Profiles in Power

Catherine the Great -Enlightened Ennpress?Simon Henderson places a key figure into the context of modern Russian history.

Catherine in her teens with herfiance Peter Fedorovich. Hebecame Emperor as Peter III in1762 but died later that year, afterCatherine's coup.

Isabel de Madariaga, Catherine'sgreatest biographer, has written,'Since I first took Catherine seriouslyas a ruler, some forty years ago, I havegrown to like her very much,' Yetmany historians have not allowed theEmpress to grow on them. She haselicited strong and passionate

1 4 History Review Match 100 S

COIiUeiniiduuM. l l [b urily luLently that

historians have sought to resurrect herimage, replacing contempt withpraise and understanding.

Catherine and her CriticsMuch of the debate concerningCatherine's reign has revolved around

the relationship between the Empressand the Enlightenment, In 1847 thehistorian Wilhelm Roseler coined theterm 'enlightened absolutism' torefer to the policies followed bycertain European rulers from 1760to 1790, including administrativecentralisation, religious toleration andthe subordination of the church to thestate. The most prominent of thesemonarchs, Frederick II of Prussia,Joseph II of Austria and Catherine II ofRussia, also held an interest in thephilosophy and culture of theEnlightenment, and professed somedegree of commitment to its values.The Empress belongs among theseenlightened absolutists and, whilstshe maintained that the RussianEmpire needed autocratic rule in orderto keep her strong and safe fromexternal threat, she did not believe thisrule had to be despotic.

The 'enlightened', 'republican'image cultivated by Catherine wasquestioned by few in 18th-centuryEurope, Nor was the compatibility ofthis republicanism with absolutemonarchy. The term 'republican' didnot carry the same democraticconnotations as it came to have afterthe French Revolution, Herein lies theheart of the matter, Catherine's idealsand policies were products of the 18thcentury; her pretensions to be'enlightened' were specific to Russia

She was a dynamic, energetic, thoughtful monarch, sometimes generous,sometimes cruel, always vain, always tenacious, but with an unswervingcommitment to modernising Russia.

at that time. Historians who haveconcentrated great effort onscrutinising how closely Catherine'swords matched her actions, how trueshe was to the Enlightenment asexpressed by the ideas of philosopherssuch as Voltaire, Diderot, andMontesquieu, have rather missed thepoint. The Enlightenment was not apolitical manifesto and did not providea blueprint for action, ln fact Diderottold Catherine that 'he did not like totreat serious matters in a systematicway'.

19th-century Russian liberalhistorians, such as Alexander Herzen,accused the Empress of seekingmerely power, not progress or animprovement in social welfare. Theyclaimed that Catherine's professionsof enlightenment were a mere sham,adopted to present an attractivefacade to the West. Soviet historianslabelled her a hypocrite, proclaimingliberal and enlightened ideals on theone hand but practising oppressivedespotism on the other. Her reign wasviewed as a defence of the rulingclass's interest and an oppression ofthe peasantry concealed by aprofession of concern for progress andenlightenment. It is claimed that theEmpress's reign saw the apogee ofserfdom, a stinging indictment for aruler professing to be 'enlightened'.Others have moved away fromcriticising the gap between theprojected image and the policy reality,and argued that in fact her wordswere not particularly 'enlightened' inthe first instance.

Much of this criticism of Catherinebelongs to a period when her majorinternal reforms were viewed from theperspective of liberal, populist orSoviet historians, who were scepticalas to whether any good could haveever come from a Tsar. They were pre-occupied with showing that Catherinewas not an 'enlightened' ruler. Yet,rather than viewing Catherine as ahypocrite and analysing the gapbetween her words and actions fromthe perspective and ideals of adifferent era, with different values and

meanings, we should analyseCatherine's intentions and policiesand the constraints which she faced. Itis to be argued here that Catherinethe Great was indeed distinguished.She was a dynamic, energetic,thoughtful monarch, sometimesgenerous, sometimes cruel, alwaysvain, always tenacious, but with anunswerving commitment tomodernising Russia.

Catherine's CoupBorn in 1729, as Princess Sophia ofAnhalt Zerbst, Catherine was thedaughter of a minor German prince. In1774 she married the grandson ofPeter I. The match was not a goodone, and there were problems fromthe beginning. Peter was a mostdifficult and boonsh man, who oncecourt-martialled a rat caught in hiswife's bedchamber and then executedIt. it is not surprising that Catherinefound comfort in the arms of severallovers, and it is still not knownwhether her son, the future Tsar Paul,was fathered by Peter or SergeySaltykov, Peter III ascended the thronefollowing the death of Elizabeth in1761. He had little of the flair forleadership that wouid be shown by hiswife.

Peter allowed his admiration forPrussian militarism to alienate theGuards Regiment when he snatchedan unfavourable peace from the jawsof victory over Prussia in 1762. Hethen alienated many with his overtdisrespect for the Orthodox Church. Inthe spring of 1762 a whisper ofchange was heard in the corridors ofpower, and, led by the Oriov brothers,Catherine was proclaimed Empressand received the support of a group ofGuards Officers. Peter, absent at thetime of the coup, was arrested on hisreturn and, conveniently, died shortlyafterwards.

This was certainly a murky episode,yet it is characteristic of the politics ofSt Petersburg in the 18th century.Peter the Great's decree in 1722 thatthe Emperor was entitled to name hissuccessor, led to a series of coups

supported by the Guards Regiment.Cathenne was certainty relieved when,in 1764, she heard of theassassination of Ivan VI, who had beendeposed as an infant in 1741. It is notsurprising, given this context, thatCatherine actively cultivated a forcefulimage of power; she needed to deflectattention from her questionablelegitimacy. Yes, the Empress was vain,but she was also very skilful. Hercorrespondence with Voltaire,Diderot, Grimm and others was partof a public relations offensive inEurope. She consciously crafted theimage of an enlightened mother ofRussia. She cruised down the Volga in1767, constructed awe-inspiringcelebrations following victory in warwith the Turks, and emerged fromcrowds in towns on her way to theCrimea in 1787 with rouge coveredcheeks from kissing the bourgeoisladies.

Catherine the Great was a keenstudent of the presentations of power.Her policies were whollyunderstandable and were consistentwith the projection of power in theRussian court. Peter the Great hadused Roman imagery extensivelyduring his reign and replaced Tsar withthe title 'imperator'. She used verydeliberate and powerful symbolism indisplaying a move towards greaterwesternisation, the most visual andstriking example being St Petersburg.Cathenne's accession to power andher deliberate cultivation of apowerful and distinct imagery of rulecan be seen as examples of continuity.In her 1762 coup she trod in thefootsteps of many predecessors,painting herself as the enlightenedmatriarch, just as Peter had been thedynamic westerniser.

Instructing the NobilityGiven this context, Cathenne's GreatInstruction of 1767 emerges moreclearly. !t should be viewed as part ofan attempt by the Empress to cementher power; it was the product of herimpressive reading and literaryexpression, but also a statement of

History Review Match 200S 1 5

This portrait illustrates Catherinewriting the Instruction, in whichshe set out her principles forgoverning Russia.

modernising intent. Deputies were tobe elected to the LegislativeCommission, which would becomposed of over 600 men drawnfrom the nobility, state peasantry andother social groups. The Instructionspells out Catherine's views on thesocial, political, judicial and economicissues in Russia and starts byproclaiming that the nation is aEuropean state. There was certainlyconsiderable vanity and self-indulgence in the Instruction andCatherine's contact with thephilisophes was central to the imageof power which she consciouslyprojected, but her commitment tostudy and to intellectual debate wasgenuine. Unlike Frederick II, Catherinedid her own writing, and she wasprolific. She also encouraged others toread and think. Annual expenditureon books dunng Catherine's reign was80,000 roubles, and she established alibrary for her palace staff. It must be

recognised, therefore, that theInstruction grew out of Catherine'slove of literature, and it wasstylistically indebted to Montesquieu'sL'Esprit des Lois. The Empress had noconcrete plan of action, but she didhave a reforming impulse, and sheloved to read, write and inspiredebate. She was also conscious of theneed to solidify her position bydistancing herself from her deadhusband, by instigating a movetowards her own ideas for reform. Butwhat grew out of this reformingimpulse?

