Alexey Latyshev, Alena Medvedeva

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation intends to cooperate with Paris as closely as the French side is ready for this. This statement was made by the head of the department, Sergei Shoigu, during a meeting with his colleague from France, Florence Parly. The talks were held in Moscow as part of a meeting of the Russian-French Security Cooperation Council, which was also attended by the foreign ministers of the two states. Shoigu noted that a number of proposals were sent to the French side in the military sphere, which could be implemented "in the near future." According to experts, there are many issues on which Paris and Moscow can cooperate mutually. Among them, analysts named the fight against terrorism, the settlement of conflicts in Ukraine, Syria and Libya.

• Meeting of the Russian-French Security Cooperation Council in Moscow
• RIA News
• Maxim Blinov

Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu on the readiness of his department to cooperate with colleagues from France. He said this at a meeting in Moscow with the head of the Armed Forces of the Fifth Republic, Florence Parly.

“I share your focus on achieving concrete results today to give a new impetus to our relations in the strategic field. I would like to note that we are determined to go as far in cooperation as our French colleagues are ready to go,” Shoigu said.

The meeting between Shoigu and Parly took place as part of a meeting of the Russian-French Security Cooperation Council. The talks were held in the "2 + 2" format, they were also attended by Foreign Ministers of the two countries Sergey Lavrov and Jean-Yves Le Drian.

Shoigu recalled that Russian and French Presidents Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron agreed to resume contacts between the defense departments at a meeting in Fort Bregancon.

“It would seem that not much time has passed since then, but we have already come a long way to bring our views closer together,” he said.

• French Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly, French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu at a press conference following a meeting of the Russian-French Security Cooperation Council in Moscow
• RIA News
• Maxim Blinov

The defense minister told reporters, without giving details, that Moscow had given Paris a number of proposals in the military sphere that "could be implemented in the short term."

Russian-French relations have a long history. Back in the middle of the 11th century, the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, Anna, became the Queen of France, marrying Henry I. And after his death, becoming regent for his son, the future King of France Philip I, she actually ruled France. The first Russian embassy in France appeared in 1717 after the decree of Peter I. This became the starting point for establishing diplomatic relations between our countries.

The culminating point of cooperation was the creation of a military-political alliance at the end of the 19th century. And the bridge of Alexander III, built in Paris, became a symbol of friendly relations.

The modern history of relations between Russia and France begins on October 28, 1924, from the date of the official establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and France.

On February 7, 1992, an agreement was signed between Russia and France, which confirmed the desire of both countries to develop "concerted actions based on trust, solidarity and cooperation." Within 10 years, the agreement between the two countries was supplemented by more than 70 agreements and protocols relating to various areas of cooperation between our countries.

In October-November 2000, President Putin's first official visit to France took place. The agreements concluded during this visit confirmed the importance of cooperation between Russia and France in world politics. President Chirac made an official visit to Russia from 1 to 3 July 2001, during which he visited St. Petersburg, Moscow and Samara. Conversations between Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin contributed to the adoption of a joint declaration on strategic stability. A new agreement on air traffic and an additional agreement on cooperation in helping enterprises were signed.

Trade turnover

France is in eighth place among the EU countries - Russia's main trading partners in terms of trade turnover. The crisis made its own adjustments, and in 2009 the Russian-French trade turnover decreased by 22.8% compared to 2008. As a result, it amounted to 3.3 billion dollars. Among the countries of the European Union, the fall was more significant - 41%. Russian exports increased by 40.4% to $12.2 billion, while imports from France grew by 29.6% to $10 billion. France is one of the strategic trade and economic partners for Russia. The trade turnover between our countries has almost tripled over the past five years. According to the results of 2008, it increased by 35.3% and amounted to $22.2 billion. In addition, France has become one of the main investors for Russia: at the end of March 2009, French investments in the Russian economy amounted to $8.6 billion.

The largest commodity items of Russian exports to France are: oil and mineral fuels, products of the chemical industry, metals, wood, pulp and paper products. As well as machinery, equipment and vehicles. The structure of imports from France to Russia is formed by three commodity groups: machinery and equipment, products of the chemical industry, including pharmaceuticals and perfumes. And besides, food products and agricultural raw materials.

For the development of Russian exports, the main potential is in industrial cooperation in the field of high technologies. Of the ongoing projects in this area with the participation of enterprises of the two countries, the joint development of an engine on the basis of NPO Saturn for the Russian regional aircraft Superjet-100 and the organization of the production of components for the Airbus deserve attention.

culture

First of all, the "cross" year will be the year of culture. Therefore, it is very symbolic that on January 25, 2010 in the Pleyel Hall, the performance of the Mariinsky Theater Orchestra of St. Petersburg under the baton of Valery Gergiev marked its grand opening. Numerous cultural cooperation projects will put this Franco-Russian Year under the sign of creativity. Choreographer Angelin Preljocaj will combine the Bolshoi Ballet and his dance troupe in a contemporary ballet to be staged first in Moscow and then in France at intervals of a few weeks. The National Opera of Paris and the Bolshoi Theater have planned a joint production of an opera to music by Philippe Fenelon based on the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard". In Russia, there will also be tours of the Comedy Francaise in two capitals: Moscow and St. Petersburg. The ballet troupe of the Paris Opera will show "Pakita" in Novosibirsk. The mobile festival of street theaters will take place on board a ship sailing along the Volga. By trans-siberian railway there will be a special literary train of writers, which throughout the journey will acquaint the Russian public with modern French literature.

Many well-known museums are preparing an interesting program of exhibitions, which will also be held in the regions. From March 2 to May 26, 2010, the Louvre will host an exhibition that will present several centuries of Russian art - from the 11th to the 17th centuries, more than 10 Russian museums will take part in its preparation. Among the French exhibitions will be an exposition at the Museum of Fine Arts. Pushkin in Moscow, dedicated to the School of Paris, and an exhibition at the State Historical Museum "Napoleon and Art". In St. Petersburg, an exposition of Sevres porcelain will be opened in the Hermitage, and an exhibition from the collection of Nancy museums will be seen in Yekaterinburg.

Education

According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, both Russia and France benefit from projects in the field of joint education. According to him, the joint activity of Russia and France in this area is of great importance not only for students, "Europe" and the whole world benefit from this activity. The Russian network Alliance Française, which has 11 associations, has gained particular popularity among those wishing to learn French. The wave of its creation in Russia began in 2001, when, on the initiative of the French Ambassador, Mr. Blanchemeson, similar public associations appeared in Samara and Nizhny Novgorod. Then, in Vladivostok, the French Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Mr. Stanislas de Laboulet, officially opened the 11th Russian Alliance Française.

Within the framework of cooperation in the field of higher education, the Franco-Russian educational program is successfully operating on the basis of an agreement with two universities at once, one of which is French, the other is Russian. This program will be of interest to those who aim to teach in French and wish to obtain a French diploma. The various Franco-Russian educational programs currently known represent a wide variety of academic schemes of study, ranging from a module of study in French to included programs that provide for obtaining two state diplomas.

Within the framework of the Year of France in Russia and Russia in France, the conference "Student and scientific and technological progress" (in Novosibirsk), the Franco-Russian forum "Students-Enterprises" (in St. Petersburg) will be held. In addition, a meeting of rectors and presidents of French and Russian higher educational institutions will take place in Paris and the Porte de Versailles.

"Russia is an honored guest on the European Elephant of Education".

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://allbest.ru

Introduction

International economic relations (IER) are carried out mainly through the participation of their subjects in the international division of labor. The implementation of the IER is also influenced by political, socio-economic, legal and other factors.

The mechanism for the implementation of international economic relations at the macro level includes organizational, legal norms and tools for their implementation (international economic treaties and agreements, international trade organizations, etc.), the relevant activities of international economic organizations aimed at achieving the goals of the coordinated development of international economic relations.

International practice shows that modern international economic relations require significant, permanent supranational, interstate regulation.

Relations between Russia and France remain an important factor in European and world politics. This determines the relevance of the topic of this course work.

French-Russian relations have a very long history. In the middle of the 11th century, Anna, the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, became queen of France by marrying Henry I, and after his death, becoming regent under his son, the future king of France, Philip I, she ruled France.

In 1717, Peter I signed a decree on the establishment of the first Russian embassy in France, which was the beginning of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Since then, France has consistently remained one of Russia's main European partners.

The culminating point of cooperation was the creation of a military-political alliance at the end of the 19th century. The Pont Alexandre III, built in Paris, became a symbol of friendly relations. The first stone in the construction of this bridge, in 1896, was invested by Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna.

The modern history of relations between Russia and France begins on October 28, 1924, from the date of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and France.

The agreement signed on February 7, 1992 between Russia and France confirmed the desire of both countries to develop "concerted actions based on trust, solidarity and cooperation." Over the past 10 years, the contractual base between the two countries has been supplemented by more than 70 agreements and protocols relating to various areas of cooperation between Russia and France.

The political dialogue between Moscow and Paris is constantly active. In October-November 2000, President Putin's first official visit to France took place.

The agreements concluded during this visit confirmed the importance of cooperation between Russia and France in world politics. On December 18, 2000, Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Mikhail Kasyanov visited France. President Chirac made an official visit to Russia from 1 to 3 July 2001, during which he visited St. Petersburg, Moscow and Samara. Conversations between Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin contributed to the adoption of a joint declaration on strategic stability. A new agreement on air traffic and an additional agreement on cooperation in helping enterprises were signed.

Thus, the purpose of this work is to analyze the state and forecast of economic relations between Russia and France.

Chapter1. Analysis of the state of economic relations betweenRussia and France

For a long time, relations between Chirac and Putin were overshadowed by the fact that the French side repeatedly criticized Russian actions in Chechnya, but after the start of the American operation in Iraq, Chechen problems faded into the background, and relations between the heads of the two states improved significantly.

At a press conference, President Putin noted that we had no chill in relations between Russia and France. “Yes, we had certain differences in positions, yes, we had different assessments of certain problems, and in particular the development of the situation in the North Caucasus in Chechen Republic, but this does not mean that we had a chill. We continued active contacts, on many issues we closely cooperated in the international arena, this is the Iraqi settlement, this is strategic stability, this is support for the ABM treaty, and so on.

At the same time, it can be said with certainty that this active dialogue, which has always characterized Russian-French relations, is reaching a new level. To a new level, which will be characterized by even greater trust, such an even greater constructive atmosphere - this is precisely the nature of relations that was set by the negotiations between our presidents.

According to the assessment and leadership of the European Union, the EU Russia summit gave quite concrete results on the further development of cooperation.

Thus, as a result of negotiations, the EU, in addition to purely psychological support and resolution of energy disputes, decided to raise Russia's credit rating, which reflects the level of third-party confidence in the solvency of the state. In addition, the Russians managed to achieve the final lifting of sanctions from the program of scientific and technical cooperation with the EU. It can be said that Russia not only pacified Western Europe and achieved a significant breakthrough in relations, but also provided itself with profitable financial and economic agreements.

Relations between Russia and France remain an important factor in European and world politics. On most key issues of our time, the approaches of Russia and France coincide or are very close. This is based on the commitment of Russia and France to a multipolar world order based on democratic principles, the strengthening of the international legal order and the central role of the UN.

At present, Russian-French relations are on the rise. Relations actively developed both in the sphere of economy and in the sphere of politics. Both states consider it important to build trust between Russia and the EU in general and France in particular.

Russia remains a great world power. It is a country that would like to contribute to the cause of international stability, that wants to take part in the struggle for peace, and therefore it is the main partner for the European Union.

The leadership of both countries attaches great importance to the strengthening and development of partnership relations between Russia and France. The state and prospects of Russian-French cooperation are considered from this angle. At the same time, international politicians give a high assessment to the interaction of the two countries on a number of topical international problems, including the preservation of strategic stability and the settlement of regional conflicts.

We can already say that a new stage has begun in relations between Russia and France. They look at Russia in a completely new way. For example, in the Chechen issue, French politicians do not criticize the actions of the Russian military in Chechnya so vehemently. On many other foreign policy issues, the positions of Moscow and Paris now coincide. In the Middle East, both Russia and France opposed the overthrow of Yasser Arafat's regime in Palestine. Both countries opposed the strike on Iraq. There is a tandem of two strong states, nuclear powers, whose opinion no one can disregard now.

The role of France in world politics is traditionally very high. At the same time, in her opinion, Russia is rapidly restoring its place in the world. The place of a great nation is true both economically and politically. Russia has already finally confirmed its place in the G8 and is actively cooperating with the European Union and NATO.

The Russian side attaches great importance to the concept of forming a single European economic space with the participation of Russia and the European Union.

A characteristic feature of the development of relations between Russia and France is the ever-wider involvement of civil societies in international affairs. The Russian side expects that France, as one of the leaders of a united Europe, will positively influence the strengthening of ties between Russia and the EU.

At the same time, there are intentions of Moscow and Paris to create a public council for the development of Russian-French relations, which should be a logical continuation of everything that has been done for Lately.

Both countries are engaged in a "very frank and direct" dialogue on issues directly related to the problems of global security and, above all, in the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Recently, cooperation in the military-technical sphere has been developed. In particular, within the framework of military-technical cooperation, Moscow is in favor of signing an intergovernmental agreement on the mutual protection of rights to the results of intellectual activity within the framework of cooperation as soon as possible.

According to France, it is necessary to strengthen relations between France and Russia. This is facilitated by multi-level negotiations that affect bilateral relations, technical relations, relations between people and within international organizations such as NATO and the EU, as well as a joint analysis of the situation in the world in the light of the joint actions that have been taken in Afghanistan and Kosovo, etc. .d. economic cooperation france russia

The situation in the sphere of trade is also leveling off. The trade turnover between Russia and France exceeded 3.5 billion dollars. Among the largest investors, France is now, after all, in fourth place, behind Russia's historical trading partners - Great Britain, the USA and Germany. During the talks, it turned out that many promising industries are ready for cooperation - energy, space industry. For example, negotiations are underway to use French spaceports, including Kourou, to launch Russian Soyuz rockets. There is also the aircraft industry - Russia and France are developing a new MiG aircraft.

As for the benefits and prospects that cooperation between Russia and France in the aerospace sector opens up for the Progress plant, they are obvious. Especially if the Soyuz launch vehicle, which are produced here, will take off in the near future from the Kourou cosmodrome in French Guiana. Then cooperation between France and Russia in the space sector will reach a new level.

