Abstracts
Foreign Diplomats at the Court of Emperor Peter III
My research project has two main aims. Firstly, it is intended to provide a more complex and versatile picture of Peter III and his reign through the analysis and comparison of diplomatic accounts. It examines the portrait of Peter III drawn by diplomats, their assessment of his foreign and domestic policy, and their opinions on the key influences in Russian court circles. Secondly, it identifies and analyses networks between foreign diplomats and the Russian court in St Petersburg. This analysis examines the composition of these diplomatic networks and the type of information that they received through them. As well as exploring the relationships between the diplomats of different countries, my research also focuses on the questions of how and to what extent these diplomats gained access to the Russian court and what they reported about meetings with its members. A key thread to this discussion is that there were considerable disparities concerning access to the Russian court that depended on the country from which the respective diplomats came. It is important to begin with a comparison of the diplomatic protagonists from different countries with regard to their language, their biographical background and their education. This helps to establish any existing knowledge and experience relating to Russia and whether any stereotypes are discernible. Likewise, the reconstruction of personal networks in the environment of the Russian court helps to disclose any informal relationship structures there.
The primary materials for this project are the accounts of the Prussian, Austrian, British and French diplomats in St Petersburg between 5 January and 16 August 1762 (New Style). The documents are written in French, English and German. Almost all of these diplomatic materials are unpublished to date; only a part of the Austrian documents were published in СИРИО (Сборник императорского русского исторического общества). At a basic level, the Austrian and the French documents are much more comprehensive than their British and Prussian equivalents, with the Austrian and the French reports containing more significant detail.
The majority of the research to date has concerned the British and Austrian documents from the beginning of January up until early March 1762. The question of access to the Russian Court provides a useful case study for the relative standing of the diplomats. The British ambassador Robert Keith had very good relations with the Russian Emperor. He met him at least five times within this period. With regard to his proximity to Peter III, Keith had an unusual position among the foreign diplomats. He was, for instance, the only foreign diplomat invited to the Emperor’s birthday celebrations (21 February). Keith gained various detailed and important information during his conversations with the Emperor. He was also able to influence some decisions for the English court, for instance the appointment of Senator Roman I. Vorontsov’s son as new Russian envoy in London (3/5 February). Keith also had good relations with the Chancellor Mikhail I. Vorontsov. However, he was not able to talk to the Chancellor from 12 January to 13 February because of the latter’s illness. After the Chancellor’s recovery, he received Keith on 14 February. Only later did he receive other foreign diplomats. Concerning other important persons, Keith only wrote about a visit by Prince Georg Ludwig of Holstein-Gottorp on 5 February. Furthermore, he reported of a visit by Senator Vorontsov on the same day.
Florimond Claude, comte de Mercy-Argenteau, the Austrian minister in St Petersburg, had a different experience. He met Peter III only once at a general audience for all foreign diplomats on 6 January. From 18 January onwards, he tried to get an audience for bringing forward arguments for the continuance of the Russian-Austrian alliance. He was not granted an audience until the end of February. Mercy-Argenteau suspected that the audience was postponed because Peter awaited the Britsh answer concerning negotiations with Prussia. But, according to Keith ,Mercy-Argenteau had not been granted an audience since he did not pay his respects to Prince Georg, a fact that displeased the emperor. On 25 February, Mercy-Argenteau met Peter a second time during a dinner at Chancellor Vorontsov’s house. Following the latter’s illness, Mercy-Argenteau was received by the Chancellor later than Keith had been, perhaps illustrating Vorontsov’s reservations towards him. Vorontsov informed Mercy-Argenteau of some developments concerning foreign affairs but, compared to Keith's knowledge, Vorontsov did not give away much. Mercy-Argenteau also suspected that Vorontsov deliberately withheld information. Referring to an incident in the previous year, on 26 February, Mercy-Argenteau believed that he had more influence over the late empress Elizabeth. During Vorontsov's illness, in particular, Mercy-Argenteau attempted to talk to other influential persons at the Russian court, but many, like the leading adviser Privy Secretary Dmitrii Volkov, would not speak to him. Mercy-Argenteau wrote repeatedly about other arrangements that he made in order to get confidential information about statements of the emperor, likely indicating that he bribed court servants.
