A Note on Some European Foreign Office Archives and Russian Domestic History, 1790-1812

Author(s): R. E. McGrew
Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 531-536
Published by:
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2492688 .
Accessed: 04/01/2014 20:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Slavic Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 85.122.30.3 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:24:00 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes and Comment
SLAVIC REVIEW
A NOTE ON SOME EUROPEAN
FOREIGN OFFICE ARCHIVES AND
RUSSIAN DOMESTIC HISTORY,
1 7 9 0 - 1 8 1 2
BY R. E. McGREW
The use of foreign office materials for domestic history is by no means
new, but Russian historians have done very little with this kind of
research. One reason is that the Russians themselves have not needed
to, and in recent years the turn toward social and intellectual history
has seemed to make the diplomats' comments on court and society
superficial if not irrelevant. This impression is actually erroneous, and
non-Soviet scholars will find diplomatic archives a rich resource in
themselves and an excellent supplement for published materials.1 This
essay describes materials for Russian internal history from the Haus-,
Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, the Archives du Ministere des Affaires 1tran-
geres, and the Public Record Office. The author read these archives for
the period 1790-1812 looking for material on Russian reform policies
to supplement information collected from published sources. The re-
sults were so gratifying that a summary of them should be of value to
other scholars engaged on projects in prerevolutionary Russian domes-
tic history.
The most valuable of the archives studied was the Haus-, Hof-, und
Staatsarchiv. Austrian representatives were assiduous in collecting data
on domestic developments, and during the last decade of the eighteenth
century the Austrian staff was on excellent terms with the inner circle
MR. McGREW is associate professor of history at the University of Missouri. He wislies
to acknowledge the support given him by the Joint Committee on Slavic Studies of the
American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council, and the
Graduate Research Council of the University of Missouri.
1 Pierre Morane, Paul ler de Russie avant l'avenement 1754-1796 (Paris, 1907) and Con-
stantine de Grunwald, La vie et le regne du Nicolas I (Paris, 1946) are among the very few
studies which use diplomatic archives for nonpolitical questions. Barbara Jelavich, ed.,
Russland 1852-1871: Aus den Berichten der bayerischen Gesandtschaft in St. Petersburg
(Wiesbaden, 1963) shows both the strength and weakness of diplomatic reports for domestic
history.
This content downloaded from 85.122.30.3 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:24:00 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
532 Slavic Review
of Russian administrators. Ludwig Graf Cobenzl, who was the Austrian
ambassador to Petersburg from 1779 to 1800, established himself, de-
spite marked personal peculiarities, including a mania for French com-
edy, on the most intimate footing with Count Bezborodko and held a
favored position at court until 1798. Cobenzl was shrewd, cautious, and
conservative, and his voluminous reports to the Ballhausplatz showed
both perception and excellent sources of information. When he was
absent from the capital, Cobenzl's duties were carried on by Graf
Dietrichstein, Graf St. Julien, and the Consul General, an extremely
able man named Viazzoli. Though neither Dietrichstein nor St. Julien
commanded the sources or the knowledge which Cobenzl had available,
their reports were useful, and Viazzoli's contributions were especially
good.2
In addition to the regular ambassadorial and consular reports, the
Austrian archives contained valuable materials compiled by special
emissaries. When Dietrichstein first came to Petersburg in 1797, he
was Paul's special favorite, and the tsar carried on long, intimate con-
versations with him. Dietrichstein reported these talks at great length,
and the result is a collection of very important material for evaluating
Paul's attitudes and character. The Stutterheim diaries offer similar
data for the years 1804-5. Karl, Freiherr von Stutterheim was a special
military envoy attached to the staff of the Grand Duke Constantine.
His diaries are particularly useful for military and diplomatic ques-
tions, but they also contain a large amount of information on Alexan-
der, the Dowager-Empress, shifting internal politics in a crucial period,
and the interior balance of power. Other special materials include
several accounts of Paul's assassination, a magnificent eyewitness de-
scription of Moscow on the eve of Napoleon's arrival, and a detailed
summary and analysis of the Bank plan announced in December,
1797. This latter sketch and related correspondence, which was largely
Viazzoli's work, is almost unique as an informed contemporary critique
of Paul's fiscal policies.
The Austrian archives' greatest value was in providing a connected
narrative of personnel changes, policy debates, and those daily develop-
ments which create the atmosphere in which politics are carried for-
ward. Each dispatch contained information on decrees, decorations,
advancements, retirements, and social life, and in this sense the dis-
patches could be read as a gazette. Articles appearing in Russian publi-
cations were either copied or clipped, and published government re-
ports added their bulk. The Austrian reports bring the Russian court
to life, and though their style is not always distinguished, their richness
2
Cobenzl's official correspondence for the period 1790-99 numbers twenty-two cartons.
These included the reports written by Dietrichstein, St. Julien, and Viazzoli. The corre-
spondence is in the series, Russland II Berichte, cartons 71-93. In the Austrian archives
only the "Berichte" and "Varia" series contained useful information. Cobenzl's role at the
Russian court has never been studied systematically.
