REPORTING AIVAZOVSKY in 19th Century Russian Periodicals
Ivan Aivazovsky’s rapid development as an artist, as well as the speed with which he worked, was a phenomenon of real interest to the Russian public from the very beginning of his career. A variety of periodical publications, most notably “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” (The Arts Gazette), kept readers informed, on an almost daily basis, about the marine painter’s life, and also charted the manner in which developments in his technique were received by his contemporaries: they provide a fascinating insight into how Aivazovsky matured as an artist.
The beginning of the 19th century saw remarkable growth in the periodical publishing industry in Russia. In the first decade of the century that would come to be seen as the “Golden Age” of Russian culture, there were more than 80 magazines and newspapers in circulation, covering a wide variety of topical and socially significant subjects. The history and theory of Russian and world art received ample coverage: these subjects were always of interest to keen readers, and were seen by editors as priority areas. Leafing through periodicals of that time some two centuries later, we still sense the echo of the past, allowing us to form an impression of the atmosphere of the period; reading on, we plunge into the thick of its eventful artistic life. The rich, yellowed pages yield countless fascinating details and new facts concerning the work of many Russian masters, even those whose oeuvre, at first glance, appears well-studied.
Ivan Aivazovsky's name was seldom absent from such magazine and newspaper articles. Throughout his entire career, his life and work was always keenly scrutinized by journalists and commentators - some were the artist's devoted followers, others his hostile foes. Whilst some articles lauded the painter's talent, others sought deeper meaning in his works, claiming to uncover parallels with literature. Still more would chide the marine painter for his “excessive” imagination, expressing doubt about the accuracy and objectivity of what he depicted.
The press regularly followed the events of Aivazovsky's life, announcing the dates of exhibitions or discussing their success, publishing private letters and reviews. Most magazine and newspaper articles, however, contained poetically phrased musings on Aivazovsky's style and method, all of which, it should be noted, helped in the end to bring his works unprecedented success. The authors would discuss Aivazovsky's unique painterly techniques after having viewed his works or spoken to him in person. This makes such writings especially valuable: they can be seen as logging Aivazovsky's creative development, his thoughts and plans. As 21st century researchers looking through these periodicals, we can now compare the painter's projects and ideas with his actual output. Besides that, the articles enable us to see how Aivazovsky's work was regarded by his contemporaries at a time when the artist was in the early stages of his creative development.
Aivazovsky was active during the key period when the Russian school of landscape painting was in the process of formation. In 1837, “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” (The Arts Gazette) announced to its readers: “Russian ‘marine painting', we can confidently say, was born due to a happy twist of fate. We have now acquired a wonderful talent in this area, who has taken bold and even dangerous steps on this path, in the shortest time...”
Around that time, Aivazovsky's name was often to be found in the “Home News” column in the same publication. The art section of the biweekly illustrated magazine was headed by Nestor Kukolnik, who worked together with Alexander Strugovshchikov. Doing his best to keep up with the latest news in the arts, Kukolnik nonetheless struggled to keep pace with Aivazovsky: “I risk misinforming the public, albeit unintentionally: no sooner have I penned a couple of pages which are then composed by the very fastest printers and printed with the aid of a high-speed printing press, than the news is already old, with three or four new paintings by the astonishingly fast, tireless young artist having superseded the one I described.”
With Aivazovsky's painting a frequent topic of his writings, Kukolnik revealed to his readers a whole array of details about the artist's life. At first glance, the information published by “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” may appear as disparate snippets, a motley collection of facts. Yet these very facts allow us to draw valuable conclusions concerning the painter's artistic method, the process of his creative growth, and his personal development. “Throughout the entire summer, we would see the artist at Peterhof, at Znamenskaya manor, tirelessly observing the elements which then so happily took over our imagination. We watched him store up his impressions busily, like an ant, to last for the remaining three seasons of the year, during which nature in these northern parts forces artists into their dark studios, hiding from us her sombre beauty and compelling them to live solely off their memories...”
