SOURCE: Heier, Edmund. “J. C. Lavater's Edifying and Physiognomic Ideas in Eighteenth-Century Russia.” In Studies on Johann Caspar Lavater (1741-1801) in Russia, pp. 6-36. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 1991.

[In the following essay, Heier traces the impact of Lavater's Physiognomischen Fragmente on Russian culture.]

Lavater's edifying views, as well as the total concept of physiognomic thinking, were introduced into Russia as part of the general wave of Western influence. One ought to keep in mind that Russia did not undergo the Western European Renaissance; therefore, the classical revival, and with it the tradition of physiognomy, entered Russia rather belatedly. This factor no doubt accounts for the absence of any physiognomic cult in Russia at the time when, in the West, the pursuit of physiognomy was at its peak. The physiognomic tradition established in the West through the republishing of classical authors like Polemon, Aristotle, Iamblichus and those of the Middle Ages, was further nourished after the Renaissance by a number of new physiognomic treatises. While such works, especially those of G. Dalla Porta, were translated in the West, Russia remained relatively isolated from most Western developments until the large scale Europeanization of the Russian Empire during the eighteenth century.

The penetration of Lavater's ideas into Russia must be considered not only in the general context of Europeanization but more specifically in the light of Russo-Swiss cultural relations, the beginning of which date back to the reign of Peter the Great. Of utmost importance in this connection were the numerous native-born Swiss in Russian service. Among those who obtained prominence in the Russian Empire were not only military leaders like Franz and Pierre Lefort, P. von Planta, and H. C. Escher, but also many scientists and humanists. During the second half of the eighteenth century the Russian Academy of Sciences admitted no less than thirty-five Swiss members. Among the outstanding personalities were several members of the Bernoulli family; others were J. Hermann and Leonhard Euler, J. K. Horner and, from among Lavater's friends, one ought to single out Charles Bonnet, Albrecht von Haller, J. A. Mallet and Salomon Gessner. The honours bestowed on many Swiss by the Russian Academy give further indication that the Swiss educational system was highly esteemed in Russia.¹ It is only natural, therefore, to find numerous Swiss tutors, educators, and medical doctors in the service of the Russian nobility. Towards the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century, more than one hundred Swiss were engaged in the teaching profession, among them no less a scholar than F. C. Laharpe. Many of these, along with some spiritual leaders of Evangelical-Lutheran communities in Moscow and St. Petersburg, functioned as propagandists for Lavater's physiognomic work. Archival material reveals further that at the peak of Lavater's fame, during the last two decades of his life, he became an important source of recommendation for many Swiss seeking service in the Russian state and, conversely, an adviser to many Russians who sought their service.²

It is thus not surprising that the earlier mention of Lavater and his association with Russia is to be discovered in the letters of Johann R. Füessli, a native of Zurich and a tutor in St. Petersburg, as well as a close relative of the famous Johann Heinrich Füessli, the painter. Füessli first entered the Russian service as interpreter to Count N. I. Saltykov and in 1773 we find him as tutor to the two sons of General A. I. Bibikov, a position which he held for the next ten years. In this capacity he carried on an extensive correspondence with his close friend in Riga, the book dealer, Johann Friedrich Hartknoch. Füessli's letters would be of no importance if not for the significant references to the physiognomist Lavater. From these letters we learn the astonishing news that Lavater was supposed to have resided in St. Petersburg and Moscow from November 1773 until the spring of 1774. At that time Lavater was thirty-two years old and assistant pastor at the Waisenhauskirche in Zurich. This position certainly enabled him to remain absent from Zurich for prolonged periods; however, neither Lavater nor his biographers have ever mentioned such a journey to Russia.³ Yet Füessli writes to Hartknoch on November 29th, 1773, from St. Petersburg: “… Lavater arrived here last Thursday. …”⁴ According to these letters, written between November 1773 and February 1774, Lavater had great financial difficulties in St. Petersburg, and Füessli tried to obtain a position for him in the Russian army. After having spent a considerable sum of borrowed money in St. Petersburg, Lavater moved on to Moscow where he found shelter in the home of another Swiss, Pastor Salomon Brunner. Since a letter of credit for Lavater had not yet arrived from Zurich, he continued to have financial problems in Moscow. Füessli, who met Lavater once more in Moscow, again records how carelessly the pastor handled his money: he borrowed, could not pay his debts, and as a result was detained in Moscow. Füessli writes of the following unpleasant situation in which Lavater found himself in Moscow:

… not long ago he was arrested. In company of a guard he was permitted to visit his friends and collect the money. He came and told me that he would lose his honour and freedom if he were not helped. I promised to repay fifty roubles for him within ten days. Thereafter he received permission to depart, and in this manner I saved him from shame and imprisonment.⁵

Although Füessli never describes the manner in which Lavater had disposed of so considerable a sum, one could easily attribute it to his generosity and his constant willingness to help the poor, often disregarding his own needs, a trait for which Lavater was well known.⁶ In addition, Lavater was at this time spending large sums for prints, in preparation for his Physiognomische Fragmente. There remains the puzzling question—what was Lavater seeking in Russia? It is true that many sought their fortune in Russia, and certain prominent men were actually invited to the country, among them Voltaire, d'Alembert, L. Euler, J. G. Zimmermann, M. Grimm and Diderot. At the time in question, however, Lavater was only at the threshold of his fame. A plausible reason for departing from Zurich may have been the urge to advertise his forthcoming monumental work and the fact that he did not have a permanent position which prevented him from establishing an independent household.⁷

Whatever the reason for Lavater's sojourn in Russia (if it ever took place), the memory of it must have been unpleasant enough to make him want to forget it forever. Lavater began his diary of 1779 by saying: “It is understood, that one cannot write down absolutely everything, both good and evil, which one knows about oneself.” And perhaps his encounters in Russia fall into this category. In any case, Lavater maintained friendly relations with Pastor Brunner, the bookdealer Hartknoch, and his friend Füessli; in fact, all three were subsequently engaged in advertising and selling his Physiognomische Fragmente in Russia.⁸ In their correspondence, however, there is no reference to his Russian trip, not even in a letter to Pastor Brunner, written in May of 1775, a year after the supposed departure from Moscow. In this letter Lavater highly recommends a young lieutenant and asks Brunner for his help. He concludes by saying: “You have helped many unfortunate people who may have deserved it less than he. I know you, and I am convinced you will do your utmost.” Among those to whom Brunner extended help Lavater may have included himself.⁹

The first Russians to be exposed to Lavater's ideas were the most gifted students studying in European universities. German universities, especially those in Leipzig, Göttingen, Strasbourg, and the Military Academy at Stuttgart, played a vital role in the educational advancement of these young Russians during the second half of the eighteenth century. Catherine II, as Empress of Russia, was personally interested in the selection of these young Russians who were destined to become Russia's civil servants. But unwittingly she at the same time created a nucleus of educated Russians who began to question the prevailing social order in their native land. The most famous among them was A. Radishchev (1749-1802).¹⁰ Having been exposed to Western tradition, they became convinced that in order to change the old order they must fundamentally re-educate the Russians and, first and foremost, advocate man's moral perfectibility. The strongest support in this area came from the Russian Masonic fraternity, which began to assert itself in Moscow towards the close of Catherine's reign. The basic tenets of the Russian Freemasons—brotherhood, freedom of conscience, benevolence and charity, and, above all, the cultivation of spiritual and moral qualities—have to be identified with the ideal of human liberty. These are all ideals which Lavater advocated and which endeared him to others and made him respected. From the midst of this Masonic fraternity emerged Russia's greatest admirer of Lavater, in the person of N. M. Karamzin (1766-1826).