This content downloaded from 85.122.30.3 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:24:00 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Some European Foreign
Office
Archives, 1790-1812 533
in detail give a sense of immediacy largely missing from the fragmen-
tary correspondence and scattered personal memoirs which are the
usual sources for this period.
The Austrian diplomatic papers require critical treatment, for re-
porting is incomplete and sometimes inaccurate, and some subjects on
which substantial information might logically have been expected are
covered partially or not at all. Biographical material on members of
the court or administration is uneven, and personal data concerning
even such dignitaries as Bezborodko, Kochubei, Czartoryski, Novo-
siltsev, or Speransky is scanty. Rostopchin and Kutaisov, who were
bitterly detested, were discussed at length, but what was said was
piquant rather than important. Cobenzl's dispatches were filled with
references to Bezborodko, but Cobenzl wrote in political rather than
personal terms, and though Bezborodko's role as Paul's balance wheel
emerged, the man himself never did. The same was true of his nephew,
Viktor Kochubei. On the other hand, the Austrian archives contain
rich biographical materials on the imperial family, especially on Tsar
Paul and Maria Fedorovna. Paul's personal characteristics, attitudes,
and behavior occupied a large place in the Austrian diplomatic reports;
for Cobenzl, quite correctly, saw Paul as the mainspring of the Russian
system, and faithfully recorded his daily behavior. Moral judgments on
Paul aside, there is no source richer in commonplace minutiae, no
source which gives a fuller and more careful assessment of the tsar's
character than the Austrian dispatches. Though often puzzled, some-
times horrified, and finally embittered by Paul's inconsistencies, Co-
benzl maintained balance and objectivity, and the result is an intimate
portrait of the emperor unparalleled in the contemporary literature.3
In the economic and social spheres, the Austrian archives are com-
paratively weak on external trade but strong on finance. Tax policies
were covered in detail, the course of the ruble was followed closely, and
the reactions of the merchant community to fiscal questions were care-
fully recorded. Agricultural problems as such were scarcely touched,
but the Austrians were interested in conditions among the peasantry;
rebellions and social disturbances in general were fully reported,
though it is apparent that authentic information was difficult to find.
Russian culture, however, received short shrift, and the intellectual
historian will find almost nothing of direct interest. A few comments
were passed on books which were being read, but the names of Russian
writers were seldom mentioned. Finally, the military historian will find
a great deal to interest him. Russian military preparedness occupied
the Austrian representatives constantly, and there were continued dis-
3 Only the Austrian archives, of those read, contain much material on Paul, and none
of the standard biographies of the members of the imperial family use this information.
In this sense, the data on Paul comprise new and valuable material. The Prussian, Swedish,
and Danish archives should all contain equally valuable information, although the Public
Record Office, which also should have done so, proved a disappointment (see below).
This content downloaded from 85.122.30.3 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:24:00 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
534 Slavic Review
cussions of the relationship between the Russian economy and Russian
military capacity, as well as morale, training, and conditions in the
Russian armies.4
The archives of the French ministry of foreign affairs were less valu-
able for this period than either the Austrian or the English. Formal
relations between France and Russia were broken in 1792, and though
they were resumed before Paul's death, regular reporting from St.
Petersburg did not begin until 1802. The French reports on the early
years of Alexander's administration contained very little of conse-
quence, for French representatives lacked contracts, and at first they
were positively isolated. When war broke out again, another gap
occurred in the French dispatches, and the only connected reporting
which we have on the French side covers the period 1808 to 1812. In
this period, however, the French reports have a special value, since the
British had been expelled, and the Austrians were in disgrace.
The topics that the French reports covered best were court politics
and domestic economic questions. Caulaincourt regularly reviewed the
entire administration in a series of special "memoires," in which he also
commented on current political problems and the position taken by
each member of the government. Caulaincourt was as well informed
in his time as Cobenzl was in his, and like Cobenzl, Caulaincourt en-
joyed the tsar's favor. Moreover, since the French were interested in
developing commerce and investments in Russia, Caulaincourt was
particularly careful to report Russian tariff policies and Russian con-
trols over foreign merchants. Furthermore, Russia's economic nation-
alism in the post-Tilsit period threatened French as well as British in-
terests, and the French ambassador's dispatches protesting those policies
contain excellent data on this new direction in Russian economic
thought.
There are several special collections in the French archives which
deal with Russian domestic history. One of the most important is the
reports, memoirs, and correspondence of General Langeron, portions
of which have been published, which include materials on Russian
administration, Russian economic and military affairs, and commen-
taries on key Russian political personnel. French material on the
Danubian and Black Sea regions, as well as on Greek affairs, are very
rich, and data on the economic development of southern Russia in rela-
tion to the Principalities is extraordinarily full. Finally, the story of
France's role in Russia's economic growth is partially documented, and
there one can find the background for the fascinating, and still untold,
4 Two very interesting files of correspondence in the Lieven Papers at the British
Museum add substantially to the data concerning the military. These are letters from
Count Arakcheev and Pierre Dolgoruky. The latter deal specifically with conditions in
the Russian armies during the crucial period, 1804-7. See Lieven Papers, Add. 47243
(Dolgoruky) and Add. 47244 (Arakcheev). These letters have not been available previously.
