laws”, “prerogatives of the monarch” and methods of “separation of powers”, with such a harsh formulation of absolute power, the Gazette referred to articles 45-54 and 56 borrowed by Catherine from S. L. Montesquieu about the differences between peoples, and then quoted Article 520, which, according to the author of the note, although “contained a general truth, but in the mouth of the monarch acquired special greatness.” This refers to the empress’s recognition that it is not nations created for sovereigns, but sovereigns for their peoples. This helped soften the reader’s opinion about the arbitrariness reigning in Russia and create a “Nakaz” around the author. the halo of an enlightened legislator, not alien to the idea of national sovereignty. “Journal encyclopedique”, starting its reasoning with the picture of slavery of “eastern peoples languishing under the yoke of despotism” and emphasizing the “good deed” performed by Catherine, made a hidden comparison of Russia with France, which was clearly not in favor of the latter: “Hardly the light of science and the torch of the arts went out where they burned for so long, just as they flared up in another country and enlightened peoples previously immersed in the darkness of ignorance. Here happy nations fell from the bosom of freedom and fell into the shame of slavery. And far from here, the enslaved peoples forever accepted the form of free government and its laws. Let us pay attention to the word “forever”: obviously, the journalist perceived the “Order.” not as an “instruction” according to which new Russian legislation was to be built, but as a code already ready and put into effect. We should also not forget that since there was an “Order of the Legislative Commission,” it presupposed the active activity of the Legislative Commission itself, and Western public opinion also showed significant interest in this aspect of Russian socio-political life. And, if thanks to the “Order.” While Russia temporarily gained fame as a country in which enlightenment prevailed over Eastern despotism, the situation that developed in Russia with the Statutory Commission itself certainly played a negative role in shaping the image of Russia in France. Here, for example, is what N.K. Khotinsky reported in a letter to Count N.I. Panin in June 1771, describing his conversation in one of the social salons with a representative of French high society A. Eguillon: Khotinsky was forced to tell the Frenchman that “many Of the gathered provincial deputies who worked on this, there were military personnel, but because of the outbreak of the war, they were forced to go to the army, which is why the work subsided.” It is unlikely that such explanations could seem entirely plausible. Catherine II’s communication with French enlighteners certainly played a big role in shaping the image of Russia in France. The opinions they expressed in their own writings and on the pages of French newspapers aroused interest in Russia among a significant part of the French intelligentsia. As a result, philosophers, writers and journalists who visited Russia gradually became interested in various aspects of Russian life. Of particular interest to Western European and, in particular, French observers was the Russian Orthodox Church. The clergy, according to the observations of many Frenchmen, such as the biographer of Catherine II Rousset de Missy, the traveler Henri Dechizo, as a result of the reforms of Peter I, now in his midst foreigners could meet educated people and have serious conversations with them. Henri Dechizo highly appreciated the fact that now travelers who wanted to attend the services were not hindered and were allowed to enter the temple, thanks to which visitors were able to appreciate the church singing and the pomp of the festive ceremonies. These innovations formed the idea of Russia as a country open to external contacts, friendly to those who showed interest in it. As a result, in the writings of French memoirists who visited Russia during the reign of Anna Ioannovna, the image of the Russian Church is generally positive. Basically, the authors are indifferent to purely theological issues, and pay their attention, first of all, to the external, ritual side, admiring the treasures of Russian church art and church architecture. Deshizo was very impressed by the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, which he called “magnificent”, “excellent”. But there were exceptions. Jansenist Jacques Jube, on the contrary, has a rather negative attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church and openly writes about this in his memoirs, even despite the fact that it was he who was entrusted with preparing the ground for the rapprochement of the French and Russian churches. The embodiment of Russian high society for Zhube is Feofan Prokopovich - a drunkard, a glutton and a libertine, his characteristics Zhube transfers to the entire Russian Orthodox clergy. Jube calls Russians baptized pagans, and their rituals “mixed, unclean.” He explains this by the Russian national character. Indulging in carnal pleasures with animal fury, writes Jube, Russians from time immemorial lived only for today and thought only about themselves. Deceitful and flattering in relations with the strong, cruel in relations with the weak, Russians are vicious and superstitious, and pious only for appearances. And Jube sees the reason for this character of Russians in the “disordered” structure of society, where sovereigns are afraid of coups, the people are fickle, and the church slavishly depends on fragile secular power. Jacques Jube was not alone in his negative perception of the Russian Church. “Journey to Siberia” by Shappa d Otrosha produced the effect of a bomb exploding: by pointing out the dysfunction of Russian society, Chappe thereby refuted the Enlightenment myth about Russia. The Church, he writes, does not prevent despotism or soften it, the evolution of Russian society comes down only to the replacement of one despotic regime by another, even more bloody, and Peter’s daughter is no better than other tyrants ruling Russia. The priests constitute a “corporation of despicable slaves,” living off fees collected from believers. The position of the clergy, their dependence on the secular ruler at the head of the church, does not differ from the position of the other classes, and the people, who are “attached to the Greek religion to the point of fanaticism,” blindly obey the tyrant sovereigns. And the abyss lies not only between the people and the aristocracy, but also between the Europeanized nobility and the reactionary national church. Chappe's thoughts were picked up by the diplomat Corberon, but revised somewhat. In his opinion, Peter’s reforms did not divide Russian society into a Europeanized nobility and a backward people; they did not change anything at all. The Greek Church was for the Russians “a source of unparalleled corruption.” However, by curbing his clergy, Peter destroyed the only way to govern the common people. A Russian begins to act only if he is “promised a reward or threatened with punishment,” and it is impossible to instill moral principles in people so rude. Some French memoirists express the conviction that Russian customs in no way correspond to Christian commandments. Fornerod, for example, like Masson later, breaks with the Russophile tradition, which was supported for decades by Enlightenment philosophers in France. He condemns the “stupid respect” of Russians for their icons, and believes that Russians desecrate the true faith with “empty and ridiculous buffoonery.” Abbot Georgel sees the Russian Church, as well as Russian society as a whole, in more positive colors. A Catholic and monarchist, Georges oscillates between traditional criticism of Russia and the hopes that this country inspires in him. He admires the monarchical principles designed to save Europe from revolutionary danger. Abbot Georgel also writes that where the head of the church is a strong monarch, who has concentrated both secular and spiritual power in his hands, the church, although dependent on the state, is distinguished by tolerance, and priests are protected from persecution. The French Revolution of 1789 - 1794 played a huge role in the relationship between Russia and France. The stereotype of Russia that emerged in that era became stable and, with certain modifications, is retained in the West to this day. The French Revolution swept away the ideology of the Enlightenment and the process of dethroning Catherine II and Peter I began in French public opinion. They were no longer perceived as enlightened rulers. “Northern Semiramis” was portrayed as the same despot and monster as the other “crowned tyrants”, only more cunning than others, since she was able to turn the heads of even the smartest people of her time. The circumstances of the coup d'etat of 1762, well known in the West, that is, the assassination of Peter III, as well as the enmity of the empress and the heir, gave additional piquancy to the situation. For the time being, these subjects were taboo, but now the Jacobins did not fail to use them for their own purposes. Articles in official and semi-official publications, published in huge circulations, created among the average person the idea of Russia as a completely wild country, where the crowned kings are busy killing each other, and subjects oppressed by despotism, not excluding representatives of the upper class, are obediently silent . Nothing similar has existed in any other European country for a long time. Unfortunately, we have to admit that such an idea was close to reality, if we remember that Paul I did not escape in 1801 the fate predicted for him by the Jacobins seven years earlier. Of great interest from the point of view of the formation and modification of the image of Russia in the 18th century are publications in the politically engaged newspaper “Moniteur universel”. In the last years of the Directory, the Moniteur universel was the main official newspaper of France and had a monopoly on all official information. Although the Moniteur universel was an official newspaper, it contains historical anecdotes and funny stories of dubious origin. From the point of view of how the Russian topic was covered in the newspaper, the most interesting are newspaper publications for 1799, the time of Suvorov’s Italian campaign. In this case, we do not have the opportunity to provide here a detailed analysis of the newspaper’s materials, which contained information about the conduct of military operations and a description of numerous diplomatic subtleties. Let us only focus on how two outstanding personalities of that time were depicted on the pages of the newspaper, who personified Russia in 1799 - Suvorov and Pavel I. The newspaper's correspondents pay great attention to personality Suvorov, which at that time actually personified the Russian army.
Thus, during the Polish uprising of 1794, his name was mentioned on the pages of the newspaper in connection with reports of Russian cruelty in the conquered territory, about how Catherine’s generals were starving the Warsaw people, and Suvorov himself was called “the famous executioner in Catherine’s service.” As evidence of the cruelty of the famous Catherine’s general, the following words were also cited, which he said at a reception with the Austrian emperor: “I’m used to fighting, and it doesn’t matter that this campaign will cost me a measly fifty thousand lives.” Reports in the Moniteur Universel about Field Marshal Suvorov are characterized by the dominance of rumors and anecdotes over real facts, especially since Suvorov often deliberately provoked the appearance of these rumors and anecdotes. Here is what an informed contemporary wrote about this: “He (Suvorov) was a subtle politician and, under the guise of good nature, was a courtier, in front of everyone he showed himself to be a strange original, so as not to have envious people. Only insightful and benevolent observers could discern real education, composure and intelligence behind these feigned eccentricities.” Germaine de Stael’s opinion about Suvorov is interesting, which she made from a conversation with General Miloradovich, who during the Italian campaign was the general of staff on duty: “It is clear that this latter was an educated man, although he retained that innate instinct that helps to comprehend the essence of people and things in an instant. He hid his knowledge and pretended to act solely on inspiration in order to further shake the imagination of the soldiers.” In later French literature there are similar benevolent assessments, but during the period of hostilities, Moniteur universel, depicting Suvorov, used exclusively dark colors.
Moniteur Universel loved to entertain the reader with stories about the eccentricities of the Russian field marshal. One of the anecdotes tells about a Kherson landowner who invited Suvorov to dinner, to which the commander replied that he would accept the invitation on the condition that the landowner hang all the mirrors in the house. Suvorov had not looked in a mirror for many years, and the Empress herself received him in a room without mirrors. , In the city of Hatzof, where the Hungarian regiment was stationed, Suvorov called the officers to him, kissed each on the cheek, and the regiment commander on both cheeks and forehead. He asked for wine and, kneeling down, drank it to the health of Emperor Franz II (the Austrian Emperor), then rose from his knees and drank to the health of his emperor. Suvorov was not dressed well; he did not cover his bald head, even when traveling. The newspaper often mentions Suvorov’s bald skull - this is a typical example of creating a negative external image of the enemy, “lowering” the level of information about Russia and Russians. This eccentric man, reported Moniteur Universel, is approaching France at the head of an army of 80,000. On March 7, during a 20-minute meeting in Mitau with Louis XVIII, Suvorov told the exiled king that “the day when he helps him rise to the throne of his ancestors will be the happiest day of his life.” Suvorov's actions, both those already committed and those that he still intended to commit, were reported as an impending disaster. The newspaper reported that Suvorov received a horse from Emperor Franz II, and in return promised him the keys to Mantua, and that Suvorov was threatening the Elector of Bavaria. On the one hand, in the light of such information, jokes about Suvorov’s eccentricity begin to look much less harmless: not just an enemy is approaching Europe, but an enemy that is not entirely predictable, not behaving according to the rules, and this makes the outcome of events seem less obvious and more terrible. On the other hand, the anecdotes were intended to somewhat soften the information about the ruthless commander, as well as to refute the myth of Suvorov’s invincibility, which began to gain strength at a certain stage of military operations. The same combination of real facts with fictional ones, their appropriate processing, the use of any details that could denigrate the enemy, was present on the pages of Moniteur universel when the information concerned Paul I. As Suvorov’s army approached Italy and the borders of France, the newspaper began to actively publish anecdotes and “cases from life” designed to testify to the extravagances of the Russian emperor, as well as articles of a more general nature designed to discredit the enemy. An example is the “Letter from Hamburg,” published in the issue of May 31, 1799. After the Russian emperor spoiled relations with the Scandinavian countries and Prussia, the “Letter” reported, he began to threaten the free German cities. He declared himself the Grand Master of the Order of Malta, created to protect the Christian world from Muslims, and in the meantime he united his fleet with the Turkish one. “How different Paul’s policy is, it’s sheer madness, from Catherine’s policy!” - exclaims the author of the note. French newspapermen were especially outraged by the expulsion of ambassadors from various states from Russia in April 1799. On May 5, the newspaper reported on the misadventures of the envoy of the Bavarian Elector, whom Russian police agents put in a sleigh and drove for five days without stopping. The envoy was dropped off at Innerstadt on the Prussian border, where he waited for another eight days for his family to be brought there. This barbaric act, according to the French, should have outraged the citizens of civilized states. A special place among the rumors about the Russian emperor was occupied by rumors about his death. The message dated May 28 stated that, according to information received from St. Petersburg, a conspiracy had matured in the Russian capital and a coup had occurred. As a result, the nobles, who made up the bulk of the conspirators, killed the emperor, and the empress, like Catherine II, took power. However, at the end of the message it was noted that the information requires confirmation, since there has been no news from St. Petersburg for twenty days. On June 11, a short article reported that the news of a coup in the Russian capital turned out to be just a rumor generated on the Hamburg Stock Exchange. This rumor about the assassination of the emperor amazingly predicted his real murder, committed 2 years later. In general, the newspaper equated the campaign of the Russian army with the invasion of Europe by new barbarians. The characteristics of the main characters - the madman Emperor Pavel and the eccentric commander Suvorov - were subordinated to this goal. Moniteur universel correspondents interpreted the oddities of Suvorov and Pavel as Russia’s general isolation from the civilized world. Thus, the analysis of the above episodes convinces us of the following. The periods of the reign of Peter I and especially Catherine II, which coincided with the Age of Enlightenment in the West, were favorable for the formation of the image of Russia in France and for Russian-French relations. The time of the French Revolution became critical, when adherents of the revolution sought in every possible way to discredit Russia both in the opinion of their compatriots and in the eyes of the world community. It was then that the idea of Russia as an authoritarian country where individual rights were infringed became especially firmly established in French public opinion. To a certain extent, this idea continues to this day. Also difficult for the image of Russia in France was the time of Suvorov’s Italian campaign, when the idea of Russians as “strange”, unpredictable people, divorced from the civilized world, became entrenched. The image of Russia in France consisted of some stable characteristics, stereotypes that had been preserved for many centuries, and also some variable properties that were embedded in the image depending on the specific foreign policy situation and the balance of power in the international arena. Thus, stable characteristics include the idea of Russia as a “distant barbarian people”, which was invariably associated with the North, as opposed to France, located in the southwest of Europe. The opinion about the eccentricity and unpredictability of Russians also persisted for quite a long time and still persists. It should also be noted that, culturally, Russia was identified by the French with Asia, with its eastern shackles of despotism. It would seem that most of these characteristics (if not all) can be called negative, but here those variable properties of the image that were actualized depending on the specific situation acquire special significance. Moreover, they often resulted from constant properties, which were given a fundamentally different shade, so that it was already a new property. Thus, the idea of the “barbarism” of the Russians was replaced by enthusiasm for the enlightenment coming to this distant, uncivilized country during the reign of Catherine II. And the stable belief that oriental despotism reigns in Russia was significantly shaken after the “Nakaz.” Empress Legislative Commission. Moreover, those promised in the “Order.” reforms (although, given the declarative nature of the “Nakaz.”, researchers argue about the extent to which this document could become a guide to action) gave rise in French public opinion to the assumption, flattering for the Russian side, that Russia could soon become a country more free, with a much more perfect political system than France itself currently has. The degree of stability of such ideas in this case depended on how ready the Russian side was to support them through its direct actions. Chapter 2. The image of Russia in France and Russian-French relations in the 19th century
The 19th century became a special period in the history of Russia and Europe: the nature of international relations changed, stable coalitions of countries acting together in various wars were formed. The status of Russia in the international arena also changed: if the 18th century was the time when a huge state just appeared on the borders of Eastern Europe, then the 19th century was the time when Russia had already firmly become one of the great powers. This could not but change the nature of relations between the two countries in question, their ideas about each other. In this regard, we consider it necessary to devote a separate chapter to how the formation of the image of Russia in France in the 19th century continued. One of the first Frenchmen to touch upon Russia in his writings and set out his views on its socio-political structure, civilizational and cultural affiliation and prospects for historical development was the French-Italian philosopher Joseph de Maistre. In his essay “Four Chapters on Russia” (1811), he writes that Russia is a country that finds itself in a civilizational corridor between the West and the East, and therefore cannot lay claim to a special place in the world and to be considered an “exceptional” country. culture." Russia's falling into the gap between two world civilizations is the result of a confluence of unfavorable historical circumstances: Russia's falling away from Europe, caused by the church schism and the Tatar invasion. As a result, Russia did not become part of either of the two great civilizations, did not create its own culture: “This is not Europe, or at least it is an Asian race that ended up in Europe.” Joseph de Maistre considers Russian people fickle. “Everything, from state laws to ribbons on dresses - everything is subject to the tireless rotation of the wheel of your changes,” he metaphorically notes in his “St. Petersburg Evenings.” De Maistre also insists that Russia not only was not historically connected with Europe, but now, at the beginning of the 19th century, despite the fashion for the French language, imitation in architecture, literature, and secular customs cannot overcome the barrier separating it from European countries. The instability of Russia's modern political and social development is also a consequence of the fact that it did not experience cultural formation together with Europe. De Maistre sees the historical destiny of Russia as too local: he pins great hopes on the Russian army for victory over Bonaparte, but this is not enough to understand what the national vocation of the huge state is. De Maistre’s feelings towards Russians are twofold: on the one hand, he does not approve of Russian non-obligation, indifference to public issues, characteristic of representatives of all classes and associated with the peculiarity of interaction between government and society, doomed to silence. On the other hand, he is admired by Russian passion and temperament. With the Patriotic War of 1812, de Maistre pinned his hopes on the fact that Russia’s national destiny would finally be determined and it would take the path of progress, since victorious wars, as a rule, contribute to the flourishing of culture. In the eyes of the Catholic Joseph de Maistre, progress is possible only in a society imbued with the spirit of Christianity, therefore he makes the success of future socio-political transformations in Russia dependent on changes in the spiritual sphere. The Russian Orthodox Church does not have sufficient civilizing capabilities (in this de Maistre was in agreement with many Western European observers, whose opinions were set out in the previous chapter), since it does not have the necessary independence or authority, and Peter’s reforms essentially turned it into a state department. Joseph de Maistre believed that it would be useful for Russia to move closer to the Western Catholic tradition, and expressed hope for “a rapprochement of the Orthodox with Rome” and even a unification of churches. But joining the Catholic congregation would not mean a simultaneous change in the cultural status of Russia - a country, rather, an eastern one, but, most likely, would doom it to the role of forever catching up with the country's more developed neighbors. He wrote about the significance of the image of France and the French in the 19th century for Russia, for Russian high society in his epic novel War and Peace great Russian writer Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy. French for Russian high society, according to the writer, was a language in which they not only spoke, but also thought representatives of the Russian nobility. In the social drawing rooms of the early 19th century, the international situation, the situation on the fronts of the two Napoleonic wars, and the personality of Napoleon himself, who was at that time the symbol of France, were actively discussed. Napoleon was the idol of progressive Russian youth. Thus, one of the main characters of the novel, young Andrei Bolkonsky dreamed of fame according to the Napoleonic model, which the author of the novel evaluates as the