No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
On the face of it, the war between Austria and the allied forces of Piedmont and France in the summer of 1859, and the ensuing struggles that culminated in the unification of most of Italy under King Victor Emanuel, would seem to have little to do with the evolution of Russian foreign policy. Russia took care not to be drawn into the fighting and greeted the unification process with loud disapprobation. Yet that war could not have been fought as a limited war without Russian collusion. Napoleon III required – besides the tacit approval of England (where public opinion supported ‘Italy for the Italians’) – the aid of another nation in order to be what Bismarck later called ’à trois’ in a Europe of five great powers. For Russia to provide that aid obliged her to abandon the responsibilities shouldered by Alexander I and Nicholas I, ‘the gendarme of Europe’, champion of Europe's conservative instincts and guarantor of its treaties.
1 J. S. Curtiss revises the traditional view to the extent of playing down ideological commitment to abstractions like the Holy Alliance and simply explains that Nicholas I and Nesselrode conducted a policy suitable to ‘a primitive agricultural country, too backward in all respects to be an aggressive imperialist power’. ‘Russian Diplomacy in the Mid-Nineteenth Century’, South Atlantic Quarterly, LXXII (summer 1973), 405.Google Scholar
2 There are two accounts of the Italian war diplomacy that do justice to Russia's importance in the proceedings – if not to their importance in altering Russia's diplomatic stance. Arnold Blumberg attempts to describe the effort to keep Europe neutralized, with particular attention to Russia: ‘Russian Policy and the Franco-Austrian War of 1859’, Journal of Modern History, XXVI, no. 2 (1954), 137–53.Google Scholar Unfortunately, he uses no Russian sources. Taylor, A. J. P. devotes a chapter in his The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (London, 1954) to the war's impact on European diplomacy. (A Russian translation, Borba za gospodarstvo v Europe, was published in Moscow in 1958.) A defect is the implication that the Russians produced foreign policy decisions reflexively and unanimously. The diplomatic game is oversimplified to heighten the dramatic possibilities of the narrative: thus, ‘Alexander…fell back on the usual manoeuvre of those who are at a loss in diplomacy and relied on a scamp's good faith,’ and ‘as soon as the secret Franco-Russian treaty was signed the Russians realized the trick Napoleon had played upon them’ (Struggle, pp. 106, 110).Google Scholar
One issue that figured prominently in both the Russian involvement in the Italian war and the evolution of her policy has received close attention. Werner Mosse's The Rise and Fall of the Crimean System (London, 1962)Google Scholar focuses on the Black Sea clauses of the 1856 Treaty of Paris, which were so humiliating to Alexander II, and traces the Russian attempts to overthrow them down to their ultimate abrogation in 1871. Although Mosse does not deal directly with Russian diplomacy relating to the war, he does examine Sardinia's coquettish generosity toward the Russian navy in 1857 and 1858 and illuminates an aspect of the career of the influential chief of the navy and brother of the tsar, the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. A recent Soviet article by Kiniapina, N. S., ‘Borba Rossii za otmenu ogranichitel'nykh uslovii parizhskogo dogovora 1856 goda’, Voprosy istorii, VIII (Aug. 1972), 34–51, neglects the clauses' role in attracting Alexander and Gorchakov to Napoleon III's Italian project, concentrating instead on the London conference that authorized their withdrawal.Google Scholar
3 On the former, see his ‘Russkaia diplomatiia, staraia i novaia’, in Iz proshlago Russkoi dipUmiatii (S.Pb., 1890)Google Scholar; he gives thorough coverage to diplomacy in his Imperator Aleksandr II, Ego zhizn i tsarstovovanie (2 vols. S.Pb., 1903).Google Scholar
4 The wave of publications on the secret Franco-Russian agreement that rolled across the European scholarly reviews during the interwar period depended primarily on papers in Western archives. The first, Feigin's, L. ‘Iz istorii russko-frantsuzskikh otnoshenii’, Veka, 1, 1 (1924), 133–64Google Scholar, though valuable, drew on a rather sparse selection from Gorchakov's personal archive. By the same token, the collection of documents from the Ministère des Affaires Étrangères in Paris by one of its directors is highly selective: Pingaud, A., ‘Un projet d'alliance franco-russe en 1858’, Séances et travaux de I'Académie des sciences morales et politiques, LVIII (July-Aug. 1928).Google Scholar These works served as the basis for Sumner's, B. H., ‘The Secret Franco-Russian treaty of 3 March 1859’, English Historical Review, XLVIII (1933), 65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Stern's, A. ‘Ein russisch-französischer Bundnisplan 1858’, Europä;ische Gesprache, IX (Jan. 1931).Google Scholar Ernst Schüle consulted M.A.E. files for himself and contributed a judicious review of the problem and thorough bibliography: ‘Die Verhandlungen zwischen Russland und Frankreich vor dem italienischen Kriege 1858–9’, Zeitschrift für ost-europäische Geschichte viii, Neue Folge, IV (1934), 188–221.Google Scholar It became possible to fill in some of the gaps from the extensive materials from the Prussian archives published in the 1930s: Historische Reichskommission, Die auswärtige Politik Preussens 1858–1871, 1 (Berlin, 1933).Google Scholar
5 Rotstein, F., ‘K istorii frank.orussk.ogo soglasheniia 1859 g.’, Krasnii Arkhiv, LXXXVIII, no. 3 (1938), 182–255.Google Scholar
6 A good example of another utterly neglected source is the correspondence between Kiselev and his long-time associate, Balabin, who had also worked closely with Gorchakov: ‘Pisma V. P. Balabina grafu P. D. Kiselevu’, Russkaia starina, 1902, no. 11, 361–85; no. 12, 577–96.
