THE RUSSIAN decorative arts produced in the first half of the nineteenth century are often of higher quality than similar ones produced in the eighteenth century or in the second half of the nineteenth. Quality is, of course, subjective and difficult to define, but in terms of conception, historical perspective, and especially execution, the early nineteenth century produced works of top quality in several areas, most notably porcelain and glass. The seeds for this lie ultimately with Peter the Great a hundred years before, whose Westernization led to increasing numbers of European craftsmen settling in Russia. The question, of course, is whether these imported craftsmen imported their tastes as well as their talent, thereby converting the Russian decorative arts to a European standard, or whether their influence was a beneficial one in which their skill was the catalyst allowing native Russian tastes to flower.

It is often assumed that the former is more nearly the case and that Russian decorative arts produced during this period were nothing more than slavish imitations of the West. This, however, is only partially true, as Western influence and its effects varied from field to field. Certain indigenous arts, such as lacquer, bone, and steel work, were hardly affected, and others, such as porcelain and glass, benefited greatly from Western technical innovations. In precious metalwork of this period, however, Western taste was not always accompanied by Western technical skill, and quality, therefore, was erratic.

The areas to be discussed, chosen mostly for their visibility in the West, will be presented in an attempt to outline some of the main aspects of the Russian decorative arts and to analyze some of their origins and whatever foreign influences may be applicable. Until now, Western interest in the Russian decorative arts has been basically confined to Fabergé and Russian enamels, especially in the United States, and it seems logical therefore to start by discussing decorative precious metalwork first. Second, this discussion will deal with porcelain and glass, which, despite foreign formative influences, appear in the first half of the nineteenth century to have more of a Russian national identity than most of the metalwork, the niello excepted. Last, an attempt will be made to discuss some of the other decorative arts that are almost uniquely Russian.

The discussion of precious metalwork divides itself logically into two main groups—niello, and gold and silverwork; the niellowork because of its long use in Russia and its image of being typically Russian, and the gold and silverwork because of strong Western influence. Furthermore, in the first half of the nineteenth century, with the exception of important gilt pieces made for the church or for imperial use, nielloed articles were generally of a higher quality than silver pieces of the period.

Niello (or chernovoye serebro, blackened silver) is an ancient Byzantine method of decorating metal, which is known to have existed in Russia as early as the tenth century. A fusible alloy consisting of silver, copper or pewter, lead, and sulphur is fired onto the metal and then polished to provide a contrast between the resulting black and the silver alongside it.

The production of niello was centered in two main regions, Moscow and Siberia. Important works were executed in the Kremlin workshops from the sixteenth century on. Although Moscow continued to produce niello until the Revolution, objects of fine quality were being made only through the first half of the nineteenth century (fig. 11.1). Beginning in the eighteenth century, there were several centers producing niello in Siberia, but at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, the town producing the most sought-after wares was Velikii Ustiug (the midpoint on the trade route between Arkhangelsk and Moscow). As in Moscow, the Siberian wares declined in quality after the middle of the century. Names of individual silversmiths are known from both areas. Although some of the designs and decor relate to Western European styles, partly owing to special orders from the capital, the general subject matter is typically Russian, reproducing local views and designs, and the execution is on a high artistic and technical level.

The late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century examples are distinguished by the fact that the niello, applied in tiny floral patterns, is used exclusively as a background, against which are placed, most often, engraved and gilded flowers of Ukrainian origin. From the middle of the eighteenth century, however, the elements of decoration—figures, buildings, landscapes and flowers—are themselves nielloed and displayed against a contrasting stippled or engraved gilded silver background. In the finest works of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, especially those from Velikii Ustiug, there is a minimum of gilded silver background, such that the entire surface appears to be nielloed, and, given the high polishing that was done at this time, the smooth decoration takes on a mirrorlike look (fig. 11.2). In terms of technique, the niello produced in the first quarter of the nineteenth century tends to be better made than that produced during the period of Peter the Great, as in the earlier period the standard of silver was often that of coin silver, or about sixty-two parts silver out of ninety-six, as compared to eighty-four parts out of ninety-six, the standard required since the time of Peter the Great. As a result, the metal in the later pieces is more malleable and takes a higher polish.

