Formation of ideas about Russia in European journalism of the XV– first half of the XVIII century

Nikulina Viktoriya Vladimirovna independent researcher 410012, Russia, Saratov region, Saratov, Peter Stolypin St., 1 vnikulina@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Establishing mutual understanding between different nations has always been and remains the most important task facing cultural and artistic figures. Unfortunately, it is now as intractable as it was a few centuries ago. All the more reason for a modern researcher to look for ways to overcome sociocultural stereotypes, to find the origins and causes of their occurrence.

Relations between Russia and France have a long history, and there is every reason to speak of the rich and unclaimed experience of Russian–French interaction. The historical background of artistic ties between Russia and Europe, which is neutral in relation to politics or economics, currently plays a particularly important role in stabilizing contacts and helps to understand what factors and circumstances influence the nature of communication between countries and what are the ways in which confrontation can be avoided and mutual understanding can be achieved. The purpose of the research is not an exhaustive analysis of the entire body of journalistic works, but to identify key sources that allow us to draw sound scientific conclusions.

The choice of the 15th century as the initial boundary is due to the fact that it was during this period that the formation of the image of Russia in European journalism began, thanks to the first travels and notes of Europeans who visited Muscovy. The first half of the 18th century marks the completion of a key stage before the active Europeanization of Russia under the influence of Peter the Great's transformations. This period is characterized by the accumulation of both negative and positive ideas about Russia, which formed its image in the European consciousness. The selection of sources was based on their relevance to the stated research topic. Priority was given to the works of ambassadors, travelers and diplomats, which provide unique information about the perception of Russia. The author has made a thematic selection of sources, including works by authors such as Jacques Margeret, Sigismund Herberstein, Voltaire, as well as lesser-known researchers, in order to analyze key trends. The rationale for the choice is based on their importance for shaping the image of Russia and their impact on perception in different strata of French society.

The methodological basis of the research includes M.M. Bakhtin's dialogical concept, used to study forms of cultural exchange and mutual perception, Stuart Hall's theory of representation, which reveals the process of constructing cultural meanings through images and texts.

The beginning and middle of the 18th century was a difficult period in Russian-French relations, inevitably evoking associative parallels with the current situation. All the more relevant is the appeal to the experience of the past, which makes it possible to learn lessons in order to find ways to overcome stereotypes and superficial ideas about the "Other", which in this case means the whole people. The purpose of our work is to analyze the writings of Europeans about Russia in the XV – early XVIII century in order to identify common trends in their representation of Russia and Russians.

In search of ways to overcome the mutual alienation of peoples, it is advisable to turn to the history of their relationships. Until the beginning of the 18th century, Russia was virtually absent as a separate country for French society. Despite the long-standing and deep roots of the Russian-French political and cultural dialogue, originating in the dynastic marriage of Anna Yaroslavna and King Henry I of France in the 11th century, contacts between the two countries remained episodic and did not lead to a systematic development of bilateral relations. In most cases, they consisted only of an unsystematic exchange of embassies, often without specific political goals. It was only five centuries later that the first attempts to establish regular diplomatic relations could be noted.

During the 17th and early 18th centuries, contacts between the two states gradually revived, thereby laying the foundations for permanent intercultural interaction. During this period, the first experiments of "describing the Other" were undertaken, belonging to travelers who found themselves in a foreign country. The sources of assessments of Russian reality, laid down during this period, had a significant impact on the image of Russia in the future. The history of cultural and artistic relations between Russia and France, viewed through the prism of the concept of the Other, interpreted in a dialogical manner, provides a wealth of material for analysis in this aspect.

Russia, entering the new XVIII century under the rule of the reformer tsar Peter I, first declared itself as a great European power in 1700, with the outbreak of the Northern War. Russia's entry into Europe radically required the Europeans to form an image of the Other, with whom it was now necessary to conduct a dialogue and build relationships.