7 Boon, N. H., Rêve et réalité dans I'oeuvre économique et socialede Napoléon III (The Hague, 1936), p. 85.Google Scholar
8 The best case for the coherence and constructiveness of his vision in foreign affairs is made by Salvatorelli, Luigi, ‘L'Europe de Napoléon III et L'Europe de Mazzini’, Revue historique, CCXXIII (Apr.–June 1960), 275–86.Google Scholar
9 Public Record Office, London. Foreign Office 519/234,31 Oct. 1858, Cowley to Malmesbury. When he made the remark he was, of course, already at work aiding the cause of independence for the Danubian principalities.
10 Gorchakov had also known him longest. As the Russian charge at Florence and Lucca from 1828 until 1832 he had rendered ‘certain services’ to Queen Hortense and her two sons, who had participated in Carbonari activities. (One of the Bonaparte brothers had married a cousin of Nicholas I.) Friese, Charles, Russland und Preussen vom Krimkrieg bis mm Polnischen Aufstand (Berlin, 1931), p. 14.Google Scholar
11 In 1841 Metternich used his influence with Nesselrode to block Gorchakov's nomination as Russian ambassador to Vienna; he subsequently insisted that the Russian Foreign Ministry withdraw Gorchakov's promised appointment as ambassador to Constantinople. Gorchakov finally settled for Stuttgart, telling a friend: ‘It isn't much, but it is a foot in the door.‘ Dolgorukov, P. V., Peterburgskie ocherki 1860–1867 (M., 1934), pp. 151–2.Google ScholarSemanov, S.'s biography, A. M. Gorchakov, Ruskii diplomat XIX V. (M., 1962)Google Scholar, is extremely brief. The best profile in English is Sumner's, B. H. in Russia and the Balkans 1870–1880 (Oxford, 1937), pp. 18–26.Google Scholar
12 Though the Soviets have produced excellent monographs on Kiselev's work in the Principalities and at State Domains, they have ignored his diplomatic career. Volume in of the biography by his associate at State Domains is devoted to his experiences in Paris: Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, A. P., Graf P. D. Kiselev i ego vremia (4 vols. S.Pb., 1882).Google Scholar
13 Library, Bodleian, Clarendon Deposit, c. 86 (fo. 83). Wodehouse to Clarendon, 9 Jan. 1858.Google Scholar
14 Again there is no full biography, though the entry in the Ruskii biograficheskii slovar (vol. IX)Google Scholar is useful. He kept a diary, of which only part has been published: ‘Iz dnevnika V. K. Konstantina Nikolaevicha’, Krasnii Arkhiv, X, no. 3 (1925), 217–60.Google Scholar
15 Mosse, W. E., ‘Russia and the Levant’, Journal of Modern History, XXVI (Mar. 1954) ,39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, , Kiselev, III, 18.Google Scholar
17 Berti, Giuseppi, ‘Otnoshenie mezhdu Rossii i Italianskimi Gosudarstvami s kontsa XVIII v. do 1860 g.’, Voprosy istorii, XII (1956), 52–64, esp. p. 62.Google Scholar
18 Mosse, W. E., ‘The Russians at Villafranca’, Slavonic Review, XXX, no. 75 (June 1952), 429.Google Scholar
19 IL Carteggio Cavour-Nigra dot 1858 al 1861 (4 vols. Bologna, 1926), 1, 116 (24 July 1858, Cavour to La Marmora).Google Scholar
20 Lincoln, W.B., ‘The circle of the Grand Duchess Yelena Pavlovna, 1847–1861’, Slavonic and East European Review, XLVII, no. 112 (July 1970), 375.Google Scholar
21 See D'Hauterive, Ernest, Napoléon III et le Prince Napoleon: Correspondance inédite (Paris, 1995), p. 28.Google Scholar
22 He was writing to Olga Nikolaevna. Württembergisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Stuttgart. G 2–8, Hausarchiv, Abteilung CCCXIV, Büschel no. 7, 12 Oct. 1858. (Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter, Iphigenia, to Artemis in return for favourable winds by which to sail to Troy.)
