← HistoryExtra podcast
HistoryExtra podcast
Catherine the Great: life of the week
00:40:15
Janet Hartley details the extraordinary life and reign of one of history's most powerful rulers – from her origins as an obscure German princess to her transformation of Russia into one of Europe's great powers
Loading summary
Transcript41 lines
- [00:00]
Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Oracle Cloud Infrastructure the speed and processing requirements of AI are expensive. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure offers one consistent price and four to eight times the bandwidth of other clouds. So you can train AI models at twice the speed and less than half the cost. Do more and spend less like Uber 8x8 and Databricks Mosaic. Take a free test drive of oci@oracle.com historyextra.org Oracle 70,000 people are here and.
- [00:31]
Danny Bird
Bob Dylan is the reason for it.
- [00:34]
Janet Hartley
Inspired by the true story if anyone.
- [00:36]
Historian
Is going to hold your attention on stage, you have to kind of be a freak.
- [00:39]
Advertiser
Are you a freak?
- [00:40]
Historian
Hope so.
- [00:41]
Janet Hartley
And starring Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan. He defied everyone.
- [00:46]
Historian
Turn it down.
- [00:47]
Janet Hartley
Hey lied to change everything.
- [00:49]
Advertiser
Make some noise.
- [00:50]
Janet Hartley
BD Timothee Chalamet Edward Norton Elle Fanny Monica Barbaro A complete unknown now playing only in Peters riddy darr under 1790.
- [00:58]
Advertiser
Minute without parenting this episode is brought to you by Dutch Bros. Big smiles, rocking tunes and epic drinks. Dutch Bros. Is all about you. Choose from a variety of customizable handcrafted beverages like our Rebel energy drinks, coffees, teas and more. Download the Dutch Bros app for a free medium drink plus find your nearest shop, order ahead and start earning rewards offer valid for new app users only. Free medium drink Reward upon registration. 14 day expiration terms apply. See DutchBros.com this episode is brought to you by Shopify. Upgrade your business with Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. Shop pay boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning fewer carts going abandoned and more sales going Cha Ching. So if you're into growing your business, get a commerce platform that's ready to sell wherever your customers are. Visit shopify.com to upgrade your selling today. Hello and welcome to Life of the Week from History Extra, where leading historians delve into the lives of history's most intriguing and significant figures. Catherine the Great stands out from the other rulers of Imperial Russia, a philosopher empress whose wit, political savvy and unyielding ambition transformed that empire into a European powerhouse, seizing the throne through an audacious coup against her own husband. She wielded her authority with an iron grip, balancing the volatile ambitions of her courts while nurturing her vision of an enlightened rule. In today's Life of the Week episode, historian Janet Hartley speaks to Danny Bird about how Catherine corresponded with the era's leading philosophers, navigated scandalous love affairs, and earned her glittering but contentious reputation not just as an innovator, but as the architect of Russia's might.
- [03:01]
Danny Bird
Hello, Janet. Thank you for joining me today. And we're diving into the life of one of history's most fascinating and powerful rulers, Catherine the Great. There's so much to unpack with her, from her relatively modest beginnings to becoming one of Russia's greatest monarchs. Let's kick off by talking about her early years. What do we know about them?
- [03:18]
Historian
Well, we know when she was born. She was born in 1729 in Stettin, now in Poland. We know she was indeed from an obscure German princely family. So she's Princess Sophia of Anhalt. Serbst. We know she spent her childhood partly in Stettin, which wasn't a terribly fascinating place, but also in other courts in Germany. And like many German princesses of that time, she was really brought up in order to be marriageable material, so that she learnt French, she learnt dancing, she knew how to behave at court. And these German princesses were a great source for marriages of rulers of great powers, because they knew how to behave. They knew, or perhaps should have known, that their main purpose in life was to provide an heir. And it shows that Russia, in a way, was part of the great European powers system. She was also in the same marriage market as other countries. And German princesses were particularly useful because although they were well behaved or knew how to behave, they weren't so important and their states weren't so important that a marriage might disturb the balance of power. So Catherine was one of many German princesses. There was no inevitability. She would have been chosen to be the wife of the future Tsar of Russia, but she was a good enough candidate.
- [04:49]
Danny Bird
And could you tell me a little bit more about her marriage to the Russian emperor, the heir to the throne at the time? Of course.
