La Russie in 1839: Marquis de Custine - Essay Example

?Analysis: La Russie in 1839: Marquis de Custine Introduction Based on historical perceptions and analysis, Bradfield argues that Europe can be broadly classified into two distinct segments based on political ideology and socio-economic factors (95). Since the 1500s, the western part of Europe had undergone rapid transformation into an industrial powerhouse. Countries were embarking on an era of colonization and extra-territorial domination. New lands such as India and the Americas had been discovered and annexation was the norm of the day. In contrast, the Eastern segment of Europe was beset by autocratic rulers and corrupt administrative systems. Russia, the largest country that spanned across two continents, was ruled by the Czars who plundered the economy and followed the policy of subjugation and oppression. Differences underlying these two segments have been well documented by historians since the early 1600s. However, Todd believes that none can describe a distant and unknown society like a traveler who live and experience new societies and cultures (183). According to him, a traveler is in a much better position than other classes of individuals including historians at widening one’s perspective and understanding on an alien society. The fact that we do not live or think alike necessitates the need to spend time in a different society in order to gain a basic foundation to write on perceived differences. In this context, the works of Marquis de Custine, a renowned French traveler, are widely recognized for showcasing the Russian society and its differences from the mainstream European culture during the 19th century. Burbank states that a traveler is forced to live and adapt to a new environment (190). Based on this understanding, this paper analyzes one such work of De Custine and evaluates his comparisons between two diverse and distinct societies. Besides evaluating his opinion and inferences on Russia, the argument also shows that some of his writings could have been biased. Argument According to Ellis, the perception of ‘Russia’ as a problem does not begin with its rise as a communist power during the early part of the twentieth century (156). In fact, this belief began much earlier during the nineteenth century through the thoughts and writings of numerous individuals who warned that Europe would have to contend with this troubled society for many decades to come. One of the most popular and widely read works on Russia is the book titled ‘Le Russie en 1839’ by the noted French traveler, Marquis de Custine. This book describes the experiences of De Custine and his impressions during the five months he spent traveling across the Russian empire. The book has been translated into several languages including English wherein its title reads as: ‘The Empire of the Czar; a journey through eternal Russia’. According to Kohler, the book is read even today simply for the reason that it provides a detailed account of the Russian society during the early 1800s from the perspective of the common man (42). However, a preliminary reading of this book suggests that the discussion presented is apolitical, does not rely on any theory and showcases the primary hallmark of the czarist regime – autocracy. The book explains that autocracy had been in existence since the time of the Mongols and had extended as far away as France. Based on studies by researchers like Kennan, it is clear that autocracy became a means of subjugating people and maintaining absolute grip over power (72). There is a feeling that the book somehow projects the aspirations of De Custine for a system of governance that one could admire. Ingle relies on factors such as his aristocratic upbringing, the execution of his family members for being part of the clergy and his homosexual lifestyle to answer his transformation into a conservative (168). The initial sections of the book suggest that De Custine believed in the Tsarist system and wanted a similar framework for Western Europe for the benefit of the populace. The subsequent chapters however detail the rapid changes in this ideology as De Custine traveled through Russia and saw firsthand the atrocities and hardship suffered by local citizens (Maugras 95). In fact, the feeling of oppression was evident from the moment he stepped upon Russian soil. Mosely argues that the only person who could ever be free in such a society was the Autocrat alone (43). The rest are mere slaves who are condemned to a life of struggle and oppression. De Custine also expresses surprise that the average Russian did not understand feelings like open-mindedness, free thought or democracy (Kohler 78). Some of his remarks however, that Russians did not understand the joy of pleasure or that the hierarchical system in Russian society segregated Aristocrats from their servants and slaves reflects more on his growing displeasure and frustration rather than present an objective and informed outlook (Bradfield 125). De Custine’s accusation that Russians were obscured from the outside world is rather unfounded since Czar Nicholas I faced a rebellion immediately after his ascent to the throne. (Todd notes that this rebellion was led by educated Russian Army officers who had drawn inspiration from the Napoleonic