French heritage in spiritual life. On the part of the French, the War of 1812 contributed to the formation of unique ideas about Russia in their country. The very course of military operations testified to the unpredictability of the Russians; the French could not explain many of their actions rationally, and this made the enemy seem even more dangerous. Subsequently, a lot of legends appeared about the death of Napoleonic army in the Russian snows. In 1838, Chateaubriand (a statesman during the Bourbon Restoration in France - 1814-1830) published his notes on the Congress of the Holy Alliance (held from October 20 to December 14, 1822), where he had the opportunity to closely observe the Russian emperor and talk with him during walks together. In his essay on the reign of Alexander I, Chateaubriand writes that the personality of this Russian emperor seems to him inseparable from the turbulent flow of historical events in Europe in the first quarter of the 19th century. He had a high opinion of the tsar’s diplomatic abilities and believed that he knew how to extract the greatest benefit for Russia from victories and defeats in battles with Napoleon. Chateaubriand also notes Alexander's strengthening of the Russian army and argues that Russia's strength on the European continent in the first quarter of the 19th century can only be compared with the power of Napoleon. Since the war declared by Napoleon on Russia seems reckless to the writer, and this step of his characterizes the emperor as a person alien to France, against the background of Napoleon’s censure, the personality of Alexander I clearly acquires features of greatness and nobility in Chateaubriand’s memoirs. The Russian sovereign, covered in the glory of the invincible Russian weapon, is seen as the patron of Europe, extending a helping hand to it to gain independence and peace. In Russia's foreign policy, Chateaubriand is attracted by the constitutional diplomacy carried out by the tsarist government in the 1810s, in particular, the granting of a constitution to Poland. Alexander's first reform initiatives in the internal affairs of the empire, in his opinion, also met the long-standing needs of the Russian state. The municipal deputation of Paris, which appeared at the Russian general headquarters on March 31, 1814, to discuss the terms of the civil capitulation of France, was surprised by the unusual statements of Alexander I in the mouth of an unlimited monarch that he recognized the right of the French nation to freely choose a government. Alexander I's arguments about the benefits of strong representative institutions contributed to the creation of his image as a sincere liberal, a “hero of the North.” Chateaubriand contrasts the enlightenment of the Russian Tsar with the sovereigns of the Holy Alliance: “He alone of all European monarchs realized that France had reached that level of civilization at which the country needed a free constitution.” Chateaubriand highly appreciates Alexander for “returning to the throne the former dynasty, which “our ancestors obeyed for eight centuries,” that is, the Bourbon dynasty. With deep respect, he emphasized the firmness of the Russian emperor in pursuing a foreign policy aimed at creating a new European balance, where France was given an honorable place among the great powers of Europe. However, he also recognized the contradictory nature of Alexander, which combined European education and the autocrat’s lust for power. In 1812, the French writer Germaine de Stael visited Russia. In the historical and political treatise “Ten Years in Exile,” she described her journey through Russia. De Staël rightly pointed out the difference in the historical destinies of Russia and Western Europe: “All other peoples of Europe joined civilization at approximately the same time and could combine natural genius with acquired knowledge.” The legacy of the Roman Empire was of great importance for the progress of European peoples, while the Slavs, pushed aside by Norman tribes from north to south, came into proximity with nomadic southern peoples who were at a lower stage of development than Slavic farmers. De Stael defines Russian civilization as essentially catching up with European civilization. By coincidence, de Staël was already in Russia when Napoleonic armies invaded its territory, and this allowed her to observe the Russian people during the period of heroic resistance to the aggression of Napoleonic France. Trying to comprehend the properties of the Russian nation that helped it win, de Stael argues with Diderot, to whom he attributes the phrase: “The Russians rotted before they had time to mature.” Unlike the great philosopher, she is inclined to see a high public spirit in contemporary Russia. A staunch supporter of liberal values, de Staël encountered other values of civilization in Russia, which, in her opinion, under certain conditions could become a source of popular enthusiasm. At the heart of the unprecedented heroism of the Russians in 1812 lies, she believes, “love for the fatherland and religion, and a nation rich in virtues of this kind is still capable of surprising the world.” In Russian Orthodoxy, de Staël especially values religious tolerance. It was this feature of Orthodoxy that, in her opinion, contributed to the unification of various nationalities into a single powerful empire. Moscow surprised its guest with the unusualness of its architectural appearance, sharply different from that accepted in European urban culture. Describing Moscow, de Staël especially emphasizes that it is a place of mixing of all the nationalities and customs that Russia is rich in, and the diverse appearance of its inhabitants leads the writer to think that it is here that “Asia unites with Europe.” Unlike Moscow, where signs of the East were everywhere noted, de Stael, without hesitation, ranked Petersburg among the most beautiful of European cities. In St. Petersburg, the writer had the opportunity to meet a wide range of Russian nobility and take a closer look at the social life of the capital. Noting the impeccable European manners of the Russian courtiers, Stahl constantly developed, from her point of view, an important idea for characterizing the Russians about the presence in them of a strong influence of southern peoples, or “rather, Asians”: “...their manners are European. Their character is oriental.” De Staël found the social life of St. Petersburg completely different from the form of communication among the elite layers in France. There, the educational salon culture involved discussion of intellectual life, political and theological debate, and abstract theorizing. A different situation reigned at high society meetings in Russia. In Moscow and St. Petersburg she met very enlightened scientists and writers, but at the same time, communication in Russia, from her point of view, meant “a crowded celebration that does not affect either the mind or the soul.” France at different periods turned its attention to Russia with interest, which was greatly facilitated by the foreign policy situation of a particular historical time. One of these events was, in particular, the Franco-Prussian War. But before that, in the 30s of the 19th century, relations between Russia and France were difficult. This was the period of the July Monarchy. The July Monarchy of 1830 and the new regime it gave birth to, the election of Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, whom Nicholas I considered a usurper of the throne, as king - all this complicated political, diplomatic and economic contacts between the two countries. During this period, against the backdrop of a deep socio-political crisis in France, tired of revolutionary upheavals, a group of like-minded people formed a system of ideas about Russia, which was later called in the literature “the Russian mirage of French legitimists.” Russia was portrayed as a conservative country where the traditions of a patriarchal society are preserved, and harmony reigns between the absolute monarch and his subjects, undisturbed by any constitutional innovations. The legitimist press portrayed the Russian people as people “of the old school, in whom love for the fatherland and attachment to religious and monarchical institutions are rooted deep in their hearts.” It is noteworthy that even the events of December 14, 1925 on Senate Square are interpreted by the monarchist newspaper, which, it would seem, should not sympathize with the rebels, as a manifestation of the extraordinary strength of spirit of the Russians, distinguishing them from the corrupted Europeans. Such ideas were developed by journalists of the legitimist newspaper Gazette de France. The fact that it was Russia, and not another absolute monarchy (Austria or Prussia), that was subjected to “mythologization” had several reasons: here are the traditional ideas for part of French society that Russia is a natural ally of France, because these two countries are not have a common sphere of interests, which means they have “nothing to share,” as well as the remoteness of Russia from France and the difference in climate, due to which it was easier to imagine Russia in a utopian light. However, Russophobic sentiments in French society during this period were no less strong. Their followers, who opposed the “Russian eastern darkness with Western light,” were even more numerous and influential. In the French press of the 1830s-40s, articles by journalists from the liberal newspapers Constitutionell and Journal de debates were imbued with anti-Russian sentiments. The anti-Russian orientation of the articles especially intensified after the introduction of Russian troops into rebellious Poland on September 16, 1831. Nicholas I's speech addressed to the Warsaw municipality caused sharp criticism, in which the emperor called Russia the only country where peace and harmony reign, and contrasted it with rebellious Europe. After its publication, the French republican press was filled with articles branding the “executioner of Poland.” Nicholas I was called “a crowned cretin, and the speech of the Russian monarch was “the result of hereditary madness, so widespread in the family of Russian emperors.” In the wake of criticism, various episodes of Russian history “surfaced”, refuting the legitimist myth about law and order reigning in Russia, in particular, the history of palace coups, as well as the fact that Nicholas I began his reign by suppressing the rebellion. Of undoubted interest for understanding the ideas that developed in France regarding Russia during the reign of Nicholas II is also the Catholic and Protestant press, the calling cards of which were, respectively, the newspapers “Correspondant” and “Semeur”. Despite the religious orientation of these two publications, as well as the Catholic newspaper Universe, their correspondents were more interested in issues of geopolitical rivalry between the two countries than issues of religion. This was due to the fact that the state of affairs in Europe had undergone significant changes since the 1840s. On July 15, 1840, the London Conventions were signed, excluding France from the Quadruple Alliance of European powers (England, Austria, Prussia and Russia), which advocated maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire against the Egyptian Pasha, an ally of France. From that moment on, the topic of Russia did not leave the pages of French newspapers: they began to see it either as a possible ally, whose main advantage is that it has other Asian zones of influence, or as a sworn enemy, an alliance with which is unnecessary and impossible. Catholic publicists see Russia as a rival, ahead of France in the search for a national idea and in the fulfillment of national duty. Thus, diplomat, politician and publicist Louis de Carne wrote: “Russia is moving towards its goal on the Bosporus and is preparing to accept the inheritance of two great Muslim empires... Is July France, full of strength, really going to drag out its days in inaction?” In their discussions, the Catholic press places first place the rivalry between the French national idea, which is assessed purely positively, and the Russian national idea, which is assessed with caution. “Russian monarchs,” writes a journalist from the newspaper “Universe,” “are striving to revive the Eastern Roman Empire, making it “Roman-Slavic” and basing it on the principle of Slavic nationality, and this unification is often carried out by force and is accompanied by all kinds of oppression. All this becomes possible because Catholic countries and, above all, France are weakened by internal strife. Catholic publicists, envious of Russia's aggressive energy, which France lacks, diligently notice what is fraught with trouble for her. For example, they argue that Russia “carries within itself the germs of decay,” which are contained in the despotic power of the monarch. However, the most significant source of French ideas about Russia in the 30s-40s of the 19th century is still not the French press, but Astolphe de Custine’s book “Russia in 1839,” which sounded like a refutation of the “Russian mirage” of French legitimists. Going to Russia, Custine “wanted to see a country where the peace of a self-confident government reigned.” After a trip to this country, Custine’s illusions dissipated; he returned to the country as a convinced “supporter of constitutions.” Having visited Russia, Custine saw that instead of peace, “only the silence of fear reigns there” and the power “subordinates the population of the entire empire to military regulations.” He admitted that he “prefers moderate disorder, which shows the strength of society, than impeccable order, which costs him his life.” Nevertheless, according to Custine, in Russia, among the enlightened part of society, there are many people who are ashamed of the crushing oppression of the authorities, who gain a sense of freedom only in the face of the enemy. According to Custine, this is what pushes many young people “to fight in the ravines of the Caucasus, seeking there a break from the yoke that they have to endure at home.” After the appearance of Custine’s book, which presented criticism of the “Russian mirage” in the form of apt aphorisms and sharp reflections, the anti-Russian point of view prevailed almost completely in the French press. Thus, in the first half of the 19th century there was an unfavorable dynamic in the development of the image of Russia in France. If in the 1810s Russia was perceived by the French as the liberator of European peoples, including the French people, from the harsh authoritarian rule of Napoleon, whom many French considered the illegitimate ruler of the country, and its emperor deserves the fame of one of the most enlightened European monarchs, then since In the 1920s, the conservative turn in both the domestic and foreign policy of tsarism entailed a cooling in Russian-French relations. And the even more conservative policy of Nicholas I, aimed at suppressing constitutional movements, European revolutions, and most importantly - promoting the rapprochement of Russia with the traditional European monarchies - Austria and Prussia, as opposed to France, aggravates the beginning of the separation of the two countries, which led to the fact that in the Crimean War 1853-1856 France, a traditional ally of Russia, opposes it on the side of Turkey. However, not only the diplomatic calculations themselves, but also the predominantly negative image of Nicholas I, which was created by the French press of the 30s - 40s. XIX century, played a role in the emergence of the crisis that led Russia and France to military confrontation in the mid-19th century. France’s ideas about Russia developed differently in the second half of the 19th century, when Alexander II, who ascended the throne, returned to the policy of reforms, and also began to adhere in foreign policy to the course of rapprochement with France, a traditional ally, interrupted in the 30s-40s of the 19th century. Russia, with which it had no controversial areas of interest. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 changed the order established in Europe by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. France suffered a crushing defeat, lost Alsace and Lorraine, and the established indemnity was unbearable. At this time, the country falls into isolation, Western European countries turn away from it. The difficult situation is further aggravated by the fact that Bismarck calls for the complete destruction of France; from the rostrum of the Reichstag, he claims that the next war with France will inevitably begin, perhaps in a year, and perhaps in two weeks. The internal situation in France at the end of the 19th century was also difficult. June 1881 an alliance is concluded between Austria-Hungary and Germany. May 20, 1882 The Dual Alliance becomes the Triple Alliance, Italy joins the military bloc. So France finds itself facing the threat of real destruction. The only chance that could save her at that moment was an alliance with Russia. The conclusion of such an alliance was not easy; the imperial family is connected to Germany - and to a skeptical England - by family ties. However, as is known, such an alliance was concluded, although the procedure for signing it was very lengthy. It took two long years for the union to be approved after the signing of the Consultative Pact of 1891. On January 4, 1894, the French Ambassador to Russia, Count de Montebello, received the text of the treaty signed by Alexander III. This was certainly a success for French diplomacy. Russian Foreign Minister Nikolai Karlovich Gire called this union “cordial agreement” in a letter to French Foreign Minister A. Ribot on August 9, 1891. Here it is necessary to say about one famous personality who played a significant role in the internal political life of France in the 80s-90s of the 19th century, as well as specifically in the conclusion of the Franco-Russian alliance. This is the writer and journalist Juliette Adam. A convinced patriot and republican, she gathered in her Paris salon those representatives of the beau monde of the Third Republic who saw Germany as the mortal enemy of France and Russia as the only possible ally. In 1879, Adan created the literary and political magazine Nouvelle Revue, which became a mouthpiece and ideological instrument for Franco-Russian rapprochement. Juliette Adam faced a difficult task, since liberal-republican France was hostile to autocratic Russia and its domestic and foreign policies. In Russia itself, in its conservative court and government spheres, there has long been a persistent prejudice against France - the “hotbed of republican infection” that spread in the Russian Empire since the times of A. N. Radishchev and the Decembrists. Therefore, Adan energetically promoted the idea of a Franco-Russian union and looked for like-minded people in Russia - those who understood the need for rapprochement with France, despite the political and ideological incompatibility of the two regimes. Juliette Adam herself sympathized with Russia and, for the sake of future rapprochement, set out to refute the fantastic ideas of the French about her - about her unfortunate princes, rude men and priests of dubious reputation. russian french communication cultural Juliette was delighted with her trip to Moscow: “I returned from Moscow, where I spent six days, which seemed to me like a tale of a thousand and one nights. I have never seen so much wealth and so many original monuments. This is Asia! This is India too! This is China too! There, in every church you can come into contact with the past centuries. This, of course, is a holy city... There I again felt what I once experienced in Rome" .
Many of Adan's friends believed that Russia also had something that it should not lose in exchange for certain institutions borrowed from France. This point of view was defended in his conversations with her by the convinced Slavophile (albeit brought up in the French spirit) Ivan Aksakov. Being a supporter of autocracy, he at the same time hoped that rapprochement with France would facilitate the inevitable liberalization of the regime. But the need to create a positive image of Russia in France at that time was dictated not only by official foreign policy. After the Franco-Prussian War, French society sincerely turned its attention to Russia. At the same time, France found itself in a paradoxical situation: it did not know its ally at all. Overgrown with anecdotes and legends, memories of the collapse of Napoleon’s army in the Russian snows, incredible rumors and fantastic information were often the source of very strange “knowledge” about Russia, which Flaubert expressed in his ironic “Lexicon of Common Truths” as follows: Cossacks eat candles .
The inspiration caused by the French-Russian rapprochement after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 gave way to true “Russomania” at the end of the 19th century. In 1870, Olympia Odouard came to Russia. A feminist, supported by Alexandre Dumas, a fighter for women's rights, she was also known as a traveler. The fruit of her stay in Russia was the book “Journey to the Country of the Boyars,” published in 1881. It was a historical work hostile to despotism, the content of which included not only a description of the system of government, police, commerce, religion, but also picturesque descriptions of the white nights of St. Petersburg, wolf hunting. Also in the second half of the 19th century, the famous French writer Emile Zola showed interest in Russia, presenting on the pages of his novel “Germinal” the image of a ruthless Russian nihilist, ready to do anything to achieve a lofty goal. In connection with terrorist attacks in Russia in the 70s-80s. XIX century, especially with the assassination of the Russian Emperor Alexander II by terrorists, this social type became one of the symbols of Russia in France during that period of time. Of course, this image gave rise to conflicting interpretations. Emile Zola, for example, in his novel dedicated to the unbearable everyday life of ordinary French miners and their difficult and courageous struggle for better working conditions, paints an image of a cold, decisive, mysterious Russian named Souvarine. In the finale, this closed man, who led an isolated lifestyle from those around him, spending his days in unnoticed intellectual labors, destroys a mine in which several thousand miners die, and evaporates in the fog. In the novel, Zola gradually contrasts Souvarine with the main character, Etienne, a French worker who, over time, through self-education acquires the necessary knowledge. On the basis of this knowledge, combined with bitter practical experience, his revolutionary views are subsequently formed, and he becomes the leader of the struggle for better working conditions waged by the miners. The author unambiguously expresses in the novel the idea that this readiness for cold, merciless, inhuman destruction, of which the Russian Souvarine was capable, is alien to the nature of the Frenchman. The author's attitude towards his hero is complex; Souvarine both terrifies Zola and at the same time evokes worship; the author believes that the future of revolutionary ideas lies with such people of action: “And when the bourgeoisie feels the pavement stones exploding under its feet, it will be the work of his hands.” He also encourages the viewer to sympathize with Souvarine, describing how his beloved was hanged in Moscow, how his eyes filled with tears when he learned that his favorite animal, the rabbit Poland, was slaughtered and put into soup. In the summer of 1872, the future famous Slavic historian Louis Leger was in Russia. Here he finds himself at a polytechnic exhibition in Moscow, organized in honor of the bicentenary of the birth of Peter the Great. “Everything that I saw in Moscow does not at all agree with the idea of those Muscovite barbarians about whom the Parisian press of my youth wrote,” Leger writes. Unlike Léger, Armand Sylvester, after his trip to Russia in 1890-91, was not inclined to praise her. A Parnassian poet, he does not share the general admiration for Russia. His book “Russia. Impression. Portraits. Landscapes” he ends with the words: “This book, written in pursuit of personal impressions, is a book of politeness, not sympathy.” Unexpectedly, his statement was made that Russians “are a young people, just forming their own literary language.” In Paris, which at that moment was overwhelmed by a wave of enthusiasm for Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, they did not understand him. In 1891, Jean de Beauregard, a monarchist and conservative in his political convictions, spent several weeks in Russia. Sharing the enthusiasm of his compatriots for the French-Russian alliance, the author admires the policies of Alexander III. In 1893, he published his book “To Our Russian Friends.” The introduction ends with the words: “God save the Tsar!” But more than a writer, Beauregard is a nationalist and Catholic, his main desire is to attract Russians to Catholicism. It is interesting that Beauregard considered the Russian people to be inclined towards this particular religion. Of course, the French intelligentsia’s fascination with Dostoevsky and Tolstoy was largely decisive for the formation of the image of Russia in French society during the period under review. For example, the French Slavic scholar Paul Boyer considered Tolstoy a “highest intellectual” and said that “Tolstoy is a completely simple man.” , mortal, no more than a mortal, but, absolutely certainly, one of the most beautiful, most perfect representatives of mortals who have ever existed... We love him for truthfulness, for sincerity, for simplicity, for his weaknesses, which delight us all the more because they belong to a delightful and rare genius .
