This article was downloaded by: [Aristotle University of]On: 11 September 2012, At: 04:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Central Asian SurveyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccas20

Russian self‐identificationand travelers' descriptions ofthe ottoman empire in thefirst half of the nineteenthcenturyPeter R. Weisensel aa Professor of History, Macalester College,Saint‐Paul, Minnesota

Version of record first published: 13 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Peter R. Weisensel (1991): Russian self‐identification andtravelers' descriptions of the ottoman empire in the first half of the nineteenthcentury, Central Asian Survey, 10:4, 65-85

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02634939108400757

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or makeany representation that the contents will be complete or accurate orup to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher

shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, orcosts or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Central Asian Survey, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 65-85, 1991 0263-4937/91 J3.00 + 0.0OPrinted in Great Britain Pergamon Press pic

© 1991 Society for Central Asian Studies

Russian Self-Identification andTravelers' Descriptions of the Ottoman

Empire in the First Half of theNineteenth Century

PETER R. WEISENSEL

Scholars have long emphasized the inadequacies of observations byforeigners as a reliable source for a country's history and culture. Inthe nineteenth century particularly, foreign observers often knewneither the language nor the culture, yet they thought nothing of writingtwo-volume accounts evaluating everything on the basis of a two-weeksojourn. They rightfully provoked the lament of the Germangeographer, Karl Ritter, speaking of the spate of travels to the HolyLand, that one had to pull apart heaps of rubbish before finding oneflake of gold.

It is not the purpose here to demonstrate the uselessness of Russiandescriptions of the Ottoman East as reliable historical sources.1 Thegoal of this paper is to demonstrate, first, that Russian travelers describ-ing the Ottoman Empire in the first half of the nineteenth centuryreflect not the "reality" of Ottoman life, but their own cultural andsocial context; and second, that the content and focus of the Russianinterpretation change by the turn of the century in a manner syn-chronized with changes in Russian life.

Keeping control over one's sources requires some paring of the Rus-sian eyewitness descriptions of the Ottoman Empire, since there havebeen counted 1152 accounts for the entire century and 366 accountsfor the period 1800-1853.2 Here the attention is focused on onedistinct group of traveler-writers, the service cohort, rather than theclergy of the podat-p&y'mg, classes. The service cohorts were the mostfrequent travelers and commentators on the Ottoman Empire, andthey probably comprised the bulk of the readership as well. Moreover,their works probably had some hearing in the ruling circles in theministries, as their works were often connected with their service inthe East and were based on on-site information.3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

66 Peter R. Weisensel

The travels consulted come from the period 1800-1853, roughlyfrom the end of the reign of Catherine II to the start of the EasternWar of 1853-1856. The service cohort's dominance of writing aboutthe Ottoman East was at its height at that time,4 but it would besubmerged by the commercial journalistic approach starting in the1860s. In all, 25 published accounts of journeys to the Ottoman Em-pire taken between 1800 and 1853 by members of the service cohortwere consulted for this article.

It is important to remember that, by the early nineteenth century,Russian views of the Turks and Islam had gone through a considerableevolution. Indicative of the Russian concerns of the early eighteenthcentury was the account of the Ottoman state presented to Peter I in1703 by Petr Andreevich Tolstoi, one of Peter's "fledglings" and theRussian emissary to the Sublime Porte, 1701 —1714.5 Of the 16chapters in Tolstoi's report, each responding to a question sent byPeter, eight dealt with matters of either security or warfare — forti-fications, the state of the army and navy, and potential sources ofintelligence. To Tolstoi the Ottoman state was threatening most ofall for its ability to inculcate fierceness and military virtues into itspopulation.6 Tolstoi knew little about the inner workings of theTurkish government and confined himself to descriptions of the dutiesof the chief officials at court.7 Nor was there a place given to Islam,to which he could have attributed the Turkish army's fierceness inbattle against the Christians, but he failed to do so, despite beingsomewhat of an Orthodox zealot, perhaps because of the lack ofspecific interest in Peter's original inquiry.8

The metamorphosis which took place over the next two generationsin Russians' interpretation of information and their foci of interestin the Ottoman Empire was clearly documented in the account of FedorEmin, A Short Description of the Ancient and Contemporary Stateof the Ottoman Porte, which appeared initially in 1769.9 Emin wasprobably the son of a Polish or Ukrainian slave girl by a certain HassanBey, the commander of Ottoman forces in Algeria in the 1750s, andhad a considerable advantage in knowledge over Tolstoi. Nevertheless,his work reflected the changed priorities in thinking about the OttomanEmpire among the service cohort (Emin was, as Tolstoi had been, anofficial in the College of Foreign Affairs) by the reign of CatherineII. Emin provided a rich store of observations on all aspects of Turkishlife such as had been available only in western publications previous-ly. His judgments of the Turks' ethics and morality were not unflat-tering ["The Turks are brave and proud," (p. 8) and although thereare drinkers and exploiters for profit among them "they are godlypeople" (p. 51)].

Most revealing for us were Emin's contrasts of the Russians and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 67

Turks on their comparative "Europeanness." He placed the Russianbureaucracy squarely with the Europeans when he contrasted Russiawith the Turks: "Their offices are so strange that they cannot evenbe compared with our (offices) and they seem foul to the Euro-peans."10 This was a case of blatant self-serving propaganda, sincethe abuses by the Russian bureaucracy were well known at the time;the Russian bureaucracy bore little resemblance to the contemporarycivil service in Prussia. Moreover, Russians would have been com-forted to know that Emin classified Russian theater and music withthe West's; Russian theater and music were not at all like the Turkish.The latter "lacked decency and would not be suitable for Europeanladies," and "[it] is made by different strange instruments which servemore to disturb than to sweeten thought."11

Next to the bureaucracy, Emin devoted most space to the Turkishmilitary, as Tolstoi had done. Emin, though, used Russia's victoriesin the Eastern War (1768-1774) to assure the Russians that their choiceof western rationalism and science (such as it was in Russia at the time)cast Russia on the side of history's winners. Unlike Tolstoi, Eminthought that the Russians had nothing to fear from the Turks. Havingin mind Suvorov's victorious sieges of Khotin and Silistra, carried offby Russia's modern artillery units, he rhetorically prodded the sultanto recognize the obvious and surrender:

"As your soldiers do not take steps to correct their insufficiencies so do thoseinsufficiencies multiply . . . Now the most manly and most important mattersdepend on reason when your leaders. . . seek who knows what. . . [The Turk]has already seen the consequences of his impertinence and the successes of Rus-sian arms."12

Fedor Emin's work is characteristic of the eighteenth century, adher-ing to the principle of the perfectibility of all peoples. For Emin theTurks had only to take the example of Catherine II to heart; if theycopied the example of the West and applied it in the Ottoman Empirethey could restore the luster to their realm. His successors, however,used every new Russian victory and Turkish defeat as proof of a newdominant view that the Turks were incapable of reform and their statewas destined to collapse.

