Dynastical Asymmetries: Maria Fedorovna of Russia and Louise of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach

Abstract

In pre-modern court settings the ideal mother-in-law was a woman with considerable life experience gained from first getting married and moving to another court, then by becoming a mother herself, before her child or children married and secured the success of the dynasty for the next generation. Departing from these basic considerations, this article examines the case of the Russian Empress Maria Fedorovna, her daughter Maria Pavlovna, and the Duchess Louise of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, who became the latter's mother-in-law in 1804. The analysis in particular of personal letters shows that Maria Fedorovna was able to use her skills in her role as mother-in-law, but also that choosing a court — and thus also a complementary belle-mère — to connect with via a marriage alliance could also determine the development of the relationship with one’s own child, and often reflects larger political developments.

Notes

1 I wish to thank Carola Dietze (Jena) and Mikhail Dolbilov (Maryland) for helpful comments on an early version of this article.

2 Heinz Duchhardt, ʻDie dynastische Heirat', Europäische Geschichte Online (EGO), ed. Institut für Europäische Geschichte (IEG), Mainz 2010–12-03. URN: urn:nbn:de:0159-20100921192 [accessed 17 February 2020], [p. 4]. Lately, the factor of ‘prestige’, social or cultural, and its increase, has been added as an important item to the list. See, for example: Britta Kägler: ʻDynastische Ehen in der Frühen Neuzeit: Partnerwahl zwischen Sozialprestige und Außenpolitik’, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 65 (2014), pp. 5-20; Jochen Klaus, Reiner Schlichting and Gert-Dieter Ulferts (eds), ‘Ihre Kaiserliche Hoheit’: Maria Pawlowna, Zarentochter am Weimarer Hof. Katalog und CD-R zur Ausstellung im Weimarer Schlossmuseum (Munich and Berlin, 2004), pp. 33ff.

3 See, for example: Corina Bastian, Eva Kathrin Dade, Hillard von Thiessen and Christian Windler (eds), Das Geschlecht der Diplomatie. Geschlechterrollen in den Außenbeziehungen vom Spätmittelalter bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 2014); Bettina Braun, Katrin Keller, Matthias Schnettger (eds), Nur die Frau des Kaisers? Kaiserinnen in der Frühen Neuzeit (Wien, 2016); Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture and Dynastic Politics (Manchester, 2010); Glenda Sluga and Carolyn James (eds), Women, Diplomacy and International Politics Since 1500 (London and New York, 2016); Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, ʻVäter der Frauengeschichte? Das Geschlecht als historiographische Kategorie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert’, Historische Zeitschrift 262-1 (1996), pp. 39-71; Heide Wunder (ed.), Dynastie und Herrschaftssicherung in der Frühen Neuzeit. Geschlechter und Geschlecht (Berlin, 2002).

4 See, for example: Gemma Allen, ʻThe Rise of the Ambassadress: English Ambassadorial Wives and Early Modern Diplomatic Culture’, Historical Journal 62-3 (2019), pp. 617-38; Laura Oliván Santaliestra, ‘Gender, Work and Diplomacy in Baroque Spain: The Ambassadorial Couples of the Holy Roman Empire as Arbeitspaare’, Gender & History 29-2 (2017), pp. 423-45; Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Europe 1660–1815. The Role of the Consort (Cambridge, 2004). Another factor to consider is that mothers-in-law were often widowed, if they lived long enough to see their children married.

5 Recent contributions include: Corina Bastian, Verhandeln in Briefen. Frauen in der höfischen Diplomatie des frühen 18. Jahrhunderts (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 2013); Joachim Berger and Joachim von Puttkamer (eds), Von Petersburg nach Weimar: Kulturelle Transfers von 1800 bis 1860 (Frankfurt am Main and New York, 2005); Harriet Rudolph, Gunda Barth-Scalmani and Christian Steppan (eds), Politische Kommunikation zwischen Imperien: Der diplomatische Aktionsraum Südost- und Osteuropa (Innsbruck, 2013).

6 See Introduction to this volume.

7 Spouse names include Orthodox baptismal name, where relevant. All listed dates of marriage are according to the New Style (i.e. Gregorian) calendar.