It should also be noted that Russia and France have already established cooperation within the framework of the personnel exchange program. Already this year, cooperation between the navies of both states will increase. In addition, there are a number of plans in the field of military-technical cooperation, which has as its ultimate goal the release of joint products to third countries.

In 2003, interaction between France and Russia reached a new level, and additional opportunities for cooperation appeared both on the international arena and bilaterally. The holding in 2003 of the exhibition "FranceTech in Russia 2003" provided an opportunity for representatives of Russian companies to get to know French enterprises that already export to Russia or have their offices here, as well as to acquaint specialists with French know-how in the field of technology, regions, universities and research institutions that want to establish relationships with potential partners in Russia.

At the press conference dedicated to the opening of the exhibition, it was noted that over the past three years, interest in the Russian market and its prospects on the part of French enterprises has been steadily growing. More than 3,800 enterprises export their products to Russia, and more than 400 of them, operating in various sectors of the economy, already have their offices here.

According to the French organizers of the exhibition, recently the intensity of Russian-French trade relations has increased significantly. Thus, French exports to Russia increased by 9.4% in the first six months of 2003 to 1 billion 234 million euros, while French imports from Russia grew by 15.6% over the same period to 3 billion 33 million. euro .

According to France, the exhibition will continue a number of important events that "marked the intensification of economic relations between Russia and France." Thus, a session of the Russian-French Council for Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Issues was held in Moscow. At the same time, optoelectronics, biotechnologies and nanotechnologies are considered the most important priorities of Russian-French cooperation in the field of the new economy.

September 2003 was marked by a particularly intensive development of economic relations between Russia and France and was marked by two events: a session of the Russian-French Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Council (CEFIC) and an Intergovernmental Seminar.

The 11th session of CEFIC was held in Moscow on September 26, it touched upon various aspects of business relations, in particular, legal aspects and taxation, and discussed some of the most important projects of bilateral economic relations.

The conference "Business in Russia" took place in Paris - a landmark event in the development of business relations between Russia and France. The Conference was organized by the General Confederation of Small and Medium Enterprises of France (CGPME) and the Center for Franco-Russian Trade. Among the members of OPORA RUSSIA, this initiative of a meeting of entrepreneurs from both countries in Paris met with the most active support.

The conference has become a truly bright and eventful event. The participants discussed both the issues of the general functioning of the Russian market and the topics of a private focus: on the development of innovative Russian-French entrepreneurship, related to financing, licensing and other areas of activity of small and medium-sized enterprises in Russia. During the meeting of entrepreneurs from both countries, its participants exchanged practical experience of their activities, as well as wishes to establish close partnerships between the business communities of both countries.

In recent years, relations between Russia and France have not only acquired a certain intensity, they have changed their quality.

The most important thing here is to increase trust between the two countries. This happens because the views of states on a number of key issues not only on the bilateral agenda, but also international relations practically match. And the most important thing in this is common approaches to building future security in the world, adherence to the norms of international law and the key role of the United Nations. As an element of trust, it is planned to hold small, but very demonstrative naval joint exercises in the Norwegian Sea. This is a practical step in building a global security system based on the principle of a multipolar world.

Russia is looking for its place in the changing world. And the position of France, the support of France in the course of these processes, is extremely important for her.

Discussion of Russia's ties with the European Union has become traditional in relations between Russia and France. We are talking, in particular, about the implementation of the decisions of the St. Petersburg and Rome Russia-EU summits, about how the formation of four “common spaces” (the common European economic space, the common space in the field of security and justice, in the field of external security) is proceeding in practice. , including the fight against terrorism, as well as a single space for scientific research and education - "IF").

Russia supports the intention of Paris to play the most active role in this matter - using the example of bilateral Russian-French agreements, primarily related to the freedom of movement of citizens, to show what interstate relations within the borders of "Greater Europe" can and should become in the 21st century.

The closeness of the political positions of the two states is not accidental: it is due to the commitment of Russia and France to the multipolar model of the world order, in which the central role belongs to the United Nations and its Security Council as the main guarantor and instrument of maintaining international security and stability. It is from this point of view that other important topics will be discussed - the fight against terrorism, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, various aspects of globalization, and so on.

The heads of the foreign ministries of the two countries will discuss the preparations for the third meeting of the Russian-French Council for Security Cooperation with the participation of the foreign and defense ministers, which is scheduled to be held on March 5 this year. in Paris. In bilateral cooperation, interaction between Russia and France in the aerospace field is of particular relevance. The high potential of partnership in this area is confirmed by the successful implementation of a number of joint projects (the launch of Russian launch vehicles from the Kourou cosmodrome, etc.).

Russia is interested in growing economic ties with France, increasing mutual trade, and increasing the volume of French investment in the Russian economy. Today France occupies the 7th place among European countries in terms of trade turnover and 6th in terms of accumulated investments does not correspond to the potential opportunities of Russian-French cooperation in this area.

There are encouraging signs of growing interest in the French business presence in the Russian market. This is especially noticeable in the mood of the French side to develop an energy dialogue with the Russian Federation, to cooperate more closely in matters of energy conservation and renewable energy sources.

The demonstration of the secret space center in Krasnoznamensk to Jacques Chirac was a manifestation of trusting relations between Russia and France. He became the first head western state, who was shown the top-secret Main Center for Testing and Control of Space Facilities (GICIU) in Krasnoznamensk, Moscow Region.

This center provides communication and control of the entire Russian orbital constellation, which currently has 130 satellites. The Center includes 11 command and measurement complexes located throughout Russia.

In Western diplomatic circles, the French President's visit to a top-secret facility of strategic importance is seen as evidence that relations between Russia and France are improving, writes AFP.

In addition, within the framework of bilateral Franco-Russian cooperation, from December 2006 it is planned to start launching Russian Soyuz launch vehicles from the Kourou cosmodrome in French Guiana. Russia supports the French proposal to convene a number of international forums on questions of a comprehensive system of international security. Russia is ready to develop energy relations with Europe and is in favor of strengthening cooperation between the two countries in aviation construction. In addition, the presidents of Russia and France talk about the ABM treaty in great detail and detail.

Providing export deliveries for about a quarter of Europe's needs for natural gas, Russia is the largest supplier of this type of energy carriers to European countries.

90% of the gas consumed in France is provided by import purchases under long-term contracts and own production. The share of Russian natural gas is approximately 25% of these volumes. Thus, Russia is one of the leading suppliers of "blue fuel" to France. Natural gas plays an important role in economic relations between Russia and France: its supplies account for 20-30% of foreign trade between the two countries.

Cooperation between OAO Gazprom and Gaz de France in the field of gas supply began in 1976. During this time, Gazprom and its subsidiary LLC Gazexport supplied Gaz de France with more than 225 billion cubic meters. m of natural gas under long-term contracts.

Currently, Gaz de France buys 12 billion cubic meters from Gazexport LLC. m of gas per year:

4 billion cubic meters m. of natural gas enter the delivery point in Baumgarten, on the border between Austria and Slovakia. These deliveries are made under two contracts signed in 1975, which expire in 2012;

8 billion cubic meters m. come to Waidhaus, on the border between Germany and the Czech Republic, under a contract concluded in 1983 with a validity period until 2008.

In April 2003, Gazprom and Gaz de France signed a new supply agreement. In accordance with this document, the operation of the main export contract, which provides for the annual supply of Russian gas "Gaz de France" in the amount of 8 billion cubic meters. m., is extended for 7 years until 2015 inclusive. Taking into account the extended contract, the annual total volume of Russian gas exports to France will remain at the level of 12 billion cubic meters. m.

Since natural gas in Europe and, in particular, in France, finds more and more new areas of application, and Russia has huge reserves of this type of energy, the areas of cooperation between Gazprom and Gaz de France are expanding every year.

In particular, the companies signed several documents relating to cooperation in the field of science, technology, finance, economics and personnel training. In recent years, joint projects have been implemented in the field of energy saving, operation and reconstruction of gas transmission networks, as well as research in the field of underground gas storage.

Gazprom and Gaz de France are co-founders of the F.R.A.GAZ trading house, which sells natural gas and supplies equipment. In 2002, a consortium consisting of OAO Gazprom, GazdeFrance and the German company Ruhrgas won a tender to acquire a 49% stake in the Slovak gas company SPP.

Gazprom and Gaz de France take an active part in the development of cultural ties between Russia and France. An integral part of the celebrations dedicated to the 25th anniversary of Russian gas supplies to France in 2000 was the unique art and history exhibition “Great Emperors of Europe: Napoleon I and Alexander I”, organized with the support of the two companies.

As part of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg, Gazprom and GazdeFrance, together with the Mayor's Office of Paris and the French Association for Artistic Action, present a retrospective exhibition of Nicolas de Stael, one of the greatest French artists of the 20th century, which will be held at the State Hermitage Museum from May 12 to August 17, 2003.

Europe, trying to solve its energy problems, has shown an increased interest in discussing guaranteed ways to supply Russian gas. Negotiations developed in this direction.

Thus, Europeans, on the one hand, are not satisfied with the prices at which Russia sells its raw materials, and on the other hand, the gas pipeline through the territory is not able to meet Europe's needs for energy resources. For its part, Russia wants to keep reliable and profitable payers represented by the EU countries. Hence the possibility of negotiating consensus.

In 2002, the French partners got acquainted with the largest gas producing enterprise in Western Siberia, Urengoygazprom LLC. This is a presentation visit for the political and business circles of France, which fully reflected the activities of the potential partner Urengoygazprom LLC.

Gazprom, the largest supplier of Russian gas to many countries of the world, has implemented a joint project with TotalFinaElf in Iran. The French partners of Gazprom assess the activities of the gas concern at a very high level and express hope for further cooperation. Mr. Pernet stressed that Gazprom is a reliable and promising partner with significant authority in the global gas community.

Industrialists from France are interested in expanding their own business in Russia; in the near future, together with Gazprom, the French company will participate in the development of the Shtokman field in the Barents Sea. French businessmen would take an active part in the implementation of promising projects with Urengoygazprom LLC, since they highly and realistically assess the gas production capacity of the enterprise, the scale of production, development prospects, and working conditions.

Economic relations between Russia and France are at a high level. After this trip, additional impulses appeared for the implementation of joint projects, mutual investments, and long-term cooperation. At the same time, the issue of joint participation with Russia in the development of world energy is always central at summit meetings.

Trade relations between Russia and France are on the rise: growth over the past year amounted to 20 percent. In the foreign trade turnover of the subjects of the Federation of the Siberian Federal District, the share of France in 2004 was 2.1 percent, or 467.9 million US dollars. Trade turnover increased by 13 percent.

At the same time, last year the value of exports to France decreased by 15 percent, while imports more than doubled. Russia supplies France with products of inorganic chemistry (in 2004 worth $228 million), as well as wood and wood products, mineral fuels, and oil (10 percent of the value of all exports to France).

In turn, France also supplies Russia with products of inorganic chemistry, and although these deliveries increased by 22 times last year, their share and price are not high - 9 percent. Over the last 10 months of 2005, trade increased by 20%.

In addition, the volume of French investments in Russian business has increased, which has led to the creation of new jobs for Russians, in particular in the development of regional air transportation. Russia is a priority in France's international policy, Franco-Russian relations are a dialogue based on real closeness on the most important problems of world politics - on regional crises, on Iraq, on environmental problems. At the same time, relations between Russia and France should not be limited to politics, there should be relations between societies, between people, between cultures.

Chapter2. Russian-French cooperation in the field of culture

In 2003, Russian-French cooperation in the field of culture - one of the most important links in relations between Russia and France - continued to develop dynamically. The traditionally close ties between Russian and French partners, including at the level of local and regional authorities, public foundations and non-governmental organizations, contributed to the expansion of cultural cooperation.

A highlight was the VIth Festival of Russian Art in Cannes - a unique large-scale state project of Russia in the field of culture in France. The program of the Festival was rich in content, including various genres of fine, musical, plastic and cinematographic art. In 2003, the Mayor's Office of Cannes joined the sponsors of the festival - the Russian Cultural Foundation and the Ministry of Culture of Russia.

For four days, the State Russian Folk Choir named after V.I. M.E. Pyatnitsky (director - artistic director A. Permyakova), the New Russia Symphony Orchestra (artistic director and conductor Yu. Bashmet, soloist - V. Tretyakov). The St. Petersburg State Academic Ballet Theater (headed by B. Eifman) showed the ballets Russian Hamlet and Tchaikovsky. In the foyer of the Palais des Festivals in Cannes, the exhibition "Revival of Classical Engraving" was organized, among the exhibits of which were presented the works of masters from many cities of Russia. The European premiere took place within the framework of the festival documentary film dedicated to the 85th anniversary of Alexander Solzhenitsyn (directed by S. Miroshnichenko), a film by A. Rogozhkin "The Cuckoo", two debut films: F. Yankovsky's "In Motion" and I. Ugolnikov's "Casus belli", as well as an animated film by A. Demin "Cats in the rain"

As part of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg in May 2003, the exhibition "Paris - St. Petersburg 1800 - 1830" was held in the Cathedral of the Les Invalides. When Russia spoke French...”, which was held under the patronage of the presidents of the two countries and represented the largest foreign exposition from the funds of Russian museums over the past few years. The initiator and sponsor of this event was the Russian company Interros.

The exhibition featured more than 250 exhibits: paintings, watercolors, jewelry, furniture and court household items, weapons, costumes from the State Hermitage Museum, the State Historical Museum, the Moscow Kremlin State Museum-Reserve, the State Archives of the Russian Federation and the State Museum-Reserve " Pavlovsk”, which demonstrated the closeness and interpenetration of Russian and French cultures.

The exhibition was opened by Chairman of the Federation Council of Russia S.Mironov, who was at that time in France on an official visit. A highlight was the presentation of the French-Russian Dictionary of Art Terms published for the first time. In September 2003 the exhibition was moved to the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg.

Leading Russian performers and creative teams regularly perform in France - M. Rostropovich, V. Spivakov, Yu. Bashmet, B. Berezovsky, N. Lugansky.

The tours of Russian theaters are still of great interest. From October 2 to October 12, 2003, the Moscow Theater "P. Fomenko's Workshop" was in France, which showed its premiere "Egyptian Nights". Central Puppet Theatre. S. Obraztsova presented the performance "Rigoletto" to the French public.