The opinions and foci of attention of the traveler-writers of the firsthalf of the nineteenth century repeated some of the ideas expressedby Emin, but essentially they reflected the interests of the writers oftrie state service cohort. We will concentrate on four clusters of topicswhich crop up repeatedly in the travel accounts: the authenticity andgodliness of Islam and its adherents; the manner and working of theTurkish government; the level of danger presented to Russia by theOttoman military; and applied science and technology in the OttomanEmpire.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

68 Peter R. Weisensel

ISLAM AND ITS ADHERENTS

There was no unity among the Russians on the strength of the peo-ple's commitment to Islamic teachings. One army officer who wasassigned to the Smyrna in the 1830s to conduct a survey of thegeography, society and military potential of the Ottoman Empire, sens-ed that strict adherence to the sharia was weakening. Not many Turksobserved the dietary and drinking laws: "Only the ulema, the old andthose wishing to garner the respect of others, in the main dervishesand women," observed the laws of Islam faithfully. The others moreor less excused their nonobservance on some pretext or another.13

Most Russian observers, however, thought Islam was capable of enor-mous strength in moving people against the Christians. A diplomat,M. A. Gamazov, found Islam responsible for whipping up "fanaticalexhibits against foreigners,"14 and that it would always be so:"Turks remain Turks." "Fanaticism" was used commonly to describeMuslim attitudes towards Christians.15 Islamic theology was no morethan an amalgam of Christian and Jewish teachings with Arab sen-suality. Russian traveler-writers rarely admitted that the Turks couldbe godly people. Vladimir Davydov came to the defense of Turks whomhe saw devoutly saying their prayers on-board ship amid the sneersof their European fellow passengers: "If Turks are not ashamed oftheir sins then why are we ashamed of the truth?"16 Only one of thewriters, the army officer cited above, acknowledged that Islam couldvary depending on spatial or temporal circumstances,17 all the othersimplying that Islam was everywhere uniform.

A good deal has been written about the hostility of the West towardsIslamic societies, and A. Kh. Rafikov has demonstrated how quicklythe major western studies of the Ottoman Empire and Islam weretranslated into Russian.18 Considering the important role taken byFrance and England in setting models for Russian literature in the eight-eenth century, we can assume that those interested in Turkey read withconsiderable interest the translated works of Volney, Bell, Golderman,Bushing, d'Ohsson, and even the notorious Demetrius Cantemir,although Russia was rich in her own anti-Islamic and anti-Turkishtraditions.19 If a western presence shaped the Russian formation ofcategories for describing Islam, we see also mimicked in Russia thefixation of the Europeans on certain colorful, fantastic and eroticaspects of Islamic life, namely the slave market where beautiful womenwere sold as slaves, the harem and its routines, and most important,Islam's sanction of polygamy. Virtually every one of the traveler-writersencountered here commented on polygamy. Only one, the officerMikhail Vrochenko, presented it in a way to diminish its erotic content:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 69

"Only wealthy people or people who live luxuriously have more than one wife;almost no one has four; in the middle class a man with two wives is alreadya rarity."20

To the others polygamy was a sign of the Muslims' moral depravity,but simultaneously it was speculated upon, thus providing a noncen-sorable titillation for Russian male readers. The speculation was oftenextended, 5-10 pages,21 and quite fantastic: the perplexity of a manwith four wives and multiple servant-girls under his complete authori-ty;22 the ease with which a wealthy man could dispose of the offspr-ing of liaisons with his slave girls;23 or what it would be like to getinside a harem disguised as a doctor.24 Comparisons of the beautifulwomen of the East with the beauties of Russia were conducted.25

And incidents occurred, real or apocryphal, which must have enlivenedthe imagination of many male Russian readers. Nikolai Vsevolzhskii,a governor of the Tver' province, recounted how a Greek womanclimbed onto his balcony at the hotel in Constantinople; anxious topractise his Greek, he asked her to sing some songs, which she did.Then, however, she wanted to talk about ladies' fashions, andVsevolozhskii asked her to remain silent on the balcony until he com-pleted his business with tradesmen in the suite. We do not know whathappened next but he allowed much room for speculation: "Thebalcony became almost my harem."26

Ironically, the regime had a role, however indirect, in the propaga-tion of this vaguely erotic information. The Censorship Statute of 1828,under which most of this literature was investigated, banned workswhich endangered the faith, the throne or the good morals and per-sonal honor of the citizenry.27 The censors might well have strickenthe sexual innuendoes under the charge to protect the good moralsof the citizenry. The feature of the statute which saved these passagesfor the Russian male reader was the order to censors that they mustnot read meaning into the text, nor alter the text without the author'spermission. The Orthodox church might have filled the gap, but theboards for censorship of religious literature considered only books ofpredominantly religious content and not travels, even though the travelshad some religious content.28 Later in Nicholas's reign, after thePolish uprising and the Revolutions of 1848, censorship departed fromthe charge to investigate only what was there and not ban accordingto the censor's interpretation. These erotic innuendoes continued toappear in Russian travel literature, though now probably because ofcensorship's preoccupation with politics and revolution, the maintargets of investigation being liberal political ideas and comments onthe issues involved with "Official Nationality."29

In spite of the Russians' condemnation of Islamic "fanaticism" and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

70 Peter R. Weisensel

its hatred of Christianity, these travelers of the service class, with fewexceptions, showed little concern for Christianity in the East. Some,most conspicuously A. S. Norov, K. M. Bazili and A. N. Murav'ev,defined the differences between East and West essentially in religiousterms: the Ottomans were fundamentally different from Russiansbecause they adhered to the teachings of Islam and the animosity con-tinued unabated despite Turkey's repeated military setbacks.30 Oneof the writers, a Russian army officer held captive by the Turks dur-ing the Eastern War of 1806-1812, had a strikingly devout and sim-ple faith, much like that encountered in the pilgrim accounts of earliercenturies. The officer, Nikolai Klement, reported seeing a miracle inthe prison in Constantinople: an Armenian prisoner was near deathby starvation, but on Easter Sunday (1807) he jumped up, fit andhealthy.31

Far better represented among the travelers is the attitude that religionis less important than it once was. Bazili is a typical representativeof the view that Islam's power to inspire people was withering underthe weight of their misfortunes:

"From time to time acts of fanaticism crop up among the Turks, but with everynew defeat in war and after every new domestic misfortune . . . their fanaticismis like a sick fit, which is gradually weakening along with the strength of thepatient."32