The most significant work about Russia at that time, which basically fulfilled the task of forming a positive image of Russia in France, was the book by lawyer and political journalist Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu “The Tsarist Empire and the Russians.” . However, in general, the author’s positive idea of the spiritual potential of the Russian people and the prospects for the historical development of Russia does not exclude criticism of the authorities and the existing social system. From the position of Leroy-Beaulieu, the basis of Russia’s national identity was the rural community, the “world,” and he examines in detail the fate of the communities after the abolition of serfdom. According to the author, such a land tenure system facilitated the abolition of serfdom and saved Russia from social upheavals, which would still be inevitable in Russia. The central points in Leroy-Beaulieu's works on Russia constantly remained the connection between Russian character and Russian history with climate and landscape. Leroy-Beaulieu is amazed that reforms in Russia appear at the wave of the emperor's baton . He is perplexed: how can it be that the will of the emperor stopped the course of events or turned them back . The author dwells separately on the position of the Slavophiles. He considers their rejection of the West, bourgeois science, and political economy to be a utopia; using their example, he shows the mythological nature of social disputes in Russia. Turning to the system of government, Leroy-Beaulieu argues that the social system combines archaic features with the ability to unite people of the old and new formations in zemstvo assemblies. He describes in detail the transition from the noble service for elections to zemstvos, uniting different classes. They are, of course, not represented by equal numbers of deputies, but deputies of zemstvo assemblies are able to work together, coexisting peacefully, and in this zemstvos compare favorably with Western European parliaments, which suffer from an unwillingness to listen to each other and are torn by party interests. Turning to Russian journalism, Leroy-Beaulieu carefully examines the work of censorship, trying to separate its scope from the desire of the intelligentsia to resolve ethical issues. In other words, the author is trying to find out what allegories they resort to Russians to bypass Tsarist censorship. He also examines the emigrant uncensored press. Leroy-Beaulieu concludes that the result of the work of the tsarist censorship is the flourishing of the intelligentsia, that is, the spirit of opposition. But the intelligentsia is inclined towards political fanaticism and becomes a kind of secret order of “progress”. According to the author, the intelligentsia is represented by poor, rootless people, irritated fanatics. However, returning to the description of Leroy-Beaulieu’s work, it should be said that here Leroy Beaulieu’s adherence to revolutionary views prevents him from objectively assessing the situation: the author understands the intelligentsia as primarily the heterodox intelligentsia, losing sight of the fact that there was also a layer of liberal intelligentsia (zemstvo teachers, doctors and etc.). Leroy-Beaulieu is a contemporary and witness to the actions of terrorists, and he specifically dwells on their mutual misunderstanding with the people. The presentation of Leroy-Beaulieu’s arguments about Russia and its historical path of development can be continued, but the plots considered at this moment allow us to draw some conclusions. So, by the beginning of World War I, a positive image of Russia as an ally had developed in France. It can be said that Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu completed the line of positive perception of Russia begun by Voltaire as a young country in need of improvements and instigations from France. However, it should be noted that there is some ambivalence in Leroy-Beaulieu's judgments about Russia. Recognizing the enormous historical potential of Russia, he still does not place it on the same level of development as his homeland. In general, it can be argued that the image of Russia in France, and with it the nature of Russian-French relations, differed in different periods depending on the specific foreign policy situation. In this sense, the period that followed Russia’s victory in the Patriotic War of 1812 became favorable for the image of Russia in France and Russian-French relations in the 19th century, when a significant part of French society began to see in Russia the liberator of Europe and France itself from the power of Napoleon, who brought the country on the brink of disaster. Although, on the other hand, France’s attitude towards Russia during this period was also characterized by some ambivalence. And during the Franco-Russian rapprochement that followed the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, Russophile tendencies in French society almost completely prevailed. The period of the July Monarchy became critical, when Nicholas I refused to recognize Louis Philippe as the legitimate ruler of France. There is a noticeable qualitative change in the French’s ideas about Russia compared to the 18th century. The motive of “Russian barbarism”, which so often slipped through the pages of the French press in the 18th century, becomes almost invisible in the opinions of representatives of the enlightened part of French society. Russia is generally recognized, although traditionally monarchical and in need of improvements, but still a civilized country that has made an invaluable contribution into world culture (primarily literature). The ideas of individual French writers and diplomats about Russia are undoubtedly becoming more specific, as cultural contacts between representatives of the enlightened part of society in these two countries are becoming more extensive. Myths and legends about Russia, which arose at the beginning of the 19th century after the Patriotic War of 1812, are gradually being debunked and replaced by more balanced judgments, more based on real facts. However, it should also be noted those properties of the image of Russia in France that remained unchanged throughout the period of the 18th-19th centuries: this is the idea of unpredictability, eccentricity, “crazyness” of Russians, a condescending attitude towards Russians as a people standing, undoubtedly, on a lower level. stages of development, constant associations of Russia with Asia, with the East. Chapter 3. Russia of the 20th century in the view of the French intelligentsia
The modern history of relations between Russia and France began with the establishment of diplomatic relations between these two countries on October 28, 1924. It is known that the image of Russia was for a long time inseparable from French social and spiritual life, traditionally split into two approximately equal party and political camps - left and right . For more than seventy years, the most organized and dynamic force of the left camp, the French Communist Party, one of the most powerful in the Western world, identified itself with the USSR, devoting the main efforts of its impressive propaganda machine to popularizing its image. The success of this advertisement was facilitated not only and not even so much by the material assistance to the French Communist Party from the CPSU. October 1917 was perceived by communists and other leftists, including those who resolutely rejected the totalitarian regime of the USSR, as a natural, albeit distorted for historical reasons, continuation of the Great French Revolution of 1789 with all its enduring values of “freedom, equality and fraternity.” The most important factor that increased the interest of a significant part of the French in Russia was the long-standing and strong cultural ties between the two countries, which has already been repeatedly noted in this work. They were actively attended by such an influential spiritual force as the creative intelligentsia, whose prominent representatives - R. Rolland, L. Durtin, A. Breton, A. Gide, Jean Paul Sartre, Maurice Druon, Jean Dutour and others - have long felt for also the influence of Marxist ideas. The attraction of the French left to Soviet Russia was reinforced by no less strong national-patriotic motives. In Moscow, an ally in the First World War, the French saw the only real counterbalance to any contenders for hegemony in Europe and the world - from Germany to the United States. Moreover, this idea was shared by a significant part of the right-wing forces, which fundamentally rejected socialism in any of its forms and sharply criticized the Soviet system. Of course, in France there has always been a significant segment of the population whose perception of the USSR was imbued with fear and irreconcilable hatred. Along with liberal anti-socialist beliefs, they were based on deep traumas of the past - the cancellation of tsarist debts by the Soviet government, which ruined millions of small French rentiers, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty of 1918 and the Soviet-German Pact of 1939, perceived in France as a betrayal. However, at the level of public opinion, the segment of the population hostile to Russia remained in the minority for a long time, which sometimes caused serious concern among many of France’s Western allies. Many French writers and cultural figures were members of the French Communist Party (PCF); the French progressive intelligentsia actively supported the young Soviet Republic, with which it associated the reconstruction of social relations on a fair basis. The dialogue between cultural figures of both countries took place actively throughout the 20th century and gradually the range of problems discussed involved not only issues of creativity, but also political events that took place in the Soviet Union. Studying their point of view on these events can give a very comprehensive idea of how representatives of the French intelligentsia saw the USSR, its socio-political, economic and cultural development in the 20th century. The October Revolution of 1917, the campaign to eliminate illiteracy, collectivization and industrialization in the USSR, political repression, the development of literature and art, the phenomenon of the “thaw” in the USSR and the re-Stalinization of the Brezhnev era, perestroika - not a single important event or trend that determined the development of the USSR in the 20th century, did not go unnoticed by the French elite, who turned their attention with interest to the country, whose leaders declared it an example for the world community and a hotbed of world revolution. Interest, in this case, is not synonymous with sympathy, and below will be given both predominantly positive and negative points of view of representatives of the French intelligentsia of various political persuasions. In 1926, a famous French writer who sympathized with the Soviet regime responded to a questionnaire from the magazine “Literature of the World Revolution.” Georges Duhamel. In it, he highly appreciated the role of the Soviet Union in the world, saying that “a strong intellectual Europe cannot exist without Russia,” which brings Europe “a special light peculiar to it.” Mentioning the outstanding cultural achievements of Russia in the 19th century, as well as the continuity of interest between the two countries in previous centuries, he said that France should immediately invite this country to active cooperation. In his book “Travel to Moscow” he shares in detail his impressions of Russia. “Many people there consider themselves new people and truly believe in the significance of what they are accomplishing,” Duhamel writes. The writer notes that, contrary to expectations, in Russia they did not hide the shortcomings of modern life from him, they did not try to show him “an artificial, sleek Russia for foreigners.” He talks about the significance of the changes that have taken place in Russia: “The revolution has changed cities and villages, it penetrates - sometimes by good consent, sometimes with force - into the souls of people.” Duhamel highly evaluates the Russian intelligentsia and writes that on the eve of the First World War, the intelligentsia encountered a misunderstanding with the people - “an uneducated hungry crowd.” At present, according to the writer, the Soviet regime, having established itself, has become more humane. Duhamel has a high opinion of the scientific potential of the country of the Soviets: the intelligentsia has returned to their work, a new generation of “scientists from the people” is being born, various scientific institutes are led by scientists who have long been known and respected by the whole world, etc. Warmly supporting the revolution, the writer harshly criticizes censorship - “ the worst sin of the regime overthrown by the Revolution.” Some ugly little details of modern Soviet reality do not escape his attention, for example, new abbreviations in the names of government institutions - Gosizdat, OGPU, People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, etc., which he calls “barbaric words formed without any sense of harmony.” But, although the writer primarily pays attention to new political realities, he at the same time emphasizes that the Revolution does not exhaust the entire essence of the Russian person, and characterizes him in isolation from specific political realities. According to Duhamel, Russians are characterized by such traits as “slowness, a sense of fatality, a taste for talking, a passion for unrealizable dreams and projects, an inability to use time economically.” The traditional motif of “boundless Russia,” which was repeatedly found in the works of writers, diplomats, and travelers of the 18th and 19th centuries, is also present in the writer. Of unconditional interest for studying the ideas of the French about Russia in this period are the works Luc Durtin - a writer whose books were translated into Russian already in the 20s. Durtin published impressions of his trips around the USSR in both the French and Soviet press. In the preface to Vladimir Posner's 1932 book USSR, Durten denounced the Soviet system's "brutal repression of all political differences," the lack of attention to "pure science" and unification in the cultural sphere. However, during the entire period of the 30s. he considered the USSR an important participant in the anti-fascist movement and supported it on a number of points. And in response to a questionnaire from the magazine “Literature of the World Revolution,” Durten gave an interpretation of the confrontation between Europe and America and the role that Russia can play in this confrontation. He harshly condemns the “tyranny of powerful capitalism,” which for him embodies the United States, and calls Russia “the world’s highest hope” in the fight against the evil of Americanization. In general, Durten sees in Russia “an amalgam of bold innovations and archaic customs” and writes that it is “separated from other civilizations by the strange abyss of its borders.” (This motif of isolation from civilization was present in the writings of Joseph de Maistre at the beginning of the 19th century). “Russia is not the West, and not even Europe,” Durten continues and notes the proximity of Russian civilization to the “Asian source.” In this book, he shares his impressions of some important persons of the Soviet state who represented the image of Russia. The writer speaks with respect of the Commissar of Public Education Lunacharsky, who knew four languages and resigned when news spread, which turned out to be false, that revolutionary troops had bombed St. Basil's Cathedral. Durten does not accept excessive orthodoxy in Soviet society, and believes that the Soviet government is trying to become something like a religion for society. Further, he indirectly anticipates the mystification of power, which, according to many Western and domestic researchers, took place during the period of Stalin’s personality cult and even earlier, and without which, in his opinion, it is impossible to convince an entire people of the need to “bring the present to sacrifice to the future paradise." In painting and literature, Durten does not approve of excessive adherence to the exclusively realistic direction, pointing out that ideological restrictions prevent the achievement of heights in art. He also once again draws attention to the fact that censorship is not a product of the Revolution, that censorship oppression existed in Russia in the past, and that rejecting the legacy of the past will not be easy, but it is possible due to how firmly established Soviet power is now. Durten admires the fact that, due to the peculiarities of the socio-economic situation in the USSR in connection with the advent of the new government, “crimes related to the unfair distribution of wealth”, which make up nine-tenths of all crimes in the West, have lost their relevance here: “Laws, order, which we We couldn’t even imagine, but they became a reality there!” - he writes. Durten also notes the “victorious fight against illiteracy” waged by the Soviet government, its scope: “tens of thousands of schools are being opened. Higher educational institutions, museums, and laboratories are being created.” However, having become widespread, education, according to Durten, has lost its quality; in science, attention is paid only to applied practice, and fundamental research is almost not supported. Here Durten points out the insufficiency of the state’s own resources to carry out the industrialization of which the Soviet government was so proud: “The miracle of the Five-Year Plan became possible only with the help of thousands of foreign engineers.” The reaction of the French public to the repressions of the 30s was stormy. Thus, speaking at a rally in Paris on January 26, 1937, Andre Bretonsharply condemned these trials, calling them “a medieval trial against witches” and “the most monstrous outrage against justice that history has ever known.” Breton in his speech emphasizes that the events taking place in the USSR cannot be considered a continuation of the cause of the revolution, and the accusations brought against Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Radek, Pyatakov are implausible. He calls Stalinist leaderism imperialism, which, according to the laws of revolutionary rhetoric, indicates that Breton sees what is happening as a betrayal of socialism. In his opinion, such processes threaten the very idea of socialism and are unfavorable for revolutionary activity in the world: “The socialist idea will destroy itself if it refuses to defend human dignity.” Breton harshly condemns the current Soviet leadership, calling it the “ruling caste,” “not the embodiment of communism, but its enemy, the most vile, the most dangerous.” He already defined the regime that reigned in the USSR as a totalitarian, “police dictatorship”; its actions, in Breton’s opinion, plunged the country into “the twilight of dirt and blood.” The fate of the Soviet Union is also of interest to the writer Jean Guéhenno. In his article “Vain Death,” written on February 5, 1937, Guéhenno expresses his attitude towards political processes. He condemns those adherents of communism who “are afraid that they will violate their loyalty to the revolution if they do not try to justify everything that may happen in Russia.” Processes against the so-called He calls the “old revolutionaries” the excesses of the new revolutionaries. Speaking about the implausibility of the accusations, Guéhenno cites specific figures: of the twenty-five members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1919-1920, by the beginning of 1936 only one remained alive. Ten of them were subjected to repression, including the death penalty, as traitors. “Ten traitors for twenty-one proven revolutionaries. How can we believe this? - he writes. Assessing these events, Guéhenno concludes that there is a certain “Russian climate of revolution”, which “was determined by the long history of terror and blood,” in particular, “the history of the Revolution in Russia in the 19th century”: “These processes of the Trotskyists are very reminiscent of the processes of the Petrashevites, Nechaevites, Dolgushintsev. the same poisonous and suffocating atmosphere.” The road to freedom, he believes, has become more difficult for Russia than for anyone else. Guéhenno particularly focuses on the difference between the Revolution in Russia and in France: “The climate of revolution has become a climate of freedom in our country.” In the summer of 1935, he visited the Soviet Union at the invitation of Maxim Gorky Romain Rolland. On June 28, he was received in the Kremlin by J.V. Stalin. After leaving the country, he sent several letters to Stalin, to which he never received an answer. The leitmotif of Rolland's appeals to Stalin is the writer's concern that in the West “there is growing cooling towards the USSR.” He does not understand the background of mass repressions in the country, the reasons for many of the actions of the Soviet leadership. Rolland writes that sections of French society sympathetic to the Soviet system - part of the intelligentsia, professors, teachers, petty bourgeoisie - are especially worried that they cannot get answers to many questions and refute “slanderous rumors” discrediting the USSR. A wave of protest in Western countries, Rolland reports, was caused by the law on criminal punishment for children from the age of 12. This law actually existed and was popularly called the “law of three ears of corn” - a person who stole more than 3 ears of grain from a collective farm field was punished in court. Surrounded by rumors, he received, as we learn from Rolland’s letter, a different interpretation - that children are punishable by death for “religious persistence.” Roland mentions a number of other important facts: the trials against Kamenev, Zinoviev and others, the declaration of the Hebrew language as “counter-revolutionary” and some other anti-Semitic measures practiced in the country of the Soviets, persecution for religious beliefs and refusal of military service of the Doukhobors, the extradition of an anti-fascist to the police by Mussolini, who was hiding on the territory of the USSR, a trial against Polish priests. The mention in the letter of such a wide range of facts allows us to speak about the wide awareness of the enlightened part of French society about the events taking place in the USSR. Rolland, however, unlike other representatives of the French intelligentsia, believed in the guilt of the accused, but otherwise believed that everything he listed was just someone’s slanderous speculation, or the facts were distortedly interpreted. Such faith in the justice of what was happening in the country of the Soviets indicates how strong sympathy some representatives of French society had for the USSR. In addition, Rolland was outraged by the post-facto sublimation of Makhno, who during the revolution was portrayed as an anarchist and anti-Semite, but now they tried to present him as a hero who became a victim of the Bolsheviks’ slander. The letter was written in 1935, after fascism had come to power in Germany, and France saw the USSR as a potential ally in the fight against fascism. Therefore, Rolland specifically points out that many groups leading the anti-fascist struggle are simultaneously moving away from the USSR. Rolland is also upset by the loss of the USSR's authority in the USA and the countries of South America, “almost entirely conquered by the anarchist or Trotskyist opposition.” In conclusion, Rolland proposes to create a special information center in Paris, through which French society could receive first-hand complete and reliable information about what is happening in the USSR and calls himself the country's best friend. Unlike Rolland, another French writer Roger Martin du Gard belonged to that part of the French intelligentsia that had a predominantly negative attitude towards the Soviet Union. In his book “Colonel Momor” he outlined his views on the communist idea as such and on the USSR as a country that embodies this idea. Communism, according to du Gard, is a collective madness, in the name of which people can be cunning, lie, and be hypocritical, calling it “tactical dexterity” and being proud of it. Du Gard calls the Stalinist regime an imperial dictatorship that has deprived society of freedom of speech, doomed it to hard labor, to a life without basic benefits, and finds it absurd that it is its propagandists (“militant fanatics”) who spread the ideals of freedom, prosperity, recreation and etc. However, at the same time, he sees high moral qualities in the adherents of the Soviet doctrine - the spirit of self-sacrifice, a sense of human brotherhood, but this is not a basis for accepting their ideology and the regime that they would like to establish. Du Gard particularly draws attention to the difference in communist prospects for Russia and France: in Russia, where there are 2 million bourgeois and 148 million actual or possible proletarians, it was not difficult to establish communism. In France there are 23 million bourgeois and 17 million actual or possible proletarians - revolution is impossible, even despite the significant weight that the PCF acquired in society after the First World War. And yet, communism, du Gard believes, is generated by objective, serious socio-economic problems, and society cannot take an unambiguously negative position towards it. Stalinism was generated by an attempt to lead society from an autocratic system to a socialist one without any transition. Here du Gard refers to the theses of the father of Russian Marxism, Plekhanov, that if you try to create a socialist system in Russia, the economic and social base of which is absent in Russia, you will only be able to create a new Inca empire in which the socialist caste will direct national production using bureaucratic and terrorist methods. The first Bolsheviks, adds du Gard, also advocated the establishment of bourgeois democracy in Russia, believing that the stages of the historical path should not be shortened. The coming to power of the proletariat and the destruction of capitalism, du Gard will say through the mouth of his hero Colonel Maumour, leads to even worse consequences than capitalism, since proletarian society continues to cruelly exploit the individual, only now the exploited cannot hope to gain the upper hand over the owner, because there are no more owners , and is exploited by the working class. In addition to political issues, as already mentioned, the new Soviet art was also a subject of thought for representatives of the French intelligentsia. It is appropriate to give some opinions here Andre Malrauxabout contemporary Soviet cinema. He calls “Three Songs about Lenin” the biggest success of Russian cinematography in recent years. “The excitement he raises,” he writes, “introduces the foreign writer to the great tradition from Pushkin to Tolstoy.” But “We are from Kronstadt,” directed by E. L. Dzigan, Malraux called good, but uneven. “In Soviet art, as in literature, there are too few difficulties,” - this is how Malraux explains the main drawback of this film and many other works. Revolutionary art tries to avoid contradictions and doubts of the heroes, which in the eyes of convinced adherents of the new order look like apostasy, and this negatively affects the artistic content of works of art. The leading directors of Soviet cinema are, according to Malraux, Eisenstein and Pudovkin. Unlike Roger Martin du Gard, existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, whose acquaintance with Russia dates back mainly to the 1950s and 60s, treated Russia with deep sympathy. This is explained both by the increased authority of the USSR after World War II, and by the writer’s own attraction to left-wing political forces. In a letter to Mikoyan, he calls himself “a friend of your great country” and expresses confidence that the “Brodsky case” is just an incomprehensible and regrettable exception. But the anti-Soviet press claims, Sartre friendlyly warns his addressee, that this is a typical example of Soviet justice, and accuses the authorities of hostility towards the intelligentsia and anti-Semitism. In 1955, Sartre and Simone de Beauvoirvisited the USSR. The report on Sartre’s stay in the USSR says that the play “The Bedbug” and its production made a great impression on the writer, as well as the films “Ivan’s Childhood” and “Bathhouse”. At the same time, Sartre criticizes the communist society of the 1920s, saying: “Mayakovsky died not because he was against communism, but because at that time the communist society was depicted to him as one in which he himself could not live.” He was amazed at the scale of construction in the USSR, especially in light of the fact that housing is a big problem in Paris, and considered the policy of the Soviet leadership in this matter correct. Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir also visited several stores and said that GUM windows were better decorated than department store windows in France. But if Sartre recognized the superiority of the USSR in everyday improvements, he did not have the best opinion about Soviet painting. “You oppose formalism, but your artists are formalists of the purest water,” he said. Soviet people, according to Sartre, have become simpler and freer than before. He really liked the examples of Soviet modern architecture (the Palace of Congresses, the Palace of Pioneers), and Sartre was also impressed by the work of the disgraced sculptor Ernst Neizvestny. Voznesensky’s poetry stunned him and was perhaps the most powerful impression of the trip. Also during the trip, Sartre formed an opinion about the high aesthetic level of Soviet people, in which, in his opinion, they surpassed the French, among whom only a narrow circle of connoisseurs are interested in poetry. After Sartre’s next visit to the USSR in 1964, the Tan Modern magazine began systematically publishing works by Soviet writers. One of the reports on the visit of Sartre and Beauvoir says: “they left with the firm conviction that our country and our culture are experiencing a period of prosperity associated with the political line outlined by the XX and XXII Congresses of the CPSU.” In general, the French intelligentsia's perception of socio-political and economic changes in the USSR during the Thaw period was positive. In addition to Sartre, Claude Roy, Vercors (Jean Bruller), Nathalie Sarraute, Roger Vaillant and many others also greeted the changes with curiosity and approval. But during this period, at least one episode of international significance occurred, which darkened the USSR’s relations with Europe and the United States and was extremely negatively perceived by the overwhelming majority of representatives of the French intelligentsia who were interested in the USSR, sympathized with it and maintained close contacts with the Soviet side. We are talking about the participation of Soviet troops in suppressing the popular uprising in Hungary in 1956. Claude Morgancategorically condemns Soviet intervention in Hungary. He writes that by doing this the Soviet army undermines its authority as a liberating army and acts on the same principles as the French colonialists in Algeria. Morgan accuses the Soviet government of double standards: “It is impossible to defend the right of the people to control their own destiny when talking about Egypt or Algeria, and deny this right of the people in Budapest.” He also categorically opposes the fact that the French Communist Party supports the actions of the Soviet army in Hungary. Claude Morgan signed the Declaration of Protest drawn up Vercors, his example was also followed Roger VaillantAnd Claude Roy. He believes that by its actions in Hungary, the Communist Party of the USSR cut itself off from the mass of ordinary people and undermined the possibility of workers' unity for a long time. However, Morgan emphasizes that, while opposing the policy of the Soviet leadership in the Hungarian issue, he still has friendly feelings for his Soviet friends and sympathy for the USSR. Vercors(real name Jean Bruller) announced his refusal to conduct public activities after the entry of Soviet troops into Hungary. And after August 1968 (the entry of Soviet troops into Prague), Vercors published the article “Hitler won the war,” where he expressed the conviction that the violation of human rights by the country that stopped Hitler is, ultimately, a victory for Hitler’s ideology. Throughout the difficult post-war dialogue with his colleagues, Vercors spoke out on almost every fact of human rights violations in the USSR, sharply criticizing such policies. But at the same time he tried with all his might to maintain contacts; Without abandoning his principled position, but continuing cooperation, Vercors provided assistance to those representatives of the creative intelligentsia in the USSR who were in solidarity with their French colleagues, but did not have the opportunity to express their point of view. Significant in this regard is Vercors' polemic with the writer and historian Louis de Villefos, published in the pages of France Observer in 1956. Villefos titled his article “Collaboration is Impossible,” and Vercors urged: “Do not break the connection.” Louis de Villefoswrote that the Soviet invasion of Hungary “crushed the moral authority of the USSR and the trust in it of millions of people around the world.” The myth about the national sovereignty of the people's democracies, the “allies” of the USSR, was destroyed. “In the same way,” Vilfos continues, “the foundation of the Peace Movement was undermined and collapsed: the ideas of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, non-use of weapons, non-intervention.” After his return from the USSR in 1952, Vilfos harshly condemned the concentration camp system in Poland and the USSR, turning his attention to other incidents discrediting the USSR, such as the “Doctors' Plot.” “The great movement for the liberation of mankind,” he writes, “ended with Lenin and the October Revolution. Then it deviates, goes astray so much that it betrays the original ideals. If communism does not intend to reform, “de-Stalinize,” democratize, it is in fact not leftist, but a reactionary falsification of the leftist movement.” Vilfos opposes depriving people of freedom of thought and self-expression, as is happening in the USSR. Vercorshe argues with Vilfos, saying that, despite all the horror of the Hungarian drama, it is necessary to maintain contact and help communism in the USSR on its difficult path to renewal. After his visit to the USSR in 1953, Vercors visited it again in 1955 and, according to his memoirs, saw significant changes, which he characterized as signs of a “thaw”. A plan arose, carried out by Vercors together with Ehrenburg, to hold an exhibition of French painting in Moscow. Against the backdrop of the growing interest of French society in social changes in the USSR during the period when N. Khrushchev was the leader of the country, in 1961 she visited the country Nathalie Sarraute. In the 1950s-60s, she seemed to be the most important writer and authoritative person for the French left-wing intelligentsia. Before her arrival in the USSR, as follows from Graevskaya’s report on the writer’s stay in the country, Sarraute was convinced that during the period of the cult of personality, Soviet people were so in the grip of fear that they did not visit each other or talk to friends. She was also sure that in the USSR there were no works of art that were not created under direct orders. But upon arrival, conversations with Soviet writers (Vsevolod Ivanov, Nikolai Pogodin, Ilya Erenburg and others) made a favorable impression on her, and after a meeting at the Writers' Union, Sarrote noted that she really liked the atmosphere of “this meeting.” In Leningrad she was given the opportunity to speak to teachers and students, and the writer left with the feeling that she could express her views completely freely. Sarrott was greatly impressed by the appearance of Moscow and Leningrad, and the appearance of the crowd. She liked the Likhachev Automobile Plant Palace. The author of the report expressed confidence that Nathalie Sarraute’s trip was generally successful, and “will help dispel many false ideas existing among the French intelligentsia regarding the Soviet Union.” Later, in her personal notes, Sarraute wrote that “her visit to the USSR gave her a lot of joy and pleasant impressions.” Since 1956 (the writer’s previous visit to the USSR), the standard of living, in her opinion, has increased noticeably, “people are well dressed, cheerful, confident in the future, there is a blurring of social boundaries.” The USSR, Sarraute writes, has achieved great success in the spread of culture. “It is widely known that in no other country in the world do they read so much,” she develops her thought, “the interest in literature is enormous - not to mention the large circulations of books published in the Soviet Union.” Later, Sarraute visited the USSR more than once, in particular, she took part in the International Leningrad Writers' Meeting in the summer of 1963. The writer, like most French people, admired Russian classical literature, especially Dostoevsky. The writer also maintained intensive ties with his Soviet colleagues Maurice Druon. The warm, friendly tone of his letters confirms how willing representatives of the French intelligentsia were to maintain relations with their colleagues from the USSR and develop them, despite the rejection of many aspects of the foreign and domestic policies of the Soviet leadership. Nevertheless, Druon, like many others, spoke extremely negatively about the fact of Soviet military intervention in Hungary. In 1956, at the time of the Hungarian events, Druon, after the response of Soviet writers, sent them an “Open Letter” published at the same time in France Observer. In it, Druon assessed the events in Hungary as a violation of the elementary rules governing relations between states. He especially focuses on the fact that during the events in Hungary, the right of the Hungarian Prime Minister Imre Nagy to receive asylum was violated. “The right to asylum has existed since ancient times,” writes Druon, “it is an integral moment of our civilization... To violate the right to asylum means to reject a concept that has developed over centuries. Anyone who violates this law commits a crime against humanity" Thus, in Druon’s assessment of this incident, one can trace the motif of isolation from civilization, savagery, barbarism of the Russians, already repeatedly mentioned in this work, which was so often found on the pages of memoirs, books and other records of writers, writers, travelers, philosophers who visited and studied Russia in the 18th century. and 19th centuries. During the “thaw”, the USSR was visited by a participant in the war and the Resistance movement Jean Dutour.