8 On diplomatic ceremony and the Russian court, see: Ol’ga G. Ageeva, Diplomaticheskii tseremoniial imperatorskoi Rossii XVIII veka [Diplomatic Ceremonial of Eighteenth-Century Imperial Russia] (Moscow, 2012); Jan Hennings, Russia and Courtly Europe: Ritual and the Culture of Diplomacy, 1648–1725 (Cambridge, 2016).

9 Christine Roll, ʻDynastie und dynastische Politik im Zarenreich. Befunde und Überlegungen zur Heiratspolitik der Romanovs im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert', Jahrbuch für Europäische Geschichte 8 (2007), pp. 77–102. Roll’s article takes a strong position against Martha Lindemann, Die Heiraten der Romanows und der deutschen Fürstenhäuser im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert und ihre Bedeutung in der Bündnispolitik der Ostmächte (Berlin and Bonn, 1935). Nonetheless, the latter work is based on archival research and, in that respect, does not appear as outwardly ideologically influenced as the year of publication and, indeed, some aspects of the language might suggest.

10 On royal marriage strategies and rituals in Russia before 1689 see e. g. Russell E. Martin, A Bride for the Tsar. Bride-Shows and Marriage Politics in Early Modern Russia (DeKalb, 2012).

11 For a valuable overview of Russian rulers and their successors during this period (with a genealogical table to clarify the complexity), see: Matthias Stadelmann, Die Romanovs (Stuttgart, 2008). A more illustrative, popular account can be found in: Evgenii V. Anisimov, Five Empresses: Court Life in Eighteenth-Century Russia (Westport and London, 2004).

12 See Alexander Fischer, ʻPaul I., 1796–1801', in Hans-Joachim Torke (ed.), Die russischen Zaren 1547–1917 (München, 1995), pp. 263-73, p. 266.

13 There were other implications for the new marriage strategy. For example, as noted by Smolitsch, Paul I emphasised the (exclusive) role of the Russian emperor as head of the Orthodox Church, meaning that, in the absence of a male line of succession, the female line could not be connected to another religious confession or they would have to abdicate: Igor Smolitsch, Geschichte der russischen Kirche 1700–1917 (Leiden, 1964), vol. I, p. 142-3.

14 Wortman attributes the ‘Dynastic Scenario’, wherein the family represents its core values and symbols for representation, to the reign of Nicholas I (who also had ten children), but states that it ‘was the dowager empress, Maria Fedorovna, who shaped the new scenario and instilled familial values in Nicholas during the last decade of Alexander’s reign’: Richard S. Wortman, Scenarios of Power. Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy. Volume I: From Peter the Great to the Death of Nicholas I (Princeton, 1995), p. 250. However, a new emphasis on the imperial family as a political instrument was already evident during the reign of Alexander I (despite his lack of surviving children), whose predominant scenario Wortman describes instead as that of the elevated ‘Angel on the Throne’: Ibid., p. 193.

15 Ludolf Pelizaeus, ʻDie Frage neuer Kurwürden am Ende des Alten Reiches 1778–1803’, Historisches Jahrbuch 121 (2001), pp. 155-96. The Emperor also planned a marriage alliance with Bavaria, another electorate, which involved Ekaterina Pavlovna but it was not realised (see below, note 37). Aleksandra Pavlovna had initially been intended to marry into the Swedish royal dynasty; her subsequent marriage to Archduke Joseph of Austria established both a dynastic link to the Holy Roman (and subsequently Austrian) Emperor and also to the elector of Bohemia: see Franziska Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas: Russische Diplomatie und Deutschlandpolitik in Weimar 1798–1819 (Heidelberg, 2015), p. 95, note 57. Alongside dynastic considerations, other short-term political considerations (alliances, prestige, counterweight to existing structures) influenced the choice of prospective marriage partners.

16 Paul I was assassinated in 1801, Aleksandra and Elena died at relatively young ages, and both Alexander and Konstantin died without any surviving heirs, which led to a contested succession after the former’s unexpected death in late 1825. This contributed, along with other causes, to the Decembrist uprising.

17 Marriages arranged after 1806 (i.e. Ekaterina, Anna, Nikolai and Mikhail) were informed by different political calculations, but never on the basis of the sole consideration that ‘they would not impede Russia’s freedom of action’ (as suggested in the historiography, e. g. Ulrike Eich, Russland und Europa. Studien zur russischen Deutschlandpolitik in der Zeit des Wiener Kongresses (Cologne and Vienna, 1986), p. 43).