In describing his service to his muse, Aivazovsky compared himself not to an ant, but to a bee that toils away tirelessly to produce “honey from the flower garden in grateful tribute to the Tsar and to Mother Russia”. As “Russky Khudozhestvenny Listok” (The Russian Arts Sheet) noted: “All his paintings bear the unmistakeable mark of tireless effort.” In one of his discussions with a journalist, partially printed by “Nov” (The New) magazine in 1885, Aivazovsky noted: “In our art, the fruits of which can, as in any profession, only be enjoyed after hard work, it is especially important to keep oneself in good form... The artist should strive to attain a state in which the external, physical aspect of the business does not pose any obstacle whatsoever.”
The volume and content of articles on Aivazovsky published by “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” evidently reflected the growth of his popularity both with the general public and with his art world clients. Thus, the first pieces focusing solely on his art did not appear until Aivazovsky's work had been officially recognized by the great Russian masters. It has been said that Kukolnik dedicated a special article to Aivazovsky at the insistence of Karl Bryullov, who often met with the young painter. At one of his gatherings to mark the opening of the autumn exhibition at the Imperial Academy of Arts, in the presence of Kukolnik and Aivazovsky himself, Bryullov called the young marine painter a worthy successor to Sylvester Shchedrin, and one fit to continue the great landscape artist's work. Published in 1840, Kukolnik's article “Aivazovsky” examined several paintings created by the artist during a recent visit to Crimea. The author also commented on Aivazovsky's plans to travel to Italy, claiming that this trip would doubtless lead the promising young artist to further artistic achievements. “[He] recently returned to St. Petersburg... merely in order to deposit the fruits of his visit to Southern Russia, as proof of his successfully accomplished mission, before he was off once more on a longer voyage - to Italy.”
“Italy lies ahead,” Kukolnik continued. “The charming prospect lights up the artist's imagination from afar, as if teasing him with this enchantress's as yet unrealized hopes for his rapidly unfolding talent. Italy! This word contains the artist's second nature, the second half of the gifts hidden in the treasure trove of his soul; it is up to her to summon them forth. Yet just as not every one of us knows how to make use of the gifts offered to us by beneficent nature, so not every artist knows how to make use of the lessons and the skies offered by Italy.” Aivazovsky, it seems, took good heed of these words. In Italy, his aesthetic sense and views on art became fully formed, and he was able to develop his own unique painterly method and vision of nature.
On July 3 1840, the Conference Secretary of the Imperial Academy of Arts Vasily Grigorovich signed a certificate for a grant to be allocated to a group of graduates of the Academy in order that they might travel abroad and perfect their skills. Those who were set to go to Europe included the genre painter Vasily Sternberg, the architect Grigory Elson and several landscape artists, the best known of whom were Sokrat Vorobyov, Login Frikke, Ivan Aivazovsky and Mikhail Elson. “Only recently, we had a real shortage of good landscape artists. Now in one year, Italy is receiving seven Russian landscape painters, each of whom is already making a name for himself in Russia,” wrote a columnist in “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”.
In Italy, Aivazovsky enjoyed his wonderful opportunity to view and study the works of the great Italian masters. The beautiful southern land inspired the young artist, showering him with new and unfamiliar impressions, and allowing him to train his eye. “It is five days since I arrived in Naples with Sternberg and Monigetti,” Aivazovsky wrote in a letter to Grigorovich in April 1840. “[Soon] we will each travel to our respective locations, I to Castellammare and its environs, Sternberg to his... lazzaroni, and Monigetti to the ruins of Pompeii.”
During his travels, the young artist was careful to remember the advice of Bryullov, and indeed, it so happened that the works of Sylvester Shchedrin, with whom “the Great Karl” had compared him, became his standard to be emulated - or, perhaps, the foundation from which his rapid creative growth would spring. To say that Aivazovsky saw the magnificence of Italy through the eyes of his famous predecessor would be no exaggeration. Based in the resort town of Sorrento, he began to paint landscapes from the “vantage points” discovered by Shchedrin. “Whilst living in Sorrento, I undertook to produce a view of the town from the same location that Shchedrin had used, years before. Beginning with the sky and ending with the foreground, I proceeded to reproduce everything that lay before me with photographic precision. I painted for exactly three weeks. After that, I created a view of Amalfi in exactly the same manner,” Aivazovsky was quoted in “Russkaya Starina” (Old Times in Russia) magazine.