Russian Freemasons, especially the Moscovites I. V. Lopukhin (1756-1816), I. P. Turgenev (1752-1807), A. A. Petrov (1760-1793), N. I. Novikov (1744-1818), A. M. Kutuzov (1749-1797), I. I. Dmitriev (1760-1837), J. G. Schwarz (1751-1784), and M. M. Kheraskov (1733-1807), played a considerable role in the Europeanization of Russia during the last two decades of Catherine's reign. Taking advantage of the liberalized policy between 1779 and 1792, Novikov, in association with his Masonic brothers, translated and published the works of European authors representing different centuries and different views. In 1779 Novikov signed a ten-year lease with Moscow University Press and in three years published more books than the press had printed during the previous twenty-five years.¹¹ In close collaboration with others, especially with the Masons associated with the university, such as Professor Schwarz, Novikov set up additional presses, including a secret Masonic one. To facilitate their educational activities, a group of Masons including Novikov, Lopukhin, Schwarz and Turgenev, founded the Friendly Learned Society (Druzheskoe Uchenoe Obshchestvo) in 1781. The society's aim clearly reflected the Masonic spirit, which was, in the words of Lopukhin, “to publish spiritual books and instructions in morality in accord with the truth of the scriptures and translate from the most profound foreign authors, and to aid good education.”¹² His emphasis on the spiritual aspect in education corresponds with the tenets of Lavater the theologian and religious educator.

From the aim of this society it is apparent that the Moscow Freemasons, as zealous and deliberate propagators of humanitarian ideals, did not proceed exclusively in the French rationalistic spirit of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists. In their lodges they propagated equally the importance of the irrational, religious, and unknown mystical side of life. Thus, Russian Freemasonry, especially that of the Moscow circle, must be viewed as a fusion of rationalistic and religious-mystical tendencies. As such, it offered the Russian aristocracy and intelligentsia scope for philanthropic activities, combined with a new spiritual and ethical outlook. For many it replaced the official conservative creed which began to be discredited by the rationalism of the Enlightenment.

Although the interests of the Freemasons covered a wide range (publishing, philanthropy, molding public opinion, serfdom, education, alchemy, natural sciences, mysticism),¹³ the primary focus here must be limited to their preoccupation with religious and ethical teaching. Basically, their educational aims were those of the German Rosicrucians, that is, to educate and ennoble the human heart, to root out rudeness, and to develop a friendly inclination towards all men.¹⁴ The Masons believed that this ideal state in which man is fully united with God and is in possession of a pure spirit could be achieved in three successive stages: through intensive knowledge of oneself, knowledge of nature and knowledge of God. The Masons postulated further that our existence, with its rational and irrational side, constitutes a perfectly harmonious system. Consequently, the study of oneself leads simultaneously to greater understanding of nature and God.¹⁵ In their concept man as a microcosm is analogous to the macrocosm. This concept of harmony also forms the basis of Lavater's physiognomic studies.

Initially, however, it was not physiognomy that attracted the Russian Masons to Lavater; rather it was his religious and ethical teaching. On the whole, the Moscow Masons with their mystical spirituality leaned heavily toward the German Masonic pedagogical ideal, with Lopukhin its chief exponent. The strong German influence is indicated by the overwhelming use of German as a working language in the lodges. Moreover, the Moscow Masons received their instruction from the German fraternity, especially after Schwarz's participation in the Masonic convention of Wilhelmsbad in 1782, which also led to Kutuzov's appointment as delegate of the Moscow Masons to Berlin. The German orientation was further encouraged among Moscow students by two German professors, Schwarz and Schaden, who propagated moral precepts corresponding to the mainstream of German philosophical and ethical teachings.

It was Professor Schwarz, however, who was immediately responsible for the transfer of Lavater's ideas into the midst of the Moscow Masons; Professor Schwarz, a man of strong beliefs with a strong personality and unusual intellectual power, exercised a profound influence over his listeners. Disillusioned with rationalism as the sole vehicle for comprehending higher truth, Schwarz postulated in addition to reason two more stages of knowledge to be mastered, i.e., feeling and mystical revelation. In doing so, he appealed to the sensibility of the younger Masons and at the same time provided them with a philosophical foundation for Sentimentalism. V. V. Sipovskij says this of Schwarz: “Not satisfied with his own propagation, Schwarz solicited the aid of great persons holding the same views, like J. Böhme and Lavater, whom he placed very highly and whom he persistently recommended to his listeners.”¹⁶

An excellent indication of the spiritual aims of the Moscow Masons may be derived from the extensive interest in foreign authors whose works were translated into Russian and published by Novikov and his associates. Among them were the prominent writers F. G. Gellert, A. Haller, E. Young, F. G. Klopstock, Fr. K. Moser, Ch. Fr. Germershausen, J. Bunyan and J. Milton. In addition, one should also mention a number of books which were secretly printed for the exclusive use of the Masons—a special pocket Bible with selected passages, and most of the works of sixteenth-century German mystics such as J. Arndt and Jakob Böhme. The works of the latter were circulated only in manuscript form.¹⁷

Apart from regular translations of entire books, the Masonic journals, such as Moskovskoe ezhemesjachnoe izdanie (1781), Utrennij svet (1777-79), Vechernjaja Zarja (1782), Pokojashchijsja trudoljubets (1784-85), Moskovskie vedomosti (1783-84), and Detskoe chtenie dlja serdtsa i razuma (1785-89),¹⁸ published excerpts from Western writers without indication of sources. In their content, however, these articles resembled many of the ideas expounded by outstanding Swiss philosophers and theologians like Zimmermann, Zollikofer and Lavater. To these names one must add that of Charles Bonnet, whose Contemplation de la nature and Palingenesis philosophique … were widely discussed by the Masons. The latter work was also translated into German by Lavater in 1769-70.