Although rococo and neoclassical designs were incorporated into nielloed articles of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the nielloed work still maintained its traditional Russian character (i.e., with the Byzantine and Eastern overtones of pre-Petrine Russia), and it was in the non-nielloed silver that rapidly changing, newer, Western influences were particularly visible. Beginning with the reign of Peter the Great, who established St. Petersburg as the capital in his attempt to Westernize Russia, and who, as part of his monetary reforms, standardized the hallmarking system, European baroque, rococo, and neoclassical styles permeate Russian silver. And, despite obvious Russian stylistic input, a quick survey of Russian eighteenth-century silver gives the impression that the Russian articles were but copies of Dutch, German, or French styles.

But this is an oversimplification, and further analysis underscores the importance of the rise of St. Petersburg as the cultural capital of Russia, and the resulting difference in the types of articles produced there from those produced in Moscow, the former capital. Through the eighteenth century, one can discern several characteristics of the silverwork made in the two capitals. Moscow pieces produced by Russian smiths were baroque and provincial, while the pieces produced in St. Petersburg by foreigners were linear, sophisticated, and generally superior, both in style and execution, to those from Moscow. Many fine pieces were made in Moscow, of course, but as St. Petersburg was the center of court life, it attracted more foreign workers than did Moscow. The foreign influence was dominant from the beginning of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century, when the publication, in 1852, of Antiquities of the Russian Empire by Nicholas I stimulated silversmiths to become interested once again in Muscovite Russia. These two styles, Western and traditional, can easily be seen in the work of the late nineteenth-century court jeweler, Fabergé, whose work first called attention to the important tradition of Russian precious metalwork.

In 1714, the first guild of foreign gold and silversmiths was established in St. Petersburg (similar guilds were to be established later in Moscow and elsewhere) and was composed mostly of Swedes, Finns, and Balts. (So numerous were the Swedes working in Russia that a book devoted solely to St. Petersburg silversmiths and their marks was published in Sweden,¹ long before the first general reference book on Russian marks was published in Russia.² Besides the Scandinavians working in St. Petersburg since Peter the Great’s victory over Sweden, other Europeans, notably Swiss and French, were imported by Elizabeth and Catherine to work on jewels for the crown. Duval, a Frenchman, produced many of the crown jewels, and Pauzie and Scharff, a Swiss and a German, made gold boxes for both Elizabeth and Catherine. Thus the influence on precious metalwork in St. Petersburg was of a sophisticated and formative kind that was not paralleled in Moscow and the provinces.

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, therefore, European styles are commonly found in Russian silver and goldwork. In the first half of the nineteenth century, three main styles, roughly corresponding to the European ones, are apparent: a neoclassical or French Empire style, an evolved neoclassical or romantic style (fig. 11.3), and Gothic and rococo revivals (fig. 11.4) reminiscent of English and French silver of the period. By the 1840s Russian silversmiths from Moscow and the provinces were producing wares similar in style to those produced in St. Petersburg, although still, by and large, of inferior quality. By 1850, therefore, style was less a distinguishing characteristic than was quality.

The best goldsmith’s work continued to be produced in St. Petersburg by foreigners—for example, the Swiss Ador and Theremin at the end of the eighteenth century and the German Keibel, who was commissioned to make the imperial orders, in the first half of the nineteenth. Keibel was the first to use platinum (discovered in Russia in 1824 and first used in coinage in 1826) in his work. He made gold boxes that incorporated platinum in areas where, in a French box, white gold would have been used. Keibel was but one of a number of Germans working in St. Petersburg in the nineteenth century as goldsmiths, miniaturists, and portrait artists. Besides Keibel, the firm of Nichols and Plinke, established in St. Petersburg in 1829, executed imperial commissions (fig. 11.5), and this shop, known fashionably as the Magasin Anglais, not only sold fine wares but also employed fine individual silversmiths, including Samuel Arndt, who in 1849 established himself independently.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, firms like Sazikov (established in Moscow in 1840 and in St. Petersburg in 1842), Ovchinnikov (Moscow, 1853), and Khlebnikov (in Moscow sometime after 1870) worked in the “old Russian style,” either copying pieces reproduced in Antiquities of the Russian Empire (fig. 11.6) or creating highly popular interpretations of seventeenth-century styles in the cloisonné enamels known in the West as Russian enamel. At the same time, many Baltic silversmiths were working either independently or for Fabergé, who, as mentioned earlier, produced fashionable works in St. Petersburg and Russian revival works in Moscow.