The Russian cinema is of considerable interest to the French. At the international film festival in Cannes, the film by A. Sokurov "Father and Son", as well as the films "The God" (directed by K. Bronzit) and "Noon" (directed by A. Lomakin) were presented.

The potential of Russian-French cultural mutual enrichment is inexhaustible. New, colorful Russian projects are being prepared in France. Among the major cultural events in 2004, one can note the first Youth Festival of Russian Art in Bordeaux, the exhibition "Leo Tolstoy and his era" in the Victor Hugo Museum in Paris, dedicated to life and creativity of the great Russian writer. Negotiations are under way to organize the Year of Russian Culture in France (2005) and the Year of French Culture in Russia (2006), which are designed to diversify Russian-French cultural ties and further strengthen the friendship between our two peoples.

The beginning of 2005 was marked by two important events - two international cooperation agreements were signed: with the French Embassy in the Russian Federation and the Directorate for International Relations in the Field of Education of the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The subject of the first agreement is the opening of the French Language Resource Center at the Tyumen State University, namely: the creation of a reference library, educational literature and documentation on contemporary France and the study of the French language; organization of the Edufrance information point, equipped with specialized documentation on studying in France, to inform students about the possibilities of obtaining higher education in France; participation in the work of the Center of a French assistant-native speaker; organizing and conducting international examinations and diploma tests in French.

The second agreement provides for the opening of the Examination Center of the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry for organizing and taking exams for obtaining diplomas and certificates in the field of French for business communication, for work in the field of tourism and hospitality, for office work, in the field of science and technology, in areas of law, which will allow students to replenish their professional portfolio with prestigious French diplomas.

The new cooperation agreements will undoubtedly support the program for promoting the French language in the Russian higher education system and will help strengthen and develop mutual understanding and friendly relations between Russia and France.

The coordinator of cooperation agreements with France is the Regional Institute for International Cooperation (RIMS Tyumen State University), where you can get more detailed information about these international projects.

Chapter3. The main problems and forecast for the development of economicrelations between Russia and France

Recently, there has been a dynamic and systematic development of relations between Russia and France. However, there are also certain problems. As far as the “clean” economy is concerned, the requests of some large French companies setting up their production facilities in Russia will have to be dealt with. They relate mainly to the reduction of customs duties on the components they import. And Russian companies have claims against France, which often initiates restrictions on the access of Russian goods to the EU market.

Another "sore issue" is the visa issue. French specialists on duty often have to come to Russia many times, return home and come again. Excessive formalities get in the way. The first step, however, to ease the visa regime has already been taken. Recently, the State Duma ratified the corresponding agreement with France.

Now long-term visas will be issued for a period not of one year, but of five years. Facilitate travel by invitation. Consulates will be able to issue visas on the basis of simple invitations received by fax, and the appeal of those departments that are listed in the agreement.

For the agreement to come into force, it was necessary to overcome the resistance of the Russian Ministry of Finance and border guards. The first, of course, is against the reduction of income received from the visa "business". And the second is deductions for the arrangement of their border "outposts". In general, Russia is working towards the speedy and complete abolition of visas with the European Union. Russia expects to achieve a visa - free regime with the EU already in 2007-2008 .

Currently, the Russian government is implementing a wide range of measures that will create more favorable conditions for business development and foreign investment.

Separately, there are problems of cooperation between Russia and the European Union, in which France plays a significant and positive role of a catalyst. On the whole, relations between Russia and France, which since 2000 have acquired the form of a strategic partnership, continue to deepen and develop rapidly.

To date, France is still in sixth place in terms of exports and investments in Russia. Among the leading countries are Germany, Italy, Japan. According to the French government Russian market is not easy to learn, but every effort will be made to overcome existing obstacles.

At the same time, efforts on the part of Russia should be directed, first of all, to solving such problems as:

Development of the middle class of the population - the most promising participant in the consumer market;

Restructuring of the industrial sector;

The development of the transport sector, industrial infrastructure and telecommunications, as well as the growth of investments in the energy sector.

The actions taken by the Russian government to improve the investment climate, create a stabilization fund and a surplus budget strengthen political and economic stability, as well as the prestige of the presidency.

At the same time, despite the fact that positive trends continue to exist in the sphere of investment relations between Russia and the leading world powers, the investment and business climate in Russia still leaves much to be desired.

If we talk about the Russian-French Security Cooperation Council, then, undoubtedly, this is a very important body. First, it is a body for an advanced dialogue on security issues between Russia and one of the leading states of Europe and, in particular, the European Union.

Secondly, it is a body where the problems of international relations, international diplomacy and military security problems are united. The format of the Security Cooperation Council corresponds to today's realities and tasks on the agenda of the Russian-European dialogue. Among other things, this Council is good, not only in itself, but also as an institutional model for the possible development of Russia's contacts with other partners, including in Europe.

In addition to the topics of bilateral relations between Russia and France, this Council aims to harmonize the positions of Russia and France in the framework of the dialogue on security issues between Russia and the European Union, or more generally in Europe. This refers to the entire European security architecture, including not only the EU, but organizations such as NATO and other organizations for security and cooperation in Europe.

At the Council, under the heading of the formation of a European architecture after the enlargement of the European Union, the problems that Russia and the European Union faced in developing roadmaps and signing agreements on the formation of a common security space will be discussed. As you know, there was an agreement to form four common spaces as a long-term goal, one of which is the space of external security, but the commitment made by Russia and the European Union to do this was not actually fulfilled. Moreover, it was not carried out for reasons of significant disagreements between Russia and the European Union.

These disagreements concern not only the content of the common security space itself, but also the problems of Russia's interaction with the European Union. Suffice it to say that before the summit between Russia and the EU, many member states of the European Union insisted on adopting agreements in a package, that is, on all four spaces, but not for procedural reasons, but based on the fact that only in this case it is possible to achieve the main goal of the European Union , that is, to ensure that Russia approaches the so-called European values ​​and standards as quickly and effectively as possible, fulfills its obligations in the field of human rights, and so on.

We are also talking, of course, about specific disagreements, for example, about Russia's participation in peacekeeping operations. Russia stands for the development of equal mechanisms for conducting peacekeeping operations, while the European Union, as you know, refuses and offers Russia to take part in the operations of the European Union as a third country.

All these issues are still quite acute, since the signing of agreements on four spaces is planned at the next Russia-EU summit in May this year. And, undoubtedly, solutions to this problem should be sought at all levels.

Considering the special relations between Russia and France, in particular, within the framework of the dialogue between Russia and the European Union, and considering that there is such a format as the Security Cooperation Council, of course, it would be strange if France and Russia did not discuss these problems and tried to at least outline those compromise outcomes on the disagreements that exist today between Russia and the European Union.

Probably, the specific results of the Russian-French dialogue will not be made public yet, since the diplomatic negotiation process is underway, and there is nothing strange in this. But the mere fact that Russia and France are discussing these problems is a very positive fact, indicating that the Russian-European dialogue through such mechanisms, the Cooperation Council, is not interrupted and is not canalized into negotiations at summits. In other words, the Council in this respect is, of course, very effective and necessary.

In addition, issues of combating terrorism will be discussed. Generally speaking, this is not just a priority topic for the European Union lately, but also a topic that has become increasingly concrete at the level of the European Union. Serious steps were taken, the post of coordinator for combating terrorism was created, and so on.

The problems of limiting financial transactions related to terrorism are currently being discussed. But so far no effective contact has been established between Russia and the European Union along this line. Some first steps were taken at the previous Russia-EU summit, but these are really only the first steps, and, probably, cooperation in the fight against terrorism will be discussed at the Russian-French Cooperation Council.

But the fact is that here, too, the European Union brings the problem of protecting human rights to the fore and wants to get Russia to be as close as possible to the standards that the European Union accepts in the field of combating terrorism. To what extent Russia is ready to move in the direction of these standards remains an open question.

In addition, there is a very serious problem related to the future of the European Union concept of "Wider Europe - New Neighbourhood". The fact is that this concept causes serious concern on the Russian side. The Russian side constantly repeats that there is nothing strange that the European Union is striving for stability and development in the territories and spaces adjacent to the European Union, but considers the position of the European Union unjustified, which is related to the fact that these border countries, the so-called new neighborhood, develop and move towards the standards of the European Union itself.

And here a very serious problem arises: how to combine this new neighborhood program, which Russia does not actually accept, with the role that Russia plays and will continue to play in the CIS space - these are Moldova, Ukraine, Central Asia and the Caucasus. Another important topic is the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Probably, the issue of Russia's relations with Iran will be discussed.

This is a problem that interests both the Russian and European sides, and, in particular, France. France, as is known, is one of the three states that is negotiating with Iran on the termination of uranium enrichment programs and on appropriate guarantees. Russia, of course, is also objectively interested in this problem being resolved, because, firstly, Iran is one of the strongest states in the region, and no one, Russia in the first place, is interested in Iran having nuclear weapons. And secondly, the problem of Iran has always been a controversial topic in the dialogue between Russia and the West, in particular, between Russia and the United States. And Russia is interested in seeing this controversial topic removed from the agenda. Here Russia and France have no serious disagreements, and Russia responds quite constructively to the dialogue on this issue and supports the efforts of the troika.

This question may sound particularly strong in connection with President Bush's recent statements, made before his inauguration, about the possibility of military action against Iran if Iran does not give up military nuclear programs and does not give appropriate guarantees, does not take appropriate constructive positions on cooperation in this areas with an international community.

Such a statement, actually on the eve of the cooperation council, of course, will not go unnoticed, and France and Russia will probably discuss this problem, including not only in the context of negotiations between the troika and Iran, but also in the context of a dialogue between interested parties, Europe and Russia on one side and the United States of America on the other.

On the initiative of both states, the Russian-French Dialogue association was created in order to involve the public in the development of relations between Russia and France, which until now have been “monopolized” by officials.

The Franco-Russian dialogue is called upon to become a new page in the long and glorious history of fruitful interaction between the civil societies of both countries. The Association will become a permanent structure. Its activities will not be limited to ensuring effective bilateral ties. It is seen as an important element in strengthening pan-European cooperation and interaction with countries in other regions.

Stable and sustainable growth in the Russian economy creates new opportunities for expanding partnerships between Russia and France in the economic field. Russian business is open to joint projects and foreign investment. Many French associations are already successfully working in various sectors of the Russian economy, achieving tangible results. One such example is cooperation with the Renault company headed by my colleague Mr. Schweitzer.

In addition, the signing of a cooperation agreement between the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs and the French MEDEF is welcomed. This experience is highly valued, as well as the interaction between the Chambers of Commerce and Industry of the two countries.

For example, a representative office of the oldest Russian VNESHECONOMBANK was opened in Paris. This is the first representative office of a Russian bank accredited in France.

Emphasizing the importance of developing the economic partnership between France and Russia, I would like to note that the activities of the Franco-Russian Dialogue Association will not be limited to the economic sphere.

Within the framework of the Franco-Russian dialogue, closer cooperation in the field of science, culture and education, as well as direct contacts between the regions of France and Russia, should be carried out.

Among the central themes of the Russian-French political dialogue, the problems of relations between Russia and the EU, taking into account the upcoming expansion of the European Union, come to the fore, while we are talking on the consequences of enlargement for the national interests of Russia and Russian-EU relations.

The consular services of the Russian and French Foreign Ministries continue to discuss the Agreement on Reciprocal Travel Facilitation, which will allow Russian citizens to facilitate visa formalities under the current Schengen agreements and move towards a visa-free regime in relations between Russia and the EU in the future.

Russia and France are pinning great hopes on the ongoing reform of such an important mechanism for the development of bilateral ties as the Russian-French Council for Economic, Financial, Industrial and Trade Issues. The reform of the council will help intensify business ties between Russian and French entrepreneurs. More active involvement in the work of this intergovernmental institution of the business circles of the two countries, including representatives of small and medium-sized businesses, is expected.

The countries have good prospects for the development of industrial cooperation in high-tech sectors of the economy. In December 2003, the first contract was signed between the French company Airbus and the Russian plant Sokol for the production of fuselage elements for aircraft of the A-320 family; center."

February 28, 2005 at the Regional Institute for International Cooperation Tyumen State University held a round table meeting with the participation of the delegation of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Paris. Its topics are the expansion of bilateral economic ties between the Tyumen region and the French Republic, the development of cooperation between French and Tyumen enterprises, support for small and medium businesses; discussion of the strategy for entering the Russian and French markets.

The round table was attended by: Mrs. Claudine Dagne - Deputy Director of the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry for International Cooperation and Promotion of Enterprises; Mr. Igor Malseff - Advisor to the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the CIS and Baltic countries; Mr. Vladimir Barkin - General Representative of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Paris in Moscow, heads of the Department of Strategic Development of the ATO, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Tyumen Region, Director of the Regional Institute for International Cooperation of Tyumen State University G.V.Telegina, General Director of the Industrial Development Fund Yu.A. Baranchuk, Executive Director of the Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investments of the Tyumen Region S.N. Gavris, representatives of TRO LLC Opora Rossii, heads of large Tyumen enterprises, banks, consulting and audit firms.

During the discussions, the interest of the French government in the Russian regions and the intentions of French business circles to expand cooperation with enterprises in the Urals and Siberia were emphasized. Representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Paris announced their intention to visit a number of Tyumen enterprises and, in turn, invited all interested parties to a meeting with representatives of more than 200 French enterprises, which will be held on April 5 this year in Paris as part of a seminar dedicated to Russian regions. The Presidents of Russia and France intend to discuss "new opportunities for further building up bilateral economic cooperation."

According to the results of 2003, the trade turnover between the countries increased by more than 28% and amounted to 5.83 billion dollars. According to this indicator, France still lags behind a number of Russia's European partners, but the positive trends that have emerged in recent years allow us to expect that the accelerated dynamics of Russian-French trade will continue in the medium term.

The Russian side prepared and handed over to France a draft Joint Action Program for 2005-2006. The document reflects the main priorities and tasks of Russian-French cooperation in the political, economic, military and cultural spheres, it corresponds to the goals of deepening cooperation.

Conclusion

For many centuries, France and Russia have been linked by relations of friendship and mutual sympathy. Intensive contacts between scientists and artists, intellectuals, politicians and business people are building a strong fabric of relations between these countries. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac are making a great contribution to the development of relations between Russia and France.

