The “invisible hand” that guided Catherine in her letter to Hanbury-Williams in 1756 was history, or history as she had read it, especially as the philosophes understood and wrote the history of rulers. These rulers, and the histories of them, served Catherine as models for thinking about her own life and her memoirs as history. In 1762, in her first letter to d’Alembert, Catherine acknowledges his refusal to be her son’s tutor and compares herself to Queen Christina of Sweden (1626–89, reigned 1632–54). 61 Catherine had read and annotated d’Alembert’s Mémoires et réflexions sur Christine, reine de Suède (1753), which presents a model life for a woman ruler that attracted and challenged Catherine. One of the most noted learned women of Europe, Christina corresponded with the philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650) and invited him to Sweden. Doubtless, Count Gyllenborg had Christina in mind as he advised Catherine on her education. D’Alembert argues that despite Christina’s abdication in 1654, her life is worthy, “not in her reckless love of glory and conquests, but in the grandeur of her soul, in her talent for rule, in the knowledge of men, in the expansiveness of her views, and in her enlightened taste for the sciences and arts.”62 Like d’Alembert, Voltaire emphasizes the individual and culture in his histories of great rulers—Henry IV (1553–1610), Louis XIV (1638–1715), Charles XII (1682–1718) of Sweden, and Peter the Great—and their contributions to the overall progress of mankind. Under Louis XIV, Voltaire connects the flowering of the arts and humanities with his rule and with the prominence of educated women in French society.
While Catherine purposefully and selectively published many of her writings during her lifetime, the continuous stream of the whole of her writing, including her unpublished memoirs, served the still larger purpose of the future professional history of her reign. When Catherine thanks Voltaire for The History of the Russian Empire Under Peter the Great, commissioned by Shuvalov in 1757, she discusses the business of writing history. 63 She writes that had she been Empress when he was writing, she would have given him “many other memoirs,” and that she is collecting Peter’s papers and letters, “in which he paints a picture of himself,” for publication.64 Catherine proposed materials to Voltaire for him to write Le Siècle de Catherine II.65 Catherine’s handwriting, in documents described as in “her own hand” and “written by herself,” does more than ascertain authorship; it is fundamental to her overall historical project. Like Peter’s letters, about which Catherine uses Horace’s metaphor from the Ars Poetica for writing as painting, these writings would create her self-portrait as an individual and a ruler. From the very beginning of her reign, Catherine actively supported the collection and publication of Russian historical documents, and similarly thought about the future of her own papers.
Central to the mutual interests of Catherine and the philosophes were the mind and character of Catherine, precisely the declared subject of her final memoir in its opening maxim. This memoir in particular is therefore an Enlightenment document that reflects Catherine’s nature as a ruler through her evaluations of Peter III and Elizabeth, and through her own actions as Grand Duchess. In his history of Peter the Great, Voltaire saw evidence for the tremendous difference one ruler could make in a nation as a lesson in reform for Europe. Despite disagreements among the philosophes about the dangers of a strong monarch, which was a necessary evil in their programs for reform, Catherine captured their imagination as a “great man” of her age, who might in their lifetime inscribe an enlightened government on the tabula rasa of the Russian state.66 She read their works, and could bring to life their ideas—for rational, secular government and for natural laws, inalienable rights, and a social contract. She promoted Russia and herself shamelessly, but only Diderot accepted her invitation to visit Russia in 1773–74, and he left disillusioned, as Catherine later read in his posthumous memoirs.67 Her famous response to his theories was that rulers must “work on human skin.” 68 More successful was her extensive correspondence with Diderot’s friend Grimm, who was in St. Petersburg in 1773; after many conversations, they began a relatively informal, wide-ranging exchange that lasted until her death. Her letters contain her responses to his biweekly newsletter, Literary Correspondence (1753–90), with new works and French news that was sent to fifteen royal subscribers, who like Catherine (who subscribed in 1764) were heads of state and nobles in central and eastern Europe. The French Revolution brought an end to Grimm’s newsletter and to Catherine’s support for the philosophes, whose radical ideas she held responsible for attacks on monarchy, and she banned their books. She of course disappointed them by not living up to their ideals. Yet, just as she balanced their theories with the exigencies of rule, the philosophes also made compromises to have the ear and generous support of one of Europe’s most powerful rulers.