In silverwork, therefore, the first half of the nineteenth century was a time of continuing integration of European techniques and styles into Russian work, setting the stage for Fabergé and those silversmiths making Russian enamels to develop an oeuvre that would gain international attention.

Owing to the special requirements of emigration, the items of greatest value and portability are taken out of a country in the greatest numbers, so that Russian porcelains, because of their fragility, and some of the other Russian decorative arts, because of their lower value, are less available for study in the West than are examples of precious metalwork. But as far as the porcelain is concerned, sufficient quantities were produced in the various factories to give the Western world a good idea of its production.

The most important factor in the production of porcelain in Russia in the first half of the nineteenth century was the patronage of Alexander I and Nicholas I. This period, which witnessed the highest achievements of the Russian porcelain manufactories, was followed by a general decline that set in after the middle of the nineteenth century, partly because of the emancipation of the serfs and the resulting disappearance of cheap labor.

Starting later than the Meissen factory, the Russian Imperial Factory (founded in 1744) reached its apogee thanks to imperial commissions during the reign of Nicholas I, at a time when the Meissen and Sevres factories had already reached their heights. During the same period, the private factories, benefiting from Alexander’s protective tariff of 1806,³ were able to expand their production.

Stylistically, the production of the Russian Imperial Factory began to achieve consistency with the appointment in 1779 of Dominique Rachette, a Frenchman, as director, and from the classical style of this period through the Empire style of Alexander I, the romantic style of Nicholas I, and the rococo revival at the end of Nicholas’s reign, the French influence remained strong. In the first half of the nineteenth century, especially during the reign of Alexander I, there seemed to be little to distinguish the productions of the Imperial factory from those of France, just as in the eighteenth century Meissen and Berlin models had dominated Russian porcelain. Foreign craftsmen were needed for their technical skill in the chemistry, modeling, baking, and decorating of porcelain (French and English clay and glazes were even imported and mixed with the local ones to give the Russian wares a French look), but, as the factory approached its height under the reign of Nicholas I, native Russian influence was increasingly seen in subject matter, form, and decoration.

Probably the best works produced in the Imperial factory in the first half of the nineteenth century were the palace vases (fig. 11.7) and the military plates depicting the favorite regiments of Nicholas I (fig. 11.8). Both exhibit the highest quality of modeling, painting, and gilding. Though perhaps too garish for Western eyes, they not only satisfied the militaristic taste of Nicholas but also fulfilled the artistic and technical potential of the Imperial factory, whose achievements were not equalled at this time in the West.

Private factories in Russia also reached their peak during the first half of the nineteenth century. The most notable of these was the Gardner Factory (founded near Moscow in 1766), known in the eighteenth century for the order services commissioned by Catherine the Great (the forms were taken from two German services but decorated with the trappings of the Russian orders of Saints George, Alexander Nevsky, Andrew, and Vladimir), and known in the 1820s for commemorative gilt and decorated tea and coffee services in the Empire style (some based on the War of 1812) and for figurines based on Venetsianov’s Magic Lantern illustrations. In the middle third of the nineteenth century, the Popov Factory (founded 1806), too, was known for its figurines of the working class, and toward the middle of the nineteenth century, the Kornilov Factory (founded 1835) was especially noted for its bold rococo revival designs (fig. 11.9). The Kornilov Factory manufactured porcelain of sufficient quality and quantity that it was commissioned to make replacements for some of the imperial services. After about 1893 the factory maintained an export trade to the United States, via Tiffany & Co. Together with the Kuznetsov Porcelain Combine, which took over the Gardner factory in 1891, the Kornilov Factory survived into the twentieth century, long after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 had made cheap labor, the most important Russian raw material in the production of porcelain, unavailable. The secret of their success was the extensive production of commercial porcelain, which was not made by the smaller factories producing quality wares.

