Russian Ambassador Research Articles

The Embassy of Pyotr Potemkin to Spain, 1667–1668: Some Features of Mutual Perception and Dialogue of Two Diplomacies

The Russian diplomacy of the 17th century had some specific features in comparison with the Western European diplomacy of the same time. The purpose of this article is to identify these features and analyze the perception of Russian ambassadors by European diplomats. The research is based on both Russian and Spanish documentation of the embassy of Piotr Potemkin (1667–1668), the first Russian embassy in Spain. Since there were no instances of diplomatic contacts between the two countries in the past, the diplomatic ceremonial was of crucial importance for P. Potemkin’s mission. Since no contact between the diplomats and the Ambassadorial Chancellery in Moscow was not possible due to the long distance between Russia and Spain, the detailed instructions (nakaz) given to P. Potemkin in Moscow acquired a special significance. Therefore the article aims to determine the extent and nature of the dependence of the diplomats’ actions on their instructions. A comparative analysis of the nakaz and the final report (stateinyi spisok) in the part related to the stay of the embassy in Madrid and the negotiation process shows that the ambassadors scrupulously observed the nakaz, taking initiative only in those cases that were not covered by it. All of its requirements had a logical explanation: not to harm the interests of Russia, not to lower the honour of the envoys of a great power, not to create a bad precedent in the diplomatic ceremonial. The Spanish side, not sufficiently aware of the specifics of the nakaz, sometimes did not understand the behaviour of the ambassadors, attributing it to their vanity, pettiness, and bad temper. At the same time, although the Russian embassy took Spanish diplomats wholly by surprise, the latter managed, within a limited time, to collect a variety of information about the Russians and take it into account, showing flexibility in organizing audiences and during negotiations. Although there were differences between Spanish and Russian diplomats, both sides adhered to European diplomatic practice. The absence of contradictions between the two states and their interest in establishing diplomatic relations and developing bilateral trade determined the success of P. Potemkin’s embassy.

Russian Diplomats Nikolai V. Charykov and Vassili N. Strandtmann on the Reasons for the Failure of the Russian Plan to Create a Balkan Federation

In Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, a new strategic line in relations with the Ottoman Empire was being developed. The urgent task of Russian diplomacy was to prevent the participation of the Ottoman Empire on the side of Russia’s opponents in a possible war. Unfortunately, Russian diplomacy failed to cope with this task. Diplomatic documents attest to the existence of a Russian plan to create a Balkan Federation under the auspices of the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s efforts in this regard intensified after the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. In 1910, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was developing a plan for the possible unification of the Balkan states into a single Balkan Federation led by the Ottoman Empire. Serbia played an important role in the implementation of this program. This idea was developed by Nikolai V. Charykov, the Russian ambassador to Constantinople from 1909 to 1911. Russian diplomacy sought to smooth out the contradictions in the Balkans and normalise the relations of the young states with the Ottoman Empire. In 1911, the Russian Envoy to Constantinople, Charykov, negotiated with the Turkish leadership on the Russian-Turkish treaty, which, in particular, included the question of the Balkan Federation. This episode in Russian-Turkish relations went down in the history of diplomacy as the “Charykov demarche.” The formation of the Balkan Union and the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913 meant the failure of the Russian model of peaceful coexistence of the Balkan states as a confederation, including the autonomy of European Turkey. The reasons for this failure were discussed in their memoirs by two Russian diplomats Nikolai V. Charykov and Vassili N. Strandtmann, who gave years of diplomatic service in the Balkans, and who remained living there after escaping from revolutionary Russia.

ЛИКИ УНИВЕРСИТЕТСКОЙ ИСПАНИИ В БИБЛИОТЕКЕ СТРОГАНОВА: ИСПАНСКИЙ ГУМАНИСТ ЭРНАНДО НУНЬЕС ДЕ ГУСМАН

The Spanish collection of the Stroganov Library reveals Spain as a country with a rich cultural heritage. The last owner of the family library, G.A. Stroganov, was the Russian ambassador to Spain, and his interest in Spanish subjects was reflected in the book collection. One of the most valuable publications is a series of engraved portraits of outstanding Spaniards, published from 1791 to 1819. As a cultural time-specific project of the Enlightenment era, this series reveals the value priorities of Spanish society, which allows us to understand its socio-cultural guidelines over a long historical period. An impressive share of the persons selected by the Spaniards among their outstanding representatives belongs to university figures. This speaks not only about the influence of the Age of Enlightenment, but also about the rich history of university tradition in Spain. The subject of our study is the figure of the Spanish humanist H. Núñez de Guzman (1475-1553). In his youth, he studied with Nebrija. In the College of St. Clement in Bologna he started studying the culture of classical Greece. After returning to Spain, he studied Hebrew and Arabic in Granada. He was invited by Cisneros to the University of Alcala to work on a project to create a multilingual Bible. At this university, which became an important center of Spanish humanism, he taught rhetoric and Greek. In 1524, he received a chair of Greek at the University of Salamanca, where he also taught Latin, rhetoric, and lectured on the "Natural History" of Pliny. In Salamanca, Núñez published commentaries on the works of Seneca (1529), Mela (1543) and Pliny (1544); he prepared a collection of proverbs in the Castilian language, which was published in 1555. A deep connoisseur of Latin and Greek, Núñez is considered the patriarch of the Spanish Hellenists. They were a cohort of humanists who, on Spanish soil, combined in their worldview the features of the outgoing Middle Ages and the ideas of the Renaissance. Núñez played a significant role in the development of the Greek language as a subject of study in Spanish universities. The Greek language, the knowledge of which nourished and developed humanistic upbringing and education, gets its spread in Spain during the life and activity of Núñez. In the series of portraits of outstanding Spaniards, the portrait of Núñez is placed in the fourteenth notebook, published in 1802.The engraved portrait is made by Esquivel according to the drawing of Engidanos. Núñez is depicted sitting in nature with an open book in his hands. In the biography attached to the portrait, it is noted that "few have more reason to be included in the list of outstanding people than Fernando Núñez de Guzman. His character, his erudition and behavior are an example of the highest honor." Núñez donated his valuable collection of books in Latin and Greek to the University of Salamanca. Núñez remains interesting for researchers today. The image and selfless devotion of the erudite continue to evoke deep respect, and the legacy left – gratitude.

Статейные списки российского посла в Стамбуле П.А. Толстого: история создания и архивная судьба

Статейные списки российского посла в Стамбуле П.А. Толстого: история создания и архивная судьба

Османские планы по закрытию Черного моря в начале XVIII в.

The purpose of the study is to consider the importance of the East Azov Sea and the Strait of Kerch in the relations between the Russian state and the Ottoman Empire in the late XVII – early XVIII centuries as a special direction in the foreign policy. It gained relevance after the successful capture of Azov by Russian troops and Cossacks. The Russian state attempted not only to seize these lands, but also to open navigation in the Black Sea. This problem could be solved by the transfer of the Kerch fortress to Russia or the conclusion of a trade agreement with the Ottoman Empire, which gave the right to free navigation through the Kerch Strait. The unwillingness to allow foreign vessels into the Black Sea and serious concerns about the safety of the state’s capital led to the plans of Porta to close the Kerch Strait completely. The article chronologically traces the emergence of such ideas at the court of the Ottoman Sultan and attempts to implement them in the context of Russian-Ottoman relations and the real abilities of Porta. The scientific novelty of the article lies in determining the methods available to the Ottomans for the implementation of the plan to close the Kerch Strait from foreign powers, in chronological ordering of existing documents and materials, which reveal the essence of the research problem. The author concludes that the lack of financial resources and the timely actions of the Russian ambassadors at the court of the Ottoman sultan did not allow the implementation of a grand project to turn the Sea of Azov into a closed or half-closed reservoir. The normalization of Russian-Ottoman relations and attempts to penetrate the Black Sea peacefully solved the problem of unilateral closure of the strait.

Taşkent Hanlığı’nda İlk Rus Elçisi Dmitriy Telyatnikov’un Misyonu ve Faaliyetleri (1797)

Tashkent, one of the most strategic regions of Turkestan, has been the subject of struggle between Khiva and Bukhara Khanates throughout history. Because of its strategic position, Tashkent was also one of the main objectives of Russian Tsarism, which had an expansionist policy over the Turkestan Khanates. Russian Tsarism, which wanted to explore the region and explore its resources, sent embassy missions consisting of many experts. The mine engineer Timofey Stepanoviç Burnasev, who was sent to Turkistan in 1794 by the tsarist administration, wanted to contact Tashkent rather than the Khanates of Turkestan, in accordance with the instructions given to him. However, the Bukhara Khanate prevented this first official Tsarism attempt. The Russian government continued its efforts to establish links with Tashkent which was a city-state. Thus, a new embassy mission was sent to Tashkent. In this study, the contacts of the first Russian ambassador Dmitriy Telyatknikov, who was able to establish contact with Tashkent Khanate in 1797 during the short period of independence of Yunus Hoca (1780-1800), is discussed. In addition, the contributions of the ambassador’s impressions and information about Tashkent to Russian expansionism in the region are the main subject of this study.

Austrian Policy on the Eve and during the Crimean War

The article deals with the policy of Austria in 1853—1856. It is analyzed what factors influenced the change in the position of the Habsburg monarchy during the Crimean War.The author examines the diplomatic struggle of the Western powers and Russia for Austria:the pressure of Napoleon III on Vienna; the relationship between Nicholas I and Franz Joseph I; the activities of the Russian Ambassador A. M. Gorchakov at the Vienna conference, his relations with the Austrian foreign Minister K. F. Buol-Schauenstein.The author evaluates the results of the dual policy of Austria.

Thirty Years Ago, a Soviet-American Seminar Was Held in Vladivostok

Precisely thirty years ago, in June 1990, an international scientific seminar dedicated to cooperation between the countries of the North Pacific was held in the then Soviet Vladivostok. The seminar was initiated by the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Fletcher is one of the oldest and leading international training institutions in the United States. The main inspiration for the seminar, which was supported by the Soviet Peace Committee and its Primorsky branch, was the head of the North Pacific program of the Fletcher school, Professor John Curtis Perry. The core of the participants of the ten-day seminar in Vladivostok, held in the House of Negotiations at the suburban Sanatornaya station, were students and professors of Fletcher, as well as young Soviet scholars and diplomats. There were also representatives of Japan and China. Among the Soviet participants of the seminar there were many very well-known names. These are Alexander Yakovenko (the recent Russian Ambassador to the UK, and now the rector of the Diplomatic Academy), prominent political scientist Boris Makarenko, historian and writer Konstantin Pleshakov, and historian Amir Khisamutdinov.

러시아 외교관을 통해 본 3.1운동

This article is mainly concerned with analyzing in detail the five reports prepared by Ryutheh, the Russian consul general in Seoul. Ryutheh reported on the 3.1 movement through the Russian ambassador in Japan to the government of Colchak in the Omsk province. The reports of Ryutheh are very meaningful in that they record and evaluate the situation of Chosun, where the diplomatic relations with Russia were cut off, in the eyes of Russians. It was on the surface of the death of Gojong and his funeral that Ryutheh analyzed the cause of the 3.1 movement. The real cause, however, was the public anger over Japan''s violent and oppressive rule. Ryutheh analyzed that Japanese resistance against the Koreans by coercing them to assimilate Koreans, and resistance against them, led to the participation of protesters naturally gathered in Seoul for the funeral of King Gojong. The Ryutheh pointed to the limitations of the religious movement in the 3.1 movement. Although Koreans were self-awakened and expressed their dissatisfaction with Japan through the ages, they were influenced by religion, especially Chondogyo, because they had little access to modern knowledge. Ryutheh pointed out that the Declaration of Independence is also limited. In other words, the Declaration of Independence in Chinese writing did not depict the construction of future independent Chosun and there was no accurate understanding of reality. But Ryutheh does not mention in his report whether the October 1917 revolution and socialism affected the 3.1 movement. The report of Ryutheh in Russian data clearly shows the situation of Joseon at the time and the fact that it can understand the cause and development process of the 3.1 movement. However, considering his personal history, his views and limitations in the report should be considered.

A long way to Russia: Agustín de Betancourt

A lot has been written about Agustín de Betancourt, his life in Russia, his contribution to the architecture, construction and organization of the transport system in the Russian Empire, as well as his life, his training and his professional career in Spain. However, little is known about when, how and why he makes the decision to leave his country permanently and settle in Russia. According to the documentation found in both Russian and Spanish archives, it has been shown that it is the Russian ambassador to Spain, Ivan Muravyov-Apostol, who, shortly after his arrival in Spain, at the end of 1803, after personally meeting Betancourt, proposes its contract to Saint Petersburg. Once the approval is obtained, the proposal is transferred. Also, the discrepancies between Manuel Godoy and Betancourt are studied in detail for the work of channeling the Genil river and the intervention in Soto de Roma, Royal Site owned by the minister, which marked the deterioration of the relations between both and took the engineer to consider, negotiate and accept the offer to settle in Russia. Both facts are studied within the framework of his professional career in Spain.

“No Fundament – No Building”: The Russian Ambassador in Vienna Count Heinrich Keyserling about the “Gentlemen of the Embassy”

This is a publication of a source from the funds of the Archives of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire – a private letter in German from 1754 written by the Russian Ambassador at Vienna, Count Heinrich Carl Keyserling, to Vice-Chancellor Count Mikhail Vorontsov and its translation into Russian from the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. The letter contains not only precious pieces of information on how the Russian mission in Vienna functioned, but also the ambassador’s reflections on the shortcomings of the preparation of young Russian nobles, sent abroad to acquire practical knowledge and skills, for state service. Gentlemen were recruited both from the offspring of the most prominent families, and from lesser nobles living on their salaries. For the former, their stay abroad was a form of grand tour, a journey with educational goals which implied attending foreign courts and socialisation in a court milieu before appointment as ambassador or envoy to one European country or another; for the latter, on the other hand, serving abroad was a career leap, an entrance-ticket to the administrative elite of the Russian Empire. Keyserling properly defines the core problem – non-systematic education and a lack of basic knowledge indispensable for building up a successful career – and suggests measures which the government should introduce in order to improve the qualification of the future diplomats. In his response, the Vice-Chancellor suggested using all educational methods, including attending the Vienna mission archives, and thus apparently recognised that the Russian educational system was not ready to prepare skilled diplomats from the higher and middling echelons of society.

“As Ambassadors of the Princes of the Embassy Rule, the Prince at that Time, does Hat?” The Question of “Diplomatic Difficulties” of the Russian Embassy I. A. Zhelyabuzhsky to Venice in 1662

The article is devoted to differences in the diplomatic ceremonies in the countries of Western Europe, particularly Venice, and the Russian state. The center of attention the incident with the Corno Ducale, occurred in the period of the Embassy of the I. A. Zhelyabuzhsky to Venice in 1662, the essence of which was that the Russian envoy insisted on the need to remove the headdress of the Doge during the audience when pronouncing the name of the Russian Tsar. The Russian Ambassador did not want to accept the assurances of the Venetian side that Corno Ducale was not removed by the Doge under any circumstances. In the end, I. A. Zhelyabuzhsky had to recognize the rules of the Venetian Protocol. The author of the article concludes that, despite similarities in the diplomatic etiquette of the countries of Western Europe and Russia in the 17th century, the differences between them has led to difficulties in the performance of the diplomatic missions of the Russian envoy in Western Europe.

Russian and Danish Diplomats in Parisian Society: Prince Antioch Cantemir and Count Johann von Bernstorff under Police Surveillance

Referring to official and private correspondence, memoirs, and police reports, this study compares the cultural references and social practices of Prince Antioch Dmitrievich Cantemir and Johann Hartwig Ernst von Bernstorff, two diplomats serving in Paris consecutively between 1738 and 1750. The Russian and Danish ambassadors had a shared interest in literature and the sciences. They both communicated with Montesquieu and Voltaire, the most notable philosophers and writers of their time. However, their relations with these men of letters and their participation in the social life of the French capital were fundamentally different. Police reports demonstrate that the Russian ambassador was content with quite modest company, which mostly included foreign diplomats, French scientists, and writers. Outside this circle, he only contacted “useful” people to get information. Police reports do not mention Cantemir’s meetings with Montesquieu at all, although they had very much in common. In contrast, Bernstorff shone in Parisian beau monde, had numerous acquaintances in various spheres, and received both Voltaire and Montesquieu at his home. However, their contact with him remained limited. The patriarch of Ferney seldom visited the Danish diplomat and only wrote to him about practical matters. Montesquieu showed courtesy to Bernstorff but did not share his literary plans with him. The Parisian beau monde commented ironically upon the Danish diplomat’s manners. Consequently, both Cantemir and Bernstorff, with the former preferring philosophical solitude to fashionable entertainment and the latter willing to become famous in the Republic of Belles-lettres by means of contacts with Voltaire and Montesquieu, failed to establish themselves in the social life of Paris. In the eyes of the beau monde, they remained enlightened barbarians, incarnate characters of the Persian Letters.

The Russian-German Trade Agreement (1894) in the Context of the “New Course” of German Chancellor Caprivi

Based on the materials of the Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire, the article investigates the history of the conclusion of the Russian-German trade agreement of 1894 in the context of Germany’s internal political development at the end of the 19th century. It includes a study of the relationship between various interest groups and political parties in the German Reichstag, as well as the general strategy of Chancellor L. von Caprivi (1890—1894) in foreign policy, foreign economic relations and the “new course” he announced in politics. The reports of the Russian Ambassador in Berlin regarding the course of the negotiations also make it possible to evaluate the position of the Russian Empire on such issues as Germany’s internal political development and Russian-German relations.

„Entretiens” Stanisława Augusta z ambasadorem rosyjskim Ottonem Magnusem von Stackelbergiem i „Mémoires” ostatniego króla Rzeczypospolitej

Entretiens of King Stanislaus Augustus with Russian ambassador Otto Magnus von Stackelberg, and Memoirs of the Commonwealth’s last king Among the most important historical sources for the reign of Stanislaw August one should list Entretiens abbreviated notices of Stanislaw August’s talks with the Russian Ambassador Otto von Stackelberg. This article approaches the structure, the state of survival, the date of composition and the authorship of the Entretiens as well as their content and the nature of information included. The Entretiens , firstly conceived as short notes, evolved into more and more complex and specific reports, so the king could easily find every essential piece of information about Polish-Russian relations in one place. Some of the talks recorded in the Entretiens were later included in King’s Memoirs , hence the second part of this article attempts at a comparison between the two. It reveals that the order of events described in Memoirs agrees with what we find in Entretiens , therefore we know that the latter was exploited during the composition of the Memoirs . The author of the present study was lucky to have found among the documents reclaimed from Russia a clean copy of Entretiens from 1779, which allows us to hope that in Russian archives there are still even later the yearbooks, which supposedly might have helped the King in the work on other volumes of Memoirs . Moreover, the author’s intention was to suggest a method which would allow to evaluate reliability of the Memoirs . Owing to a partial comparative analysis of both sources one can conclude that the king wanted to protect his loved ones from being seen as anti-Russian and to avoid criticism of Catherine II. Stackelberg was the only one described exactly as how the king knew him. However, it does not undermine reliability of the Memoirs in general.

Obywatelskie dylematy uśmiechniętego biskupa Ignacego Krasickiego

The Bishop of Warmia, Ignacy Krasicki, was involved in politics as a senator of the Republic and president of Prussian lands. His period of office (1766–1795) coincided with dramatic historical events, during which he had to make difficult choices. This was the case in 1767, the year of the dissident confederation and the Repninowski Parliament (Sejm). Krasicki had another dilemma in March 1768 – what position to take towards the Bar Confed�erates. Contrary to the expectations of King Stanisław August Poniatowski and the Russian ambassador, Repnina stood as the only senator who defended the Confederates. They intended to acquire XBW. Krasicki wanted to be neutral and in 1769 he left for France. The situation in Warmia was difficult. The bishop struggled with the Prussian threat and was alone in his actions. In the history of the state, Warmia and XBW, the first partition of Poland tragically took place in 1772. Warmia was incorporated into Prussia and the bishop became a Prussian subject. Krasicki was, however, well�versed in domestic matters. In his writings, he found psychological support and the opportunity to engage in politics. The author discusses several patriotic works in a synthetic way: The Tomb of Freedom of Poland, Hymn to the Love of the Homeland, a poem with inc. He Carried the Moment What Time Commanded, Song for the 3rd of May. She also draws attention to the novel Mr. Podstoli, praised by the king, in which the writer included his thoughts on social and political matters. To this day, Krasicki intrigues us with his smile and subdued behavior. In letters to a friend, G. Ghigiotti, he writes about he found a cure for stress.

