Catherine the Great & Potemkin

by Simon Sebag Montefiore

  * * *

  —

  Grigory Potemkin’s immediate world for his first six or so years was to be his father’s village. Chizhova stood on the River Chivo, a stream that cut a small, steep, muddy gully through the broad flat lands. It was several hours’ journey from Smolensk, whence Moscow was a further 350 versts. St Petersburg was 837 versts away. In summer, it could be baking hot there, but its flatness meant that the winters were cruel, the winds biting. The countryside was beautiful, rich and green. It was and still is a wild, open land and a refreshing and exciting place for a child.

  In many ways, this village was a microcosm of Russian society: there were two essential facts of Russian statehood at that time. The first was the Empire’s perpetual, elemental instinct to expand its borders in every possible direction: Chizhova stood on its restless western borderland. The second was the dichotomy of nobility and serfdom. Potemkin’s home village was divided into these two halves, which it is still possible to see, even though the village scarcely exists today.

  On a slight rise above the stream, Potemkin’s first home was a modest, one-storey wooden manorhouse, with a handsome façade. It could not have been in greater contrast to the houses of rich magnates higher up the social scale. For example, later in the century, Count Kirill Razumovsky’s estate, further to the south in the Ukraine, ‘resembled more a little town than a country house…with 40 or 50 outhouses…his guard, a numerous train of retainers, and a large band of musicians’.10 In Chizhova, the only outhouse around the manor was probably the bathhouse where Grigory was born, which would have stood right above the stream and its well. This banya was an integral part of Russian life. Country folk of both sexes bathed together,*3 which was very shocking to a visiting French schoolmaster since ‘persons of all ages and both sexes use them together and the habit of seeing everything unveiled from an early age deadens the senses’.11 For Russians, the banya was a cosy, sociable and relaxing extension of the home.

  Apart from the problems of his parents’ marriage, this was probably a happy, if unsophisticated, environment to grow up in. We have one account of a boy of the lower nobility growing up in Smolensk Province: though born thirty years later, Lev Nikolaevich Engelhardt was Potemkin’s kinsman, who recorded the probably unchanged life in a nearby village. He was allowed to run around in a peasant shirt and bare feet: ‘Physically my education resembled the system outlined by Rousseau – the Noble Savage. But I know that my grandmother was not only ignorant of that work but had a very uncertain acquaintance with Russian grammar itself.’12 Another memoirist, also related to Potemkin, recalled: ‘The richest local landowner possessed only 1,000 souls,’ and ‘he had…one set of silver spoons which he set out before the more important guests, leaving the others to manage with spoons of pewter’.13

  Grigory or Grisha, as he was known, was the heir to the village and he was, apart from his old father, the only man in a family of women – five sisters and his mother. He was presumably the centre of attention and this family atmosphere must have set the tone for his character, because he was to remain the cynosure of all eyes for the rest of his life. Throughout his career, he described himself as ‘Fortune’s spoilt child’. He had to stand out and dominate. The household of women made him absolutely relaxed in female company. In manhood, his closest friends were women – and his career depended on his handling of one in particular. This rough household enlivened by the bustle of female petticoats could not last. Most of his sisters soon married respectably into the cousinhood of Smolensk gentry (except for Nadezhda, who died at nineteen). In particular, the marriages of Elena Marfa to Vasily Engelhardt and Maria to Nikolai Samoilov were to produce nieces and nephews who were to play important roles in Potemkin’s life.14

  Service to the state was the sole profession of a Russian noble. Born into the military household of an officer who had served with Peter at Poltava, Grisha would have been brought up to understand that his duty and his path to success could be found only in serving the Empire. His father’s exploits were probably the hinterland of the boy’s imagination. The honour of a uniform was everything in Russia, particularly for the provincial gentry. In 1721, Peter the Great had laid down a Table of Ranks to establish the hierarchy within the military, civil and court services. Any man who reached the fourteenth military or the eighth civil rank was automatically raised to hereditary nobility – dvoryanstvo – but Peter also imposed compulsory life service on all noblemen. By the time of Potemkin’s birth, the nobility had whittled down this humiliating obligation, but service remained the path to fortune. Potemkin showed an interest in the priesthood. He was descended from a seventeenth-century archimandrite and his father sent him to an ecclesiastical school in Smolensk. But he was always destined for the colours.15