But many pieces of evidence indicate that these Russians also dimin-ished Orthodoxy's importance as an issue to divide Muslim andChristian in the Ottoman Empire. Clearly religion was not particularlyimportant to them personally. A naval officer, Satin, wrote of a visitto Palestine and Jerusalem which was clearly not for religiouspurposes: he and his brother officers had already seen all the sites inthe Athens area and they were ready for a "change of scene." Hewould not bother to describe the Christian holy places of Jerusalem,he wrote, as they were "already written about excessively." TheRussian pilgrims traditionally took an overland journey to the JordanRiver during Passion Week, to ritually bathe away their sins in prepara-tion for Easter. Satin made the journey, but when he reached theJordan he merely had a swim:

"It was mid-day and the heat was awful. I went for a swim. I was among thefirst to jump in and float on my back, gladly soaking up the coolness of thestream."33

Neither did the officer Vronchenko think religion was crucial; to himthe most important difference dividing subjects of the sultan was notIslam and Christianity but being among the ruling establishment or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 71

among the ruled.34 An anonymous naval officer visiting Syria in the1840s thought the essential distinction among people was being a towndweller or a mountain dweller, the former being terribly lazy and lack-ing useful skills, and the latter being cunning and often working forthe European consuls to acquire the Europeans' privileges, especiallyfreedom from Ottoman taxation. He essentially identified, then, theChristian Arabs with privilege and the Muslim Arabs with depriva-tion.35 Even religious zealots like Norov, Murav'ev and the diplomatand oriental scholar, IPia Berezin, saw virtually no difference in thebehaviour of Christian and Muslim Arabs. To Murav'ev the ArabChristian population of Bethlehem bore the same general characteristicsof the entire race: "greed, lies and craftiness remain the distinguishingmarks of their character."36 Berezin saw the Christians' flaw not inlies or craftiness but in the pursuit of their narrow self interest, whichmade them fundamentally the same as their Muslim overlords:

"To the extent that there are no common goals in the East, no one even bothersto disguise self service with the sonorous name of the general good. Sauve quipeut is almost the motto of a childishly decrepit people . . . To my extremeregret the Christians in the East also sometimes are partially drawn into thiscommon current . . ."37

Berezin added that the Turkish government and the Turkish nation,rather than Islam, conspired to hold the Christians in subjugation,and that even the Christian patriarchates were part of the Ottomanpower structure, having their own interests to protect.38 Mostobservers, however, emphasized the heroism of the patriarchs'advocacy of the Orthodox Christians' interests in Constantinople andtheir extreme poverty, owing to the need to pay bribes to achieve thoseends, not the patriarchs' position as tax collectors or executors ofTurkish law, as Berezin did.

It is evident from the above that secular attitudes in the writingsof the service cohort began to erode the definition of peoples onreligious grounds. The Russian service cohort exposed the ambiguousduality of the Orthodox hierarchy's situation in the Ottoman Empire,simultaneously ruling and ruled. The secularists never obliteratedentirely the older view. But to highlight the place of "process" andevolution in Russian thinking, it is worthwhile to identify the tensionbetween the old and new views.

As secularized observation grew and purely religious observationwaned, secular observation began to assume its own ritual or predic-table dimension. Much of it began in the Russians' attention to theunusual and exotic in Islam, especially in the vaguely erotic. A pat-tern developed in which the same events were witnessed and the sameplaces visited or commented upon by the travelers in their putevye

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

72 Peter R. Weisensel

zapiski, the harem of the Seraglio, the Constantinople slave market,a tekke of the whirling dervishes, the street life in an Ottoman cityduring Ramadan, etc. The repetition of themes and subjects suggestsa reading public which had come to expect comment on certain things,and to whose tastes the traveler-writers catered. This reading publicgrew in the first half of the nineteenth century,39 and it acquired ayearning for fresh information about Egypt and Turkey, countrieswhich were in the European limelight. It was expected of them becausethese "set pieces" had appeared in European literature of a similartype, which set the standard for the genre. These "set pieces" remained,but gradually, under prodding by literary nationalism, particularly thereviewers for the conservative "thick" St Petersburg journals, thetraveler-writers developed their own distinctive Russian approach tothings they saw in the East, which meant usually discourses onRussian-Middle Eastern cultural and historical links.40

Russian traveler-writers of the 1830s and 1840s began to becometourists. The repetition of events and scenes suggests that a signifi-cant portion of what they wrote was determined by factors externalto experiences of the journey. This might constitute a layer of infor-mation which we can call "tourist" information. The tourist is onewho visits places predetermined to be important. He arranges hisitinerary with "specialists" who guide him around the sights, he isunable to understand the significance of what he sees, and he settlesfor superficiality, not having the time or inclination to make a seriousinquiry.41

The Russian traveler-writer was not the same as a modern tourist,but elements of the "tourist" experience were present. He chose hisstops from a short list of alternatives: Constantinople, Bursa, Smyrna,Rhodes, Cyprus, Beirut, perhaps Damascus, Jerusalem and the HolyPlaces, and Cairo. He was met at the dock by runners, offering hotels,translators and guides.42 Under the guidance of these local experts hetook in the sights, without ever really preparing himself for what hewould see.43 The travelers commented on the same events, scenes andinstitutions: the harem, slave market, polygamy, dirt in the streets,the warm weather, people's clothing and notable local architecturalmonuments. Professional life was becoming more demanding underNicholas I as gradually more exacting standards for promotion andbureaucratic procedures were imposed.44 Perhaps official life hadbecome so tedious that the service caste looked increasingly to travel,or vicarious travel if they could not afford the real thing, through travelliterature, as an escape. Indirect information suggests that the numbersof well-financed travelers to Constantinople increased, and they alwaysseemed to find other Russian travelers there, as well. Published guidesfor visitors to Constantinople appeared, beckoning travelers by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 73

ing travelers by minimizing the inconveniences; a journey from Odessato Constantinople was like an outing to Peterhof:

"In the eyes of the inhabitants of both capitals Constantinople and the Crimeahave become already like appendages to Odessa, like Peterhof [to StPetersburg]."45

In considering Russian travelers' views of Islam one important patternrepeatedly appears. A perception of inferiority relative to Europeanculture prodded the Russians to repeatedly differentiate themselvesfrom their perceived inferiors on the same scale, the Turks, in orderto make their burden less weighty. The traveler-writers of the servicecohort probably felt this responsibility acutely, since they perceivedthemselves as the nation's most enlightened element.