In analyzing Russian taste in the first half of the nineteenth century, we should mention two small factories, although their wares are not often seen. Prince N. Yusoupov, a former director of the Imperial factory, established a private factory at his estate near Moscow (1814-31), which manufactured porcelain for his own use. For some of his wares, he imported paste, undecorated objects, and even workmen from Sevres.⁴ This resulted in excellent-quality sophisticated porcelain after his own designs, often taken from books in his own library (fig. 11.10). Yusoupov’s creations provide an interesting contrast in taste with the porcelains of the small Batenin factory (St. Petersburg 1812-39). This factory’s porcelain, of limited quantity but of fine quality, typified the “Russian taste for strong colors and slightly bulbous, overfull outlines” (fig. 11.11). Despite the location of the factory, the Batenin porcelain was mostly found outside of St. Petersburg, as it was not Western enough for the St. Petersburg world.⁵

The manufacture of glass in Russia, of course, predates that of porcelain, and the histories of the two industries differ in many respects, but stylistically, many similarities exist. In the middle of the eighteenth century, the engraved pokals (covered chalices) bearing portraits of the empresses betrayed a German influence, not unlike some of the porcelains of the period, and from the end of the eighteenth century through the first half of the nineteenth, glassware evolved, as had porcelain, from classic and Empire styles through Gothic and rococo revivals. Furthermore, as in the case of the porcelain factories, a number of private glass factories coexisted with the Imperial Glass Factory, which, however, did not enjoy the same market dominance that the Imperial Porcelain Factory did (both were under the same administration, and the glass factory was eventually absorbed by the porcelain factory in 1890). The private factories were equally important and gave the Imperial factory such competition for wares made to be sold on the open market that in 1802, N. A. Bakhmetiev, the owner of the largest private factory, was tempted to try to lease the Imperial factory from the government. Artistically, both the Imperial and private factories produced excellent wares during the first half of the nineteenth century.

The late eighteenth-century pictorial representations, often on tinted glass, gave way, in the beginning of the nineteenth century, to clear, cut, lead crystal pieces, including palace vases and lighting fixtures, and a large series of objects, executed both by the Imperial and the Bakhmetiev factories, commemorating the War of 1812. Although romantic in inspiration, these smaller items are neoclassical in style, and include a remarkable series of crystal plates based on the wax models of the classical medalist and sculptor, Count Fedor Tolstoi (fig. 11.12). By the 1840s, the use of color, abandoned at the end of the eighteenth century, returned, as new colors and techniques for layering glass were developed and used in many pieces, largely of Gothic inspiration. After 1840, in response to economic pressures, the Imperial factory also produced soda-lime glass, which was not of the quality of the lead crystal, but which found a ready demand among the new industrial middle class. Many of the more inexpensively produced glasses, in a rich variety of colors, with silver and gold decoration, and with transfer decoration (fig. 11.13), were sold on the open market. As was the case with the porcelain factories, the second half of the nineteenth century witnessed a decline in the quality of glass, especially in the case of the Imperial factory, which, however, continued to function through the reign of Nicholas II.

Besides silver, porcelain and glass, the Russian minor art of the first half of the nineteenth century best known in the West was lapidary work, which reached grand proportions during the reign of Nicholas I. Although known here primarily through malachite vases and other decorative objects, the most important examples are the architectural elements in Russia in the Winter Palace and St. Isaac’s Cathedral. Peter I had already established a lapidary factory at Peterhof, and another was established in Ekaterinburg in 1765, but this distinctive Russian art achieved international renown in the nineteenth century, largely because of Italians working in Russia. Not only did they make many of the mosaic tables filling the Winter Palace, but the Italian architects, including Rossi, who also designed monumental crystal for the Imperial Glass Factory, took advantage of native materials and incorporated them into their palatial designs. And Alexander Briullov, Karl’s architect brother, designed the malachite hall in the Winter Palace as part of the 1837 restorations. Malachite, lapis lazuli, jasper, nephrite, and rhodonite were among the stones used in the manufacture of many types of vases, lamps, inkstands, and other decorative objects. The sumptuous imperial gifts to European royalty—large vases, tables, and even chairs—were made of finely figured malachite, which was, at that time, plentiful in the Urals (fig. 11.14). The result was an art that, because of the beauty of the native material and the interpretation of inspired designers, acquired universal admiration. The manufacture of monumental stone articles diminished in the second half of the nineteenth century, but until the Revolution, small articles, many with exquisite detail reminiscent of Fabergé, were still being produced by the Lapidary Works at Ekaterinburg.