Due to the comparatively small number of letters analysed so far, it is not yet possible to make definitive statements concerning the Prussian minister Heinrich Leopold von Goltz, but it seems that he also established good relations with both the Chancellor and the Emperor. Both Keith's and Mercy-Argenteau's reports indicate that Peter had a personal animosity against France; hence the French ambassador, Louis Charles Auguste le Tonnelier, baron de Breteuil, probably was not on good terms with the Emperor.
Concerning diplomatic networks/contact to other diplomats, one can say that Keith worked as an intermediary between the Prussian and the Russian court. Goltz worked together closely with Keith after his arrival. Already on the evening of Goltz's arrival on 4 March, both men dined together and Keith informed him about the current situation at the Russian court. Keith also had contact with the Danish envoy Count Gregers Christian Haxthausen. When Haxthausen received his new credentials on 15 February, he showed Keith copies of them and Keith wrote to Chancellor Vorontsov to learn when Haxthausen could get an audience with the Russian emperor.
Likewise there were close ties between the Austrian, French and Spanish diplomats at the Russian court. They partially coordinated their actions; for example, none of them paid their respects to Prince Georg of Holstein. The Austrian and French ambassadors enjoyed a particularly close relationship. Mercy-Argenteau dispatched his reports by means of a French courier, while Mercy-Argenteau and Breteuil met regularly and informed each other about the content of their conversations with Chancellor Vorontsov (see, for example 10 January and 26 February). They also agreed upon what to say to the Chancellor about certain issues in advance, as on 18 January regarding the French–Spanish treaty. An initial analysis of French documents so far confirms this assumption. However, Mercy-Argenteau criticised Breteuil several times because of his careless behaviour and pronouncements, as on 18 January and 26 February Mercy-Argenteau also maintained a relationships with diplomats from other, smaller states. For example, in his letter of 10 January, Mercy-Argenteau noted that the Electoral Saxon envoy, Johann Moritz Prasse wrote to his court for a bill of credit and explained the purpose. Likewise, he knew that the Swedish envoy Baron Posse dispatched an express courier on 1 February and knew the purpose of it. There might also have been a connection between Breteuil and the Swedish envoy, since he wrote on 11 January that Posse told him about his orders concerning the Swedish desire for peace.
Concerning diplomatic reports on Peter III’s policies, both Keith and Mercy-Argenteau wrote at the end of January that the Emperor declared the liberation of the nobility from obligatory service and they also mentioned some details, like the positive reaction of the nobility. They also reported on the reduction of the salt tax in the same period, the abolition of the ‘Conference’ in the first half of February and of the Secret Chancellery later that month. In these cases, Keith reported the measures a few days earlier than Mercy-Argenteau. In addition, Mercy-Argenteau wrote on 1 February that the customs duties were soon to be reduced and that all monopolies were to be abolished. Furthermore, he reported the emerging discontent about further domestic measures on 15 February.
They were divided on the question of Peter III’s personal involvement in politics. According to Keith on 30 January, the emperor occupied himself with all branches of government and gave explicit orders in the domestic affairs. However, Mercy-Argenteau stated that the orders concerning domestic affairs did not derive so much from the emperor himself, but were rather based on advice from some of his favourites and intimates. With regard to the foreign policy, my initial findings suggest that the Austrian and the French diplomats feared Peter III’s withdrawal from the Alliance and that he would then conclude a separate peace with Prussia. Mercy-Argenteau was displeased about the armistice concluded in February and he emphasised that Holstein affairs were the main focus of the emperor’s foreign policy. By contrast, Keith appreciated the armistice but cautioned against the danger that could arise from the emperor’s animosity toward the Court of Denmark, as noted on 11 March.
The issues of access to the emperor and the perception of his policies naturally had an impact on the general image of Peter III presented in these diplomatic reports; an image which has often dominated the historiographical presentation of his reign, For example, Mercy-Argenteau often made negative comments on the emperor’s character. He described him variously as ‘inconstant’ (10 January), ‘indiscreet’ (1 February), ‘hot tempered’ (15 February) and criticised his behaviour as ‘inadequate’ (15 February).
- Tatjana Trautmann, University of Kiel, Germany
t.trautmann@oeg.uni-kiel.de
Back to the contents page.
