CC BY
30
Русская литература Russian Literature
D. Kemper (Moscow) ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3099-6836
THE BEGINNINGS OF FOREIGN CULTURAL POLITICS IN RUSSIA.
Part 1. Foreign Cultural Policy in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs under Peter I
The publication has been supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), through realization of the research project 16-24-49005
Abstract. In western Europe, the beginnings of an active foreign cultural policy are usually connected with the foundation of corresponding departments in the foreign ministries in the early 20th century. It is, however, as the author shows, evident that the beginnings of foreign cultural policy in Russia lie much further back. They were in fact already develpoing during the second decade of the 18th century at the court of Peter I, who was not content just to collect, passively, information about how Russia was portrayed in western European media and to react to it periodically in the form of protest or censorship. Rather, he tried to use his governmental apparatus to exert an active influence on the perception of his country and his governmental initiatives. A typical case of the diplomatic action taken by his new ministry is to found in its reaction to the anonymously published "Lettres Moscovites" by Francesco Locatelli in 1736. The paper analyzes in detail formation of foreign cultural policy on the basis of the Collegium for Foreign Affairs with an emphasis on the mission of German diplomat Heinrich von Huyssen and Russian diplomat and writer Antioch Kantemir in this progress.
Key words: Peter I; Kollegien; ministry for foreign affairs; foreign cultural policy.
Д. Кемпер (Москва) ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3099-6836
Истоки внешней культурной политики в России
Часть 1. Внешняя культурная политика в Коллегии иностранных дел при Петре Первом
Публикация подготовлена в рамках поддержанного РФФИ научного проекта № 16-24-49005
Аннотация. В Западной Европе появление внешней политики в области культуры, как правило, связывают с учреждением соответствующих департаментов во внешнеполитических ведомствах в начале ХХ в. Однако, как показывает автор статьи, в России внешняя культурная политика, по сути, возникла гораздо
раньше. Она начала развиваться уже во втором десятилетии XVIII в. при дворе Петра Первого, которого больше не устраивало то, что он был вынужден преимущественно пассивно собирать информацию о донесениях западноевропейских СМИ, касающихся России, и от случая к случаю стараться воздействовать на них путем протестов или цензурных запретов. Он стал пытаться самостоятельно оказывать активное влияние на восприятие своей страны и проводимой им правительственной политики через подвластный ему аппарат управления. Типичным случаем дипломатической активности созданного Петром Первым министерства является реакция на публикацию в 1736 г. книги Франциска Локателли "Lettres Moscovites". В статье подробно анализируется формирование российской внешней культурной политики на базе Коллегии иностранных дел с акцентом на роли в этом процессе немецкого дипломата Генриха фон Гюйссена и русского дипломата и писателя Антиоха Кантемира.
Ключевые слова: Петр Первый; коллегии; министерство иностранных дел; внешняя культурная политика.
1
The foundation of the first collegia in Peter I's administration in 1717 - the forerunners of the later ministries - is documented in the administrative files in the form of a conceptual paper often ascribed to Leibniz, although no conclusive proof supports the claim to his authorship [cf. Schippan 1996, 54 ff. for a comprehensive background. With regard to Leibniz as possible author of the concept cf. above all Richter 1946, 132 ff.]. It is at any rate clear that the Tsar and Leibniz met in 1711, 1712 and 1716, and the initial plan for the first nine collegia could have emerged from these encounters:
I. A collegium of foreign affairs.
II. A colleigum of war.
III. A collegium of financial inspection and control.
IV. A collegium of policy.
V. A collegium of justice.
VI. A collegium of commerce.
VII. A collegium of religion.
VIII. A collegium of revisionary.
IX. A collegium of education. [Schippan 1996, 53. - Translation of the entire document published by Richter 1946, 133-135]
A comparison to the French "polysynodie" of September 1715 makes clear that the "collegium of foreign affairs" was intended to be a "conseil des affaires étrangères" which, having been established in 1717, actually became known as the "collegium for foreign affairs" (Коллегия иностранных дел, КИД).
The establishment of the collegia was preceded by an intensive preparatory phase, during which Peter I tried to gather as much information as possible about corresponding political systems in Europe. For some time, his only supporting advisor in this regard was Heinrich von Huyssen, who was appointed in 1713 to develop and present a comprehensive reformation programme for governmental and administrative structures of such a great scale that the task itself was clearly
beyond the capacity of any individual and as such necessarily doomed to fail [for more on the scope of his work cf. Haven 1776, p. 324]. In any case, no specific programme designed by Huyssen appears to exist, although the nature of the information he was meant to collate is known. Initially, the task in hand was to compare all of the significant west European political and administrative structures, and then to explore the Prussian model in particular detail. The structure of the colleges as established in 1717, however, followed the Swedish example and is not traceable to Huyssen [cf. Schippan 1996, 58 ff.].