- [04:56]
Historian
That's right. He was heir to the throne. I think sometimes one almost gets the impression that Catherine married him and then this coup take place and then she became empress. It's not the case. She was only 15 when she arrived in Russia. She was in her early 30s when the couple took place which brought her to power. She married Peter within a year of being there. It wasn't inconceivable that they would get on. She had met him once before. They both spoke German, they were of a similar age, but it was fairly clear from the start that they were incompatible. He was very boorish in his behaviour, indeed also took a number of mistresses. Catherine wanted to read, she wanted to understand the world she was in. But she also, of course, took lovers, and very rapidly. The marriage was clearly Failing. But she did have a son, and the parentage of that son, the father of that son, is uncertain. But in a way, she fulfilled what was required of her fairly early on, within a decade of being at the Russian court. And she had a son who was inevitably recognized as the rightful heir. So she had done what was asked of her, but it was not a happy or satisfying marriage. Indeed, Catherine herself, in her later memoirs, implied that had it been a happy marriage, then perhaps she would not have sought satisfaction elsewhere. But that, of course, we simply don't know.
- [06:25]
Danny Bird
Now, Catherine's rise to the Russian throne is one of the most dramatic in history. How did she come to power and what were the factors behind her successful coup against her husband, Peter iii?
- [06:35]
Historian
Well, it was an extraordinary thing marrying, as I say, marrying the future Russian tsar was not an extraordinary thing. But for someone who had no claim to the throne, to overthrow the legitimate ruler within a few months, six months of him coming to power, then having a formal coronation a couple of months after that, when she was recognized as the ruler of Russia, is quite extraordinary. It has to be said that coups themselves were not extraordinary in Russia in the 18th century, or for that matter, in the early 90s, 19th century either. Elizabeth, who'd reigned before Peter III, had herself come to power through a coup, but she had a legitimate reason for doing so. She was the daughter of Peter the Great, whereas Catherine, of course, had no right to the throne. And so it was totally unexpected and it was shocking. And even when it had taken place, I suppose the other thing that's remarkable about it is that she survived that coup. It could have been something that was very quickly put down. So how did she manage it? Well, some of the credit, if you call it that, has to go to Peter iii, who was not unintelligent, but certainly hadn't got a great deal of common sense. And within a short time of coming to power, he only reigned for six months. He managed to offend all the important elites in Russia. Russia is sometimes called a system of autocracy tempered by assassination. You have the power, but you don't have the power if you offend the el elites. And the elites that were offended did so because he changed sides in the Seven Years War. Not only did he break the alliance that he had against Prussia, but he wanted to join Prussia. And that offended the patriotic sentiments of the elite guards regiments, but it also offended key officials at court who thought that Peter was going to be very arbitrary in his rule. And Catherine, of course, had been at court for a long Time she understood these matters. It's not as if she'd suddenly arrived in Russia. She was in her early 30s by this stage and her lover at the time was in one of these presidious guards regiments. But having said that, there was no inevitability about it. I think Catherine had very strong nerves. There were a series of immediate incidents that pushed her towards this attempted coup. Peter had humiliated her at dinner, had mocked her, had had made her cry amongst people, talking about a potential coup. One of the conspirators had been arrested. Peter was out of St Petersburg at the time. And so almost on the spur of the moment, Catherine, dressed in a guard's regiment on horseback, led this coup of loyal guards regiments to the Winter Palace. But even then, it could so easily have gone wrong. Had Peter had stronger nerves, he could have gathered loyal troops around him. But as I think Frederick the Great said at the time, he gave up power rather like a child being sent to bed. He just seemed to lack the will to challenge her. Equally dangerous, she could have been forced to have been regent for her son Paul, which in many ways would have made sense. He had a legitimate claim to the throne. But she got round that too by making sure that very quickly, within a couple of months, there was a very formal and elaborate coronation. It helped that Peter III was murdered. He was killed probably in a drunken brawl. There's no evidence Catherine ordered his his murder, but it was quite convenient for her that it happened. So there's an element of luck there and I think there just weren't enough forces to oppose her. But she was vulnerable on the throne for several years and then even later in her reign, in the 70s, in the mid-70s, when there was a major Cossack peasant uprising against her, the leader of the revolt projected himself as Peter iii. So it was a dangerous situation for her. I'd say she wasn't really absolutely secure on the throne for several years and even then there was a degree of vulnerability because after all, she had come to power by a couple and the legitimate ruler of Russia was murdered. So, yes, it was an extraordinary event and it's extraordinary that after that she had a reign that was so long, so full, and then looked at retrospectively at one that was so beneficial in many ways to Russia.
