Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T08:45:55.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Catherine II and the Image of Peter I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Karen Rasmussen
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In 1770 Etienne Falconet notified Empress Catherine II that he preferred to carve only a brief inscription on the base of his monument to Peter the Great: Petro Primo/Catharina Secunda. The empress did not object, and when the statue was finally unveiled in 1782 it bore the sculptor's lapidary phrase on its gigantic granite foundation. Catherine is presumed to have relished the equation which the motto implied, that Peter had been Russia's first great modern ruler while she, although not descended from him, was the second. In the context of whatever it might mean to be an enlightened autocrat, it is often assumed that Catherine both represented and understood herself as Peter's only true heir, the continuer and completer of what he had begun.

But some of Catherine's friends, writing what they knew would please her, said differently. After observing, not altogether tongue in cheek, that brevity was a virtue which inscription writers should cultivate, Melchior Grimm suggested that the motto's appeal might be further enhanced by removing the numbers and leaving just two words, “Petro/Catharina,” a move which would also have dispensed with the pecking order which the numbers implied. And from the edge of Switzerland, Voltaire sent greetings in 1774 to his favorite Petersburg correspondent: “Meanwhile, Madam, allow me to kiss the statue of Peter the Great and the hem of the dress of Catherine the Greater.”

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 51 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1978

References

1. “No. 89. Pis'mo Falkoneta Imperatritse Ekaterine II,” August 14, 1770, in Sbornik imperatorskago russkago istoricheskago obshchestva (hereafter cited as SIRIO), 17 (1876): 119.

2. Letter from Grimm to Catherine II, January 5/16, 1783, SIRIO, 44 (188S): 310. Catherine replied that the numerals were needed to distinguish between Peter's widow and herself (letter 113 to Grimm, March 9, 1783, SIRIO, 23 [1878]: 272).

3. Letter from Voltaire to Catherine II, December 16, 1774, in Voltaire's Correspondence, ed. Theodore Besterman, 107 vols. (Geneva, 1953-65), 89: 168-69; translation in A., Lentin, Voltaire and Catherine the Great: Selected Correspondence (Cambridge, 1974), p. 166 Google Scholar.

4. Writers who have cited Catherine's identification of herself as Peter's heir include Paul Miliukov, “Catherine II,” in Hommes d'état (Paris, 1936), p. 10; David, Ransel, The Politics of Catherinian Russia: The Panin Party (New Haven, 1975), pp. 262–63 Google Scholar; Hans, Rogger, National Consciousness in Eighteenth Century Russia (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), p. 34 Google Scholar; J. H. Roetter, “Russian Attitudes toward Peter the Great and His Reforms between 1725 and 1910” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1951), pp. 42-45; E. F. Shmurlo, “Petr Velikii v russkoi literature,” Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia, 264 (July 1889): 78.

5. Ransel, The Politics of Catherinian Russia, “Introduction,” chapters 1 and 2, and especially chapter 5.

6. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, series 1, 46 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1830- 43), vol. 11, no. 8, 480 (December 12, 1741) (hereafter cited as PSZ). Decrees which reiterated this command included PSZ, vol. 13, no. 9, 734 (April 6, 17S0), and no. 10, 142 (October 13, 1753) ; vol. IS, no. 11, 237 (April 6, 1761). Catherine made use of this blanket command once during her reign, in a decree concerning the administration of the salt tax: PSZ, vol. 17, no. 12, 690 (July 7, 1766). And later she mentioned it once in passing: “Zapiska Imperatritsy Ekateriny II ob uchrezhdeniiakh, vvedennykh v Rossii v eia upravlenie [posle 21 maia 1779 g.],” SIRIO, 27 (1880): 171. For additional sources for the “Zapiska,” see note 41.

7. PSZ, vol. 13, no. 9, 872 (July 31, 1751), and no. 10, 090 (April 2, 1753); vol. 14, i no. 10, 346 (January 24, 1755), no. 10, 486 (December 1, 1755), and no. 10, 777 (November 6, 1757).

8. Letter from Catherine's mother, July 30, 1744, SIRIO, 7 (1871): 65-66; B., Menshutin, Russia's Lomonosov (Westport, Conn., 1970), pp. 99–102 Google Scholar; D., Arkin, Mednyi vsadnik: Pamiatnik Petru I v Leningrade (Moscow-Leningrad, 1958), p. 7 Google Scholar.

9. “Mémoires fill],” Sochineniia imperatritsy Ekateriny II na osnovanii podlinnykh rukopisei i s ob “iasnitel'nymi primechaniiami akademika Pypina, A. N. (hereafter cited as Sochineniia), vol. 12 (St. Petersburg, 1907), p. 161 Google Scholar; Dominique, Maroger, ed., The Memoirs of Catherine the Great (New York, 1961), p. 1961 Google Scholar.