Karlofça Antlaşması’ndan sonra İstanbul’a gelen yabancı elçilerin ağırlanması ve yapılan harcamalar

Bu çalışmada Karlofça Antlaşması’ndan sonra İstanbul’a gelen Avusturya, Venedik, Lehistan ve Rus elçilerinin ağırlanmaları ve bunlar ile ilgili yapılan harcamalar üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu çerçevede antlaşmadan sonra Avusturya, Rusya tarafından iki ve Venedik ile Lehistan tarafından bir elçilik heyetinin İstanbul’a geldiği tespit edilmiştir. Araştırmada bu elçilerin isimleri, hangi amaçlar ile İstanbul’a geldikleri ve payitahta girdikten sonra kendileri için yapılan uygulamalar ile bu süreçte harcanan meblağların tespit edilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu sayede Babıâli’nin genel elçi kabulleri çerçevesinde aynı antlaşma sonrası ve hemen hemen benzer amaçlar dâhilinde gelen farklı ülke temsilcilerine olan yaklaşımlarının nasıl olduğu ortaya çıkartılacaktır. Bu noktada mukayese yönteminin kullanılacağı çalışmada gelen yabancı elçilere uygulanan davranışlar ve yapılan harcamalar arasındaki benzerlik ve farlılıklar tespit edilerek, bunların dönemin Osmanlı diplomasi anlayışı ile olan ilişkileri yansıtılacaktır. Nitekim araştırma sonucunda elde edilen bulgularda elçiler için yapılan harcamaların miktarlarındaki farklılıkların birçok nedenden kaynaklandığı tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmada belirtilen amaçları gerçekleştirmek üzere döneme ait arşiv belgeleri ile kronikler ve diğer araştırma eserlerinden istifade edilmiştir

Русский дипломат в Риме: миссия князя Б. И. Куракина (1707 г.)

The relations between Russia and the papal state in the first years of the Northern war are analyzed. Describes the background to the trip B. I. Kurakin in Rome in 1707, gives a brief overview of the contacts of the Russian state with the States of the Apennine Peninsula at the turn of XVII - XVIII centuries. The personal qualities of the first Russian Ambassador to the court of the Pope are evaluated. Particular attention is paid to the tasks and negotiations held by Kurakin during the execution of his instructions. The description of court ceremonial, diplomatic traditions of Rome is investigated. For a better understanding of the personality, mentality of Kurakin, the article considers the attitude of the Ambassador to the religious holidays of the Catholic state, the everyday life of the population, the ways of spending leisure time by the representatives of the Italian aristocracy. The interest of the Russian diplomat to the historical monuments of Rome, as well as other attractions is noted. The author comes to the conclusion that the trip to the Pope had a contradictory result. Because of the difficult international situation Kurakin failed to achieve support from the Holy see. On the other hand, the information he received enriched domestic diplomacy with valuable experience of relations with a foreign state, and the Russian society with knowledge of traditions and customs of one of the European countries.

L’émigration, une ouverture intellectuelle : Hélène Iswolsky et la « force des faibles »

After the revolutions of 1917 , Helen Iswolsky (1896 – 1975 ), the daughter of the Russian ambassador in Paris , became an émigré . Searching for the means of survival , she used her knowledge of languages to work as a journalist and writer presenting Russia ’ s history and presence to the western audience in her articles and novels . Sensitive to political problems and social issues , she joined western intellectuals (e . g . Jacques and Raisa Maritain , Dorothy Day ) and other émigrés (Nicolas Berdiaev ) in the reflection on the historical events and in the search for responsible attitudes to the situation at that time . Entering the Catholic Church in 1923 , she became strongly involved in the promotion of ecumenical dialogs . Intellectual as well as religious aspects of Iswolsky ’ s work are closely connected with her initial situation of “ weakness ” – i . e . with her experience of exile . The latter is , however , transformed in “ strength ” in Iswolsky ’ s capacity to “ cross the borders ” between the Orthodox and Catholics , between Russian and western intellectuals , and also between the rich and poor.

