Summary of the prize-winning work of Jannik Wiethoff genannt Riemann, winner of the 2025 ESSA Undergraduate Student Award
The travelogue “Das veränderte Rußland” by Friedrich Christian Weber represents a remarkably rare example of an early modern description of the Russian Empire by a western European author during the reign of Peter the Great. This multi-volume work is not only exceptional for its rarity, but due to its variety of included material about Petrine Russia. Besides being a diplomatic report, it contains extensive tables of statistical surveys, considerable descriptions of the country, in particular the two largest cities, Moscow and Petersburg, ethnographic excurses and additional source documents . Weber lived in Russia for almost five years, and in his function as a diplomat of Hannover gained multifaceted insights into the Russian society, the state administration, and the capital’s cultural life. Simultaneously, he aimed to observe the living conditions of the rural population and several ethnicities within the purview of the Russian Tsar, such as the Kalmyks and the Tatars.
These specific circumstances enable us to utilize “Das veränderte Rußland” as a main source for a relevant scope of historical investigations on how Petrine Russia was perceived, described and evaluated by contemporary Western European intellectuals.
However, although Weber’s phrase of a transformed Russia has become notably popular in research, there are still only sporadic in-depth examinations scrutinizing the composition and historical reliability of his work. Indeed, Eckard Matthes and Wolfgang Geier substantially contributed to the general access of its content. But since their monographs comprehensively investigated Weber’s life and work, none of them systematically reflected on the reliability of “Das veränderte Rußland” as a historical source in detail. Thus, the work is uniformly addressed as a chronological diary akin to an authentic account of Weber’s experiences. This analysis suggest a contrary conjecture.
A comparison between the diplomat’s report and his hitherto unstudied correspondence detects passages of direct intertextuality. Weber unambiguously inserts whole sections into his report that may not be found within his letters. Inferring from these findings, Weber’s work needs to be examined as subject to an intentional conception, resulting from a systematic revision of the diary ex post. Therefore, it becomes inevitable to understand the compositional, stylistic and literary strategies of Weber structuring his books. Focusing on historical as well as on literary perspectives enables us to elaborate a critical interpretation of the source.
The objective of my study is twofold:
First, it seeks to establish a novel methodological approach that can be used by other historians to systematically engage with the material.
Secondly, by employing this approach, it aims to provide a new perspective on Weber’s image of Russia and the Russians.
Therefore, Weber’s writings were searched for different categories of topoi, leitmotifs and other related structural elements.
It is argued that Weber reiterates the main character traits he ascribes to the Russian people. Although his image of Russia contains various pejorative stereotypes about Russians, he broadens the diversity of standardized Russians’ characterizations. If additionally regarding intratextual parallels as the next kind of structuring elements, one finds a binary opposition of the two capitals, Moscow and Petersburg. Petersburg is characterized as the bright symbol of Peter’s modern, changing Russia, while Moscow is represented as a city of crimes and old habits. Again, here the intertextual parallels to Weber’s correspondence represent the most evident testimony that Weber structured his text not according to truth and personal experience but by intention. The description of Petersburg’s unsafe public life in his correspondence is almost word by word reframed and allocated to Moscow in his report.
Motifs like the Russians’ affinity to alcohol appear several times within Weber’s report and contribute to his calculated barbarization of the Russian people. On the other hand, it cannot be argued that Weber draws a monolithic picture of the Russian state and people. Instead, he differentiates between the Tsar’s court, the inhabitants of the cities, the rural society and finally the various ethnic groups. Peter the Great personally is lauded by the diplomate for his open-mindedness towards Western Europe. Furthermore, Weber contrasts the city of Petersburg with Moscow, and suggests a strict social hierarchy from Tsar Peter at its top, via the urban civilians down to the different ethnicities. “The Russians” are categorized according to the extent to which they are integrated into the narrative.
Finally, the lens through which Weber viewed the Russians is reconstructed. Despite the obvious coloring of the subject’s overall image of Russians, it can be demonstrated that this image contains a significantly broader range of shades than scholars have hitherto been able to discern.
Early Slavic Studies are considerably underrepresented at German universities. Due to language barriers as well as the institutional preferences of national history, students rarely get into contact with East European history and culture. Additionally, even within this subject, there exists a supremacy of 20th century topics and historical topics of the Early Modern period are underrepresented. Therefore, the Undergraduate Student Award of the Early Slavic Studies Association contributes to the necessary display of this field of study.
For me, this Award is not only an appreciation for which I am very grateful, but it also opens new possibilities to expand and deepen my personal engagement with this historical subject. In the context of this Award, I got to know the Early Slavic Studies Association for the first time, and I realized how broa the research field of Early Slavic Studies is Thus, the Award allows me to get in touch with the research network of the ESSA and to benefit from the connectivity of its members. This encourages me to further follow this path in my academic orientation.
Also, it is a valuable experience to see that my study is esteemed in this way and that even students can participate in the academic exchange of ideas and thoughts in some way. Insofar, the ESSA award contributes to my interest in further academic investigation of Eastern European history. For this reason, I would like to thank Professor Ricarda Vulpius for scholarly accompanying this project and particularly for encouraging me to participate in this award and to submit my study. In the same vein, I would like to encourage every student interested in Early Slavic Studies to use this opportunity of contributing your ideas to the academic discussions of a professional audience; even, and especially, as undergraduate. For your submissions I wish you all the best! – Jannik Wiethoff genannt Riemann, undergraduate student at the University of Münster