- [11:10]
Danny Bird
It's almost hard to imagine a foreign born princess successfully seizing power in Russia. But once she was in control, Catherine started to shape Russia in her own image, particularly using Enlightenment ideals. What were her views on these philosophies and how did they influence her domestic Policies, Yes.
- [11:26]
Historian
I think that the term enlightened despot has been banded around a bit. But it is certainly the case that Catherine thought that she could rule, and she also thought there were a series of principles on which rules should be based. And she genuinely believed that at least some of these could be applied to Russia. So, on the one hand, she corresponds with philosophes at the time as if she is their equal, at the beginning of her reign, produces this extraordinary document, the Great Instruction, which is normally called in English, which I say it draws very heavily from Montesquieu's spirit of the laws. People would say that she plagiarized, but Catherine wouldn't think of it that way. What she thought of was that the type of writings that were current at the time in Europe could be applied to Russia. So she writes this document herself based on Montesquieu, based on Becqueria, on crime. But she adapts Montesquieu. I think that's a kind way of putting it. She feels that Montesquieu didn't understand Russia, that he thought Russia was a despotism, whereas she sees it as an absolute monarchy, where there are rules and there are laws and there are ways of implementing the type of structures of government that could be applied in other Western countries. And Catherine starts the document with the statement, russia is a European state. And that's a political statement, of course, not a geographical statement. The idea that Russia could be reformed, should be reformed in this European way. And she also had the document printed and distributed. And I've done quite a lot of work on court cases in Russia, and this instruction of hers is quite often found in courts and is sometimes used, in fact, in terms of judgments, although it wasn't, you know, in itself a law or a code. So she genuinely believes that. And I think if you look at the rest of her reign, there are other things that she does that also show that she believes that there are some things, at least, where Russia can be the same as the West. Not all things. I'll come back to that, but some things. And where she can make it like the west, then she does make it like the West. So I think that applies to reforms in administration. Central administration becomes more efficient, more streamlined, local administration. Sounds boring, but it's very important because she sets up a new legal structure, not a new law code, but a new legal structure. And she also makes many posts in the provinces open to the local population, to nobles and to townspeople, to sort of stimulate, if you like, a sort of provincial society in the way that society was structured, or she sees it structured in Germany and Western Europe. She gives rights or confirms rights and privileges of the nobility. Now she does it. The nobles don't force it out of her, but she does at least codify in some ways, categories of the nobility, gives them a role in the provinces, allows them to choose representatives in the provinces, the provincial administration. And she does the same in towns thinking, I think, about German towns and how invigorated German towns are. She tries to categorize towns and townspeople in different ways and to stimulate towns development. She tries to introduce at least a very low level of education in Russia, but she bases it on the most modern works of the time. She bases it on the ideas of a Swiss writer and introduces a curriculum in national schools. So in those ways, I think she sees Russia as part and parcel of the west and at a high level of culture. Things like theater, translations of books, encouraging printing presses. She makes Russian higher society at least part of West European, part of European society. Now, the things I've left out there, of which the most obvious one, of course, is serfs. But I think one has to say that you're asking about Catherine's sort of positive, enlightened views. She believes she has the right, the duty, the ability to shape Russia in this sort of European way. To the extent that she can, she does what she can do. She's very pragmatic. But it's not despicable. It is at least some way of making Russia look European. And I think in a broader sense, that's always been Russia's great dilemma. Are they or aren't they? Are they part of Europe? Are they different? Are they separate? And in these terms, in the way that she handled these particular reforms, she clearly makes Russia part and parcel of Europe.
- [16:16]
Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. The speed and processing requirements of AI are expensive. Oracle Cloud infrastructure offers one consistent price and four to eight times the bandwidth of other clouds. So you can train AI models at twice the speed and less than half the cost. Do more and spend less. Like Uber 8x8 and Databricks Mosaic. Take a free test drive of OCI at oracle.com historyextra.
- [16:45]
You can get the most important meal of the day any time of day. I'm Talking about the $5 Big Deal.
- [16:50]
Janet Hartley
Breakfast meal from Jack in the Box.
- [16:52]
Advertiser
Available all day and all night. A breakfast Jack with a freshly cracked egg, a hash brown and French toast sticks for five bucks. Sounds good for breakfast, lunch and dinner at Jack.
- [17:02]
Janet Hartley
Every bite's a Big deal.
