Collection of articles, Moscow-Paris. Nauka Publishing House. 1970. 434 pp. The print run is 1,800. Price 1 rub. 64 kopecks.

For the first time in many years of scientific relations between Soviet and French historians, a joint work was published - a collection of articles written by researchers from both countries and devoted to the problems of Franco-Russian relations from the end of the XVI to the beginning of the XX century.

The authors and editors were faced with great difficulties, and the first of them was the different methodological approach of representatives of the Soviet and French scientific schools to the fundamental issues of history, the controversy of individual historical subjects. But to the credit of the authors and compilers, it should be noted that this difficulty was successfully overcome. And this happened because the book was based on strictly verified historical facts, their objective, calm and thoughtful analysis, in-depth development of archival material.

Another difficulty was that the chronological coverage of events was too broad. In this regard, there was a danger that the book would lose its thematic unity, turn into a collection of fragmented materials. But that didn't happen either. The reader has received a book that reveals (though not without chronological gaps) the development of economic, cultural and partly political relations between Russia and France for almost three and a half centuries.

page 164

G. G. Zhordania devoted his interesting research to the emergence of Franco-Russian trade and diplomatic relations at the end of the XVI century. Further, the materials of the collection take us back to the XVIII century. The object of S. M. Troitsky's research was the attempt of a prominent Russian statesman and diplomat I. A. Shcherbakov to transplant John Law's banking system with its practice of equity capital, issuing credit cards, etc. to Russian soil.

The French historian S. Blanc examines V. N. Tatichevs economic views against the background of the widespread practice of mercantilism in Europe, including in France, and concludes that the theorists of Russian mercantilism made an original contribution to the development of economic doctrines of the period of the genesis of capitalism.

V. G. Sirotkin devotes his work to the theory of the renewal in 1802 of the Franco-Russian trade treatise of 1787. The articles by S. Dmitriev and M. Cadot - J.-L. perfectly complement each other. Van Rezhemortera. French researchers turned to the study of the travel diary of Baron Baer du Ollan. Many pages of this diary concern Russia and, in particular, the problems of Russian foreign trade in 1784. The Soviet scientist devotes his research to the history of the trip in 1842-1844 by Professor Ya. A. Linovsky of Moscow University in France and to the analysis of his agronomic works written on the materials of this trip. Another aspect of Franco-Russian economic relations already in the XX century is considered by T. D. Krupina. The author shows how during the First World War, specific problems of military-economic cooperation arose between the two countries, interstate economic bodies appeared, and steps were taken to implement interstate control in the distribution of material resources for supplying armies.

Based on the materials of the Gambul archives, G. Lemercier-Kelkezh explores the controversial issue in the historical literature about the origin of the Zaporozhye Sich, which is called with the name of Prince Dmitry Vishnetsky. The author suggests a more cautious approach to assessing his activities than does, for example, V. A. Gonutsky, who characterizes Vishnetsky as a typical magnate, oppressor of peasants, enemy of the Cossacks (p. 43). A. Bennigsen introduces the reader to the materials" on the history of Russian-Turkish relations of the XVIII century, located in the archives of the Ottoman Empire. Based on the materials of the Turin State Archive, J. Levy shows trends in Russia's expansion of its foreign trade in the direction of the Mediterranean and Western Europe in the XVIII - XIX centuries. The inclusion of Sardinia and Piedmont in the sphere of Russia's foreign trade aspirations, as the author shows, found a certain response among the state leaders of Piedmont. F. Braudel published in the collection letters of the Russian Consul in Leipzig Facius (for 1798-1800), addressed to the president of the College of Foreign Affairs N. P. Panin. They provide a broad panorama of international relations during a difficult and tense period in the history of Europe.

The positive quality of the book is that it provides an opportunity to look at the nature of relations between the two countries from the end of the XVI to the beginning of the XX century in general. Their meaning throughout this period was the desire of the French government to dictate its will to Russia, to reduce it to the position of an unequal partner, and Russia's active desire to defend its economic interests. At the same time, there was a steady desire of both countries to develop mutually beneficial trade, prepared by the entire course of international relations. These two opposite trends are the main theme of most of the articles in the collection.

Let's consider the main line of research of French historians, as it is presented in the book. It was most clearly expressed by S. Blanc, M. Cadot, and J.-L. Van Rejemorter. The first of them, revealing the economic views of V. N. Tatishchev, emphasizes the originality and originality of the judgments of the Russian mercantilist and protests against their assessment through the prism of Western influence. This position of S. Blanc corresponds to his ideas about the Russian historical process of the XVII-XVIII centuries, which the author assigns an independent and worthy place. He writes that the economic views of Peter's time were prepared by the seventeenth century and were based on the mercantilist views of Russian statesmen of the seventeenth century.