In practice, during her thirty-four-year reign, Catherine maintained absolute rule as she consolidated control over Russia’s administration and vast lands by organizing them in a consistent manner. Although the memoirs take place before her reign, Catherine nevertheless carefully projects the ability and reasonable behavior necessary for an enlightened, absolute Russian ruler. She institutionalized Peter the Great’s reforms, thus building a solid foundation for the Russia of the next two centuries. She continued his, Elizabeth’s, and Peter III’s secularization of Russia by subordinating the Orthodox Church’s land and serfs to the state, in a decree she first published abroad in French (1764). Like her predecessors, Catherine attempted long-overdue legal reforms, including the codification of existing laws and the establishment of legal training, through the elected Legislative Commission (1767–68), a consultative process that allowed her to consolidate her position but also cost Catherine her ambition to undo serfdom.
Relations with her advisers and the nobility were central to her hold on power, and Peter III and the coup had raised their expectations. Catherine’s reign has been referred to as “the golden age of the Russian nobility,” and her memoirs indicate her willingness to please those upon whom she depended.69 In particular, Peter III had freed the nobility from compulsory service to the state (1762), which Catherine agreed to only when she reorganized the nobility into a more independent, privileged body (1785). At the same time, Catherine used the nobility to institute a system of local administrative control over extensive, sparsely populated territory (1775). This problem became especially urgent after the plague in Moscow (1770–72) that killed 120,000, and which together with Pugachev’s armed uprisings (1773–74) in the southern borderlands reaching up to Kazan challenged her authority. In this period she wrote her second memoir, of which parts 1 and 2 begin with cheerful dedications to friends. With much the same deceptively light tone, she wrote many letters to Voltaire concerning these problems, and in 1772 she wrote her first plays, five social comedies, beginning with O These Times!, where only the title hints at the situation in Moscow, where the play is set.
To implement her administrative reforms of the 1770s and 1780s and create more qualified civil servants and useful citizens, Catherine, with Ivan Betskoi (1704–95), promoted universal general education. They published the General Plan for the Education of Young People of Both Sexes (1764) abroad in French with Diderot’s help, and the Statute of National Schools (1786). Her own pedagogical writings for young people included a Russian primer for reading, which was a bestseller and the first Russian work translated into English (1781); the first Russian children’s literature, written for her grandsons, translated into German, French, and English (1781, 1783), one tale of which she then made into an opera (Fevei, 1786); a collection of Russian proverbs (many of which she composed) for children (1783); her Notes Concerning Russian History (1783–84); and her Instruction to Prince Saltykov on educating her grandsons (1784). 70
Catherine inherited a country exhausted by the Seven Years’ War against Prussia (1756–63), which forms the background to the conclusion of her final memoir. She took control of foreign policy from the outset of her reign, dispensing with a chancellor for foreign affairs, and
built on Peter the Great’s military legacy. She centralized the financial administration, which allowed for budgetary planning and a national debt to pay for the costs of wars. In pursuit of a Prussophile foreign policy, Peter III had ended the war by ceding Russia’s gains back to Prussia, which Catherine used against him to justify her coup; nevertheless, she then maintained the alliance. Russia won new territories in two wars with Turkey (1768–74 and 1787–91), which, after her victory over Prussia in the Seven Years’ War, cemented her reputation in Europe as a major power. Russia had long guarded itself in the north through alliances first with Austria (1746), then briefly with France while fighting Prussia (1756), and then with Prussia (1764), in the so-called Northern Alliance. But southern acquisitions played into Catherine’s wish to regain Constantinople from Islam for Eastern Christianity, and she turned again secretly to Austria (1781).