The meetings of the Council, which are held once a year, are attended by the ministers of foreign affairs and defense of the two countries. They exchange views on the threats existing in the world, determine common approaches and solutions in case of possible joint actions. Meetings in this format confirm the special nature of relations between Russia and France.

Russia supports the French proposal to convene a number of international forums on questions of a comprehensive system of international security. Russia is ready to develop energy relations with Europe and is in favor of strengthening cooperation between the two countries in aviation construction. In addition, the presidents of Russia and France talk about the ABM treaty in great detail and detail.

Mutual understanding and cooperation on topical international problems between Moscow and Paris has reached a level that allows the two countries to play an increasingly significant role in ensuring international and European security.

Young people play a special role in the development of Russian-French relations. This is the main goal of the national program "Study and training in France" and part of the strategy to integrate French innovation. Representatives of France made no secret of the fact that they were mainly interested in students of technical and engineering specialties.

Bibliography

1. Avdokushin E.F. International Economic Relations: Textbook. - M.: Infra-M, 2000. - 376 p.

2. Baranovsky V.G. The European community in the system of international relations. - M.: UNITI, 2000. - S. 28.

...

Similar Documents

Analysis of the state of economic relations between Russia and France. Russian-French cooperation in the field of culture. Descriptions of the contacts of figures in science and art, politicians and business people. Problems of development of economic relations between countries.

abstract, added 08/10/2013


The study of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and France, which have long been one of the most important European partners for each other. Development of Russian-French relations in the field of politics, economics, military defense, culture.

abstract, added 12/22/2010


The history of the formation of political and trade and economic relations between Russia and France. Cooperation of countries in the field of culture. Analysis of the dynamics and structure of Russian-French trade. Investment cooperation between states.

term paper, added 10/25/2014


Analysis of the interaction between Russia and China in the economic, oil and gas sectors, the problem of food supply for the Russian Far East. Relations between countries in the military and political spheres. Problems of Russian-Chinese relations, prospects for their solution.

thesis, added 07/02/2012


Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Russia and the EU. Features of economic cooperation. Analysis of trade and economic relations between Germany and Russia, their construction on a liberal trade and political base and development prospects.

term paper, added 10/24/2010


The structure and dynamics of trade and economic relations between Russia and China in the context of the globalization of the economy and the development of cooperation in all spheres of economic development. Study of the prospects for the development of Russian-Chinese trade and economic relations.

term paper, added 06/07/2015


Features of trade and economic relations and investments between Russia and the USA, the structure of imports and exports. Dynamics, structure and analysis of mutual trade between the Russian Federation and the USA. Problems and prospects for the development of Russian-American economic relations.

term paper, added 10/13/2017


The current stage in the development of Russian-Tajik cooperation. Russia's assistance in restoring fraternal relations of trust and cooperation between the countries of the region. Interaction in military, law enforcement and anti-drug activities.

abstract, added 01/21/2009


History of relations between Japan and Russia. Understanding cultural diplomacy in these two countries: the difference in terminology and approaches. The goals of cultural diplomacy of Japan and Russia. The current foreign policy strategy of states in relation to each other.

abstract, added 09/03/2016


General characteristics of Russian-American relations in 1990-2000. Analysis of Russian-American relations at the present stage. The main achievements and main shortcomings of the "reset". The main problems and prospects of Russian-American relations.

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 the 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 the 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 a consistent process. Firstly, the image of Russia in France depended 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 the russian-french alliance was formed in the end of the XIX century. And there were especially some period when Russia was perceived 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 legitimately ruled 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 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 afterwards because of the links which existed between communist parties of both countries, they became allies in 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 ottepel .

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 Russia's cooperation with Western countries. In this regard, it is necessary to study the image of Russia in other countries and its effective promotion.

objectstudies are Russian-French political relations and cultural ties between Russia and France in the XVIII - XX centuries.

Subject- the image of Russia in France during this period.

Targetresearch: to consider the evolution of the image of Russia in France during the XIX - the first half of the XX 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;

evaluate the influence of the image of Russia in France on the development of bilateral relations;

identify its stable components and variable characteristics that can change depending on the specific foreign policy situation;

to evaluate in general terms the degree of positive and negative 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 geographic 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, that foreigners began to actively visit it, who formed their own opinion about its socio-political structure, culture and traditions. . Until that time, cultural contacts between the two countries were generally insignificant, and Russia seemed to Europeans a country as distant and exotic as China or Japan. The upper chronological boundary 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 study 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 in the ideas of the enlightened part of French society about Russia before and after the revolution, there is a significant continuity, 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 the tasks we have analyzed the following sources and literature.

Literature

We have studied literature that gives a generalized idea of ​​the development of Russian-French political and cultural relations in the period of the 18th-19th centuries, in particular: collections of articles on 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 the relations between Russia and France in the last two decades of the 18th century, M. Strange's monograph devoted to the French Revolution of 1789-1794 helped us a lot. Since it was the French Revolution that had a 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 story required a more detailed study. Also used were articles by E. Dmitrieva, S. Letchford, T. Partanenko, E. Reo, which cover the issues of Russian-French relations in the 18th-19th centuries. We also studied the materials of various collections of articles on the cultural and political relations between Russia and Europe, such as "Russia - East - West" edited by N. I. Tolstaya and "Russia and Europe: diplomacy and culture" edited by A. S. Namazova. The materials of the site 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 of St. Petersburg State University T. Partanenko and E. Dmitrieva, history teacher of Saratov State University S. Letchford, historians S. Reo and P. Cherkasov.

Sources

We paid special attention to the novel by the French writer Emile Zola "Germinal", which represents a vivid image of a Russian nihilist who devoted his life to the revolutionary struggle from a socio-political point of view. Leo 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 on Alexander I helped us to get a fairly clear picture of the impact 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 study are the materials of the correspondence of French and Russian writers from Moscow and Paris archival funds, published in the collection of the Institute of World Literature named after M. Gorky "Writers' Dialogue: 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 references. In the first chapter, devoted to the evolution of the image of Russia in France in the 18th century, we consider a number of the most interesting historical plots 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 "Instruction" of the 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 the Italian campaign of Suvorov in 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: French ideas about Russia during the Patriotic War of 1812, then in the 20s of the 19th century, when a radical conservative turn took place both in the domestic and foreign policy of Alexander I, Russian-French relations during the July monarchy, the rapprochement of the two countries during the Franco- the Prussian War of 1870, which ended with the conclusion of the Franco-Russian alliance 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 on the formation of certain ideas. Here we present opinions about Russia of famous travelers, feminist writers Olympia Odouard, Slavic scholar Louis Léger, historian Leroy-Beaulieu and others. The third chapter is devoted to the consideration of how France saw Russia 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 took place in the country during this period. Such well-known representatives of the French creative intelligentsia as Georges Duhamel, Romain Rolland, Jean-Paul Sartre, Nathalie Sarrot, 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, about collectivization and industrialization in the USSR, about the political repressions of the 1930s, about the “thaw” and “perestroika”.

In the future, the research includes a more detailed study of the image of Russia in France at the present stage on the basis of the French press.

Chapter 1. The evolution of the image of Russia in France in the 18th century

Russian-French relations are rooted in the distant past. Back in the middle of the 11th century, Anna of Kyiv, the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, having married Henry I, became the queen of France, and after his death she exercised the 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 significant (from our point of view) episodes in this respect: the reaction of French public opinion to the era of the reign of the enlightened Empress Catherine II in Russia, in particular, to her “Instruction…” The laid commission of 1768, the perception of Russia by France in the era of the French Revolution of 1789-1794, as well as the image of Russia in the public opinion of France during the Italian campaign of Suvorov in 1799. In this case, these plots are considered from the point of view of the opinion of the most enlightened people of the time, representatives of high society: thinkers, philosophers, diplomats, as well as the French press, about the events that took place. In the analysis of the last story, devoted to the relations of the parties and the perception of Russia in France during the period of Suvorov's Italian campaign, materials from the French press were used.

Russia by and large, for the first time attracted the eyes of Europe under Peter I. IN 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 consistently been one of Russia's most important European partners, and Russian-French relations have largely determined the situation in Europe and in the world.

Pre-Petrine Russia, despite Russian-French contacts in previous centuries, was on the whole a distant, exotic country for Europeans, like China or Japan. All the greater was the astonishment 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. rout invincible Sweden, Russian interference in the affairs of Poland and Germany required reflection. Meanwhile, the "Age of Enlightenment" was already beginning in France. Enlighteners and took on the task of evaluating the "Russian phenomenon".

In general, their assessment was positive. Voltaire, Diderot saw in the historical destinies of Russia a confirmation of their vision of progress associated with the successes of enlightenment and the reformist activities of the "monarchs-philosophers". Peter I and Catherine II were set as an example to other autocrats as a model of "enlightened rulers" who correctly understood their mission. Of course, this was due to the extremely poor knowledge of the true Russian reality by the mentioned philosophers. They noticed only the "showcase" of the empire, twined with laurels of military victories, without delving into the details of its inner life. Also, there were many nuances in the perception of contemporary Russia by the educators, which will be discussed below in the process of a more detailed consideration of the position of Voltaire and some other representatives of the high society of France at that time.

Studying how the image of Russia was formed in France during the reign of enlightened monarchs, especially Catherine II, it is necessary to consider what hails in the French society of that time were generated by the "Instruction ..." of the Empress of the Legislative Commission of 1768. Initially, it caused delight in French public opinion. The French correspondents of the Empress were the first to be privy to her creative plans and learned about the "Instruction ..." long before its publication. In July 1766, Catherine told Voltaire that she was working on "a great mandate 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 the French have always associated Russia geographically with the North, which is understandable, since France itself is located in the southwest of Europe). The Empress's work became part of the Russian mirage, which captivated many minds with hopes for profound transformations in the awakening Russia, and in France the echo of the Order sounded especially clear.

However, Catherine's official work was banned in this country. The empress herself was not so much indignant as flattered that her work shared the fate of "philosophical writings." French censorship put her on a par with J.-J. Rousseau, D. Diderot, C. L. Montesquieu and other masters of minds. The Empress willingly shared this news of the ban with her correspondents. Here is what Voltaire wrote to Catherine in his letter dated October 30, 1769: “I know ... that his (“Order ...) 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 “Instruction ...”, Voltaire continued to criticize the order existing in his homeland somewhat exaggeratedly and derogatoryly, resorting to some historical analogies for pictorial and expressive purposes: “I read that in one western country called the country of the Velkhs (l a barbarian tribe that lived in the current territory of Eastern Europe), the government banned the import of the best, most worthy book. In a word, it is no longer allowed to transport the ideas of the sublime and wise “Instruction ...” across the border, which bears the signature of Catherine. I couldn't believe it. Such a barbaric trick seemed too absurd to me. “One Dutch publisher is printing this Mandate,” Voltaire continued, “which should have become a guide for all kings and for all courts in the world. Some miserable censor is allowed to read the book, as if it were an ordinary book, as if any Parisian loafer has the right to judge the orders of the Empress again I am among the Velchs! I breathe their air! Forced to speak their language! No, even in the empire, Mustafa would not have committed such a stupid faux pas. Madam, I'm only a mile from the Welch border, but I don't want to die among them. Their latest escapade will eventually force me to prefer the temperate climate of Taganrog. Before finishing the letter, I re-read the “Instruction.”: “Government must be such that one citizen does not have to fear another citizen, but that everyone fears the laws. Laws should prohibit only that which can be harmful to each individual 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!”.

Consider the opinions about the "Instruction", which are expressed by various publishers, diplomats, representatives of the French high society of the second half of XVIII century. The Parisian publisher Grasse, for example, credits Catherine II with the fact that, in his opinion, she moved from writing separate laws to building an integral "legislative system" covering "all aspects of life", based on "justice" and aimed at weakening despotism . He emphasized the advisory nature of the legislative initiative of the empress, referring to the words from the "Instruction.": "when drafting laws, one must follow the spirit of the nation and take into account the opinion of the nation itself." Grasse also drew the reader's attention to the fact that "the main and priceless goals of the laws" in the "Instruction." the freedom and security of citizens were proclaimed: "laws should strive to ensure that life, honor and property become as unshakable as the state system." Grasset especially appreciated the humanity of the criminal legislation proposed in the Nakaz.

But the Minister of Foreign Policy, Duke Degilion, expressed his “greatest surprise” at the order for the reason that, as Khotinsky later stated in a letter to Panin, “according to the content of the onago, it must be assumed that Her Imperial Majesty deigned to read a lot and with fruit.” It is unlikely that such an opinion about the "Instruction." 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 enlighteners as J.-J. Rousseau, D. Diderot, C. L. Montesquieu. This to some extent formed 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 words of the author, one can feel genuine amazement at the high level of education of the representative of that nation, which until quite recently the French were inclined to consider the nation of “northern barbarians”, for whom the interest in reading is at least surprising. (However, in making arguments of this kind, one should not forget that the Russian Empress was German by birth). And yet, in conversations between the French minister (Deguilion) and the Russian chargé d'affaires, this should have sounded like a compliment, and such compliments in this situation, of course, were inevitable.

It is possible that in the Parisian salons the discussion of the book was less personal. Today, of course, it is quite difficult to restore the informal judgments that sounded there. Their faint echo has reached us through Voltaire. In April 1769, he confessed to the poet and playwright Soren that it was only at the prompting of Madame Du Deffand that he discerned the compilative nature of The Order. I have re-read The Spirit of the Laws (a work by Montesquieu) and fully agree with Madame Du Deffand's opinion that it is only the "spirit of the laws". Thus, after a while, Voltaire also sees the declarative nature of the "Instruction." 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 of France.

Anonymous journalists in their assessments of "Instruction." were freer than the personal correspondents of the Empress or diplomats. And in their articles sometimes sounded skepticism, characteristic of the era. Whoever the author was, a monarch or a commoner, publishing a book, he brought his work to a public court and had to hear the verdict. However, the court could show generosity and condescension, especially since it was 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 grants to her people are not dictated by necessity. They owe it 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 has 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, which, in particular, is evidenced by the following remark: “Each nation has special laws, they correspond to its mores and customs, its state structure, - the author of "Mercure" agreed. “If these laws do not seem to us the best of the best, then at least we can assume that they are suitable for this nation, and not foreigners to judge them.”