- [17:04]
Advertiser
Order Jack's five dollar big deal breakfast meal.
- [17:06]
Janet Hartley
Now looking for a pickup truck to get just about anything done? Look no further. The Chevy Silverado EV isn't just the most powerful Silverado ever with next level towing capability and technology. It also offers game changing versatility with the available multiflex midgate and tailgate. Which means Silverado EV helps you carry large, bulky and oddly shaped items up to nearly 11ft in length. Chevrolet together. Let's drive. Visit Chevrolet.com to learn more.
- [17:39]
Danny Bird
Of course, ruling wasn't always plain sailing for her. Russia was a vast and diverse empire and not everyone was happy with her reforms. One major challenge came in the form of Pugachev's rebellion. What was it and how did Catherine handle this uprising? What did it reveal about her approach to governance?
- [17:57]
Historian
Yes, it is a very serious threat to Catherine's power. This is 73, 75. It's when she's also at war, she's at war with the Ottoman Empire. And that makes her even more vulnerable because the army is far away. And in fact, I mean, you're absolutely right, the whole size of Russia meant that it was just difficult to know where Pugachev was when he actually his rabble were in contact with regular troops. They were always defeated, but it was just too easy to slip away down the Volga in boats to then form another group of disgruntled serfs, peasants, peasant factory workers, ethnic non Russian nomadic peoples who felt that their livelihood was being encroached upon and and then form another group to attack her. And as I said as well, Pugachev styled himself Peter iii. He had this mock court of noblemen around him. Now nobody who met him would ever think that he was Peter iii. But for peasants that was very important because they could tell themselves that they weren't actually rebels. They were fighting to restore the true monarch. It sacked several major towns, including Kazan. And once she actually got the regular troops in place so they could find Pugachev, then finally he was defeated. And in fact in the end he was betrayed by his own people. Now, in terms of enlightenment, of course, this did not do much for Catherine's image. Rebels fighting violence on both sides, cruelty and violence by the rebels, but also an immense cruelty and violence in putting down the rebels and slaughtering those who had rebelled against Catherine. So that didn't do much for her image. She puts a brave face on it because when Pugachev is brought, he's brought back in a cage, the crowd is howling for him to be hang, drawn and quartered. Or mutilated in the most revolting and painful way, and she has him beheaded instead, which, of course is swift. So she tries to project that as part of her. A more enlightened way, if you like, of dealing with rebels. And I think, indeed, the crowd was rather disappointed, but it's not good for her image, and it was probably the most major threat. Now, what does it tell us about Russian society? Well, it tells us that those who benefited from Catherine's reign, primarily the nobility, to some extent, townspeople, at least the more prosperous townspeople, benefited. They weren't involved in the revolt, of course. The ones who revolted, the ones who benefited least, nomadic peoples whose way of life was being encroached upon, who were being taxed more heavily, Cossacks. And Pugachev was a Cossack leader who again felt that their freebooting, if you like, way of life on the frontier was being encroached upon. And indeed, shortly after that, she abolished one of the hosts and Cossacks then became incorporated into the regular Russian army and then serfs. She certainly didn't free them, of course, but she didn't in herself make life worse for them. But life had been made worse for something beyond her control, which was that the price of grain was high in her reign, and that made noblemen on their land quite often exploit the labour of their peasants more than they would have done had that not been the case. So all sorts of reasons why they should feel resentful against noble landowners. So I think those are the people who were left out, if you like. Now, some people might say that this was almost a reaction against modernisation, a reaction to try and retain an old way of life, Cossack or nomadic or people on the frontiers that had gone. But I think it's also a sign of just bubbling resentment about the way in which the local government operated. Corruption, corruption in local government, corruption or neglect by various noblemen. So it was something she had to take seriously. And it's not insignificant that after that revolt, she then put forward a quite significant reform of local administration, which increased the number of bureaucrats in the countryside, increased the number of institutions and just made Russia be a bit governed more thoroughly in the countryside.
- [22:22]
Danny Bird
Now, when we think about Catherine's reign, one of the biggest things she's known for is the expansion of the Russian Empire. What were her most significant contributions in that area and how did her foreign policies reshape Russia's position in Europe?