He came to the USSR at the invitation of the Writers' Union in October 1957. The writer remained a very high opinion of Soviet literature: “I think that in its best works, Soviet literature did not break ties with Russian classics. She continues her tradition, she is imbued with love for humanity, the desire to see humanity happier.” It is important for Dutour that his books are published in the USSR and read by Russian people. But in general, the writer had a sharply negative attitude towards the Soviet communist model, not least because of the oppression of censorship, restrictions on freedom of expression in the USSR, and sharply criticized the persecution of Solzhenitsyn, Sinyavsky and Daniel. He called Solzhenitsyn a genius, equal to Dostoevsky. “Solzhenitsyn undertook,” wrote Dutour, “to portray the greatest deception of the twentieth century, to show that communism, which owns half the globe, is nothing more than a tyranny, similar to all the tyrannies that have passed over the earth and, probably, even more cruel.” The re-Stalinization of the Brezhnev era after the Khrushchev “thaw” was negatively perceived by representatives of the French intelligentsia. Member of the French Academy Pierre Emmanuelwrote about this period of Soviet history: “The Soviet Union is a typical image of a system of violence against the spirit.. In the USSR, freedom of thought is prohibited precisely in the name of socialism, which no one thinks about there anymore, since it is forbidden to think at all there.. By the end of this century , if this regime continues, Eastern Europe threatens to turn into a spiritual desert. Neither the prestige of the Bolshoi Theater, nor the wonderful film about Rublev (shown on the screen here, but not in the USSR) can mislead us about the deterioration of the spirit, which can Now it only appears underground.” The writer sees the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev period differently Jean Dutour. (Here it is necessary to clarify that, while harboring hostility towards communism, Dutour at the same time did not see the Soviet Union as a state entirely with communist ideology, and perceived the country and the Soviet people with a considerable degree of sympathy.) In his book “Diary” in entries for 1965 year, you can find the following assessments of contemporary Soviet society: “We can say that the Russian revolution lasted forty-eight years... However, it seems that the Russian revolution is over. Russia, willy-nilly, began to be drawn to the old capitalism. The Soviet regime has aged and feels closer to the long-established republic of the United States than to the young Chinese democracy. What do Russians want most? Damn, live like the Americans, not like the Chinese.” Dutour means that Soviet people began to value stability, everyday comfort and material goods more than before. “Progress,” he explains his thought, “the future, as elsewhere, for Russia has acquired the attractive face of wealth, that is, materialism. Russians hope to one day have all the beautiful things and all the great cars that the West has. But the revolutionary spirit is incompatible with materialism.” That is why it seems to Dutour that the whipping up of passions about the Soviet-American confrontation, the so-called “Cold War,” is unfounded. “And if we talk about those huge shells capable of reaching any point on the globe in forty-five minutes. They are unlikely to fly towards Washington,” the writer believes. Perestroika became a special period in the history of Soviet society in the 20th century; the events of this time attracted enormous interest from the West and the United States. Naturally, the French intelligentsia did not remain aloof from the heated discussions that excited the minds of educated people at home and abroad. Collapsed
the bans, first of all, changed the quality of contacts between the intelligentsia of France and Russia, the quality of information .
Until this moment, all Soviet writers (artists, sculptors) who left for the West constituted a special sector in the minds of “Western” people - dissidents, active fighters against the regime, who were forced to leave the communist country (such shades persisted even if those who emigrated were not related to human rights activities). In the new - “without walls” - conditions, French publishers, writers, magazine editors had the opportunity to invite to colloquiums, congresses, and internships any creative person they were interested in in the USSR, and in the first years of perestroika in France, completely different layers of the Russian intelligentsia actively communicated with the French intelligentsia. intelligentsia than five to ten years ago. In parallel, there was a process of emigration to Europe of the Russian creative intelligentsia, no longer along the “dissident” channel, without seeking political asylum - Russia began to live according to Western laws, and any artist had the right to choose any country as his place of residence, while remaining a Russian writer. In the minds of the French intellectual, there was a complex process of building a certain unity, an image of modern (after the proclamation of perestroika) Russian culture and modern Russia as a whole, where there were no boundaries between recent dissidents and artists who continued to create in Russia or who moved to France for reasons that had nothing to do with politics unrelated. This new historical period also brought surprises to French colleagues: for example, the need to comprehend the discord among former dissidents (Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Maksimov, Andrei Sinyavsky) and try to correlate the “meanings” of this discord with the fierce disputes that unfolded in the open press of perestroika Russia around the latest art publications. We had to look for and draw completely different boundaries than before. The nature of interest in Russia in the last decades of the past century has its own characteristics. Since the late 1980s. The French intelligentsia was in euphoric hope for the further transformation of Soviet society on the path to freedom, democracy and parliamentarism. Despite the disappointment of many in “real socialism,” the ideals of a fair social order did not die in the minds of the French intelligentsia. In 1985, expectations thus flared up with renewed vigor. Russia again began to be perceived as a country ready to open completely new, unexplored paths to the world community. But this period was short. After a short-lived euphoria from the prospects that arose with the beginning of perestroika, the image of Russia - to put it metaphorically - immediately seemed to “darken”; the sharp contrast between the behavior of the government and the behavior of those who recently embodied democratic hopes has disappeared. The theme of books dedicated to Russia is no longer a description of what is happening “here and now”, but the connection of this “here and now” with the previous stages of the history and culture of Russia, the search for an answer to the question of what is the specificity of Russian society and what features of Russian or The Soviet mentality can explain the collapse of the perestroika project - the transition to new economic relations and democratic principles through peaceful means. Georges Nivat, a Slavist who has many years of studying Russian culture behind him, despite the feeling of chaos of what was happening during the perestroika period, initially tried to clarify it for himself and for the reader. But as he reasoned, he abandoned these attempts and, accepting as an indisputable fact that today’s Russia is even more difficult to explain than in the time of Leroy-Beaulieu, Georges Niva puts forward the proposal: “Russia deserves to be studied outside of any systems, because it the national appearance remains unusual, testifying to the powerful individual energy unleashed by the reforms.” In a book of interviews published in the year of the writer’s death Vercoras(1991), when asked what he thought about the new situation in Europe since perestroika in Russia, Vercors replied: “At first, like everyone else, I was naturally happy: long live freedom and human rights! But very quickly the joy faded. And now I'm rather worried. What kind of regime will there be in these liberated countries? Poverty and unemployment are not conducive to democracy. I’m afraid that a wave of nationalism and, even worse, forced integration will rise.” Thus, Russian-French cultural contacts in the twentieth century were most intense compared to the previous period. The following reasons played a huge role in their development: the uniqueness of the political and economic development of Russia during this period, the growing influence of communist ideology in both countries, and connections between the communist parties of Russia and France. Russia was perceived by France, on the one hand, as a like-minded person, a follower of the ideas of the French Revolution during the revolutions in Russia in 1917 (especially the February Revolution), as an ally in the fight against fascism during World War II, on the other - as a totalitarian state with all the ensuing consequences during the period when Stalin was in charge of the country. At the same time, during World War II, Stalin personified for France, and for all of Europe, the Soviet people courageously fighting fascism. Thus, it can be argued that two main trends competed in the image of Russia in France during this period: the perception of it as a country bringing a “special light” to the whole world - that is, a special, better socio-political system, and also as a country where a rigid supreme In the name of achieving a lofty idea, the authorities neglect the rights of the individual, where human life is not valued as highly as it should be valued according to modern European concepts. Of those writers whose points of view were examined by us in this chapter, writers sympathizing with socialism emphasized the first, while the attention of opponents of the socialist idea, on the contrary, focused on the second. Conclusion
So, we tried to consider the evolution of the image of Russia in France and its influence on the development of Russian-French relations in the period of the 18th-19th centuries. Such evolution does not seem to us to be a coherent, sequential process. We see that Russia’s ideas about France, in addition to some objective factors (as far as we can talk about objectivity when it comes to opinions and ideas), for example, geographical location, size of territory, natural and climatic conditions, political system, level of education in Russia, were also formed under the influence of extremely subjective factors: the global situation, the specific foreign policy situation. As a result, the image of Russia in France, while retaining its basic properties, could, nevertheless, easily change to the opposite, it was only necessary to give these properties a different color. Thus, a big step towards improving the image of Russia in France was made during the Enlightenment, when French public opinion began to overcome the conviction of “barbarism,” “savagery,” and lack of enlightenment of Russians. However, already during the period of Suvorov’s Italian campaign, ideas about “barbarism” and “Asian fetters” that the Russians were bringing to Europe prevailed, at least in official public opinion, the mouthpiece of which was the politically engaged newspaper Moniteur Universel. There are several such examples of a sharp change in assessments in the history of Russian-French political and cultural relations in the 18th-19th centuries, but it would be wrong to say that the image of Russia in France depended entirely on external conditions. It is also difficult to identify certain stable trends in the image of Russia in France, which would gradually undergo processing in one specific direction, because this image is formed by representatives of different political beliefs. And yet, if you look closely at the motley picture that is difficult to systematize, which is the image of Russia in France in the 18th-19th centuries, then some stable trends and ideas can certainly be identified: for example, the motif of “barbarism” belongs to them "and the lack of enlightenment of Russians, interpreted with different shades in different historical periods, the identification of Russia with Asia, the idea of the endless expanses of Russia. Also, the French have always associated Russia with the North, and this component of the image of Russia in France is perhaps typically French, since France itself is located in the southwest of Europe. Moreover, we can talk not only about the presence of some stable ideas, but specifically about the evolution of the image of Russia in France, only, as it seems to us, this evolution had a special character. It is extremely difficult to trace the gradual qualitative transformation and development of any single trend in French public opinion during this period. The most stable ideas of the French about Russia, those listed above, were presented immediately during the Enlightenment era, but subsequently were only updated at certain periods of time. But throughout the 18th-19th centuries, the French’s ideas about Russia undoubtedly expanded and deepened. Thus, if throughout the 18th century we are faced mainly with some generalized stereotypical statements about barbarism and enlightenment, about the cold climate, then in the 19th century various Frenchmen who visited Russia form a definite opinion about the nature of Russian social life, about the behavior of representatives of the upper strata Russian society, about the architectural appearance of Russian cities, and in the second half of the 19th century. also about Russian literature. The French's ideas about Russia are thus becoming more specific. They are replenished quantitatively, but at a certain stage of the quantitative accumulation of this knowledge, as a result of close acquaintance with Russia, the image of Russia in France undergoes qualitative changes, becoming closer and more multifaceted. And, if at the beginning of the 18th century. Russia seemed to the French to be as exotic and distant a country as China or Japan, but by the end of the 19th century. France had a large amount of the most diverse information about this country, on which that comprehensive and, now, rich in all kinds of nuances, idea of Russia, which we called the image in this work, was built. The image of Russia in France, as it was formed by the end of the 19th century, became a fairly extensive basis for the further acquaintance of the French with Russia, replenishment and processing of existing impressions, and largely determined the active Russian-French political and cultural ties in the 20th century. List of sources and literature used
Sources 1. Dialogue of writers: from the history of Russian-French cultural relations of the 20th century, 1920-1970. M.: Science. 2003. - 924 p. 2. Dutour J. Reflections. M.: Hyperion. 2002. - 235 p. Zola E. Germinal. M.: AST. 2004. - 328 p. Maistre J. Four chapters about Russia. M.: Heritage. 2003. - 289 p. Steel J. On literature examined in connection with social institutions. M.: Science. 1990. - 322 p. Tolstoy L.N. War and Peace. Ekaterinburg: Creativity. 2002. T. 1. - 459 p. Chateaubriand F.R. Notes about Alexander I. M.: Science. 1997. - 255 p. Emmanuel P. USSR: reality and delusions. M.: Hyperion. 2005. - 374 Literature 9. Andreev L. Jean-Paul Sartre. Free consciousness and the 20th century. M.: Science. 1996. - 297 p. 10. Andreev L. Russian-French cultural relations in the 20th century. M.: Hyperion. 1995. - 378 p. Alpatov M.A. Russian historical thought and Western Europe, XVIII - first half of the XIX century. M.: Science. 1992. - 458 p. Balashova T.V. Perception of Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia by the French intelligentsia. M.: Science. 2001. - 378 p. Berelovich V. The culture of Russia through the eyes of the French who visited it. M.: Hyperion. 2002. - 456 p. Berelovich V. Russia and France: horizons of mutual knowledge. M.: Hyperion. 2001. - 376 p. Belyaev M.P. French and imperial diplomacy in search of peace. M.: Hyperion. 2000. - 450 p. Borisov Yu. V. Diplomacy of Louis XIV. M.: Science. 1991. - 322 p. Belikov A. T. Russian-French relations in the 18th century. St. Petersburg: Science. 1994. - 345 p. Vasiliev V.N. Political culture through the eyes of revolutionaries.//Culture, management, economics, law. Lawyer. 2004. No. 2. - pp. 22-25. Vedenina L.G. France and Russia: a dialogue of two cultures. M.: Interdialect. 2000. - 480 p. Vedenina L.G. Russian-French cultural contacts during the “thaw” in the USSR. M.: Interdialect. 2001. - 455 p. Vermal F. The French in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. - 349 p. Volpiyak-Auger K. The Caspian Sea through the eyes of Europeans of the 18th-19th centuries. - 256 s. Geopolitics, XX century. M. AST. 2005. - 396 p. Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and Europe. M.: Hyperion. 2002. - 476 p. Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia, France and Europe. M.: Hyperion. 2004. - 491 Debidur A. Diplomatic history of Europe. M.: AST. 2002. - 525 p. Degtyareva M.I. A special Russian path through the eyes of Westerners: de Maistre and Chaadaev. // Questions of philosophy. M. Science. No. 8. 2003. pp. 32 - 38. Durylin S.N. Madame de Stael and her Russian relations. St. Petersburg: Interdialect. 2001. - 234 p. Durylin S.N. France during the July Monarchy. M.: Science. 2004. - 328 p. European almanac: history, traditions, culture. M. Science. 1989. - 292 p. Zaborov P.R. Russia and Russians in the perception of the West and East. M.: Heritage. 2004. - 367 p. Ilyina T.V. History of arts. Western European art. M.: Science. 1990. - 625 p. History of Russian foreign policy: XVIII century (from the Northern War to the war between Russia and Napoleon). M.: Science. 1998. - 433 p. History of diplomacy. M. Science. 1960. T.2. - 521 p. History of international relations in Europe (1918-1945). St. Petersburg Hyperion. 1997. - 387 p. Kamensky A. Russian Empire in the 18th century: tradition and modernization. M.: Science. 2006. - 365 p. Kashlev Yu. V. Cultural ties of the USSR with capitalist countries. M.: Science. 1989. - 384 p. Cola D. Jean-Paul Sartre and the Soviet Union. M.: Science. 1999. - 359 p. Kopanev N. A. French book and Russian culture in the middle of the 18th century. M.: Science. 1995. - 342 p. Karp S. Ya. French enlighteners and Russia. Research and new materials on the history of Russian-French cultural relations of the second half of the 18th century. M.: Heritage. 2005. - 397 p. Kafanova O. B. Emil Zola and Russian literature. M.: Heritage. 2000. - 297 p. Kareev N.I. The French Revolution and Russia. St. Petersburg: Heritage. 1995. - 265 p. Letchford S.E. The French Revolution of the late 18th century and the formation of the image of Russia in the public opinion of Western Europe // Lecture courses for teachers of Saratov State University. M.: Science. 2004. - pp. 34 - 39. Lotman Yu. M. Conversations about Russian culture: life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII - early XIX centuries). SPb.: AST. 2004. - 311 p. Lotman Yu. M. Rousseau and Russian culture of the 18th - early 19th centuries. St. Petersburg: AST. 2005. - 309 p. Marisina I. M. Russia and France, XVIII century. M.: Science. 2004. - 428 p. Matveev V. Yu. French travelers about Russia in the 19th century. M.: Hyperion. 2002. - 435 p. Mezin S. A. View from Europe. St. Petersburg: Heritage. 2000. - 387 p. Mezin S. A. Stereotypes of Russia in European social thought of the 18th-19th centuries. M.: Science. 2002. - 398 p. Milchina V. A. Russia and France: Diplomats. Writers. Spies. St. Petersburg: Hyperion. 2004. - 478 p. Minuti R. Russia in the works of Montesquieu. M.: Hyperion. 2004. - 302 p. .“Order” of Catherine II in France in the late 60s and early 70s of the 18th century: translations, censorship, responses in the press. // Russian-French cultural relations in the era of Enlightenment. M.: Hyperion. 2001. - P. 42 - 48. Nalchyazhdyan A. A. Ethnopsychology. M: Science. - 350 s. Naumov I. Voltairianism of Russian writers of Catherine’s time. St. Petersburg: Science. 1992. - 351 p. Niva J. Return to Russia. M.: Science. 1999. - 288 p. Boreev S. T. The image of Russia in France. 2004. (electronic resource). - Access mode: http:/europe.rsuh.ru/reports 40.3. Relations between Russia and France in the European context in the 18th-19th centuries. M.: Science. 2005. - 486 p. Panchenko A. M. About Russian history and culture. St. Petersburg: Science. 2000. - 465 p. Partanenko T.V. Russian-French relations in the 19th century. M. AST. 2000. - 325 p. Pozharskaya S.P. Russia and Spain during the Napoleonic Wars. St. Petersburg: Hyperion. 1999. - 476 p. Popovitsky A.I. The Russian Orthodox Church through the eyes of the French. M.: Science. 1995. - 374 p. Reo E. French public opinion about the Franco-Russian rapprochement.//Russia and France of the 18th - 20th centuries. M.: Science. 1998. Vol. 2. - pp. 11-32. Russian-French relations. 2004. (electronic resource) - Access mode: http:/www.europe.rsuh.ru/reports. 41.2 Russia and Europe: diplomacy and culture. M.: Science. 1995. - 376 p. Russia and the West: horizons of mutual knowledge. M. Heritage. 2000. - 384 p. Russia and France, XVIII-XX centuries. M. Science. 2005. - 307 p. Somov V. A. Book by P. Sh. Levesque “Russian history and its Russian reader.” M.: Interdialect. 2000. - 284 p. Somov V. A. Prospect of Russian History by P. Sh. Leveque. M.: Hyperion. 2002. - 322 p. Uredson S. Catherine II in historiography and literary tradition. M.: Interdialect. 2000. - 286 p. S.L. Fokin. Russian idea in French literature of the twentieth century. St. Petersburg: Hyperion. 2003. - 371 p. Cherkasov P. P. Double-headed eagle and royal lilies. / On Russian-French diplomatic relations throughout the 19th century. M.: Hyperion. 1995. - pp. 14 - 23. Shmurlo E. F. Peter the Great and Catherine II in the assessment of foreigners. M.: Science. 2003. - 428 p. Strange M. M. Russian society and the French Revolution 1789-1794. M.: Banner. 1956. - 345 p. Ebert O. Yu. France through the eyes of Russians in the 19th century. M.: Heritage. 2003. - 368 p.