10. In 17SS Lomonosov delivered a public address on Peter's greatness: “Slovo pokhval'noe blazhennyia pamiati Gosudariu Imperatoru Petru Velikomu, govorennoe aprelia 26 dnia 1755 goda,” Polnoe sobranie sochinenii M. V. Lomonosova, vol. 8 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1959), pp. 584-612. A number of his ceremonial odes had also eulogized Peter. On the eulogistic literature of the eighteenth century prior to Catherine's accession, see Roetter, “Russian Attitudes toward Peter the Great,” pp. 24-37; Shmurlo, “Petr Velikii,” pp. 61-76; Peshtich, S. L., Russkaia istoriografiia XVIII veka, 3 vols. (Leningrad, 1961-71)Google Scholar, vols. 1 and 2; B. B., Kafengauz, “Voprosy istoriografii epokhi Petra Velikogo,” Istoricheskii shurnal, 1944, no. 9, pp. 24–25Google Scholar.

11. This is not to deny that in other circles Peter was damned as the Antichrist. But at or near the court his reputation was consistently upheld in flattering terms.

12. Walter, Gleason, “Political Ideals and Loyalties of Some Russian Writers of the Early 1760s,” Slavic Review, 34, no. 3 (September 1975): 570 Google Scholar; Shmurlo, “Petr Velikii,” pp. 72-73; J. C. T. Laveaux, Histoire de Pierre III, Empereur de Russie, 3 vols. (Paris, n.d.), 1: 113; and M. Semevskii, “Shest1 mesiatsev iz russkoi istorii: Ocherk tsarstvovaniia imperatora Petra III, 1761-1762 gg.,” Otechestvennyia sapiski, series 3, 173 (1867): 745-46.

13. Gleason, “Political Ideals and Loyalties of Some Russian Writers,” p. 570; M., Lomonosov, Isbrannye proizvedeniia (Moscow-Leningrad, 1965), pp. 185–87 Google Scholar; V., Maikov, Itbrannye proizvedeniia (Moscow-Leningrad, 1966), pp. 185–88 Google Scholar.

14. Gleason, “Political Ideals and Loyalties of Some Russian Writers,” pp. 569-70. Ransel, , The Politics of Catherinian Russia, pp. 54–58Google Scholar, also discusses the role these journalists played in encouraging opposition to Elizabethan policies and support for the grand duchess as a preferred leader.

15. See the so-called “detailed manifesto” (obstoiatel'nyi manifest), which was promulgated July 6, 1762 but never incorporated into the law code, in Bartenev, P. I., ed., Osmnadtsatyi vek, 4 vols. (Moscow, 1868-69), 4: 219 Google Scholar.

16. PSZ, vol. 14, no. 10, 370 (March 7, 1755): “I have concluded that our transformer Peter the Great, a monarch worthy of eternal remembrance, … if he had not found his fatherland in such poverty and inadequacy, while obliged to carry on an oppressive and extended war, would never have resorted to the authorization of such ingenious projects as the one concerning copper coinage” (the edict was drafted by Ivan Shuvalov).

17. PSZ, vol. 15, no. 11, 444 (February 18, 1762).

18. PSZ, vol. 15, no. 11, 445 (February 21, 1762). The Chancellery of Secret Investigations of Anne's reign was the functional successor to Peter's Preobrazhenskii Prikaz, which had been abolished in 1729. Peter Ill's decree treated the two as one institution.

19. For a survey of this shifting perception of Peter the Great, see Roetter, “Russian Attitudes toward Peter the Great,” chapter 2; and Shmurlo, “Petr Velikii,” pp. 76—81 ff. Both men touch briefly on Catherine's involvement in this trend (Roetter, “Russian Attitudes toward Peter the Great,” pp. 122-23; and Shmurlo, “Petr Velikii,” pp. 80 and 84).

20. On Catherine's relationship with Bestuzhev-Riumin, see E., Shchepkin, Russko- Avstriiskii soiuz vo vretnia semiletnei voiny 1746-1758 gg. (St. Petersburg, 1902)Google Scholar, chapters 4 and 5; Herbert, Kaplan, Russia and the Outbreak of the Seven Years War (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), pp. 102–11 Google Scholar; and the correspondence described below between Catherine and Hanbury-Williams. See Ransel, , The Politics of Catherinian Russia, pp. 11–12Google Scholar, for Panin's attitude toward Peter I, and chapter 3 concerning the extent of his influence over the grand duchess. For similar information about Hanbury-Williams, see S. M. Goriainov, ed., “Perepiska Velikoi Kniaginy Ekateriny Alekseevny i angliiskago posla Sera Charl'za G. Uill'iamsia 1756 i 1757 gg.,” published in French and Russian, in Chteniia v imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri Moskovskotn universitete (hereafter cited as Chteniia), 1909, book 2; English translation in Earl of Ilchester and Mrs. Langford-Brooke, Correspondence of Catherine the Great when Grand-Duchess, with Sir Charles Hanbury- Williams (hereafter cited as Correspondence) (London, 1928). References to Peter the Great are found on pages 75, 88, 103, 121, and 207 of the “Perepiska.”

21. Their deference may be traced at least from 1716, when Christian August served briefly as Peter's Stettin host. See P. Petschauer, “The Education and Development of an Enlightened Absolutist. The Youth of Catherine the Great, 1729-1762” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1969), pp. 52, 78, 81, and 236. Also see Maroger, , Memoirs of Catherine the Great, pp. 37–38Google Scholar; and de Beauclair, P. L., Histoire de Pierre III, Empereur de Russie (London, 1774), pp. 5–79 Google Scholar passim.

22. “The ease and promptness with which that nation has been civilized demonstrates that this prince had too low an opinion of her, and that these people were not beasts as he thought. The violent means he employed were useless; he would have achieved the same results with gentleness… . Giving the customs and manners of Europe to a European nation, Peter I found [a responsiveness] which he had not expected …” (Montesquieu, De I'esprit des Lois, 2 vols. [Geneva, 1748], book 19, chapter 14). 23. Nakas imperatritsy Ekateriny II, dannyi Kommissii o sochinenii proekta novago ulosheniia, pod redaktsiei N. D. Chechulina (St. Petersburg, 1907), p. 3. 24. Letter from Catherine to Hanbury-Williams, August 27, 1756, Chteniia, p. 88; and Correspondence, p. 90.

25. Letter from Catherine to Hanbury-Williams [September 6, 1756], Chteniia, p. 121; and Correspondence, p. 110

26. Concerning Catherine's appreciation of Peter's attitude toward Orthodoxy, see her letters to Voltaire of November 28/December 9, 1765, March 26/April 6, 1767, and July 14/25, 1769 (letters 12, 166, 13, 196, and 14, 792), in Besterman, , Voltaire's Correspondence, 59: 251–53, 65: 112-14Google Scholar, and 72: 178-81. Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, p. 40 Google Scholar, has translated one of these references, and another was published in SIRIO, 10 (1872): 175. Also see “O sostoianii Rossii pri Ekaterine Velikoi: Voprosy Diderota i otvety Ekateriny (1773),” Russkii arkhiv, 1880, book 3, p. 2; and Catherine's letter of June 3, 1767 to N., Panin, Sochineniia, 11: 505 Google Scholar. Her attitude toward Peter's administration of the church's monastic lands will be discussed later in the paper. ;

27. News of the imperial navy's success against the Turks in Chesme Bay prompted celebrations during which Peter the Great was eulogized as the founder of Russia's naval j strength. See letter 16, 154 from Voltaire to Catherine II, May 15, 1771, and letter 16, 218 J from Catherine to Voltaire, June 10/21, 1771, in Besterman, , Voltaire's Correspondence, 79: | 73-75 and 137-39Google Scholar; Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, pp. 103 and 108Google Scholar; and SIRIO, 13 i (1874): 121-22. See also “Sobstvennoruchnyi chernovoi ukaz Imp. Ekateriny II Admiralteiskoi Kollegii … ,” July 7, 1776, SIRIO, 27 (1880): 93. Catherine's insistence that her J naval achievements were at least as great as Peter's will be discussed later in the paper.

28. See PSZ, vol. 16, no. 12, 103 (March 22, 1764), in which Ivan Betskoi quoted \ Catherine's unflattering observations about Peter's efforts to educate the nobility. General 1 Villebois's report on the inadequacy of Russia's officer training program, which was incorporated into the Cadet Corps Statutes of 1762, also criticized “the very narrowness of the \ organization” of Peter's artillery school (ibid., no. 11, 696 [October 25, 1762]). See also “Sobstvennoruchnaia zametka Ekateriny II o tiranakh,” undated memo no. 604, SIRIO, j 42 (1885): 456, in which Catherine criticized Russia for never having known the appropriate, enlightening kind of education; letter 15, 284 to Voltaire, March 31/April 11, 1770, in ; Besterman, , Voltaire's Correspondence, 75: 18-21Google Scholar; and Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, p. 79 Google Scholar, which argued that in its attempts to Westernize Russia the government had gone about things the wrong way. i