The Masons most responsible for these various translations were Petrov, Kutuzov, Lopukhin, Karamzin and I. P. Turgenev. It is with Karamzin and Turgenev that Lavater established lasting relations, undoubtedly prompted by the kinship of their spirits. Lavater's popularity among the Moscow Masons and his extensive connection with them led some Russian scholars to assume that Lavater was the grandmaster of the German Masonic lodge in Switzerland.¹⁹ Inspired by the Masonic convention at Wilhelmsbad, Lavater wrote a laudatory treatise in 1785 on the Masonic fraternity in the form of a letter to his brother, Dr. Diethelm Lavater. It is obvious that Lavater, the physiognomist and famous Protestant pastor from Zurich, was confused with his brother, the physician, who was, indeed, the master of the Modestia cum Libertate Lodge in Zurich.

Although Lavater was not an active member of the Masonic fraternity, his ideas recall those of the Moscow Masons and, indeed, he behaved like them in every aspect. He shared their moral and philanthropic aspiration, and like them he belonged to a number of restricted societies, such as the Helvetische Gesellschaft zur Gerve and the Collegium theologicocasusticum. In 1764, together with his friend S. Hirzl, he founded the Moralische Gesellschaft for the express purpose of propagating religious and ethical teaching among the lower classes, a purpose similar to the one the Moscow Masons had. The manner in which the Masons propagated their views and the type of material employed also resembled that of Lavater. The booklet which Lavater published in the cause of this society, Christliches Handbüchlein (1767), led to a number of similar edifying publications like the Christliches Handbüchlein für Kinder (1771), Taschenhandbüchlein für Dienstbote (1772), Brüderliche Schreiben an Jünglinge (1782), Christlicher Religionsunterricht für denkende Jünglinge (1788), Aussichten in die Ewigkeit in Briefen an Herrn Johann Georg Zimmermann (1768-1778), and Geheimes Tagebuch eines Beobachters seiner selbst (1771-73). The latter is a confession by Lavater which was edited by Zollikofer without the author's knowledge.²⁰ These are the works which made Lavater popular and endeared him to the Moscow Masons. Thus, it is not surprising that the edifying articles of the Masonic journals published by Novikov bear an astonishing resemblance to Lavater's work.

In the midst of the Moscow Masons and especially in the homes of his mentors, Turgenev and Novikov, Karamzin developed an admiration for Lavater which led, eventually, to an extensive correspondence between Zurich and Moscow (1786-90).²¹ In his letters to the “prophet of Zurich,” Karamzin repeatedly asserts that he is enchanted with Lavater's writings and that the more he reads them, the more he recognizes their value. In awe of Lavater, he questions in his first letter whether he possesses enough talent to approach the “great Lavater” who “evoked in him ardent love and reverence.”²² From this and from the substance of the remaining letters, it is obvious that his admiration for Lavater derived from the latter's teaching and from the moralizing pietistic writings circulated among the Moscow Masons rather than from the Physiognomische Fragmente, which were only mentioned but not discussed. The attitude towards physiognomy among the Moscow Masons seems to have been of a dual nature, just as there was a dichotomy among them in their attitude toward the rational and irrational. The dominant figure of the Moscow Masons, Professor Schwarz, was most definitely a defender of physiognomy, as he lectured on the “justification of physiognomy” in his course on aesthetics. Following his death, however, an anonymous article clearly directed against Lavater's physiognomy appeared in 1785 in one of the Masonic journals.²³

Apart from the Karamzin-Lavater correspondence, very little archival material is available to indicate the extent of Lavater's direct contact with members of the Moscow Masons. From other source material available, however, it becomes clear that Ivan Petrovich Turgenev and his circle of friends were responsible for Lavater's popularity among the Moscow Masons and especially among Turgenev's four sons who, in the next century, were to carry Lavater's banner. For his Masonic activities Turgenev was exiled in 1792 to his country estate, Turgenevo, where he resided until he was recalled by Paul I in 1796 and appointed rector of Moscow University. During this time the education of his sons was in the hands of a relative of Lavater, Johann Konrad Tobler from Zurich. Tobler, together with their father, probably instilled the pietistic moral precepts in his young charges.²⁴ In the home of the Turgenevs there was always a predilection for German and Swiss literatures, especially for the latter. Gessner was one of their favorite poets.

Years later, when wandering through Europe, Aleksander Turgenev (1784-1845) recorded this impression of Zurich:

I was in the square where there is a monument to Gessner. … No other writer instilled in me more urge to do good and taught me to appreciate country life more than Gessner whom we read in Turgenevo with the unforgettable Tobler. Generally we Turgenevs think gratefully of Zurich: it is the home of the Toblers, and of Lavater with whom my father carried on a friendly and religious correspondence. … What a pity that on the other end of Zurich there is no monument to Lavater!²⁵

Similarly, he writes to his brother Nikolaj on September 27, 1827, upon his arrival in Zurich:

My thoughts had returned to the past. … I was thinking about Lavater, who was loved by our father and by Ivan Vladimirovich [Lopukhin]. … I thought of Lavater's relative, Tobler, who was not our teacher as much as he was our friend or rather that of our brother Andrej, for I could not yet appreciate his quality. However, I have saved all his letters to my brother, whom he loved.²⁶

According to several Russian sources, Lavater was also in correspondence with Peter Nikolaevich Jushkov, a Mason and a member of the Turgenev circle. P. I. Bartenev says: “Although we know very little of him we know that he was an enlightened person and carried on a correspondence with the famous Lavater. …”²⁷ Unfortunately neither this correspondence nor the Turgenev-Lavater correspondence has been located. The Lavater archives reveal, however, that in addition to his countrymen in St. Petersburg and Moscow, among whom were Füessli, Brunner, Tobler, Dr. Fränkel, and Dr. Fries, Lavater corresponded at various times with a number of Russians and foreigners in the Russian service.

As one of the most famous Protestant pastors in Europe, Lavater played no small role within the German Protestant communities, especially in the German boarding schools where his edifying writings were diligently studied. Some of his earlier handbooks on religious instruction and upbringing were both reprinted and translated into Russian. The most enterprising of Lavater's “admirers” in this respect was August Witzmann, head of a boarding school in St. Petersburg. In 1778 Witzmann edited a bilingual journal in German and Russian: St. Petersburgisches Wochenblatt …—Sanktpeterburgskoe ezhenedel'noe sochinenie … in which he printed Lavater's instructions as to the Christian upbringing of children under the title “K gospodam.” Under separate cover, Witzmann published another “borrowing” from Lavater—a series of useful instructions in upbringing both for parents and servants entitled Nravouchitel'nyja nastavlenija slugam sochinenie slavnago Lafatera, s prisovokupleniem dobrykh sovetov o vospitanii detej (1799). Another bilingual pamphlet based on Lavater's Christian handbooks for children and youth was Witzmann's Uchenija, pravila i nravouchitel'nyja izrechenija na nemetskom i rossijskom jazyke v podarok malym i vzroslym detjam (1798).