Before long, however, the young artist realized that in their perception and interpretation of nature, he and Shchedrin were entirely different. Where the older master had favoured contemplative, lyrical seascapes, Aivazovsky preferred to portray dynamic scenes. Turning to dramatic subjects, he would choose unusual, vivid tones, which very quickly drew the attention of an enraptured public.
The Russian romantic painter's highly emotional, vivid works caused quite a stir in European art circles, too. Articles began to appear, detailing Aivazovsky's successes and the rapid growth of his popularity abroad. “Naturally, we were always delighted by the wonderful talent of our young compatriot, but success in Italy for an artist is a truly great thing, and now we are truly thrilled to add a new, glorious name to our annals, to the joy of all lovers of fine art. And to the glory of the arts in Russia,” “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” enthused in 1841.
Around that time, “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” also published an analytical piece recounting the contents of an article in “Odessky Vestnik” (The Odessa Herald). The article stated: “At the art exhibition in Rome, the paintings by Gaivazovsky were considered the best. ‘Neapolitan Night', ‘The Tempest' and ‘Chaos' created such a stir in the capital of the fine arts that halls full of dignitaries, public meetings and artists' gatherings were all abuzz with praise of the new Russian landscape. The papers were in raptures, everyone was talking and writing about it simultaneously. As far as Gaivazovsky is concerned, no one has yet succeeded in capturing light, air and water so accurately, or in such a vivid manner.”
The same piece continued: “They love our artist so much in Naples that his home is constantly filled with visitors. Dignitaries, poets, scientists, painters and tourists... see him as a genius. Even the King of Naples expressed the desire, through our envoy Count Guriev, to see the Russian artist and his wonderful paintings... and subsequently purchased a painting depicting the Neapolitan navy.” Together with this article, “Odessky Vestnik” also published a note from the Neapolitan politician Candido Augusto Vecchi, a dedicated admirer of the Russian landscape artist's work. Vecchi claimed, with some grounds, that “Naples aroused in him more inspiration and delight than did any other land.”
In his exploration of the region around Naples, Aivazovsky was constantly observing the shifting beauty of water, attempting to comprehend all the mysteries of its mesmerizing, magical transformations. His visual impressions were then adeptly expressed as artistic images filled with beauty and special meaning. “I have already been in Naples for two months, and I have been constantly busy... I am shortly to visit Amalfi for five days, to observe the sea's current fury and the noble cliffs. After this, I plan to paint a tempest,” Aivazovsky wrote in a letter to Grigorovich. Even at this early stage, it was clear that Aivazovsky could not picture his art without poetic imagination and fantasy, which inspired him more than did the mere reproduction of reality. In Italy, the painter became more firmly convinced than ever that in blindly copying nature, he produced works that were less effective, less striking, less aesthetically pleasing. Aivazovsky valued the beauty of improvisation, the lightness of painterly touch, while prosaic, everyday reality constrained him, limiting his passionate creative temperament. Possessing the gift of integrating vision, the artist quickly learned to portray the inconstant sea in all its sudden moods and manifestations.
“Gaivazovsky only paints when moved by his fiery imagination, when in his thoughts, as in a dream, the entire outline of a planned painting comes into being,” an article in “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” claimed. Clarifying his priorities in terms of fiction and reality, Aivazovsky himself described his development: “In Vico I created two paintings, to remind me of the place: a sunset and a sunrise. Together with a view of Sorrento, I chose to exhibit these two paintings, and what do you think? At the exhibition, whole groups of visitors would bypass the view of Sorrento, a familiar and unexciting place to them, to crowd instead by the paintings that showed nature, praising them most engagingly... I had created those two paintings when visited by inspiration.”
Following these important observations from his stay in the Kingdom of Naples, the artist was able to formulate the main principles of his artistic method and even to develop his own theory: ‘A painter who merely copies nature, becomes its slave, he is bound, hands and feet.” “The tempest I observed on the Italian coast can, in my painting, be transported to some location in Crimea or in the Caucasus; a ray of moonlight reflected in the Bosphorus, I use to illuminate the fortifications of Sevastopol. Such is the tendency of my brush, the peculiarity of my artistic temperament,” Aivazovsky explained. These musings of the artist were recorded in shorthand and, in 1878, reproduced, just as Aivazovsky had expressed them, in the monthly historical magazine “Russkaya Starina”.