Diplomatic relations between the USSR and France were established on October 28, 1924. On February 7, 1992, an Agreement was signed between Russia and France, confirming the desire of both parties to develop “relations of consent based on trust, solidarity and cooperation.”
France is one of Russia's leading partners in Europe and the world. The countries have established diverse cooperation in the fields of politics, economics, culture and humanitarian exchanges. Paris's participation in the anti-Russian restrictive measures initiated by the European Union had a negative impact on the dynamics of bilateral relations, but did not change their traditionally friendly and constructive nature. The Russian-French political dialogue is characterized by high intensity.
In 2012, after the completion of the presidential election campaigns in France and Russia, as part of the first foreign trip of Russian President Vladimir Putin (to Belarus, Germany, France), on June 1 in Paris he met with the President of the French Republic Francois Hollande. On February 27-28, 2013, Francois Hollande’s first working visit to Russia took place. On June 17, 2013, the presidents met again on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Lough Erne (Northern Ireland). On September 5-6, 2013, Francois Hollande took part in the G20 summit in St. Petersburg.
In June 2014, Vladimir Putin visited France and took part in ceremonial events marking the anniversary of the Allied landing in Normandy. On the eve of the celebrations, on June 5, 2014, they had a bilateral meeting with Francois Hollande in Paris. Presidents Putin and Hollande also met at the 10th Asia-Europe Summit on October 17, 2014 in Milan and on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Brisbane (Australia) on November 15, 2014. On December 6, 2014, Francois Hollande, returning from Kazakhstan to France, visited Moscow on a short working visit and had a conversation with Vladimir Putin at Vnukovo-2 airport.
On February 6, 2015, Vladimir Putin met in Moscow with Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, at which prospects for resolving the Ukrainian crisis were discussed. On February 11-12, 2015, Vladimir Putin and Francois Hollande took part in the Normandy Format summit in Minsk.
On April 24, 2015, in Yerevan, on the sidelines of memorial events in connection with the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, a bilateral conversation took place between Vladimir Putin and Francois Hollande.
On October 2, 2015, Vladimir Putin and Francois Hollande took part in the Normandy Format summit in Paris. A bilateral meeting of the leaders also took place at the Elysee Palace.
On November 26, 2015, French President Francois Hollande visited Russia on a working visit. During the negotiations, the leaders of the two countries exchanged views on the entire range of bilateral relations, discussed issues of countering international terrorism, as well as a number of other relevant topics.
On September 4, 2016, the leaders of Russia and France held a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou (China).
On October 20, 2016, Vladimir Putin and Francois Hollande took part in the Normandy Four summit in Berlin. On the same day, Vladimir Putin, Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also held negotiations on resolving the Syrian conflict.
On May 29, 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the invitation of the President of the French Republic Emmanuel Macron, visited Paris on a working visit. At the Palace of Versailles, the leaders of the two countries discussed bilateral relations, the situation in Syria and Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron also toured the exhibition “Peter the Great. Tsar in France. 1717".
Russia and France maintain regular dialogue at the level of heads of foreign affairs agencies. On April 19, 2016, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development of the French Republic, Jean-Marc Ayrault, visited Russia on a working visit. Jean-Marc Ayrault was also received by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On June 29, 2016, the heads of foreign policy of the two countries held talks in Paris, on October 6, 2016 - in Moscow, on February 18, 2017 - “on the sidelines” of the Munich Conference on Security Policy.
France is one of Russia's priority trade and economic partners.
In terms of share in Russian trade turnover in 2016, France took 10th place (in 2015 - 13th place). At the end of 2016, the value of Russian-French trade turnover increased by 14.1% compared to 2015 to a level of $13.3 billion. At the same time, Russian exports decreased by 16.4% and amounted to $4.8 billion, while imports increased by 43.4% to $8.5 billion.
In the structure of Russian exports to France in 2016, the main share of supplies fell on the following types of goods: mineral products (80.31% of total exports); machinery, equipment and vehicles (5.08%); chemical industry products (5.05%); metals and products made from them (3.31%); wood and pulp and paper products (1.63%).
Russian imports included chemical industry products (32.05% of total imports); machinery, equipment and vehicles (26.57%); food products and agricultural raw materials (7.63%); metals and products made from them (2.48%); wood and pulp and paper products (0.99%).
At the end of 2015, according to the Bank of Russia, the volume of French direct investment accumulated in Russia amounted to $9.9 billion, and the volume of Russian direct investment accumulated in France amounted to $3.3 billion. The volume of French direct investment accumulated in Russia at the end of the third quarter of 2016 was $12.8 billion. The volume of direct Russian investments accumulated in France at the end of the third quarter of 2016 is $2.8 billion.
France has traditionally been one of the leading European investor countries operating in the Russian market. Not a single one of the approximately 500 French companies has left Russia over the past three or four years, and not a single major joint project has been curtailed. French companies have the strongest positions in the fuel and energy sector (Total, Alstom, EDF), automotive industry (Peugeot-Citroen, Renault), pharmaceuticals (Sanofi Aventis, Servier), food industry (Danone, Bonduelle).
The largest French investors also include such companies as Auchan (retail trade), Saint-Gobain (building materials), Air Liquide (chemical industry), Schneider Electric (mechanical engineering and electrical power), Lafarge , Vincy (construction), EADS, Thales Alenia Space, Safran (aerospace industry).
OJSC Russian Railways owns a 75% stake in the logistics company Zhefko, and the Novolipetsk Iron and Steel Works owns a steel foundry in Strasbourg. Russian companies are also investing in traditional French goods - champagne or cognac.
The main bodies of Russian-French intergovernmental interaction are the Russian-French Commission for Bilateral Cooperation at the level of Heads of Government (IPC) and the Russian-French Council for Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Affairs (CEFIC).
Russian-French Commission on Bilateral Cooperation at the Level of Heads of Government The Commission was created on February 15, 1996. 18 meetings of the IGC were held, the last one took place on November 1, 2013 in Moscow.
The Russian-French Council for Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Affairs is the main working structure of the Commission. Within the Council, 12 specialized working groups have been created, carrying out activities in the main areas of bilateral trade and economic cooperation. Meetings of the Council are held on a regular basis alternately in Russia and France. The next meeting was held on March 14, 2017 in Paris.
Russia and France have rich cultural and humanitarian ties. On October 19, 2016, the Russian spiritual and cultural center was inaugurated in Paris in the presence of the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky and the Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo.
The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources
Chapter 1 Russian-French relations in 1789-1797. 28
§1. The foreign policy situation of Russia and France on the eve and at the beginning of the French Revolution. 28
§2. Preparation and start of armed intervention in France. Breakdown of Russian-French relations. 42
§3. Armed intervention of European states in France (1793-1796). 58-
§4. Russian-French peace negotiations at the beginning of the reign of Paul I (1796-1797). 68
Chapter 2 Russia's participation in the war of the second anti-French coalition. 99-
§1. Middle Eastern expansion of France. Creation of the second anti-French coalition (1797-1799). 99
§2. The relationship between Russia and the Order of Malta and Russian-English contradictions. 121
§3. The collapse of the coalition. 128
Chapter 3 Peace negotiations between Russia and France (1800-1801). 143
§1. Foreign policy situation of Russia and France on the eve of peace negotiations (1800). 143
§2. Negotiations between Russia and France in 1800 154
§3. Preparing Russia for war with England. 165
Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Russian-French relations at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries”
The relevance of the dissertation research topic is determined by the importance of studying the history of international relations, as well as Russian-French relations during the era of the Great French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic wars.
The struggle between Russia and France for spheres of influence in Germany, Italy, the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, the active diplomatic and military participation of St. Petersburg in the first and second anti-French coalitions and the subsequent reconciliation with Paris are of significant interest to researchers of the history of foreign policy of the Russian Empire, the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars.
Russia occupied a special position during the confrontation between the European powers and the French Republic. Without a common border with France and therefore without fear of invasion of its territory, it could afford to pursue a “free hand policy” in this European conflict. Possessing a huge army and inexhaustible resources, Russia could have a significant influence on the course of hostilities with France. Playing on the contradictions of the parties, the St. Petersburg court pursued a foreign policy aimed at strengthening its position in Germany, Italy, and the Balkans.
The wars of conquest that France waged during the time of the Convention, the Directory, the Consulate, and the attitude towards them on the part of absolutist Russia, the attempts of St. Petersburg to limit the spread of the revolution by military and diplomatic measures belong to the events that received sufficient attention in Soviet and Russian historiography.
At the same time, researchers of this period focused mainly on the diplomatic and military activities of Catherine II and Alexander I, devoting to them both general works on the history of Russian foreign policy of the late 18th - early 19th centuries, and works related to the foreign policy actions of these monarchs .
The reign of Emperor Paul I is “lost” between the reigns of his mother and son. Historians have paid attention to this period of Russian history either as the episode that marked the beginning of relations between the Russian Empire and Napoleonic France, or as the background against which the events of the first war between Russia and France took place in 1799. At the same time, many of Paul I’s foreign policy steps came from a rich diplomatic experience of Catherine's reign, and the main aspects of his foreign policy will be borrowed by Alexander I and will influence his subsequent relations with France.
During this period of time, the Russian Empire was an absolute monarchy, and the importance of the emperor in making foreign policy decisions was decisive. It was the subjective aspirations of the Russian monarchs that formed the main directions of the state’s foreign policy. Consequently, the role of the king’s personality in making key decisions in this area seems to be an important factor for analyzing the international politics of the empire.
Thus, the study of the foreign policy and diplomatic activities of the Russian Empire during the reign of Emperor Paul I in the context of relations with France at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries represents, on the one hand, an insufficiently studied period in relations with this European state in the specified period of time, and on the other hand the other is an intermediate stage in Russian-French relations during the Great French Revolution, the Directory, the Consulate.
The object of research of the dissertation is international relations in Europe at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries.
The subject of the study is the foreign policy, diplomatic and military relations of the Russian Empire and France during this period. I
The purpose of the study is to analyze Russian-French relations at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, starting from attempts to establish diplomatic contacts with revolutionary France, as was the case at the end of the reign of Catherine II, at the beginning and end of the reign of Paul I, as well as at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, and ending with the period of open military confrontation between Russia and France in the middle of the reign of Pavel Petrovich.
The goal we have defined is achieved by solving the following tasks:
1) Analyze Russian-French relations of the late 18th and early 19th centuries through the prism of diplomatic negotiations between absolutist Russia and bourgeois France in 1797-1798. and in 1800-1801.
2) Trace the reasons and stages of the formation of the second anti-French coalition, consider the diplomatic and political aspects of relations between Russia, on the one hand, and a number of European states (Austria, Great Britain, the Kingdom of Naples, Prussia, Turkey and France) on the other - in the period preceding the creation the second anti-French coalition, as well as to identify the main causes of disagreements between the allies.
3) Provide an analysis of the influence of Emperor Paul I on the formation of the foreign policy of the Russian Empire in relation to both France and the European powers.
4) Provide an analysis of the factors that led to Russia’s rapprochement with Napoleon, consider the reasons preventing the conclusion of the Russian-French alliance and analyze the significance of this alliance with France.
Methodological basis of the work. When considering Russian-French relations in 1789-1801, as well as the stages of the formation of the second anti-French coalition and steps to normalize relations with Napoleonic France, we were guided by the principles of historicism and scientific objectivity, trying to present in the work an analysis of historical facts and phenomena. The study of the activities of participants in international relations of that time is given in the interaction of their foreign and domestic policies.
In addition, we used the prosopographic method. Despite the absolutist nature of Russian power at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, Emperor Paul I was influenced or influenced by his entourage. These people played a fairly significant role in the foreign policy activities of Paul I.
The chronological framework of the study of Russian-French relations at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries is limited to the period from the beginning of the Great French Revolution to the signing of the Russian-French peace treaty on October 8, 1801. We chose the date 1789 as the starting date due to the fact that the revolution in France marked a qualitatively new stage not only in the international relations of European states, but also in contacts between St. Petersburg and Paris, leading to a deterioration and then a rupture in diplomatic relations between the two states. The choice of the end date is associated with the signing of a peace treaty, which concluded the Russian-French negotiations in Paris and made it possible to temporarily normalize relations between the two states.
In our opinion, choosing this particular period will allow us to deeply explore the origins of Russian-French contradictions, which resulted in numerous wars of 1799, 1805-1807, the war of 1812 and ended with the entry of Russian troops into Paris in 1814.
The scientific and practical significance of the dissertation makes it possible to use its materials and conclusions in the process of studying and teaching the history of diplomacy and international relations of the era of the Great French Revolution, the Consulate and the Empire, as well as Russian foreign policy of the late 18th - early 19th centuries.
Provisions for defense:
1) It has been proven that Russian-French peace negotiations in 1797 and 1800-1801. showed the presence of territorial disagreements between St. Petersburg and Paris in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans, and Germany, which was an obstacle to concluding a peace treaty.
2) It has been proven that the creation of the second anti-French coalition was due to the territorial expansion of the French Republic, while the reasons for its collapse were rooted in the inconsistency of the actions of the participating countries, as well as in the existence of unresolved territorial disputes in key regions of Europe.
3) The influence of Emperor Paul I on the formation of Russia’s foreign policy line regarding both France and the European powers is demonstrated. At the same time, it has been convincingly proven that this influence was not impulsive, but was thoughtful and proceeded from the interests of the Russian Empire.
4) It is substantiated that the rapprochement between Russia and France was determined by the contradictions that existed within the ranks of the coalition and the desire of a certain part of political circles both in Russia and France to normalize political and trade relations. It was demonstrated that the conclusion of the Russian-French peace treaty allowed the Russian Empire to maintain neutrality in the Anglo-French confrontation, without committing itself to England or France.
Sources. While working on our dissertation research, we used significant documentary material, which can be divided into unpublished (archival) and published.
The archival and published materials used in the work are divided into the following types: diplomatic correspondence, classified into external and internal, political journalism and documents of personal origin, autobiographies, diaries, memoirs.
To work on the dissertation, we used the funds of the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (AVPRI of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia), the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), and the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA).
Internal diplomatic correspondence includes personal rescripts and decrees of the emperor to ambassadors and their reports to Paul I, as well as correspondence between ambassadors on foreign policy issues.
The diplomatic correspondence of the Russian emperor with his ambassadors at the Vienna, London and Berlin courts is concentrated in the following funds of the AVPRI of the Russian Foreign Ministry: “Russian relations with Austria”, “Russian relations with England” and “Russian relations with Prussia”1. Their value lies in highlighting Russia’s position during the Russian-French negotiations in Berlin in 1797; in the evolution of the king's attitude towards them. In addition, the funds contain information about the stages of creating the second anti-French coalition, as well as data on Russia’s relations with its allied powers during the war against France.
In addition, the correspondence of Paul I with Russian diplomats S.R. is concentrated in the RGADA in the “Vorontsov” fund2, as well as in the GARF in the “Bode-Kolychev” fund3. Vorontsov and N.P. Panin, concerning the preparation for the creation of a second anti-French coalition, as well as a letter from the Russian ambassador to Austria S.A. Kolychev to the Tsar regarding the deterioration of Russian-Austrian relations in 1800.
As for the correspondence of Russian diplomats with each other, the Vorontsov Foundation (RGADA) contains letters from the first member of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, F.V. Rostopchina S.R. Vorontsov and Vorontsov N.P. Panin, which contains information about Russia’s relations with England and Austria during the creation of the anti-French coalition. In GARF in the Bode-Kolychev and M.M. foundations. Alopeus"4 contains letters from the Russian ambassador in Vienna S.A. Kolychev Rostopchin, Vorontsov, Panin, as well as excerpts from reports of the Russian ambassador in Berlin A.I. Krudener.
External diplomatic correspondence between Russian ambassadors and foreign diplomats is represented by letters from S.R. concentrated in the RGADA in the Vorontsov Foundation. Vorontsov to the English Minister of Foreign Affairs W. Grenville on the terms of an agreement between the allied states to fight for the restoration of European order. In addition, the GARF in the Bode-Kolychev Foundation presents correspondence from the Russian Ambassador to Vienna S.A. Kolychev with the Austrian Ambassador to Russia L. Kobenzel, concerning the relationship between the two empires.
An important place among the published materials is occupied by collections of documents of a diplomatic nature: “Diplomatic relations between Russia and France in the era of Napoleon,” published by A. Trachevsky in volume 70 of the “Collection of the Russian Historical Society”; “Literary Heritage” (letters from I.M. Simolin to Catherine II and I.A. Osterman); “Materials for the biography of Count N.P. Panina"; Collection “Under the Banner of Russia”; “Collection of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers,” compiled by F.F. Martens; “Russian Foreign Policy XIX - Early XX”5, which contains materials describing the relationship between Russia and France at the specified time.
A significant number of documents devoted to Russia’s relations with the Order of Malta and showing the importance of Malta in Russia’s foreign policy plans are contained in the ninth volume of the RIO6 Collection.
Internal diplomatic correspondence. This category of documents includes the command of Paul I S.A. Kolychev, going to Paris for peace negotiations, a note from Count F.V. Rostopchina, addressed to Paul I and depicting the political situation in Russia by 1800, as well as the correspondence of S.R. Vorontsova with F.V. Rostopchin, dedicated to the formation of the second anti-French coalition.
Autobiographies, diaries, personal documents, memoirs. These sources include: a note from Empress Catherine II on measures directed against revolutionary France, as well as a note from Count A.I. Ribopierre about the importance of the island of Malta in Russian politics; autobiography of Count S.R. Vorontsova, describing his activities as Russian Ambassador to England to prevent military conflict between the two states; diary of Catherine II's secretary A.B. Khrapovitsky, which shows the reaction of Catherine II to the initial events of the French Revolution: the establishment of the republic, the execution of the king, etc., as well as the memoirs of Count F. Golovkin, the Russian envoy in Naples; memoirs of Abbot Georgel, the envoy of the Order of Malta in Russia, who arrived there on the occasion of the election of Paul I as Grand Master of this order; head of French foreign policy Sh.M. Talleyrand; Prince A. Chartoryzhski, Russian envoy to Sardinia9.
Thus, the study of the existing source base allows us to recreate the picture of Russian-French relations from 1789 to 1801 and conduct their analysis.
Historiography of the problem. Russian-French relations during this period attracted the attention of both domestic and foreign researchers.
Pre-revolutionary Russian historiography, studying the foreign policy history of Russia at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, studied mainly the military and diplomatic activities of Russian monarchs. The revolution in France, the subsequent wars of conquest and redrawing of borders, the coup d'etat of the 18th Brumaire were analyzed by Russian historians in the context of the destruction of the existing system of international relations, one of the guarantors of which was St. Petersburg. The attempt to establish allied relations between Paul I and Napoleon after the rupture of relations with the coalition allies demonstrated, in their opinion, the unsystematic and chaotic nature of Pavlov’s rule.
General works.
Among the general works devoted to Russian-French relations, it is worth highlighting the well-documented monograph by D.A. Milyutin “History of the 1799 war between Russia and France during the reign of Emperor Paul I.” It contains a large amount of archival materials illustrating the process of creating the second anti-French coalition, and also shows diplomatic preparations for the war of 179910.