Paralleling the enormous attention devoted to Lavater's religious ethical writings, there was a growing interest in his monumental work on physiognomy. Here Lavater was his own best salesman. Both the original and the French translation were sold by Moscow and St. Petersburg bookdealers, with Lavater urging his acquaintances in Russia to propagate and sell his work, while other Russian subjects became subscribers. Moreover, the memory of Lavater the physiognomist was very much kept alive among his personal acquaintances, the German literary figures M. Klinger (1752-1831), L. H. Nicolay (1737-1820), F. H. Lafermière (1737-1796) and E. v.d. Recke (1756-1833), all of whom had occupied prominent positions at the Russian court during the last decades of the eighteenth century.²⁸

With E. v.d. Recke, Lavater carried on a rather polemical correspondence between 1775-1789 concerning physiognomic questions and religious views but mainly dealing with the unmasking of Cagliostro (1743-1795),²⁹ the arch-charlatan of the eighteenth century. The latter's pretension to supernatural power and his claim to have discovered the philosopher's stone, the preparation of a precious elixir vitae was of considerable interest to the Russian Masons, as they too were searching in mysticism and cabala for the essence of God. At the invitation of the Masons, Cagliostro visited St. Petersburg and the Baltic provinces during the years 1779-1780. Temporarily under the influence of Cagliostro, E. v.d. Recke, lady-in-waiting to Catherine II, was urged by the Empress to unmask Cagliostro. This request resulted in her Nachricht von des berüchtigten Cagliostro Aufenthalt in Mitau im Jahre 1779 und von dessen dortigen magischen Operationen (1787). In a sense, the Recke-Lavater correspondence and, more specifically, Recke's work on Cagliostro, is further evidence of the nature of Masonic activities in the lodges of the Baltic provinces of Russia.

Aware of the growing mystic tendencies among the Russian Masons and of Cagliostro's activities in her own Empire, Catherine II herself produced a comedy, The Swindler (Obmanshchik) (1785), which was directed against the absurdities of Cagliostro.³⁰ The hero speaks in a mystical jargon, performs séances and converses with spirits, uses alchemy in preparing gold for his host, but at the end is arrested and brought to justice. Anxious to propagate her views, Catherine II sent a German copy of the comedy to her correspondent Zimmermann, the esprit fort of Europe at the time, with a commentary to the effect that her play depicted Cagliostro, “whom she had never met though he and his wife were here in Russia.” Although the hero represents Cagliostro, the setting is Russian and his followers, whom Catherine II ridicules, are Russian Masons whom she often compares to the members of the Secret Order of the Illuminists. Thus, in speaking of the success of her play on the Russian stage to Zimmermann, Catherine II added: “I am telling you this so that you know how we treat the illuminati here.”³¹ Indeed, this was but a warning of Catherine's vigorous onslaught against the Masons which led to the abolition of all the lodges during the 1790's.

In her move against the mysticism propagated by the publications of the Moscow Masons, Catherine II found an ally in Ch. Fr. Nicolai (1733-1811), the popular philosopher in Berlin, who with equal vigour proceeded against the “mystical and fantastic teaching of Cagliostro, Schrepfer, pater Gassner, Lavater, Swedenborg, and Saint-Martin who were beginning to cloud the thinking of people. …”³² These were, of course, the very men who were shaping the thoughts of the Russian Masons. In her attempt to eradicate any influence of these men, Catherine not only confiscated and burned their works but rejected all works with the slightest irrational or mystical inclination, among them even Klopstock's Messias, which was translated by Kutuzov and printed by the Masons in 1785-87. Lavater's Physiognomische Fragmente were also included in this category, a fact which is recorded by L. H. Nicolay. In St. Petersburg, the bookdealer Weitbrecht had the task of supplying Catherine II with all noteworthy books. Among those forwarded to her was Lavater's first volume on physiognomy. As a product of the Enlightenment with a sceptical, rational outlook, the Empress could not muster even a modicum of enthusiasm for Lavater. She returned the book with the unequivocal comment, “that fellow is a fool.”³³

Of greater significance as a link between the Moscow Masons and Lavater was the Livonian poet and dramatist of the German Storm and Stress Movement, J. M. R. Lenz (1751-1792). A devoted friend of Lavater since 1774, Lenz came to share his interest in physiognomy, which led the pair to prolonged and intimate discussions on the subject. Following his illness, Lenz returned in 1779 to his native Riga. In 1781 he moved on to Moscow, where he associated with the Masons for the next ten years, until his death in 1792. There, among the Masons, especially in the home of Novikov, Lenz found shelter and care when illness struck him again. He was buried at Novikov's expense. As a friend of Lavater who could convey first-hand information, Lenz undoubtedly enhanced Lavater's admirable reputation among the Masons.

Lenz's correspondence with Lavater dealt primarily with physiognomic questions. The two tested each other's physiognomic skill, and some of Lenz's comments found their way into Lavater's work.³⁴ The last two letters by Lenz are written from St. Petersburg and deal polemically with Lavater's physiognomic presentation of Russian types in the last two volumes of the Physiognomische Fragmente. Under the heading of Russian national faces, Lavater reproduced the portraits of Peter I, G. Orlov, General Bibikov, a profile of a Russian soldier, and that of a Russian youth³⁵—hardly representative faces of the Russian nation. Special attention is devoted to Catherine II, whose profile is accompanied with a detailed character analysis.³⁶ Lenz's reaction to Lavater's reproduction of Russian faces is that of a Russian patriot: he is especially angered by the fact that Lavater judges an entire nation on the basis of a few reproductions. In a long letter dated May, 1780, Lenz accuses Lavater of misrepresentation and demands a correction, especially of his faulty judgment of Catherine II. If this is not done, Lenz asserts, he will be forced to accuse Lavater publicly.

You [Lavater] are dealing with a new science which should lead to better understanding of mankind and yet you allow yourself to be misled; they have presented you with a mask which does not fit the face [of the Empress]. Or do you believe that Russia is still what it was fifty years ago and that one can write about it more carelessly and without knowing the facts? How would you react if I were to subject the most prominent Swiss to negative character sketches based on mere reports by a few of my countrymen who had spent no longer than three months in Switzerland?³⁷

To correct Lavater's misconception of Russians, Lenz provided him with a series of silhouettes and his own physiognomic analysis. But in the closing lines of his letter he returns once again to his object of contention. He admonishes Lavater by asking him whether he knew what he was doing when he used prominent people, monarchs and princes almost exclusively to illustrate his theory. Lenz goes on to suggest that the slightest false expressions could lead to disastrous misinterpretations. Although Lavater's character sketch of the Empress is, on the whole, positive, it contains obvious insinuations such as in “her facial expression, i.e., in the effect of the movable parts of her face one could detect a certain element of indecency and childish naivety.” Lenz concluded his attack by saying: “Have you read anything by our Empress, and have you studied her character? Have you studied Russia's history? Or do you judge only by hearsay? … I would like to burn the whole part. Not a single word in it is true. For your own sake … omit this part from the French translation.” Whether Lavater took Lenz's warning to heart is not known. At any rate, the French edition of Lavater's work contained three portraits of Catherine II, with a considerable deviation from the German text and without any insinuations.³⁸