page 165

(page 134). "Scientists who believe that Peter's Russia "imitated" the West argued, "notes S. Blanc," from whom exactly Peter "borrowed" the foundations of his "economic policy" - from the homeland of Cromwell or the homeland of Colbert? This dispute cannot be taken quite seriously right now. Historians are so used to talking about Russia's "cultural borrowings" that they tend to find them where they don't exist. This is exactly what is happening in this case: in the study of the vast problem of the history of mercantilism in Europe, Russia, of course, should take the appropriate place" (pp. 139-140). S. Blanc opposes the "captivity of the old concept" about the economic backwardness of Russia, the revision of which, as the author notes, " is increasingly promoted by the work of Soviet scientists". "Only the commonality of problems facing all the countries of Europe at the same time led to a commonality of actions, and then theories" (p. 140). At the same time, S. Blanc quite rightly draws attention to the fact that serfdom remained the "Achilles ' heel" of the Russian economy, and no most reasonable theories for that time could overcome this serious barrier (p.160).

The same objective approach to Russian history is mainly characteristic of the article by M. Cadot and J.-L. Van Régemorter, which examines the foreign trade of Russia in 1784 based on the travel diary of Baer du Ollan. It seems that what would be easier for the authors: to take and comment in detail on the work of a young Frenchman who first came to Russia, since his views exactly corresponded to all the prejudices and prejudices about Russia that were characteristic of the upper strata of France at that time. But historians have not followed this path. They revealed the biased nature of Hollande's diary and noted: "It was rare to find a person among the French who wrote about Russia without prejudice" (p. 168). M. Cadot and J.-L. Van Rejemorter shows that a disdainful attitude towards Russia, a blind belief in its inability to make any changes, a primitive explanation of the state of Russia's foreign trade only by the properties of the Russian national character - all these are unreliable arguments for historical science. Resolutely rejecting this aspect of Hollande's concept, the authors at the same time take from his diary all the facts that deserve attention, support them with other data and draw a fairly objective picture of Russian foreign trade at the end of the XVIII century. They strongly reject Ollan's negative assessments of the Russian economy, and emphasize: "It was necessary to distort the meaning of events to come to the conclusion that the country's economy was continuously on the verge of disaster" (p. 174). M. Cadot and J.-L. Van Rejemorter writes about the stability of the Russian monetary system, the development of industry in the country on the basis of both serf and freelance labor. "Baer, on the other hand," the authors conclude, " was actually simply setting out his ideas about Russia's place in Europe... he simply wanted to reduce it to the level of a "very passive power", completely subordinated to the will of its allies" (p.177). The authors believe that this position fully corresponded to the public opinion of eighteenth-century France, as well as to the views of the government, which was not inclined to consider the Russian Empire as a full-fledged economic and political partner (p.178).

Revealing the history of the Russian-Piedmontese trade negotiations in the 70s-80s of the XVIII century, J. Levy also seeks to objectively assess the economic relations between the countries of Europe and Russia. To all attempts to limit the sphere of Russia's foreign economic relations to any country, the Russian government resolutely refused and defended the principles of equal and free trade with all countries (p. 247).

Let's see how Soviet historians interpret Franco-Russian relations. Their materials also show the contradictory nature of these relations, which are riddled with tendencies of struggle and cooperation, as well as pressure from France, which sought to impose unfavorable terms of trade exchange on Russia. However, some authors, in spite of the facts they cite, sometimes forget about these trends, and then the relations between the two countries appear in their articles in a somewhat idealized form. G. G. Zhordania prefaced his work with a dedication to" the famous and indefatigable French diplomat Charles Dansay", and later on more than once positively assessed both his activities and the fact of establishing the French Embassy in Paris.

page 166

economic relations between France and Russia in the XVI century. The establishment and consolidation of economic and political contacts between the two major European powers at the specified time is a phenomenon of great historical significance. And G. G. Zhordania is right when he reproaches historians for underestimating these contacts in the "pre-Petrine period". At the same time, he probably should have emphasized another aspect of Franco-Russian relations at the end of the sixteenth century, as well as the activities of Danse. The point is that the French government was less likely to think of Russia as an equal trading partner when it was trying to break into Russian markets, and Danset openly expressed these tendencies of French statesmen and merchants. This, by the way, is evidenced by the materials cited by G. G. Zhordania. So, in 1575, in order to ensure the interests of the French merchants, he drew up a project to restore the French protectorate over Livonia, for which the Russian state waged a desperate and unsuccessful struggle, trying to break through to the Baltic coast. This project resembles a similar plan to capture the Russian North and the Volga trade route developed by the English government in 1612.1 Danse is not without reason counting on the difficult economic and military situation in which Russia found itself in the late 70s of the XVI century. All Danse's plans were imbued with the idea of monopolizing the Russian market. He hid the first round of the fight with England and Holland for this market. It was a struggle of European colonial predators trying to dictate their will to an economically weaker partner. And it is clear that the Russian government, while advocating equal economic contacts with European countries, carefully protected its economic and political interests. This aspect of the problem of Franco-Russian economic relations at the end of the sixteenth century was probably also worth paying attention to.

