Catherine 2's speech in the captain's daughter. Great
One of the works of Russian literature in which the image of Catherine the Great is created is “The Captain’s Daughter” by A.S. Pushkin, written in 1836. When creating the work, the writer turned to many historical sources, but he did not exactly follow the historical description: the image of Catherine the Great in Pushkin is subordinated to the general concept of the work.
Literary critic V. Shklovsky quotes words from an article by P.A. Vyazemsky “On Karamzin’s letters”: “In Tsarskoe Selo we must not forget Catherine... Monuments of her reign here tell about her. Having put the crown from her head and the purple from her shoulders, she lived here as a homely and kind housewife. Here, it seems, you meet her in the form and attire in which she is depicted in the famous painting by Borovikovsky, even more famous from the beautiful and excellent engraving by Utkin.” Further, V. Shklovsky notes that, in contrast to the nobility and Pugachev’s camp, depicted in the “realistic manner”, “Pushkin’s Catherine is deliberately shown in the official tradition” [Shklovsky: 277].
Now let's turn to the story. As we know, Pushkin writes on behalf of the narrator, and the narrator - Grinev - narrates the meeting of Marya Ivanovna with the Empress from the words of Marya Ivanovna, who, of course, recalled the meeting that shocked her many times in her later life. How could these people devoted to the throne talk about Catherine II? There is no doubt: with naive simplicity and loyal adoration. “According to Pushkin’s plan,” writes literary critic P.N. Berkov, “obviously, Catherine II in “The Captain’s Daughter” should not be shown realistically, like the real, historical Catherine: Pushkin’s goal is in accordance with his chosen form of notes of the hero, a loyal nobleman , it was to portray Catherine precisely in the official interpretation: even Catherine’s morning disabiliy was designed to create a legend about the empress as a simple, ordinary woman.”
The fact that Pushkin recreated in the novel the features of the empress, captured by the artist Borovikovsky, emphasized the official “version” of the portrait. Moreover, Pushkin demonstratively renounced his personal perception of the empress and gave the reader a “copy of a copy.” Borovikovsky painted from living nature. It was enough for Pushkin to present a copy of the highly approved portrait. He depicted not a living model, but a dead nature. Catherine II in the novel is not an image of a living person, but a “quote,” as Shklovsky wittily noted. From this secondary nature comes the cold that surrounds Catherine in Pushkin’s novel. The “fresh breath of autumn” has already changed the face of nature - the linden leaves turned yellow, the empress, going out for a walk, put on a “sweat jacket”. Her “cold” face, “full and rosy,” “expressed importance and calm.” The “stern facial expression” that appeared during the reading of Masha Mironova’s petition is associated with the same coldness. This is even emphasized by the author’s remark: “Are you asking for Grinev? - said the lady with a cold look.” There is also coldness in Catherine’s actions: she starts a “game” with Masha, posing as a lady close to the court; she plays, not lives.
This depiction of Catherine II reveals Pushkin’s intention to contrast this image of the ruling empress with the image of Pugachev, the “peasant king.” Hence the contrast between these two figures. Pugachev’s mercy, based on justice, is contrasted with Catherine’s “mercy,” which expressed the arbitrariness of autocratic power.
This contrast, as always, was acutely aware and perceived by Marina Tsvetaeva: “The contrast between Pugachev’s blackness and her (Catherine II’s) whiteness, his liveliness and her importance, his cheerful kindness and her condescending one, his masculinity and her ladylikeness could not help but disgust from her childish heart, one-loving and already committed to the “villain” [Tsvetaeva].
Tsvetaeva doesn’t just set out her impressions, she analyzes the novel and carefully argues her thesis about the contrast in the portrayal of Pugachev and Catherine II and Pushkin’s attitude towards these antipodes: “Against the fiery background of Pugachev - fires, robberies, blizzards, wagons, feasts - this one, in a cap and the shower jacket, on the bench, between all sorts of bridges and leaves, seemed to me like a huge white fish, a whitefish. And even unsalted. (Ekaterina’s main feature is amazing blandness)” [Tsvetaeva].
And further: “Let’s compare Pugachev and Catherine in reality: “Come out, beautiful maiden, I will give you freedom. I am the sovereign." (Pugachev leading Marya Ivanovna out of prison). “Excuse me,” she said in an even more affectionate voice, “if I interfere in your affairs, but I am at court...” [ibid.].
The assessment given to Ekaterina Tsvetaeva may be somewhat subjective and emotional. She writes: “And what a different kindness! Pugachev enters the dungeon like the sun. Catherine’s affectionateness even then seemed to me sweetness, sweetness, honeyedness, and this even more affectionate voice was simply flattering: false. I recognized and hated her as a lady patroness.
And as soon as it started in the book, I became sucking and bored, its whiteness, fullness and kindness made me physically sick, like cold cutlets or warm pike perch in white sauce, which I know I will eat, but - how? For me, the book fell into two couples, into two marriages: Pugachev and Grinev, Ekaterina and Marya Ivanovna. And it would be better if they got married like that!” [ibid].
However, one question that Tsvetaeva asks seems very important to us: “Does Pushkin love Ekaterina in The Captain’s Daughter? Don't know. He is respectful to her. He knew that all this: whiteness, kindness, fullness - things were respectable. So I honored you.
But there is no love - enchantment in the image of Catherine. All of Pushkin’s love went to Pugachev (Grinev loves Masha, not Pushkin) - only official respect remained for Catherine.
Catherine is needed so that everything “ends well” [ibid].
Thus, Tsvetaeva sees mainly repulsive features in the image of Catherine, while Pugachev, according to the poet, is very attractive, he “fascinates”, he looks more like a tsar than an empress: “How much more regal in his gesture is a man who calls himself a sovereign, than an empress posing as a hanger-on” [Tsvetaeva].
Yu.M. Lotman objects to the crudely straightforward definition of Pushkin’s view of Catherine II. Of course, Pushkin did not create a negative image of Catherine and did not resort to satirical colors.
Yu.M. Lotman explains the introduction of the image of Catherine II into the novel “The Captain's Daughter” by Pushkin’s desire to equalize the actions of the impostor and the reigning empress in relation to the main character Grinev and his beloved Marya Ivanovna. The “similarity” of the action lies in the fact that both Pugachev and Catherine II - each in a similar situation acts not as a ruler, but as a person. “In these years, Pushkin was deeply characterized by the idea that human simplicity forms the basis of greatness (cf., for example, “Commander”). It was precisely the fact that in Catherine II, according to Pushkin’s story, a middle-aged lady living next to the empress, walking in the park with a dog, allowed her to show humanity. “The Empress cannot forgive him,” says Catherine II to Masha Mironova. But not only the empress lives in her, but also a person, and this saves the hero, and prevents the unbiased reader from perceiving the image as one-sidedly negative” [Lotman: 17].
There is no doubt that in depicting the Empress, Pushkin must have felt especially constrained by political and censorship conditions. His sharply negative attitude towards “Tartuffe in a skirt and a crown,” as he called Catherine II, is evidenced by numerous judgments and statements. Meanwhile, he could not show Catherine in such a way in a work intended for publication. Pushkin found a double way out of these difficulties. Firstly, the image of Catherine is given through the perception of an eighteenth-century nobleman, officer Grinev, who, with all his sympathy for Pugachev as a person, remains a loyal subject of the empress. Secondly, in his description of Catherine, Pushkin relies on a certain artistic document.
As already mentioned, the image of the “lady” with the “white dog”, whom Masha Mironova met in the Tsarskoye Selo garden, exactly reproduces Borovikovsky’s famous portrait of Catherine II: “She was in a white morning dress, a nightcap and a shower jacket. She seemed to be about forty years old. Her face, plump and rosy, expressed importance and calmness, and her blue eyes and light smile had an inexplicable charm” [Pushkin 1978: 358]. Probably, any reader familiar with the indicated portrait will recognize Catherine in this description. However, Pushkin seems to be playing with the reader and forcing the lady to hide the fact that she is the empress. In her conversation with Masha, we immediately pay attention to her compassion.
At the same time, Pushkin unusually subtly - without any pressure and at the same time extremely expressively - shows how this familiar “Tartuffe” mask instantly falls from Catherine’s face when she finds out that Masha is asking for Grinev:
“The lady was the first to break the silence. “Are you sure you’re not from here?” - she said.
Exactly so, sir: I just arrived from the provinces yesterday.
Did you come with your family?
No way, sir. I came alone.
One! But you are still so young.”
I have neither father nor mother.
Surely you are here on some business?
Exactly so, sir. I came to submit a request to the Empress.
You are an orphan: perhaps you complain about injustice and insult?
No way, sir. I came to ask for mercy, not justice.
Let me ask, who are you?
I am the daughter of Captain Mironov.
Captain Mironov! The same one who was the commandant in one of the Orenburg fortresses?
Exactly so, sir.
The lady seemed touched. “Excuse me,” she said in an even more affectionate voice, “if I interfere in your affairs; but I am at court; Explain to me what your request is, and maybe I will be able to help you.” Marya Ivanovna stood up and thanked her respectfully. Everything about the unknown lady involuntarily attracted the heart and inspired confidence. Marya Ivanovna took a folded paper out of her pocket and handed it to her unfamiliar patron, who began to read it to herself. At first she read with an attentive and supportive look; but suddenly her face changed, and Marya Ivanovna, who followed all her movements with her eyes, was frightened by the stern expression of this face, so pleasant and calm for a minute.
“Are you asking for Grinev?” - said the lady with a cold look. - “The Empress cannot forgive him. He stuck to the impostor not out of ignorance and gullibility, but as an immoral and harmful scoundrel.”
Oh, that's not true! - Marya Ivanovna screamed.
“How untrue!” - the lady objected, flushing all over” [Pushkin 1978: 357-358].
As we see, not a trace remains of the “inexplicable charm” of the stranger’s appearance. Before us is not a welcomingly smiling “lady,” but an angry, imperious empress, from whom it is useless to expect leniency and mercy. All the more clearly in comparison with this does the deep humanity emerge in relation to Grinev and his fiancée Pugacheva. It is precisely in this regard that Pushkin gets the opportunity, both as an artist and bypassing the censorship slingshots, to develop - in the spirit of folk songs and tales about Pugachev - a remarkable work, with clearly expressed national-Russian features. It is no coincidence that V. Shklovsky notes: “The motive for Pugachev’s pardoning of Grinev is gratitude for a minor service that a nobleman once provided to Pugachev. The motive for Ekaterina’s pardon of Grinev is Masha’s petition.” [Shklovsky: 270].
Catherine's first reaction to Masha's request is a refusal, which she explains by the impossibility of forgiving the criminal. However, the question arises: why does the monarch, when administering justice, condemn based on denunciation and slander, and not try to restore justice? One answer is this: justice is alien to autocracy by nature.
However, Catherine II not only approves the unjust sentence, she also, according to many researchers, shows mercy: out of respect for the merits and advanced years of Grinev’s father, she cancels the execution of her son and sends him to Siberia for eternal settlement. What kind of mercy is it to exile an innocent person to Siberia? But this, according to Pushkin, is the “mercy” of the autocrats, radically different from the mercy of Pugachev, it contradicts justice and is in fact the arbitrariness of the monarch. Need I remind you that Pushkin, from his personal experience, already knew what the mercy of Nicholas I amounted to. With good reason, he wrote about himself that he was “shackled by mercy.” Naturally, there is no humanity in such mercy.
However, let’s see if in the episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with Ekaterina and in the description of the previous circumstances there is still an author’s attitude towards them. Let us recall the facts that took place from the moment Grinev appeared in court. We know that he stopped his explanations to the court about the true reason for his unauthorized absence from Orenburg and thereby extinguished the “favor of the judges” with which they began to listen to him. Sensitive Marya Ivanovna understood why Grinev did not want to justify himself before the court, and decided to go to the queen herself to tell everything sincerely and save the groom. She succeeded.
Now let us turn once again to the very episode of the meeting of the queen with Marya Ivanovna. Grinev’s innocence became clear to Catherine from Marya Ivanovna’s story, from her petition, just as it would have become clear to the investigative commission if Grinev had finished his testimony. Marya Ivanovna told what Grinev did not say at the trial, and the queen acquitted Masha’s groom. So what is her mercy? What is humanity?
The Empress needs Grinev's innocence more than his guilt. Each nobleman who went over to Pugachev’s side harmed the noble class, the support of her throne. Hence Catherine’s anger (her face changed while reading the letter and became stern), which after Marya Ivanovna’s story “changes to mercy.” The queen smiles and asks where Masha is staying. She, apparently, makes a decision favorable to the petitioner and reassures the captain’s daughter. Pushkin, giving the right to tell Grinev, forces him at the same time to report facts that allow us to draw our conclusions. Ekaterina speaks kindly to Marya Ivanovna and is friendly with her. In the palace, she picks up the girl who has fallen at her feet, shocked by her “mercy.” She utters a phrase, addressing her, her subject, as her equal: “I know that you are not rich,” she said, “but I am indebted to the daughter of Captain Mironov. Don't worry about the future. I take it upon myself to arrange your condition.” How could Marya Ivanovna, who from childhood was brought up in respect for the throne and royal power, perceive these words?
Pushkin wrote about Catherine that “her... friendliness attracted her.” In a small episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with the Empress through the mouth of Grinev, he speaks about this quality of Catherine, about her ability to charm people, about her ability to “take advantage of the weakness of the human soul.” After all, Marya Ivanovna is the daughter of the hero, Captain Mironov, whose feat the queen knew about. Catherine distributed orders to officers who distinguished themselves in the war against the Pugachevites, and also helped orphaned noble families. Is it any wonder that she took care of Masha too. The Empress was not generous to her. The captain's daughter did not receive a large dowry from the queen and did not increase Grinev's wealth. Grinev's descendants, according to the publisher, i.e. Pushkin, “prospered” in a village that belonged to ten landowners.
Catherine valued the attitude of the nobility towards her and understood perfectly well what impression the “highest pardon” would make on the loyal Grinev family. Pushkin himself (and not the narrator) writes: “In one of the master’s wings they show a handwritten letter from Catherine II behind glass and in a frame,” which was passed down from generation to generation.
This is how “the legend was created about the empress as a simple, accessible to petitioners, an ordinary woman,” writes P.N. Berkov in the article “Pushkin and Catherine”. And this is exactly how Grinev, one of the best representatives of the nobility of the late 18th century, considered her.
However, in our opinion, Catherine II ultimately wanted to protect her power; if she lost the support of these people, then she would lose power. Therefore, her mercy cannot be called real, it is rather a trick.
Thus, in “The Captain's Daughter” Pushkin portrays Catherine in a very ambiguous way, which can be understood not only by some hints and details, but also by all the artistic techniques that the author uses.
Another work that creates the image of Catherine, which we chose for analysis, is the story by N.V. Gogol's "The Night Before Christmas", which was written in 1840. In time, this story is separated from “The Captain’s Daughter” by only 4 years. But the story is written in a completely different way, in a different tone, and this makes the comparison interesting.
The first difference is related to the portrait characteristics. In Gogol’s portrait of Catherine there is some kind of doll-like quality: “Then the blacksmith dared to raise his head and saw standing in front of him a short woman, somewhat portly, powdered, with blue eyes and at the same time that majestic smiling look that was so able to conquer everything. and could only belong to one reigning woman." Like Pushkin, blue eyes are repeated, but Gogol’s Catherine smiles “majesticly.”
The first phrase that Catherine utters shows that the empress is too far from the people: “His Serene Highness promised to introduce me today to my people, whom I have not yet seen,” said the lady with blue eyes, looking at the Cossacks with curiosity. “Are you well kept here?” she continued, coming closer" [Gogol 1940: 236].