23 Goriainov, Sergei, ‘Les étapes de Palliance franco-russe (1853–1861)’, Revue de Paris, XII (1912), 1–28, 529–43, 755–76, esp. p. 531.Google Scholar
24 ‘Pisma V. P. Balabin grafu P. D. Kiselevu’, pp. 374–76.
25 Ibid. pp. 379–80. Balabin mentions this again in his 27 Oct./8 Nov. letter.
26 La Ronciére, a French naval captain and admiralty official, included a rather superficial account of his mission in his published papers: La Roncière Le Noury, Correspondance inedite avec sa femme et sa fille, 1855–1871 (a vols. Paris, 1928–9).Google Scholar
27 Feigin, , ‘Iz istorii russko-frantsuzkikh otnoshenii’, p. 142.Google Scholar
28 Sumner, ‘The Secret Franco-Russian Treaty of 3 March 1859’, P.75. Articles X-XIV in the Treaty of Paris neutralized the Black Sea, forbidding Russia to keep a war fleet there or construct fortifications on its shores. Text in de Martens, F., Recueil des traites et conventions conclus par la Russie avec Us puissances étrangères (S.Pb., 1909), XV, 315–16.Google Scholar
29 M.A.E. Memoires et Documents, Russie, vol. XLV, 15/27 Nov. 1858. Gorchakov to Prince Napoleon.
30 Charles-Roux, F., Alexandre II, Gorchakoff et Napoleon III (Paris, 1913), p. 239.Google Scholar
31 P.R.O. F.O. 65/715, no. 29, 27 Mar. 1858.
32 Poschinger, Heinrich, Preussens avswartige Politik, 1850–1858 (3 vols. Berlin, 1903), in, 412–13.Google Scholar
33 Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, , Kisekv, III, 80.Google Scholar
34 M.A.E. M. et Russie, D., vol. XLV, 22 Dec. 1858.Google Scholar
35 Feigin, , ‘Iz istorii russko-frantsuzkikh otnoshenii’, pp. 147–9.Google Scholar
36 Chalamon, E. de Bernardy, Unfils de Napoléon: he Comte Walewski, 1810–1869 (Paris, 1951) [unpublished thesis], p. 544. He drew an incorrect inference, for Plon Plon had attempted to include diplomatic rupture with Austria in the terms: A.A.E., M. et D., vol. XLV, 3 Nov. 1858, Prince Napoleon to Gorchakov.Google Scholar
37 Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, , Kiselev, III, 80.Google Scholar
38 Bernardy, , Walewski, p. 833.Google Scholar
39 Haus- Hof- and Staatsarchiv, Vienna. 6a P.A. IX, Frankreich, 2 Jan. 1859 (B), Hübner to Buol. Before Napoleon could think of war, said Hübner, he would have to develop new constituencies among the popular elements and nationalistic parties.
40 Oldoini, Count, ‘Diario inedito del conte Oldoini incaricato d'affari del Piemonte a Pietroburgo, concernente le sue tre missioni del 1856–57, del 1859–60 e del 1862–63’, in Bcrti, Giuseppi, Russia e stati italiani nel Risorgimento (Turin, 1957), pp. 824–59, esp.p. 846.Google Scholar
41 de Hübner, Joseph, Neuf arts de souvenirs d'un ambassadeur d'Autriche à Paris (2 vols. Paris, 1904), 11, 264 (17 Jan. 1859).Google Scholar
42 H.H.S.A., 62 P.A. ix, 31 Jan. 1859 (F), ‘Secret’, Hübner to Buol. M.A.E. Correspondance Politique, Russie, vol. CCXVIII, 24 Jan. 1859, Chateaurenard to Walewski.
