The Golden Age of Russian History was lead by one of the country’s most notable rulers- Empress Catherine II, also known as Catherine the Great of Russia. The most powerful empress the nation has ever seen, the events leading up to her long reign (1762- 1796) were dramatic and unlikely. Born a German princess, Catherine was brought to Russia as an adolescent to marry Peter III, the heir to the throne after Empress Elizabeth. Catherine quickly won over the favor of the nation by adopting their religion, embracing their language and culture, and taking on a Russian Orthodox name.
When Empress Elizabeth died, Peter ascended to the throne and took control of Russia. However, neither the nation nor Catherine liked him, and Catherine soon led a coup d’etat to overthrow Peter and take his throne. The plot succeeded, and Catherine took her place on the Russian throne, beginning her lengthy reign. This analysis will be taking a look at the question: To what extent did Catherine the Great’s gender influence the power she was able to obtain and her rule? The first source used was the book “Catherine the Great: Portrait of a Woman” by Robert K. Massie.
This publication, written in 2011, was drawn from many strong primary sources, such as Catherine’s personal memoirs. The information is very thorough, and therefore provides a deeper insight into what is being investigated. It is also consistent with other sources sympathetic towards Catherine. Written for the modern audience, the book discusses Catherine with regards to her lasting impact on the world. The limitations of this source include that the book was written in 2011, which is hundreds of years after Catherine’s reign.
The document is very sympathetic towards Catherine, and does not provide multiple sides of an event, instead going in-depth on Catherine’s actions and motives. The source will be warily quoted, as between the interpretation of primary sources and translations that occurred before actually writing the book, it is unlikely a quote or excerpt is word for word. The second source used was the book “Memoirs of Catherine the Great”, written by Catherine II herself. This translation from Russian to English was published in 1955, and it is a collection of her personal diaries and memoirs.
This is a very strong source to gather an insight into Catherine’s mind, as she wrote about her intentions and opinions regarding historical events, alongside chronicles of her daily life. A strong primary source, the memoirs were intended for a general release, and could therefore have been censored to avoid controversy. The limitations of this particular source are quite large, though. Catherine is unlikely to critique herself too harshly, and therefore it is difficult to gain an insight into how critics viewed her. Similarly to the first source, the translation from Russian to English also leaves room for error in quotation and meaning.
The content is often helpful, but contains many superfluous daily details that are not relevant to this paper, and only manage to obscure the relevant information on Catherine’s gender and quest for power. Section Two Catherine the Great was one of the most prolific and notable world leaders to ever exist, thanks to her efforts to Westernize a staunchly Eastern country. While the Russian empress can be observed as an absolute ruler, Catherine’s rise to power was one that faced many threats and disturbances- many threats presented simply because of her gender, which was called into question in a devout and male-centric nation.
Catherine the Great’s gender initially held back her ability to acquire power; she therefore had to find ways to subvert established gender norms in order to obtain absolute control, until she was able to utilize her gender effectively. In early public appearances and depictions, Catherine presented herself as masculine and dominant, in order to dissociate from the weakness her gender was thought to be inseparable from. This presentation soon changed and she took on a dominant yet matronly role to dissuade the public from continuing to see her as a usurper.
Immediately following the overthrow of her husband, Catherine established herself as a powerful and independent ruler. Her Accession Manifesto gave her reasoning for the coup and lauded herself for having “received a solemn oath of fidelity from all [her] loving subjects” (Tooke 519). Even at her coronation, Catherine walked independently down the aisle in a rugged black dress- she appeared as a “dauntless woman in a vast space, enveloped in a nimbus of her own dignity and courage. (Coughlan 190)
In the “Equestrian Portrait of Catherine II (1729-96) the Great of Russia”, Catherine is portrayed as a masculine figure riding upon a feminine horse. In her hand, she holds the phallic image of a sword and is adorned in the uniform of the highest level of military (the Preobrazhensky Regiment)- this was the regiment that helped her overthrow Peter III, embracing her involvement in the coup d’etat and serving as a reminder of Catherine’s power. This image of Catherine, masked as a dominant male, riding on top of an effeminate horse is indicative of how she wished to be portrayed.
Soon after the coup, Catherine was sworn in as the Empress and Sole Autocrat of All Russias- immediately going to work in establishing her dominance, severing ties with former allies, such as Frederick II of Austria, and taking control of the Senate to halt the export of grain. She did what she saw as best for the country, and while her solutions were often effective, actions like the elimination of monopolies held by powerful nobles signaled the beginning of public doubt in her expenditure of power.
Words of discontent began to spread- Catherine had, in her effort to appear powerful and masculine, started to rule in a “godlike manner” last seen in the reign of the unpopular Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich (Massie 281). Still wearing the label of usurper for her hand in the overthrow of Peter, Catherine knew her autocracy was at risk without the support of the general public and if she did not soon change her tactics, the nobility- which was already upset she was a woman in charge of Russia that did not acquire the position hereditarily- would be eager to overthrow her.
In the face of this realization, Catherine began to transform her image again. Knowing she had held the public’s support strongest when she acted generously and matronly for her country, Catherine began to publicly recognize and reward her close associates, make amends with former enemies, and play the role of matriarch. Even changing her official title to Empress Mother, Catherine began to use her gender as a tool for gaining public support and consequently, power.
