Perepiska cesareviča Aleksandra Nikolaeviča s imperatorom Nikolaem I. 1839–1839. Pod redakciej L. G. Zacharovoj i S. V. Mironenko. Izdat. Rosspėn Moskva 2008. ISBN: 978-5-8243-0962-1.

Perepiska cesareviča Aleksandra Nikolaeviča s imperatorom Nikolaem I. 1839–1839. Pod redakciej L. G. Zacharovoj i S. V. Mironenko. Izdat. Rosspėn Moskva 2008. 744 S., 16 Taf. mit 102 Abb. = Bumagi Doma Romanovych. ISBN: 978-5-8243-0962-1.

Nicholas I was not prone to shirk his governing or paternal responsibilities. So when the heir apparent Alexander became infatuated with the Polish-origin court freilein Ol’ga Kalinovskaya, the emperor shipped his dashing and most eligible twenty year-old son westward, to Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Italy, Holland, and England, to meet some grandees, see some sights, and, especially, find an appropriately pedigreed bride. One result of the journey was the tsesarevich’s engagement to the fifteen year-old Maria, Princess of Hesse-Darmstadt. Another was a paternal-filial exchange of ninety-six letters in Russian, starting 5/17 June 1838 from a castle outside Stockholm, and ending 13/25 June 1839 from Berlin. Almost invariably writing daily, but in extended missives to suit their couriers’ schedules, both correspondents produced quasi-diaries of mostly prosaic activities combined with an intimate exchange.

This detailed, epistolary glimpse into a year in the life of Russia’s disciplinarian-sovereign and his slightly prodigal heir contains a variety of information about the quotidian ways of Russia’s and Europe’s royalty, court officials, and high society: their extensive familial, official, and acquaintance networks (about 800 individuals are identified in the index of names), class and gender prejudices, health concerns, modes of travel, entertainment, museum culture, devotional life, and reactions to the weather and court routine. Domesticated foreign words no longer in use in Russia, such as frishtyk and mamzel’, along with less common ones still found in a modern lexicon à la spich and bay-bay, transmit the europeanized flavor of the Romanovs’ world. And, as if sharing common interests with his father, Alexander regularly reported his observations on the state of fortifications, weaponry, uniforms, horses, decorum, cultural and archeological sites, theater and opera productions, and the emperor’s and Alexander I’s old acquaintances, as well as the incidence of attractive women at various locales and social events (“[…] v Hyde-park […]. Mnogo ochen’ dam verkhom i propast’ khoroshen’kikh,” p. 406).

Alexander’s recovery from dejection and physical illness during the initial months of his trip, his ostensible assumption of his adult responsibilities by freeing himself from Ol’ga (though, he did not fully extinguish that flame), and his unexpected discovery of Maria constitute the grand personal narrative of the letters. Here, the editors wisely leave it to the readers to judge his sincerity in these matters, which required pro forma filial comportment. This reviewer senses that the heir chafed under the nearly constant supervision, and was most relaxed in the Netherlands in the company of his cousins and (soon-to-be queen) aunt, Anna Pavlovna. He also enjoyed four weeks in England, where, as we know from published papers overlooked by the editors, he charmed and aroused amorous sentiments in the not quite twenty year-old Queen Victoria.

As a historical source, the correspondence complements the more detailed, unpublished “Zhurnal puteshestviya” and other official reports to the emperor, his letters to Alexander’s supervisors, Alexander’s letters to and from his mother, the emperor’s and empress’s written exchange, and the occasional pertinent diplomatic report and diary entry. The copious commentary and notes supplied by N. B. Bystrova, F. A. Petrov, and L. I. Tyutyunik about people, places, buildings, and events quote these documents directly from the archives, but with a focus on Alexander – for example, his redeeming some English from debtors prison (p. 611).

This edition thus forms a companion volume to two works: the much shorter “Venchanie s Rossiey: Perepiska velikogo knyazya Aleksandra Nikolaevicha s imperatorom Nikolaem I. 1837 god” (1999, edited by Zakharova and Tyutyunik), covering the heir’s celebratory tour of Russia, and A. N. Savin’s brief “Svatovstvo tsesarevicha Aleksandra Nikolaevicha” (1926), summarized in Richard Wortman’s “Scenarios of Power” (vol. 1, 1995, pp. 371–375). Savin’s extracts from the correspondence of all of the major players in the betrothal drama show not only the value of the volume under review, but also the potential utility of the publication of more of the “Bumagi Doma Romanovykh” indicated in the preceding paragraph, especially for our understanding of the character development of the future tsar-emancipator. Let us hope, then, that the editors and their colleagues continue these most welcome scholarly endeavors.

David Goldfrank, Washington, D.C.