TURKISH MILITARY FORCES

In spite of the fact that many of these traveler-writers were eithermilitary men or had been in the military, there was a marked fall ininterest in the Turkish army among them when compared with thetraveler-writers of the Catherinian era. There were those who continuedto record the condition of the fortresses and the strength of the Turkishforces at the mouth of the Bosphorus.46 At times of diplomaticrapprochement the appraisal of the Turkish military could be respect-ful, such as the naval officer Egor Metaksa's comments on an inspec-tion of the Turkish fleet in 1799, Turkey now an ally of Russia againstNapoleon:

"Although the Turkish fleet is still far from the level maintained by the Euro-pean powers, one must fairly acknowledge the efforts and assistance which thePorte has applied for the improvement of its fleet since the Kutchuk KainardjiPeace."47

The general tone though was contemptuous. The Turkish forces werepoorly dressed and trained, according to even the standards of an ar-tist, Vladimir Davydov. He commented on the poor appearance ofthe Ottoman Life Guards outside the mosque where the sultan offeredFriday prayers:

"If one realizes that they belong to the guards and are dressed so on holidays,then one imagines what must be the poor condition of the uniforms of theTurkish army on ordinary days."48

A. N. Murav'ev thought that the Muslim forces lacked a Europeansense of discipline:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

74 Peter R. Weisensel

"I would send these busurmany to the commander of our Mounted Life Guardsas orderlies. He would teach them order, but here they do what they want."49

The juxtaposition of Russian order to Turkish (or Arab) disorderencountered here may have meant more than a reassurance to theRussians that they were Europeans. Along with "fanatical," the word"wild" was often applied to Muslims, Turks or Arabs: for example,the "wildness" of a mob at Sebastiyeh,50 the "wildness" of theinhabitants of the Isthmus of Suez,51 and the "wild tribes", whorefused to accept the authority of the pasha of Damascus.52 A closereading of the context of these outbursts suggests that "wild" meantthe antithesis of European culture; where Europe penetrated"wildness" retreated. To one traveler, the trade of the eastern Mediter-ranean with Europe "reduced the wild fanaticism of the coast,"53

and the mixing of European traders with the Turkish population ofSmyrna "diminished somewhat the fanaticism of the Muslims."54 Itwas natural for the Russian civil servants to make these associations,since their careers depended on order and discipline. There may havebeen in their minds, though, an antithesis to the Turks and Arabs whichran deeper still. In A. S. Norov's reaction to the Bedouins we findrevealed the deep-seated Russian bias of agriculturalists againstpastoralists. To Norov, cultivation was a foil to the "wildness" ofthe pastoralists of the Isthmus of Suez:

"After two and a half hours' travel a valley cultivated in grain opened beforeus, which demonstrated the already moderating wildness of the Bedouins."55

A new level of self assurance was reached when the Russians couldpatronize the Turks. Metaksa, for example, offered proof to the Rus-sians that they were Europeans, when he observed that the Turks couldregard them with awe and respect. In 1799, Metaksa recalled, AdmiralUshakov made a brief address to a group of naval dignitaries inConstantinople:

"The Turkish officers and officials present were very pleased hearing the praiseof Admiral Ushakov, their nemesis in the last war."56

A similar situation arose in 1833 when Russian troops camped on theBosphorus to defend Constantinople against an Egyptian attack. Thediplomat A. O. Duhamel remembered with pride how the Turks lookedwith awe at the Russians as their deliverers.57 The Turks' actual feel-ings and the actual state of their military forces, however, remainedunknown to Duhamel. The purpose was to reassure the Russian ser-vice class that their efforts in disciplining and training themselves tobecome full partners with Europe had succeeded; the Turks needed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 75

to remain backward, and now thankful as well, to provide the Rus-sians with a point of comparison.

TURKISH GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

A striking characteristic of the Russian traveler-writers' comment onTurkish government and administration was that the coverage, notto speak of analysis, was so meager. The traveler-writers' position instate service made them natural observers of the Turkish administra-tion, yet they failed to fulfil what would seem a professionalcuriosity. The minimal comment usually consisted of a discourse onthe responsibilities and powers of the sultan and various courtofficials.58 Sketches of actual individuals were sometimes added,especially the colorful ones, such as Ali Pasha of Yannina, MohammedPasha, governor of Mosul, and the sultans Selim III and Mahmut II.Only two writers of those consulted, Konstantin Bazili and MikhailVronchenko, attempted an explanation of the mechanics of govern-ing the provinces or attaining a position and rising in service. Theyboth emphasized the importance of personal connections for a posi-tion, bribery and an ability to deliver the prescribed amount of taxmoney from one's province in order to stay in office, and hence, thebureaucrat's vulnerability.59 They attributed the decline of Ottomanpower to the breakdown of the taxation system,60 whereas othersassociated it with a religious disinclination of Muslims toenlightenment.61

Vronchenko and Bazili might be criticized for the shallowness oftheir explanation, many other factors were involved in the Ottomandecline, but their effort was free of arrogance and sectarian rancor,and they did as well in their commentaries as contemporary westernEuropean commentators. We should focus, however, on the numberswho said nothing at all about governmental life and seek anexplanation.

One obvious explanation is that travel-writers did not strive to writepolitics, but books for entertaining the educated public, which wasbecoming more interested in exotic and colorful places and not inlessons in administration. Another explanation is born out by inter-nal evidence from the accounts themselves. Most Russian service-cohortwriters learned piteously little about Ottoman government because theywere isolated from the Ottomans, despite traveling in their midst. Themost solid appraisals came from Bazili, who had grown up in Con-stantinople and knew Turkish, and Vronchenko, who had spent threeyears in Turkey preparing his book. The others had no comparableexperiences. Moreover, they did not, for the most part, know Arabic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

76 Peter R. Weisensel

or Turkish, and depended on dragomen and guides for day-to-dayrelations with ordinary people. A writer offering advice to potentialtravelers to Constantinople in 1840 predicted "a thousand unpleasan-tries" for the traveler without an interpreter.62 Some did knowFrench, which allowed direct communication with French-speakingTurks, but that number must have been small and confined largelyto official relations. A. S. Norov, for example, thought he describedthe inner life of a typical Arab household in Acre, but it actually wasthe household of the French vice-consul, a Christian Arab with whomNorov spoke in French.63 By and large, a European traveler had toconfine his personal contacts to the Christian millet,64 since mostTurks would have nothing to do with a Christian foreigner. Bazili,who was among the best informed, lamented on the difficulty ofmeeting Muslim Turks, but he offered his advice: offer him a pipeof tobacco, "this is the same thing as a pitcher of vodka for aRussian."65 He was astonished when invited to hunt with an Ot-toman colonel on the latter's farm,66 but in the end found the bar-rier between himself and the Muslims nearly impossible to climb:

"[The Turks] are separated from all Europe by the impassable abyss of religionand nationality."67 Hence, "My information about the East is very limited;I am certain that this book should not become the subject of the criticism ofthe Orientalists."68

When left without their own first hand information, the Russians sup-plemented their notes with information from western writers, who weresometimes but not always better informed. Chateaubriand, Lamar-taine, Brayer, Reland, Potocki, Champollion, Poujoulat, Ricaut,Latreille, Barthelemy, LeQuien, Prokesch, Smith and Creuzer wereamong the western writers or travelers cited, but many Russians gaveno sources so we are left to speculate on how much was really theirown. Neither did their education or service particularly encourage thestudy of the Islamic states. The first lectures in Islamic law would notbe presented until 1872 at St Petersburg University, far too late tobenefit any writing before the Eastern War of 1853-1856.69