This content downloaded from 85.122.30.3 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:24:00 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Some European Foreign Office Archives, 1790-1812 535
story of the collaboration of the Duc de Richelieu and Count Kochubei
in the southern provinces.5
The Public Record Office proved a richer repository than the French
foreign office archives, though on balance the English materials are in-
ferior to those in Vienna. The British archives have been used spar-
ingly for anything but diplomatic history, yet they contain some unique
elements. Over-all, the British records are most valuable for economic
questions, and in many instances the English reports provide full docu-
mentation for ideas found in the French archives. English ministerial,
later ambassadorial, reports contain excellent material on tariff policy,
and the annual consular reports provide the fullest available trade
statistics for the Russian Empire. The consuls were able to add un-
published data as well as commentaries, and since British consuls were
chosen from the English trading community itself, these comments are
unusually helpful.6 Russia's fiscal position also interested the English,
and during Paul's reign Sir Charles Whitworth argued that England
could control Russian foreign policy through pressure on those Dutch
financial houses which were providing the funds to meet Russia's
growing deficits. Whitworth's argument was buttressed with circum-
stantial details concerning the Russian debt, Russian funding proce-
dures, and fiscal attitudes of the Russian government as well as the
economies that government was trying to practice. This information is
paralleled by consular reports which give a more general view of Rus-
sian fiscal policies and the reactions of the merchant community to
them.
On the political and administrative side, the English materials,
though much more complete than the French, are distinctly inferior
to the Austrian. This was disappointing, for every evidence suggested
that Whitworth's reports would be especially good for Paul's reign, and
the existence of a strong English party in St. Petersburg in a position
of influence should have produced valuable data for the period ending
in 1807. Sir Charles Whitworth was deeply enmeshed in court in-
5 The diplomatic correspondence in the Archives du Minist&e des Affaires 1Etrang&es
is in the series "Correspondance politique: Russie," and the miscellaneous material, in-
cluding Langeron, is in the "Memoires et documents" series. Mr. John Nicopolous, a doc-
toral candidate at the University of Paris, is working on the economic development of the
Black Sea; Basile Spiridonakis did an interesting doctoral study based on this information:
"Les principautes danubiennes de 1774 a 1792: 1Rtude politique et diplomatique" (unpub-
lished, Paris, 1962). Mr. Spiridonakis put together a valuable guide to materials on
Russian history in the French foreign office archives which he allowed me to use before it
was printed. See his Mdmoires et documents du Ministere des Affaires 1trang&res de
France sur la Russie (Quebec: Universite de Sherbrooke, 1962). Rondo Cameron's excel-
lent France and the Economic Development of Europe (Princeton, 1961) does not touch
French activities in southern Russia in the first decade of the nineteenth century.
6
In the Public Record Office, all material for this period pertaining to Russia is filed
in the same series, F. 0. 65. Thus diplomatic dispatches, consular reports, and all support-
ing materials may be found in the same place, and all pertinent data may be read at the
same time.
This content downloaded from 85.122.30.3 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:24:00 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
536 Slavic Review
trigues, though the exact nature of his activities has caused some con-
troversy. Certainly his reports document the venality of the Russian
court, and Whitworth provides additional evidence, if it were needed,
that Mlle. Lapukhin and Kutaisov were Paul's most influential advisers.
The English minister is most unsatisfactory, however, on the very sig-
nificant period from November, 1796, to March, 1798. This was the era
in which Paul developed his most important domestic reform proposals,
and it was also Maria Fedorovna's time of largest influence. Whitworth
was in a position to know a great deal about these matters, but he re-
ported little of what he knew. Even the crucial question of the new
Land Bank was poorly reported; this omission seems unusual since
Whitworth's correspondence generally was excellent on economic and
fiscal affairs. Finally, although Whitworth was as well placed as Co-
benzl to observe and comment on Paul's character, he did not do so,
and his reports are greatly inferior to the Austrian as sources for the
tsar's biographer.
The English reports for the period 1801-8 show the same deficiencies
in reporting domestic political questions and personalia. Neither Alex-
ander I nor the domestic views of Alexander's ministers appear with
any clarity despite the Anglophile character of the first reform admin-
istration. British representatives reported the constitutional and ad-
ministrative changes which were made, but they viewed them primarily
in terms of regularizing conditions which had been disturbed by Paul.
After 1802 domestic politics were scarcely mentioned at all, although
the English reports continued to provide substantial data on economic
questions, and it is in the latter field that the Public Record Office is
most valuable for the historian of Russia.
The three archives which we have briefly surveyed may be considered
major repositories of source material for Russian domestic history.
Their emphases vary, and the period in which they are read would have
considerable bearing on their value, but the experience with these
archives clearly indicates that European foreign office archives are
among the important sources available to the historian of Russia out-
side the Soviet Union.
This content downloaded from 85.122.30.3 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:24:00 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions