In 1762, after reading Jean d’Alembert’s essay on Montesquieu’s works (Mélanges de Littérature, d’Histoire et de Philosophie.
Nouvelle édition. T. 2, pag. 370 et 371), Catherine II copied out an excerpt on the causes of Rome’s decline and fall that impressed her the most; according to French philosophers (d’Alembert was in agreement with Montesquieu at that point), one of the causes consisted of “the transfer of the capital and the division of the empire which first, in the west, was ruined by barbarians, and then, over the course of centuries, gradually weakened in the east, having been under feeble-minded or cruel emperors; it faded without a trace, like rivers do, vanishing in the sand.”86
A few years later in 1770, this passage influenced Catherine’s own essay which was later published under the title Considerations on Petersburg and Moscow (Размышления о Петербурге и Москве):
“In olden times, some people raised their voice in dissent, and still now, though not as caustic, some people say that it was wrong to found Petersburg, to settle the court there, to abandon Moscow. They say, and, in part, it is true, that hundreds of thousands of workers died from scurvy and other illnesses, especially at the beginning; that the provinces were forced to send workers who never returned home; that high prices there, compared to the lower ones in Moscow and other places, ruined the gentry; that the location was not healthy or pleasant, that (besides other reasons) St. Petersburg is less suitable than Moscow as the empire’s seat of government.
Some presume that the action of Peter the Great was similar to the deeds of Constantine who moved the throne of empire to Byzantium and left Rome; consequently, the Romans did not know what to call their fatherland. They could not see all the things that inspired admiration and enthusiasm in Rome, and their virtues began to decline and eventually, they lost them forever.“87
86 Zapiski imperatritsy Ekateriny Vtoroi, 622.
87 Ibid, 651.
Usually, scholars interpret Catherine’s statement in accordance with the famous Russian juxtaposition: Saint Petersburg versus Moscow. 88 However, the essay is important not only as a declaration of Catherine’s attitude toward this specific example, but also because it reveals her attitude toward the act of moving capitals in general.
As Montesquieu wrote in his Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline, the moving of the throne to the old Greek colony of Byzantium on the Bosphorus and the foundation of a new capital Constantinople (on May 11, 330 they celebrated its official opening) broke the balance of power in the state. Roman laws, customs, even their spirit itself were seriously changed. The proximity to the Asian despotic regimes ruined the rest of their democratic institutions and engendered the cult of the emperor, who became all-powerful. 89 The Senate also moved to the fledgling capital, but, in Byzantium, it began to play a nominal role. Treasures taken from conquered peoples flooded into Constantinople, which became a rich and splendid city, but, as Montesquieu concluded, one that did not have any reason to exist. 90
In this brilliant book, Montesquieu defines the early Enlightenment’s concept of state as an organic unity of climate, location, mores, and customs. From such a point of view, any movement of the capital should be considered an archaic, magically symbolic act that contradicts the new rational approach.
In enumerating all the negative consequences of Petersburg’s establishment, Catherine II expressed her solidarity with Montesquieu. His book created a political context which allows for a better understanding of Catherine’s essay and her critique of Peter’s endeavor.
In her piece The Beginning of Oleg’s Reign (Начальное управление Олега; 1787), Catherine relies upon Montesquieu’s
88 E. A. Pogosian, “Ot staroi Ladogi do Ekaterinoslava (mesto Moskvy v predstavleniiakh Ekateriny II o stolitse imperii,” in Lotmanovskii sbornik 2 (Moscow, 1997), 511–522.
89 Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des romains et de leur decadence (Paris, 1879), 185.
90 Ibid, 187.
147 To p p l i n g t h e B r o n z e H o r s e m a n
concept of the “organic” nature of the state. Not by accident, she confessed to having read the French Encyclopedia while she worked on her historical drama.91 Her piece relates to events of the 870s described in the Primary Chronicle and is concerned with a conflict between the pagan Prince Oleg (Rurik’s son) and Askold, who has accepted baptism. Catherine’s interpretation was quite extraordinary. Some Kievan people come to Oleg with a complaint about Askold’s behavior:
“The Kievans sent us to you, our Sovereign, to explain that Prince Askold changed our old customs without informing you; our people suspect that Askold, during his campaign to Constantinople, accepted their beliefs and rituals <...>
Since returning to Kiev, he does not attend the sacred hills and temples, he does not conduct funeral feasts, and he apparently scorns our priests.”92
Catherine stressed the ability of Prince Oleg to find a correct solution (though it contradicted the Chronicle!): he went to Kiev, dethroned Askold, and restored paganism. Oleg considered the change of religion a rude violation of the people’s mores and customs. The empress endowed Prince Oleg with some of her own ideas and qualities. The royal author characterizes him as a very wise ruler who began his reign by traveling around the state and establishing new cities. Contemporary readers could easily perceive a reference to Catherine’s travels. Her Prince Oleg took part in establishing Moscow (the empress included a good deal of fabrication in her “historical” dramas) where he invited all pagan priests to conduct their usual rituals. He did not interfere in the rituals, though he censured them for harboring excessive superstitious beliefs.
Catherine’s critique of Askold, depicted in her piece as a radical reformer who scorned tradition, targets two real reigns and two real rulers. First, it refers to Peter III, her murdered husband, who, as some people believed, had plans to modernize the Russian Orthodox Church or even to replace it with Protestantism. Second,
91 A. V. Khrapovitskii, Pamiatnye zapiski, 14.
92 Sochineniia imperatritsy Ekateriny II, 2 , 268–269.
it implies some criticism towards Peter I, whose ideological legacy had been recently challenged. 93
During her trip to the Crimea in 1787, Catherine, besides founding the new town of Ekaterinoslav, discussed the possibility of transferring the capital there.94 She openly criticized Peter’s choice of location for the capital. Visiting Kursk, she uttered: “It is a pity that Petersburg was not built here; in passing these places, you can imagine the times of Vladimir I (Prince Vladimir Sviatoslavovich the Great. — V. P.) who made these lands very populated.”95 A year later, when the war with Sweden broke out and their cannons were heard in Tsarskoe Selo, she complained about the unfortunate placement of Saint Petersburg: “It is true that Peter I built the capital too close.”96
Peter’s strategy compelled him to build the capital close to the northern frontiers, the focus of his politics. Meanwhile, Catherine’s strategy to take possession of southern lands forced her to consider the possibility, if only hypothetically, of moving the Russian capital south. Notably, she underscored in her letter to Grimm that the head of the Bronze Horseman was turned to the side opposite the Black Sea. She aggressively annexed southern territories (forgetting her literary fantasies about the organic states), and she still cherished the so-called Greek project, hoping to acquire Constantinople (with her grandson Constantine as emperor) as her second capital. 97
93 A similar double reference to Peter I and Pavel Petrovich was found in Catherine’s opera libretto Fevei, see Stefano Gardzonio, “Librettistika Ekateriny II i ee gosudarstvenno-natsional’nye predposylki,, in Rossia/Russia 3 (11).
Kul’turnye praktiki v ideologicheskoi perspective. Rossiia, XVIII–nachalo XX veka (Moscow — Venice, 1999), 87.
94 A. M. Panchenko, “Potemkinskie derevni kak kul’turnyi mif,” in XVIII vek, 14 (1983), 101. Catherine II criticized Peter I’s choice of a new place for the capital in her letter to Voltaire, see Documents of Catherine the Great. The Correspondence with Voltaire, 101.
95 A. V. Khrapovitskii, Pamiatnye zapiski, 28–29.
96 Ibid, 72.
97 At the beginning of the 1790s, Platon Zubov, the last Catherine’s favorite, worked on some giant (as well as utopian) geo-political projects to extend borders of the Russian Empire and to establish six capitals, such as Saint Petersburg, Moscow, Berlin, Vienna, Constantinople (V. O. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia v deviati tomakh, V, 306).
149 To p p l i n g t h e B r o n z e H o r s e m a n
Given the circumstances, the Saint Petersburg myth served Catherine’s translatio imperii successfully. Catherine secured her reign by putting her own achievements forward and relegating Peter’s figure to the background. First, she made Peter I her ideological ally, thereby taking advantage of his mythological legacy. Then, in constructing a bronze statue to Peter, she deconstructed his sacred stance in the Saint Petersburg myth. Her political strategy as well as her cultural fantasies contributed much to future discussions on the nature of Saint Petersburg and the validity of its building.