43 P.R.O., F.O. 519/225, 5 Feb. 1859, Cowley to Malmesbury.
44 Schüle, Ernst, Russland und Frankreich vom Ausgang des Krimkrieges bis zum italienischen Krieg 1836–1859 (Berlin, 1935), p. 131.Google Scholar
45 Rotstein, , ‘K istorii franko-russkogo soglasheniia 1859 g.’, p. 211 (13 Feb. 1859).Google Scholar
46 Hauterive, , Napoléon III, p. 59.Google Scholar
47 P.R.O., F.O. 519/225, 20 Mar. 1859, Cowley to Malmesbury.
48 Zablotskii-Dcsiatovskii, , Kiselev, III, 94 (34 Mar./5 Apr. 1859).Google Scholar
49 W.H.A., G 2–8, Hausarchiv, Abteilung CCCXIV, Büschel 7, 7 Nov. 1859, Gorchakov to Olga Nikolaevna; Friese, p. 13. To the best of the present author's knowledge, this parallel has never been explored satisfactorily.
50 Crawley, C. W., ‘John Capodistrias and the Greeks before 1821’, Cambridge Historical Journal, XIII (1957), 171.Google Scholar
51 Russkii DipUmaticheskii Slovar (M., 1961), II, 27.Google Scholar
52 Woodhouse, C. M., Capodistria: the Founder of Greek Independence (London, 1973), pp. 191, 152.Google Scholar
53 Grimsted, Patricia K., The Foreign Ministers of Alexander I (Berkeley, 1969), n. 40, p. 241.Google Scholar After becoming foreign minister, Gorchakov turned his attention to recruitment and training of diplomats and reorganized the ministry. See Gorchakov, A. M., Sbomik izdannyi v pamiat dvadtsatipiatiletiia upravleniia ministerstvom inostrannykh diel kniazia Gorchakova, 1856–1881 (S.Pb., 1881).Google Scholar
54 In the course of an ambitious programme of self-education he undertook after returning to Russia from the West in 1815, he concentrated on political philosophy. See Druzhinin, M. N., ‘Sotsial'no-politicheskie vzgliady P. D. Kiseleva’, Voprosy istorii, I, nos. 2–3 (1946). 35–54.Google Scholar
55 (4 vols. Berlin, 1803) [revised edn, 1823].
56 Ibid. I, 6.
57 Ibid. III, 11–12.
58 Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, , Kiselev, III, 83 (3 Jan. 1859).Google Scholar
60 In his journal he noted: ‘The political aim of Louis Napoleon's projects was the redrawing of the map of Europe and moving what had been the political centre of gravity - but this could only be achieved through a long and extensive war. He pursues his goal in vain. We wish him success and are prepared even to render assistance, but we do not want to be drawn into a war whose outcome cannot be predicted and which is not at present in the Russian interest’. Ibid. p. 68.
60 Rotstein, , ‘K istorii franko-russkogo soglasheniia 1859 g.’, P. 3O3 (11 Jan. 1958).Google Scholar
61 ‘This is, of course, a noble desire,’ he continued, ‘but it has got to be well thought out and its implications evaluated.’ Ibid. p. 223.
62 P.R.O., F.O. 519/225, 25 Apr. 1859, to Malmesbury.
63 A.P.P., 1, 492–3, 25 Apr. 1859, to Schleinitz.
64 Ibid. p. 504 (S.Pb.), 15/27 Apr. To the proposition about Frederick II, Alexander commented: ‘Quite correct.’
65 Rotstein, , ‘K istorii franko-russkogo soglasheniia 1859 g.’, P. 332 (15 May).Google Scholar
66 Ibid. p. 234 (18 May).
67 Ibid. p. 230 (3 May).
68 A.P.P. 1, 525–6, n. 1 (19 May).
69 Ibid. p. 504 (15/27 Apr.).
70 Ringhoffer, Karl, The Bemstorff Papers (London, 1908), II, 76.Google Scholar
71 Nol'de, Boris, Peterburgskaia missia Bismarha 1859–1862 (Prague, 1925), p. 92 (4 May).Google Scholar
72 Queen Victoria, learning in December 1858 of the likelihood of a war in Italy, feared it could not be kept limited: ‘[Napoleon] sees…only what he wishes. If he made war in Italy it would in all probability lead to war with Germany and if north Germany will embrace Belgium and if so it must according to our guarantees drive us into the quarrel France must thus have the whole of Europe against her as in i8i4and 15.’ Royal Archives, Windsor, RA J14/2, 9 Dec. 1858, to Malmesbury. I have to acknowledge the gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen to make use of material in The Royal Archives. Schleinitz told the British ambassador to Berlin a fortnight later that in the event of an attack upon Austrian territory in Italy, Prussia would ‘…infallibly be dragged sooner or later into the struggle…’ RA J–14/18, 28 Dec. 1858, Bloomfield to Malmesbury.