Lavater did not reply immediately to Lenz's accusing letters, and when he did after seven years, in March, 1787, via Karamzin, he only mentioned the silhouettes and the accompanying commentaries. Lavater expressed his gratitude for the silhouettes but added “your observations on character analysis were more important to me.” Towards the end of the letter, however, Lavater emerges as the moralizing and edifying pastor, for he states: “Mein Nathanael … für Nathanele (1786) I would like to have read by a few Christians in your society.”³⁹ One ought to take note here also that as a dramatic writer who acclaimed Shakespeare, Lenz's close association with Karamzin during the 1780's did not remain without consequences. He instilled in the budding poet an enthusiasm for the English dramatist which most probably led to the translation of Julius Caesar which appeared in 1787.⁴⁰

During the 1780's, following the publication of the Physiognomische Fragmente, Lavater was undoubtedly one of the most famous men in Europe. As such, he became an attraction for many travellers, including the Russian Grand Duke Paul, who visited him in 1782. Lavater revelled in this position. He sought the friendship of many of the ruling princes, dedicated his works to them, accepted their invitations and, as a consequence, had to endure the criticism of his contemporaries, who accused him of seeking the friendship of the mighty too avidly. Lavater's fame reached such proportions that he wrote to Goethe after one of his trips in 1782: “My genius always paves my path. Arranges always quarters for me. … I have renewed about sixty old acquaintances and made about sixty new ones.”⁴¹ Among Lavater's intimate friends were the Duke of Württemberg (Montbéliard), Frederick Eugene, and his wife, Dorothea. The couple's reverence for Lavater was transmitted to their daughter, Sophie, who in 1776 became the second wife of the Russian Grand Duke Paul, and was known as Maria Feodorovna. Through her efforts Lavater established lasting relations with the “Small Court” at Gatchina and Pavlovsk, the residence of the Grand Duke.

A personal encounter between Lavater and the Russian Grand Duke took place in the fall of 1782. At the time, the Grand Duke and his spouse were travelling with an entourage of twelve people, including Lafermière, Klinger and Nicolay. The tour, which lasted over a year, took them to the major cities of Europe. Their meeting with Lavater was definitely planned, although time and place had remained unspecified. Eventually, the party arrived in Zurich on September 12, 1782, with the express purpose of visiting the famous Lavater. Among those received was also Salomon Gessner, who had shortly before been honoured with a gold medal by Catherine II.⁴²

Lavater has left us a detailed account of this memorable meeting which he entitled: “Unterhaltungen der nordischen Herrschaften Paul Petrovitz, Grossfürsten von Russland und seiner Gemahlin Maria Feodorovna, geborene Prinzessin von Württemberg mit Johann Caspar Lavater, samt einigen miteinschlagenden Anekdoten, 1782.”⁴³ Lavater records an amiable reception and implies that Paul's primary concern was to discuss physiognomy and, in particular, his own appearance. It is well known that Paul was much concerned with his rather unpleasant countenance. Thus it is not surprising that Paul asked for an analysis of himself. Lavater assured him that he had no reason to be displeased with his exterior, saying that every human being should be satisfied with his own face.

All of us should be what we are—no one should attempt to be something else. All evil in this world derives from the fact that man desires to be more than what nature intended him to be. Everyone who is endowed with advantages will discover within himself a proportion of disadvantages. You, Monseigneur, are built much better by nature than thousands of others.

Following these generalities, the Grand Duke insisted on having more specifics: “But I am serious—tell me, how could I improve my character and temperament?” To this Lavater replied that he was not in the habit of either praising or criticizing people to their faces, least of all people whom he just had met. The Grand Duke, however, retorted: “I understand this perfectly well. But I have come to you precisely in order to get to know myself better. Thus be so kind and fulfill my wish. I am truly concerned with the betterment of myself.” The topic ended with a long flattering analysis which seemingly pleased the Grand Duke, for Lavater reports that the former was close to tears from joy. Before the Grand Duke's departure, Lavater presented him with a French edition of his physiognomic studies, the principles of which were familiar to Paul through his personal physician, Kruse, who used to read passages to him from the Physiognomische Fragmente.

One result of this meeting between the Grand Duke, his wife, Maria Feodorovna, and Lavater was an extensive correspondence between Zurich and St. Petersburg. This correspondence, which started in 1782, lasted to the end of Lavater's life in 1801 and was addressed both to Maria Feodorovna and her secretary Nicolay.⁴⁴ The correspondence with Paul's wife was initiated at her request; she wanted to know Lavater's thoughts about the condition of the soul after death. Indeed, all the letters addressed to her are dated 1789 and deal with one theme, “Der Zustand der Seele nach dem Tode.”⁴⁵ These letters resemble a spiritualistic novel in epistolary form. Maria Feodorovna must have treasured them as they were the only ones preserved in the Pavlovsk Library. In 1858 the Imperial Public Library printed these letters under the title Johann Kaspar Lavaters Briefe an die Kaiserin Maria Feodorovna. The remainder of the Lavater correspondence is to be found in the Nicolay archives at the University library of Helsinki.

The seventeen letters by Lavater in the Nicolay archives are of extreme importance inasmuch as they deal with the sale of Lavater's physiognomic drawings to the Russian court. In a way, these drawings constitute a continuation of his Physiognomische Fragmente. By 1797 Lavater had accumulated an enormous number of drawings with accompanying physiognomic analyses, which no one would accept for publication because of the substantial cost involved. Among those to whom Lavater offered portions of this collection was Paul I, who by that time had ascended the Russian throne. The collection of physiognomic drawings which Lavater sold to the Russian court between 1798 and 1800 for 300 Louis d'or, contained over one thousand sheets, each with a drawing and a character analysis expressed in a hexameter. Most of the drawings were originals by contemporary artists. Lavater expressed the wish that the drawings be hung in a special room according to subject matter, such as history, religion, and mythology. Apparently, no one was ready to comply with Lavater's wish, for in 1811 they were still packed away in chests. Only in 1824 were these drawings classified according to subject matter and bound into four large volumes under the title Lavaters Sammlung Physiognomischer Original Zeichnungen Geordnet 1824.⁴⁶ As such, they formed a unique monument to Lavater the physiognomist and remained one of the prize possessions of the Pavlovsk Library until they were auctioned off in Berlin during the 1930's. At present they are in the possession of the Blaß-Laufer family in Zurich, where they adorn one of the largest collections of Lavateriana.⁴⁷

