A Window on Russia

An interview with one of the world’s leading scholars on Russian history sheds light on Peter the Great.

By Galina Stolyarova

The St. Petersburg Times

Published: March 20, 2013 (Issue # 1751)

for spt One of the engravings that will be used to illustrate Waegman’s book.

One of the leading experts in Russian-Dutch relations in Europe, Professor Emmanuel Waegemans, teaches Russian Literature, the History of Russia and Slavic Civilization at the respected Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium.

Author of more than 200 books and articles about Russian history and literature, this scholar has devoted special attention to Peter the Great, who is featured in several of his extensively researched works. Waegemans’ expertise is valued not only in Western Europe but also in Russia, where the reforming tsar is almost openly worshipped and many people find it hard to assess Peter the Great objectively. Professor Waegemans spoke to The St. Petersburg Times about his upcoming book about Peter the Great’s second trip to the Netherlands, which is to be released later this year.

Q: What aspects of Peter the Great’s second trip to the Netherlands do you focus on in your work?

A: In my book, I not only create a detailed account of Peter the Great’s visit to Holland in 1717 but also go on to reconstruct the Russian tsar’s network of contacts, and the circle of people he was meeting on that journey. Readers will get to know the kind of Dutchmen who kept Peter the Great company, who worked for the tsar and actively promoted his ideas; the people who recruited specialists for him, who purchased guns for him, and who were on the lookout, on his behalf, for paintings by the Flemish and Dutch masters.

Q: What is the main difference between Peter the Great’s first visit to Holland, which is known as the Great Embassy, and his second trip to the country?

A: On his second trip to Holland, Peter the Great expressed a greater interest in the arts and architecture, and made more trips to palaces and parks. While gathering material for the book, I have come across a number of literary works about Peter the Great, including a few pieces of satire, as well as several odes that praised the great reformer and his initiatives aimed at bringing innovations to Russia.

The book has many illustrations. In general, I would say that I have employed a complex approach to telling the story of Peter the Great’s trip. The book covers the diplomatic aspect of the visit, and, in particular, the intricate and convoluted diplomatic games that went on at The Hague. It covers family matters, such as the birth of his son Pavel and the dramatic escape of his son Alexei; the folklore element, which is researched through studying the style of the Russian receptions that were held; the ceremonial side of such festivities, and traditions of firing shots from a cannon; and also the literary aspect. Peter the Great was featured in a number of literary works and I cover the historical and cultural sides of this very important state visit.

But I do not turn a blind eye to certain negative features and details — there was no shortage of negative opinions among Peter’s contemporaries. The book discusses the irritation with Peter in some circles of Dutch society and the espionage carried out on the tsar by Swedish and other European secret services during his stay in Holland.

As the book shows, Peter the Great felt disappointment in people whom he had once regarded as his friends.

Q: Who is your target audience?

A: Although the book is based on archive material from Belgian, Dutch, French, British and Russian sources, it is addressed to a rather wide audience — and is not at all aimed exclusively at historians. While a wealth of research has been published about the Great Embassy, no actual books are to be found about Peter the Great’s second trip to Holland in 1717.

for spt Professor Emmanuel Waegemans has written numerous books on Russia.

The book follows in the footsteps of my 2007 work, “Peter the Great in Belgium” which was translated into Russian and published by the St. Petersburg publishing house Giperion. In that work, I give an account of Peter the Great’s stays in my country during his trips to and from France in April and July 1717. The new book offers a much greater store of material because I was able to dig up a wealth of recollections, commentary and discussions in connection to the second Dutch trip. I have familiarized myself with all existing sources documenting Peter the Great’s visit to Holland.

Q: How is Peter the Great regarded in the Netherlands?

A: There is still a tendency to look at Peter the Great as a pupil, an understudy. After all it was Holland that served as an example, as a model for the young, emerging Russia that had aspirations to become a great state. Therefore the Dutch are in fact very proud of the fact that Peter was studying shipbuilding and naval matters in their country.

Q: What originally sparked your interest in Peter the Great?

A: What appeals to me in Peter the Great is the fusion of the Russian character and the Westerner in him. A figure of the Enlightenment, he fought against superstition and backwardness in all forms, and sought innovations that would help his country to advance. At the same time he really was finding it impossible to accept the idea of the freedom of the individual that lies at the foundation of Western civilization. Peter was a worker and a ruler all at once. He was a stunningly multi-skilled monarch. I would find it hard to imagine his French counterpart Louis XIV building a naval ship with his own hands. It is Peter the Great who laid the foundation for Russia’s transition into the new Russia, the country that we know today.

Q: In your opinion, what are Peter the Great’s biggest achievements and failures?

A: Peter laid the foundation for the new, strong Russia that combatted Sweden’s Charles XII, who had until then been considered invincible. He built the city of St. Petersburg, and he brought innovations from the West.

Unfortunately, though, while he imported the techniques and the external sides of our culture — we did not impose them on him — he failed to see the point of Western civilization, and therefore did not bring the essence of it to Russia.

He could have introduced Russia to the principles of freedom of the individual. By contrast, his system was rooted in authoritarian rule, where one person decides everything. And this is exactly how things have continued right up to the present day.

Q: Are there any stereotypes about Peter that you would like to dispel? What are the key differences between the way Peter the Great is regarded in Russia and Western Europe?

A: I was amazed to read the results of a nationwide sociological poll that was held in Russia in the mid 2000s, where he was voted the greatest ever Russian man. I find it strange that the Russian people still regard a tyrant and a semi-barbarian as their greatest compatriot. Certainly, Peter did a lot for his country. But at times, I must admit, it is interesting to fantasize about what Russia would have become if Peter had never ascended the throne. This tsar deserves our closest attention but not our blind adoration. There are more than enough dark aspects of his biography. Why would he not leave his son Alexei in peace? Who needed that family drama? It is exactly that tragedy that caused many Dutch and European admirers of Peter to turn away from him, however great their fascination with his reforms.