The Gazette considered it necessary to retell individual articles of Nakaz, drawing the reader's special attention to them. Among the first was Article 9, which spoke of the sole nature of power in Russia. Apparently, in the eyes of the author of the Gazette, it most fully reflected the uniqueness of the political system in 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, "Gazette" referred to articles 45-54 and 56 borrowed by Catherine from Ch. L. Montesquieu about the differences between peoples, and then quoted the 520th article, which, according to the author of the note, although "contained a general truth, but in the mouth of the monarch acquired a special greatness." This refers to the recognition of the empress that these are not peoples created for sovereigns, but sovereigns for their peoples. This helped soften the reader's opinion about the arbitrariness reigning in Russia and create around the author of "Instruction." the halo of an enlightened legislator, not alien to the idea of ​​the sovereignty of the nation.

The Journal Encyclopedique, beginning its discussions with a picture of the slavery of the “eastern peoples languishing under the yoke of despotism”, and emphasizing the “good deed” performed by Catherine, made a covert comparison of Russia with France, which was clearly not in favor of the latter: “It is hardly the light of science and the torch of the arts went out where they had blazed for so long, just as they flared up in another country and enlightened peoples formerly plunged into the twilight of ignorance. Here happy peoples have fallen from the bosom of freedom and fallen into the shame of slavery. And far away, enslaved peoples forever accepted the form of free government and its laws. Let's pay attention to the word "forever": obviously, the journalist perceived "Instruction." not as an "instruction" according to which the new Russian legislation was to be built, but as a code already ready and put into effect.

It should also not be forgotten that, since there was a “Order of the Legislative Commission.”, it assumed the active work 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 "Instruction." Russia for a while won the glory of a country in which enlightenment prevailed over oriental despotism, then the situation that developed in Russia with the Legislative Commission itself played, of course, a negative role in shaping the image of Russia in France. Here, for example, is what N. K. Khotinsky in June 1771 reports in a letter to Count N. I. Panin, describing his conversation in one of the secular salons with a representative of the French high society A. Eguillon: Khotinsky was forced to tell the Frenchman that “many from the gathered provincial deputies who worked on it, there were people of the military servant, then because of the war that was born, they were forced to go to the army, from which that work subsided. It is unlikely that such explanations could seem quite plausible.

Communication of Catherine II with the French Enlighteners, of course, played a big role in shaping the image of Russia in France. The opinions expressed by them 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, visiting Russian philosophers, writers and journalists 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 Deschizo, was transformed 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 Deschizo highly appreciated the fact that now travelers who wished to attend divine services were not obstructed and allowed to enter the temple, thanks to which visitors were able to appreciate church singing and the splendor of 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 pays their attention, first of all, to the external, ritual side, they admire the treasures of Russian church art, church architecture. Deshizo was very impressed by the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, which he called "magnificent", "excellent".

But there were also exceptions. The 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 though it was he who was instructed to prepare the ground for the rapprochement of the French and Russian churches. Feofan Prokopovich, a drunkard, a glutton and a debauchee, serves as the embodiment of Russian high society for Zhubet, and Zhubet transfers his characteristics to the entire Russian Orthodox clergy. Zhyube calls the Russians baptized pagans, and their rites are "mixed, unclean." He explains this by the Russian national character. Indulging in animal fury in carnal pleasures, Zhyube writes, Russians from time immemorial lived only today and thought only of themselves. False and flattering in relations with the strong, cruel in relations with the weak, Russians are vicious and superstitious, and pious only for appearances. And Zhubet sees the reason for this character of Russians in the “disordered” structure of society, where sovereigns are afraid of coups, the people are distinguished by inconstancy, and the church is slavishly dependent on unstable secular power.

Jacques Jube was not alone in the negative perception of the Russian Church. "Journey to Siberia" Chappa d Otrosh produced the effect of an exploding bomb: pointing out the troubles of Russian society, Chapp thereby refuted the enlightenment myth about Russia. The Church, he writes, does not prevent despotism and does not 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 contemptible slaves" who live off the fees collected from believers. The position of the clergy, their dependence on a secular ruler who is at the head of the church, does not differ from the position of the rest of the estates, and the people, who are “attached to the Greek religion to the point of fanaticism,” blindly obey tyrannical 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 them 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 reining in his clergy, Peter destroyed the only way to govern the common people. A Russian starts 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 the customs of Russians in no way correspond to Christian precepts. Fornerod, for example, like Masson later, breaks with the Russophile tradition, which was supported for decades in France by philosophers of the Enlightenment. He condemns the "stupid respect" of the Russians for their icons, believes that the Russians defile the true faith with "empty and ridiculous buffoonery."

In more positive colors, he sees the Russian church, as well as Russian society as a whole, Abbot Georgel. A Catholic and monarchist, Georgel oscillates between traditional criticism of Russia and the hopes that this country inspires him. He admires the monarchical principles designed to save Europe from revolutionary danger. Abbé Georgel also writes that where a strong monarch stands at the head of the church, concentrating both secular and spiritual power in his hands, the church, although it remains dependent on the state, is distinguished by tolerance, and the priests are protected from persecution.

The French Revolution of 1789-1794 played a huge role in the relations between Russia and France. The stereotype of Russia that developed in that era acquired stability and, with certain modifications, is retained in the West to this day. The French Revolution swept away the ideology of the Enlightenment, and in the public opinion of France, the process of debunking Catherine II and Peter I began. They were no longer perceived as enlightened rulers. "Northern Semiramis" was portrayed as the same despot and monster as other "crowned tyrants", only more cunning than others, since she managed to turn the heads of even the smartest people of her time in such a way. The circumstances of the 1762 coup d'état, well-known in the West, that is, the assassination of Peter III, as well as the enmity between the empress and the heir, gave additional piquancy to the situation. For the time being, these plots 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 for the average layman the idea of ​​​​Russia as a completely wild country, where the crowned bearers are only busy killing each other, and the subjects, crushed by despotism, not excluding representatives of the upper class, are obediently silent. . Nothing like it has long existed in any other country in Europe. 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 that the Jacobins had predicted for him seven years earlier.

From the point of view of the formation and modification of the image of Russia in the 18th century, publications in the politically biased newspaper Moniteur universel are of great interest. 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 the official newspaper, it contains historical anecdotes and funny stories of dubious provenance.

From the point of view of how the Russian topic was covered in the newspaper, the newspaper publications for 1799, the time of Suvorov's Italian campaign, are most interesting. In this case, we do not have the opportunity to give here a detailed analysis of the newspaper's materials, which contained information about the conduct of hostilities and a description of numerous diplomatic subtleties. Let us only focus on how the two outstanding personalities of that time, who personified Russia in 1799, were portrayed on the pages of the newspaper - Suvorov and Pavel I.

Correspondents of the newspaper pay much attention to personality Suvorov, which at that time actually personified the Russian army.

So, 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 starve the Warsaw people, and Suvorov himself was called "the famous executioner in the service of Catherine." As evidence of the cruelty of the famous Catherine's general, the following words were also cited, which he said at a reception at the Austrian emperor: "I'm used to fighting, and it doesn't matter that this campaign will cost me some miserable 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 court man, in front of everyone he showed himself to be a strange original so as not to have envious people. Only perceptive and benevolent observers could discern real education, composure and intelligence behind these feigned eccentricities. The opinion of Germaine de Stael about Suvorov, taken out by her from a conversation with General Miloradovich, who during the Italian campaign was the general of staff on duty, is curious: “It is clear that this latter was an educated person, 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 purely on a whim in order to further shake the imagination of the soldiers. In later French literature, such benevolent assessments are found, however, during the period of hostilities, the 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 of 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 on the forehead. He asked for wine and, kneeling down, drank it to the health of Emperor Franz II (Emperor of Austria), then rose from his knees and drank to the health of his emperor. Suvorov was not well dressed, he does not cover his bald head, even on trips. The newspaper often mentions the bald skull of Suvorov - this is a typical example of creating a negative external image of the enemy, "reducing" the level of information about Russia and Russians.

This eccentric man, reported the 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 ascend 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 only intended to commit, were reported as an impending catastrophe. The newspaper informed 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 quite predictable, behaving not 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 hostilities.

The same combination of real facts with fictional ones, their appropriate treatment, the use of any details that could denigrate the enemy, were present on the pages of the "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 folly 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, it was reported in the Letter, 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 the Muslims, and in the meantime he unites his fleet with the Turkish. “How dissimilar is the policy of Paul, this is uniform madness, with the policy of Catherine!” - exclaims the author of the note.

French newspapermen were especially outraged by the expulsion from Russia of ambassadors of various states in April 1799. On May 5, the newspaper told about 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, was supposed to anger the citizens of civilized states.

A separate place among the rumors about the Russian emperor was occupied by rumors about his death. A report dated May 28 stated that, according to information received from St. Petersburg, a conspiracy had matured in the Russian capital and a coup had taken place. 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 required confirmation, since there had been no news from St. Petersburg for twenty days. On June 11, a small note reported that the news about the 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 assassination, 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 mad emperor Paul and the eccentric commander Suvorov - were subordinated to this goal. The oddities of Suvorov and Pavel were interpreted by the correspondents of "Moniteur universel" as a general isolation of Russia from the civilized world.

Thus, the analysis of the above episodes convinces us of the following. Favorable for the formation of the image of Russia in France and for Russian-French relations were the periods of the reign of Peter I and especially Catherine II, which coincided with the era of Enlightenment in the West. The time of the French Revolution became critical, when the adherents of the revolution tried 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 the rights of the individual are infringed, was especially established in the public opinion of France. To a certain extent, this view is preserved to this day. Also difficult for the image of Russia in France was the time of the Italian campaign of Suvorov, when the idea of ​​Russians as people of "strange", unpredictable, cut off from the civilized world was fixed.

The image of Russia in France was made up of certain stable characteristics, stereotypes that persisted for many centuries, and also some variable properties that were invested in the image depending on the specific foreign policy situation, on the alignment of forces in the international arena. Thus, the idea of ​​Russia as a “distant barbarian people”, which was invariably associated with the North, as opposed to France, located in the south-west of Europe, can be attributed to stable characteristics. 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 fetters 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 are actualized depending on the specific situation acquire special significance. Moreover, they often followed from permanent 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 that came to this distant uncivilized country during the reign of Catherine II. And the firm belief that Eastern despotism reigns in Russia has shaken significantly after the “Instruction.” Empress of the Legislative Commission. Moreover, promised in the "Instruction." 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 flattering assumption for the Russian side that Russia could soon become a country more free, with a much more perfect political system than France itself is at the moment. The degree of stability of such ideas in this case depended on how ready the Russian side to support them with their direct actions.

Chapter 2. The image of Russia in France and Russian-French relations in the 19th century

The 19th century was a special period in the history of Russia and Europe: the nature of international relations changed, stable coalitions of countries were formed, acting together in various wars. The status of Russia in the international arena has also changed: if the 18th century was the time when a huge state had just appeared on the borders of Eastern Europe, then the 19th century was the time when Russia was already firmly among the great powers. This could not but change the nature of relations between the two countries under consideration, 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 continued in the 19th century.

One of the first Frenchmen who touched on Russia in his writings and expressed his views on its socio-political structure, civilizational and cultural affiliation and prospects historical development was the Franco-Italian philosopher Joseph de Maistre. In his essay “Four Chapters on Russia” (1811), he writes that Russia is a country that has found itself in a civilizational corridor between West and East, and therefore cannot claim a special place in the world and 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." Russian people Joseph de Maistre considers fickle. “Everything, from state laws to ribbons on dresses - everything is subject to the tireless rotation of the wheel of your changes,” he metaphorically remarks in his St. Petersburg Evenings. De Maistre also insists that Russia not only was not historically connected with Europe, but even now, at the beginning of the 19th century, despite the fashion for the French language, imitation in architecture, literature, secular customs cannot overcome the barrier separating it from European countries. The instability of the modern political and social development of Russia is also a consequence of the fact that it did not experience cultural development together with Europe. De Maistre sees the historical destiny of Russia as too local: he pins great hopes on the Russian army for a victory over Bonaparte, but this is not enough to understand what the national vocation of a huge state is. De Maistre's feelings for 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 the interaction of power and society, doomed to silence. On the other hand, he admires Russian passion, temperament. With the Patriotic War of 1812, de Maistre connects his hopes that the national destiny of Russia will finally be determined, and it will take the road 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, so 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 solidarity with many Western European observers, whose judgments are outlined in the previous chapter), since it does not have the necessary independence or authority, and the Petrine reforms essentially turned it into a state department. Joseph de Maistre believed that it would be useful for Russia to get closer to the Western Catholic tradition, and expressed the hope for "the rapprochement of the Orthodox with Rome" and even the unification of the churches. But joining a Catholic congregation would not mean a simultaneous change in the cultural status of Russia - a country, rather, an eastern one, but, most likely, it would doom it to the role of a country forever catching up with its more developed neighbors.

About the significance of the image of France and the French in the 19th century for Russia, for Russian high society, he wrote in his epic novel War and Peace great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. French for Russian high society, according to the writer, was the language which was not only spoken, but also thought representatives of the Russian nobility. In the secular drawing rooms of the beginning of the 19th century, the international situation, the situation on the fronts of the two Napoleonic wars, the personality of Napoleon himself, who at that time was a symbol of France, were actively discussed. Napoleon was the idol of progressive Russian youth. So, one of the main characters of the novel, the young Andrei Bolkonsky, dreamed of fame following the Napoleonic model, which the author of the novel evaluates as a French heritage in spiritual life.

On the part of the French, the war of 1812 contributed to the formation in their country of peculiar ideas about Russia. The very course of hostilities testified to the unpredictability of the Russians, the French could not rationally explain many of their actions, and this made the enemy even more dangerous. Subsequently, a lot of legends appeared about the death of the Napoleonic army in the Russian snows.

In 1838, Chateaubriand (a statesman of the Bourbon Restoration era in France - 1814-1830) published his notes on the congress of the Holy Alliance (held from October 20 to December 14, 1822), where he got the opportunity to closely observe the Russian emperor and talk with him during joint walks. 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, believed that he knew how to derive the greatest benefit for Russia from victories and defeats in battles with Napoleon. Chateaubriand also notes the strengthening of the Russian army by Alexander and argues that the strength of Russia 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 backdrop of Napoleon's censure, the personality of Alexander I clearly acquires traits of grandeur and nobility in Chateaubriand's memoirs. The Russian sovereign, covered with the glory of the invincible Russian weapons, is seen as the patron of Europe, extending a helping hand for her 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. The first reform initiatives of Alexander in the internal affairs of the empire, in his opinion, also met the long-awaited needs of the Russian state.