The establishment of the "collegium for foreign affairs" brought with it a qualitative shift in the Tsarist foreign cultural policy, in the sense of significantly and actively influencing, or even attempting to steer and control, European reports on Russia. In the 17th century, Russia had begun systematically to collate and analyse European press publications and their reporting on Russia. These reports were reproduced in so-called "vesti-kuranty" (handwritten newspapers that had been in production since 1621) and distributed in government circles. This initially happened at a passive-receptive level; active responses were primarily limited to protests (even by the Tsar personally) against censorship or news being blocked as an intentional control mechanism. The latter occured primarily in relation to the military sphere and was intensified against the backdrop of the Great Nordic War (1700-1721) [cf. Blome 2000, 41 ff.]. In the contemporary press, there are frequent reports on the restrictions and manipulation of news by both Sweden and Russia. There was even a bounty placed on the exposure of the author of an anti-Russian piece published in the Hamburger Presse; in 1724, the pressure mounted by the Russian court was so great that the senate in Hamburg felt obliged to only allow news reports on Russia to be published once they had been confirmed by the official "Resident", the diplomatic envoy to Hamburg [cf. Fundaminski 1997]. Yet despite all of the power politics in play, it is clear that, at the beginning of the new century that was to give rise to the Enlightenment, there was a pronounced need for legitimation in relation to the newly emerging phenomenon of media and publicity which was not only visible in negative terms such as censorship but also in a positive sense, through actively influential measures. The Russian court worked intensively in both fields: the restrictive measures were already visible in 1722-23, where they were "well-nigh perfected" during the Persian campaign [Blome 2000, 48]; active propaganda was left primarily to west European foreigners, including specialists like Huyssen.
Foreigners seemed particularly suitable to act as protagonists of the newly emerging field of foreign cultural policy for a number of reasons: first, they brought with them cultural competence in relation to their own heritage, the target countries of the new cultural propaganda. Secondly, gentlemen like Huyssen tended to have good access to a broad-reaching west European network within the République des Lettres, which could be utilized for the purposes of the Russian court. Thirdly, west Europeans were more competent than Russians when it came to the genre of lampooning, critical satirical writing that was often used for cultural propaganda campaigns at the time. Lampooning had long been root-
ed in the western literary system and had a broader resonance in the West than in Russian writing. Fourthly, the Russian court, as initiator and commisioner of pro-Russian writing, could remain invisible, hidden behind the name of a foreign writer. Fifthly, this element of camouflage took the sheen off the official character of foreign cultural policy. When a pro-Russian western European wrote a diatribe against an anti-Russian piece or writer, this was intended to appear to the readership as a scholarly dispute amongst experts in the res publica literaria - and not as explicit cultural propaganda.
The conduct of the new colleigum after 1717 demonstrates that a foreign cultural policy was being enacted in the sense of consciously shaping and influencing a lasting public image of Russia through the media in other countries.
2
To describe the cultural propaganda measures undertaken at the court of Peter I and at the collegium for foreign affairs as "foreign cultural policy" is to apply the concept to an unusually early period. Generally, the beginnings of "foreign cultural policy" tend to be connected with the internationlisation of cultural policy, such as 1909 in France with the creation of the "Bureau des écoles et des œuvres françaises" within the foreign ministry or in 1919 in Germany with the foundation of the cultural department within the foreign ministry [Predecessor: 1914: "Zentralstelle für Auslandsdienste" (ZfA, or central institute for foreign services) in AA; 1915: press department (including cultural work abroad) as an independent news department. Cf. Düwell 1976, 38-102; Vogel 1941, passim]. However, the institutionalization does not necessary depend on the establishment of a department explicitly named as such; in Russia, it is evident that foreign cultural policy existed much earlier.
For the purposes of the current study, the transfer from "foreign cultural work" to "foreign cultural policy" or "cultural propaganda" (in the older, neutral sense of the word) shall be bound to two conditions: first, it must be conducted by governmental organisations (generally through the ministry for foreign affairs) and institutionally established in that context, or it must be clearly defined by means of pertinent tasks and commissions explicitly assigned to employees. Secondly, it must be positioned within a broader foreign policy concept and / or in foreign political interests, which it must also serve.