18 Two comprehensive monographs on marriage strategies and politics have been published recently: Anne-Simone Knöfel, Dynastie und Prestige: Die Heiratspolitik der Wettiner (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 2009); Daniel Schönpflug, Die Heiraten der Hohenzollern: Verwandtschaft, Politik und Ritual in Europa 1640–1918 (Göttingen, 2013).

19 The range of potentially interesting documents pertaining to the mother-in-law is very wide, and many archival sources have been edited and/or analysed. Examples include: Katja Dmitrieva and Viola Klein (eds), Maria Pavlovna. Die frühen Tagebücher der Erbherzogin von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 2000); Sydney Wayne Jackman, ‘Chère Annette’: Letters from Russia, 1820–1828. The Correspondence of the Empress Maria Feodorovna of Russia to her Daughter the Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna the Princess of Orange (Stroud, 1994); D. V. Solov’ev and S. N. Iskiul’ (eds), Elizaveta i Aleksandr: khronika po piśmam imperatritsy Elizavety Alekseevny. 1792–1826 [Elizabeth and Alexander: Chronicle from the Letters of Empress Elizaveta Alekseevna] (Moscow, 2013). The extensive publication of such documents by Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries remain invaluable resources. For an overview of these volumes, see: Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, p. 35, note 80. Even so, some important materials still await meaningful analysis, let alone publication, which could enable significant contributions on a range of topics, including this one. To take one example, the extensive (but unfortunately largely illegible) correspondence between Maria Fedorovna and her son-in-law Joseph which is held in the Russian State Archive, the analysis of which would not only shed light on the nature of their relationship, even after the death of his spouse (her daughter), but also on the political importance of Austria, and Joseph in particular, for Russian foreign policy, as well as Maria Fedorovna’s role in it: Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, pp. 50 and 60. In addition to these scholarly editions and analyses, there is a considerable literature that centres on family sagas and biographies for a popular readership: Detlef Jena, Die Zarinnen Russlands 1547–1918 (Regensburg, 1999); Detlef Jena, Maria Pawlowna. Großherzogin an Weimars Musenhof (Regensburg, 1999). There are also contemporary homages that focus on the longevity of a given dynasty, which are interesting only insofar as they reflect (uncritically) the conventional qualities allegedly pertaining to the respective roles of royal women. For a typical example, see: Friederike Bornhak, Aus Alt-Weimar: Die Großherzoginnen Luise und Maria Paulowna (Breslau and Leipzig, 1908). It is peculiar that such interpretations of stability and longevity on the basis of homage to the dynastýs members as reflected in these books developed alongside other (more sophisticated) political and cultural ‘survival strategies’ developed by members of the dynasties (or their counsellors) at the same time. For examples on such strategies see: Gerhard Müller, ʻLandesmutter oder Regentin im Hintergrund? Maria Pawlownas Rolle in der obersten Regierungssphäre des Großherzogtums Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach’, Berger and von Puttkamer (eds), Von Petersburg nach Weimar, pp. 159–71.

20 Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas.

21 Ibid., pp. 95-106.

22 Russian interests behind the marriage alliance are difficult to discern and nowhere clearly stated in the sources. In the context of the late Holy Roman Empire, they are likely informed by a combination of a desired increase in prestige (in the form of Ernestine ancienneté); long-term political considerations (especially the prospect of the Saxon inheritance and thus a greater influence on German affairs); and short-term diplomatic expediency, in curbing Austria and Prussia while strengthening Carl August as a representative figure for Germany’s smaller states. Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, pp. 86-135.

23 The author has studied the correspondence between Maria Fedorovna and Maria Pavlovna for the years between 1804 and 1820 and between 1825 and 1826. For more details, see: Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas.

24 See, for example: David E. Barclay, ʻGroßherzogliche Mutter und kaiserliche Tochter im Spannungsfeld der deutschen Politik: Maria Pawlowna, Augusta und der Weimarer Einfluss auf Preußen (1811–1890)’, in Berger and von Puttkamer (eds), Von Petersburg nach Weimar, pp. 127–39.