The municipal deputation of Paris, who appeared at the Russian General Staff on March 31, 1814, to discuss the terms of the civil surrender of France, was surprised by the unusual statements of Alexander I, made by an unlimited monarch, about recognizing the right of the French nation to freely choose a government. Alexander I's reasoning about the benefits of strong representative institutions contributed to the creation of his image of a sincere liberal, "hero of the North." Chateaubriand contrasts the enlightenment of the Russian tsar with the sovereigns of the Holy Alliance: "He was one of all European monarchs who realized that France had reached that level of civilization at which the country needed a free constitution." Chateaubriand highly commends Alexander for "the return to the throne of the former dynasty, which "our ancestors had obeyed for eight centuries", that is, the Bourbon dynasty. He emphasized with deep respect the firmness of the Russian emperor in pursuing a foreign policy aimed at creating a new European balance, where France was assigned an honorable place among the great powers of Europe. Nevertheless, he also recognized the inconsistency of Alexander's nature, which combined European education and the lust for power of the autocrat.

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 Stael rightly pointed out the difference in the historical destinies of Russia and Western Europe: "All other peoples of Europe joined civilization at about 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 the European peoples, while the Slavs, pushed back by the Norman tribes from north to south, came into the neighborhood with the nomadic southern peoples, who were at a lower level of development than the agricultural Slavs. De Stael defines Russian civilization as essentially catching up with European civilization.

By coincidence, de Stael was already in Russia when the Napoleonic armies invaded her 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 her to 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 social spirit in contemporary Russia. A staunch supporter of liberal values, de Stael encountered other values ​​of civilization in Russia, which, in her opinion, under certain conditions can become a source of popular enthusiasm. At the heart of the unprecedented heroism of 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 Stael especially appreciates religious tolerance. It was this feature of Orthodoxy that, in her opinion, contributed to the rallying of various nationalities into a single powerful empire.

Moscow surprised its guest with the unusualness of its architectural appearance, which is sharply different from that accepted in European urban culture. Destaling Moscow, de Stael especially emphasizes that it is a place of mixing of all the nationalities and customs that Russia is rich in, and the many-sided appearance of its inhabitants leads the writer to the idea that it is here that "Asia unites with Europe." Unlike Moscow, where signs of the East were everywhere, de Stael did not hesitate to classify Petersburg among the most beautiful of European cities.

In St. Petersburg, the writer had the opportunity to get acquainted with a wide range of Russian nobility and take a closer look at the secular life of the capital. Noting the impeccable European manners of Russian courtiers, Stal constantly developed an idea, important, from her point of view, for characterizing Russians, about the presence in him of a strong influence of southern peoples, or “rather, Asians”: “...they have European manners. Oriental character.”

The secular life of St. Petersburg de Stael found completely different from the form of communication of the elite strata in France. There, the enlightening salon culture involved the discussion of intellectual life, political and theological disputes, and abstract theorizing. A different situation prevailed 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, means "a crowded festival that does not affect either the mind or the soul."

France in different periods turned its eyes to Russia with interest, which was greatly facilitated by the foreign policy situation of a particular historical time. One such event was, in particular, the Franco-Prussian war. But before that, in the 30s of the XIX century, relations between Russia and France were complicated.

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 the usurper of the throne, as king, all 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 form a system of ideas about Russia, which was later called in the literature "the Russian mirage of the 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, not embarrassed by any constitutional innovations. The Russian people were portrayed by the Legitimist press as people "of the old school, in whom love for the fatherland and attachment to religious and monarchical institutions were 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 fortitude of Russians, which distinguishes them from corrupted Europeans. Such notions were developed by the 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 a part of French society that Russia is a natural ally of France, because these two countries are not have a common area of ​​interest, which means they have “nothing to share”, as well as the remoteness of Russia from France and the difference in climate, which made it easier to present 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 the western light,” were even more numerous and influential. In the French press of the 1830s and 1840s, articles by journalists from the liberal newspapers Constitutionell and Journal de Debats were saturated 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. Sharp criticism was caused by the speech of Nicholas I, addressed to the Warsaw municipality, in which the emperor called Russia the only country where peace and harmony reign, and opposed it to rebellious Europe. After its publication, the French republican press was filled with articles denouncing the "executioner of Poland." Nicholas I was called "a crowned cretin, and the speech of the Russian monarch -" the result of hereditary madness, so common in the family of Russian emperors. On the wave of criticism, various episodes of Russian history “surfaced” that refuted 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 in understanding the ideas that developed in France regarding Russia during the reign of Nicholas II, is also the Catholic and Protestant press, whose visiting cards 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 the geopolitical rivalry between the two countries than in religious issues. This was due to the fact that the state of affairs in Europe has 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 as either a possible ally, whose main advantage is that it has other Asian zones of influence, or a sworn enemy, an alliance with which is not needed and impossible.

Catholic publicists see Russia as a rival ahead of France in search of a national idea and in the fulfillment of a national duty. Thus, the diplomat, politician and publicist Louis de Carne wrote: “Russia is moving towards its goal on the Bosphorus and is preparing to accept the legacy of two great Muslim empires.. Is July France, full of strength, going to drag out its days in inaction?” In its reasoning, the Catholic press puts in the first place the rivalry between the French national idea, which is assessed purely positively, and the Russian national idea, which is assessed cautiously. “The Russian monarchs,” writes the journalist of the “Universe” newspaper, “are striving to revive the Eastern Roman Empire, making it “Romano-Slavic” and laying the principle of Slavic nationality as its basis, and this unification is often carried out by force and is accompanied by all kinds of oppression. All this becomes possible because the Catholic countries and, above all, France are weakened by internal strife. Catholic publicists, envious of the aggressive energy of Russia, which France lacks, diligently notice what is fraught with trouble for her. Thus, for example, they argue that Russia "carries in itself the germs of disintegration," 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 XIX century is still not the French press, but the book of Astolphe de Custine "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 peace reigns self-confident power." 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, "there reigns only the silence of fear" and the power "subordinating the population of an entire empire to military regulations." He acknowledged that he "deared a moderate disorder, showing the strength of society, than an impeccable order, costing him his life." Nevertheless, according to Kustin, in Russia, among the enlightened part of society, there are many people who are ashamed of the oppression of power that oppresses them, 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 gorges of the Caucasus, looking for rest there from the yoke that they have to drag at home." After the appearance of Custine's book, which clothed criticism of the "Russian mirage" in the form of well-aimed aphorisms and refined reflections, the anti-Russian point of view prevailed in the French press almost completely.

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 the European peoples, including the French people, from the harsh authoritarian power of Napoleon, whom many French considered the illegitimate ruler of the country, and its emperor deserves the glory of one of the most enlightened European monarchs, then already with In the 1920s, a conservative turn in both the domestic and foreign policy of tsarism entails 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 - contributing to the rapprochement of Russia with the traditional European monarchies - Austria and Prussia, in contrast to France, exacerbates the beginning estrangement of the two countries, which led to the fact that in Crimean War 1853-1856 France - a traditional ally of Russia - opposes it on the side of Turkey. However, not only the actual diplomatic calculations, but also the predominantly negative image of Nicholas I, which was created by the French press of the 30s and 40s. XIX century, played a role in the emergence of the crisis that led Russia and France in the middle of the XIX century to a military confrontation.

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 to the course of rapprochement with France, a traditional ally, interrupted in the 30s-40s of the 19th century, in foreign policy. Russia, with which she had no disputed 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 possibly in two weeks. The internal situation in France at the end of the 19th century was also difficult.

June 1881 is an alliance between Austria-Hungary and Germany. May 20, 1882 The Dual Alliance becomes the Triple Alliance, Italy joins the military bloc. Thus, France faces the threat of real annihilation. The only chance that can save her at that moment is an alliance with Russia. The conclusion of such an alliance was not easy, the imperial family is connected with Germany - and with a skeptical England - by family ties. However, as is known, such an alliance was concluded, although the procedure for its signing 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. It was, of course, the success of French diplomacy. The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nikolai Karlovich Gire, called this union "heartfelt consent" in a letter to French Foreign Minister A. Ribot on August 9, 1891.

Here it is necessary to say about one famous person who played a prominent role in the domestic political life of France in the 80s-90s of the XIX century, as well as specifically the conclusion of the Franco-Russian alliance. This is the writer and journalist Juliette Adam. A staunch 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 journal Nouvel Revue, which became the mouthpiece and ideological instrument of the Franco-Russian rapprochement. Juliette Adam faced a difficult task, since in liberal-republican France they were hostile to autocratic Russia, its domestic and foreign policy. In Russia itself, in its conservative court and government spheres, for a long time there has been a stable prejudice against France - the "center of the republican infection" that has been spreading in the Russian Empire since the time of A. N. Radishchev and the Decembrists. Therefore, Adan vigorously promoted the idea of ​​a Franco-Russian alliance and was looking 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 realizing a future rapprochement, set herself the goal of refuting the fantastic ideas of the French about her - about her unfortunate princes, rude peasants and priests of a 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 fairy 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! This is China! There, in every church, you can get in touch 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 would not be worth losing in exchange for certain institutions borrowed from France. This point of view was defended in his conversations with her by the staunch Slavophile (though 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 was in a paradoxical situation: she did not know her ally at all. Overgrown with anecdotes and legends, memories of the collapse of the Napoleonic 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 enthusiasm caused by the French-Russian rapprochement after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 was replaced by the true "Russian mania" of the late 19th century. In 1870, Olympia Oduard 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 Land 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 the terrorist attacks in Russia in the 70s-80s. XIX century, especially the assassination of the Russian Emperor Alexander II by terrorists, this social type became one of the symbols of Russia in France at that time. Of course, this image caused conflicting interpretations. Emile Zola, for example, in his novel, dedicated to the unbearable everyday life of ordinary French miners and their hard and courageous struggle for better working conditions, draws the image of a cold, decisive, mysterious Russian by the name of Souvarine. In the finale, this closed man, who led a life isolated from those around him, who spent his days in imperceptible intellectual labors, destroys the mine, in which several thousand miners die, and evaporates in the fog. In the novel, Zola gradually contrasts Souvarine with the protagonist, Etienne, a French worker who, over time, through self-education acquires 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 that the miners are waging. The author unequivocally expresses in the novel the idea that this readiness for cold, merciless, inhuman destruction, which the Russian Souvarine was capable of, is alien to the nature of the Frenchman. The relation of the author to his hero is complex; Souvarine both horrifies Zola and at the same time causes worship, the author believes that it is precisely such people of action who are the future of revolutionary ideas: “And when the bourgeoisie feels the pavement stones explode under its feet, it will be the work of its hands.” He also urges 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 beloved animal - rabbit Poland - was slaughtered and put on soup.

In the summer of 1872, Louis Léger, a well-known Slavic historian in the future, visited Russia. Here he gets to the polytechnic exhibition in Moscow, arranged in honor of the bicentenary of the birth of Peter the Great. “Everything that I saw in Moscow is completely inconsistent with the idea of ​​​​those Muscovite barbarians about whom the Parisian press of my youth wrote,” Leger writes.

Unlike Leger, Armand Sylvester, after a trip to Russia in 1890-91, was not inclined to praise her. A parnassian poet, he does not share the general enthusiasm 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 courtesy, not sympathy." Unexpectedly, his statement was made that the Russians "are a young people, only 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 about the French-Russian alliance, the author admires the policy 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 disposed precisely to this religion.

Undoubtedly, the fascination of the French intelligentsia with Dostoevsky and Tolstoy was in many ways decisive for the formation of the image of Russia in French society in the period under review. For example, the French scientist - Slavist Paul Boyer considered Tolstoy "the highest intellectual", said that "Tolstoy is a man, completely simple , mortal, no more than mortal, but, for sure, one of the most beautiful, most perfect representatives of mortals that 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 of that time, which basically completed the task of forming a positive image of Russia in France, was the book of the lawyer and political journalist Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu "The Tsarist Empire and Russian . 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 the national identity of Russia was the rural community, the "world", and he analyzes in detail the fate of the communities after the abolition of serfdom. According to the author, such a system of land tenure facilitated the abolition of serfdom and saved Russia from social upheavals that would still be inevitable in Russia. The central points in Leroy-Beaulieu's work on Russia have always been the connection of Russian character and Russian history with climate and landscape. Leroy-Beaulieu is amazed that the 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 consideration of the position of the Slavophiles. He considers their rejection of the West, bourgeois science, and political economy a utopia; using their example, he shows the mythological nature of public 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 the deputies of the zemstvo assemblies are able to work together, coexisting peacefully, and in this way the zemstvos compare favorably with Western European parliaments, which suffer from an unwillingness to listen to each other and are torn apart by party interests. Turning to Russian journalism, Leroy-Bolier carefully examines the work of censorship, trying to separate its scope from the intelligentsia's desire to address ethical issues. In other words, the author is trying to find out what kind of allegory is used Russians to get around the tsarist censorship. He also considers the emigrant uncensored press. Leroy-Beaulieu concludes that the result of the work of the tsarist censorship is the flowering of the intelligentsia, that is, the spirit of the opposition. But the intelligentsia tends towards political fanaticism, becomes a kind of secret order of "progress". According to the author, the intelligentsia is represented by beggars, rootless people, irritated fanatics.

However, returning to the characterization of Leroy-Beaulieu's work, it should be said that here Leroy Beaulieu makes it difficult to objectively assess the situation, his commitment to revolutionary views: the author understands by intelligentsia, first of all, the raznochintsy intelligentsia, losing sight of the fact that there was still a layer of liberal intelligentsia (zemstvo teachers, doctors and etc.). Leroy-Beaulieu is a contemporary and a witness to the actions of terrorists, and he specifically dwells on their mutual misunderstanding with the people. The presentation of Leroy-Beaulieu's reasoning about Russia and its historical path of development can be continued, however, the plots considered already at the 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 begun by Voltaire of a positive perception of Russia as a young country in need of improvement and admonitions from France. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is some ambivalence in Leroy-Bolier'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, varied in different periods depending on the specific foreign policy situation. In this sense, the period following Russia's victory in the Patriotic War of 1812 was 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 Russia as the liberator of Europe and France proper from the power of Napoleon, who brought the country to the brink of disaster. Although, on the other hand, the attitude of France towards Russia during this period was also somewhat ambivalent. 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 ideas of the French about Russia in comparison with the 18th century. Almost imperceptible in the opinions of representatives of the enlightened part of French society is the motive of “Russian barbarism”, which so often slipped through the pages of the French press in the 18th century, Russia is generally recognized, although traditionally monarchical and in need of improvement, but still a civilized country that has made an invaluable contribution in world culture (primarily literature). The ideas of individual French writers and diplomats about Russia are undoubtedly becoming more concrete, as cultural contacts between representatives of the enlightened part of the society of these two countries become more extensive. Myths and legends about Russia that arose at the beginning of the 19th century after the Patriotic War of 1812 are gradually debunked, replaced by more balanced judgments based more 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, "folly" of Russians, a condescending attitude towards Russians as a people, undoubtedly standing on a lower level. stages of development, unchanging associations of Russia with Asia, with the East.