Apart from the original drawings and paintings in miniature by eighteenth-century artists, which in themselves are valuable, Lavater's accompanying character judgements are of equal interest. They are, by turns, serious and pious, witty and satirical, but never exaggerated, so that the viewer is inclined to agree with Lavater's evaluation. It is unknown, however, how the Imperial family reacted to this acquisition and whether this added to Lavater's reputation as a physiognomist beyond the confines of the court. According to Nicolay, President of the Imperial Academy of Sciences at the time and negotiator of the sale of the physiognomic drawings, the purchase was made not so much because of its worth and the interest in physiognomy but because it came from the famous Lavater who was, after all, not too rich and yet generous in helping the needy.⁴⁸

The frequent exchange of letters between Lavater and the Russian court and especially the receipt of payment for his physiognomic drawings took place at a time of political instability when Switzerland had been chosen as the battleground between the revolutionary French and the Russian forces. This correspondence, coupled with Lavater's open criticism of the new Swiss government and its French ally, was sufficient to raise suspicion that Lavater might be a Russian agent. Such suspicion led to his temporary deportation in the summer of 1799 until matters could be clarified.⁴⁹

Lavater's correspondence further reveals the benevolent character of its author as well as his close relations with the Russian court, as he is constantly recommending someone or asking help for others. It is characteristic that Lavater's last letter to St. Petersburg dated November 19th, 1800, only some forty days before his death, is written on behalf of the desperate merchants from Schaffhausen, who were unable to obtain payments for their services rendered to the Russian army during its occupation of Switzerland in 1799. Whether Lavater's intervention led to positive results is difficult to determine; it is, however, certain that Lavater was held in high esteem by Paul I and Maria Feodorovna. Precisely at the time when the Russian army was on its march to Switzerland, Paul I dispatched a special order to his commanding officer, Rimskij-Korsakov, entrusting him with the protection of the “famous Lavater.” He also asked his commanding officer to “find out from him [Lavater] which he would like to have more as a sign of our appreciation—a decoration or a rank, a pension or some other distinction. Inform us about this at once and give him the enclosed letter.” The letter to Lavater is certainly a testimony to Paul's concern and reverence for the Swiss pastor:

Monsieur Lavater. Depuis mon voyage en Suisse je me suis rappellé constamment du plaisir que j'ai eu à faire votre connaissance, et de trouver ensuite dans vos ouvrages ces principes qui vous caractérisent et qui vous ont rendu victime de la révolution française. Mes troupes viennent en Suisse pour y consolier le bonheur de ses habitants, en leur rendant leur ancien gouvernement. Par une attention personnelle, j'ai ordonné de veiller sur vos propriétés et sur votre repos. Mon lieutenant-général Rimsky-Korsakov est chargé de ce soin et en même temps de vous demander ce qui pourrait vous être le plus agréable de ma part, comme témoignage aux yeux de tout le monde de l'estime que je porte au digne pasteur et ami du genre humain: Sur ce je prie Dieu, monsieur Lavater, qu'il vous ait en Sa sainte et digne garde. Paul. Gatchina, du 23 September 1799.⁵⁰

Unfortunately, the Emperor's lavish offer was extended during Lavater's darkest hour. On September 26, 1799, Lavater was mortally wounded by a drunk French grenadier and after prolonged suffering succumbed on January 2, 1801, only some two months before Paul himself was murdered. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful whether Lavater ever received Paul's letter, for the original was subsequently discovered in the archives of Rimskij-Korsakov. Lavater's obituary dated January 1801, and written by his son-in-law, Georg Gessner, was the final communication with the Russian Imperial court.

The impact of Lavater in Russian culture manifested itself markedly only in the later decades of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. The time-lag involved must, in the final analysis, be attributed to the absence of a physiognomic tradition in the previous centuries. Although the first physiognomic work was published in Russia in 1765, i.e., some ten years before Lavater's treatise, it could hardly be said to have created a base for Lavater's reception. This first attempt to introduce physiognomy to the Russian reader was printed by the Moscow University Press under the title Kurioznoe i kratkoe iz'jasnenije ljubopytstva dostojnykh nauk, fizionomii i khiromantii, perevedeno iz nemetskago. The title itself suggests that it was meant for popular consumption. The expectations of the publisher were obviously realized, for this curiosity expounding both physiognomy and chiromancy was reprinted no less than eight times within the next three decades: 1768, 1773, 1781, 1786, 1789, 1790, and twice in 1793.⁵¹ Beginning with the 1786 edition, new material was added both in text and illustrations so that the original work of one hundred and fifty pages grew to two hundred and sixty. Although the bulk of this work was a translation from the German, it has been falsely considered a partial translation of Lavater's Physiognomische Fragmente. The first physiognomic treatise in Russian was meant to be a practical handbook with specific rules on face and palm reading for everyone; it bore no resemblance to Lavater's effort, which rested on a highly sophisticated and prolonged serious study. In its final form it resembled the numerous popularized works of the West which emphasized chiromancy, metoscopy and the astrological side of physiognomy. The popularity of such works, indeed, spread ideas about physiognomy but at the same time stigmatized it as charlatanism and added considerably to the decline of its credibility, particularly during the emergence of a more exact medical science.

More mysterious in character was another popularized physiognomic treatise published in Moscow with the title Novyj sposob, kak uznavat' mozhno kazhdogo cheloveka svojstva po ego slozhenijam … (1781). Appended to the physiognomic part were two conversations, one between Mercury, Alchemy and Nature, the other between Alchemy, Sera and Saturn. The work is basically a translation from the Latin books of Michael Scot, court astrologer to Emperor Frederick II: De secretis naturae sui de procreatione et hominis phisiognomia; and De hominis phisiognomia. Scot's treatises are a mixture of physiognomy, dreams, astrology, and magic. As an astronomer he firmly believed in the relations between the constellations and man's features. The physiognomic part consists chiefly of extracts from Aristotle, Polemon, Adamantius and his own arbitrary explanations. Full of passion for the mysterious, coupled with speculative explanations of the inconceivable, and the application of magic and superstition, this New method for the recognition of human character … could not have had much appeal among educated Russians.

The most singular and ridiculous assertions, though presented in dogmatic form, are to be found in the Sovershennyj fiziognom i khiromantik, ili khiromanticheskoe zerkalo … (Moscow, 1795). A perusal of this volume suggests why the practice of this kind of physiognomy was prohibited by law in many countries. The subtitle indicates that the work is a “chiromantic mirror,” based on the study of a famous wise Indian who was considered an oracle not only by his own people but also by “many other nations.” This “mirror” purports to enable one to discover the character and disposition of any person from his physical features, especially his face and hands. The second part of the volume describes the impact of the planets upon our destiny. A chart showing the favourable and unfavourable dates of birth and some nine pages of illustrations for better comprehension completes this book of chiromancy and astrological physiognomy. Here, the classical, descriptive physiognomy, which Lavater revived and perpetuated in his work, had given rise to sophistry, prophetic folklore and magic.