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Much that was true of the Russian interpretation of Islamic institu-tions and the Turkish military applied to the Russians' appraisal ofTurkish modernization. Generally, Turkish efforts were put in anegative light, judged on their failings rather than their achievements.When the Russian fleet appeared at the mouth of the Dardanelles in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 77

the Eastern War of 1768-1774, the Turks, according to Bazili, knowingnothing of modern geography, could not comprehend how it hadoccurred since they knew Russia lacked any ports on the Mediterra-nean Sea.70 They were "touchingly simple-minded" when it came tomodern science, according to the Russian doctor Rafalovich, who wasin service in Constantinople. Turkish women believed, Rafalovich re-counted, that taking a woman's pulse could determine whether or notshe was pregnant and what the sex of the child would be, and "theywould blush quite readily, particularly the young women, when theywere asked to show their tongues."71 Another writer reported thatEnglish naval officers, who were training the new Turkish naval per-sonnel, were leaving Turkey, complaining of the suspicion of the Turksand their slowness to learn.72 Bazili recognized that the youngofficers greeted the new reforms of Mahmut II differently from theirfathers, "though they still are barbarians."73 The reforms were thecreation of only one man, Mahmut II, wrote Vsevolozhskii, and theywere bound to fail because the people were indifferent to everything,and hence saw no reason to change anything.74 The East wastimeless, hence incapable of reform, according to the diplomatGamazov:

"Ten years in the life of the East is less than ten minutes in the life of theWest."75

The explanation lay in the strictures of Islam.

"As long as Stambul is for the Muslims of the world [wrote Gamazov] thesanctuary of Islam by right, the Dar-ul-Islam, . . .then we will await in vainany substantive change in Turkey which would place her on a par with the Euro-pean powers."76

A heightened effort was made again to distance Russia from theOttoman experience. Casual observers may liken Mahmut II to Russia'sPeter I, Vsevolozhskii warned, but it was a false analogy. Peter I wasnot afraid to use western experts, but as Mahmut II would not hire"renegades," the Turks would never have a modern army and theOttoman state would collapse.77 Mahmut II was obstinate, strong-willed and self-reliant, Bazili admitted, but still it would be flatteringto compare him with Peter I.78

This paper has associated attitudes toward the Ottomans and Islamand the domestic situation of the civil service cohort. A second objectiveof the paper cannot be pursued in the detail of the first here; but itcan be demonstrated that these attitudes evolved, becoming quitedifferent by the last decade of the nineteenth and the first decade of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

78 Peter R. Weisensel

the twentieth centuries, although in keeping with changes in the realitiesof life and service of the bureaucratic cohort.

The service cohort in the early nineteenth century constituted aneducated portion of Russian society, an ambiguous position indeed.For although they received positions of power and responsibility andprobably thought it justified in their individual cases, Russia as a nationfaced a considerable climb to reach the European apex. A reading ofthe eastern travels of these men reveals that they were actually acutelyaware that on a rational scale Europe was at the top, Turkey at thebottom, and Russia somewhere between, probably uncomfortably closeto the position of Turkey. Second, their position, based on merit, wasprecarious, constantly challenged by the traditional service systembased on family links and patronage. All the greater must have beenthe temptation to accentuate Russia's achievements. Their vigorousattempt to identify themselves as not Turkish was probably also anexercise in self-defense in the context of their efforts at home to securea merit-based bureaucracy.

By the turn of the century, however, the situation had changed. Theservice cohort's educational level had improved markedly. On the eveof the Crimean War 18 per cent of the State Council had a highereducation, 22 per cent of the Committee of Ministers and 24.5 percent of the Senate.79 Although the educational level of new officialsentering after the 1840s markedly improved, we can imagine that onlyslowly did they dilute the general stream.80 By 1911 and 1914,though, 82 per cent of the civil servants entering the Ministry of In-ternal Affairs had received a higher education.81 Naturally, addi-tional evidence of Russia's superiority to Turkey in warfare, industrialproduction, and scientific, engineering and educational achievement,the standard categories for inclusion in the great industrial Europeanpowers, was readily available to any Russian.

Under the new circumstances, the traveler-writers from the servicecohort of ca 1900 were much less vitriolic about Ottoman "fanaticism"and less scornful of the teachings of Islam. Occasionally expressionsof lingering contempt appeared, as in 1892 in the case of a figure fromthe Ministry of Marine, Mikhail Solov'ev, "Where there is aMusulman, there one finds dirt,"82 or somewhat earlier in 1873, bya certain A. Satin, on the incapacity of Middle Easterners to learnnew things: "The entire form of their life remains the same as inBiblical times."83

The trend, however, was to take the Turks much more as they were.A major change was the greater ease with which Russians made per-sonal contact with Turks and Arabs. One traveler, Boris Korzhenev-skii, noted that he met hospitality everywhere, including Muslim homeswhere he was invited to visit.84 Muslim subjects of the tsar entered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 79

service, such as the diplomat Ishaev, which made an original Russian-language account of a pilgrimage in 1895 to Mecca and Medina possi-ble, presenting Muslims as godly, nonthreatening and satisfied withtheir lives.85 Indeed, the greatest danger to Orthodoxy in the Chris-tian East was no longer Islam but militant Roman Catholicism, whichthrough its schools and hospitals converted Orthodox children to theLatin church.

The most striking features of the accounts of the late-nineteenthand early-twentieth centuries by the service cohort is the relativeinfrequence of their appearance when compared with the mass of jour-nalistic literature written by professional journalists in the period afterthe 1870s.86 Written for a popular audience of potential tourists, thejournalists concentrated on the colourful and curious aspects of MiddleEastern life, without comment on the Turkish military or the essentialsof Islam, as did the service-cohort traveler of the earlier era. A fairamount of balderdash was the result, as a commentator explained in1903:

"In general the memoirs of our travelers to the Near East often remind meof a child's prattle, which probably would be acceptable for a governess tohear, but it can give no knowledge to the Russian public at all."87

Concluding this brief commentary, one characteristic of the laterservice-cohort writer deserves special mention, as it suggests a linger-ing of the old in the midst of the modern leisure-class interest in theEast. That is the revival of the pilgrim account, although now withthe bureaucrat, not the monk, as the writer. The civil servant MikhailSolov'ev made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1892. Perhaps he expressedviews held by others in service when he lamented the materialism takingover in the shops of Jerusalem, or when he admitted with embarrass-ment that he rode to Jerusalem in a fine carriage, while the Russianpeasant pilgrims walked, as Christ had.88 Furthermore, beginning inthe 1870s the Basilica Hagia Sophia was regularly visited by Russianpilgrims (being closed earlier to non-Muslims), and it became co-equalin importance as a holy place with the Church of the Holy Sepulcherin Jerusalem. Cheap excursions to Mt Athos, arranged by the RussianSteam Navigation and Trading company starting in the 1880s, alsoraised Mt Athos's importance as a pilgrim site for Russian travelers.