A keen observer, Aivazovsky cannot be accused of distorting nature. “Aivazovsky has a passionate feeling for the sea, experiencing it with his entire being,” “Otechestvenniye Zapiski” (Annals of the Fatherland) magazine observed. In his landscapes, the artist accurately notes and obediently observes all the laws of nature and all its phenomena. In his desire to capture nature, “Academy student Aivazovsky... was at sea during His Imperial Highness the General Admiral's voyage, and certainly made full use of this opportunity to study nature and to achieve still greater success in the painting of seascapes.” Furthermore, “a landscape should primarily possess climatic accuracy... so many difficulties await the young artist attempting to carry out his duties honourably!” “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” wrote.
Other artists were, it seems, of a similar opinion concerning Aivazovsky's work. In his speech at the opening of an exhibition featuring works by Aivazovsky at the Moscow School of Painting and Sculpture, the sculptor Nikolai Ramazanov said: “None of our artists portrays as accurately as does Aivazovsky the life of the sea, no one succeeds, like him, in depicting that transparency of the air, and no one remains as true to the air's perspective as he does. A true talent that is full of life is always evident, even in the smallest things that it undertakes occasionally whilst resting in between more serious tasks.” Ramazanov's speech was published in “Moskvityanin” (The Muscovite) in 1854.
In their attempts to explain the astonishing nature of Aivazovsky's gift, the more adventurous journalists would occasionally ascribe to the landscape artist qualities or even ailments that were totally unfamiliar to him. Spiridon Caccioni, who was fortunate to enjoy a lengthy debate with Aivazovsky in the artist's Feodosia studio, wrote a fascinating and detailed “Biographical Essay” on him, published in “Nov” magazine in the winter of 1885. One German paper, Caccioni lamented in his essay, had “shamelessly” claimed that Aivazovsky was deaf from birth, using such an explanation to account for the artist's “incredibly sensitive vision”.
Besides its loyalty to nature, however, viewers were usually inclined also to notice profound meaning in Aivazovsky's work. Some would even draw parallels with literary and poetic works, with their narrative and development of storyline. Many saw Aivazovsky's paintings as complex poetic improvisations or “poem-paintings”, commenting on their impressive “all-inclusiveness”. In 1837 “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” published an excerpt from a curious letter written to Aivazovsky by a lady who had wished, it seems, to remain anonymous. “Fate has chosen for you to paint seascapes... the sea contains an infinite source of poetry... I understand that it is possible to portray perfectly by means of the brush its waves, the air, the clouds, the sky itself, with its light and their reflection, yet all this will speak rather to the eyes, not to the soul. Believe me, the highest poetry for thought and heart and gaze is to be found in man himself! His trace gave life to everything,” the anonymous writer assured Aivazovsky. “In the final painting [the artist] demonstrates an entirely new aspect of his talent, dramatic painting to be precise: forceful, filled with ideas and scenic truth,” the same “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” wrote about an as yet unfinished canvas by the painter, depicting the dreadful aftermath of a shipwreck. In his essay, Caccioni noted: “Aivazovsky is usually considered a marine painter in the strict sense of the word... It would, however, be far more accurate to see him as a painter of the elements, an elemental painter, if one could use that term.”
Aivazovsky himself never denied that he worked mostly from memory, actively using his imagination, as if an invisible genius of inspiration was moving his hand. “Besides my hand and my imagination, my paintings are always created with the aid of my artistic memory also, which God granted me in abundance... I often recall with startling clarity things I saw decades ago,” the artist would say to his admirers. Aivazovsky's art was perhaps not so much about portraying marine views as they were, but about creating myths, telling magical tales about the sea. The artist's whimsical love of fantasy, his generalized imagery and “literariness” were perceptively noted by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. In 1861, the journal “Vremya” (Time), which was run by Dostoyevsky with his brother Mikhail, published the writer's article on the “Academy of Arts Exhibition of 1860-61”. In this anonymously penned piece, Dostoyevsky takes on the role of art critic to compare Aivazovsky's work with the labour of a writer.