The last expansion of Russia on this scope had happened in the sixteenth century, under the first Czar, Ivan IV, “the Terrible” (1530–84). Catherine expanded the Russian Empire to the south, adding Walachia and Moldavia (1770–74), and the Crimea (1783) and other lands north of the Black Sea, where she continued Peter the Great’s priority of building a naval fleet. As part of the spoils of war, Catherine shared out Poland in three successive partitions (1772, 1793, 1795), and the rest of Ukraine, White Russia, and Lithuania. Catherine handed out conquered lands with serfs as rewards and she encouraged immigration because she believed that agriculture and an adequate farming population formed the basis of a successful economy. When she died, in 1796, her armies were poised to take over Georgia and Armenia, and she had ordered up 60,000 troops to join with Britain in an attack on France. Though Catherine was called “Great” during her reign in recognition of the above achievements, she always refused honorific titles in her lifetime.71
CATHERINE’S CULTURAL OFFENSIVE
It is hard to overestimate Catherine’s attention and sensitivity to what was written abroad about Russia and herself, and her ceaseless work to influence foreign opinion through her writings and emissaries. Her middle and final memoirs certainly belong in this context, a genre of foreign writings that Russian scholars term “Russica,” which partly explains her decision to write them in French.72 Russia’s enemies throughout the eighteenth century were Sweden, Turkey, and, behind the scenes, France. Catherine fought France in part through words—via her representatives, articles in the press, political and historical books, and her correspondence, especially with Voltaire.73 As with everything Catherine wrote, the fact that she was a writer demonstrated her explicit argument that Russia and Russians were civilized and that she was an enlightened ruler.
Catherine persistently engaged her French critics from the very beginning of her reign. In her first letter to Voltaire, in 1763, Catherine wrote: “I will respond to the prophecy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau by giving him a most rude refutation, I hope, for as long as I live.” 74 In The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau disagreed with Voltaire’s hopeful assessment of Russia’s future in the first volume of The History of the Russian Empire Under Peter the Great (1759). Rousseau saw no chance for progress in Russia because Peter the Great had crushed the desire for liberty, which had to develop naturally in the people. Yet even Voltaire thought that before Peter the Great, Russia had been a barbaric country. Encouraged directly by Shuvalov and indirectly by Catherine, Voltaire softened his negative assessments of Russia. Catherine’s correspondence with Voltaire, which, after proceeding at the rate of a handful of letters each year, increased to about forty letters each in 1770 and 1771 during the war with Turkey, as she spread her version of the war. Her letters to Mme. Geoffrin promoted Russia too, as for example when she writes: “For the past two months I have been busy working three hours every morning on the laws of this empire. It is an immense undertaking. But people in your country have many incorrect ideas about Russia.”75 Throughout her reign, Catherine’s Great Instruction served as her most important credential in Europe that she was indeed an enlightened ruler. Indeed, the existence of her Great Instruction and the Legislative Commission confirmed that laws governed her reign.
In Russia, Catherine banned accounts of her coup, and in France, she suppressed publication by Claude Carloman de Rulhière (1734–91), the former secretary at the French embassy, of his History or Anecdotes on the Revolution in Russia in the Year 1762.76 Rulhière’s portraits of Peter and Catherine, though sympathetic, had nuances that Catherine would vigorously dispute indirectly through her middle and final memoirs. Rulhière’s History was well-known because of readings in the salons of Mme. Geoffrin and the Duc de Choiseul, the French foreign minister (served 1758– 70), Catherine’s outspoken opponent. To stop the readings, she turned to Voltaire, Diderot, and Mme. Geoffrin. Written in 1768, the work fed general European skepticism about Catherine’s chances of staying on the throne, given the series of coups in Russia.