wars in France (64). In fact, many of them had lived and studied in Western Europe and could clearly see the distinction between both worlds. The openness and liberalism sweeping across Western Europe motivated them to seek a change in the autocratic fabric of Russia (Burbank 39). Amongst all social classes, De Custine appears to dislike the servants, predominantly for the deeds they committed on behalf of their masters. Ellis alleges that De Custine cast them as accomplices in crime and accuses them falsely of being instrumental in inflicting misery and suffering on the people on behalf of their masters (178). In reality, the servants had no other choice but to obey the orders of their masters. The book projects these factors as dangerous to the larger European society by claiming that the civilized world could be annexed by barbarians and that Russia was on the verge of a people’s revolution. Kennan says that the events leading to the Russian Revolution of 1917 clearly signify this prediction (57). In contrast, Ingle contradicts this viewpoint by citing that most kingdoms in Western Europe had become global powers by this time and Russia was no match for its western counterparts (183). De Custine’s description also fails to take note of the westernization program adopted by Peter the Great, and thereby does not take cognizance of Russia’s steps towards a modernized society. The book does not discuss about the two contrasting groups (namely those who favored an alignment towards the west and those who prescribed an adherence to traditions of the past) that had an influential role in Russian politics and thereby had an external role in the actions of the Czar. The latter group known as ‘Slavophiles’ was opposed to Russian bureaucracy and abhorred ‘individualism’, which was popular in the west (Todd 196). Burbank argues that De Custine overlooked Russia’s involvement in the ‘Holy Alliance’ to protect Europe in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars and thereby based his conclusions on insufficient facts (54). De Custine therefore suggests that the only individual enjoying freedom in the whole of Russia was the emperor himself. He further argues that the czar remained totally ignorant of the economic and political upheavals brewing across the nation and was plainly obsessed at having his writ followed. Thus, rather than emerge as a graceful and admirable ruler, the czar earned the distinction of a dictator. Mosely supports this argument by suggesting that this insistence on loyalty and self-enforcement led to a deep sense of insecurity and mistrust on the part of the emperor (146). The emperor always suspected that disobedience was always round the corner, which ruptured the very nature of his administration throughout the nation. Bradfield adds that every individual in the Russian society had turned into a slave for the emperor and had to conform to his sovereign authority (29). The most potent weapon of the ruling elite was fear and oppression. De Custine’s work provides instances showcasing a lack of nationalism or patriotism among the Russian people and argues that corruption became the norm of the society. According to Ellis, unlike Europeans who were bound by a common ideology Russians had developed a deep sense of mistrust not just amongst themselves, but also towards foreigners (146). Thus, De Custine characterizes Russians as an unconfident people and accuses them of not being capable of grasping the changes revolutionizing the west. Conclusion From an overall perspective, ‘Le Russie in 1839’ describes the sense of inferiority that Russia was undergoing due to the ineptitude of its political system. The economy was suffering at the hands of corrupt ruling elite that believed in absolute power and authority. The book also provides insights into various other issues like the breakdown of law and order, social injustice and autocracy. Many of these problems had indeed been witnessed by Western Europe. But unlike the Russians, people in Western Europe had realized the importance of democracy and freedom and had contributed in initiating this change. While the book is rich in content and drives home its core points, there is also evidence of a certain bias on the part of De Custine given the discrimination he faced on a constant basis during his travels across Russia. References 1. Bradfield, H. A Russian's reply to the marquis de Custine's "Russia in 1839"... Columbia University, 2010. 2. Burbank, Jane. Imperial Russia: new histories for the Empire. Indiana University Press, 1998. 3. Ellis, Edward. Russia. Spain. University of California, 2006. 4. Ingle, Harold. Nesselrode and the Russian rapprochement with Britain, 1836-1844. University of California Press, 2006. 5. Kennan, George. The Marquis de Custine and his Russia in 1839. Pennsylvania State University, 2003. 6. Kohler, Phyllis. Journey for our time: the Russian journals of the Marquis de Custine. New York: Regnery Gateway, 2008. 7. Maugras, Gaston. Memoirs of Delphine de Sabran, Marquise de Custine. London: Nabu Press, 2010. 8. Mosely, Philip. Russian diplomacy and the opening of the Eastern question in 1838 and 1839. University of Virginia, 2009. 9. Todd, William. Literature and society in imperial Russia, 1800-1914. Stanford University Press, 2008. Read More