29. Catherine joked with Voltaire about St. Petersburg's unfortunate northerly latitude and unhealthy climate (see letters 12, 263 and 13, 097 from Voltaire to Catherine, January 24, j 1766 and February 27, 1767, and letter 13, 196 from Catherine to Voltaire, March 26/April 6, 1 1767, SIRIO, 10 [1872]: 175; Besterman, , Voltaire's Correspondence, 60: 65-66, 64: 258-59Google Scholar, \ and 65: 112-14; and Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, pp. 41, 46-47Google Scholar). ; In another letter the empress pointed out that, had Peter built his capital in the south, J at Taganrog, life for those who governed would have been much nicer. Voltaire seems to have agreed (see letter 16, 049 from Catherine to Voltaire, March 3/14, 1771, and letter 16, 243 from Voltaire to Catherine, July 6, 1771, SIRIO, 13 [1874]: 72; Besterman, , Voltaire's ! Correspondence, 78: 164-67, and 79: 168-70Google Scholar; and Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, pp. 109–10Google Scholar). Grimm wrote that Peter the Great would have been dumbfounded at Catherine's development of the Black Sea coastline (letter of October 9/20, 1782, SIRIO, 44 [1885]: 280). There is another reference to Peter's abandonment of his southern projects in Catherine's letter of September 30, 1782 to Potemkin, SIRIO, 27 (1880): 217. When the critical travelog A Voyage to Siberia appeared in 1769, about the only thing \ on which its author and the empress agreed was that life was more comfortable in Moscow ] than in St. Petersburg (Catherine II, “Antidot,” Sochineniia, 7: 225-26). Catherine's specific observation about desolate Ingria also comes from “Antidot” (p. 260) and was later echoed by Grimm. See SIRIO, 44 (1885): 607, for comments made by him in 1795.

30. PSZ, vol. 17, no. 12, 801 (December 14, 1766).

31. See citations in note 26 plus Catherine's “Institutions for the Administration of the Provinces,” PSZ, vol. 20, no. 14, 392 (November 7, 1775). The eulogy preached in 1770 in Peter's honor was later published abroad (Metropolitan Platon, “Sermon prêché … sur la tombe de Pierre le Grand le lendemain du jour que Ton resut à St. Petersburg la nouvelle de la victoire navale remportée sur la flotte turque” [London, 1771]). “Antidot,” which was first published in 1770, utilized numerous defenses of Peter's reign in its argument that Russia was (already) a European, or civilized, nation. By contrast, the unveiling of Falconet's statue in 1782 was made an occasion for reminding Russians of Catherine's greatness as much as Peter's (PSZ, vol. 21, no. 15, 488 [August 7, 1782]; and letters from Grimm to Catherine, October 1/12 and 9/20, 1782, SIRIO, 44 [1885]: 278 and 280).

32. Mémoires et melanges historiques et litteraires, par le Prince de Ligne (hereafter cited as Mémoires), 4 vols. (Paris, 1827), 2: 360.

33. Letter 267 to Grimm, July 19, 1796, SIRIO, 23 (1878): 686.

34. PSZ, vol. 16, no. 11, 643 (August 12, 1762). This referred to Peter's decision to entrust the administration of monastic lands to the Holy Synod, which was then expected M to maintain adequate financial records of the income from these lands and its disbursement. J The decree's full eulogy to Peter begins on page 51. M

35. Ibid., no. 11, 716 (November 29, 1762). This decree contained Catherine's instruc- | tions to her newly appointed Commission on Church Properties. It reiterated the deferential language of the previous edict and also praised Peter for defining the church's responsibility: to guide the morals of the “simple people” along proper paths. 5

36. Ibid., no. 11, 844 (June 6, 1763), and no. 12, 060 (February 26, 1764). Peter III, : \ who had also confronted the problem, went unmentioned, but see Marc Raeff, “The Domestic ; Policies of Peter III and His Overthrow,” American Historical Review, 75, no. 5 (June 1970): 1296-97. 37. PSZ, vol. 16, no. 11, 844, and no. 12, 060. The reference to Alexis is in ibid., no. 12, 060. \

38. “Sobstvennoruchnoe chernovoe pis'mo Ekateriny II k A. Mordvinovu …” (Oc- .; tober 4, 1790), SIRIO, 42 (1885): 114; letter also published in Charles de Larivière, J C-atherine II et la Révolution Francaise d'après de nouveaux documents (Paris, 1895), pp. .' 283-84. Also see “Antidot,” Sochineniia, 7: 251.

39. “Sobstvennoruchnoe pis'mo Ekateriny II k Senaku de Mel'ianu …” (June 16, 1791), SIRIO, 42 (1885): 175; and Lariviere, , Catherine II, p. 320 Google Scholar.