- [22:35]
Historian
Well, I think dramatically, and I think it did make Russia great in Europe. I mean, that's absolutely no consolation to the civilians in Warsaw or indeed in the Fort of Ismail when they were slaughtered by Russian troops running amok. But in terms of the. The territory that Catherine took and the significance of that for Russia's great power status, then it is enormously significant. Russia's borders expand west, almost the furthest west they ever go. They go further in Alexander's reign, most significantly, the wars against the Ottoman Empire and the partitions of Poland, Lithuania meant that Catherine acquired Russia, acquired access to the Black Sea in the north, territory from the Sea of Azov right through to the Dniester. Catherine founded the city of Edessa, Potyomkin, her favourite, then developed Kherson as a naval port. And then as part of that process, Crimea was annexed from the Ottoman Empire as well in 1783. So by the end of Catherine's reign, she has control over the north littoral of the Black Sea. And that's immensely important for Russia's economic development, but particularly for her naval development. Kherson but then later, Sevastopol in the 19th century became the base of the Russian Mediterranean fleet. So the territory is significant, the territory she took in Europe is significant. What is now the eastern half of Ukraine had already been under Russian control, but Catherine acquires from the partitions of Poland, Lithuania, most of what is now western part of Ukraine and Lithuania. It's a large amount of territory, productive amount, territory, certainly compared with many parts of the Russian Empire in terms of grain. Later on in the 19th century, it becomes very important industrially as well. So I think this does make Russia a great power. It comes with risks, of course, particularly the fact that before Catherine's acquisitions, Poland had been really a puppet regime of Catherine's. After the partitions, Russia borders Austria and Prussia and there's a potential tension there, but in terms of great power status, so that the perception of Russia in the west, then Catherine makes it, and I think it's really from 1790s onwards that other countries begin to not only respect Russian power, begin to fear Russian power and wonder where it's going to go next, whether they're going to extend further into the Balkans, whether they're actually even going to try and make Constantinople, you know, a Christian city again, as Catherine seems to have ambitions in that direction. So it's an enormous step forward, but one that did bring risks with it. Inevitably.
- [25:39]
Danny Bird
We can't talk about Catherine without asking the big question. Why is she known as the Great? What makes her achievements so notable compared to other Russian rulers? And do you Think she merits that accolade?
- [25:50]
Historian
It's a very good question. Even in her lifetime, she was referred to as great. I think partly because her own achievements and partly because of the 18th century, there's a balance between what Peter the Great achieved and then Catherine the Great as well. Does she merit it? Well, I think if you look at it from a Russian perspective and also in the context of the whole of the 18th century, then I think she does. I mean, not everybody in the Russian Empire, and indeed, certainly not everybody in the territories that Catherine took, would agree. But if you look at it from a Russian perspective, then it does, because it expands Russian power in Europe. It does make Russia great, formidable, a country to fear. I think that's one side of it, the domestic side. Is she great? Well, many would say that her reforms weren't complete. She doesn't try to tackle serfdom. I think it simply would have been too dangerous. It would have led to social unrest. Of course, she doesn't bring in representative institutions, but to be honest, monarchs rarely do unless it's forced upon them. And I think she saw no reason to do that. Some of the reforms that she put through were superficial. Education only touched a very small portion of the population. Some of the reforms on the nobility and the administration were overturned by her successors. But I think if we look at the whole history of Russia, whether it shares the developments of Western and Central Europe, or whether it has to take a different path. And I think Catherine's contribution is that, at least in her reign, she showed that up to a certain level, Russia could share in those developments. She could talk the same language, have the same culture, give the nobility some sort of shared status. And in that respect, I think she is great. And it's a legacy that doesn't go away because it's one model for Russia. So I think she does deserve that title.
- [27:57]
Danny Bird
You've just alluded to it there. But I was curious to know, how do people in Russia and places like Ukraine and Poland regard Catherine today? I imagine her legacy has gone through some big changes over the centuries, especially during the Soviet era. And now with Russia under Putin's influence.