Many former enemies and advisors to Peter III expected to be exiled upon his overthrow; Catherine instead extended a hand. Dimitry Volkov was Peter’s leading minister- Catherine gave him another chance, writing to him: “I am always delighted when I see a swift attitude to business and an earnest approach to service in my subjects… Don’t bother about your circumstances: just get on with the job. ” (Dixon 134) Alexander Vorontsov was the brother of Peter’s mistress, yet was given the presidency of the College of Commerce.
Catherine wrote about these incidents in her memoirs, stating “a man who can get on only with people he likes, and not with those he does not, is lacking in wisdom. ” (Catherine II Empress of Russia 196) These acts of forgiveness used her gender to place her in a matronly role and soothed her from the title of usurper in the public eye, consequently allowing her to obtain more support and power.
This support would remain with her until death, when the nobility which now adored her said she had “for thirty-four years made Russia a happy land. (Golovina 35) Throughout her lifetime, Catherine’s interactions with men posed threats to either her rise or retention of power. Especially in regards to marriage, Catherine was none too fond of the idea of seriously associating with men, as she knew once she did, her title of Sole Autocrat would be damaged and society would automatically hand the reigns to the male. Her husband, Peter III, was oppressive and kept her from any form of expression or consultation. He was distant, abusive, and failed to recognize her intelligence or understanding of current events.
A British ambassador to Russia commented on his refusal to acknowledge her by writing: “It does not appear that the empress is much consulted” and saying it will do no good or have any political influence to “make any direct or particular address to her Imperial Majesty” (Massie 251). Because of her role as wife, Peter kept Catherine from political matters and any form of power, an action that ultimately would lead to his overthrow at her hands. As always with powerful single women, Catherine’s eligibility for remarriage was immediately a topic of public concern after her ascension to the throne.
Catherine was aware she could remarry, as she sought official approval to have a second marriage from the church early in 1763 (Dixon 126). However, Catherine was not especially fond of remarrying, because she knew once she did, she would no longer be an absolute ruler and the Sole Autocrat. And while she had affairs with many men, she dealt with the issue of marriage in the same way as Empress Elizabeth had before her- for years, Elizabeth had been rumored to have been married to a Ukrainian peasant in secret, so her reputation would not be tarnished by a lower-class shepard. Coughlan 218) Of the two men Catherine was speculated to have married, the first was Grigory Orlov, who played an instrumental role in the military coup against Peter III.
She knew if this marriage was confirmed and made public, her role as woman and wife would significantly decrease her ruling power- not only would she be possibly overtaken by her husband, but she would also be put at risk to be overthrown by the nobility, who did not wish her to marry, in order to preserve the Romanov line (which her son, Paul I, was the final ember of) (Coughlan 218). Count Panine, the Minister, recounted the relationship of Orlov and Catherine, stating that Orlov helped kill Peter in hopes that “Prince Orlov might step into his place and induce the Empress to crown him” (Golovina 36). The second man was one she far more likely married- Gregory Potemkin was Catherine’s once-lover and closest advisor. In her private letters to Potemkin, Catherine calls him “my dearest husband” and “my beloved spouse”, indicating with conviction that they were tied together in holy matrimony (Budberg 280).
However, as seems to be the trend, Catherine was inclined towards keeping this marriage a secret, as while he offered her priceless advice, her public tie to him would certainly threaten her power, especially with a male as dominant and “consumed by [jealousy]” as Potemkin (Farquhar 125). As is evident through her interactions with men, be it her husband or lovers, it was clear the Catherine had to take her gender into consideration before advancing her acquisition of power.
Initially a liability, Catherine’s womanhood became her greatest tool in effectively gaining the trust of the public and therefore gaining power. Section Three While a scientist or mathematician has the ability to conduct their own original research into a subject, that is not always the case for a historian. Often times, historians must rely on limited databases of information to investigate a subject. And while recent or current history has the potential for the historian to conduct interviews, gather statistics, or other forms of gleaning knowledge from primary sources, that was not the case for my investigation.
In my research into Catherine the Great, it was difficult for me to find scholarly sources that were translated into English and did not simply focus on the “pop culture” parts of her reign- by that, I mean that sources were often heavily focused solely on her lovers, rather than her extensive ruling. Furthermore, some sources that did benefit my research question had only a few lines of usable information, rather than a concrete historical view or opinion.
In doing extensive research for sources from multiple databases to supplement my thesis, I gained an appreciation of how difficult it can be for historians to find valid sources on topics that should be seemingly rife with information. It is very difficult for historians to find completely reliable sources- no matter the time period, origin, or viewpoint of the source, there will always be an intended audience and message of a source, which creates a level of bias. This bias, however, can be useful to the historian, if they acknowledge the source’s origin and use that information to further their argument.
For example, when I was analyzing a painting that Catherine had commissioned, I noticed the painting glorified her in certain aspects, so I acknowledged the fact that she had commissioned the painting in that specific way to gain insight on how Catherine wished herself to be portrayed in the public eye. In the description of historical views, however, it is impossible for the historian to be unbiased. Every source that historians use to support their arguments have bias, and furthermore, historians will be selective in using a larger amount of sources that are beneficial to their arguments than detrimental.