Alexander Bruckner has maintained that "the transformation ofRussia from an Asiatic to a European state is the most important eventin Russian history."89 The role played in this transformation byRussian travelers to Western Europe was significant:

"Through a comparison of other lands with Russia, one could get a certainimpartiality which one who stayed at home could not get in the same measure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

80 Peter R. Weisensel

[The comparison] could actively become a wish to study Western Europe's con-ditions in greater detail to answer the question whether Russia should emulatewestern education and evaluate the possibility of transplanting the culturalelements of another state to Russia."90

This paper demonstrates that the journey to the Ottoman Empire couldalso play a role in Russian self-knowledge. If the journey to WesternEurope produced some measure of a model for Russia's future basedon the West, then information about the Ottoman Empire warned themwhere they had been, on a par with Turkey. The more the Russianelite, especially the service cohort, struggled with half successes andprolonged lagging behind Europe, the more they needed reassurancethat they were making progress. The Turks and Arabs were neededbecause they were more inept in the new ways than the Russians. Com-pared against the Turks and Arabs the Russians were Europeans.

By the late nineteenth century the Russians probably did not needthat reassurance as much as they had two generations earlier; rulingCentral Asia, in addition to their professional achievements ineducating themselves, made them seem more like Europeans and lesslike Turks than ever before. Hence, a distinct disinterest in the OttomanEmpire qua empire. The change in the focus and goal of Russian traveldescriptions of the Ottoman Empire between the early and late decadesof the nineteenth century suggests that "process" is a key concept:information was constantly filtered through changing Russian socialand political conditions to produce a new image of the Ottomans.

Nevertheless, the reappearance of the pilgrim account and discoveryof "new" holy places, such as Hagia Sophia and Mt Athos in writingsby bureaucrat-pilgrims, amounted to an persistence of old Russia inthe midst of the rush towards Europe. For all its "Europeanness"this cohort evidently had not lost all its "Russianness" in the end.

NOTES

1. Actually, in some areas which the westerners ignored, Russian observers werequite attentive and hence provide useful historical material, notably the life ofthe Eastern Orthodox communities of the Ottoman Empire.

2. T. G. Stavrou and Peter R. Weisensel, Russian Travelers to the Christian Eastfrom the Twelfth to the Twentieth Century (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1986).

3. I would not like to press this case too far, at least until the Foreign Ministryarchives are more broadly available to researchers. Two examples to the con-trary in the first half of the nineteenth century were A.S. Norov and A.N.Murav'ev. Both traveled to the East in the 1830s on assignments, and both sub-mitted reports to the Foreign Ministry, arguing for a greater presence in foreignpolicy decisions for the Orthodox Christian consideration (save the OrthodoxChristian community of the Ottoman Empire from the Islamic yoke). Both,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 81

however, were ignored. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs solicitedthe opinions of experts and many future university Orientalists began their careersas translators or secretaries at Russia's oriental missions.

4. Russian travel literature describing the Ottoman Empire (excluding Greece, theAegean Islands, the Balkan provinces and North Africa west of Egypt),1798-1853-author: journalist, 4; clerical, 31; service cohort, 55; unknown, 8;other, 18. Source: T.G Stavrou and Peter R. Weisensel, Russian Travelers tothe Christian East from the Twelfth to the Twentieth Century (Columbus, Ohio:Slavica, 1986).

5. P.A. Tolstoi, Sostoianie Naroda Turetskogo v 1703 Godu Opisannoe GrafomP.A. Tolstym, introduction by A.S. Sergeev (Moscow: Simferopol', 1914).

6. P.A. Tolstoi, ibid., pp. 4 -5 .7. Ibid., pp. 5-10.8. See Max Okenfuss's comments on Tolstoi's religiosity in the introduction to his

translation of Tolstoi's European diary of 1697-1699, The Travel Diary of PeterTolstoi. A Muscovite in Early Modern Europe (DeKalb: Ill. 1987), pp. xi-xxviii.

9. Fedor Emin, Kratkoe Opisanie Drevneishego i Noveishego Sostoianiia Ottoman-skoi Porty (Spb., 1769). A second edition appeared in 1787. The followingreferences are from the second edition.

10. Ibid., p. 43.11. Ibid., pp. 43-44.12. Ibid., pp. 63-64.13. M.P. Vronchenko, Obozrenie Maloi Azii v Nyneshnem eia Sostoianii. Sost.

Russkim Puteshestvennikom M. V. 2 Vols (Spb., 1839-1840), Vol. 2, p. 148. Theauthor was an officer of the Geodesic Department of the Ministry of War. Hewas attached as secretary to the Russian consul general in Smyrna and remainedin the Ottoman Empire three years, 1834-1836.

14. M.A. Gamazov, "Ot Bosfora do Persidskogo zaliva," Vremia (1861), No. 6,p. 517. These travel memoirs pertain to 1848-1849, when the author travelledin the Ottoman Empire and Persia as a member of an international border com-mission called to chart a new border between those two empires.

15. A.S. Norov, Puteshestvie po Sviatoi Zemle v 1835 g. (Spb., 1838), Vol. 2, pp.93-94; A.N. Murav'ev, Puteshestvie ko Sviatym Mestam v 1830g., second edi-tion (Spb., 1833), Vol. 2, pp. 139, 234. At the time of his journey, part scien-tific, part religious, Norov was an official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.He later became the minister of education and an important spokesman for thecause of the Christians of the Ottoman Empire at the Russian court. Murav'ev'sjourney was undertaken while on leave from his post in the diplomatic chancelleryattached to the headquarters of General Count P.Kh. Sayn-Wittgenstein, nearAdrianople, at the end of the Eastern War of 1827-1828. He became an impor-tant civil officer in the Holy Synod and a well-known religious writer.

16. V.P. Orlov-Davydov, Putevye Zapiski Vedennye vo Vremia Prebyvaniia naIonicheskikh Ostrovakh, v Gretsii, Maloi Azii i Turtsii v 1835 g. (Spb.,1839-1840), Vol. 2, p. 21. Orlov-Davydov, a Count, was a figure in St Petersburgsociety, a patron of the arts and an elected representative of the nobility of theSt Petersburg province.

17. M.P. Vronchenko, Op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 148. "The fanaticism, which once wasso important, has weakened significantly in recent times. There is no mentionany longer of spreading the faith by force; the people of all castes no longer gatherin mobs around the banner of Mohammed [preparing] to attack foreigners outof religious hatred. The new reforms are accepted quite indifferently, if they onlychange the routine, not disturbing private interests."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

82 Peter R. Weisensel

18. A.Kh. Rafikov, "Sobranie russkikh izdanii XVIII v. o Turtsii v BibliotekeAkademii nauk SSSR," Sbornik statei i materialov Biblioteki Akademii naukSSSR po knigovedeniiu (Leningrad 1965), pp. 292-320.