  Right beneath the house, beside the stream, was the well, still named after Catherine today. Legend says Potemkin brought the Empress there to show her his birthplace. It is likely that as a child he himself drew water from it, for the lives of middling gentry were better than those of their well-off serfs but not much. Potemkin was probably farmed out at birth to a serf wet-nurse in the village, but, whether literally or not, this prototype of the ‘Noble Savage’ was raised on the milk of the Russian countryside. He would have been brought up as much by serf women as by his mother and sisters; the music he heard would have been the soulful laments that the serfs sang at night and at festival time. The dances he knew would have been the boisterous and graceful peasant gigs far more than the cotillions danced at the balls of local landowners. He would have known the village soothsayer as well as the priest. He was just as at home beside the warm, smelly hearths of the peasant houses – steamy with kasha, the buckwheat porridge, shchi, the spicy cabbage broth, and kvass, the yellow sour beer they drank alongside vodka and berry wine – as he was in the manor. Tradition tells us the boy lived simply. He played with the priest’s children, grazed horses with them and gathered hay with the serfs.16

  Chizhova’s little Orthodox Church of Our Lady stood (and its ruined successor building remains) on the serfs’ side of the village: Potemkin spent much of his time there. The serfs themselves were devout: each, ‘besides the consecrated amulet round his neck from baptism, carries a little figure of his…patron saint, stamped on copper. Soldiers and peasants often take it out of their pockets, spit on it and rub it…then place it opposite to them and, on a sudden, prostrate themselves…’.17 When a peasant entered a house, it was usual for him to demand where ‘the God’ was and then cross himself before the icon.

  Potemkin grew up with a peasant’s mixture of piety and superstition: he was baptized at the village church. Many landowners could afford a foreign tutor for their children, preferably French or German – or sometimes an aged Swedish prisoner-of-war, captured in the Great Northern War, like the poor landowning family in Pushkin’s novella, The Captain’s Daughter. But the Potemkins did not even have this. It is said that the local priest, Semen Karzev, and sexton, Timofei Krasnopevzev, taught him alphabet and prayers, which were to spark a lifelong fascination with religion. Grisha learned to sing and to love music, another feature of his adult life: Prince Potemkin was never without his orchestra and a pile of new orchestral scores. There was a legend that, decades later, one of these village sages visited St Petersburg and, hearing that his pupil was now the most important man at Court, called on the Prince, who received him warmly and found him a job as curator of the Bronze Horseman, Falconet’s statue of Peter the Great.18

  The 430 male serfs and their families lived around the church on the other side of the village. Serfs, or ‘souls’ as they were called, were valued according to the number of males. The wealth of a nobleman was measured not in cash or acres but in souls. Out of a population of nineteen million, there were about 50,000 male nobles and 7.8 million serfs. Half of these were manorial peasants, owned by the individual nobles or the imperial family, while the other half were state peasants owned by the state itself. Only no
blemen could legally own serfs, yet a mere one per cent of the nobles owned more than a thousand souls. The households of great noblemen, who might own hundreds of thousands of serfs, were to reach a luxurious and picturesque climax in Catherine’s reign when they owned serf orchestras and serf painters of exquisite icons and portraits: Count Sheremetev, the wealthiest serfowner in Russia, owned a serf theatre with a repertoire of forty operas. Prince Yusupov’s ballet was to boast hundreds of serf ballerinas. Count Skavronsky (a kinsman of Catherine I who married one of Potemkin’s nieces) was so obsessed with music that he banned his serfs from speaking: they had to sing in recitative.19 These cases were rare: 82 per cent of nobles were as poor as church mice, owning fewer than a hundred souls. The Potemkins were middling – part of 15 per cent who owned between 101 and 500.20