40. “Antidot,” Sochineniia, 7: 201 and 139.

41. “Zapiska,” SIRIO, 27 (1880): 170; it also appears in Sochineniia, 12: 170.

42. “O sostoianii Rossii pri Ekaterine Velikoi,” Russkii arkhiv, 1880, book 3, p. 11.

43. Nakaz imperatritsy Ekateriny II … N. D. Chechulina, p. 124, article 451. In PSZ, vol. 16, no. 12, 060 (February 26, 1764), Alexis was credited with “establishing justice among his subjects” in 1649. See also “Antidot,” Sochineniia, 7: 83, where Catherine defended the cultural level of Russian civilization by calling the roll of Russia's law-giving sovereigns: Iaroslav, Ivan IV, Alexis.

44. PSZ, vol. 17, no. 12, 801 (December 14, 1766).

45. PSZ, vol. 18, no. 12, 877 (April 20, 1767).

46. Letters 238 and 248 to Grimm, April 5 and September 16, 1795, SIRIO, 23 (1878): 620 and 647.

47. Letter from Grimm to Catherine, November 24/December 5, 1782, SIRIO, 44 (1885): 303-4, and Catherine's response, March 9, 1783, SIRIO, 23 (1878): 269 and 271.

48. PSZ, vol. 21, no. 15, 515 (September 22, 1782).

49. PSZ, vol. 22, no. 16, 186 (April 21, 1785).

50. Zapiski kasatel'no rossiiskoi istorii, vol. 1, in Sochineniia, 8: 75.

51. Concerning Vladimir's merit as a European-oriented sovereign, see also letter 113 from Catherine to Grimm, March 9, 1783, SIRIO, 23 (1878): 271.

52. Catherine went on to suggest that Vladimir also deserved praise for being no more enslaved by foreign ways than by Russian ones. Tucked into the chronicle narrative of the Zapiski, in what one assumes to be an approving fashion, is the historian Tatishchev's observation that staying home and attending to one's subjects’ welfare, as Vladimir had done, was more productive for a ruler than yearning after what could be found in distant lands (Sochineniia, 8: 89). It is possible to read into this evaluation, as unnecessary to the chapter on Vladimir as the eulogy quoted in the body of this paper was to Catherine's Notes on Russian History, a rather Montesquieuian critique of the policies of Peter the Great. An analogous indirect critique may also be read into Catherine's historical drama about the reign of Oleg ( “Nachal'noe upravlenie Olega: Podrazhanie Shakespiru, bez sokhraneniia featral'nykh obyknovennykh pravil” [1786], Sochineniia, 2: especially pp. 268-69).

53. “Réflexions sur le projet d'une histoire de Russie au XVIIIe siècle” (1791), Lariviere, , Catherine II, p. 313 Google Scholar.

54. A sampling of Catherine's pledges to rely on mercy rather than severity may be found in PSZ, vol. 16, no. 11, 667 (September 22, 1762); no. 11, 687 (October 19, 1762); and no. 11, 759 (February 17, 1763). Bureaucratic decrees duly affirmed that compassion was one of the hallmarks of Catherine's reign: PSZ, vol. 17, no. 12, 424 (June 26, 1765); vol. 18, ’ no. 12, 978 (September 27, 1767); vol. 19, no. 13, 562 (January 31, 1771). Other acts, issued in either the empress's name or that of the Senate, which emphasized a distinction between old and new styles of justice include: PSZ, vol. 16, no. 11, 629 (July 30, 1762); no. 11, 656 (August 24, 1762) ; no. 11, 687 (October 19, 1762), which nearly duplicates Peter Ill's decree of February 21, 1762 (vol. 15, no. 11, 445) ; no. 11, 750 (February 10, 1763) ; vol. 20, no. 14, 309 (April 28, 1775) ; no. 14, 579 (February 11, 1777) ; no. 14, 897 (July 26, 1779).

55. These denunciations of “bloodshed” were especially numerous at the onset of her reign: PSZ, vol. 16, no. 11, 656 (August 24, 1762) ; no. 11, 687 (October 19, 1762) ; no. 11, 693 (October 24, 1762), with related “bureaucratic instructions in Bartenev, , Osmnadtsatyi vek, 1: 48Google Scholar; no. 11, 717 (December 2, 1762); no. 11, 750 (February 10, 1763) ; no. 11, 759 (February 17, 1763). According to J. T. Alexander, , Autocratic Politics in a National Crisis (Bloomington, Ind., 1969), p. 205Google Scholar, even during Pugachevshchina Catherine continued to express her preference for as little punitive bloodshed and harshness as possible.