Further conversation with the Cossacks makes it possible to imagine Catherine, at first glance, sweet and kind. However, let’s pay attention to the fragment when Vakula compliments her: “My God, what a decoration!” - he cried joyfully, grabbing his shoes. “Your Royal Majesty! Well, when you have shoes like these on your feet, and in them, your honor, hopefully, you can go and skate on the ice, what kind of shoes should your feet be? I think, at least from pure sugar” [Gogol 1040: 238]. Immediately after this remark follows the author’s text: “The Empress, who certainly had the most slender and charming legs, could not help but smile when hearing such a compliment from the lips of a simple-minded blacksmith, who in his Zaporozhye dress could be considered handsome, despite his dark face” [ ibid.]. It is undoubtedly permeated with irony, which is based on alogism (remember, “a short woman, somewhat portly”).
But even more irony is contained in the fragment describing the end of the meeting with the queen: “Delighted with such favorable attention, the blacksmith already wanted to ask the queen thoroughly about everything: is it true that kings eat only honey and lard, and the like - but, having felt, that the Cossacks were pushing him in the sides, he decided to remain silent; and when the empress, turning to the old people, began to ask how they lived in the Sich, what customs there were, he, moving back, bent down to his pocket, said quietly: “Take me out of here quickly!” and suddenly found himself behind a barrier” [ibid.]. The meeting ended seemingly at the behest of Vakula, but Gogol’s subtext is this: it is unlikely that the empress would listen with sincere attention to the life of the Cossacks.
The background on which Catherine appears is also different in the works. If for Pushkin it is a beautiful garden, creating a feeling of calm and tranquility, then for Gogol it is the palace itself: “Having already climbed the stairs, the Cossacks passed through the first hall. The blacksmith timidly followed them, fearing at every step he would slip on the parquet floor. Three halls passed, the blacksmith still did not cease to be surprised. Entering the fourth, he involuntarily approached the picture hanging on the wall. It was the Most Pure Virgin with the Baby in her arms. “What a picture! what a wonderful painting! - he reasoned, - it seems he’s talking! seems to be alive! and the Holy Child! and my hands were pressed! and grins, poor thing! and the colors! My God, what colors! here the vokhas, I think, weren’t even worth a penny, it’s all fire and cormorant: and the blue one is still burning! important work! the soil must have been caused by bleivas. As surprising as these paintings are, however, this copper handle,” he continued, going up to the door and feeling the lock, “is even more worthy of surprise.” Wow, what a clean job! All this, I think, was done by German blacksmiths for the most expensive prices...” [Gogol 1978: 235].
Here, what attracts attention is not so much the surrounding luxury itself, but rather the thoughts and feelings of the petitioners: the blacksmith “follows timidly” because he is afraid of falling, and the works of art decorating the walls raise the assumption that all this was done by “German blacksmiths, for the most expensive prices.” This is how Gogol conveys the idea that ordinary people and those in power seem to live in different worlds.
Together with Ekaterina, Gogol portrays her favorite Potemkin, who is worried that the Cossacks would not say anything unnecessary or behave incorrectly:
“Will you remember to speak as I taught you?
Potemkin bit his lips, finally came up himself and whispered imperiously to one of the Cossacks. The Cossacks rose up” [Gogol 1978: 236].
The following words of Catherine require special comment:
“- Get up! - the empress said affectionately. - If you really want to have such shoes, then it’s not difficult to do. Bring him the most expensive shoes, with gold, this very hour! Really, I really like this simplicity! Here you are,” the empress continued, fixing her eyes on a middle-aged man standing further away from the others with a plump but somewhat pale face, whose modest caftan with large mother-of-pearl buttons showed that he was not one of the courtiers, “an object worthy of your witty pen!” » [Gogol 1978: 237].
Catherine shows the satirical writer what he should pay attention to - the innocence of ordinary people, and not the vices of those in power. In other words, Catherine seems to shift the writer’s attention from statesmen, from the state (power is inviolable) to the small “oddities” of ordinary, illiterate people.
Thus, in Gogol’s work, Catherine is depicted more satirically than in Pushkin.
CONCLUSIONS
The study allowed us to draw the following conclusions:
1) the study of historical and biographical materials and their comparison with works of art gives reason to say that there is an undoubted dependence of the interpretation of historical and biographical facts related to the life of the empresses on the peculiarities of the worldview of the authors of these works;
2) different assessments of the activities of the empresses presented in works of art - from categorically negative to clearly positive, bordering on delight, are due, firstly, to the complexity and contradictory nature of the characters of the women themselves, and secondly, to the moral attitudes of the authors of the works and their artistic priorities; thirdly, the existing differences in the stereotypes of assessing the personality of these rulers by representatives of different classes;
3) the fate of Cixi and Catherine II has some common features: they went through a long and difficult path to power, and therefore many of their actions from a moral point of view are far from unambiguous;
4) artistic understanding of the contradictory and ambiguous figures of the great empresses Cixi and Catherine II in the works of historical prose of China and Russia contributes to a deeper understanding of the significance of the role of an individual in the historical process and understanding of the mechanisms of formation of a moral assessment of their actions at a certain historical period of time.
Convinced of Grinev’s innocence, Masha Mironova considers it her moral duty to save him. She travels to St. Petersburg, where her meeting with the Empress takes place in Tsarskoe Selo.
Catherine II appears to the reader as a benevolent, gentle and simple woman. But we know that Pushkin had a sharply negative attitude towards Catherine II. How can one explain her attractive appearance in the story?
Let's look at the lifetime portrait of Catherine II, painted by the artist V.L. Borovikovsky in 1794. (In 1827, an engraving of this portrait appeared, made by the outstanding Russian engraver N.I. Utkin.) Here is how V. Shklovsky compares the portraits of Catherine II made by V.L. Borovikovsky and the narrator in the story “The Captain’s Daughter”: “In the portrait of Catherine depicted in a morning summer dress, in a night cap; near her feet there is a dog; behind Catherine there are trees and the Rumyantsev Obelisk. The Empress's face is full and ruddy. The meeting with Marya Ivanovna should take place in the fall. Pushkin writes: “The sun illuminated the tops of the linden trees, which had turned yellow under the fresh breath of autumn ". Further, Pushkin reports: “She [Ekaterina] was in a white morning dress, a night cap and a shower jacket." The shower jacket made it possible not to change Catherine’s clothes, despite the cold weather... The dog from Borovikovsky’s painting also ended up in “The Captain’s Daughter”, this She was the first to notice Marya Ivanovna." There are discrepancies between the text and the image - the empress is 20 years younger, dressed in white, not blue. The second version of the portrait is described - with the Rumyantsev Obelisk; most likely, Pushkin was inspired by the engraving, and not by the original, which Rumyantsev had and was difficult to view.
And here are the words from P.A. Vyazemsky’s article “On Karamzin’s Letters,” which V. Shklovsky cites: “In Tsarskoe Selo, Catherine must not be forgotten... The monuments of her reign here tell about her. Having laid the crown from her head and the purple from her shoulders, "Here she lived as a homely and kind housewife. Here, it seems, you meet her in the form and attire in which she is depicted in the famous painting by Borovikovsky, even more famous from the beautiful and excellent engraving by Utkin."
We see that the portrait of V.L. Borovikovsky, the engraving of N.I. Utkin and the words of P.A. Vyazemsky express a noble, tender and admiring attitude towards the “gracious hostess” of Tsarskoe Selo.
Now let's turn to the story. As we know, Pushkin writes on behalf of the narrator, and the narrator - Grinev - narrates the meeting of Marya Ivanovna with the Empress from the words of Marya Ivanovna, who, of course, recalled the meeting that shocked her many times in her later life. How could these people devoted to the throne talk about Catherine II? There is no doubt: with naive simplicity and loyal adoration. “According to Pushkin’s plan,” writes literary critic P.N. Berkov, “obviously, Catherine II in “The Captain’s Daughter” should not be shown realistically, like the real, historical Catherine: Pushkin’s goal is in accordance with the form he chose for the notes of the hero, a loyal subject nobleman, it was necessary to portray Catherine precisely in the official interpretation: even Catherine’s morning debauchery was designed to create a legend about the empress as a simple, ordinary woman."
However, let’s see if in the episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with Ekaterina and in the description of the previous circumstances there is still an author’s attitude towards them. Let us recall the facts that took place from the moment Grinev appeared in court. We know that he stopped explaining to the court about the true reason for his unauthorized absence from Orenburg and thereby extinguished the “favor of the judges” with which they began to listen to him. Sensitive Marya Ivanovna understood why Grinev did not want to justify himself before the court, and decided to go to the queen herself to tell everything sincerely and save the groom. She succeeded. Now let's turn to the episode of the queen's meeting with Marya Ivanovna.
Grinev’s innocence became clear to Catherine from Marya Ivanovna’s story, from her petition, just as it would have become clear to the investigative commission if Grinev had finished his testimony. Marya Ivanovna told what Grinev did not say at the trial, and the queen acquitted Masha’s groom. So what is her mercy? What is humanity?
The Empress needs Grinev's innocence more than his guilt. Each nobleman who went over to Pugachev’s side harmed the noble class, the support of her throne. Hence Catherine’s anger (her face changed while reading the letter and became stern), which after Marya Ivanovna’s story “changes to mercy.” The queen smiles and asks where Masha is staying. She apparently makes a decision favorable to the petitioner and reassures the captain’s daughter.
Pushkin, giving the right to tell Grinev, forces him at the same time to report facts that allow us to draw our own conclusions. Ekaterina speaks kindly to Marya Ivanovna and is friendly with her. In the palace, she picks up the girl who has fallen at her feet, shocked by her “mercy.” She utters a phrase, addressing her, her subject, as her equal: “I know that you are not rich,” she said, “but I'm in debt in front of the daughter of Captain Mironov. Don't worry about the future. I take it upon myself to arrange your fortune." How could Marya Ivanovna, who from childhood was brought up in respect for the throne and royal power, perceive these words?
Pushkin wrote about Catherine that “her... friendliness attracted her.” In a small episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with the Empress through the lips of Grinev, he speaks about this quality of Catherine, about her ability to charm people, about her ability to “take advantage of the weakness of the human soul.” After all, Marya Ivanovna is the daughter of the hero, Captain Mironov, whose feat the queen knew about. Catherine distributed orders to officers who distinguished themselves in the war against the Pugachevites, and also helped orphaned noble families. Is it any wonder that she took care of Masha too. The Empress was not generous to her. The captain's daughter did not receive a large dowry from the queen and did not increase Grinev's wealth. Grinev's descendants, according to the publisher, i.e. Pushkin, “prospered” in a village that belonged to ten landowners.
Catherine valued the attitude of the nobility towards her and understood perfectly well what impression the “highest pardon” would make on the loyal Grinev family. Pushkin himself (and not the narrator) writes: “In one of the master’s wings they show a handwritten letter from Catherine II behind glass and in a frame,” which was passed down from generation to generation.
This is how “the legend of the empress was created as a simple, accessible to petitioners, an ordinary woman,” writes P.N. Berkov in the article “Pushkin and Catherine.”
The life of the Russian Empress Catherine the Great, which has attracted the attention of both ordinary people and creative individuals for more than two centuries, is surrounded by a large number of all kinds of myths. AiF.ru recalls the five most common legends about the most famous Russian ruler.
Myth one. “Catherine II gave birth to an heir to the throne not from Peter III”
One of the most persistent myths associated with the Russian Empress concerns who was the father of the heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich. For Paul I, who ascended the throne, this topic remained painful until his very last days.
The reason for the persistence of such rumors is that Catherine II herself did not seek to refute them or somehow punish those who spread them.
The relationship between Catherine and her husband, the future Emperor Peter III, was indeed not very warm. The marital relationship in the early years was incomplete due to Peter's illness, which was subsequently overcome as a result of the operation.
Two years before Pavel was born, Catherine had her first favorite, Sergey Saltykov. The relationship between him and Catherine ended after the future empress showed signs of pregnancy. Subsequently, Saltykov was sent abroad as a Russian envoy, and practically did not appear in Russia.
There seem to be many reasons for the version of Saltykov’s paternity, but they all do not look convincing against the backdrop of the undoubted portrait similarity between Peter III and Paul I. Contemporaries, focusing not on rumors, but on facts, had no doubt that Pavel was the son of Peter Fedorovich.
Myth two. “Catherine II sold Alaska to America”
The persistent myth at the end of the 20th century was reinforced by the song of the group “Lube”, after which the empress’s status as “liquidator of Russian America” was finally established.
In reality, during the reign of Catherine the Great, Russian industrialists were just beginning to develop Alaska. The first permanent Russian settlement was founded on Kodiak Island in 1784.
The Empress was indeed unenthusiastic about the projects presented to her for the development of Alaska, but this was caused by who intended to develop it and how.
In 1780, secretary of the Commerce Collegium Mikhail Chulkov submitted to the Prosecutor General of the Senate, Prince Vyazemsky, a project for creating a company that was to receive a 30-year monopoly on fishing and trade in the entire Pacific North. Catherine II, who was an opponent of monopolies, rejected the project. In 1788, a similar project, which provided for the transfer of a trade and fishing monopoly of monopoly rights to the extraction of furs in newly discovered territories in the New World, was submitted by industrialists Grigory Shelikhov And Ivan Golikov. The project was also rejected. Only after the death of Catherine II, the development of Alaska by a monopoly company was approved by Paul I.
As for the sale of Alaska, the deal with the United States was concluded in March 1867 on the initiative of the great-grandson of Catherine the Great, Emperor Alexandra II.
Myth three. “Catherine II had hundreds of lovers”
Rumors about the incredible sexual exploits of the Russian Empress, which have been circulating for the third century, are greatly exaggerated. The list of her hobbies throughout her life contains just over 20 names - this, of course, is uncharacteristic for the Russian court of the pre-Catherine era, but for the morals of Europe at that time the situation was quite normal. With a small clarification - for male monarchs, not for women. But the whole point is that there were not so many women who ruled states single-handedly at that time.
Until 1772, Catherine’s love list was very short - in addition to her legal spouse Peter Fedorovich, it featured Sergey Saltykov, future Polish king Stanislav August Poniatowski And Grigory Orlov, the relationship with whom lasted about 12 years.
Apparently, 43-year-old Catherine was further influenced by the fear of her own beauty fading. In an effort to catch up with her youth, she began to change her favorites, who became younger and younger, and the duration of their stay with the empress became shorter and shorter.
The last of the favorites lasted for seven whole years. In 1789, 60-year-old Catherine approached a 22-year-old Horse Guards Platon Zubov. The aging woman was very attached to Zubov, whose only talent was extracting money from the state treasury. But this sad story definitely has nothing to do with the mythical “hundreds of lovers.”
Myth four. “Catherine II spent most of her time at feasts and balls”
Little Fike's childhood was indeed far from the classical ideas of how a princess should live. The girl was even forced to learn how to darn her own stockings. It would not be surprising if, having arrived in Russia, Catherine rushed to compensate for her “difficult childhood” with a passion for luxury and entertainment.
But in fact, having ascended the throne, Catherine II lived in the strict rhythm of the head of state. She got up at 5 am, and only in later years did this time shift to 7 am. Immediately after breakfast, the reception of officials began, and the schedule of their reports was clearly outlined by hours and days of the week, and this order did not change for years. The empress's working day lasted up to four hours, after which it was time to rest. At 10 p.m. Catherine went to bed, because in the morning she had to get up for work again.
Officials who visited the empress on official business outside of solemn and official events saw her in simple dresses without any jewelry - Catherine believed that she did not need to dazzle her subjects with her appearance on weekdays.