Another of the minor arts, the manufacture of lacquer wares, was known for its extensive and fine production in the nineteenth century. The lacquer factories owed their success to the skill of the former icon painters who worked for them and who produced numerous objects of utility, including boxes and desk articles, which were decorated with scenes from middle-class and peasant life. Many of these scenes are reminiscent of the Magic Lantern, and, owing to the talents of the icon painters, the general aspect is completely removed from Western styles, despite the fact that the founder in the late eighteenth century of the most important lacquer factory, P. Korobov, had gone to England to study the methods of the Brunswick Lacquer Factory.⁶ Korobov’s factory became better known by the name of his son-in-law, P. Lukutin, who in 1828 received the Imperial Warrant, and whose family directed the production until 1904. Although the earlier pieces (fig. 11.15) are often more charming and better executed, the capabilities of the factory were still such that Fabergé, in the late nineteenth century, ordered boxes from Lukutin that were then mounted in gold for special effect. Throughout the nineteenth century, the quality was generally high, so that a considerable number of articles were exported, enabling the factory to achieve commercial success. This manufacture of lacquer ware still survives today, with much of it being exported successfully, but the current subject matter, proselytizing political scenes and bland interpretations of fairy tales, lacks the spontaneity of the earlier genre subjects and has little appeal.

Other forms of the decorative arts of this period are less well known in the West. Objects in steel and bone were created in Tula and Arkhangelsk, respectively. Although special orders in fashionable Western taste were executed, these art forms, together with the lacquer work and the niello manufactured in Velikii Ustiug, most classicially reflect traditional Russian taste and were but little influenced by Western design.

The fact that the Imperial Porcelain Factory required each foreign workman employed to train two Russians⁷ implies, correctly, that foreign techniques and styles were integrated—perhaps unevenly, but surely—into the Russian decorative arts. This integration, most closely identified with the decorative arts influenced by the court in St. Petersburg, should not be considered, however, as imitation, but rather as an attempt to take advantage of the best that the West had to offer to improve the cultural standing of the court, and as testimony to the skill of foreign designers in reinterpreting traditional arts. Furthermore, the emulation of the achievements of another country in the arts is certainly not without precedent and needs no apology. After all, German porcelain, which so influenced the eighteenth-century Russian porcelains, was itself the result of the Court of Saxony’s having discovered the secret of the manufacture of porcelain in order to equal the fashionable Chinese porcelains. And, as in Germany, once the technical problems had been overcome, the Russian porcelains acquired their own national character. Furthermore, this maturation occurred during the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I, and this period includes some of the best examples of Russian porcelain, as well as some of the best of the other Russian decorative arts. These included glass, stone, lacquer, bone, steel, and niello, all of which, despite varying degrees of foreign input, evinced a truly national style. With some exceptions, however, as far as precious metalwork was concerned, it was only at the end of the century that pieces of sufficient quality to attract international attention to Russian art were produced by gold and silversmiths. During a period when the other decorative arts were in a general decline, the colorful and popular Russian enamelware, the natural culmination of the publication of The Antiquities of the Russian Empire, and the splendid works of Fabergé (fig. 11.16) were unequalled in the world.

In conclusion, therefore, despite many foreign influences, both of styles and of immigrant craftsmen, the Russian decorative arts exhibit a recognizable national style. During the period of Alexander I and Nicholas I, when Russia was already firmly established in the European mainstream, not only was this individuality refined and sustained, but it also produced works of art comparable to anything produced in the West.

NOTES

1. ä, St. Petersburg, Juvelerare, Guld-Och Silversmeder 1774-1870 (Helsinki: Konstsalongens Forlag, 1951).

2. T. Goldberg, F. Michoukov, N. Platonova, and M. Postnikova-Losseva, L’Orfevrerie et La Bijouterie Russes Aux SV-XX Stecles (Moscow: Nauka, 1967 and 1974).

3. Richard Hare, The Art and Artists of Russia (London: Methuen, 1965), p. 145.

4. Marvin C. Ross, Russian Porcelains (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1965), p. 158.

5. Ibid., pp. 161-62.

6. Hare, p. 257.

7. Ibid., p. 145.