25 See, for example: Dorothea Nolde, ʻPrincesses voyageuses au XVIIe siècle. Médiatrices politiques et passeuses culturelles’, Clio: Histoire, Femmes et Sociétés 28 (2008), pp. 59-76; Hillard von Thiessen and Christian Windler (eds), Akteure der Außenbeziehungen: Netzwerke und Interkulturalität im historischen Wandel (Cologne, 2010).

26 Katja Dmitrieva and Viola Klein, ʻEinleitung', in Dmitrieva and Klein (eds), Maria Pavlovna, pp. 13-18.

27 Similarly, for the men, one might check on a broader systematic basis, how military service for employers and careers abroad (through more eminent relatives) formed family attachments and eventually helped structure dynastic relationships.

28 The letters of Maria Pavlovna indicate that she received ‘instruction’ before leaving for Weimar. In this way, she resembled a diplomat — a role she was expected to perform on an informal level through her dynastic marriage to the heir of the grand duke of Weimar: Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, p. 139.

29 Franziska Schedewie, ʻ“A chaque pas, je fais des comparaisons avec chez nous … ”: Die ersten Eindrücke der russischen Prinzessin Maria Pawlowna in Weimar (1804–1806)’, in Berger and von Puttkamer (eds), Von Petersburg nach Weimar, p. 91.

30 Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, p. 141.

31 Unpublished paper by Heinz Duchhardt, Weimar 2007.

32 Carl August himself explicitly referred to Paul’s first marriage in his proposal: Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, p. 82, note 14.

33 Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnykh aktov [The Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts] [hereafter RGADA], fond 2, opis’ 2, delo 135, chast’ 1 (Delo o brakosochetanii velikikh kniazhen Marii, Ekateriny i Anny Pavloven [File on the Marriages of Grand Duchesses Maria, Ekaterina and Anna Pavlovna]), list 8.

34 Ibid., list 10.

35 See above, note 19. As for the Weimar marriage motives that, put bluntly, primarily consisted of protection and financial support, see Joachim von Puttkamer, ʻKulturkontakte und Großmachtinteressen. Weimar im Blickfeld russischer Heiratspolitik,' Berger and von Puttkamer (eds), Von Petersburg nach Weimar, pp. 17-33.

36 Friedrich also wanted Maria Pavlovna to marry his son as a second option, following the death of the Habsburg princess Maria Amalia. Eventually, his son, Friedrich Wilhelm Karl (later Wilhelm I) married Maria’s sister Ekaterina (on their own initiative and after the annulment of Friedrich Wilhelm’s first marriage), so the latter's aunt Maria Fedorovna finally did become his mother-in-law! As for Alexander of Württemberg, he entered Russian military service in 1799.

37 ‘Now here’s a good matter resolved, and we owe it still to your diligence’: Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, p. 85.

38 RGADA, fond 2, delo 135, list 109, ‘Affaire de Bavière Touchant ĺEtablissement de ma fille Catherine’. See also: Joachim von Puttkamer, Kulturkontakte, p. 23-24.

39 Ulrike Eich, ʻNesselrode, Robert Graf von’, Neue Deutsche Biographie, vol. 19 (1999), p. 74-75. [Online-Version]; URL: https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd117016462.html#ndbcontent [2020-02–19].

40 ‘He is instructed about the views of the Emperor’: ‘ĹImpératrice Marie Fedorowna au comte Guillaume de Nesselrode, Saint-Pétersbourg, 1/12 Octobre 1798’, in A. de Nesselrode (ed.), Lettres et Papiers du Chancelier Comte de Nesselrode, 1760–1850. Extraits de ses Archives, 6 vols (Paris, 1904-1908), vol. I, p. 11.

41 For a modern edited translation of Catherine’s memoirs in English, see: The Memoirs of Catherine the Great, ed. and trans. by Mark Kruse and Hilde Hoogenboom (New York, 2005).

42 To add further weight to the importance of the influence of mothers-in-law, this marriage alliance was allegedly promoted by Frederick II of Prussia, who was godfather to Caroline’s oldest daughter, Friederike Luise, and uncle to her husband and his successor, Frederick William II. He approached Caroline with this proposed match for one of her younger daughters, and did so without the knowledge of her husband, Landgrave Ludwig IX: Philipp Alexander Ferdinand Walther, Die ‘große Landgräfin’: Landgräfin Caroline von Hessen. Ein Lebensbild. Bearbeitet nach den im Hausarchiv zu Darmstadt befindlichen Papieren (Darmstadt, 1873), pp. 35-6.