“Aivazovsky's talent is acknowledged by all, indubitably, as is the talent of Alexandre Dumas; and the two artists, indeed, have a lot in common. M. Dumas writes with exceptional lightness and speed, and Aivazovsky the same. The works of both artists produce a remarkably striking effect: remarkable indeed, as neither man ever produces anything ordinary at all. Ordinary things, they despise. Their compositions are certainly quite fascinating,” Dostoyevsky wrote. “The books of Dumas were devoured with impatience; the paintings of Aivazovsky have been selling like hot cakes. Both produce works that are not dissimilar to fairy tales: fireworks, clatter, screams, howling winds, lightning. Both use everyday hues, yet add to them certain special effects that are likewise natural in origin, but exaggerated to the highest degree, almost to the point of caricature. There is nothing offensive to Aivazovsky in this comparison, I hasten to add: all art implies a measure of exaggeration, as long as it is within certain bounds.”
Far from reproaching Aivazovsky for his lively imagination, Dostoyevsky was encouraging the artist. Nature itself, he was pointing out, is multifaceted, and mere mortals cannot aspire, in the course of their short lives, to comprehend it in its entirety, or to study all its manifestations in detail. Thus the artist's brush is powerless to keep up with the eternal metamorphoses and constant shifts in nature. ‘Aivazovsky's ‘Storm over Yevpatoria' is just as wonderful as are all his storms. Here, he is a master without competition, here he is the artist supreme. In his storm, we sense rapture, we see that eternal beauty which strikes the observer in any real, natural storm. This quality of Aivazovsky's talent should not be seen as one-sidedness, if only because any storm is, in itself, infinitely diverse. Let us just note that if it is the infinite diversity of a storm that is being portrayed, it is impossible for any effect to appear exaggerated. Perhaps this is why viewers do not seem to notice any excessive effects in Aivazovsky's storms.”
“Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” also paid tribute to the artist's superior awareness and accuracy in portraying the rigging of ships. “Naval officers interested in art have commented that... not only are all the ships' details in his paintings in accordance with the strict rules of shipbuilding, but all the parts of the ships are also full of beauty and harmony, thereby fulfilling the main condition and captivating us with their elegance and architectural charm.” Indeed, in 1836, Aivazovsky had been seconded to serve as resident artist on board the ships of the Baltic Fleet: his knowledge of shipbuilding was beyond question.
We have examined only some of the most vivid accounts of the great Russian landscape artist's life and work, yet even these few testimonies are sufficient to offer a fascinating insight into Aivazovsky's unique talent and unrivalled artistic gift. Perhaps the main result of this analysis, however, has been to take a marvellous journey into the past, one that has enabled us, in company with the artist, to experience some of the key events in his rich creative life. A life, at the beating, tirelessly pulsating heart of which was ever the Sea - tender, fierce, calm, terrible, but always mysteriously alluring and whimsical.
- ‘The Annual Exhibition of Works of Art at the Imperial Academy of Arts’. Article II // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta” (The Arts Gazette). 1837, issue 20, October 19. P. 318. Hereinafter - Article II.
- ‘Aivazovsky’s New Painting’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1837, issue 23. P. 359.
- Article II. P. 319.
- Aivazovsky’s Crimean Paintings’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1840, issue 23, November 15. P. 28.
- Timm, VF. ‘I.K. Aivazovsky’ // “Russky Khudozhestvenny Listok” (The Russian Arts Sheet). 1858, issue 10, April 1. P. 1.
- Caccioni, S.A. ‘Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky. A Biographical Essay’ // “Nov” (The New). 1885, issue 1. P. 122. Hereinafter - Caccioni.
- Aivazovsky’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1840, issue 15, August 1. P. 1.
- Ibid, pp. 6-7.
- ‘Report of the Imperial Academy of Arts for the Academic Year of 1839-1840’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1840, issue 3, February 1. P. 6.