73 Mérimée, P., Lettres à M. Panizzi, 1850–1870 (2 vols. Paris, 1881), I, 49 (27 May 1859).Google Scholar
74 Raschdau, L., Bismarcks Briefwechsel mil dem Minister Freiherrn von Schleinitz 1858–1861 (2 vols. Berlin, 1920), I, 81 (27 May, Bismarck to the prince regent).Google Scholar
75 M.A.E. C. P. Russie, vol. CCXIX, 27 May 1859, Montebello to Walewski.
76 Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, Kiselev, III, p. 109. Malmesbury had issued on 2 May a circular to all British agents insisting on the need to maintain the principles of stria neutrality on the affairs of Italy. Gorchakov asked first to make this a Russian circular as well, but Queen Victoria objected. RA J19/108, 23 May 1859, to Malmesbury.Google Scholar
77 Goriainov, , ‘L'alliance franco-russe’, p. 539.Google Scholar
78 Raschdau, , Bismarcks Briefwechsel, 1, 94–8 (17 June), Bismarck to the prince regent.Google Scholar
79 Nol'de, , Peterburgskaia missia, p. 112.Google Scholar
80 Napoleon had already summoned to Paris Louis Kossuth, the hero of Hungary's 1848 uprising, and assured him of his personal desire to make Hungary independent (‘but much depends on circumstances’, he admonished). Kossuth, Louis, Memoirs of my exile (London, 1880), p. 167.Google Scholar
81 M.A.E. C. P. Russie, vol. CXXIX, 11/23 June 1859, Gorchakov to Kiselev.
82 Goriainov, , ‘L'alliance franco-russe’, p. 540.Google Scholar
83 Rotstein, , ‘K istorii frankorusskogo soglasheniia 1859 g.’, p. 239 (1 July).Google Scholar
84 Merimée, P., Lettres, I, 60 (12 July 1859).Google Scholar
85 Goriainov, , ‘L'alliance franco-russe’, p. 540 (dispatch received in S.Pb. 17/29 July).Google Scholar
86 Rotstein, , ‘K istorü franko-russkogo soglasheniia 1859 g.g.’, p. 239. Alexander noted in the margin that ‘this corps came from Bohemia’ (13 July).Google Scholar
87 Ibid. pp. 240–4 (22 July).
88 Ibid. 2 Aug. 1859.
89 H.H.S.A. 64 P.A. ix Fr., 19 Oct., to Metternich. See also Bossy, Raoul, ‘Napoléon III et l'Autriche de Villafranca à Sadowa 1859–1866’, Revue d'histoire diplomatique, LXXIII (1959), III.Google Scholar
90 Ibid. 5 Nov.
91 A.P.P., 1, 827–9 (29 Nov. 1859).
92 Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, , Kiselev, III, 130.Google Scholar
93 H.H.S.A. 64 P.A. IX Fr., 6 Nov. 1859.
94 Ibid. 20 Jan. 1860.
95 Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, , Kiselev, III, 165 (19 Feb. 1860).Google Scholar
96 W.H.A. G 2–8, Hausarchiv, , Abteilung occxii, Büschel 7, 4 Dec. 1859.Google Scholar
97 Semevskii, V. I., Krest'ianskii vopros v Rossii v XVIII i pervoi polovine XlX veka (S.Pb., 1882), II, 529.Google Scholar
98 ‘Napoleon III i evrope’, Istoriia diplomatii, ed. Potemkin, V. P. (M., 1941), 1, 471.Google Scholar
99 That is not to say that all his concrete proposals met rejection. Alexander and Gorchakov strove valiantly in 1860 and 1861, for example, to achieve the Franco-Prusso-Russian defensive alliance recommended by Kiselev in 1859. See Valsecchi, Franco, ‘European Diplomacy and the Expedition of the Thousand: The Conservative Powers’, A Century of Conflict, ed. Gilbert, Martin (London, 1966), pp. 47–72, esp. pp. 56–8, 65–8.Google Scholar