43 Ibid., pp. 35, 45-8.

44 See above, fn. 15. – The ‘scandal’ about Aleksandra’s failed marriage, including a Russian naval manoeuvre near Sweden as a first reaction, is described — albeit not scholarly — in a book by Oleg Volovik, Aleksandra. Zhizn’, sem’ia, sud’ba, pamiat’ [Alexandra. Life, Family, Fate, Memory] (St Petersburg, 2004). With forewords by the Orthodox bishop Ilarion of Vienna, Archduke Michael of Habsburg and Gabor Loboda, member of the Hungarian Parliament in 2004, this book is itself quite a source on contemporary perspectives on history.

45 Landesarchiv Thüringen [hereafter LATh], HA A XXV, Korrespondenzen, R 154 (Maria Pavlovna to Maria Fedorovna), fol. 155 (Pyrmont, 31 July/ 12 August 1806). Putting a cedilla with every small c is common in Maria Pavlovna’s letters.

46 Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, pp. 85 and 111.

47 Dmitrieva and Klein (eds), Maria Pavlovna, p. 20 f.

48 Willy Andreas and Hans Tümmler (eds), Politischer Briefwechsel des Herzogs und Großherzogs Carl August von Weimar, 3 vols (Stuttgart, 1954-1973), vol. II, p. 247.

49 On Kotzebue’s role in Weimar and for Russian foreign policy see George S. Williamson, ‘What Killed August von Kotzebue? The Temptations of Virtue and the Political Theology of German Nationalism, 1789–1819’, The Journal of Modern History 72 (2000), pp. 890-943, and the forthcoming monograph by the same author. See also Franziska Schedewie, ‘Simple voyageur, employé Russe: August von Kotzebue und die russische Deutschlandpolitik zwischen Weimar und Wien, 1817–1819’, in Olaf Breidbach, Klaus Manger and Georg Schmidt (eds), Ereignis Weimar-Jena. Kultur um 1800 (Paderborn, 2015), pp. 89-135, Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, pp. 328-54.

50 Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, p. 199.

51 Ibid., pp. 174-83.

52 Ibid., p. 146, note 33.

53 Alexander M. Martin, Romantics, Reformers, Reactionaries. Russian Conservative Thought and Politics in the Reign of Alexander I (DeKalb, 1997), p. 50.

54 See above, note 15.

55 Paulmann, Pomp und Politik, p. 93.

56 See above, note 20. For now, it can be added here that before her departure to Weimar, Maria Pavlovna was also included in this correspondence: Franziska Schedewie, ʻDie Zarentochter als Kritikerin. Maria Pavlovna über das Weimarer Hoftheater', in Detlef Altenburg and Beate Agnes Schmidt (eds), Musik und Theater um 1800: Konzeptionen — Aufführungspraxis — Rezeption (Sinzig, 2012), p. 65. Her letters were counter-signed and amended by Maria Fedorovna.

57 Dmitrieva and Klein (eds), Maria Pavlovna, p. 20; Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, pp. 174-83.

58 LATh, HA A XXV, Korrespondenzen, R 158 (Maria Pavlovna to Maria Fedorovna), fol. 30v^o.

59 According to her letters to her mother, Maria Pavlovna took special care of Grand Duke Nikolai’s future Prussian bride, Princess Charlotte of Prussia: LATh, HA A XXV, R 109 (Charlotte von Preußen / Alexandra to Maria Pavlovna, 1816–1834).

60 See above, note 14 (in particular, Wortman, Scenarios of Power, p. 250), and for further context on Maria Pavlovna: Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, pp. 279-95.

61 Gosudarstvenyi arkhiv rossiiskoi federatsii [The State Archive of the Russian Federation] [hereafter GARF], fond 728, opis’ 1, delo 800 (Bumagi kasaiushchiesia predpolagaemogo braka vel. kniazhny Anny Pavlovny s Napoleonom: pis'mo vel. kn. Ekateriny Pavlovny, printsa Georga Golshtinskogo, imp. Marii Fedorovny, 1809, 1810. Peregovory Imperatritsy Marii Fedorovny s Imperatorom Aleksandrom I i drugimi litsami po sluchaiu predpologavshegosia braka Imper. Napoleona s Vel. Kniazhnoju Annoi Pavlovnoi. 1809–1810 [Documents concerning the Proposed Marriage of Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna with Napoleon: Letter from Grand Duchess Ekaterina Pavlovna, Prince George of Holstein and Empress Maria Fedorovna, 1809, 1810. Discussions of Empress Maria Fedorovna with the Emperor Alexander and Other Persons Concerning the Proposed Marriage of Emperor Napoleon with Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna, 1809–1810]). This file contains eighty-seven folios.

62 Schedewie, Die Bühne Europas, p. 88-89, note 33.

63 By way of an introduction to the history of emotions, see: Ute Frevert, ‘Was haben Gefühle in der Geschichte zu suchen?’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 35 (2009), pp. 183-208; Nina Verheyen, ‘Geschichte der Gefühle. Version 1.0’, Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte, 2010-06–18, DOI: https://doi.org/10.14765/zzf.dok.2.320.v1 [accessed 3 April 2020]. This expanding field includes the current research of Mikhail Dolbilov and Victoria Frede, who presented with the author on the panel ‘Politicizing Friendship, Kinship, and Trust in the Russian Monarchy: 1762–1881’ at ASEEES 2017 (with Richard Wortman as discussant).

64 LATh, HA XXV, Korrespondenzen, R 153, fol. 130 (30 October 1804).

65 Ibid., fol. 132 (1 November 1804).

66 In one letter, Maria Pavlovna wrote that she ‘did not go to the theatre as often as the Duchess’: Ibid., R 161, fol. 7’ (18/20 January 1817). If this remark had a particular meaning at all, it might be interpreted with regard to the mother/daughter-in-law relationship: it could mean that Louise — who had seen and lived in the high period of classicism in Weimar — was fonder of the theatre than the younger Maria Pavlovna and perhaps even took it as her particular domain. However, it could also mean that Maria Pavlovna (who was keen on music) simply was not as interested or committed.

67 Ibid., fol. 141 (10 November 1804).

68 Raphael Utz, ‘Maria Pavlovna, die Revolution, Goethes Tod und Epochenende: Innen- und Außenperspektive auf das Ereignis Weimar', in Olaf Breidbach (ed.), Vom Ende des Ereignisses (Munich and Paderborn, 2011), pp. 77-92, p. 79. Utz refers to two memoirs written by Maria Pavlovna immediately after Carl August’s death, the first one resembling an instruction of how Carl Friedrich should assume government. The second document, in which, according to Utz, she instructed her husband how to act concerning his mother, is mentioned but not analysed here.

69 David E. Barclay, ʻGroßherzogliche Mutter und kaiserliche Tochter im Spannungsfeld der deutschen Politik. Maria Pawlowna, Augusta und der Weimarer Einfluss auf Preußen (1811–1890)’, in Berger and von Puttkamer (eds), Von Petersburg nach Weimar, pp. 127-39. See also, for example: LATh, HA A XXV, Korrespondenzen, R 170 (Maria Pavlovna to Maria Fedorovna, 1826).

70 Ibid., fol. 9v^o (31 December 1825 / 12 January 1826; Wilhelm arrived on that day in Weimar), and in many letters that followed after.

71 Nevertheless, it appears that, in the correspondence of Maria Pavlovna and her brother Alexander I, the loss of the previous political interest in Weimar may have played a role. It is commonly assumed in the literature that his favourite sister was always Ekaterina, yet if one reads his letters to Maria up to 1806 (i.e. before Weimar stopped being of importance to Russia), one can get the same impression for Maria Pavlovna, too.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Franziska Schedewie

Franziska Schedewie

Franziska Schedewie is a researcher at the University of Jena (Germany). She has published two monographs on Russian history: one on the peasants and their participation before the Revolution of 1917 (Selbstverwaltung und sozialer Wandel in der russischen Provinz. Bauern und Zemstvo in Voronezh, 1864–1914 [Heidelberg, 2006]), the other one on the tsars and Russian (informal) diplomacy and politics towards Germany in the age of Napoleon (Die Bühne Europas. Russische Diplomatie und Deutschlandpolitik in Weimar, 1798–1819 [Heidelberg, 2015]).