56. PSZ, vol. 16, no. 11, 616 (July 18, 1762): re extortionist Renber; no. 11, 656 (August 24, 1762): re Collegiate Assessor Shokurov, charged with graft; no. 11, 693 (October 24, 1762): the Khrushchev-Guriev affair, which Catherine manipulated for her own political advantage; no. 11, 794 (April 11, 1763): re Major General Totleben, charged with espionage; no. 11, 843 (June 4, 1763): re Khitrovo's threat against Gregory Orlov; no. 11, 925 (September 18, 1763): most of a group of underage offenders had their sentences lightened; no. 11, 961 (November 6, 1763): re officials who had stolen goods belonging to Bestuzhev- Riumin; no. 12, 233 (September 2, 1764): a voevoda and a clerk convicted of graft; no. 12, 241 (September 15, 1764): the Mirovich affair, the outcome of which was bloody for some, but others of those convicted did receive noncorporal sentences; vol. 17, no. 12, 561 (January 30, 1766): Senate official Tatishchev convicted of forgery; no. 12, 600 (March 24, 1766): Zhukov and his wife convicted of killing his mother and sister; no. 12, 781 (November 11, 1766): a number of Belogorod provincial officials; vol. 18, no. 13, 101 (April 18, 1768): a number of Orel merchants, three of whom received full pardons; vol. 19, no. 13, 695 (November 10, 1771): the aftermath of the Moscow uprising, in which over a hundred were pardoned; no. 13, 890 (October 25, 1772): two counterfeiters convicted of varying degrees of guilt; no. 13, 951 (February 25, 1773): penalties for nonprivileged classes guilty of theft; no. 14, 033 (September 5, 1773): Narmotskii, a forger; no. 14, 171 (July 29, 1774): Shishkov, an embezzler; no. 14, 140 (April 9, 1774): two boys stealing money from a church; no. 14, 309 (April 28, 1775): abolition of Ulozhenie penalty for forgery; no. 14, 313 (May 1, 1775): abolition of Ulozhenie penalty for resisting conversion to Orthodoxy; no. 14, 539 (November 17, 1776): Captain Efimovich convicted of murdering his wife; no. 14, 767 (June 25, 1778): Corporal Semichev sold a free peasant into the army; no. 15, 032 (July 9, 1780): murderer Grigorev; vol. 22, no. 16, 154 (February 19, 1785) and no. 16, 308 (January 8, 1786): re a boy charged with incest; vol. 23, no. 16, 901 (September 4, 1790): re Radishchev, another stage-managed affair; no. 17, 240 (August 10, 1794): policeman Vereshchagin abusing the powers of his office; no. 17, 284 (December 18, 1794): Lieutenant Captain Montague convicted of espionage; no. 17, 345 (June 20, 1795): several dozen Poles convicted of treason. There were also a series of general commutations of sentences proclaimed during the second half of Catherine's reign: PSZ, vol. 20, no. 14, 274 (March 17, 1775): celebrating the end of the First Turkish War; vol. 21, no. 15, 488 (August 7, 1782): celebrating the unveiling of Falconet's statue of Peter the Great; vol. 22, no. 16, 551 (June 28, 1787): celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of Catherine's accession (related decrees include no. 16, 580 [September 27, 1787], and nos. 16, 638 and 16, 639 [March 31, 1788]); vol. 23, no. 17, 149 (September 2, 1793): celebrating the end of the Second Turkish War.

57. These decrees explicitly contrast Catherinian justice with Ulozhenie precedent: PSZ, vol. 16, nos. 11, 687 and 12, 241; vol. 17, no. 12, 561; vol. 19, nos. 13, 695, 13, 951, 14, 033, 14, 140; and vol. 20, nos. 14, 309, 14, 313, 14, 539, 15, 032.

58. These decrees contrast Catherinian justice either with Petrine precedent explicitly or with prior practice, including that of both Peter the Great and his father: PSZ, vol. 16, nos. 11, 629, 11, 656, 11, 687, 11, 693, 11, 750, 11, 961, 12, 233, 12, 241; vol. 17, no. 12, 561; vol. 19, nos. 13, 695, 13, 951, 14, 140, as cited in note 57, and 14, 171 (July 29, 1774) ; vol. 20, nos. 14, 313, 14, 539, 15, 032, as cited in note 57. Also see the decrees cited in note 54. Toward the end of Catherine's reign the Senate began to remind her that in some instances Petrine criminal penalties were lighter, or more flexible, than those prescribed by the Ulozhenie: PSZ, vol. 20, nos. 14, 539 and 15, 032; vol. 21, no. 15, 336 (January 28 1782). The “political death” devised by Peter the Great and upheld by his daughter Elizabeth consisted of forced labor for life, preceded possibly by a beating with the knout and the slitting of one's nostrils. Elizabeth's modifications of this penalty eliminated the adverb “possibly” and added facial branding and the requirement of permanent fetters for those so sentenced (see PSZ, vol. 13, no. 10, 087 [March 29, 1753]; no. 10, 101 [May 25, 1753]; vol. 14, no. 10, 036 [September 30, 1754]). Most of the relevant portions of Peter's Military Statutes, with their emphasis upon “agonizing death,” are quoted or summarized in PSZ, vol. 16, no. 12, 241.