Myth fifth. “Catherine II was killed by a Polish dwarf avenger”
The death of the empress was also surrounded by many myths. A year before her death, Catherine II was one of the initiators of the Third Partition of Poland, after which the country ceased to exist as an independent state. The Polish throne, on which the empress's former lover, King Stanisław August Poniatowski, had previously sat, was sent to St. Petersburg, where, on the orders of the empress, it was allegedly made into a “toilet” for her dressing room.
Of course, Polish patriots could not endure such humiliation of their own country and the ancient throne of the Piast dynasty.
The myth says that a certain Pole-dwarf allegedly managed to sneak into Catherine’s chambers, ambushed her in the restroom, stabbed her with a dagger and disappeared safely. The courtiers who discovered the empress could not help her, and she soon died.
The only truth in this story is that Catherine was actually found in the restroom. On the morning of November 16, 1796, the 67-year-old empress, as usual, got out of bed, drank coffee and went to the toilet room, where she lingered for too long. The valet on duty dared to look there and found Catherine lying on the floor. Her eyes were closed, her complexion was purple, and wheezing came from her throat. The Empress was taken to the bedchamber. In the fall, Catherine sprained her leg, her body became so heavy that the servants did not have enough strength to lift him onto the bed. Therefore, they laid a mattress on the floor and laid the empress on it.
All signs indicated that Catherine had suffered an apoplexy - this term then meant a stroke and cerebral hemorrhage. She did not regain consciousness, and the court doctors who assisted her had no doubt that the empress had only a few hours left to live.
According to doctors, death should have occurred around three o'clock in the afternoon on November 17. Catherine’s strong body made its own adjustments here too - the great empress passed away at 9:45 pm on November 17, 1796.
Read also:
Second Great. What was Empress Catherine really like?
The series “Catherine” caused a new wave of interest in Catherine the Great. What was this woman really like? 
Crazy Empress. Truth and myths in the series “Ekaterina”
Lestok did not poison Catherine, and Grigory Orlov did not release her from arrest.
Just Fike. How a poor German provincial girl became Catherine the Great
On February 14, 1744, an event occurred that was extremely important for the subsequent history of Russia. Princess Sophia Augusta Frederica of Anhalt-Zerbst arrived in St. Petersburg, accompanied by her mother.
From Fike to the Mistress of Russia. 10 facts about the early years of Catherine the Great
About how the young German princess ascended the throne of the Russian Empire.
Catherine II is a pediatrician on the throne. How the royal children and grandchildren were raised
Until the age of five, the august child was considered a baby who should only be taken care of. Catherine perfectly understood the depravity of such a system from her youth.
Imperial trifles: Catherine II introduced the fashion for award watches and a samovar
The “little things” that were invented by Ekaterina, brought into fashion by her and became so firmly entrenched in our everyday life that they can no longer be cut out from there with any ax.
Prince Tauride. The genius and vanity of Grigory Potemkin
Even foreigners who were skeptical about Russia in general and about Potemkin personally admitted that the volume of real development of Novorossiya under Catherine’s favorite was truly grandiose.
Poor Lisa. The story of Catherine the Great's unrecognized daughter
The supposed daughter of the Empress and Grigory Potemkin lived her life away from political passions.
Bastard Bobrinsky. The story of Catherine the Great's illegitimate son
Why did the son of Grigory Orlov fall into disgrace with his mother for many years?
In order to describe the image of Catherine II, you will need to refer to the work. As we already know, the narrator is Grinev, and he tells us about Marya Ivanovna’s meeting with the empress. His narration is based on Marya’s words, and she, of course, remembered this event for a very long time. What could she say about the great empress?
“According to Pushkin’s plan,” wrote P.N. Berkov, “probably the queen in “The Captain’s Daughter” should not have been depicted realistically, as a true ruler. The author wanted to show her the official interpretation: after all, even the early disabiliy of the empress was calculated on the creation of a legend about Catherine, as a simple and most ordinary person.
It is necessary to think whether there is still an author’s attitude towards them in the interaction of Masha Mironova with Ekaterina and in the description of previous events. It is necessary to recall the facts that have taken place since Grinev answered in court. It is known that he interrupted his speech in court about the real circumstances of his departure from Orenburg and this prevented favor in court.. It was clear to Marya why Grinev did not want to justify himself to the judge, and she dared to go to the empress to honestly tell her everything and save your loved one. She did it.
The queen understood from her conversation with Marya that Grinev was completely innocent of anything. She initiated her into what Grinev kept secret, and the queen returned the honest name of the beloved petitioner.
It was beneficial to her that Greene was innocent. Every nobleman who sided with Pugachev harmed the noble class, the pillar of her rule. Because of the discontent of the ruler, which after a conversation with Marya changed to mercy. Catherine smiles and finds out where the girl is staying. She probably makes a good decision for the girl and gives her hope.
The author wrote that the empress’s friendliness attracted people. In a short meeting between Mironova and Ekaterina, through the mouth of Grinev, he talks about this quality of the queen, that she is able to charm any person, about her ability to take advantage of the weakness of a person’s soul. After all, Marya is the daughter of the hero, Captain Mironov, she knew everything about his merits. She did not spare the order for those who distinguished themselves in the battle with the Pugachevites, and also provided assistance to the orphaned families of nobles. What is amazing is that she also treated Masha with care, and besides, she did not show generosity towards her.
The Empress appreciated the attitude of the nobles towards her and was well aware of the impression her “greatest mercy” would make on the Grinevs.
