Catherine the Great: Enlightened Ruler or Historical Caricature?

Introduction: A Ruler Reduced to Caricature

When Catherine the Great assumed the throne in Russia in July 1762, she was supposed to be mere widow-dressing. Her husband, the Russian Tsar Peter III, had retired from St. Petersburg for a meeting with his consultants when political enemies — including those in the Royal Guard — deposed him in a bloodless coup and installed Catherine II as a placeholder monarch until her minor son, Paul, could assume the throne. This is what history tells us. It also tells us that the young empress, though German herself and not accustomed to many of the ways of Russia's people and political classes, was able to grasp the reins of power and hold on until her death in 1796. During her reign the Russian empire expanded and reached new heights of cultural, social, and political influence. Russia came to be seen as one of the truly great powers in Europe and, for a time, rivaled the British Empire in its conduct of foreign policy and the French monarchy in its development of culture and the arts.

And yet most lay people, when they think of Catherine the Great at all, believe — erroneously — that she died having sex with a horse.

The title of this essay is intentionally ironic. Despite having as much claim, through her actions and her policies, to the title of "enlightened despot" as any ruler in modern times, Catherine the Great is often treated as a prized chrysanthemum: a pretty thing to look at, but nothing to take too seriously. In a recent biography by Troyat, for example, she is pictured on the front cover in a bustier-topped gown with flowing regal lines and an elaborate updo pushing her hair off her head like some ornamental flowerpot. She is treated inside the covers, in addition to her actual accomplishments, as some kind of sex symbol. There is wide and in-depth coverage of her sexual liaisons and exploits — so much so, in fact, that the book reads at times as a romance novel.^[1]

So how did one of Europe's great rulers come to receive such shabby treatment? In addition to the actual exploits of the Empress during her time on the throne, there was, apparently, a good deal of sex. And the Empress, for all her notable achievements and her infamous rough handling of those who crossed her, was unable to solve the problem of the landed gentry — a failure that eventually compromised her rule and made her power appear weak. But these factors seem small when compared to another factor that looms large and has driven detractors — when viewed through a lens that compares her coverage with other similarly situated and qualified rulers — to ignore her ruling prowess and emphasize instead her sexual prowess: Catherine the Great was a woman.

This paper argues that history's treatment of Catherine the Great has emphasized many complicating aspects of her legacy that likely would not have been emphasized about any other ruler, due to the fact that she was a sexually liberated woman. Her biography and ruling accomplishments — in foreign policy, cultural development, domestic law, and elsewhere — will be reviewed and summarized, with commentary offered in light of this central argument.

In her memoirs, Catherine tells the story of her youthful relationship with the Grand Duke Peter, which sets the stage for her ascension to the throne. She begins her narrative with a sly logical reference, quoted here at length to give the tenor of her mind:

Fortune is not so blind as people think. Her movements are often the result of precise and well-planned measures, which escape the perception of common minds; still oftener are they the result of personal qualities, character, and conduct. To render this more evident, I will propose the following syllogism:
Qualities and character shall form the major;
Conduct, the minor;
Good or evil fortune, the conclusion.
Here are two striking illustrations:
Peter III.
Catherine II.^[2]

Biography and the Treatment of History

In this one brief passage, Catherine suggests so much more than a mere recitation of biographical details could provide. There are hints of collusion on her part in overthrowing the tsar. There are suggestions of Peter's brutality and bad character. There is the notion that he got what he deserved. She has thus introduced herself to the reader. Catherine then goes on to describe how she met Peter and they began what would become their courtship and ultimate marriage.

It should be noted that Catherine is certainly not shy about her sexuality in her memoirs. In several passages she writes of receiving different court officials in her bedroom. In one passage, for example, she mentions her friends laughing behind a screen while she was found by a Count Schouvaloff "alone, and in bed, while there was only a curtain which separated my gay little party from this most important personage."^[3] However, the more general thrust of her memoirs is geared toward describing in deep and penetrating detail, with candid analysis, the situation of the court and the characters of the people within it during the time she was married to Peter.

Contrast her opening statement with the beginning treatment of Catherine's early life from a biography by Carolly Erickson (again quoted at length):

The small, lively, rather plain little four-year-old girl walked up to the king and reached up to tug at his jacket. She had been taught to kiss the garments of older people, as a sign of reverence, but the stout, red-faced man who watched her approach with a severe expression was wearing a jacket that was too short, and this made it difficult for her to do what her mother had ordered…

"Why does the king have such a short jacket?" the little girl demanded. "He's rich enough to afford a longer one, isn't he?"

The courtiers held their breaths, the mother turning very red; her distress was apparent…

"This little one is impertinent," [the king] was overheard to remark.^[4]

While this story holds interest due to its juxtaposition of two great rulers — Frederick William I of Prussia, father of the future philosopher-king Frederick the Great, and the future Catherine the Great — it emphasizes merely Catherine's impertinence. The hints in this account revolve around sexuality (kissing the garments of older people), fashion and appearance, and unruliness. Catherine is not treated as an intellect or a competent technocrat, but as a naughty girl.

Of course, Catherine is not treated as such in all accounts of her life and rule. John T. Alexander, for example, opens his biography of the Empress by portraying her initial meetings with the coup organizers on the day she assumes the throne. Her husband has just been arrested and she immediately dives into the business of running the state, issuing a manifesto announcing her assumption of the throne and meeting with her military officers. However, even in this account, Alexander cannot help but mention on the first page that the man who comes to rouse her from bed is the "brother of her current lover." The word "current" hangs there — an acknowledgment of the dirty little secret the reader supposedly really wants to know. Alexander almost finds himself apologizing at the end of the page for having to deal with the details of the coup first, but acknowledges that "this drama involved issues far weightier than an eighteenth-century court soap opera."^[5]

The repeated emphasis in the literature on the Empress's personal life, sexual life, looks, and fashion sense cannot be entirely coincidental. It is not sufficient to say that she spoke of her own indiscretions. As already noted, when she spoke for herself in her memoirs she was thoughtful and detailed, as well as biting and astute. The court intrigue and power struggles she recounts are presented with the purpose of demonstrating that her husband was unfit to be tsar. She paints him as an unenlightened man and a poor ruler. Her focus — despite her occasional playfulness — is on the trappings of power and the way the state wielded it. It seems only fair that the historical literature should afford her the same focused treatment.