Articles by A.K. are devoted to the analysis of the political influence of the French Revolution on Europe. Dzhivegelov, published in the anniversary collection “Patriotic War and Russian Society”, published by the publishing house I.D. Sytin in 191111. In them, the author analyzed internal political changes in France and their impact on the intensification of the state’s foreign policy.
Among the works related to the relationship between Russia and the Order of Malta, it is worth mentioning the study by I.K. Antoshevsky. The value of this work lies in the documents published in it on the activities of the Order in Russia12.
Works dedicated to Russian-French relations at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries.
A number of special works on the history of Russian-French relations during the Napoleonic wars were written by A.G. Trachevsky13 and V. Timiryazev14 in the 90s of the XIX century during the conclusion of the Franco-Russian union.
The works of A.G. deserve special attention. Trachevsky, dedicated to Russian-French relations during the French Revolution and the Consulate of 1793-1802. In them, he analyzes the development of relations between the two countries, in general terms examines the diplomatic preparations for the war against France in 1798-1799, and examines in detail the negotiations of Russian diplomats: G.-M. Sprengporten and S.A. Kolycheva in Paris with Napoleon and Sh.M. Talleyrand in 1800-1801. According to the historian, the main reason for the failure of the peace negotiations in Paris was Napoleon's expansionist aspirations in the Eastern Mediterranean, Germany and the Balkans, as well as the intransigence of the Russian negotiators.
The article by V. Timiryazev is devoted to Russia’s attempts to conclude a peace and union treaty with France at the beginning of the reign of Paul I in 1797. During this period, the emperor's foreign policy was characterized by the desire to maintain peace in Europe. The reasons that led to the breakdown of the negotiations, according to the author, were related to the personality of the Russian representative at these negotiations, Count N.P. Panin, who is an opponent of rapprochement with France, as well as the intensification of France's eastern policy: its establishment in the Ionian Islands and the seizure of the island of Malta.
Articles by V.N. are devoted to the attitude of Catherine II and Russian society to France in general and to the French Revolution in particular. Bochkareva15. The author demonstrates the duality of these relationships, showing, on the one hand, the admiration of the representatives of the nobility for the ideas of the French Enlightenment on the eve of the Revolution, and on the other hand, the intensification of the fight against dissent in Russia after the storming of the Bastille and the execution of the king.
M.V. Klochkov and V.I. Pichet considered the foreign policy of Paul I as a prehistory to the events of 1812, focusing on his subjective likes and dislikes16. The authors pointed to the emperor’s passion for the ideas of the Order of Malta, which, in their opinion, led Russia to war with France. The deterioration of Russia's relations with Austria and England became the main reason for the rapprochement between Paul I and Napoleon.
An article by L. Yudin17 is devoted to one of the episodes of Russian-French relations at the end of the reign of Paul I (a joint expedition to India). The author, considering the possible negative consequences of this event associated with the difficulty of crossing the Orenburg steppes and ignorance of the features of the new theater of war for Europeans, came to the conclusion that it was impossible to carry out this expedition at that time.
Works dedicated to Paul I.
The majority of works devoted to the reign of Paul I were of a negative nature, which was associated with the deep-rooted thesis about the impulsivity of the emperor, the chaotic nature and disorder of his orders. This type of research includes the work of A.G. Brickner 1st
Death of Paul I". In his work, he substantiated theses about the madness of the emperor and his despotism. The strange behavior of the sovereign also extended to his foreign policy, which, according to the author, was characterized by unsystematic behavior.
Similar theses were adhered to in the monograph “Emperor Paul I” and N.K. Schilder19. Having expanded the range of sources by involving the correspondence of Paul I, his personal decrees, and letters from his contemporaries into scientific circulation, he showed that the emperor’s foreign policy was unsystematic and dependent on changes in his mood and the advice of the people around him. Thus, he explains the reason for the war with France by anger at the seizure of the island of Malta by General N. Bonaparte and the intrigues of the pro-Austrian group at court, and the sharp turn in Russian foreign policy at the beginning of the 19th century by anger at the allies and the subtle flattery of the First Consul.
E.S. held the opposite view of the reign of the emperor. Shumigorsky in his work “Emperor Paul I. Life and Reign,” in which he also examined the foreign policy aspects of the reign of Paul I. According to the author, they formed a well-thought-out foreign policy of the state that met the national interests of Russia and was not related to the momentary sympathies and antipathies of the sovereign.
In general, the works of pre-revolutionary historians contain only developments of individual aspects and particular episodes of the history of Russia’s relations with France, England, Austria, Prussia, Turkey and the Order of Malta and do not provide a complete and systematic coverage of these issues. Their attempts to explain the turns in Russian foreign policy only by the personality of the emperor or by outside influence led to an exaggeration of these factors on the foreign policy of the state.
Soviet historiography approached the understanding of this turbulent era from the position of the materialist theory of K. Marx. The interest of Soviet historians in the topic of Russian-French relations of that time was due to attention to the French Revolution and the subsequent international changes that followed it. The image of Napoleon and what he did in feudal Europe invariably attracted the attention of Soviet historians. During this period of time, the Russian Empire was considered as the initiator of the creation of anti-French coalitions. At the same time, Soviet historians sought to prove that Russia participated in military actions against France not only because of “monarchical solidarity” and the restoration of “shattered thrones,” but also implemented foreign policy objectives to strengthen its position in Germany, the Balkans, and Italy and the Eastern Mediterranean.
1930-40s.
General works.
This category of works includes the monograph by E.V. Tarle “Ta-leyrand”, dedicated to the life and work of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic and Empire21, and the article by R. Averbukh “The Policy of the European Powers in 1787-1791”, examining the relations between the European powers on the eve and at the beginning of the revolution in France22.
In the monographic study by S.B. Okun “History of the USSR (17961825)”, dedicated to the history of Russia at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, the author, along with issues of domestic policy, analyzed the foreign policy actions of Paul I. He argued that the foreign policy of the Russian Empire under Paul was thoughtful and was not divorced from the realities of the international life of the era.
Works devoted to Russian-French relations at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries.
In the works of Soviet historians P.K. Alefirenko, S. Bogoyavlensky, E.N. Burdzhalova, N.M. Lukin and A.L. Narochnitsky studied the foreign policy measures of Catherine’s Russia directed against the French Revolution24. They emphasized the important role of the empress in organizing the first anti-French coalition, while focusing on the peculiarities of the foreign policy situation of the empire: wars with Turkey and Sweden, the possibility of a war with the Anglo-Prussian-Dutch League, divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which did not allow Catherine II to take part in the intervention To France.
The article by P.C. is devoted to the foreign policy of the Russian Empire during the reign of Paul I at the initial stage of his reign. Lanina25. This work describes attempts to establish alliance relations between Russia and France in 1796-1798.
The article by E.D. is devoted to the study of the relationship between Russia and France on the German issue, which is key from the point of view of control over Central Europe. Verbitsky26. This article examines the Russian-French contradictions that arose during the process of “rewarding” the German princes. Based on archival documents, the author talks about the origin and development of the process of “indemnization”, as well as the interest of each party in strengthening its positions in Germany. 1950-60s.
General works.
Monograph by E.V. Tarle “Napoleon” tells the story of Napoleon’s rise to power and his active foreign policy, including in relation to Russia, which led France to a series of wars on the continent27.
Among the dissertations close to the topic under study, it is worth mentioning the candidate’s dissertation of Verbitsky E.D., dedicated to Russian
28 French relations in 1800-1803. In it, the author examines the diplomatic struggle between Russia and France, which unfolded on three “fronts” - in Italy, Germany, in the East and took place from October 1801 (signing of the Russian-French peace treaty) to March 1803 (resumption of armed struggle between England and France). At the beginning of his dissertation, he outlines the period 1799-1801, chronologically close to our topic.
The monograph by A.M. is devoted to the study of Russian-French relations in the Eastern Mediterranean. Stanislavskaya “Russian-English relations and problems of the Mediterranean 1798-1807”29 and an article by E.D. Ver
OL Bitskogo. The authors of these works examined a wide range of connections that developed in the Mediterranean region between Russia, France, England, Turkey and the Kingdom of Naples. In these works, an analysis of F.V.’s note was given. Rostopchin31 and the possibility of putting it into practice was considered, the influence of Malta on the change in the foreign policy course of the Russian Empire was explored.
1970-80s.
General works.
In the monographs of Soviet historians Yu.V. Borisov “Talleyrand” and A.Z. Manfred "Napoleon Bonaparte" analyzed the biographies of Napoleon and Talleyrand, political figures who had a significant influence on the development of Russian-French relations in the late 18th - early 19th centuries
For the centennial anniversary of the Great French Revolution in the USSR in 1989, a collection was published devoted to various aspects of the revolution. A number of his articles described the revolutionary expansion of France into Europe, and also provided an analysis of Catherine II’s note “On measures to restore the royal government in France.” In addition, it examined the fate of the emigrant corps of the Prince of Condé in the Russian Empire in 1789-1799. and French emigration in Russia33.
Works devoted to Russian-French relations at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries.
Monograph by K.E. Dzhedzhuly “Russia and the Great French Bourgeois Revolution”, dedicated to the development of relations between Russia and France during the revolution (1789-1794)34. In it, the author argued that Empress Catherine II was the inspirer of the first anti-French coalition and the entire policy of the Russian Empire at that time was determined by fear of revolutionary expansion.
In the work of G.A. Sibireva “The Kingdom of Naples and Russia in the last quarter of the 18th century” analyzes Russian policy in Italy, namely in the Kingdom of Naples, and also examines the contradictions that existed between St. Petersburg, Paris and London in this key region for control over the Eastern Mediterranean35.
Works dedicated to Paul I.
N.Ya Eidelman’s work “The Edge of Centuries” talks about the political history of Russia during the reign of Paul I and examines the foreign policy aspects of the reign of this monarch. The author came to the conclusion that the tsar’s unsystematic foreign policy, at first glance, was based on a foreign policy system that began with Catherine’s reign and continued during the reign of Alexander I.
In general, the works of Soviet historians concerned the development of social, economic, foreign policy and military aspects of Russian-French relations at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. At the same time, they did not touch upon such a topic as the role of Paul I in developing the foreign policy strategy of the Russian Empire, portraying his associates as the creators of Russian foreign policy: A.A. Bezborodko, S.R. Vorontsova, N.P. Panina, F.V. Rostopchina and others. If such an analysis was carried out, it was only to demonstrate the tyranny of the emperor and show the unsystematic nature of his foreign policy.
Interest in the topic of Russian-French relations continued in the post-Soviet period, which was facilitated by fascination with the personality of Paul I, as well as the era of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars and the figure of Napoleon. In addition, during this period, interest was shown in Maltese issues in Russian-French and Russian-British relations at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries.
General works.
A significant help for modern researchers of the history of international relations is the multi-volume “History of Foreign Policy”
3 points of Russia”, monograph by V.V. Degoeva “Russian foreign policy and international systems: 1700-1918.” , and “History of Diplomacy”, which present data on the history of Russian-French relations from the time of the beginning of the French Revolution until the signing of the Russian-French peace treaty in 1801. These works provide a concise description of the relations between the two countries, and discuss the reasons for the Russian-French French conflict and provides an explanation of the reasons for the change in Russian foreign policy at the end of the reign of Paul I.
This type includes the multi-volume “World History” and “History of Europe”, as well as the “History of France” - works that examine the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era in the context of world history40.
In October 2005, the Department of Modern and Contemporary History of St. Petersburg State University hosted an international scientific conference “The Great French Revolution, the Napoleon Empire and Europe”, dedicated to the memory of Professor V.G. Revunenkova. Within its framework, issues related to international relations during the era of revolution and the Napoleonic Empire were considered, including the topics under study41.
Generalizing works on international relations during the period of the Great French Revolution include an article written by employees of the Historical and Documentary Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia based on archival materials of the AVPRI of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs42.
In the course of writing the dissertation, we used a significant layer of material devoted to the Maltese issue, which, according to many researchers, had a significant impact on Russian foreign policy of that period43. Among this type of work, it is worth noting the candidate’s dissertation of T.N. Shaldunova, dedicated to the relationship between the Order of Malta, Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth44. The dissertation presents materials concerning relations between Russia and France, and indicates the role of Malta in the foreign policy of the Russian Empire.
Works devoted to Russian-French relations at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.
The article by D.Yu. is devoted to issues related to the recognition of Louis XVIII as a legitimate contender for the French throne. Bovyki-na45. In his article, the author shows the complex diplomatic maneuvers undertaken by Russian diplomacy to recognize Louis XVIII in this capacity by the leading European powers.
Articles by V.N. Vinogradova46, E.P. Kudryavtseva47 and monograph by V.D. Ovchinnikov “Holy Admiral Ushakov (1745-1817)” are dedicated to Russia’s Middle Eastern policy in the time period under study, its relations with France in this direction; the struggle for passage through the Straits; the success of Russian diplomacy in concluding a Russian-Turkish union treaty.
In the works of P.P. Cherkasova49 and V.N. Vinogradov50 discusses issues related to the policies of Catherine II during the French Revolution. The authors analyze the queen's attitude to the beginning of the revolution, to the arrest of the royal family and show the consequences of this for Russian-French relations.
Two-volume monograph by O.V. Sokolov “Austerlitz. Napoleon, Russia and Europe, 1799-1805" examines the history of relations between Russia and France from the beginning of the French Revolution to the Battle of Austerlitz through the prism of relations between Paul I and the first consul Napoleon, Alexander I and Emperor Napoleon I51.
Works dedicated to Paul I.
Starting with the monograph by N.Ya. Eidelman, in Russian historiography there has been a change in attitude towards the personality of Paul I and the period of his reign, expressed in numerous reprints of pre-revolutionary studies and in editions of modern biographies of the emperor - first of all, this concerns the book by A.M. Peskov "Paul I", in which the author gives an overview of the emperor's foreign policy.
Monographs by V.F. are devoted to a description of the psychological portrait of Paul I. Chizha53 and G.I. Chulkova54. In them, the authors examined the actions of the emperor, analyzing his psychological state.
The article by Yu.P. is of undoubted interest for analyzing the personality of the emperor. Solovyov, dedicated to Paul I’s passion for the ideas of chivalry and their reflection in his foreign policy actions55.
Thus, there is a significant number of works on the presented topics. At the same time, with all the value of the above-mentioned monographs and studies, in our opinion, modern authors do not fully disclose the role of Emperor Paul I in the development of the foreign policy of the Russian Empire.
The topic of Russian-French relations during the era of the French Revolution, the Directory and the Consulate is represented in foreign historiography by a significant number of works.
General works.
Among them it is worth mentioning the monographs of A. Vandal and A. Thiers56. A. Thiers, in his work “History of the Consulate and the Empire,” devoted significant space to the peace initiatives of the First Consul Napoleon in relation to the European powers: England, Austria, Prussia and Russia. He believed that the success of peace negotiations with St. Petersburg was supposed to ensure the pacification of Europe and the preservation of France's conquests.
A. Vandal, in a multi-volume work devoted to Russian-French relations, showed the domestic and foreign policy in which France was during the reign of Napoleon.
The following monographs should be included in this category of works: M. Bignon’s “History of France from the 18th Brumaire to the Peace of Tilsit” and E. Drio’s work “Napoleon and Europe. Foreign policy of the First Consul 1800-1803”57, dedicated to the foreign policy of France during the time of Napoleon.
Research by A. Olar “Political history of the French Revolution. The origin and development of democracy and the republic (1789-1804)”, P. Lacroix “Directory, Consulate and Empire”, G. Lefebvre “The French Revolution”, I. Taine “The Origin of Modern France”, as well as the works of J. Tulard are devoted to questions of how foreign and domestic policy
France in the period studied.
This topic also includes the multi-volume “History of the 19th Century,” edited by the French historians Lavisse and Rambaud59. In this paper they explore the impact that France and Napoleon had on Europe.
Generalizing works on the history of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars include the following works: “History and Dictionary of the Consulate and the Empire” by A. Fierro, “The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire: History of International Relations” by A. Fugier, “Dictionary of Napoleon’s Diplomats: History and Dictionary diplomatic corps of the consulate and the Empire" by J. Henri-Robert, "The Napoleonic episode: international aspects" by J. Lovier and A. Paluel, L. Murat "Bonaparte's Eastern Dream".60
In the work of American naval theorist A.T. Mahan's "The Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution and Empire" examines relations between European states, examines the struggle for maritime dominance between Great Britain and France, and also analyzes the actions of the Russian Empire and the member states of the Second Armed Neutrality, directed against the maritime dominance of Great Britain61.
Works devoted to Russian-French relations at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries.
The works of the famous German military theorist K. Clausewitz provide a description of military operations during the war of the second anti-French coalition, and also provide a detailed analysis of Suvorov’s Swiss campaign62.
Among modern foreign researchers of Russian-French relations during the reign of Paul I, it is worth noting the monograph by K. Grunwald, dedicated to Russian-French alliances. This work outlines the background to the conclusion of the Russian-French alliance of 1801.
Monographs by a number of foreign researchers are devoted to the Eastern question, which was just emerging at the turn of the 18th - 19th centuries. In them, they presented such actions as the “Greek Project” of Catherine I65 or the negotiations of Paul I with Napoleon regarding the campaign in India in order to demonstrate Russia’s desire for dominance in the Mediterranean as Russia’s top-priority foreign policy measures.
The monograph by American researcher Norman Saul is devoted to the Mediterranean policy of the Russian Empire during the era of wars with Republican and Napoleonic France. A significant place in this monograph is devoted to the problem of relations between Russia and Malta. The author pointed out the ideological reasons for Paul's desire to occupy and hold the island for the empire. He argued that the motivation for the king’s action was the defense of the Order of Malta and the knightly ideology that it preserved66.
An article by the Turkish historian V. Kuabani 61 is devoted to Russia’s relations with Turkey. He believed that, despite the military actions that Turkey, in alliance with Russia, waged against France, the interests of the Ottoman Porte required the restoration of the alliance with Paris, as with its long-time ally. In addition, in his opinion, Turkey sought to take one of the leading places in the concert of European powers, and the alliance with Russia prevented this.
The richly documented work of M. Poniatowski “Talleyrand and the Directory” is dedicated to the leadership of Sh.M. Talleyrand on the foreign policy of France during the Directory, his activities in this post68.
Works dedicated to Paul I.
The Polish historian K. Waliszewski, in a work devoted to the life of the Russian emperor, depicted his foreign policy as a series of crazy projects. He believed that in his foreign policy likes and dislikes, Paul was influenced both by his inner circle, who controlled him in their own interests, and by foreign diplomats, representing the interests of their powers69.
Among the works concerning Paul I, it is worth mentioning the monographs of French historians - Marina Gray, Paul Morosi and Henri Trouille. These works provide an assessment of the controversial figure of the emperor and his actions in foreign and domestic policy. The authors come to the conclusion that the basis of the reign of this monarch was the fear of his eccentricity, which was experienced by the emperor’s subjects.
In general, the works of foreign historians concern various aspects of Russia’s relations with France, England, Turkey, and the Order of Malta. At the same time, in the interpretation of the events of the war of the second anti-French coalition by foreign historians, Russia’s participation in the coalition is not fully covered. The role of Paul I in making the main foreign policy decisions of the empire is also superficially examined. The king is portrayed as a weak-willed executor of the decisions of his favorites.
A detailed reference to the works of domestic and foreign researchers will be made in the relevant chapters of the dissertation.
Structure of the dissertation. The work consists of an introduction, three chapters divided into paragraphs, a conclusion and a bibliography.
Similar dissertations in the specialty "General History (of the corresponding period)", 07.00.03 code VAK
Semyon Romanovich Vorontsov: military and diplomatic activities 2007, Candidate of Historical Sciences Polovinkina, Marina Leonidovna
Russia in the Napoleonic wars of 1805-1815. 2013, Doctor of Historical Sciences Bezotosny, Viktor Mikhailovich
Pitt the Younger: A Political Biography 2001, Doctor of Historical Sciences Egorov, Alexander Alexandrovich
"Eastern barrier" in French foreign policy 1763-1774. 2008, candidate of historical sciences Dvornichenko, Elena Vladimirovna
The problem of “natural borders” in the relationship between France and the Holy Roman Empire during the Great French Revolution 2009, candidate of historical sciences Baskakov, Vyacheslav Ivanovich
Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “General history (of the corresponding period)”, Igolkin, Ivan Yurievich
Conclusion.
The great French bourgeois revolution and the wars that followed it radically changed the system of international relations that developed in Europe at the end of the 18th century.
Social and economic transformations in France, aimed at breaking down the feudal order, destroying the monarchy and executing King Louis XVI, turned the whole of Europe against it. Created with the active financial support of England, the first anti-French coalition carried within itself the beginnings of destruction, since it was not a strong enough union of states seeking to territorially weaken the defeated France.
After the defeats inflicted on the interventionists by the French army, members of the coalition began to leave one after another. England and Austria, which continued the war, tried to attract Russia to restore the weakened coalition.
However, the Russian Empress Catherine II, despite all her rejection of the established order in France, did not take an active part in French affairs, as she was busy with wars with Turkey and Sweden, the confrontation with the Triple League, as well as Polish affairs. Moreover, in 1791 she tried to use the debates in the Constituent Assembly to mobilize the French fleet in case the leading power of the Triple League, England, threatened Russia's Baltic coast. Until the resolution of all foreign policy issues facing her, Catherine II limited her anti-revolutionary rhetoric to compiling notes devoted to the internal political arrangement of France.