19. The Holy Synod at first refused to pass Cantemir's Kniga sistema, Hi SostoianieMukhammedanskie Religii (Spb., 1722), because it contained so many depar-tures from known facts about Islamic teachings. The Synod apparently relentedafter Cantemir's answer to their criticisms, see P. Pekarskii, Nauka i Literaturav Rossii pri Petre Velikom (Spb., 1862), Vol. 1, pp. 567-570.

20. M.P. Vronchenko, Op. cit., Vol. 2., p. 151.21. N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Puteshestvie cherez iuzhniui Rossiiu, Krym i Odessu v

Konstantinopol', Maluiu Aziiu, Severnuiu Afriku, Mal'tu, Sitsiliiu, Italiiu,iuzhniuiu Frantsiiu i Parizh v 1836 i 1837 godakh (Moscow, 1839), Vol. 1, p.135ff. Vsevolozhskii was vice president of the Medical-Surgical Academy inMoscow, under the authority of the Ministry of Interior, and later the governorof the Tver' province.

22. N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 166.23. M.P. Vronchenko, Op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 152.24. V.P. Orlov-Davydov, Op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 97-98.25. Konstantin Bazili, Ocherki Konstantinopolia (Spb., 1835), Vol. 2, pp. 80-82;

N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Vol. 1, pp. 303-309. Bazili fled from Constantinople toRussia during the Greek War of Independence. Receiving an education in Russiahe entered service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1833. He held posts inthe Mediterranean area, the most important being the Russian consul in Beirut,1839-1853.

26. N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 136-137 (quote on p. 137).27. Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii (hereafter PSZ), Ser. II, Vol. 3,

No. 1919 (22 April 1828).28. For the text of the statute of censorship of religious literature see PSZ, Ser. II,

Vol. 3, No. 1981 (22 April).29. Mikhail Lemke, Nikolaevskie Zhandarmy i Literatura 1826-1855 gg., second

edn (Spb., 1909), pp. 67-231; Sidney Monas, The Third Section, Police andSociety under Nicholas I (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), pp. 144-196; Charles A.Rund, Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804-1906(Toronto, 1982), Chaps 5 and 6.

30. A.N. Murav'ev, Op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 2, 44, 71; idem., Pis'ma s vostoka (Spb.,1851), Vol. 2, pp. 411, 471; A.S. Norov, Op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. i-iv, 82; K. Bazili,Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 176.

31. Nikolai Klement, "God v plenu u turok," Morskoi Sbornik (1857), No. 3, p.51. Klement was a naval officer on the Russian ship "Flora," which was ship-wrecked in a storm on the Albanian coast. They were first captured by Albaniantribesmen who threatened to kill them, but were rescued by the local contingentof the Turkish army, only to be sent to prison in Constantinople.

32. K.M. Bazili, Bosfor iNovve Ocherki Konstantinopolia (Spb. 1836), Vol. 1, p. 280.33. A. Satin, "Poezdka v Palestinu. Iz zapisok Chernomorskogo ofitsera," Russkii

Vestnik 106 (1873), p. 674. Satin was an officer on the Russian frigate "Polkan."34. M.P. Vronchenko, Vol. 1, p. 245.35. "Putevye zapiski o Palestine i Sirii, "Biblioteka dlia Chteniia 102 (1850), pp.

18-19. The unknown writer was probably an officer from a Russian naval vesselas the account begins with the ship's landing at Beirut.

36. A.N. Murav'ev, Puteshestvie ko Sviatym Mestam, Vol. 2, p. 137.37. I.N. Berezin, Pravoslavnaia i Drugie Khristianskie Tserkvi v Turtsii (Spb., 1855).

N. Berezin, later a prominent Orientalist at Kazan' and St Petersburg Univer-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 83

sities, spent three years in the East, 1842-1845, on leave from Kazan' Universi-ty. For Norov's position, that the Arab Christians shared the same culture, seeA.S. Norov, Op. cit.,, p. 158.

38. N. Berezin, Pravoslavnaia i Drugie Khristianaskie Tserkvi na Vostoke, Vol. 2,pp. 4-5, 6-19.

39. On the increase in the number of titles published in Russia, 1825-1918, the in-crease in Russian-language periodical publications, 1860-1915, and literacy seeN.M. Lisovskii, Russkaia Periodocheskaia Pechat', 1703-1915 (Petrograd, 1915),Tables I-II; and Jeffrey Brooks, When Russia Learned to Read. Literacy andPopular Literature, 1861 -1917 (Princeton, N.J., 1985), Chap. II, pp. 61 (Table),112 (Table).

40. Osip Senkovskii, or "Baron Brambeus," an Orientalist and St Petersburg jour-nal editor (Biblioteka dlia Chteniia), was foremost among these nationalists,although he was not a Russian but a Pole. Having himself visited Syria, Palestineand Turkey in the 1820s while perfecting his knowledge of Oriental languages,he wrote several travel essays upon returning to St Petersburg. Although thegeneral editor of the Biblioteka dlia Chteniia, he reviewed all the travel literaturehimself, even adding a section to the Biblioteka for "Travels." He was oftencritical of western travel accounts, especially the French, for giving a false, pro-western, cast to the narrative. He was effusive in his praise of Russians who didnot ape the French. See his highly favorable reviews of Norov's Puteshestvie poSviatoiZemle (Spb., 1838), in Biblioteka dlia Chteniia 29 (1838), pp. 1-17; andidem., Puteshstvie po Egiptu iNubii v 1834 i 1835 gg. (Spb., 1840); ibid., 43(1840),pp. 1-32.

41. This definition is developed in Dean MacCannell, The Tourist. A New Theoryof the Leisure Class, with a new introduction by the author (New York, 1989),especially Introduction and Chaps 1 and 5.

42. V.P. Orlov-Davydov, Op. cit., Vol. 2, 70ff; N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Op. cit., 1, p.141ff.

43. N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Op. cit., 1, p. 116.44. Hans-Joachim Torke, "Das russische Beamtentum in der ersten Häfte des 19.

Jahrhunderts "Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, Chap. 13 (Berlin,1967), pp. 209-21; P. A. Zaionchkovskii, Pravitel'stvennyi apparat samoderzhav-noi Rossii v XIX v. (Moscow, 1978), pp. 29-42; Helju Aulik Bennett, "ChinyOrdena and Officialdom," in Walter M. Pintner and Don Karl Rowney (eds),Russian Officialdom. The Bureaucratization of Russian Society from the Seven-teenth to the Twentieth Century (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1980), pp. 162-89; WalterM. Pintner, "The Evolution of Civil Officialdom, 1735-1855," in W.M. Pint-ner and D.K. Rowney (eds), pp. 190-226; George L. Yaney, The Systematiza-tion of Russian Government (Urbana, III. 1973), pp. 212-20.

45. V.V. Grigor'ev, "Nesko'ko zamechanii dlia zhelaiushchikh s"ezdit' v Konstan-tinopol', "Novorossiiskii Kalendar' na 1841 g. (Odessa, 1840), p. 311.

46. N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 110-11.47. E.P. Metaksa, Zapiski flota-leitenanta Egora Metaksy, Zakliuchaiushchie v Sebe

Povestvovanie o Voennykh Podvigakh Rossiiskoi Eskadry, Pokorivshoi pod Nac-nal'stvom Admirala Fedora Fedorovicha Ushakova Ionicheskie Ostrova priSodeistvii Porty Ottomanskoi (Spb., 1915), p. 16. Metaksa was born on Cretebut entered Russian naval service. He was a midshipman in the Black Sea Fleetin 1791 and later a translator and naval officer under the command of AdmiralUshakov during the Ionian Islands campaign. He retired from service in 1814.

48. V.P. Orlov-Davydov, Op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 72.49. A.N. Murav'ev, Puteshestvie ko Sviatym Mestam, Vol. 1, p. 247.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

84 Peter R. Weisensel

50. Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 169.51. A.A. Norov, Op. c i t . , Vol. 1, p. 45.52. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 158.53. A.N. Murav'ev, Op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 139.54. Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 234.55. A.S. Norov, Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 43.56. Ibid., p. 15.57. A.O. Diugamel', Avtobiografiia A.O. Diugamelia (Moscow, 1883), p. 34.

Diugamel was an army officer and diplomat in Persia and the Ottoman Empire.58. K. Bazili, Op. cit., Vol. 1, Chap. X; N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Op. cit., Vol. 1, pp.

221-230; N. Berezin, "Mosul," Biblioteka dlia Chteniia 133(1855), pp. 185-187.59. K. Bazili, Op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 154-171; M.P. Vronchenko, Op. c i t . , Vol. 1,

pp. 243-279; "Putevye Zapiski o Palestine i Sirii," Biblioteka dlia Chteniia102(1850), p. 26ff.

60. K. Bazili, Op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 165-166; M.P. Vronchenko, Op. cit., Vol. 1,pp. 254-255.

61. N. Berezin, "Sovremennaia Turtsiia," Otechestvennye Zapiski 104 (1856), 31ff.62. Novorossiiskii Kalendar' na 1841 g. (Odessa, 1840), p. 314.63. A.S. Norov, Puteshestvie po Sviatoi Zemle, Vol. 2, 180f.64. Ezel Kiral Shaw, "The Double Veil: Travelers' Views of the Ottoman Empire,

Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries," in English and Continental Views ofthe Ottoman Empire. 1500-1800, introduction by G.E. von Grunebaum (LosAngeles, 1972), pp. 3-29.

65. K. Bazili, Ocherki Konstantinopolia, Vol. 1, p. 167.66. Idem., Bosfor i Novye Ocherki Konstantinopolia, Vol. 2, p. 63.67. Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 226.68. Idem., Ocherki Konstantinopolia, Vol. 1, pp. viii-ix.69. Materialy dlia istorii Fakul'teta Vostochnykh Iazykov, Vol. 2 (Spb., 1906), pp.

97-99.70. K. Bazili, Ocherki Konstantinopolia, Vol. 2, p. 119n.71. A. Rafalovich, "Etnograficheskie Ocherki Konstantinopolia," Otechestvennye

Zapiski 63 (1849), pp. 263-264, 269 (quote on p. 269). Rafalovich was a physi-cian and Professor of Forensic Medicine at the Richelieu Lyceum in Odessa. Hespent two years, 1846-1848, in Egypt and Turkey studying the causes of theplague.

72. K. Bazili, Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 210.73. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 250.74. N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 271; also on Mohammed II's singular

role see K. Bazili, Op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 177-79.75. M.A. Gamazov, Vremia (1861), No. 3, p. 318. For a similar comment on the

timelessness of the Ottoman Empire, see N. Berezin, Biblioteka dlia chteniia 133(1855), pp. 170, 176.

76. M.A. Gamazov, Vremia (1861), No. 6, p. 326.77. N.S. Vsevolozhskii, Vol. 1, pp. 266-269.78. K. Bazili, Op. c i t . , Vol. 1, pp. 188-189.79. P.A. Zaionchkovskii, Pravitel'stvennyi Apparat Samoderzhavnoi Rossii v XIX

v. (Moscow, 1973), pp. 131, 135, 136.80. Daniel T. Orlovsky, "High Officials in the Ministry of Internal Affairs,

1855-1881," in Walter M. Pintner and Don Karl Rowney (eds), Russian Of-ficialdom. The Bureaucratization of Russian Society from the Seventeenth tothe Twentieth Century (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1960), pp. 262-264.

81. Don Karl Rowney, "Organizational Change and Social Adaptation: the Pre-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Russian Self-Identification 85

Revolutionary Ministry of Internal Affairs," in Pintner and Rowney (eds), Rus-sian Officialdom, p. 249 (Table).

82. M. Solov'ev, "Po Sviatoi Zemle," Russkoe Obozrenie (1892), No. 3, p. 26.83. A. Satin, "Poezdka v Palestine," Russkii Vestnik 106(1873), p. 683.84. B. Korzhenevskii, Po Vostoku (Moscow, 1987). Another excellent example is

the physician A. Eliseev, who traveled in the East on several occasions and col-lected essentially ethnographic and anthropological information about the Arabs.See his collected works.

85. Sh. Ishaev, "Mekka, sviashchennyi gorod musul'man (Rasskaz palom-nika)," Sredne-aziatskii Vestnikl 1896), No. 12, pp. 45-83. Ishaev was an of-ficial in the Russian consulate in Jedda.

86. Travel Descriptions of the Ottoman Empire, 1880-1914 (excluding the Balkanlands and North Africa west of Egypt). Author: journalist, 88; pilgrim, 158; ser-vice cohort, 31; other, 70, unknown, 5. Source: T.G. Stavrou and Peter R.Weisensel, Russian Travelers to the Christian East from the Twelfth to the Twen-tieth Century (Columbus, Ohio, 1986).

87. S. Kondurushkin. "Terra incognita," Russkaia Mysl' (1903), No. 12, p. 38.88. See especially Solov'ev's comments upon his arrival in Jerusalem, Russkoe

Obozrenie (1892), No. 2, p. 608.89. Alexander Bruckner, Culturhistorische Studien (Riga, 1878), Vol. 1, p. 1.90. A. Bruckner, ibid., 1, p. 103.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ari

stot

le U

nive

rsity

of]

at 0

4:23

11

Sept

embe

r 20

12