Chapter 3. Russia of the XX century in the view of the French intelligentsia

The latest 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-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 financial assistance of the Communist Party of France from the CPSU. October 1917 was perceived by the communists, and by 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 been repeatedly noted in this work. Such an influential spiritual force as the creative intelligentsia actively participated in them, whose prominent representatives - R. Rolland, L. Durten, A. Breton, A. Gide, Jean Paul Sartre, Maurice Druon, Jean Dutour and others - for a long time experienced the same influence of the ideas of Marxism.

The craving of the French left for 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 pretenders to 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, who 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 saturated with fear and implacable hatred. Along with liberal anti-socialist convictions, they were based on deep traumas of the past - the cancellation of the tsarist debts by the Soviet government, which ruined millions of small French rentiers, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918 and the Soviet-German pact of 1939, perceived in France as a betrayal. However, at the level of public opinion, the stratum 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 reorganization public relations on a fair basis. Dialogue between cultural figures of both countries was active throughout the 20th century, and gradually, not only questions of creativity, but also political events that took place in the Soviet Union were involved in the range of issues discussed. The study of their point of view on these events can give a very voluminous idea of ​​how the 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 repressions, the development of literature and art, the phenomenon of the "thaw" in the USSR and the restalinization of the Brezhnev era, perestroika - not a single important event or trend that determines the development of the USSR in the 20th century, did not go unnoticed by the French elite, who turned their attention to the country with interest, whose leaders declared it an example for the world community and a hotbed of world revolution. Interest, in this case, is not a synonym for 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 well-known French writer who sympathized with the Soviet government gave an answer to the questionnaire of the journal "Literature of the World Revolution". Georges Duhamel. In it, he praised the role of the Soviet Union in the world, saying that "a strong intellectual Europe cannot exist without Russia," which brings Europe "a special, characteristic light." Mentioning the outstanding cultural achievements of Russia in the 19th century, as well as the continuity of the interest of the two countries in each other over the previous centuries, he said that France should immediately invite this country to active cooperation. In his book Journey to Moscow, he shares his impressions of Russia in detail. “A lot of people there consider themselves new people and really believe in the significance of what they are doing,” writes Duhamel. The writer notes that, contrary to expectations, in Russia they did not hide the shortcomings of modern life from him, did not try to show him "artificial, sleek Russia for foreigners." He speaks of the significance of the changes that have taken place in Russia: "The revolution has changed cities and villages, it penetrates - sometimes with good consent, sometimes with force - into the souls of people." Duhamel highly appreciates the Russian intelligentsia and writes that on the eve of the First World War, the intelligentsia ran into 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 returned to their work, a new generation of “scientists from the people” is 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 things of modern Soviet reality do not escape his attention, for example, new abbreviations in the names of state institutions - Gosizdat, OGPU, Narkomindel, etc., which he calls "barbaric words formed without any sense of harmony." But, although the writer mainly pays attention to new political realities, he at the same time emphasizes that the whole essence of the Russian person is not exhausted by the Revolution, and characterizes him in isolation from specific political realities. According to Duhamel, Russians are characterized by such features 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 encountered in the works of writers, diplomats, travelers of the 18th and 19th centuries, is also present in the writer.

Of undoubted interest in studying the ideas of the French about Russia in this period are also the works Luc Durten - a writer whose books were translated into Russian already in the 20s. Durten published his impressions of his trips around the USSR both in the French and in the Soviet press. In the preface to Vladimir Pozner's 1932 book USSR, Dürten denounced the "brutal repression of the Soviet system against any political differences," insufficient attention to "pure science," and unification in the sphere of culture. However, throughout the 1930s he considered the USSR an important participant in the anti-fascist movement and supported it in a number of positions. And in response to the questionnaire of the journal Literature of the World Revolution, Dürten 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 mighty capitalism" that the United States embodies for him, and calls Russia "the highest hope of the world" in the fight against the evil of Americanization. In general, Dürten sees in Russia "an amalgam of bold innovations and archaic customs" and writes that it is "separated from other civilizations by a 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,” Dürten continues and notes the closeness of Russian civilization to the “Asian source.” In this book, he also shares his impressions of some important persons of the Soviet state who represented the image of Russia. The writer speaks with respect of Lunacharsky, Commissar of Public Education, who knew four languages ​​and resigned when the news spread, which turned out to be false, that revolutionary troops bombarded 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 that 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 the whole people of the need to "bring the present to sacrifice to the future paradise. In painting and literature, Dürten disapproves of excessive adherence to an exclusively realistic direction, pointing out that ideological restrictions hinder 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 it will not be easy to reject the legacy of the past, but it is possible because of how firmly Soviet power is now firmly established.

Dürten 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 benefits”, which account for nine-tenths of all crimes in the West, have lost their relevance here: “Laws, order, which we could not even imagine, they became a reality there!” he writes. Dürten also notes the "victorious struggle against illiteracy" waged by the Soviet government, its scope: "schools are being opened by the tens of thousands. Higher educational institutions, museums, laboratories are being created." However, having become mass, education, according to Dürten, has lost in quality, while in science attention is paid only to applied practice, and basic research is almost not supported. Here Dürten points to the insufficiency of the state's own resources to carry out the industrialization that the Soviet government was so proud of: "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 1930s was stormy. So, speaking at a rally in Paris on January 26, 1937, Andre Bretonsharply condemned these trials, calling them "a medieval trial against sorcerers" 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, suggests that what is happening is seen by Breton 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 meanest, most dangerous." He already then defines the regime that reigned in the USSR as a totalitarian, “police dictate”, his actions, according to Breton, plunged the country into a “twilight of dirt and blood”.

The fate of the Soviet Union is also of interest to the writer Jean Guéhenno. In his article "Death in vain", written on February 5, 1937, Gehenno expresses his attitude to political processes. He condemns those adherents of communism who, "are afraid that they will violate the loyalty of the revolution if they do not try to justify everything that can happen in Russia." Processes against the so-called. he calls the "old revolutionaries" the atrocities of the new revolutionaries. Speaking about the implausibility of the accusations, Gehenno cites specific figures: out of twenty-five members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (b) in 1919-1920, by the beginning of 1936 only one survived. Ten of them were subjected to repression, up to the death penalty, as traitors. “Ten traitors for twenty-one proven revolutionaries. How to believe it? he writes. Assessing these events, Gehenno concludes that there is a special “Russian climate of revolution”, which “was determined by a 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, Dolgushintsev. the same poisoned and suffocating atmosphere.” The road to freedom, he believes, has become harder for Russia than for anyone else. Gehenno emphasizes the difference between the Revolution in Russia and in France: "The climate of the revolution has become for us the climate of freedom."

In the summer of 1935, at the invitation of Maxim Gorky, he visited the Soviet Union Romain Rolland. On June 28, he was received in the Kremlin by I. 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 the strata 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 the "slanderous rumors" discrediting the USSR. A wave of protest in Western countries, - Rolland reports - was caused by the law on the criminal punishment of children from the age of 12. This law really existed and was commonly called the “law of three spikelets” - a person who stole more than 3 spikelets from a collective farm field was punished by a court. Overgrown with rumors, he received, as it turns out from Rolland's letter, a different interpretation - that children are punishable by death for "religious obstinacy." 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, the persecution of the Doukhobors for religious beliefs and the refusal of military service, the extradition of the anti-fascist who was hiding to the Mussolini police on the territory of the USSR, the trial against Polish priests. The mention in the letter of such a wide range of facts allows us to speak of a 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 conjectures, or the facts were misinterpreted. Such a belief in the justice of what is 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 factum sublimation of Makhno, who during the period of the revolution was portrayed as an anarchist and anti-Semite, but now they tried to present him as a hero who fell victim to the slander of the Bolsheviks. The letter was written in 1935, after fascism came 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 waging an anti-fascist struggle are at the same time moving away from the USSR. Rolland is also upset by the loss of the USSR's authority in the United States and countries South America, "almost entirely conquered by the anarchist or Trotskyist opposition." In conclusion, Rolland proposes the creation of 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 best friend of the country.

Unlike Rolland, another French writer Roger Martin du Gard belonged to that part of the French intelligentsia, which predominantly had a 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 cheat, lie, hypocrisy, calling it "tactical dexterity" and being proud of it. Du Gard calls the Stalinist regime an imperial dictatorship that deprived society of freedom of speech, doomed it to hard labor, to a life without basic goods, and finds it absurd that it is precisely its propagandists (“militant fanatics”) who spread among the masses 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 reason to accept their ideology and the regime that they would like to establish. Du Gard especially draws attention to the difference between the communist perspectives for Russia and France: in Russia, where there are 2 million bourgeois and 148 million real or possible proletarians, it was not difficult to establish communism. In France, 23 million bourgeois and 17 million real or possible proletarians - a revolution is impossible, even despite the significant weight that the PCF has acquired in society after the First World War. Yet communism, du Gard believes, is generated by objective, serious socio-economic problems, and society cannot adhere to an unambiguously negative position towards it. Stalinism was born of an attempt to bring society from an autocratic system to a socialist one without any transition. Here du Gard refers to the thesis of the father of Russian Marxism, Plekhanov, that if one tries to create in Russia a socialist system, the economic and social basis of which is absent in Russia, one will succeed only in creating a new Inca empire, in which the socialist caste will direct the bureaucratic and terrorist methods of national production. The early 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 Maumor, leads to even worse consequences than capitalism, since the proletarian society continues to cruelly exploit the individual, only now the exploited cannot hope to get the better of the master, because the owners are no more and exploited by the working class.

In addition to political issues, as already mentioned, the new Soviet art was also a subject of reflection for representatives of the French intelligentsia. Here it is appropriate to give some opinions André Malrauxabout contemporary Soviet cinema. "Three Songs about Lenin" he calls 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, doubts of 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. According to Malraux, the leading directors of Soviet cinema are Eisenstein and Pudovkin.

Unlike Roger Martin du Gard, existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, whose acquaintance with Russia falls mainly on the 1950s-60s, with deep sympathy for Russia. This is explained both by the increased prestige of the USSR after World War II, and by the writer's own inclination towards the left. 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 asserts, warns its addressee Sartre in a friendly manner, 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 "Bedbug" and its production made a great impression on the writer, as well as the films "Ivan's Childhood" and "Banya". 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 drawn to him in such a way that he himself could not live.” He was amazed at the scale of construction in the USSR, especially in light of the fact that housing in Paris is a big problem, and he considered the policy of the Soviet leadership in this matter to be correct. Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir also visited several stores and said that the GUM windows were better decorated than those of department stores in France. But if Sartre recognized the superiority of the USSR in everyday improvements, then he had a bad opinion about Soviet painting. “You oppose formalism, but your artists are formalists of the purest water,” he said. The Soviet people, according to Sartre, have become simpler, freer than before. He really liked the examples of Soviet modern architecture (the Palace of Congresses, the Palace of Pioneers), and the works of the disgraced sculptor Ernst Neizvestny also made a good impression on Sartre. Voznesensky's poetry stunned him and was perhaps the strongest impression of the trip. Also during the trip, Sartre formed an opinion about the high aesthetic level of the Soviet people, in which, in his opinion, they surpassed the French, among whom only a narrow circle of connoisseurs is fond of poetry. After the next visit of Sartre to the USSR in 1964, the works of Soviet writers began to be systematically published in the journal Tan Modern. One of the reports on the arrival 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."

On the whole, the French intelligentsia's perception of the socio-political and economic changes in the USSR during the "thaw" period was positive. In addition to Sartre, Claude Roy, Vercors (Jean Bruller), Nathalie Sarrot, Roger Vaillant and many others met the changes with curiosity and approval. But during this period there was at least one episode of international significance, which overshadowed the relations of the USSR with Europe and the USA and was extremely negatively perceived by the overwhelming majority 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 the suppression of the popular uprising in Hungary in 1956.

Claude Morgancategorically condemns Soviet intervention in Hungary. He writes that by doing this the Soviet army is undermining its authority as a liberating army and is acting 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, speaking of 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 social activities after the entry of Soviet troops into Hungary. And after August 1968 (the entry of Soviet troops into Prague), Vercors published an article “Hitler won the war”, where he expressed the conviction that the violation of human rights by the country that stopped Hitler was, ultimately, the victory of 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 a policy. But at the same time he tried with all his might to maintain contacts; Without abandoning his principled position, but continuing to cooperate, Vercors provided assistance to those representatives of the creative intelligentsia in the USSR who are in solidarity with their French colleagues, but do not have the opportunity to express their point of view. Significant in this regard is the controversy between Vercors and the historian writer Louis de Villefoss, published in France Observater in 1956. Villefos called his article "Cooperation is impossible", while Vercors urged: "Do not break the connection."

Louis de Villefoswrote that the Soviet invasion of Hungary "crushed the moral authority of the USSR, the trust in it of millions of people around the world." The myth of the national sovereignty of the countries of people's democracy, the "allies" of the USSR, was destroyed. “In the same way,” Vilfos continues, “the foundations of the Peace Movement were undermined and collapsed: the ideas of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, the non-use of weapons, non-intervention.” After his return from the USSR in 1952, Vilfos harshly condemned the system of concentration camps in Poland and the USSR, turning his attention to other incidents discrediting the USSR, such as the “doctors' case”. “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 a left, but a reactionary falsification of the left movement. Vilfoss opposes depriving people of freedom of thought and expression, as is the case in the USSR. Vercorshe argues with Villefoss, saying that, despite all the horror of the Hungarian drama, it is necessary to keep in touch and help communism in the USSR on its difficult path to renewal. After his visit to the USSR in 1953, Vercors revisited it already in 1955 and, according to his memoirs, saw significant changes, which he described as signs of a “thaw”. There was a plan, carried out by Vercors together with Ehrenburg, to hold an exhibition of French painting in Moscow.