Sankt-Peterburg – Velikobritaniia. XVIII–XXI vv. by E. N. et al. (eds) Kal'shchikov Kobak, A. V. and Kuvaldina, O. L. (eds) Rossiia-Velikobritaniia. Plat' vekov kul'turnykh sviazei. Materialy VI Mezhdunarodnogo petrovskogo kongressa, Sankt-Peterburg 6–8 iiunia 2014 goda (review)

SEER, 95, 4, OCTOBER 2017 768 himself took part — in 1697–98 and again in 1716–17, with a detailed focus on the visits to Vienna and to Paris (chapter 4). There is also an extended and important analysis of the so-called ‘Matveev affair’, when a departing Russian ambassador was briefly imprisoned for debt in London (pp. 221–37). Conventionally examined through the prism of the immunity conferred by evolving notions of international law, Dr Hennings instead suggests that the real key was that of the Russian monarch’s honour and that the outcome — in which the British ambassador Charles Whitworth had to apologise for the arrest during a public audience at which many of his fellow diplomats were present, was ‘a great ritual success’ for Peter (p. 232). Here, as elsewhere, Jan Hennings’s deeply considered judgement forces a reconsideration of longestablished assumptions. There can have been few more impressive scholarly débuts than this dazzling study. Jesus College, Oxford Hamish Scott Kal´shchikov, E. N. et al. (eds). Sankt-Peterburg – Velikobritaniia. XVIII–XXI vv.. Seriia ‘Sankt-Peterburg i mir’. Evropeiskii Dom, St Petersburg, 2014. 534 pp. Illustrations. Tables. Notes. Price unknown. Kobak, A. V. and Kuvaldina, O. L. (eds). Rossiia–Velikobritaniia. Piat´ vekov kul´turnykh sviazei. Materialy VI Mezhdunarodnogo petrovskogo kongressa, Sankt-Peterburg 6–8 iiunia 2014 goda. Institut Petra Velikogo and Evropeiskii Dom, St Petersburg, 2015. 768 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Price unknown. Boththesemonumentalvolumesrecordtheproceedingsofmajorinternational conferences held in St Petersburg in 2014, the year designated as the Russia-UK Year of Culture. Taken together, they offer just over 100 essays by scholars, archivists, librarians and museum curators from Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the USA. The subjects vary widely, covering almost everything from trade and technology to religion and art, and treating the experiences of Russians in Britain alongside those of the British in Russia. Inevitably, the papers vary somewhat in length, significance and originality. Nevertheless, while some were clearly conceived as pièces d’occasion, others promise a lasting contribution to scholarship. Since the contents of the two volumes are in many ways interchangeable, it is tempting to think that a single, more selective collection might have had a greater impact. And yet the cumulative impression is positive. For these two books not only give a sense of the liveliness of the field, but also indicate all manner of ways in which the subject might be taken forward, not least in relation to the under-studied REVIEWS 769 nineteenth century. Some contributors, indeed, have already gone on to publish related works on a larger scale. For example, V. A. Chernenko’s synoptic paper on the Bairds of St Petersburg, which appears in Rossiia–Velikobritaniia, heralded his important monograph, Pervyi parokhod v Rossii: parokhod Berda (St Petersburg, 2015), a meticulously documented book which ranges much more widely than its title suggests. The names of some other authors will be even more familiar to readers of this journal. Dedicated to Anthony Cross, the doyen of the study of Anglo-Russian relations, Rossiia–Velikobritaniia includes an essay by him on British tourists in Russia; Sankt-Peterburg – Velikobritaniia opens with his paper on Alexander I’s visit to England in 1814 (this is the sole paper in either volume published in English: the remainder are all in Russian). Among the more substantial contributions to the St Petersburg volume is that by V. V. Noskov, who offers much the most comprehensive description currently available of the wedding in 1874 between the Grand Duchess Maria Aleksandrovna, the only surviving daughter of Tsar Alexander II, and Queen Victoria’s second son, Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh. On more recent years, there is much of interest in the paper by E. P. Tikhonova, N. V. Slepkova and A. N. Tikhonov on ‘Scientific contacts between the Zoological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences and British scholars from the 1950s to the 1980s’. Striking contributions to the RussiavolumeincludeDavidRaskin’sessayonBritishinventorsinRussiainthe early nineteenth century. Based on a study of patents, this piece draws on the author’s unrivalled knowledge of the holdings of the Russian State Historical Archive in St Petersburg. Since there is equally significant material on this subject in British archives, this is one...