In France, the image of Russia as an image of Another is formed with the accumulation of information about the geographical location, history, social structure, and state structure of the Russian state. There are also descriptions of the life of the Russian tsar and his activities. It is this period that can be noted as the period of establishing the first regular cultural contacts between Russia and France. After analyzing the historical prerequisites for the formation of the image of Russia, we will consider the specific sources through which this image was transmitted in the public consciousness of France.

The peculiarities of the formation of the image of Russia in France at the beginning of the XVIII century were based on a variety of sources. The writings in question are those of European (mainly French) ambassadors, travelers, and religious representatives who have visited Russia. These unique materials often contain subjective assessments of the authors and are superficial in nature, and sometimes filled with negative judgments about Russia. However, they can be considered the basis for reconstructing the origins of the artistic image of Russia in the eyes of the French.

Russian Russian travelers left the first records of their stay on Russian soil, observing Russian life and opening the veil of a country unknown to Europeans.

Impressions of the Russian state can be found in Gilbert de Lannoy's "Travels and Embassies" (1399-1450), a Burgundian knight who visited Veliky Novgorod and Pskov in 1413 ^[1]. His notes are a very interesting source for the history of the formation of the image of Russians for the French. Russian Russian society is markedly different in de Lannoy's description from the image of Russians in later sources. The author did not resort to condemnation and did not define the Russian way of life from the negative side. De Lannoa acts as an observer of the other. And despite the great role of religious consciousness, the Frenchman managed to create a fairly loyal and attractive image of "Great Russia" in his work.

Quite detailed records of Muscovy can be found in the works "Journey to Tana" (1452) and "Journey to Persia" (1487) written by Josaphat Barbaro and Ambrogio Contarini. As a merchant, I. Barbaro lived for a number of years in the Venetian colony of Tang at the mouth of the Don. On the pages of his Notes, he reflected his observations of the surrounding steppe and coastal world of the Northern Black Sea region. Interestingly, Barbaro included a description of Moscow in his writings, although he had not been there himself ^{[2, p. 3]}. He combined notes on two trips to the East, to Tana and Persia, into one essay in two parts and wrote both parts at once. In describing Muscovy, Barbaro used evidence of the stay in Russia of Contarini, the Ambassador of the Republic of Venice to Persia (1474-1477), who traveled to Moscow along the land and river highways of the Eastern European Plain, returning from Persia. In 1559, a collection of travel stories appeared, which included an essay by Barbaro and Contarini. It was this publication that became famous as the work "The Travels of Barbaro and Contarini" and was translated into different languages, becoming accessible to the European reader ^[3].

In his notes about Muscovy, the author drew attention to the abundance of markets, and wrote that Russian cities also abounded in bread and meat. He described Muscovites as handsome, but very rude and ignorant. He considered drunkenness to be the main drawback, which, however, they boast of and despise those who do not follow their example. The Italian also gratefully described the audience with Ivan III, telling about the warm welcome he received and the generous gifts with which the Grand Duke of Moscow allowed him to return to his homeland ^[4].

Polish scientist M. Mehovsky paid close attention to the little-known country for Europeans. M. Mekhovsky's extensive work, written in 1517, had a rather serious impact on the perception of Russia. The work "A Treatise on the two Sarmatians" can be considered as a source of historical, geographical and ethnographic descriptions, including about Muscovy ^[5]. The treatise of the Polish researcher was considered in the West to be the first detailed description of Eastern Europe and was written based on the stories of Poles, foreigners, including Russians who came to Poland. However, it is worth recognizing that the "Treatise" is rich not only in objectively valuable information, but also points to a number of erroneous reports. Nevertheless, Mehovsky's work has long been one of the main sources of Russian studies and represented the natural political interest of Western neighbors in the growing Muscovy.

Initially, the author presented his work, intended for a European audience, in Latin. Later, his work was translated into many European languages. He made a deep impression on foreigners and caused a sharp and prolonged controversy. Mehovsky's treatise marked a qualitatively new stage in the history of Western Europe's acquaintance with Eastern Europe, marking the beginning of its scientific geography.

The formation of a certain image of Russia in Europe was facilitated by the work of the diplomat Sigismund Herberstein "Notes on Muscovy" (1549) ^[6]. This work is of crucial importance in the issue of familiarizing the West with the Russian world and the state. While in Russia as part of the embassy, Herberstein collected materials for his work, studying the works of his predecessors, cartographic materials, using his own experience and gaining information in conversations with Russian people, as well as with Lithuanian and Polish informants. This is indicated by the Russian historian Mikhail Borisovich Sverdlov, emphasizing the references in Gerberstein's work to the treatise by M. Mekhovsky ^[7]. Herberstein's interests included information about trade, geographical location, religion, and lifestyle of Muscovites. Herberstein also noticed military affairs, the history of the Moscow state, political and everyday aspects of life, family customs, receptions and treats of ambassadors at the Grand Ducal palace ^[6]. Unlike Mehovsky, Herberstein had been to Russia and knew Russian, which was the reason for Europeans to have great confidence in his work. The author of the "Notes" substantiated the idea of the Russian state, presenting a more holistic picture, which had a huge impact on the perception of Russia and on all subsequent Russian studies. In the future, "Notes on Muscovy" will serve as a model of similar literature for other authors.

In the middle of the 16th century, the first attempt was made by the French to trade using the Northern Route. The journey to the only Russian port on the World Ocean at that time was carried out by the French traveler Jean Sauvage (1568). In his short essay "Notes on the journey that Jean Sauvage made from Dieppe to Russia, to the port of St. St. Nicholas and Michael the Archangel in 1586 in the month of June", the author presents information addressed to French sailors about the way to Arkhangelsk, talks about precautions that must be observed in trade ^[8].

An interest in studying the mutual perception of peoples is presented in the notes of the military Jacques Margeret (1607), who served as a mercenary at the Russian court. He can be considered the first French military man hired for Russian military service in 1600 by Boris Godunov. Margeret then served the False Dmitry and after his death left the Russian land through Arkhangelsk in 1606. On the advice of Henry IV, Margeret published the information he had collected about Russia ^{[9, p. 22]}. The essay on life in Russia was presented by Jacques Margeret already at the beginning of the 17th century. In the book "The State of the Russian Empire and the Grand Duchy of Moscow" published in Paris in 1607, the author focuses on professional knowledge in military affairs, paying special attention to the military component in the image of Russia, which Margeret poses as a threat to Europe. He wrote about political events, the army, nature and the population of the Russian Empire ^[10].

In 1663, Adam Olearius' Travels of the Holstein Embassy to Muscovy and Persia was published in Schleswig (Germany) ^[11], and in 1666 it was published in Paris in French ^[12]. Olearius' work allows you to get acquainted with the author's opinion about the peoples of Russia, inhabiting not only the central part of the state, but also the distant regions of Muscovy. Based on conversations with northern Samoyedic peoples, the author notes the peculiarities of the way of life in the north ^[12]. It is worth noting that the work of Olearius clearly contains allusions to the work of Herberstein.

An interpretation that undermines the authority of the Russian people can also be traced in the work "Journey to Muscovy" (1698) written by the French diplomat La Neuville (1689) ^[13]. In 1689, on behalf of the French government, which sought to obtain information about the internal situation of Russia and its negotiations with Sweden and Brandenburg, La Neuville was sent to Moscow and stayed there from August to December under the guise of a Polish diplomat. After returning from Russia, La Neuville published a book containing a fairly detailed analysis of the internal situation and foreign policy of Russia in the late 1680s. The author describes the events related to the Streletsky uprising of 1682, writes about the Crimean campaigns of 1687 and 1689, about Russian-Chinese political and economic relations ^{[13, p. 90]}.

On the pages of the book, the author speaks unfavorably about the tsar: "Tsar Peter amuses himself by playing off his favorites, they often kill each other, fearing to lose favor. In winter, he orders large holes to be cut in the ice and forces the most noble nobles to ride through it in a sleigh, where they fall through and drown because of the thin new ice," wrote Neville ^[13]. Such a characteristic could not benefit the Russian tsar, to whom the attention of the whole of Europe was riveted at that time. Accordingly, Neville's essay caused a diplomatic conflict and was perceived as an act hostile to Russia, and the "Notes" themselves as an anti-Russian pamphlet.

The content of the "Notes" that appeared during the "Great Embassy" of Peter the Great, describing the "barbaric" customs of the Muscovites, could damage the success of the diplomatic mission and the achievement of the main objectives – the establishment of military, political, cultural, economic, and scientific ties with the West. The composition was very negatively received by the members of the Grand Embassy. The Amsterdam mayor wrote to the founder and first president of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, a member of the Royal Society of London and a foreign member of the French Academy of Sciences, Gottfried Leibniz, that "Mr. de La Neuville was very poorly informed about many things, and the Moscow ambassadors complained about it to me and others" ^{[13, p. 180]}.

In 1713, the French scholar, historian, and bibliophile Lenglet de Fresnoy described Neville's "Notes" as a compilation of earlier books compiled "without leaving his office." The author writes: "The description of Muscovy, which was published in Paris in 1698 under the name of Monsieur de La Neuville, is as unreliable a work as one would expect from a person who saw Muscovy only from the window of his office" ^{[14, pp. 331-334]}. The appearance of such assessments indicates a growing interest in Russia and a desire in society to obtain more reliable information about little-known Muscovy.

On his way to China in 1685 and in 1688, with the intention of passing through Siberia, the Jesuit missionary Philippe Avril visited the Moscow state twice. The Frenchman taught mathematics and philosophy in Paris, and was familiar with modern travel literature, including the work of the traveler Adam Olearius. It is worth noting that the Frenchman's path passed through many cities of Russia, including Saratov. His mission was unsuccessful: twice the Frenchman's request to travel to China via Russia was refused.

Avril's stay in the territory of the Russian state was accompanied by many events, which he described in his reports, and then published his essay "A Journey through various parts of Europe and Asia" ^{[15, pp. 81-101]}. Avril's observations concerned descriptions of the nature and population of the countries visited and reports on overland routes. His geographical observations and the information he provides are of undoubted historical and geographical interest, especially since Avril used materials from Russian travels of the 17th century when considering the latter issue ^[16].

Avril showed great perseverance, collecting information in Moscow that interested him. He questioned not only merchants, but also found access to dignitaries (Musin-Pushkin, governor of Smolensk, provided him with some information) ^{[15, p. 87]}. His information was highly appreciated by his contemporaries, as indicated by the numerous translations of the book and the widespread use of the information provided by various compilers of the early 18th century. Russian Russian translation of the book in 1698 revealed some very bold statements about Muscovites, which could not but provoke a negative attitude from the Russian authorities.

The prevailing trend in all the literary sources we have reviewed is a completely natural "alienation" from Russia, the desire to emphasize its "otherness", which is almost always interpreted as something negative and even dangerous.

Foreign travelers often described Russia as a barbaric country, using exotic metaphors. These images were reinforced by political propaganda, especially in works aimed at creating a Russophobic perception.

Analyzing the causes of stereotypes, it is worth noting that in addition to perjury and speculation, important reasons for the emergence of stereotypes were: language barriers that prevented an accurate understanding of Russian reality; differences in social systems that gave rise to mutual misunderstandings; religious prejudices associated with the negative perception of the Orthodox tradition in Catholic and Protestant Europe.

Consequently, the transition from the negative stereotypes of the early period to the more complex picture of the early 18th century indicates profound changes in understanding between cultures. In the first third of the 18th century, more extensive source material appeared, which allows us to identify the positive dynamics of relations between Russia and France. Rossika's works grew rapidly in quantity and contained not only negative, but also positive assessments of the authors.

Cultural expansion was caused by the second Russian Embassy to France, headed by Peter I. The Russian tsar's stay in Paris in 1717 caused a real sensation. This event should be considered the first diplomatic contact between Russia and France. It was widely covered in the press, diaries and writings of various foreign authors. These are the essay by Pierre Buchet from the Parisian newspaper Le Nouveau Mercure (1717) ^[17], the "Memoirs" of Louis de Rouvroy, Duke of Saint-Simon, written on the basis of the diary of the Marquis Philippe de Dangeault (1729) ^{[18, pp. 349-374]}, the notes of Nicolas Louis Le Dran (1726) ^[19], "The History of Peter I" by Elizar Mauvillon (1742) ^{[20, pp. 364-367]}.

They left positive feedback about Peter and his outstanding work in their notes and reports.: Charles Whitworth was an English resident in St. Petersburg in the 17th century, Jules Just was the Danish ambassador to Russia in 1709-1712, Frederick Christian Weber was the Hanoverian resident (envoy) in St. Petersburg in 1714-1718, Bruce Peter (1692-1757) was a military figure, writer, memoirist of Scottish-Prussian origin, traveler, who served in Russia for 13 years from In 1711, he was promoted to the rank of captain.

New materials for the Western reader were contained in Captain John Perry's book "The State of Russia under the Current Tsar" published in London in 1716 ^[21]. Having considerable practical experience, the author described in detail the collected information about the geography, climate of Russia, about many eastern and northern peoples, their religion and way of life. It was obvious to Perry that Peter's work had a special, transformative significance for Russia. Therefore, for him, as a practical person, only the events of modern Russian history acquired special significance ^{[21, p. 247]}.

Pierre Deschizeaux, a French physician and traveler, visited Moscow twice ^{[22, pp. 254-256]}. In 1724, Deschizeaux received permission from the French king to travel to Russia and Persia for three years ^[23]. However, the Frenchman was forced to return to Paris ahead of schedule in order to return to Russia for the second time in 1726. Having accepted an invitation from L. Blumentrost, Deshiso was going to present a project of a Botanical Garden in St. Petersburg ^[20]. His research talent, education and scientific interest allowed the Frenchman to look at life in Russia fairly objectively, without resorting to negative assessments. A description of the St. Petersburg plant collection, as well as a plan of the botanical garden and exotic plants in the Russian capital, was published in 1725 ^[20].

The result of his second stay in Russia was an essay devoted to the description of St. Petersburg ^[24]. It is worth noting that a year later the same work by Deshiso was republished under a different title – "Description of a trip to St. Petersburg" ^[25]. In a very short essay, Deshiso gives a positive description of St. Petersburg and its surroundings. He gives a brief description of the main institutions, describes the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, and mentions four faiths that coexisted in the capital. The Frenchman briefly writes about many aspects of life in Russia, describes the way of life and traditions of the townspeople. However, Deshiso expresses surprise at excessive alcohol consumption, pointing to the monarch's desire to gradually correct the morals of his subjects. Another remark that is striking and often found in other authors of writings about Russia is a joint visit to the bathhouse.

About observing the formalities established in Russia, the author writes as follows: "Perhaps the Russians are right when they require compliance with many formalities, time and money costs for issuing passports due to the fact that this is a newly conquered land or because of the neighborhood with the Swedes or for some other reason that I cannot understand." ^{[26, p. 15]}. The Frenchman sees this as a restriction of freedom, "...... without which it is impossible to make this country and its people attractive for trade" ^{[26, p. 15]}. Based on the above, it can be stated that, in general, the assessment of Deshiso is not Russophobic in nature and transmits to the reader only the opinion of a foreigner who is trying to understand and get to know an unfamiliar country better.

French Ambassador J. Camperdon supplied his government with substantial reports, couched in a spirit benevolent to Russia. Campredon persistently pursued the idea that Russia was becoming the strongest power in the North, with which it was beneficial to maintain good relations and trade. The diplomat spoke positively about the "civilizing" role of Peter the Great ^[27]. "He does wonders in the civilisation of his peoples. The happy change in them is gradually becoming more noticeable every year, and it is to be expected that in a few years the youth of both sexes, filling the main cities to which their strictest orders call them, having become accustomed to a way of life unlike their grandfathers' customs, will prefer it to the barbarism in which their fathers stuck, and out of self-love will support that what the fathers try to counteract out of habit, this most stubborn of passions in Russians. I am talking about the great institutions created by the tsar, which, if he remains alive, he will bring to perfection in a few years of peace, because his diligence and diligence, one might say, exceed the usual level of human strength..." ^[27]. This positive attitude of the author shows Russia as an intensively developing, prosperous and promising country.

The Catholic Church continued to send representatives to Russia. So, in 1729, the French priest Jube de la Cour arrived in Moscow. The Frenchman described his experience of arriving in Russia in a book entitled "Religion, Mores and Customs of Moscow" ^[28].

In addition to describing major church holidays – Easter, Epiphany, Zhurbe, being at the funeral of Peter the Great, described the traditional burial rite. The French missionary was vividly impressed by the coronation ceremony of Anna Ioanovna. Jurbe was shocked by the splendor and rich decoration of the Russian court. The text also contains negative assessments in Zhurbet's statements about serfdom, where he compares peasants in Russia to slaves on galleys ^{[29, p. 25]}. However, in general, the author is restrained, less critical in his statements about Russians. This book is one of the few documents of the time describing in detail the customs and daily life in Russia of that period, and features many illustrations made by Jube's hand.

The French scientists brothers De La Croyer and Joseph Nicolas Delille made a great contribution to the development of geography, cartography and astronomy. Scientists took part in expeditions to the North of Russia, visited many Russian cities, taught and left many scientific papers and other observations about Russia. In 1733, L. Delille was going to go on the Second academic expedition to Kamchatka under the leadership of V. Bering. The researchers traveled through Moscow and Kazan to Tobolsk.

Captain d'Agay de Mion was among the officers who signed the surrender on July 9, 1734, and was sent to Kronstadt with the French prisoners. It is very interesting that d'Agay de Mion, as well as the brigadier of the French squadron de Lamotte and ten other officers were invited to St. Petersburg to the court of Anna Ioannovna. A decent reception was organized at the French court, and after the settlement of the military-diplomatic conflict, the French were released to their homeland. The author did not feel bitterness towards the Russians who had captured him. Based on his diaries, d'aguey de Mion compiled the story "The Muscovite Journey" (1746), in which he described observations of the life of different classes. He described the city of Petersburg and its sights, the lively construction of new buildings, the life of the rich class, as well as Russian peasants and soldiers. For all its directness and simplicity, d'Agay de Mion's narrative contains a set of typical remarks for French Russians: the ignorance of the common people, the dominance of foreigners at court, exile to Siberia, whipping, Russian baths. He also showed the sympathy usual for the French of that time for the personality of Elizabeth Petrovna, with whom many associated the hope of liberation from "German domination" ^{[30, p. 340]}.

It should be noted that the works of Deschizeaux, Camperdon, Jourbe, and d'aguey de Mion showed Russia in a less critical image and, unlike their predecessors, did not carry Russophobic sentiments.

In this context, the work of a French scientist who stood at the origins of the French Enlightenment, Bernard Le Beauvais Fontenelle, can be considered a particularly significant work. The genius of Peter the Great and his successful transformations were outlined by the Frenchman in his work "A Word of Praise to Tsar Peter the Great" (1725) ^[31]. Fontenelle's work had a significant impact on the European reader. In Laudatory Words, the author followed the method of contrasting transformed and pre-Petrine Russia. The Frenchman showed extensive knowledge about the realities of these conditions in Russia in its recent past and present. Fontenelle paid attention to many aspects of Russian life, referring to Peter the Great's reforms, which improved the general condition of the country and allowed the creation of a "new people" in Russia.

The works of the outstanding educator Arouet Francois Voltaire played a special role for the image of Russia. In 1748, "Anecdotes about Tsar Peter the Great" were published ^[32]. Voltaire's "Anecdotes" are several casually presented plots that mark the main milestones in the life of Peter the Great ^{[33, p. 19]}. Voltaire writes about Peter's enlightenment ideas, about the limitless possibilities of an enlightened mind and human will, about the decisive role of a heroic personality in the progress of civilization.

Nine years later, the French educator published his outstanding work "The History of the Russian Empire under Peter the Great" ^[34] where he introduced the Russian tsar to the foreign reader as the creator of the new Russia, as the hero of the age of Enlightenment. It is worth noting that Voltaire's work was not a detailed biographical account of the life of Peter I. Russian Russian reformer The author preferred to highlight the most important achievements of the Russian reformer, while omitting the personal weaknesses of the Russian tsar. "This story contains Peter's public life, which was useful, but not his private life, about which there are only a few anecdotes, moreover, quite well-known. The secrets of his office, his bed, and his desk cannot and should not be revealed to foreigners," Voltaire wrote in the preface ^{[35, p. 399]}.

Considering the works about Russia from the time of Peter the Great and the assessment of his activities, it is worth noting the increased interest in the political life of Russia. Foreigners were interested in the activities of the Russian tsar, as well as the transformations of the country and his personal biography. At the same time, the works traditionally retained an interest in the everyday life and customs of Russians. Nevertheless, the contempt for Russian "barbarism" that persisted until the beginning of the 18th century did not allow Europeans to see the "Muscovites" as either allies or serious rivals. "Muscovites cannot compete with the great European nations," the French author argued ^{[36, p. 100]}. Russian Russian barbarism, which was already burdened with stereotypical ideas, led to the emergence of the idea of the "Russian threat" in the European public thought of the 18th century ^[36]. Accordingly, there has been no improvement or stabilization of Russian-French relations, which in earlier times were marred by mutual misunderstanding and hostility. The conclusion of the Russian-Austrian alliance treaty of 1726 led to a cooling of relations between the two countries again and for a long time. This important factor undoubtedly influenced the mutual perception of peoples.

The analysis showed that in the early period, European journalism formed a negative and exotic image of Russia. Most of the works discussed above, generated, on the one hand, by an obvious mutual misunderstanding, and, on the other, by an outright political conjuncture, presented Russia in an unsightly light. They were accessible to Europeans, which contributed to the formation of a negative experience of perceiving the Other. The perception of Russia, like no other European country, was subject to mystification due to the scarcity and subjectivity of information about it. The Europeans saw a vast shopping area, a wild land that was not very hospitable for climatic reasons. Eyewitness accounts reported the discovery of priceless treasures – rich wildlife, abundance of fish stocks, metals, fur, meat, etc. But at the same time, there were also quite unflattering reviews about the lives of Russian people, sometimes inconsistent with reality. Such descriptions were often compilations that were overgrown with more and more negative details. Besides perjury and speculation, important reasons for the emergence of stereotypes were: language barriers that prevented an accurate understanding of Russian reality; differences in social systems that gave rise to mutual misunderstandings; religious prejudices associated with negative perceptions of the Orthodox tradition in Catholic and Protestant Europe.

At the same time, the beginning of the 18th century, accompanied by the reforms of Peter the Great and the intensification of cultural exchange, was marked by the emergence of more comprehensive assessments of Russian reality, reflecting both positive transformations and the preservation of historically established stereotypes.

Thus, the analysis shows that the formation of a negative image of Russia in European journalism is due to political, cultural and religious factors, as well as the peculiarities of intercultural dialogue. At the same time, the positive assessments presented in the works of Voltaire, Fontenelle and Camperdon demonstrate the possibility of changing public perception.

The considered sources allow us to identify the main causes of sociocultural stereotypes, including intercultural misunderstandings, Eurocentrism and political conjuncture. Further research could focus on archival materials that allow for a deeper study of the dynamics of these processes.