7. Peter I and Russian culture: reforms 1689-1725

Westernisation in 17th-century Russia

Key idea: Westernisation began before Peter and was state-driven.

• Directed from above, largely due to military pressures and war

• Foreign officers introduced new model regiments

• Orthodox Church resisted Western influence (linked it to Catholic/Protestant ideas)

• Result: tension between tradition and Western practices

• Some “hidden westernisation” already existed (icon painting styles, church architecture)

Peter’s reforms created visible Westernisation in the capital and elite culture, but much of Russia remained traditional.

peter the great and cultural transformation

• Traditionally seen as transforming Russia politically and culturally

• Debate:

  • Did he transform all of Russia?

  • Or mainly the capital and elites?

Saint Petersburg

Purpose of the city

• Called “Russia’s window to the West”

• Built because Moscow was inland, disorganised, and lacked sea access

• Demonstrated naval power and modernisation

• Strategically located near Sweden during the Great Northern War

• Moscow became secondary capital

building st petersburg

• Peter personally supervised construction

• Nobles were forced to relocate from Moscow

• City built on marshland and harsh climate

• Symbolised Russia’s shift toward Europe

Important note:
The city was not built on empty land — Swedish forts and settlements already existed.

architecture and western influence

Key buildings in the new capital:

• Peter and Paul Fortress – the military centre of the city

• Peterhof Palace – modelled on Versailles

• Buildings designed by Domenico Trezzini

Influences:

• Dutch architecture

• French military design

• Symbol of state power and modernisation

However, modernisation was mostly limited to St Petersburg.

Cultural change in art and sculpture

Traditional Muscovite art:

• Religious focus (icons, saints)

• No nudity

• Little stone sculpture

In St Petersburg:

• Classical sculptures with nudity

• Equestrian statues of Peter

• Boyars exposed to Western cultural norms (e.g., strolling in public gardens)

peters image in art

Portraits portrayed him as a Western monarch:

• Shaven face

• European armour and crown

• Warships in background (naval power)

• Movement and realism (unlike traditional parsuna portraits)

Little religious symbolism → emphasised secular authority.

media and propaganda circulating through Peter I reign

New media promoted Peter’s reforms:

• Prints and engravings widely distributed

• Early newspapers reported military victories and diplomacy

• Influenced by Polish flysheets

• Purpose: celebrate state power and modernisation

cultural westernisation of Elite society

Alexei Zubov wedding paintings

• Show mixed-gender gatherings

• Western clothing

• Palace interiors unlike traditional Muscovite homes

Shows elite cultural transformation.

Portrait of Peter the Great – Hard vs Soft Power

Hard Power (military image):

• Shown with weapons and armour, referencing classical warrior traditions (e.g. Spartans).

• Battle scene in background highlights military success, especially victory over Sweden in the Great Northern War.

• Not depicted on horseback → reflects modern warfare using guns and artillery, distancing Russia from “old eastern cavalry” imagery.

• Blue sash of chivalry reflects Western honour traditions (similar to France/England), signalling Russia adopting European elite military culture.

Soft Power (political messaging):

• Westernised appearance: clean-shaven, little religious imagery.

• Portrays Peter as a modern European monarch, not a “barbaric eastern ruler.”

• Painted in Western Europe and likely circulated among foreign courts and diplomats.

• Sends a diplomatic message: Russia is a powerful, modern state open to alliances, trade, and technological exchange.

The portrait functions as propaganda, presenting Peter as both a military conqueror and a Europeanised ruler, legitimising Russia’s rise as a major European power.

How does Richard Wortman interpret Peter I’s transformation of tsarist power and Russian culture?

Wortman argues that Peter the Great transformed the symbolic representation of Russian monarchy by adopting the imagery of Western absolutism.

Peter abandoned the humble, sacred image of the traditional Muscovite tsar and instead portrayed himself as a heroic ruler and state founder. He drew on classical and European models, frequently comparing himself to Julius Caesar, and presenting himself as a ruler who created a new Russia.

Court ceremonies and imagery reinforced this shift:

• Western-style triumphal entries and military displays resembling those of Louis XIV and other European monarchs.

• Allegorical artwork portraying Peter as Mars or a god-like figure.

• The 1722 succession law giving the tsar full authority to choose his successor.

Wortman argues these changes helped create a new absolutist political culture, where the ruler was portrayed as the father and creator of the state, rather than simply the divinely ordained Orthodox monarch of Muscovite tradition.

How does Ernest Zitser interpret Peter I’s court ceremonies?

Zitser argues that Peter used court ceremonies and visual propaganda to legitimise his radical political and social changes.

Artworks such as engravings by Alexei Zubov depicted ceremonies in ways that celebrated the tsar’s power to reshape society. For example, the representation of Peter’s marriage to Catherine I of Russia portrayed the court as a “Russian Round Table”, symbolising a modern European-style monarchy.

These images presented Peter and his court as knights and aristocrats in a new political order, while legitimising controversial acts such as the elevation of Catherine (a woman of low birth) and the legitimisation of her children.

Zitser therefore argues that ceremonial imagery functioned as political theatre, visually reinforcing Peter’s authority to “turn the world upside down” and create a new elite and social hierarchy.

How does Andreas Schönle interpret Peter I’s cultural reforms?

Schönle argues that Peter used symbolic reforms, especially calendar changes and public celebrations, to reshape political culture and reduce the authority of the Orthodox Church.

Before 1700, Russia used the Byzantine calendar, which began in September. Peter introduced a new calendar starting in January, aligning Russia symbolically with Europe.

New public celebrations, including fireworks, bonfires, and military displays, accompanied the reform. These celebrations emphasised the tsar’s authority rather than religious ritual, and traditional ceremonies such as the patriarch blessing the tsar were removed.

However, Schönle notes that the reform was partly symbolic and imperfectly European. Russia adopted the Julian calendar rather than the Gregorian calendar, which eventually left Russia isolated from most European states.

Schönle concludes that Peter’s reforms redefined political authority by presenting the tsar as the organiser of public life and culture, while gradually subordinating the church to the state.