Since at least the 16th century, theconstellation of power in Russiarevolved around the interlockingrelationship between the Tsar, thechurch (until the late seventeenthcentury), the nobility, and thepeasantry. Any attempt at reformwould necessarily be played out withinthis complex socio-political construct,and it is with reference to these powerrelationships that historians havecriticised Catherine most severely. Ithas been argued that after 1762 theRussian monarchy became the virtualprisoner of the nobility. According toRichard Pipes, 'The trappings ofimperial omnipotence served merely

Yes, the Empress wasvain, but she was

also very skilful.

to conceal its desperate weakness' aswell as to camouflage the actualpower wielded by the nobles. Forsome historians, the reign ofCatherine saw both a 'golden age' forthe nobility and, consequently, theapogee of serfdom. It has beenargued that the nobles erased whatthey pleased from Catherine'sInstruction. Certainly the Empress'sadvisors recommended she removesome of her observations on serfdom.In 1907 the suppressed sections ofChapter XI were discovered, andrevealed that Catherine hadsuggested that serfs should be entitledto purchase their freedom, or thatservitude shouid be limited to a penodof six years. Some have interpretedthis omission as early evidence of theEmpress's reliance on the nobility.After all, here was a ruler who hadcome to power largely as a result of aconspiracy headed by leading noblefamilies. Powerful nobles, alreadyrelieved of the obligation to sen/e themonarch by Peter III, were in no moodto surrender their privileged place inthe social order. The Charter of theNobility of 1785 has been seen as averitable 'Bill of Rights' for the nobles,and, coming ten years after theProvincial Reforms, completed thehandover of power in the provinces tothe landed nobility.

Catherine and the SerfsClearly this interpretation of thepower relations in Russia underCatherine did not bode well for thepeasantry. Blum has argued that theEmpress turned over 800,000peasants to private proprietors. The1763 law limiting freedom ofmovement by requiring the peasant toget a permit from the landlord beforehe could leave the property has beencited as evidence that Catherineenserfed peasants in the name offiscal expediency. The state, it isargued, abandoned the peasant tosupervision by the nobility, so that theRussian serf became barelydistinguishable from a chattel slave.The death penalty was meted out by

16 History Review March 2005

Peter was a most difficult and boorish man, whoonce court-martialled a rat caught in his wife's

bedchamber and then executed it.

serf owners under the guise ofpunishment: if the serf was not able towithstand the blows of the lash, thatwas not the master's fault.

Certainly Catherine had to rely onthe nobility to aid her in ruling Russiaand in supervising the provinces. Thiswas especially so following thePugachev revolt of 1773-4. Claimingto be Peter III, Pugachev led the largestupheaval in Russia prior to the 1905and 1917 revolutions, and left a'spectre to haunt future generationsof landlords and officials'. The revoltengulfed the whole basin of themiddle Volga, together with the YaikValley and the southern and centralUrals. The insurgence was part of theconflict between the rise of serfdomand autocracy, but was also a sectionalconflict between the expanding centreand the receding frontier. Certainlythe Pugachev revolt emphasised thesymbiotic relationship betweenCatherine and the nobility. The nobleslooked to Cathenne for protectionagainst the raging rebellion, whilstCatherine declared herself the 'firstlandowner' of Russia and relied on thenobility to keep order.

Those who seek to defendCatherine from her critics cite thePugachev revolt as evidence of thegreat constraints faced by theEmpress, and show the mutualreliance between Catherine and thenobility as reason for her tentativeapproach to social reform. Rather thanseeing her as insincere in her concernfor the peasantry, historians haverecently highlighted what Catherinedid achieve, and what she might haveachieved had circumstances beendifferent. Catherine has been accusedof making grants of settled estates asrewards to servitors or favourites, thusconverting many state peasants intoprivate serfs. In fact, her land grantswere from territories annexed fromPoland after the three partitions, andshe made very few grants fromRussian state peasants-

Catherine was well aware of, andcriticised, the harsh conditions facedby serfs. Throughout her reign the

Empress eroded the methods bywhich people could be enserfed(though the extension of the poll taxto the Ukraine in 1783 did result in theexpansion of serfdom). Catherine'smemoirs show her deep concern overthe treatment of the serfs and herdisappointment at the lack of supporther initiatives received at theLegislative Commission. In 1767 it wasforbidden for foster parents to enserfillegitimate children. In 1781enserfment of prisoners of war wasprohibited and a law passed that sawmarriage of a free man to a serfwoman emancipate the woman.Catherine is known to haveinvestigated and then bought outlandowners who were reported to ill-treat their serfs. Furthermore, taken asa percentage of the population, theproportion of the peasantry that wereserfs remained the same between thebeginning and end of her reign, andthe number of legally free statepeasants increased.

Crossroads of ChangeIn terms of the socio-politicaldevelopment of Russia, Catherine'sreign is a crossroads of change. Fromthe vantage point of CatherinianRussia we can look back to thesolidification of the service state, andforward to the nse of the bureaucracy.The reign of the Empress both saw theapogee of serfdom and set in motionthe process that led to its destruction.

Following the Pugachev revolt,Catherine set about reforming theprovinces. The provincial reforms of1775 were a calculated attempt tobring greater co-ordination andefficiency to the Russian provinces. Bysetting up local councils andassemblies and giving nobles whoserved the state a place in them,Catherine bound the nobility to eachother and the state. In some respectsthe 1762 decision by Peter III toabolish compulsory state service sawthe state emancipating itself from thenobility. The local assemblies ensuredthe nobles served a useful purposerather than loafing around in the

countryside. Catherine attempted tobring the rule of law to the provinces,with boards of welfare and education,courts and police offices that werepartly staffed by elected members ofthe local nobility and urbanpopulation. Of course, much of theday-to-day administration of theprovinces was left to the nobility, andtheir own interpretations ofCatherine's edicts. However, therewas a tentative move towards thecreation of an educated bureaucracy.

The Empress herself worried aboutthe lack of competent officials, butsome did exist, and they brought newideas of legality to the provinces.Catherine therefore was keen tofoster greater education. Not only didshe love literature, she was a greatsponsor of the theatre and collector ofart. She moved to bring greatereducation to her people. In 1786 theRussian Statute of National Educationwas promulgated and attempted toset up a national school system.Catherine was ahead of her time indecreeing that corporal punishmentwas not to be used in the schools,though brutality to childrencontinued. Importing an Austriansystem implemented by Jankovic, shedid choose a school structure whichwas non-disruptive to empire and builton authority. However, by thestandards of the 1780s Russianschools were undeniably modern andadvanced when compared with therest of Europe. Catherine was also thefounder of the first girls' school inRussia, for the daughters of thenobility and bourgeoisie. Catherinewas, therefore, responsible for theemergence of a provincialgovernment structure committed toefficiency and the rule of law, whichwas cemented by the genesis of a neweducation system. These reforms hada slow but significant impact uponsocio-political relations in Russia.

What we see in the reign ofCatherine is the beginning of thecrumbling of the Petrine state, aprocess which was accelerated in thefirst half of the 19th century. In the

History Review Murth 200S 17

The Empress had no concrete plan of action, but she did have areforming impulse, and she loved to read, write and inspire debate.

Catherinian period, and after, thenobles' importance to the stateinfrastructure was declining, and anever more powerful bureaucracyachieved dominance. In 1861 the serfswere emancipated. Theprofessionalised, 'enlightened'bureaucrats were the dnving forcebehind emancipation; the role ofAlexander )l was to give them theirhead, by denying serfdom a stay ofexecution. When we look beyond thedistraction of weighing up howgenuine Catherine was in herapproach to the relationship betweenlord and peasant, we see a moresubtle phenomenon emerging. TheEmpress' reign was witness to thecrossroads of a significant shift in thisrelationship, as the Petrine statebegan to dissolve-