Catherine responded most energetically to Chappe d’Auteroche’s Voyage in Siberia, about his voyage to Russia and Siberia in 1761–62 at the behest of the French Academy, which he published at the urging of Choiseul. Despite his positive references to Catherine’s reforms, Chappe d’Auteroche, like Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, and Rulhière before him, insisted on the barbaric nature of the Russian people. His account of Catherine’s coup, which could only be secondhand, as he left St. Petersburg in May 1762, coincided with Rulhière’s History and thus angered Catherine.77 Catherine’s Antidote makes more than a dozen references to herself and her Instruction, and a rebuttal to Rulhière’s assertion that she did nothing as Grand Duchess finds its way into Catherine’s final memoir. The promised third volume of Antidote never appeared. Instead, in 1771 she began to write her middle memoir, as another kind of defense of herself and Russia against Rulhière as well as Chappe d’Auteroche. Her autobiographical mode of writing continued in her lifelong literary, political correspondence (1774–96) with Grimm; the letters contain numerous autobiographical passages that echo her middle and final memoirs. Other later French works that aroused Catherine’s ire included History of the Two Indies (1781) by Abbé Raynal (1713–96), an indictment of slavery and despotism that influenced A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow (1790) by Alexander Radishchev (1749–1802), for which the author was exiled.78 Catherine’s constant vigilance against French historiography of Russia shaped the polemical subtext of many of her writing projects, including the memoirs.
At the same time, these foreigners’ criticisms spurred Catherine on with an enormous cultural and scientific agenda. With her eye on Voltaire, France, and Europe, Catherine laid the institutional foundation for Russia’s extraordinary cultural leap forward in the nineteenth century in literature, art, architecture, music, and theater. The memoirs often mention the cultural amusements at Elizabeth’s court, but Catherine aimed much higher, and beginning with her coronation ceremonies, she immediately established and publicized a brilliant court life as the center for Russian culture.79 While she rejected Chappe d’Auteroche’s opinion that the levels of Russian science, scholarship, and letters were low, in 1768 she ordered the Academy of Sciences to make expeditions, reports, illustrations, and maps in a survey of Russia. 80 Surveys brought back accounts of different languages, and in the 1780s, when the British discovery of Sanskrit made comparative linguistics fashionable, Catherine established a research project to assemble a comparative dictionary of all the languages, not only in the Russian empire but worldwide, which she published.81
At home, historical debates coalesced against German historiography of Russia. In response, Catherine first supported, and later wrote, Russian history herself. While Catherine’s historical writing has been uniformly dismissed as naïve plagiarism, her activity as a historian promoted the development of Russian historiography, in its infancy in the eighteenth century, and shaped the writing of her final memoir as a historical document. As Antidote makes clear, most eighteenth-century foreigners had little direct knowledge of Russia and relied on the accounts of travelers
who spoke no Russian. Yet Russia had few scholars, and most of these were German. Their so-called Norman theory about the foreign origin of the Russian state provoked a nationalist backlash against the Germans and galvanized Russians to take up their history, which Catherine fully supported.82 Under Catherine, publications included Peter the Great’s correspondence, the chronicles of Russia’s early history (1767–92), the first modern historical narrative of Russian history by a Russian, Russian History from the Earliest Times (1768) by Vasily Tatishchev (1686–1750), and more than eighty historical works that created the first public forum for Russian historiography. She bought historians’ collections of books and documents; she ordered the systematic, statistical description of the Russian empire; and she had documents collected for an account of Russia’s diplomatic history.83
Catherine was of course personally interested in Russian history, and her transition to writing history in the 1780s and subsequent return to her memoirs reflect that concern. In a letter to Grimm in 1778, she had written, “Who is this best poet or best historian of my empire? It is certainly not me, as I have never written either verse or history.” 84 But as if to rectify this omission in her writing, in 1779 she created a commission to gather documents and prepare notes for her own use. 85 Catherine got no further than the fourteenth century; in letters to Grimm in 1794, for example, she mentions that “I’ve reached the year 1368 or 1369” and complains that Ivan Elagin’s (1725–93) historical essay ends with 1389.86 She wrote Notes Concerning Russian History (1783–84), based on Tatishchev’s history, for her grandsons and the general reader, and rebutted Russia’s critics: “These notes concerning Russian history were composed for youth at a time when books on so-called Russian history are being published in foreign languages, which should rather be called prejudiced works.”87 In the 1790s, Catherine continued to work on, along with her memoirs, her history, while overseeing its translation into German. In 1794, when she began the final memoir, she wrote to Grimm that “the passion for history has carried away my pen.”88 Thus this final memoir became much more a historical document than her previous memoirs.
The Memoirs of Catherine the Great Page 5