59. See PSZ, vol. 16, nos. 11, 693 and 11, 961; vol. 17, nos. 12, 561 and 12, 600; vol. 18, no. 13, 211: the Saltykova affair; vol. 19, no. 14, 171; vol. 23, no. 17, 284.

60. PSZ, vol. 19, no. 14, 140 (April 9, 1774), and vol. 22, no. 16, 308 (January 8, 1786); see also vol. 16, no. 11, 925 (September 18, 1763).

61. PSZ, vol. 18, no. 12, 909 (June 7, 1767), and vol. 19, no. 13, 609 (May 20, 1771).

62. See SIRIO, vols. 14 and 32, for the Legislative Commission's plenary session minutes of February-July 1768, when the topic under discussion was justice.

63. PSZ, vol. 20, no. 14, 233 (January 10, 1775).

64. PSZ, vol. 16, no. 12, 241 (September 15, 1764).

65. See PSZ, vol. 16, no. 11, 606 (July 12, 1762), which endorses Petrine precedent, and no. 11, 718 (December 2, 1762) ; vol. 17, no. 12, 316 (January 19, 1765), and vol. 18, no. 12, 966 (August 22, 1767), which endorse and elaborate upon the prohibitions of the Ulozhenie.

66. PSZ, vol. 18, no. 13, 055 (January 15, 1768).

67. PSZ, vol. 19, no. 13, 951 (February 25, 1773).

68. PSZ, vol. 18, no. 13, 211 (December 10, 1768), for Saltykova's accomplices; vol. 19, no. 13, 695 (November 10, 1771), and no. 13, 877 (October 5, 1772); vol. 20, no. 15, 032 (July 9, 1780); vol. 21, no. 15, 336 (January 28, 1782); vol. 23, no. 17, 262 (October 27, 1794).

69. Letters 14, 792 and 15, 741 from Catherine to Voltaire, July 14/25, 1769 and November 1770, in Besterman, , Voltaire's Correspondence, 72: 178-81 and 77: 91-92Google Scholar; the 1769 passage also appears in Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, p. 62 Google Scholar; and SIRIO, 10 (1872): 346. See also letter 16, 049 from Catherine to Voltaire, March 3/14, 1771, in Besterman, 1 Voltaire's Correspondence, 77: 166-67Google Scholar; and SIRIO, 13 (1874): 72. And two letters from Grimm to Catherine, June 25/July 6 and July 1/12, 1796, in which he makes a similar point about Catherine's capture of Derbent (SIRIO, 44 [1885]: 743 and 747). And de Ligne's contrast between Catherine's victories and Peter's “shameful capitulation at Pruth” (Mémoires, 2: 348).

70. Letters 15, 587 and 16, 920 from Catherine to Voltaire, and letter 16, 881 from Voltaire to Catherine, August 9/20, 1770, October 17/28 and October 1, 1772, in Besterman, , Voltaire's Correspondence, 76: 124-27, 83: 96-98, 57Google Scholar; Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, pp. 85, 143, 144Google Scholar; SIRIO, 13 (1874): 29-30, 278.

71. See note 27. According to Segur, a Baltic victory over Sweden's fleet in 1787 prompted celebrations which echoed those of 1774 (Count Philippe de Segur, Louis, Memoirs and Recollections of Count Louis Philippe de Segur, vol. 3 [Arno Press reprint, 1970], p. 339Google Scholar). And Black Sea sailors received money in 1788 in recognition of the reestablishment of their fleet, “an enterprise of Peter the Great” (rescript of July 27, 1788 to Potemkin, SIRIO, 27 [1880]: 514-15). On the other hand, neither the capture of Ochakov nor the onset of war with Sweden seems to have occasioned any official observation of Peter's victories on either front (letters 184 and 241 from Catherine to Grimm, SIRIO, 23 [1878]: 467-68, 627-37).