Against the background of the growing interest of French society in social changes in the USSR during the period when N. Khrushchev was the country's leader, in 1961 the country was visited by Nathalie Sarrot. In the 1950s-60s, she was presented as the most prominent 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, did not talk with friends. She was also sure that there were no works of art in the USSR that were not created by direct order. But upon arrival, conversations with Soviet writers (Vsevolod Ivanov, Nikolai Pogodin, Ilya Ehrenburg and others) made a favorable impression on her, and after a meeting at the Writers' Union, Sarrot noticed 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 quite freely. Sarrot was greatly impressed by the appearance of Moscow and Leningrad, 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 to dispel many of the false ideas that exist among the French intelligentsia regarding the Soviet Union." Later, in her personal notes, Sarraute wrote that "her visit to the USSR brought her much joy and pleasant impressions." Since 1956 (the writer's previous visit to the USSR), the standard of living, in her opinion, has risen markedly, "people are well dressed, cheerful, confident in the future, there is a blurring of social boundaries." The USSR, writes Sarraute, has made great strides in the dissemination 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 huge - not to mention the large circulation of books published in the Soviet Union.” Later, Sarraute visited the USSR more than once, in particular, she took part in the International Leningrad Meeting of Writers in the summer of 1963. The writer, like most French people, admired Russian classical literature, especially Dostoevsky.

Intensive ties with his Soviet colleagues were also maintained by the writer Maurice Druon. The warm, friendly tone of his letters confirms how disposed the 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 policy of the Soviet leadership. Nevertheless, on the fact of the Soviet military intervention in Hungary, Druon, like many others, spoke out extremely negatively. 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 Observater. 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 antiquity,” writes Druon, “it is an integral part of our civilization. To violate the right to asylum means to reject the concept that has developed over the centuries. Whoever breaks this law commits a crime against humanity". Thus, in Druon’s assessment of this incident, the motif of isolation from civilization, savagery, barbarism of Russians, which has been 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, can be traced in this work. and XIX 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 had a very high opinion of Soviet literature: “I think that in its best works, Soviet literature has not broken its ties with the 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 be 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 spoke out with sharp criticism against the persecution of Solzhenitsyn, Sinyavsky and Daniel. He called Solzhenitsyn a genius, to match Dostoevsky. “Solzhenitsyn undertook,” wrote Dutour, “to depict the greatest deception of the twentieth century, to show that communism, which owns half the globe, is nothing but a tyranny, similar to all tyrannies that have passed through 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 else thinks about there, since it is forbidden to think at all there.. By the end of this century If this regime still holds out, Eastern Europe threatens to turn into a spiritual desert. Neither the prestige of the Bolshoi Theater nor the wonderful film about Rublev (on the screen in our country, but not in the USSR) can mislead us about the deterioration of the spirit, which can now appear only clandestinely.

The writer sees the Soviet Union of the Brezhnev period differently Jean Dutour. (Here it is necessary to clarify that, while harboring hostility to communism, Dutour at the same time did not realize 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 "The Diary" in notes for 1965 year, the following assessments of contemporary Soviet society can be found: “We can say that the Russian revolution lasted forty-eight years .. However, it seems that the Russian revolution is over. Willy-nilly, Russia began to be attracted 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 most want? Live like the hell out of Americans, not like Chinese." What Dutour means is that the Soviet people began to appreciate stability, everyday comfort and material benefits more than before. “Progress,” he explains his thought, “the future, as elsewhere, has acquired for Russia an attractive face of wealth, that is, materialism. The Russians hope one day to 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 unreasonable for Dutour to whip up passions about the Soviet-American confrontation, the so-called Cold War. “And if we talk about those huge shells that can reach 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 great 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 bans, first of all, changed the quality of contacts between the intelligentsia of France and Russia, the quality of information . Until that moment, all Soviet writers (artists, sculptors) who had left for the West constituted a special sector in the minds of the “Western” person - dissidents, active fighters against the regime, who were forced to leave the communist country (such shades persisted even if the emigrants had nothing to do with human rights activities). In the new - "without walls" - conditions, French publishers, writers, editors of magazines got the opportunity to invite to colloquia, congresses, and internships anyone they were interested in in the USSR creative personality, and in the first years of perestroika in France, completely different layers of the Russian intelligentsia actively communicated with the French intelligentsia than five to ten years ago. In parallel, the process of emigration to Europe of the Russian creative intelligentsia was 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 mind of the French intellectual, there was a complex process of building a certain unity, the image of modern (after the proclamation of perestroika) Russian culture and modern Russia as a whole, where there were no borders between recent dissidents and artists who continued to create in Russia or moved to France for reasons that had nothing to do with politics unrelated.

This new historical period brought surprises to their French colleagues: for example, the need to comprehend the discord among former dissidents (Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Maksimov, Andrey Sinyavsky) and try to correlate the “meanings” of this discord with those fierce disputes that unfolded in the open press of perestroika Russia around the latest artistic publications. I 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 euphoria of hopes 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 just social order did not die in the minds of the French intelligentsia. In 1985, expectations thus flared up with renewed vigor. Russia has again begun 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 euphoria from the prospects that arose with the beginning of perestroika, the image of Russia - to put it metaphorically - immediately, as it were, "dimmed"; the sharp contrast between the behavior of the government and the behavior of those who until recently embodied democratic hopes disappeared.

The theme of books devoted to Russia is no longer a description of what is happening "here and now", but the pairing of this "here and now" with the previous stages of the history and culture of Russia, the search for an answer to the question, what are the specifics of Russian society and what features of Russian or Soviet mentality can be explained by the collapse of the perestroika project - the transition to new economic relations and democratic principles by peaceful means.

Georges Niva, a Slavist with many years of study of Russian culture behind him, despite a sense of the chaotic nature of what was happening during the perestroika period, at first tried to clarify it for himself and for the reader. But as he argues, he abandons 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 image remains unusual, testifying to the powerful individual energy released by the reforms.

In a book of interviews published in the year of the writer's death Vercors(1991), when asked what he thought about the new - since perestroika in Russia - situation in Europe, Vercors replied: “At first, like everyone else, I naturally rejoiced: long live freedom and human rights! But the joy faded very quickly. And now I'm rather worried. What kind of regime will be in these liberated countries? Poverty and unemployment are not conducive to democracy. I am afraid that a wave of nationalism and - even worse - forced integration will not rise.

Thus, Russian-French cultural contacts in the 20th century were the most intense in comparison with the previous period. The following reasons played a huge role in their development: the uniqueness of Russia's political and economic development during this period, the growing influence of communist ideology in both countries, and the ties between the communist parties of Russia and France.

Russia was perceived by France, on the one hand, as an adherent, 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 hand, as a totalitarian state with all the ensuing consequences in the period when the leadership of the country was Stalin. At the same time, during World War II, Stalin personified for France, and for the whole of Europe, the Soviet people, courageously fighting against 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 that brings a “special light” to the whole world - that is, a special best socio-political system, and also as a country where a tough supreme power in the name of achieving a lofty idea neglects the rights of an individual, where human life is not valued as highly as it should be valued according to modern European concepts. Of the writers whose points of view we have considered in this chapter, the writers who sympathize with socialism have emphasized the former, while the opponents of the socialist idea, on the contrary, have focused on the latter.

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 an evolution does not appear to us as a coherent sequential process. We see that Russia's ideas about France, in addition to some objective factors (as far as one can talk about objectivity when it comes to opinions, ideas), for example, geographical position, the size of the territory, natural and climatic conditions, the political system, the level of education in Russia, were also formed under the influence of extremely subjective factors: the situation in the world, 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 in the Enlightenment, when French public opinion began to overcome the conviction of the “barbarism”, “savagery”, and the lack of enlightenment of Russians. However, already during the period of Suvorov’s Italian campaign, the notions of “barbarism” and “Asian fetters” that Russians bring to Europe prevailed, at least in official public opinion, the mouthpiece of which was the politically biased 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 erroneous to argue that the image of Russia in France was entirely dependent on the external situation.

It is also difficult to single out some stable tendencies in the image of Russia in France that would be gradually processed in one specific direction, also because this image is formed by representatives of various political convictions. And yet, if you look closely at that motley, difficult to systematize picture that represents the image of Russia in France in the XVIII-XIX centuries, then, of course, you can single out some stable trends and ideas: for example, the motive 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 ​​\u200b\u200bthe vast 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 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 reworking and development in French public opinion of any particular trend during this period. The most stable ideas of the French about Russia, those listed above, already in the Enlightenment were filed immediately, but subsequently only updated at certain intervals. But over the course of the 18th-19th centuries, the ideas of the French about Russia undoubtedly expanded and deepened. So, if during the 18th century we mainly come across some generalized stereotypical statements about barbarism and enlightenment, about a cold climate, then in the 19th century various French people who visited Russia form a definite opinion about the nature of Russian secular life, about the behavior of representatives of the upper strata Russian society, about the architectural appearance Russian cities and in the second half of the 19th century. also about Russian literature. The ideas of the French about Russia are thus concretized. 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 XVIII century. Russia seemed to the French as exotic and distant as China or Japan, but by the end of the 19th century. France had a large amount of the most versatile information about this country, on which that comprehensive and, now, rich in all sorts 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 used sources and literature

Sources

1. Dialogue of writers: from the history of Russian-French cultural relations of the XX century, 1920-1970. M.: Science. 2003. - 924 p.

2. Dutour J. Reflections. Moscow: Hyperion. 2002. - 235 p.

Zola E. Germinal. M.: AST. 2004. - 328 p.

Mestre J. Four chapters about Russia. M.: Heritage. 2003. - 289 p.

Stal J. About literature reviewed in connection with social institutions. M.: Science. 1990. - 322p.

Tolstoy L. N. War and peace. Ekaterinburg: Creativity. 2002. T. 1. - 459 p.

Chateaubriand F. R. Notes on Alexander I. M .: Science. 1997. - 255p.

Emmanuel P. USSR: reality and delusions. Moscow: Hyperion. 2005. - 374

Literature

9. Andreev L. Jean-Paul Sartre. Free consciousness and the XX century. M.: Science. 1996. - 297 p.

10. Andreev L. Russian-French cultural relations in the XX century. Moscow: 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. The 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. Moscow: Hyperion. 2002. - 456 p.

Berelovich V. Russia and France: horizons of mutual knowledge. Moscow: Hyperion. 2001. - 376 p.

Belyaev MP French and imperial diplomacy in search of peace. Moscow: Hyperion. 2000. - 450 p.

Borisov Yu. V. Diplomacy of Louis XIV. M.: Science. 1991. - 322 p.

Belikov A. T. Russian-French relations in the XVIII century. SPb.: Nauka. 1994. - 345 p.

Vasiliev VN Political culture through the eyes of revolutionaries.//Culture, management, economics, law. Lawyer. 2004. No. 2. - S. 22-25.

Vedenina L. G. France and Russia: Dialogue of Two Cultures. Moscow: Interdialect. 2000. - 480 p.

Vedenina L. G. Russian-French cultural contacts during the "thaw" in the USSR. Moscow: Interdialect. 2001. - 455 p.

Vermal F. The French in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. - 349 p.

Wolpiac-Auger K. The Caspian Sea through the Eyes of Europeans in the 18th-19th Centuries. - 256 p.

Geopolitics, XX century. M. AST. 2005. - 396 p.

Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and Europe. Moscow: Hyperion. 2002. - 476 p.

Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia, France and Europe. Moscow: 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. S. 32 - 38.

Durylin S. N. Madame de Stael and her Russian relations. SPb.: 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 the East. M.: Heritage. 2004. - 367 p.

Ilyina T.V. History of Arts. Western European art. M.: Science. 1990. - 625 p.

History of Russia's 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. V.2. - 521 p.

History of international relations in Europe (1918-1945). SPb. 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 between the USSR and the 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 in 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. SPb.: 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 of teachers of the Saratov State University. M.: Science. 2004. - S. 34 - 39.

Lotman Yu. M. Conversations about Russian culture: life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII - early XIX century). St. Petersburg: AST. 2004. - 311 p.

Lotman Yu. M. Russo 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 of the 19th century. Moscow: Hyperion. 2002. - 435 p.

Mezin S. A. View from Europe. SPb.: 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. SPb.: Hyperion. 2004. - 478 p.

Minuti R. Russia in the work of Montesquieu. Moscow: Hyperion. 2004. - 302 p.

.The "mandate" of Catherine II in France in the late 60s and early 70s of the XVIII century: translations, censorship, responses in the press. / / Russian-French cultural relations in the Enlightenment. Moscow: Hyperion. 2001. - S. 42 - 48.

Nalchazhdyan A. A. Ethnopsychology. M: Science. - 350 s.

Naumov I. Voltairianism of Russian writers of Catherine's time. SPb.: Nauka. 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 XVIII-XIX centuries. M.: Science. 2005. - 486 p.

Panchenko A. M. On Russian history and culture. SPb.: Nauka. 2000. - 465 p.

Partanenko T. V. Russian-French relations in the XIX century. M. AST. 2000. - 325 p.

Pozharskaya S.P. Russia and Spain during the Napoleonic Wars. SPb.: Hyperion. 1999. - 476 p.

Popovitsky AI 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. Issue. 2. - S. 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. Legacy. 2000. - 384 p.

Russia and France, XVIII-XX centuries M. Science. 2005. - 307 p.

Somov V. A. The book of P. Sh. Levek “Russian history and its Russian reader”. Moscow: Interdialect. 2000. - 284 p.

Somov V. A. Prospect of Russian history P. Sh. Levek. Moscow: Hyperion. 2002. - 322 p.

Uredson S. Catherine II in historiography and literary tradition. Moscow: Interdialect. 2000. - 286 p.

S.L. Fokin. The Russian Idea in French Literature of the 20th Century. St. Petersburg: Hyperion. 2003. - 371 p.

Cherkasov P.P. Double-headed eagle and royal lilies. / On Russian-French diplomatic relations during the nineteenth century. Moscow: Hyperion. 1995. - S. 14 - 23.

Shmurlo E.F. Peter the Great and Catherine II in the assessment of foreigners. M.: Science. 2003. - 428 p.

Shtrange M. M. Russian Society and the French Revolution of 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.