sempozyum_bildiri_kitabi

his letters to family. Quoting Hans von Wolzogen's memoirs, Rostopchina gave one example of her
grandfather's response to such questions, demonstrating his reticence and his sharp tongue.
One of my friends… once asked [Rostophchin] in my presence how the fire started.
This is what the Governor replied: ‘The Emperor himself did not offer me this question,
and I am not obliged to give an answer (45‐46).
Continuing questions about who was to blame for the Moscow fires and their devastation vexed
Count Rostopchin and contributed to his declining health.
Along with the inseparable rheumatism and pains he had cruel insomnia, a terrible
consequence of the nervous tension that undermined his strength. His soul also suffered
greatly from the hatred from Muscovite that accumulated around him (47).
She speculated that public outcry influenced his decision to deny his involvement in the historical
episode.
From his beloved Motherland he received letters full of venom and threats from low,
greedy souls who reproached him for the Moscow fire and the devastation of its
inhabitants. Finally convinced that his heroic act was not appreciated by contemporaries,
and probably despairing that it would be misunderstood by future generations, maybe
even doubting the minute of moral agony in the great value of the patriotic act
accomplished in a rush, putting the honors of the Fatherland above anything else, broken
by moral loneliness and physical sufferings, driven to despair by a new anonymous letter
which was an overflowing cup of bitterness, maybe wishing as well to relieve his family
from the hatred and persecution of a reckless crowd, he took up his pen and wrote the
sad "Truth about the Moscow Fire (280‐281).
By sharing the physical and psychological consequences her grandfather endured after 1812,
Rostopchina presented her grandfather as a man “to be more pitied than censured” (282). At first
wanting to protect his homeland and the city of Moscow, Rostopchina argued that her grandfather
hid the truth about his role ultimately to protect his family from hostile public opinion. Presenting
both proof and denial of her grandfather’s involvement created an ambiguity that allowed
Rostopchina to explore the emotional facets of this historical episode. The emotions felt by historical
figures guided Rostopchina’s readers on how to interpret the past.
Lydie Rostopchina’s The Family Chronicle is a complex work. The author’s shifting narrative voice,
from memoirist to historian, from objective to subjective perspectives, from reportage to rhetoric,
raises questions about the reliability of her work. Given the context of Russian historical and life
writings, though, Rostopchina deserves more attention. The family history, with its moral and
educational expectations, provided a way for Rostopchina to correct history within an acceptable
genre. Count Rostopchin’s role in the Moscow Fires, the reactions to “The Forced Marriage,” and
their consequences on Rostopchina’s family, force readers to consider the role of public opinion and
gossip, alongside facts, memories, and emotions, in shaping historical narratives. She presented her
grandfather’s anger, brusqueness, and sharp tongue, but also revealed his more vulnerable
moments. Surrounding the portrayal of her mother’s naiveté about the reception of “The Forced
Marriage” were Rostopchina’s recollections of her mother’s confident writing voice and courage to
challenge her exile. Presenting different facets of her relatives alongside a variety of historical
documents, Rostopchina placed the responsibility of how to interpret the past on her readers.
Rostopchina held herself to the standards she expected of her audience. Most of The Family
Chronicle depicts her grandmother, Countess Ekaterina Petrovna Rostopchina (née Protasova, 1776‐
1859) as a cruel, difficult, and duplicitous matriarch, an image based on Rostopchina’s childhood and