Again, in foreign relations, we canlocate the Catherinian era on a line of

continuity and gradual change forRussia. The Empress herself played anactive role in foreign affairs, just as shedid in ali other spheres of government.Indeed, despite reliance on a closegroup of advisers, she insisted onseeing every dispatch- Furthermore,the impressive image of authority thatCatherine projected made amemorable and significant impact onvisiting foreign envoys. She furtheredthe extent to which Russia wasinvolved in European affairs, and rivalswere increasingly unable to deny thisinfluence. Even the French eventuallyaccepted Cathenne's imperial titie in1772,

The Empress operated within thetraditional constraints of foreignrelations, attempting to protectRussia's interests in the Baltic, Polandand the Crimea- Intervention in Polandin 1768 led to war with the Turks, and

the peace of Kuchuk Kainardzhi of1774 brought with it not only thesuccess of the independence ofCrimea but further Austrian andPrussian interference in Poland.

It is in her dealings with Poland andin her response to the FrenchRevolution that many histonans havecriticised Catherine, Those who wishto show the limits of Catherine's'enlightened' stance point to hercondemnation of the FrenchRevolution and to the partitions ofPoland, It is worth stating, however,that Russia was the last of theEuropean powers to go to war withFrance, While the other powers wereindeed fighting the French(unsuccessfully at this point) Catherineattempted to take advantage inPoland, By 1795, the year before herdeath, the third partition of Polandhad been concluded, Catherinestrengthened Russia's position at theexpense of her traditional enemies,profiting in Poland whilst the Westernpowers played out their rivalries -rivalries which Catherine kept Russiaout of.

ConclusionWith the issue of Poland, we return towhere we began, with the assessmentof Catherine's great biographer. DeMadariaga states that she finds thetreatment of Poland and StanislasPoniatowski unforgivable, 'Thedestruction of Poland was carried outwith ruthlessnessand an undercurrentof raillery which is extremelyunpleasant and Catherine's bullyingof Stanislas himself was downrightcruel.'

The Cake of Kings': this cartoonillustrates the plans being cookedup by Catherine and the monarchsof Austria (Joseph II) and Prussia(Frederick II) to partition Poland in1772.

1 8 History Review March 2005

From the Catherinian era we can look back to the Petrine state andforward to its crumbling at the onslaught of bureaucratisation - andwhat is most interesting is the role played by Catherine in this process.

Yet what seems 'enlightened' inone epoch may not in another, andquestions of how 'enlightened'Catherine was are futile, Catherineherself believed that politics wasfounded on three words:'circumstance, conjecture andconjuncture'. It has been arguedabove that we must see Catherinepnmarily in the context ofdevelopments in Russian history in the18th and 19th centuries. Herpatronage of the arts and sponsorshipof education saw a continuing processof westernisation, and her relationshipwith the nobility saw the accelerationof the unravelling of the service state.From the Catherinian era we can lookback to the Petnne state and forwardto its crumbling at the onslaught ofbureaucratisation - and what is mostinteresting is the role played byCatherine in this process.

Further ReadingJ, Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia(Princeton University Press, 1961)S, Dixon, Catherine the Great(Longman, 2001)A, Lentin, Enlightened Absolutism,1760-1790 {A\/em, 1985)I- de Madariaga, 'Catherine the Great -A Personal View,' History Today.51(11) (November 2001) andCatherine the Great: A Short History(Yale University Press, 2nd edn, 2002)M- Raeff (ed,) Catherine the Great - AProffle (Macmillan, 1972}R. Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime(Penguin, 2nd edn,, 1995)

Issues to Debateo Was Catherine the Great's'enlightenment' a sham?o What roles did the nobility playduring Catherine's rule?o How important a figure wasCathenne the Great in modernRussian history?

Simon Henderson teacheshistory at TeesdaleComprehensive School inBarnard Castle, Co. Durham. Hewon the Guardian Award forOutstanding New Teacher inthe North East and Cumbria in2003.

A portrait of an ageing Catherinethe Great. She died in 1796, at theage of 67.

HistoryReview March 2005 1 9