Though they increased the number of Russian volumes on physiognomy, these works could hardly have prepared the ground for Lavater's reception. It is obvious that they were basically commercial ventures based on the last vestige of the magic of the Middle Ages, composed and compiled for, and presented in a dogmatic manner to the ignorant. But whatever the character of such works, they remained a fad during the entire nineteenth century, and, as such, they serve as astonishing evidence of the manner in which the popular imagination was fascinated with the prospect of reading destiny in a few capricious lines on the forehead or the hand.

Lavater's ideas entered Russia directly, via educated Russians, simultaneously with the rise of his fame in the West. Thus, he had admirers and followers in Russia at a time when physiognomic treatises with strong digressions into astrology and chiromancy were in vogue. But the predilection for publishing these works, rather than treatises expounding the classical, descriptive physiognomy represented by Lavater, is no true indication of the interest in the latter. As in the West, one must distinguish between two types of physiognomies and, correspondingly, between two groups of readers. The popularized versions found their appeal among the populace, while Lavater's sophisticated study clearly appealed to Russian intellectuals.

However, if one were to judge Lavater's reception in eighteenth-century Russia on the basis of the publication history of the Physiognomische Fragmente in Russia and Western Europe, especially in England and in France, then one would have to conclude that his ideas found a lukewarm reception among the Russians. While the entire four-volume edition of his work was rendered into French and English in the 1780's, it was translated into Russian only some forty years after its first appearance in 1775-78, and then only fragmentarily. Moreover, by 1810 there had been published sixteen German, fifteen French, and twenty English versions.⁵² In the very abundance of these foreign publications, however, lies a plausible explanation for the seeming reluctance to publish a complete Russian version of Lavater's physiognomic essays. This reluctance may have stemmed not so much from apathy towards physiognomy as from the fact that every educated Russian at the time could master Lavater in at least one of the major foreign languages in which his physiognomy had been printed. The ready availability of such foreign editions would have made a Russian publication, indeed, a luxury. Coupled with this, there was the prohibitive cost of publication of a profusely illustrated and oversized four-volume edition for any publisher, especially in Russia where printing on a large scale began to assert itself only towards the end of the eighteenth century. The pages of Lavater's Physiognomische Fragmente numbered close to two thousand, while the popularized versions printed in Russia had an average of one hundred and sixty pages.

Notes

1. For a general account of Russo-Swiss relations see C. Benzinger, “Die Beziehungen der Schweiz mit Russland,” Schweizer Konsular-Bulletin (Nov. 1929), Supplement 17, 1-27; J. Wyrsh's “Die Schweizerisch-Russischen Beziehungen,” Schweizer Rundschau, No. 7 (1926), 731-42, deals only with trade relations after 1917. R. J. Danilevskij, Rossija i Shvejtsarija: literaturnye svjazi VIII-XIX vv. (Leningrad, 1984).

2. For details see the Lavater Archives in the Zentralbibliothek in Zürich; E. Heier, “Lavater und der russische Zarenhof,” Schweizer Monatshefte, 9 (1965), 836-38; E. Dickenmann, “Ein Brief Johann Turgenevs an Caspar Lavater,” Festschrift für Dmitro Cyževskyj zum 60. Geburtstag (Berlin, 1954), 100-01.

3. Compare G. Gessner, Johann Kaspar Lavaters Lebensbeschreibung (Winterthur, 1802-1803), 3 volumes; H. Wasser, Johann Kaspar Lavater nach Ulrich Hegners handschriftlichen Aufzeichnungen (Zürich, 1894).

4. L. Gerhardt, “Lavater in Russland,” Deutsche Rundschau, 134 (1908), 137. See Appendix for the complete article by Gerhardt.

5. Gerhardt, 41.

6. Gessner, Johann Kaspar Lavater, II, 303.

7. G. Finsler, “Lavater im Amt und Privatleben,” Johann Caspar Lavater (1741-1801): Denkschrift (Zürich, 1902), 11.

8. Gerhardt, 142.

9. See Lavater Archives Zentralbibliothek, Zürich, F. A. Lavater MS554. Although Füessli's letters to Hartknoch are extremely convincing, a comparison of the correspondence between Goethe, Herder and Lavater during 1773 and 1774 yields different results. According to their dates Lavater could not have been in Russia and at the same time exchange letters with Goethe and Herder. However, E. v.d. Hellen claims that many dates and Ortsangabe of these letters are incorrect and were supplied by their editors. See E. v.d. Hellen, Goethes Anteil an Lavaters Physiognomischen Fragmenten (Frankfurth, 1888), 13-14. Extensive research in archival material as to Lavater's trip to Russia produced no decisive results. See also Heinz Ischreyt, “Zur Rezeption Lavaters in Kurland und Livland,” Nordost-Archiv. Zeitschrift für Kulturgeschichte und Landeskunde (Lüneberg, 1984), Heft 73, 53-68. Dr. Ischreyt believes that Lavater who visited Füessli in Russia must have been another member of the Lavater family. But as of now, neither could be proven.

10. M. I. Sukhomlinov, Istorija Rossijskoj Akademii (St. Petersburg, 1875), II, 172-73; O. P. Peterson, Schiller in Russland 1785-1805 (New York, 1934), 9-18; A. N. Radishchev, Polnoe sobranie sochinenij, 3 vols. (Moskva-Leningrad, 1938-1952), I, 464; P. Hoffmann, “Russische Studenten in Leipzig, 1767-1771,” Edward Winter zu seinem 60. Geburtstag (Berlin, 1956), 337-48; A. Startsev, Universitetskie gody Radishcheva (Moskva, 1956), 8.

11. For details of Novikov's publishing activities see M. N. Longinov, Novikov i moskovskie martinisty (Moskva, 1867); A. N. Pypin, Russkoe masonstvo (Petrograd, 1915), 169-203.

12. A. G. Cross, N. M. Karamzin: A Study of his Literary Career (Carbondale, 1971), 4.

13. V. G. Vernadskij, Russkoe masonstvo v tsarstvovanie Ekateriny II (Petrograd, 1917), 161-244.

14. Pypin, 218-61; Vernadskij, 65-80.

15. Vernadskij, 137-60; H. Rothe, N. M. Karamzins europäische Reise: Der Beginn des russischen Romans (Bad Homburg, Berlin, Zürich, 1968), 26-45.

16. M. Kovalevskij, “Masonstvo vo vremena Ekateriny,” Vestnik Evropy, 5 (1915), 95-115; Pypin, 282-94; V. V. Sipovskij, N. M. Karamzin, avtor ‘Pisem russkogo puteshestvennika’ (St. Petersburg, 1899), 46-51.