Essay about Catherine II
One of the most famous novels by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, “The Captain's Daughter,” is historical, so many of the actions described in it actually happened, of course, with the author’s changes and modifications.
Throughout the entire work, the narrative is told from the perspective of the main character - the elderly officer Pyotr Grinev. Therefore, the image of Catherine II, the Great, plays an important role, which shows the attitude of the common people towards the empress. In communication with Marya Ivanovna, she appears as a good-natured, calm woman, without arrogant and arrogant behavior, and is easy to communicate with. And the fact that she was walking in the garden simply in a nightgown, without security, also shows that the woman is not trying to seem “higher” than others just because of her social status. She listens to Grinev’s wife completely, does not rush or interrupt.
Of course, Pushkin is not describing the real empress. According to his plan, he wanted to present Catherine the Great not as a formidable ruler, but as a simple, ordinary person. The image of the benefactor is a disguise of the author's real attitude towards the ruler. And besides, the narrator of this story is Grinev, a simple military man who saw the empress exactly like that and felt a kind of adoration for her.
The queen is courteous towards Maria, even independently helping a girl who had fallen at her feet due to shock to get up. She talks to Maria as an equal, with respect, and not as a subject. By showing mercy, the empress showed her caring attitude towards the problem of a poor military family. Yes, even if she did not provide Grinev’s wife with a rich dowry, she still tried to help them.
Of course, Catherine II could not do otherwise, because the girl’s father tried to resist the uprising, heroically fought with Pugachev’s army and died in the process. Pugachev and his army were enemies of autocratic power, and, consequently, opponents of Catherine II herself.
Pushkin's true attitude towards Catherine II is expressed only in his notes on Russian history of the 18th century. And it was radically different from the “Grinev” attitude.
Several interesting essays
- Essay on Savrasov's painting Winter 3rd grade description
The painting “Winter” stands out from all the author’s creative works. A narrow path divided the canvas into two parts. On the left, a dense forest and a couple of trees by the side of the road open to our attention. On the right there are only two lifeless birches.
The author needed the image of Catherine II primarily for censorship reasons: it was necessary to contrast the attractive image of Pugachev with the image of another character of no less magnitude from the government camp, while presenting him in a positive light. The appearance of Catherine in the role of benefactor to the daughter of Captain Mironov contributed to a certain extent to the encoding of the true ideological meaning of the work. In addition, the plot of the family chronicle had to be brought to a traditional happy ending, and the introduction of Catherine into the cast of characters helped a lot here: it was she who could cut the plot knot that had been so tightly drawn out, and lead the two heroes out of the impasse.
In the composition of the novel, the meeting of Masha Mironova with the empress leads to such a happy ending to the family chronicle of the Grinevs. This circumstance cannot but leave its mark on the entire character of the episode. A beautiful early autumn morning, Tsarskoye Selo park, linden trees illuminated by the sun, a lake and swans on it - this is the landscape at the beginning of the story about the first meeting with Catherine II. The portrait of the Empress, quickly sketched, is given in the same light, attractive tone.
This is followed by a dialogue between Masha and Catherine, then a second meeting in the palace with a majestic enfilade of empty, magnificent chambers - and the gracious empress, “having kindness to the poor orphan,” releases her. This is how the family chronicle ends happily. Of course, Catherine II could not have acted differently with the daughter of the commandant of the Belogorsk fortress, who selflessly died in the fight against the “villain” and “impostor,” the enemy of the landowner-autocratic power. In this sense, Pushkin does not deviate at all from the truth of life.
But we note that the story is told on behalf of Grinev and according to the impressions conveyed to him by Marya Ivanovna. Pushkin in no way seeks to deepen or reveal the image of Catherine. He is content with communicating, in essence, the external ideas remaining after two short meetings between the heroine of the novel and the empress. These representations are naturally painted in light colors. About the essence of the autocratic power of the first landowner of the noble state, something could be gleaned from the content of the novel earlier: let’s remember the information about brutal reprisals against the people scattered across various chapters (for example, a mutilated Bashkir, an episode of a meeting with a floating gallows in the missing chapter), let’s remember the image noble camp (for example, the siege of Orenburg, the military council of General R., etc.).
It was impossible to reveal the image of Catherine II in the episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with her more deeply and, therefore, more realistically in a work intended for publication. Maybe that’s why Pushkin resorts to a kind of quotation: painting Catherine against the backdrop of Tsarskoye Selo park, he quite accurately conveys the famous portrait of Catherine painted by Borovikovsky. This is evidenced by a number of details: the Rumyantsev Obelisk (a monument in honor of the recent victories of Count Pyotr Aleksandrovich Rumyantsev), “a white dog of the English breed”, “a full and ruddy face” - everything is like in a portrait by Borovikovsky. The description of the ‘portrait’ made it possible to evoke in the reader the image of Catherine in lighting suitable for the plot situation.
Pushkin's true attitude towards Catherine II is not reflected in the episode of Masha Mironova's meeting with her in the novel. It is expressed in his notes on Russian history of the 18th century. Pushkin mercilessly condemned Catherine’s internal policy, noted her “cruel despotism under the guise of meekness and tolerance,” spoke of the merciless enslavement of the peasants, torture in the secret chancellery, the theft of the treasury by the empress’s favorites, and the hypocrisy of “Tartuffe in a Skirt and Crown.” We must not forget about all this either.