Only towards the end of her reign, the Empress, having resolved Polish affairs, recognized the need to send her troops to France. However, during preparations for the military expedition, she died.
The beginning of the reign of the new emperor was marked by a renunciation of wars of conquest. The main reason for this step was the depletion of the financial and human resources of the empire; in addition, the sovereign and his entourage sought to return to the policy pursued by the late empress - the policy of neutrality in the Anglo-French confrontation.
The international situation favored the pursuit of this strategy. The war between Austria and France ended with the signing of the Treaty of Campoformia. Its result was the end of the war between European states and France. At the same time, he did not resolve the territorial contradictions that emerged in Europe as a result of the revolutionary wars. The redistribution of spheres of influence in Germany and Italy between France and Austria, contradictions with Russia in connection with the capture of the Ionian Islands by the French, the capture of Malta and the expedition to Egypt, the ongoing confrontation between Paris and London meant the emergence of new pretexts for a future war.
The intensification of France's Middle East policy caused alarm in the ruling circles of the Russian Empire, as this could pose a threat to the Black Sea coast of the empire. Thus, Russia’s participation in the war on the side of the anti-French coalition was determined not only by ideological motives (the desire to restore the overthrown Bourbon dynasty to the throne), but also by political considerations (the desire to prevent France from strengthening in Germany, Italy and the Eastern Mediterranean).
It is worth noting that the ideological component still prevailed to a greater extent in the decision of Emperor Paul I to send his troops to the Rhine, to Italy, and the fleet to the Ionian Islands to fight the “revolutionary infection” than geopolitical considerations. At that moment, the sovereign took on the role of savior of European thrones from the “revolutionary infection.”
The outbreak of the war, which was supposed to save Europe from French hegemony, ended in a clash between the former allies. The reason was the victories of the allied armies, which exacerbated long-standing unresolved contradictions.
Military successes of Russian troops under the command of A.B. Suvorov in Northern Italy led to a deterioration in relations between Russia and Austria. The desire of the Habsburg Empire to dominate the Apennine Peninsula came into conflict with the desire of Paul I to restore the Italian monarchs expelled by France. Disappointment in the policies of the Austrian court, which undermined the principles of legitimism due to which Russia entered the war, as well as the clash between Russian and Austrian troops in Italy led to St. Petersburg's withdrawal from the war.
The aggravation of relations with the London court was due to the growing maritime superiority of Great Britain, expressed in the fight against neutral trade, which damaged not only the neutral Northern European courts, but also the Baltic trade of Russia. In addition, Russia's relations with England began to deteriorate due to the ownership of the island of Malta. The election of Paul I as Master of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, located on this island, actually gave control over the Eastern Mediterranean into the hands of the Russian Tsar, which the British, seeking to gain a foothold in Egypt, the Ionian Islands and Malta, could not allow. At the same time, Malta occupied not only geopolitical, but also ideological significance in the projects of Paul 1. Having stood at the head of a Catholic order with a rich military history, the Orthodox monarch dreamed of reviving knighthood to fight revolutionary ideas, expansion and atheism.
Finally, the unsuccessful Anglo-Russian expedition to Holland, which ended in the complete defeat of the allied corps, as well as the subsequent withdrawal of Russian troops and their difficult maintenance on the islands of Jersey and Guernsey, further strained relations between the two allies.
Thus, the Russian emperor’s desire to put a limit to the spread of French expansion by military means encountered opposition from his coalition allies - Austria and
England, pursuing their own specific political goals, different from the selfless aspirations of the Russian emperor.
Paul I's attempts to maintain political stability in Europe by re-establishing the League of Armed Neutrality failed due to the neutral position taken by Prussia.
The events of the 18th Brumaire in France led to Napoleon Bonaparte's rise to power. His actions to calm the political situation in the country and stop the unrest brought him sympathy not only in France, but also outside it. The Russian Emperor was the first to see in the actions of the First Consul attempts to calm and pacify the French Republic.
Napoleon, in turn, realized that for France, which was fighting England, Russia was an important ally. The relationship between the two rulers at this stage was beneficial to both states. For Russia, an alliance with France was an opportunity to return to the “free hands” policy successfully pursued during the reign of Catherine I. For France, this alliance meant a way out of the isolation in which the country found itself after the revolution of 1789.
Russia and France were on opposite sides of Europe and had no reason for enmity with each other, at the same time they had their own foreign policy goals and spheres of influence in Europe, where the contradictions between the two states were fully manifested.
It is worth noting that the process of rapprochement between the two states did not find understanding among the Russian elite. Russian diplomats were against rapprochement with France, believing that revolutionary principles had not yet been completely eliminated in this country.
The discrepancy between the interests of the two countries was most clearly manifested in Germany, southern Italy and the Balkans. During the Russian-French negotiations in Paris, where representatives of the Russian emperor meticulously and stubbornly defended his interests, these contradictions were fully expressed.
Despite the divergence of views on European problems between Russia and France, as well as the death of Paul I, who sought to reconcile with the First Consul, the conclusion of the Russian-French peace treaty and the secret articles to it took place. The signing of these documents was a success for both parties. France was recognized de jure as a power equal to the European countries, and Russia, having signed a peace treaty, managed to maintain a neutral position in the Anglo-French confrontation.
List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Historical Sciences Igolkin, Ivan Yurievich, 2010
1. F. 32 (Relations between Russia and Austria) Op. 6. - D. 918. F. 35 (Relations of Russia with England) - Op. 6. - D. 120; D. 511. F. 74 (Relations between Russia and Prussia). - Op. 6. - D. 38; D. 122; D. 502; D. 503;D. 524;D. 553.
2. State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF):
3. F.855 (Bode-Kolychevs). On. 1. - D. 452; D. 456; D. 907; D. 937; D. 940; D. 961; D. 979.
4. F. 1126 (M.M. Alopeus). On. 1. - D. 484; D. 702; D. 863; D. 868.
5. Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA):
6. F. 1261 (Vorontsovs). On. 1. - D. 1714; D. 1716; D. 1725; D. 1728; D. 1731; D. 1776; D. 1805; D. 1808.1. Published sources:
7. Collections of documents of a diplomatic nature:
8. Foreign policy of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. - Series 1 (1801-1815). -T. 1 (March 1801 - April 1804).-M., 1960.-800 p.
9. Diplomatic relations between Russia and France during the Napoleonic era. -T. 1 (1800-1802). // Collection of the Russian Historical Society. T. 70. -SPb., 1890.-S. 1-114.
10. Reports of I.M. Simolin for 1789-1792. // Literary heritage. M., 1937. - T. 29/30. - pp. 383-538.
11. Convention on the Second Partition of Poland. // Under the banner of Russia: a collection of archival documents. M., 1992.-S. 140-145.
12. Materials for the biography of Count N.P. Panina (1770-1837). T. 17. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house. A. Brickner, 1888-1892. - T. 4 (Diplomatic activities in Berlin, 17974 799). - 1890. - 408 s; T. 5 (Vice-Chancellorship under Paul I, 1799-1801). - 1891.-674 p.
13. Correspondance de Napoleon I publie par Tordre de G Empereur Napoleon III. P. 1858-1870. - T. 3 (19 October 1799 - 29 January 1801); T. 4 (2 February 1801 -23 September 1803).
14. Internal diplomatic correspondence:
15. News from Russia to England during the reign of Emperor Pavel Petrovich (Correspondence between Count F.V. Rostopchin and Count S.R. Vorontsov) // Russian Archive. 1876. - Issue. 4. - pp. 393-415; Vol. 5. - pp. 81-90; Vol. 9. - pp. 65-103; Vol. 11.-S. 414-429.
16. Note from Count F.V. Rostopchina about the political relations of Russia in the last months of Pavlov’s reign // Russian Archive. 1878. - Issue. 1.-S. 103-110.
17. Letters from Emperor Paul to the ataman of the Don Army, cavalry general Orlov-1 // Russian antiquity. 1873. - Book. 9. - pp. 409-410.
18. Secret order of Emperor Paul I to the actual state councilor S.A. Kolychev // Russian archive. 1874. - Issue. 12. - pp. 966-970.
19. Autobiography, diaries, personal documents, memoirs:
20. Autobiography of Count S.R. Vorontsova // Russian archive. 1876. - T. 1. -S. 33-59.
21. Golovkin F. The court and reign of Paul I / F. Golovkin. - M., 2003.479 p.
22. Diary of A.B. Khrapovitsky 1782-1793 St. Petersburg, 1874. - P. 480 p. Abbe Georges. Travel to St. Petersburg by Abbot Georgel during the reign of Emperor Paul I / Abbot Georgel. - M., 1972. - 231 p.
23. Notes of Count A.I. Ribopierre // Russian Archive. 1877. - Issue. 4. - pp. 460-506.
24. Note from Empress Catherine II on measures to restore the royal government in France // Russian Archive. 1866. - Issue. 3. - pp. 399-422.
25. Masson Sh. Secret notes about Russia during the reign of Catherine II and Paul I / Sh. Masson. M., 1996. - 206 p.
26. Napoleon Bonaparte. Egyptian campaign / N. Bonaparte. M., 2000. - 429 p.
27. Talleyrand Sh.M. Memoirs: The Old Regime. The Great Revolution. Empire. Restoration. M., 1959. - 440 p.
28. Regicide March 11, 1801. Notes of participants and contemporaries of the assassination of Paul I. St. Petersburg, 1907. - 375 p.
29. Chartoryski A. Memoirs / A. Chartoryski. M., 1998. - 304 p.1. Research:
30. Averbukh R. Politics of European powers in 1787-1791. / R. Averbukh. // Marxist historian. 1939. - No. 2. - pp. 93-109.
31. Alefirenko P.K. The government of Catherine II and the French bourgeois revolution / P.K. Alefirenko // Historical notes. 1947 - No. 22. - P. 44-68.
32. Andreev A.R., Zakharov V.A., Nastenko I.A. History of the Order of Malta / A.R. Andreev, A.B. Zakharov, I.A. Nastenko. M., 1999. - 464 p.
33. Antoshevsky I.K. Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, called the Order of Malta in Russia / I.K. Antoshevsky. - M., 2001. 115 p.
34. Arzakanyan M.Ts. History of France / M.Ts. Arzakanyan, A.B. Revyakin, SHO. Uvarov. M., 2005. - 474 p.
35. Bezotosny V.M. Indian project of Napoleon / V.M. Bezotosny // Emperor. Military-historical almanac. 2001. - No. 2. - P. 2-9.
36. Bovykin D.Yu. Louis XVII: life and legend / D.Yu. Bovykin // New and recent history. 1995. - No. 4. - P. 169-172.
37. Bovykin D.Yu. Louis XVII: life after death / D.Yu. Bovykin // World of Genealogy. M., 1997. - P. 5-10.
38. Bovykin D.Yu. Death of Louis XVII (archive of the Duke de la Fara) / D.Yu. Bovykin // Europe. International almanac. Tyumen, 2001. - pp. 121-125.
39. Bovykin D.Yu. Recognition of Louis XVIII (view from Russia) / D.Yu. Bovykin // Russia and France of the 18th-20th centuries. Vol. 5. - pp. 56-77.
40. Bogoyavlensky S. Russia and France in 1789 - 1792. / S. Bogoyavlensky // Literary heritage. M., 1939. - T. 33/34. - P. 25-48.
41. Borisov Yu.V. Talleyrand / Yu.V. Borisov. M., 2003. - 464 p.
42. Bochkareva V.N. Catherine and France / V.N. Bochkareva // Patriotic War and Russian Society. T. 1. - M., 191 1. - P. 26-44.
43. Bochkareva V.N. Russian society of the Catherine era and the French revolution / V.N. Bochkareva // Patriotic War and Russian Society. T. 1. - M., 19 I. - P. 44-64.
44. Brickner A.G. Death of Paul I / A.G. Brickner. M., 1907. - 162 p.
45. Burdzhalov E.N. Tsarism in the fight against the French bourgeois revolution / E.N. Burdzhalov. M., 1940. - 250 p.
46. Walishevsky K. Son of the Great Catherine: Emperor Paul I / K. Walishevsky. ML, 2003. - 540 p.
47. Vandal A. Napoleon and Alexander. In 4 volumes / A. Vandal. - T. 1. - St. Petersburg, 1910.-569 p.
48. Vasiliev A.A. Royalist emigrant corps of the Prince of Condé in the Russian Empire (1789-1799) / A.A. Vasiliev // The Great French Revolution and Russia. M., 1989. - P. 314-329.
49. Vasilchikov A.A. Razumovsky family / A.A. Vasilchikov. - T. 4. - Part 2: His Serene Highness Prince Andrei Kirillovich. St. Petersburg, 1887. - 603 p.
50. Verbitsky E.D. The German question in Russian-French relations 1800-1803. / E.D. Verbitsky // Scientific notes of the Kherson Pedagogical Institute. Kherson, 1948 - pp. 3-59.
51. Verbitsky E.D. Russian-French relations in 1800-1803: abstract. dis. . Ph.D. history Sciences / E.D. Verbitsky. Kherson, 1950. - 25 p.
52. Vinogradov V.N. “Oriental Novel” of General Bonaparte and the Balkan Dreams of Emperor Paul / V.N. Vinogradov // Balkan studies. Vol. 18.-M., 1997.-S. 53-64.
53. Vinogradov V.N. Diplomacy of Catherine the Great Catherine and the French Revolution / V.N. Vinogradov // New and recent history. -2001.- No. 6.-S. 109-136.
54. World history. T. 1-24. / Auth. A.N. Bodok, I.E. Voynich, N.M. Volchek et al. - T. 16: Europe under the influence of France. - Minsk, 1997. - 558 p.
55. Godchaux J. Revolutionary expansion in Europe and America / J. Godchaux // The Great French Revolution and Russia. M., 1989. - pp. 82-90.
56. Grigorovich N.I. Chancellor Prince Bezborodko / N.I. Grigorovich // Russian archive. 1877. - Issue. 2. - pp. 198-232.
57. Grunwald K. Russian-French unions / K. Grunwald. M., 1968.328 p.
58. Degoev V.V. Russian foreign policy and international systems: 1700-1918. / V.V. Degoev. M, 2004. - 496 p.
59. Dzhedzhula K.E. Russia and the Great French Bourgeois Revolution / K.E. Dzhedzhula. Kyiv, 1972. - 452 p.
60. Dzhivegelov A.K. Revolution and Bonaparte / A.K. Dzhivegelov // Patriotic War and Russian Society. T. 1. - M., 1911. - P. 89-103.
61. Dzhivegelov A.K. Revolution and Europe / A.K. Dzhivegelov // Patriotic War and Russian Society. T. 1. - M., 1911. - P. 74-89.
62. Diplomatic representatives of France in Russia, 1702-1995 // Russia and France: XVIII-XX centuries. Vol. 1. - pp. 361-362.
63. Zakharov V.A. Sovereign Order of Malta: a look through the centuries / V. A. Zakharov // New and recent history. No. 1. - 2004. - P. 184-204.
64. Zakharov V.A. The Order of Malta and Russia / V.A. Zakharov. M., 2006.528 p.
65. Iskul S.N. Responses to the defeat of the anti-French coalition of 1792 (from the materials of the Vorontsov archive) / S.N. Iskul // The Great French Revolution and Russia, - M., 1989. P. 448-457.
66. History of the 19th century / Ed. E. Lavissa, A. Rambo. M., 1905. - T. 1: The era of Napoleon I. 1800-1815. - Part 1. - 1905. - 321 e.; T. 2: The era of Napoleon I. 1800-1815.-Ch. 2.- 1907.-333 pp.
67. History of Russian foreign policy. XVIII century (From the Northern War to the Russian war against Napoleon). M., 2000. - 304 p.
68. History of diplomacy. M., 2005. - 944 p.
69. History of Europe: From ancient times to the present day: In 8 vols. M., 1988-2000. - T. 5: From the French Revolution of the late 18th century to the First World War. - M., 2000. - 647 p.
70. Itenberg B.S. Russia and the Great French Revolution / B.S. Itenberg. M., 1988. - 253 p.
71. Kersnovsky A.A. History of the Russian Army / A.A. Kersnovsky. T. 1. -M., 1992.-304 p.
72. Kinyapina N.S. Foreign policy of Russia in the first half of the 19th century. / N.S. Kinyapina. M., 1963. - 288 p.
73. Clausewitz K. 1799 / K. Clausewitz. M., 1938. - 300 p.
74. Clausewitz K. Suvorov’s Swiss campaign of 1799 / K. Clausewitz. -M., 1939.-260 p.
75. Klochkov M.V. Pavel and France / M.V. Klochkov // Patriotic War and Russian Society. T. 1. - M., 1911. - P. 64-74.
76. Consular representatives of France in Russia (1715-1998) // Russia and France: XVIII-XX centuries. Vol. 2. - pp. 314-320.
77. Korovin E. Issues of state and law in the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century. // Collection of articles dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the French Revolution. M., 1940.
78. Kropotkin P.A. The Great French Revolution, 1789-1793 / P.A. Kropotkin. M., 1979. - 575 p.
79. Kudryavtseva E.P. Russia and Türkiye at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries: from wars to union treaties / E.P. Kudryavtseva // New and recent history. No. 6. - 1996.-S. 45-59.
80. Lanin P.S. Foreign policy of Paul I in 1796-1798. / P.C. Lanin // Scientific notes of Leningrad State University. Historical Science Series. - Vol. 10. - L., 1941. - P. 6-15.
81. Lukin N.M. The French Revolution in the reports of the Russian ambassador in Paris I.M. Simolina / N.M. Lukin // Literary heritage. M., 1937. -T. 29/30.-S. 343-382.
82. Manfred A.Z. The Great French Revolution / A.Z. Manfred. M., 1983.-431 p.
83. Manfred A.Z. Napoleon Bonaparte / A.Z. Manfred. M., 1989. - 776 p.
84. Miloslavsky Yu. Orthodox branch of the Sovereign Order of the Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem / Yu. Miloslavsky. St. Petersburg, 2001. - 240 p.
85. Milyutin D.A. History of the war of 1799 between Russia and France during the reign of Emperor Paul I / D.A. Milyutin. T. 1-5. - St. Petersburg, 1852-1853.-T. 5.- 1853.- 512 p.
86. Milyutin D.A. History of the war of 1799 between Russia and France during the reign of Emperor Paul I / D.A. Milyutin. - T. 1-3. - Ed. 2nd. -SPb., 1857-T. 1,- 1857.-652 s; T. 3.- 1857.-670 p.
87. Mikhnevich N.P. Russia's first clashes with the revolution. Suvorov's campaign in 1799 / N.P. Mikhnevich // Patriotic War and Russian Society. T. 1.-M., 1911.-S. 131-152.
88. Molok A.I. France and Europe in 1795-1815. / A.I. Milk. M., 1946. -346 p.
89. Mahan A.T. The influence of sea power on the French revolution and empire / A.T. Mahan. T. 2. - M., St. Petersburg, 2002. - 576 p.
90. Namazova A.S. Brabant Revolution 1787-1790 in the Austrian Netherlands / A.C. Namazova // New and recent history - 2001. No. 6. - P. 149-165.
91. Narochnitsky A.L. Questions of war and peace in the foreign policy of the Jacobin republic in the summer of 1793 / A.JI. Narochnitsky // Scientific notes of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after. Lenin. 1949.-T. 58.-S. 63-104.
92. Narochnitsky A.L. International relations of European states from 1794 to 1830 / A.L. Narochnitsky. M., 1946. -230 p.
93. Narochnitsky A.L. Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety and neutral countries from the autumn of 1793 to the split among the Jacobins / A.L. Narochnitsky // News of the USSR Academy of Sciences. History and Philosophy Series. 1945. -No. 6.-S. 407-424.
94. Narochnitsky A.L. Russia and the Napoleonic wars for domination over Europe (Resistance and adaptation) / A.L. Narochnitsky. // Problems of methodology and source study of the history of Russian foreign policy. M., 1986. - P. 88-113.
95. Narochnitsky A.L. Jacobin Republic and neutral states in the summer of 1793 / A.L. Narochnitsky // Questions of history. 1945. - No. 3-4. - pp. 123-134.
96. Obolensky G.L. Emperor Paul I / G.L. Obolensky. M., 2001.384 p.
97. Ovchinnikov V.D. Holy Admiral Ushakov (1745-1817) / V.D. Ovchinnikov. M., 2003. - 511 p.
98. Ogarkov V.V. Vorontsov. Their life and social activities / V.V. Ogarkov. St. Petersburg, 1892. - 96 p.
99. Okun S.B. History of the USSR (1796-1825)/ S.B. Perch. L., 1948. - 490 p. Perminov P. Under the shadow of the eight-pointed cross / P. Perminov. - M., 1991.- 168 p.
100. Peskov A.M. Pavel I / A.M. Peskov. M., 2003. - 422 p.
101. Petrushevsky A.F. Generalissimo Prince Suvorov / A.F. Petrushevsky. St. Petersburg, 2005. - 717 p.
102. Pimenova JI.A. From the history of French emigration in Russia: documents from the archives of Count Langeron / L.A. Pimenova // The Great French Revolution and Russia. M., 1989. - P. 494-501.
103. Picheta V.I. Foreign policy of Paul I / V.I. Picheta // Three centuries: Russia from the Time of Troubles to our time. T. 5. - M., 1994.-P. 114-124.