  Chizhova’s serfs were the absolute possessions of Colonel Potemkin. Contemporary French writers used the word ‘esclaves’ – slaves – to describe them. They had much in common with the black slaves of the New World, except that they were the same race as their masters. There was irony in serfdom, for while the serfs in Russia at the time of Potemkin’s birth were chattels at the bottom of the pyramid of society, they were also the basic resource of the state’s and the nobles’ power. They formed the Russian infantry when the state raised an army by forced levées. Landowners despatched the selected unfortunates for a lifetime of service. The serfs paid the taxes that the Russian emperors used to finance their armies. Yet they were also the heart of a nobleman’s wealth. Emperor and nobility competed to control them – and squeeze as much out of them as possible.

  Souls were usually inherited, but they could also be granted to favourites by grateful emperors or bought as a result of advertisements in newspapers like today’s used cars. For example, in 1760, Prince Mikhail Shcherbatov, later a critic of Potemkin’s morals, sold three girls to another nobleman for three roubles. Yet the masters often took pride in their paternalist care for their serfs. ‘The very circumstance of their persons being property ensures them the indulgence of their masters.’21 Count Kirill Razumovsky’s household contained over 300 domestic servants, all serfs of course (except the French chef and probably a French or German tutor for his sons), including a master of ceremonies, a chief valet de chambre, two dwarfs, four hairdressers, two coffee-servers and so on. ‘Uncle,’ said his niece, ‘it seems to me you have a lot of servants you could well do without.’ ‘Quite so,’ replied Razumovsky, ‘but they could not do without me.’22

  Sometimes the serfs loved their masters: when the Grand Chamberlain Count Shuvalov was obliged to sell an estate 300 versts from Petersburg, he was awakened one morning by a rumpus in his courtyard in the capital. A crowd of his serfs, who had travelled all the way from the countryside, were gathered there. ‘We were very content under your authority and do not wish to lose so good a master,’ they declared. ‘So with each of us paying…we have come to bring you the sum you need to buy back the estate.’ The Count embraced his serfs like children.23 When the master approached, an Englishman noted, the serfs bowed almost to the ground; when an empress visited remote areas, a French diplomat recorded that they made obeisance on their knees.24 A landowner’s serfs were his labour force, bank balance, sometimes his harem and completely his responsibility. Yet he always lived with the fear that they might arise and murder him in his manorhouse. Peasant risings were common.

  Most owners were relatively humane to their serfs, but only a tiny minority could conceive that slavery was not the serf’s natural state. If serfs fled, masters could recover them by force. Serf-hunters earned bounties for this grim chore. Even the most rational landowners regularly punished their serfs, often using the knout, the thick Russian leather whip, but they were certainly not permitted to execute them. ‘Punishments ought to be inflicted on peasants, servants and all others in consideration of their offence with switches,’ wrote Prince Shcherbatov in his instructions to his stewards in 1758. ‘Proceed cautiously so as not to commit murder or maim. So therefore do not beat on the head or legs or arms with a club. But when such a punishment occurs that calls for a club, then order him to bend down and beat on the back, or better lash with switches on the back and lower down for the punishment will be more painful, but the peasant will not be maimed.’

  The system allowed plenty of scope for abuse. Catherine in her Memoirs recalled that most households in Moscow contained ‘iron collars, chains and other instruments of torture for those who commit the slightest infraction’. The bedchamber of one old noblewoman, for example, contained ‘a sort of dark cage in which she kept a slave who dressed her hair; the chief motive…was the wish of the old baggage to conceal from the world that she wore false hair…’.25

  The absolute power of the landowner over serfs sometimes concealed Bluebeardish tortures: the worst of these were perpetrated by a female landowner, though perhaps it was only because she was a woman that anyone complained. Certainly the authorities covered up for her for a long time and this was not in some distant province, but in Moscow itself. Daria Nikolaevna Saltykova, aged twenty-five and known as ‘the maneater’ – liudoed – was a monstress who took a sadistic pleasure in torturing hundreds of her serfs, beating them with logs and rolling pins. She killed 138 female serfs, supposedly concentrating on their genitals. When she was finally arrested early in Catherine’s reign, the Empress, who depended on noble support, had to punish the maneater carefully. She could not be executed, because the Empress Elisabeth had abolished the death penalty in 1754 (except for treason), so Saltykova was chained to the scaffold in Moscow for one hour with a placard round her neck reading ‘torturer and murderer’. The whole town turned out to look at her: serial killers were rare at that time. The maneater was then confined for life in a subterranean prison–monastery. Her cruelty was the exception, not the rule.26

  This was Grisha Potemkin’s world and the essence of life in the Russian countryside. He never lost the habits of Chizhova. One can imagine him running through hay-strewn pastures with the serf children, chewing on a turnip or a radish – as he was to do later in life in the apartments of the Empress. It was not surprising that, in the refined Voltairean Court of St Petersburg, he was always regarded as a quintessential child of Russia’s soil.

  In 1746, this idyll ended when his father died aged seventy-four. The six-year-old Grisha Potemkin inherited the village and its serfs, but it was a paltry inheritance. His mother, widowed for the second time at forty-two, with six children to rear, could not make ends meet in Chizhova. The adult Grigory would behave with the heedless extravagance of those who remember financial straits – but it was never grinding poverty. He later granted the village to his sister Elena and her husband Vasily Engelhardt. They built a mansion on the site of the wooden manorhouse and an exquisite church on the serf side of the village to the glory of Serenissimus, the family’s famous son.27

  Daria Potemkina was ambitious. Grigory was not going to make a career in that remote hamlet, buried like a needle in the sprawling haystack of Russia. She did not have connections in the new capital, St Petersburg, but she did in the old. Soon the family were on the road to Moscow.*4

  * * *

  —

  Grisha Potemkin’s first glimpse of the old capital would have been its steeples. Deep in the midst of the Russian Empire, Moscow was the fulcrum of everything opposed to St Petersburg, Peter the Great’s new capital. If the Venice of the North was a window on to Europe, Moscow was a trapdoor into the recesses of Russia’s ancient and xenophobic traditions. Its grim and solemn Russian grandeur alarmed narrow-minded Westerners: ‘What is particularly gaudy and ugly at Moscow are the steeples,’ wrote an Englishwoman arriving there, ‘square lumps of different coloured bricks and gilt spire…they make a very Gothic appearance.’ Indeed, though it was built around the forbidding medieval fortress, the Kremlin, and the bright onion-domes of St Basil’s, all its twisting, cramped and dark alleys and courtyards were as obscure as the superstitions
of old Orthodoxy. Westerners thought it barely resembled a Western city at all. ‘I cannot say Moscow gives me any idea other than of a large village or many villages joined.’ Another visitor, looking at the noble châteaux and the thatched cottages, thought the city seemed to have been ‘rolled together on coasters’.28

  Potemkin’s godfather (and possibly natural father) Kizlovsky, retired President of the Kamer-Collegium, the Moscow officer of the ministry in charge of the Court (Petrine ministries were called Collegia or Colleges), took the family under his protection and helped Daria, whether his mistress or just his protégé, move into a small house on Nikitskaya Street. Grisha Potemkin was enrolled in the gymnasium school attached to the university with Kizlovsky’s own son, Sergei.

  Potemkin’s intelligence was recognized early; he had a brilliant ear for languages, so he soon excelled at Greek, Latin, Russian, German and French as well as passing Polish, and it was said later that he could understand Italian and English. His first fascination was Orthodoxy: even as a child, he would discuss the liturgy with the Bishop of the Greek convent, Dorofei. The priest of the Church of St Nikolai encouraged his knowledge of church ceremonies. Grisha’s remarkable memory, which would be noted later, enabled him to learn long tracts of Greek liturgy by heart. Judging by his knowledge and memory as an adult, he found learning perhaps too easy and concentration tedious. He bored quickly and feared no one: he was already well known for his epigrams and his mimicry of his teachers. Yet he somehow befriended the high-ranking clergyman Ambrosius Zertis-Kamensky, later Archbishop of Moscow.29