3
These conditions are fulfilled by the activities carried out by the collegium for foreign affairs. The reaction to the following text by Francesco Locatelli, which was published anonymously, is a typical case where the new ministry responded with diplomatic actions:
Lettres Moscovites. A Paris, Chez Huart L'Aine [in other copies: A Paris Au depens de la Compagnie] MDCCXXXVI. [2] Bl., 363 pp.
The edition was evidently predated to 1736, because the Russian ambassador to London, Antioch Dmitrievic Kantemir, had already reacted to it on the 14th November 1735 with a report he submitted to the Russian vice-chan-
cellor Andrej Ivanovic (Heinrich Johann Friedrich) Graf von Ostermann (with whom Huyssen was related maternally) in which he declared the piece to be one of the worst texts ever to be written against Russia [Kantemir to Ostermann, 14.11.1735; quoted in Оболенский / Obolenskiy 1859, 545-547. - Cf. Matthes 1981, 286].
In May 1733, Locatelli travelled to St. Petersburg without any clear task or mission, "to a country <...> where one thinks to find one's fortune" [Locatelli 1738, 40 f.]. He had managed to obtain a Russian passport issued to himself under a false name and tried to reach Persia by way of Kazan' but was, entirely through his own fault - having revealed his true identity to the governor of Kazan' - arrested and brought back to St. Petersburg via Moscow. He remained in prison in St. Petersburg under suspicion of espionage until the end of November 1734 [Locatelli 1738, 1st letter; quote in a paper by Matthes 1981, 287-289]. This is the topic of his letters, which are imbued with the tone of adventurous travel writing. As such, the truthfulness of the letters is generally held to be somewhat dubious in the field of academic research [cf. Matthes 1981, 290, 291]. This is also true of his portrayal of the Russian people, Russian history, the form of government and the military. His judgment of the Petrine Reforms is a sensitive instance of cultural propaganda, condemning the reforms as utterly pointless despite the great bloodshed they entailed, and claiming that the Russian population proved to be incapable of modernization or "cultivation":
"Ich erinnerte mich alles dessen, was Petrus der Grosse gethan, was er vor Mühe und Arbeit überstanden, und was er vor Blutstürtzungen geschehen lassen müssen, um seine Unterthanen aus der Barbarey und Unwissenheit, worin sie gestecket hatten, heraus zu reissen. <...> Ich zum wenigsten konte nirgends finden, daß dieser Herr die Sitten Seines Volks geändert <...>". [Locatelli 1738, 109 f.]
(I remembered everything that Peter the Great had done, everything he had survived through his work and efforts, and the blood he was forced to shed in order to pull his subjects from the barbaric swamp of ignorance they were stuck in. <...> I, at least, could find no evidence that the gentleman had changed any of his peoples' customs <...>.)
Kantemir, the Russian ambassador to London, warned his ministers about the pamphlet before he had even seen it - and he considered what countermeas-ures to undertake. The first thing was to find out who the writer was, which, in the light of the biographical facts revealed in the text, was easy; then, the Russian side tried, employing their old methods of political restrictiveness, to prevent an English edition from appearing and to criminalize its distribution [cf. Matthes 1981, 398 ff.]. Yet despite intense efforts, the following work was published:
Lettres moscovites: or, Muscovian Letters. Containing, An Account of the Form of Government, Customs, and Manners of that great Empire. Written By an Italian Officer of Distinction. Translated from the French Original, Printed at Paris 1735, By William Musgrave, Esq; London: Printed in the Year M.DCC. XXX.VI. [2], xii, 190 pp.
As the politics of suppression had not helped, Kantemir commissioned a German employee of the Russian embassy in London with a counterstatement, which appeared two years after the publication of the English translation:
Die so genannte Moscowitische Brieffe, Oder Die, wider die löbliche Rußische Nation Von einem Aus der andern Welt zurück gekommenen Italiäner ausgesprengte abentheuerliche Verläumdungen und Tausend-Lügen Aus dem Frantzösichen übersetzt / Mit einem zulänglichen Register versehen, Und Dem Briefsteller so wohl, als seinen gleichgesinnten Freunden, mit dienlichen Erinnerungen wieder heimgeschickt Von einem Teutschen. Franckfurth und Leipzig Verlegts Johann Leopold Montag, Buchhändler in Regenspurg. 1738. [70] Bl., 816 S., [64] Bl.
(The so-called Muscovite Letters, or the explosive and adventurous slanders and thousand lies against the praiseworthy Russian nation by an Italian who returned from another world, translated from the French / embellished with an adequate index, and the epistle writer accordingly, along with his similarly thinking friends, sent back home with serviceable memories, by a German. Frankfurt and Leipzig published by Johann Leopold Montag, bookseller in Regensburg. 1738. [70] Bl., 816 pp., [64] Bl.