72. Mémoires, 2: 359-60. 73. Entries for June 27 and July 2, 1788, Dnevnik A. V. Khrapovitskago, 1782-1793 … s biograficheskoiu stafeiu i ob “iasnitel'nym ukasatelem Nikolaia Barsukova (St. Petersburg, 1874), pp. 97 and 101; see also entries for November 17, 1788, January 5, March 11, and May 20, 1789, and October 20, 1792 (pp. 195-96, 228-29, 262, 284, 413).

74. . “Sobstvennoruchnoe pis'mo Ekateriny II k Potemkinu” (September 16, 1790), SIRIO, 42 (1885): 109.

75. Letter 17, 377 from Catherine to Voltaire, June 30/July 11, 1773, in Besterman, , Voltaire's Correspondence, 85-.166-67Google Scholar, and Lentin, Foltatre and Catherine the Great, p. 151Google Scholar.

76. Letter 18, 186 from Catherine to Voltaire, January 9/20, 1775, in Besterman, , Voltaire's Correspondence, 90: 24-26Google Scholar; and Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, p. 167 Google Scholar.

77. Letter 16, 218 from Catherine to Voltaire, June 10/21, 1771, in Besterman, , Voltaire's Correspondence, 79: 137-39Google Scholar; Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, p. 108 Google Scholar; SIRIO, 13 (1874): 121. Also see her letter of December 2, 1788 to de Ligne, in which she boasts of having raised, practically overnight, the largest Russian army of the century (Les lettres de Catherine II au Prince de Ligne [1780-1796], publiées avec quelques notes par la Princesse Charles de Ligne [hereafter cited as Les lettres] [Brussels and Paris, 1924], p. 103) ; letter of November 25, 1789 to Potemkin, claiming that “the Turks fear us more than the Caesars” (SIRIO, 42 [1885]: 48) ; and letter 267 to Grimm, July 9, 1796, boasting that she had captured Baku in two months, while it had taken Peter two campaigns, and that Peter's forces had faced less resistance than hers (SIRIO, 23 [1878]: 686).

78. Letter 4 from de Ligne to Catherine, undated, Mémoires, 1: 259;Les lettres, p. 160.

79 Mémoires, 2: 348.

80. Letter 16, 298 from Catherine to Voltaire, August 14/25, 1771, in Besterman, Voltaire's Correspondence, 80: 22-23; Lentin, , Voltaire and Catherine the Great, p. 117 Google Scholar.

81. Mémoires, 2: 359-60.

82. Letter 127 to Grimm, May 10, 1784, in SIRIO, 23 (1878): 313. See also entry for November 24, 1790, in Dnevnik A. V. Khrapovitskago, p. 352.

83. Letter 6 from de Ligne to the Coigny, Marquise de, L'édition du centenaire des oeuvrcs du Prince de Ligne, vol. 2 (Paris, 1914), pp. 73–74 Google Scholar; and Segur, , Memoirs and Recollections, 3: 95Google Scholar.

84. See, for example, her letters of March 30, 1792 to de Ligne and August 28, 1794 to Grimm, Les lettres, p. 168; and SIRIO, 23 (1878): 607. Both correspondents responded in kind.

85. Segur, , Memoirs and Recollections, 3: 12 and 95Google Scholar; entries for November 17, 1788, January 5 and April 15, 1789, in Dnevnik A. V. Khrapovitskago, pp. 195-96, 229, 275.

86. Segur, , Memoirs and Recollections, 3: 95Google Scholar.

87. Gleason, “Political Ideals and Loyalties of Some Russian Writers,” pp. 570-74, discusses Catherine's relationship with these journalists. Ransel, , The Politics of Catherinian Russia, pp. 54–57Google Scholar, indicates their relationship with Panin. As Gleason notes (pp. 572-73), Catherine was not unaware of the value of their support. Her recognition of the usefulness of their image of Peter the Great for her own political purposes may have prompted the tone of pacifism which permeated some early edicts (PSZ, vol. 16, no. 11, 668 [September 22, 1762], addressed to troops just recalled from Prussia).

88. For examples of these epigrams, see Shmurlo, “Petr Velikii,” p. 82.

89. Ransel, , The Politics of Catherinian Russia, pp. 11–12Google Scholar.

90. Ibid., p. 71. Teplov's manifesto included a section on Peter the Great which is not quoted here but which was cited above in note IS.

91. Ibid., p. 85. 92. Ibid., pp. 154-56. 93. Ibid., p. 261.

94. Ibid., pp. 266-70.

95. Ibid., pp. 227-31.

96. See scattered references to the Shuvalov party, ibid., pp. 25-26, 39-40, 58-59. Villebois, who would become a critic of Petrine education, is identified with another anti-Panin party, that of the Orlovs, on page 106.