G. G. Zhordaniy's assessment of the contacts between the Russian government and France in the early 1980s, which were described as a definite step towards a political union between the two countries, also raises doubts. It is known that Ivan IV sought a political alliance with England and the Empire to strengthen his position in the fight against the Polish-Lithuanian state. He "was not averse to making the same alliance with the French king," writes G. G. Jordania. This statement is very problematic. First, there were no sufficient grounds for such an alliance: relations between France and Russia were only being established. Meanwhile, similar proposals made by Russia to England and the Empire had the real basis of long-standing and strong ties and, most importantly, a certain interest of both European countries in strengthening these relations. Secondly, it was in the 70s of the 16th century that relations between France and Russia reached a certain tension in connection with the struggle for the Polish-Lithuanian throne. As the materials of Russian embassies to Western countries, in particular, to the Empire, show, the brief appearance of Henry of Anjou (the future Henry III) on the Polish throne caused a real storm in Moscow and Vienna, which put forward their own applicants for the Polish-Lithuanian crown. Russian ambassadors on their way to the Empire were specifically instructed not to go" to the emperor's table "under any circumstances if French," Lithuanian " or Turkish diplomats appeared there. 2 The French, therefore, were put on a par with Russia's traditional enemies, the Porte and the Polish - Lithuanian State. Echoes of these conflicts were heard later, when Stefan Batory became the Polish-Lithuanian king. Finally, an analysis of the letter of Henry III to Ivan IV, which G. G. Zhordania skillfully reconstructed on the basis of other sources, shows that it was not about a political alliance, but about the traditional friendly ties that Russia had with other states at that time. At that time, the first sign of Russia's desire for a political alliance or for discussing complex political issues was the clause on the obligatory exchange of embassies (or "great embassies"), which was supposed to be followed by the following:-

1 See I. Lyubimenko. English project of 1612 on the subordination of the Russian North to the protectorate of King James I. B / m, 60.

2 "Monuments of diplomatic relations of ancient Russia with foreign powers", vol. I. SPB. 1851, pp. 596, 800, 854.

page 167

repeat "finishing" (i.e. the contract) both in Moscow and in the capital of a friendly state. In this case, it is an abstract conversation about "friendship" and" love " in general. Moreover, other documents refer to the" final agreement " with France in the most general form (p. 34).

In the article by S. M. Troitsky, the reader is again confronted with the problem of the nature of Franco-Russian relations. This question is raised by the author in passing in connection with the description of the negotiations between the Russian ambassador in Paris, Baron Schleinitz, and John Law. But, as can be seen from the materials of the article, Law mainly found out the possibility for French merchants to get the right of passage through the territory of Russia to Persia, India, China, and Japan. The French financier was interested in the position of France's long-standing competitors in the Russian market - England and the Netherlands - and sought to eliminate dangerous rivals (pp. 111-113). All this, writes S. M. Troitsky, "testifies to the breadth of views and far-sightedness of the head of French domestic policy" (p. 112). Yes, but only, of course, from the point of view of France. As early as the sixteenth century, Russia repulsed England's equally far-sighted attempts to seize the Volga Route and the passage to the eastern countries. Later, a similar idea was made by Colbert, who included the question of the transit of French merchants to the East through the territory of Russia in the draft Franco-Russian trade treaty .3 And in the eighteenth century, when negotiating with Lo, Russian diplomats were primarily interested in whether he would be able to enter the Russian service and "compose and establish the Russian mining business and the Persian trading company in the Russian state himself" (p. 118). S. M. Troitsa correctly notes in conclusion that Peter I would first of all be able to enter the Russian service. I tried to use John Law's experience and energy to develop industry and trade in Russia itself (p. 12). Thus, even in the eighteenth century, Franco-Russian economic relations were filled not only with a desire to cooperate profitably, but also with deep, sometimes very antagonistic contradictions.

V. G. Sirotkin and T. D. Krupina were more correct in their assessment of the nature of Franco-Russian economic cooperation at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. Their research shows that the French economic policy towards Russia at that time was characterized by the same interest and the same desire to dictate its own terms to the partner. Russia also pursues its own interests in relations with France.

The inconsistency of economic relations between the two countries during the late sixteenth and early twentieth centuries, a contradiction that is very similar, despite the historical conditions that gave rise to it, is hardly necessary to abstract, especially since none of the articles published in the collection are based on their own materials (but in some cases, unfortunately, not on their conclusions). it doesn't give the slightest reason to do so.

In conclusion, I would like to note that the very fact of the appearance of such a unified publication, prepared by French and Soviet historians, serves as an excellent example of scientific cooperation within the framework of successfully developing scientific and cultural ties between France and the USSR.

A. N. Sakharov

3 See " Travels of Russian Ambassadors of the XVI-XVII centuries. Article lists". Moscow-L. 1954, pp. 273-274.

page 168

Permanent link to this publication: