sempozyum_bildiri_kitabi

practices of professional historians. Rostopchina’s findings appear to be the first published historical
research by a woman about the causes of the 1812 Moscow fires.
From September 14‐18, 1812, fires ravaged Moscow beginning the evening Napoleon and his
troops arrived in the city. The fires damaged upwards of 85% of the city. There is no consensus about
the fires’ origins, igniters, or purpose. Some historians argue that Russians started the fires
strategically, others identify the months of misbehavior among Moscow residents as creating a
climate of carelessness, and others blame the French. The city’s wooden structures and reserves of
gunpowder and alcohol made it particularly vulnerable to carelessly attended fires. Identifying who
was responsible for the blazes – a turning point in the war – entwined with public opinion and, later,
national historical narratives about the war. Popular opinion about Count Rostopchin’s involvement
was as varied as hypotheses about the fire’s causes. There were people who praised him a hero.
Some considered him cruel for destroying the city and abandoning citizens who were unable to
evacuate. To others he was a cowardly, traitorous, or unpredictable leader. 10
In his 1823 pamphlet “The Truth about the Moscow Fire,” Count Rostopchin denied any
responsibility for the event. “The established view is that the burning of Moscow is my doing; I'll
respond that they were accidents, as all Russians know,” he wrote. 11 Rostopchina cited many
historians and journalists who questioned the validity of the pamphlet’s claims. 12 Her family’s stories
pointed decisively to her grandfather’s involvement. Indeed, Rostopchina wrote that her desire to
reconcile these discrepancies inspired her to write The Family Chronicle. 13
Rostopchina discovered that her grandfather considered setting Moscow ablaze as a response
both to Napoleon’s invasion and to the plans of General Kutuzov, the Russian army leader, to
relinquish the city to the invading army. Among the documents she found were Count Rostopchin’s
posters instructing residents to evacuate Moscow, and a letter the Count wrote to Alexander I
expressing his anger at Kutuzov’s plan to surrender Moscow. 14 The clearest evidence Rostopchina
presented, though, was in a letter from the Count to his wife. “‘Do you see, my friend, how useful my
idea was to set fire to the city before the arrival of the villain? ...’ In these words, he admitted that
the idea was his...” (39). Additionally, Rostopchina quoted extensively from General Sir Robert
Wilson’s eyewitness account of Count Rostopchin setting his own house on fire. Walking through the
estate, Wilson recalled the Count asking friends for help, “‘Here is my bridal bed. I do not have the
courage to set it ablaze. Save me from this burden’” (43).
Rostopchina appeared pleased to have found a letter from the Count to someone outside the
family acknowledging of his role. The Count’s letter of June 11, 1816 to his friend Alexander Bulgakov
exemplified how Count Rostopchin also turned to his wit to address his responsibility without directly
stating what he had done:
I have a clear conscience for what was done and what is being done. In the past, I
stepped over the duties of a faithful servant and acted as a frenzied or an Asiatic person
influenced by opium. … What a valuable recognition is a frenzied opium intoxication from
the mouth of a man who never wanted to answer the question so often proposed! (53‐
54).
By claiming to have been intoxicated, the Count hoped that focusing on his patriotism would excuse
him from culpability. His national loyalty overrode what he described as a moment of non‐Russian
behavior. Rostopchina expected that her audience would read between the lines and consider the
document in the context of the other sources. Although the Count never described what he did in
this letter, readers would be able to deduce what his role was.
Alongside evidence of the Count’s decision to set the Moscow fires and his participation in at least
the destruction of his own home, Rostopchina provided examples where her grandfather evaded
questions or denied his involvement in the Moscow fire. These were in sharp contrast to the clarity in