17. Some of the more popular works translated into Russian were: F. G. Gellert, Geistliche Oden und Lieder (1787), various excerpts from his Moralische Vorlesungen under the title: “Nastavlenie ottsa synu, kotorogo on otpravljaet v Akademiju” (1781), “O prijatnosti grusti” (1781), O nravstvennom vospitanii detej (1787), Rassuzhdenie F. Gellerta o tom, dlja kogo vredno znat' o budushchej svoej sud'bine (1787) and Von den Trostgründen wider ein sieches Lieben (1786); Edward Young, The Complaint or Night Thoughts (1787), The Frightful Judgement (1787), The Triumph of Fate over Love (1780); F. G. Klopstock, Messias (1785-1787); Fr. K. Moser, Daniel in der Löwen-Grube (1781); anonymous works from the German, Chrysomander (1783), and Über alte Mystiker oder Geheimnisse (1785); Ch. Fr. Germershauser's works were translated in a ten-volume edition under the title Khozjain i khozjajka ili dolzhnosti gospodina i gospozhi (1780-1789); John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress (1786-1787); St. Augustin, De gratia et libro (1787); Ch. Ch. Sturm, Gespräche mit Gott oder Gedanken in den Morgenstunden auf jeden Tag des Jahres (1787-1789), and Betrachtungen über die Werke Gottes im Reiche der Natur und der Vorsehung auf allen Tage des Jahres (1787-1789); J. G. Zimmermann, Vom Nationalstolze (1788); J. Mason, On Self-knowledge (1781); Milton, Paradise Lost (1780); Haller, Vom Ursprung des Übels (1786); Gessner, Das hölzerne Bein (1783), Daphnis (1788), Abels Tod (1780); J. Arndt, Über das wahre Christentum, 5 vols. (1784); G. J. Zollikofer excerpts from his Einige Betrachtungen über das Übel in der Welt, nebst einer Warnung vor Sünden der Unkeuschheit und anderen Predigten (1781). For the various Masonic translations from European languages into Russian see: Rothe, 26-52; Cross, 1-15; Vernadskij, 91-97, 111-36; Svodnyj katalog russkoj knigi XVIII veka 1725-1800 (Moskva, 1963-1967), 5 vols.

18. Compare Svodnyj katalog russkoj knigi, IV, and N. I. Novikov i ego sovremenniki (Moskva, 1961), 15-336.

19. Longinov, 299.

20. G. von Schulthess-Rechberg, “Lavater als religiöse Persönlichkeit,” Johann Caspar Lavater (1741-1801): Denkschrift, 151-304.

21. “Perepiska Karamzina s Lafaterom,” Sbornik otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 4, No. 5 (1893), 1-67. These letters between Karamzin and Lavater were edited simultaneously both in German and Russian by Dr. F. Waldmann.

22. “Perepiska Karamzina …,” 1-9.

23. N. S. Tikhonravov, Sochinenija (Moskva, 1898), III, 77; Vernadskij, xviii; Rothe, 33: Pokojashchijsja trudoljubets, I, (1785), 37-60. Schwarz's lectures are preserved in the library of Saltyko-Shchedrin, Leningrad.

24. A. I. Turgenev, Khronika russkogo: Dnevniki 1825-1826 gg. (Moskva, 1964), 442; Tikhonravov, III, 433-34. See also Danilevskij, Rossija i Shvejtsarija, 31, 225.

25. A. I. Turgenev, 31.

26. Tikhonravov, III, 433-34.

27. P. I. Bartenev, “Avdotja Petrovna Elagina,” Russkij Arkhiv (1877), 483-95; M. Gershenson, “P. V. Kirievskij,” Obraz Proshlogo (Moskva, 1912), 85-141.

28. M. Rieger, Friedrich Maximilian Klinger (Darmstadt, 1880-1896), 3 vols.; J. v. Sievers, Deutsche Dichter in Russland (Berlin, 1855); M. N. Rozanov, Poet perioda burnykh stremlenij, Jakov Lents (Moskva, 1901); E. Heier, L. H. Nicolay (1737-1820) and His Contemporaries (The Hague, 1965).

29. H. Funk, “Briefwechsel zwischen Lavater und Frau von der Recke,” Euphorion, 25 (1924), 52-63.

30. A. V. Semeka, Russkie rozenkrejtsery i sochinenija Imperatritsy Ekateriny II protiv masonstva (St. Petersburg, 1902).

31. Vernadskij, 270-72.

32. Pypin, 283.

33. E. Heier, L. H. Nicolay (1737-1820) and His Contemporaries, 136.

34. Physiognomische Fragmente zur Beförderung der Menschenkenntnis und Menschenliebe 4 vols. (Leipzig, Winterthur, 1775-78), III, 263, IV, 272. Compare also F. Waldmann, “Lenz' Stellung zu Lavaters Physiognomik,” Baltische Monatsschrift, I (1892), 433-35, 482-97, 526-33.

35. Physiognomische Fragmente, IV, 269, 284, 302-04, 310.

36. Physiognomische Fragmente, III, 323-24.

37. Briefe von und an J. M. R. Lenz, ed. K. Freye and W. Stammler (Bern, 1969), II, 166.

38. Essai sur la physionomie, destiné à faire connâitre l'homme et à le faire aimer … (La Haye, 1781-1803), II, 283, IV, 109.

39. “Perepiska Karamzina s Lafaterom,” 63-67.

40. H. M. Nebel, N. M. Karamzin: A Russian Sentimentalist (The Hague, 1967), 28.

41. B. Strahlmann, “Johann Kaspar Lavater und die ‘Nordischen Herrschaften,’” Oldenburger Jahrbuch, 58 (1959), 198.

42. E. Heier, L. H. Nicolay (1737-1820) and His Contemporaries, 43-46; Strahlmann, 89-200.

43. For the full text see the Lavater Archives in Zurich: F. A. Lav. MS 15.6 and chapter VII of this study.

44. E. Heier, “J. C. Lavater und der russische Zarenhof,” Schweizer Monatshefte, 9 (1965), 831-50. For details of these letters see chapter IV of this study.

45. See Johann Kaspar Lavaters Briefe an die Kaiserin Maria Feodorovna (St. Petersburg, 1858).

46. Johann Kaspar Lavaters Briefe an …, 11-12.

47. H. Blaß-Laufer, “Nachtrag zu Lavater,” Schweitzer Monatshefte, 10 (1966), 978-79; see also chapter V of this study.

48. E. Heier, L. H. Nicolay …, 136-39.

49. G. M. v. Knonau, “Lavater als Bürger Zürichs und der Schweiz,” Johann Caspar Lavater (1741-1801): Denkschrift, 124-32.

50. “Imperator Pavel i Lafater,” Russkij arkhiv, 4 (1900), 491-92.

51. Svodnyj Katalog …, II, 107-08.

52. J. Graham, “Lavater's Physiognomy: A Checklist,” Publication of the Bibliographical Society of America, 55 (1961), 297-308; Compare also J. Graham, Lavater's Essays on Physiognomy: A Study in the History of Ideas, European University Studies (Bern: Peter Lang, 1979), 85-106.