Although it was originally agreed with the ministry that the new text should be a geographical and political portrayal of the Russian realm in the sense of a description of the status quo or "État présent" [Kantemir's letter from the 13th February 1736; quoted in AneKcaHgpeHKO / Aleksandrenko 1897, 295], which would have become part of a positive step towards foreign cultural policy, Groß' publication was in fact a direct confrontation, refutation and counterargument of and with the earlier text. Groß translated the Lettres into German and adorned them with detailed commentaries in footnotes whose volume exceed that of the original text (pp. 1-778). As forewords, Groß proffered an essay "An den vernünftigen und ehrlich-gesinnten Leser" ("Addressed to the reasonable and honestly inclined Reader") ([V]-[XXXII]), as well as a psychogramme, "Gemüths-Spiegel Des Brief-Stellers, Oder Aufrichtige Vorstellung desselben, Nach seiner inneren Beschaffenheit, so wie er selbige in den so genannten Mos-cowitischen Briefen selbst deutlich und klärlich zu Tage geleget" ("Holding up a Mirror to the Mind of the Letter Writer, or: an honest presentation of the same according to his internal nature as he himself clearly and openly reveals in the so-called Muscovian Letters") ([XXXIII]-[CIV]), and as an afterword, there is a "Vor-Erinnerung des Herausgebers" ("Previous recollections of the editor") (pp. 779-816), followed by a comprehensive index.
The name of the editor is cleverly concealed in the formulation in the title, "Von einem Teutschen" ("By a German"), reflecting the sense of the strategy described above: the Russian court remains invisible as commissioner of the work, although the work itself is in fact an officious self-portrayal of Russia, and the assumption was deliberately created that the text was an example of west European scholarly discourse rather than a Russian initiative. This is a clear case of early foreign cultural policy, initiated by Russian diplomats, coordinated by the collegium for foreign affairs and accorded with the foreign policy
interests of the Russian court.
The same is true of Heinrich von Huyssen's even earlier work, thirty years before, which is to say, before the foundation of the collegium that was to become the predecessor to the Russian foreign ministry.
REFERENCES (RUSSIAN)
1. Александренко В.Н. Русские дипломатические агенты в Лондоне в XVIII в. Т. 1. Варшава, 1897.
2. Оболенский М.А. Сведения об авторе книги «Lettres Moscovites» // Библиографические записки. 1859. № 18. Стлб. 545-553.
3. Blome A. Das deutsche Rußlandbild im frühen 18. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur zeitgenössischen Presseberichterstattung über Rußland unter Peter I. Wiesbaden, 2000. (Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, 57).
4. Düwell K. Deutschlands auswärtige Kulturpolitik 1918-1932. Grundlinien und Dokumente. Köln; Wien, 1976.
5. Fundaminski M.I. Resident Johann Friedrich Böttiger und die russische Propaganda in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts // Europa in der Frühen Neuzeit. Festschrift für Günter Mühlpfordt / E. Donnert (ed.). Vol. 3: Aufbruch zur Moderne. Köln; Weimar; Wien, 1997. P. 47-60.
6. Haven P. von. Nachrichten von dem Baron von Huyssen // Magazin für die neue Historie und Geographie. 1776. № 10. P. 317-326.
7. Locatelli F. Die so genannte Moscowitische Brieffe, Oder Die, wider die löbliche Rußische Nation Von einem Aus der andern Welt zurück gekommenen Italiäner ausgesprengte abentheuerliche Verläumdungen und Tausend-Lügen Aus dem Frantzö-sichen übersetzt / Mit einem zulänglichen Register versehen, Und Dem Brieffsteller so wohl, als seinen gleichgesinnten Freunden, mit dienlichen Erinnerungen wieder heimgeschickt Von einem Teutschen. Franckfurt; Leipzig, 1738.
8. Matthes E. Das veränderte Rußland. Studien zum deutschen Rußlandverständnis im 18. Jahrhundert zwischen 1725 und 1762. Frankfurt a.M. u.a., 1981. (Series: Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe III, Bd. 135).
9. Richter L. Leibniz und sein Russlandbild. Berlin, 1946.
10. Schippan M. Die Einrichtung der Kollegien in Rußland zur Zeit Peters I. Wiesbaden, 1996. (Series: Historische Veröffentlichungen. Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, 51).