- ‘Report of the Imperial Academy of Arts for the Academic Year of 1839-1840’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1840, issue 24, December 15. P. 6.
- Letter from Ivan Aivazovsky to Vasily Grigorovich. 30 April 1841 // Department of Manuscripts, National Library of Russia. Collection 9, file 3, folio 5.
- Karatygin, P.P. ‘Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky and His Forty Two Years of Artistic Activity. 1836-1878. The First Year Abroad. 1840-1841’ // “Russkaya Starina” (Old Times in Russia), 1878, July. P. 425. Hereinafter - Karatygin.
- ‘Aivazovsky in Italy’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1841, issue 11. P. 3. Hereinafter - Italy.
- Ibid., p. 1.
- Ibid., p. 1.
- Ibid., p. 2.
- Letter from Ivan Aivazovsky to Vasily Grigorovich. 2/20 December 1840 // Department of Manuscripts, National Library of Russia. Collection 9, file 3, folio 3.
- Italy. P. 2.
- Karatygin. P. 425.
- Ibid, p. 425.
- Ibid, p. 426.
- The Exhibition at the Academy of Arts’ // “Otechestvenniye Zapiski” (Annals of the Fatherland). 1842, vol. 25. P. 25.
- The author is referring to the nine-year-old Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich.
- ‘Report of the Imperial Academy of Arts for the Academic Year 1836-1837, Read Out at the General Meeting of the Academy by Conference Secretary Vasily Grigorovich on 26 September 1837’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1837, nos. 17-18, September. P. 276.
- ‘Letter to Aivazovsky’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1837, issue 14, July. P. 223.
- Timm, VF. “I.K. Aivazovsky” // “Russky Khudozhestvenny Listok” 1858, No. 10, April 1. P. 2.
- Ramazanov, N.A. // “Moskvityanin” (The Muscovite). 1854, issue 24.
- Caccioni. Pp. 100-123.
- Ibid, p. 100.
- Ibid, p. 101.
- ‘Letter to Aivazovsky’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1837, issue 14, July. P. 222.
- Aivazovsky’s New Painting’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1837, issue 23. P. 359.
- Caccioni. P. 101.
- Ibid, pp. 122-123.
- ‘Unsigned. The Academy of Arts Exhibition of 1860-61’ // “Vremya” (Time). 1861, issue 10, section II. Pp. 147-168.
- Ibid. Dostoyevsky, F.M. ‘The Academy of Arts Exhibition of 1860-61’ // “Complete Works and Correspondence in 30 Vols.” Vol. 19, Articles and Essays 1861. Leningrad, 1979. P. 161.
- Ibid, pp. 161-162.
- Ibid, p. 163.
- Aivazovsky’ // “Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta”. 1840, issue 5, August 1. P. 4.
Tretyakov Gallery. Detail
Oil on canvas. 31.5 × 42 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Graphite pencil with stumping on papier-pellé (gypsum-coated paper); scratching. 17.4 × 22.2 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Graphite pencil with stumping on papier-pellé (gypsum-coated paper); scratching. 27.2 × 42.2 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Oil on canvas. 56 × 66.5 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Oil on canvas. 28.5 × 42.5 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Oil on panel. 22.5 × 34.5 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Tretyakov Gallery. Detail
Oil on canvas. 100 × 149 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Sepia on paper; scratching. 17.2 × 26.8 cmю Tretyakov Gallery
Sepia on paper; scratching. 17 × 26.8 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Sepia and graphite pencil on paper mounted on paper. 12.6 × 20.4 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Oil on canvas. 133.5 × 110 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Sepia and graphite pencil on paper; scratching. 14 × 22.1 cm. Russian Museum
Graphite pencil with stumping on papier-pellé (gypsum-coated paper); scratching. 22.5 × 39.5 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Graphite pencil and watercolour on papier-pellé (gypsum-coated paper); scratching. 16.5 × 24.5 cm. Tretyakov Gallery
Graphite pencil, watercolour and sepia on paper. 29.2 × 23.7 cm. From the Album of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich. 1820s-1850s
Russian State Archive of Literature and Art, Fund 1949, op. 2, unit 3. Sheet 12