104. Picheta V.I. International politics of Russia at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I (until 1807) / V.I. Picheta // Patriotic War and Russian Society.-T. 1.-M., 1911.-S. 152-174.
105. Project of the Russian-French expedition to India // Russian antiquity. -1873. Book 9. - pp. 401-409.
106. Revunenkov V.G. Napoleon and the Revolution. 1789-1815 / V.G. Revunenkov. -SPb., 1999.- 107 p.
107. Revunenkov V.G. Essays on the history of the Great French Revolution: The Fall of the Monarchy. 1789-1792 / V.G. Revunenkov. L., 1982. - 240 p.
108. Revunenkov V.G. Essays on the history of the Great French Revolution: The Jacobin Republic and its collapse / V.G. Revunenkov. L., 1983. - 287 p.
109. Russia and Europe during and after the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. // www.ln.mid.ru/ns-arch.nsf
110. Russia and the Black Sea Straits (XVII-XIX centuries). M., 1999.557 p.
111. Russian (and Soviet) diplomatic representatives in France, 1702-1995 / Comp. S.L. Turilova, G.B. Shumova, E.V. Belevich // Russia and France: XVIII-XX centuries. Vol. 1. - pp. 346-360.
112. Collection of the Russian Historical Society. T. 23. - St. Petersburg, 1878.
113. Semenova L.V. The Great French Revolution and Russia (end of the 18th - 1st quarter of the 19th century) / L.V. Semenov. - M., 1991. - 64 p.
114. Serdobin M.N. Count Nikita Petrovich Panin / M.N. Serdobin // Russian antiquity. 1873. - Issue. 9. - pp. 339-361.
115. Sibireva G.A. The Kingdom of Naples and Russia in the last quarter of the 18th century. / G.A. Sibireva. M., 1981. - 200 p.
116. Sirotkin V.G. Absolutist restoration or compromise with revolution? (About one little-known note of Catherine the Great) / V.G. Sirotkin // The Great French Revolution and Russia. M., 1989. - P. 273288.
117. Sirotkin V.G. Duel of two diplomacy. Russia and France in 1801-1812. / V.G. Sirotkin. M., 1966. - 208 p.
118. Sirotkin V.G. Napoleon and Alexander I: Diplomacy and intelligence of Napoleon and Alexander I in 1801-1812 / V.G. Sirotkin. M., 2003. - 415 p.
119. Sirotkin V.G. Napoleon and Russia / V.G. Sirotkin. M., 2000. - 380 p.
120. Sokolov O.V. Austerlitz. Napoleon, Russia and Europe, 1799-1805 / O.V. Sokolov. T. 1. - M., 2006. - 320 p.
121. Soloviev Yu.P. Chivalry and foolishness. On the poetics of the image of Emperor Paul the First / Yu.P. Soloviev // Odysseus. M., 2005. - pp. 262-282.
122. Sorel L. Europe and the French Revolution. T. V. - St. Petersburg, 1906.
123. Stanislavskaya A.M. Russian-English relations and problems of the Mediterranean 1798-1807 / A.M. Stanislavskaya. M., 1962. - 504 p.
124. Tarle E.V. Admiral Ushakov on the Mediterranean Sea (1798-1800) / E.V. Tarle. M., 1948. - 239 p.
125. Tarle E.V. Napoleon / E.V. Tarle. M., 1957. - 467 p.
126. Tarle E.V. Talleyrand / E.V. Tarle. M., 1939. - 207 p.
127. Timiryazev V. Relations between Russia and France a hundred years ago / V. Timiryazev // Historical Bulletin. 1897. - Book. 12. - pp. 968-990.
128. Tolstoy Yu.V. Plan for a campaign in India as it was agreed between Bonaparte and Paul I / Yu.V. Tolstoy // Russian antiquity. 1876. - Book. 15. - pp. 216-217.
129. Trachevsky A.S. Diplomatic relations between Russia and France during the Napoleonic era. T. 1 (1800-1802) / A.S. Trachevsky // Collections of the Imperial Russian Historical Society. T. 70. - St. Petersburg, 1890. - P. I - XLIV.
130. Trachevsky A.S. Franco-Russian alliance in the era of Napoleon / A.S. Trachevsky // Historical Bulletin. 1891. - T. 44. - P. 536-540.
131. Troitsky N.A. Alexander I and Napoleon / H.A. Trinity. M., 1994.304 p.
132. Trukhanovsky V.G. Admiral Nelson / V.G. Trukhanovsky. M., 1980.210 p.
133. Turilova C.JI. Consular offices and representatives of Russia in France / S.L. Turilova, M.A. Turilova // Russia and France: XVIII-XX centuries.-Vol. 2.-C 289-312.
134. Thiers A. History of the consulate and empire in France / A. Thiers. T. 1. - St. Petersburg, 1846.-196 p.; T. 2.-SPb., 1846.-160 p.; T. 3. - St. Petersburg, 1846. - 152 p.
135. Fedosova E.I. The Polish question in the foreign policy of the first empire in France / E.I. Fedosova. M., 1980. - 203 p.
136. Cherkasov P.P. Catherine II and the collapse of the old order in France (1789-1792) / P.P. Cherkasov // Russia and France. Vol. 4. - M., 2001. - P. 70-106.
137. Cherkasov P.P. Catherine II and Louis XVI: Russian-French relations 1774-1792. / P.P. Cherkasov. M., 2001. - 528 p.
138. Cherkasov P.P. Russian-French trade agreement of 1787 / P.P. Cherkasov // Russia and France of the 18th-20th centuries Vol. 4. - pp. 26-59.
139. Chizh V.F. Psychology of the villain, ruler, fanatic / V.F. Chizh. M., 2001.-414 p.
140. Chulkov G.I. Emperors of Russia: Psychological portraits / G.I. Chulkov.-M., 2003.-377 p.
141. Shaldunova T.N. Polish lands in the relationship between the Order of Malta and the Russian Empire: abstract. dis. . Ph.D. ist. Sciences / T.N. Shaldunova. Armavir, 2006. - 181 p.
142. Schilder N.K. Emperor Paul I / N.K. Schilder. M., 1996. - 425 p.
143. Shumigorsky E.S. Emperor Paul I. Life and reign / E.S. Shumigorsky. - St. Petersburg, 1907. 252 p.
144. Eidelman N.Ya. Edge of centuries / N.Ya. Eidelman. M., 1986. - 386 p. Yudin JI. To India (About the unprecedented campaign of Ataman Platov) / L. Yudin // Russian antiquity. - 1894.-Book. 12.-S. 231-241.
145. Ansel J. Manuel historique de la question d'Orient (1792-1927) / J. Ansel. -Paris, 1927.-440 p.
146. Aulard A. Histoire politique de la Revolution française. Origines et développement de la démocratie et de la republique (1789-1804) / A. Aulard. -Paris, 1901.-805 p.
147. Bignon M. Histoire de France depuis le 18 Brumaire jusqu"à la paix de Tilsit / M. Bignon.-T. 1, 2.-Paris, 1829.-536 p.
148. Devleeshouwer R. Les pays sous domination française (1799-1814) / R. Devleeshouwer. Paris, 1968. - 259 p.
149. Driault Ed. La question d"orient depuis ses origins jusqu"à nos jours / Ed. Driault. Paris, 1914. - 411 p.
150. Driault Ed. Napoleon et G Europe. La politique exterieure du premier Consul 1800-1803 / Ed. Driault. T. 1. - Paris, 1910. - 418 p.
151. Dunon M. La Revolution française en Europe / M. Dunon. Paris, 1953.269 p.
152. Fierro A., Palluel-Guillard A., Tulard J. Histoire et Dictionnaire du Consulat et de L'Empire / A. Fierro, A. Palluel-Guillard, J. Tulard. Paris, 1995. - 1350 p.
153. Fugier A. La Revolution française et l "Empire napoléonienne: Histoire des relation internationals / A. Fugier. Paris, 1954. - 243 p.
154. Godechot J. L"Europe et l"Amerique a l"époque napoléonienne / J. Godechot. Paris, 1967 - 365 p.
155. Gray M. Le tsar bâtard 1754-1801 / M. Gray. P., 1998.-276 p.
156. Henri-Robert J. Dictionnaire des diplomates de Napoleon: histoire et dictionnaire du corps diplomatique consulaire et imperial / J. Henri-Robert. Paris, 1990.-366 p.
157. Histoire et dictionnaire de la Revolution française: 1789-1799 de J. Tullard. -Paris, 1998.- 1230p. "
158. Histoire et dictionnaire du Consulat et de l"Empire: 1799-1815 de J. Tullard. -Paris, 1995.- 1349 p.1.croix P. Directoire, consulat et empire / P. Lacroix. Paris, 1884. - 559 p.
159. Marriott J.A.R. The Eastern Question. An Historical Study in European Diplomacy / J.A.R. Marriott. Oxford, 1924. - 356 p.
160. Miller W. The Ottoman empire and its successors, 1801-1927 / W. Miller. -Cambridge, 1936.-530 p.
161. Miquel P. Histoire de la France / P. Miquel. Paris, 1978. - 643 p.
162. Mourousy P. Le tsar Paul 1er. La puissance et la peur / P. Mourousy. P., 1997.-352 p.
163. Murat L. Weill N. La reve orientale de Bonoparte / L. Murat, N. Weill -Paris, 1998.- 160 p.
164. Norman E. Saul. Russia and the Mediterranean, 1797-1807 / E. Saul Norman. Chicago and London, 1970. - 340 p.
165. Poniatowski M. Talleyrand et le Directoire 1796-1800 / M. Poniatowski. -P., 1982. 908 p.
166. Sparrow E. Secret Services: British agents in France 1792-1815 / E. SpaiTOw. Suffolk, 1999. - 253 p.
167. Soboul A. Dictionnaire historique de la Revolution française / A. Soboul. -Presses Universitaires de France, 2005 1132 p.
168. Soboul A. Le directoire et le consulat (1795-1804) / A. Soboul. Paris, 1972.- 128 p.
169. Taine H. Les origines de la France contemporaine / H. Taine. Paris, 1882. -553 p.
170. Troyat H. Paul 1er le tsar mal aime / H. Troyat. Ed. Grasset. 2002. - 358 p. Tulard J. L "Europe de Napoleon / J. Tulard. - Horvath, 1989. - 240 p. Tulard J. La France de la Revolution et de l" Empire / J. Tulard. - Paris, 2004. -212p.
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
Russian-French relations have their roots in the distant past. Back in the middle of the 11th century, Anna of Kiev, the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, having married Henry I, became the queen of France, and after his death she exercised regency and ruled the French state.
Diplomatic relations between our countries were first established in 1717, when Peter I signed the credentials of the first Russian ambassador to France. Since then, France has always been one of Russia’s most important European partners, and Russian-French relations largely determined the situation in Europe and in the world.
The culmination of the rapprochement between the two countries was their military-political alliance, which took shape towards the end of the 19th century, and the symbol of friendly ties was the Alexander III Bridge in Paris over the Seine River, founded in 1896 by Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna.
The modern history of relations between our countries began with the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and France on October 28, 1924.
A striking episode of Russian-French friendly ties is the military brotherhood on the battlefields during the Second World War. Free French volunteer pilots - the Normandy-Niemen air regiment - heroically fought the Nazis on the Soviet front. At the same time, Soviet citizens who escaped from Nazi captivity fought in the ranks of the French Resistance Movement. Many of them died and were buried in France (one of the largest burials is located in the cemetery of Noyer-sur-Seine).
In the 1970s, by proclaiming a policy of detente, harmony and cooperation, Russia and France became the harbingers of the end of the Cold War. They were at the origins of the Helsinki pan-European process, which led to the formation of the CSCE (now OSCE), and contributed to the establishment of common democratic values in Europe.
In the early 90s, dramatic changes on the world stage and the emergence of a new Russia predetermined the development of an active political dialogue between Moscow and Paris, based on the broad convergence of our countries’ approaches to the formation of a new world order, problems of European security, the resolution of regional conflicts, and arms control.
The fundamental document of relations between Russia and France is the Treaty of February 7, 1992 (came into force on April 1, 1993), which consolidated the desire of both parties to develop “new relations of consent based on trust, solidarity and cooperation.” Since then, the legal framework of Russian-French relations has been significantly enriched - several dozen agreements have been concluded in various areas of bilateral cooperation.
Russian-French political contacts are regular. Meetings between the presidents of Russia and France are held annually. Vladimir Putin's first official visit to France took place in October 2000: contact was established between the presidents of the two countries, and the basis was created for a qualitative shift in the development of Russian-French relations. During Vladimir Putin's short working visit to Paris in January 2002 and Jacques Chirac's visits to Russia in July 2001 and July 2002, the intention of Russia and France to move along the path of strengthening friendship and cooperation was confirmed.
Russian-French political contacts are becoming increasingly intense. Meetings between the heads of the two states on a regular basis created the conditions for a qualitative shift in the development of Russian-French relations. Bilateral political dialogue and cooperation received a new powerful impetus as a result of V.V. Putin’s state visit to France in February 2003, as well as meetings of our presidents as part of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg and at the G8 summit in Evian in May -June 2003
Since 1996, the Russian-French Commission on Bilateral Cooperation has been operating at the level of heads of government. Every year, alternately in Moscow and Paris, meetings are held between the Chairman of the Government of Russia and the Prime Minister of France, which determine the strategy and main directions for the development of relations between the two countries in trade, economic, scientific, technical, social and other fields. Since 2000, meetings of the Commission have been held in the form of an “intergovernmental seminar” with the participation of the heads of the ministries and departments most active in bilateral cooperation (the next meeting took place on October 6, 2003 in Moscow). Within the framework of the Commission, sessions of the Russian-French Council on Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Affairs (CEFIC), meetings of over twenty joint working groups in various areas of bilateral cooperation are regularly held.
An active dialogue is maintained at the level of foreign ministers, who, in accordance with the Treaty of February 7, 1992, meet twice a year alternately in Moscow and Paris, in addition to numerous contacts within various international forums. Consultations are regularly held between the Foreign Ministries of the two countries on various foreign policy issues.
In the context of the international situation that emerged after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, a new area of bilateral cooperation to counter new threats and challenges (terrorism, international organized crime, drug trafficking, financial crimes) is successfully developing. By decision of Presidents V.V. Putin and J. Chirac, a Russian-French Security Council was created with the participation of the foreign and defense ministers of both countries (two meetings of the Council were held, the last one in July 2003 in Moscow). Interdepartmental interaction is successfully carried out through law enforcement agencies (ministries of internal affairs and justice, intelligence services, higher courts).
Russia and France actively interact as permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as in the OSCE and other international bodies; together with the United States, they are co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Conference on resolving the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, and are members of the “Group of Friends of the UN Secretary General for Georgia.”
The French leadership supports the line of integrating Russia into the world economy and the political and socio-economic transformations being carried out in our country. One of the priority areas of cooperation is interaction in carrying out government and administrative reforms. A framework Agreement on administrative cooperation is in force, experience is exchanged, incl. in the division of powers between central and local authorities. France provides Russia with assistance in training qualified personnel to work in a market economy and for public service.
Russian-French interparliamentary cooperation is based on active delegation exchanges and contacts between the heads of chambers. The instrument for its development is the Large Russian-French Interparliamentary Commission, created in 1995 and headed by the chairmen of the lower houses of the parliaments of Russia and France. The next meeting of the Commission, chaired by the leaders of the State Duma G.N. Seleznev and the National Assembly of France J.-L. Debreu, took place in Paris in October 2003. Bilateral friendship groups play an important proactive role in the chambers of the Federal Assembly, as well as in the Senate and National Assembly France.
Cooperation at the interregional level is becoming an increasingly important component of Russian-French economic and cultural ties. There are about 20 documents on cooperation between the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the regions of France. Examples of active direct connections are cooperation between Paris, on the one hand, and Moscow and St. Petersburg, on the other, between the Oryol region and the Champagne-Ardenne region, the Irkutsk region and Aquitaine, the Novgorod region and Alsace. With the participation of the upper houses of parliaments of the two countries, bilateral seminars are being held to determine the most optimal areas for decentralized cooperation. The last such forum took place in Moscow on October 6, 2003.
Recently, the role of civil societies in the development of relations between our countries has significantly increased. One of the manifestations of this trend is the holding of a “dialogue of cultures” within the framework of major bilateral visits: meetings with Russian and French representatives of the creative intelligentsia, “round tables”. In France and Russia there are public associations for the development of friendship and mutual understanding between the peoples of the two countries.
Russian-French relations are on the rise. They are strengthened by common positions on key issues of European and world development and coordinated actions in the international arena. The range and intensity of connections in a wide variety of areas is expanding. The accumulated experience of interaction, as well as the centuries-old traditions of friendship and mutual sympathy of the peoples of Russia and France, predetermine encouraging prospects for the development of Russian-French partnership.
!-->
: Relations Entre la France et li Russie, Russians: Russian-French relations , Rossiysko-frantsuzskiye otnosheniya listen)) dates back to the early modern period.
French intelligence services in Russia
In 1980, France's domestic intelligence service, the DST, recruited KGB officer Vladimir Vetrov as a double agent.
Russian intelligence services in France
During the Cold War, Russian active measures directed French public opinion. Some indication of success is given by polls, which showed more support for France in the USSR than in the United States.
In 2010, Russian espionage operations against France reached levels not seen since the 1980s, according to French counterintelligence sources.
Examples of operations
Examples of suspected or verified Soviet and Russian operations:
- Agence France-Presse - Mitrokhin's archive identified six agents and two confidential contacts.
- Le Monde - the newspaper (Code Messenger, "messenger") was notable for spreading anti-American, pro-Soviet disinformation to the French population. The Mitrokhin archive contains two senior Le Monde journalists and several assistants.
- La Tribune Palace of the Nation - Effectively a KGB perspective.
- Various fictitious biographies.
- Penetration of the Gaullist movement: "More than any other political movement, Gaullism was infested with agents of influence of the obliging KGB, whom we never managed to keep away from de Gaulle"
- Almost 15 million francs to De Gaulle's campaign, delivered by a businessman recruited by the KGB.
- The KGB hired people close to François Mitterrand.
- Agents close to President Pompidou were ordered to manipulate him with disinformation so that he would become suspicious of the United States.
- Pierre Charles Pathé - KGB Code Pecherin (later Mason) ran one of Moscow's disinformation networks for 20 years, until French counterintelligence decided to arrest him during a financial operation.
- History of French External Relations History 64 (1979), pp. 20-35.
- Karel, Michael Jabar. "Prelude to Victory: Franco-Soviet Relations, 1919-39." Historical Reflections / REFLEXIONS Historiques(1996): 159-188. in JSTOR
- Karel, Michael Jabar. "Episodes from the Early Cold War: Franco-Soviet Relations 1917-1927". Europe-Asia Study 52,7 (2000): 1275-1305.
- Carroll, E.M. French public opinion and foreign affairs, 1870-1914 (1931).
- Clark, Christopher. In Sleepwalkers: How Europe Entered the War in 1914(2012), pp. 124-35, 190-96, 293-313, 438-42, 498-505..
- Dreifort, John E. "The French Popular Front and the Franco-Soviet Pact, 1936-1937:. Dilemma in foreign policy" Journal of Modern History 11.2/3 (1976): 217-236.
- Fay, Sidney Bradshaw. Origins of the World War(2nd ed. 1934), volume 1 pp. 105-24, 312-42, volume 2 pp. 277-86, 443-46.
- Amel, Ekaterina. La commemoration de l'alliance Franco-Russe: La Création sHip culture matérielle Populaire, 1890-1914(French) (MA Thesis, Concordia University, 2016); online
- Jelavich, Barbara. A Century of Russian Foreign Policy, 1814-1914 (1964)
- Kaplan, Herbert Russia and the outbreak of the Seven Years War(1968) to 1750s
- Keiger, J.F.V. France and the world since 1870 (2001)
- Kennan George Frost. Fatal Alliance: France, Russia, and the Coming of the First World War(1984) online free borrow
- Kennan George F. The Fall of Bismarck's European Order: Franco-Russian Relations, 1875-1890 (1979).
- Langer, William F. Franco-Russian alliance, 1890-1894 (1930)
- Langer, William F. Diplomacy Imperialism: 1890-1902(1950), pp. 3-66.
- Livny, Dominic. Russia versus Napoleon: the battle for Europe, 1807 1814 (2009).
- Michon, Georges. Franco-Russian alliance (1969).
- Ragsdale, Hugh, and V.N. Ponomarev, eds. Imperial Russian Foreign Policy (1993).
- Saul, Norman E. Historical Dictionary of the Russian Language and Soviet Foreign Policy(Rowman & Littlefield, 2014).
- Schmitt, B.E. Triple Alliance and Entente (1947).
- Scott, William Evans. The Alliance Against Hitler: The Origins of the Franco-Soviet Pact(1962), 1935 treaties with the USSR online
- Siegel, Jennifer. For peace and money: French and English finance in the service of tsarism and commissars(Oxford UP, 2014) on World War I loans.
- Sontag, Raymond James. European diplomatic history, 1871-1932(1933), pp. 29-58.
- Taylor, A.J.P. The struggle for dominance in Europe, 1848-1918(1954), pp. 325-45.
- Tomashevsky, Fiona. "Pomp, Circumstance and Realpolitik: The Evolution of the Entente of Russia, Great Britain and France." Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas about. 3 (1999): 362-380. at JSTOR, in English
- Tomashevsky, Fiona K. Great Russia: Russia and the Entente, 1905-1914(Greenwood, 2002). online Answers.com - French influence in Russia