11. Vogel W. Die Organisation der amtlichen Presse- und Propagandapolitik des Deutschen Reiches von den Anfängen unter Bismarck bis zum Beginn des Jahres 1933. Berlin, 1941. (Zeitungswissenschaft. Monatsschrift für internationale Zeitungsforschung und Archiv für Presserecht. Special edition (Sonderheft) 16. 1941. H. 8/9).
12. Wartis J.C. Relazione geografica storicopolitica dell'imperio della Gran Russia, о sia Moscovia con le vite, & azioni piü memorabili de'passati Regnanti sino al tempo di S.M. Cz. Pietro primo oggi dominante: in 2 vols. Milano, 1713.
REFERENCES (Articles from Scientific Journals)
1.Haven P. von. Nachrichten von dem Baron von Huyssen. Magazin für die neue Historie und Geographie, 1776, no. 10, pp. 317-326. (In German).
2. Obolenskiy M.A. Svedeniya ob avtore knigi "Lettres Moscovites" [About the author of the Book "Lettres Moscovites"]. Bibliograficheskiye zapiski, 1859, no. 18, column 545-553. (In Russian).
(Articles from Proceedings and Collections of Research Papers)
3. Fundaminski M.I. Resident Johann Friedrich Böttiger und die russische Propaganda in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts. Donnert E. (ed.). Europa in der Frühen Neuzeit. Festschrift für Günter Mühlpfordt. Vol. 3: Aufbruch zur Moderne. Köln; Weimar; Wien, 1997, pp. 47-60. (In German).
(Monographs)
4. Aleksandrenko V.N. Russkiye diplomaticheskiye agenty v Londone v 18 v. [Russian Diplomatic Agents in London in the 18th Century]. Vol. 1. Warsaw, 1897. (In Russian).
5. Blome A. Das deutsche Rußlandbild im frühen 18. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur zeitgenössischen Presseberichterstattung über Rußland unter Peter I. (Series: Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, 57). Wiesbaden, 2000. (In German).
6. Düwell K. Deutschlands auswärtige Kulturpolitik 1918-1932. Grundlinien und Dokumente. Köln; Wien 1976. (In German).
7. Locatelli F. Die so genannte Moscowitische Brieffe, Oder Die, wider die löbliche Rußische Nation Von einem Aus der andern Welt zurück gekommenen Italiäner ausgesprengte abentheuerliche Verläumdungen und Tausend-Lügen Aus dem Frantzösichen übersetzt/Mit einem zulänglichen Register versehen, Und Dem Brieffsteller so wohl, als seinen gleichgesinnten Freunden, mit dienlichen Erinnerungen wieder heimgeschickt Von einem Teutschen. Frankfurt; Leipzig, 1738. (In German).
8. Matthes E. Das veränderte Rußland. Studien zum deutschen Rußlandverständnis im 18. Jahrhundert zwischen 1725 und 1762. (Series: Europäische Hochschulschriften. Series 3. Vol. 135). Frankfurt am Main u.a., 1981. (In German).
9. Richter L. Leibniz und sein Russlandbild. Berlin, 1946. (In German).
10. Schippan M. Die Einrichtung der Kollegien in Rußland zur Zeit Peters I. (Series: Historische Veröffentlichungen. Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, 51). Wiesbaden, 1996. (In German).
11. Vogel W. Die Organisation der amtlichen Presse- und Propagandapolitik des Deutschen Reiches von den Anfängen unter Bismarck bis zum Beginn des Jahres 1933. (Series: Zeitungswissenschaft. Monatsschrift für internationale Zeitungsforschung und Archiv für Presserecht. Special edition (Sonderheft) 16. 1941. Vol. 8/9). Berlin, 1941. (In German).
12. Wartis J.C. Relazione geografica storicopolitica dell'imperio della Gran Rus-
sia, д sia Moscovia con le vite, & azioni piu memorabili de'passati Regnanti sino al tempo di S.M. Cz. Pietroprimo oggi dominante: in 2 vols. Milano, 1713. (In Italian).
Kemper Dirk, Russian State University for the Humanities.
Doctor of Philology, Prof. Dr. Dr., Director of the Thomas Mann Chair for German Philology; Director of the Institute for Russian and German Literature and Cultural Relationships. Research areas: New German literary studies, cultural studies, comparative studies.
E-mail: [email protected]
Кемпер Дирк, Российский государственный гуманитарный университет.
Доктор филологических наук, доктор филологии и культурологии, профессор, заведующий кафедрой немецкой филологии имени Томаса Манна, директор Института русско-немецких литературных и культурных связей. Область научных интересов: история немецкой литературы Нового времени, культурология, сравнительное литературоведение.
E-mail: [email protected]