- [28:12]
Historian
Well, I don't think it changed much in Poland. I think it was hostile, and it's remained hostile. And after all, there are very good reasons for that. I mean, Poland, Lithuania disappeared as a state through the free partitions. Even in an age of cynicism, this was an unbelievably cynical act. Of course, it wasn't just Catherine who partitioned Poland. It was Prussia and Austria as well. But the bitterness in Poland is deeper because Catherine reacted firstly to the Polish Constitution of 1791, which she saw as a real revolutionary thing, threat much more than actually the French Revolution. So Poland had to be crushed. And in the course of crushing the Poles, there was this appalling slaughter of civilians in a suburb of Warsaw, where up to 25,000 civilians were slaughtered by Russian troops. So I don't think it's easy for Poles to regard Catherine in a positive light, even if later in the 19th century, many Poles, like many people within the British Empire, the Scots, took advantage of the empire and flourished in it. Ukraine, I think, is a more difficult one because while there was a clear Polish identity in that period, Ukrainian nationalism only really develops in the second half, mid to second half of the 19th century, as it did in many countries. So although Catherine, Russia and Russians generally are aware that Ukrainians are not Russians, they do see them as sort of fellow Slavs, and that sense of having to have a separate country really come into their consciousness, whereas there was always the prospect of Poland being a separate country. And that's something that Napoleon played upon. How it's viewed now. Well, I suppose to give an example of it would be Catherine's statue in Odessa, which of course she found in Odessa. She didn't put a statue of herself up in her lifetime. That statue was put up in the turn of the 20th century, but it was pulled down in the Soviet period, replaced with a memorial to the soldiers, the sailors of 1905. But it was restored. There is a question, more a question of why the Ukrainians decided to restore that statue of Catherine. It was controversial at the time, but I suppose there was a sense that it was part of a whole square that was being restored to its former self. This had been the sort of historical roots of Ukraine and the statue had been destroyed by Soviet power. That statue has now been pulled down. So I think that shows you that the sort of ambivalence about the Ukrainian attitudes towards Catherine and why now views are much more hostile than they would have been, say, sort of even 15 years ago. So I think that's ambivalent. But there's no doubt that Catherine, of course, took into the Russian Empire the territory which is now western Ukraine. Crimea is slightly different because it was annexed in Catherine's reign, but it wasn't annexed from the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, it was annexed from the Ottoman Empire, and the indigenous population was Tatar and Muslim. So Crimea has a rather different history. And then it was settled mostly by Russians as it became this great naval base. So I think that's a slightly more ambivalent one, but less ambivalence. I think in Odessa, Catherine the Great.
- [31:48]
Danny Bird
Is a figure surrounded by all sorts of rumours and legends. Why do you think so many stories, some quite outrageous, have been attached to her? What is it about her that sparked such intrigue?
- [31:57]
Historian
Well, can I first say, it's very refreshing that the horse has come up so late. I think there are three reasons for it. I think, yes, there were rumors about her. There's a particularly crude and sort of telling, in a way, cartoon that comes out in 1790 called the Imperial Stride, where Catherine has one foot in Russia and one foot in Constantinople and under her skirts all the rulers of Europe and the Sultan are looking up and making sort of lewd comments. And I think there are three reasons. One is that, of course, she did have a lot of lovers. It can't be denied. There was something about Catherine that not only did she want to have lovers, but she wanted to be loved. She wanted to be in love. And that was something. I mean, there were reasons why, of course, she couldn't marry somebody after she'd come to the throne, although she probably married Patchonkin in private. But it was something that people commented on. And suddenly, towards the end of her reign, there was a succession of rather ornamental, shallow young men and that did her reputation no good. So that was one reason. The second reason is that she's a woman. Peter III had mistresses, but it's hard put, hard put to name them. Alexander, who I, who rather scathing about the morals of Catherine's court, her mistress. But it seems to be more shocking that a woman should do it. And I think the third reason is that she was very successful in foreign policy. Had she been a non entity, had she only reigned for a short amount of time, had Russia achieved nothing, then nobody would have even wanted to make up these stories about her. So I think there are all those elements. But of course, she did have lovers. She didn't need to have lovers, she didn't need to be in love. There's an immensely passionate relationship with Potyomkin and he was at court and the lovers were at court and it was almost inevitable that that would be commented on. But as I say, I think because there was an element of fear as well as repulsion about Catherine.
- [33:59]
Danny Bird
Finally, Catherine's reign wasn't just about politics and warfare. She was deeply engaged with the intellectual scene in Europe. What were her relationships like with prominent European thinkers and how did they shape her reign.
- [34:10]
Historian
Well, she obviously thought she was at the same level as prominent thinkers. So, I mean, Montesquieu, of course, had died, but she used his, his writings. She corresponded with Baron Gryn, with Voltaire as an equal, with Diderot, who was invited to Russia, and had many conversations with her. At least the story is that he got so enthusiastic that at one point he sort of slapped her thigh as they were discussing philosophy. But there is a fundamental difference that the philosophers, the thinkers of the time, were not in charge of a country. They were talking about forms of government, forms of rule, forms of society without having to run Russia. And I think Catherine often felt frustrated in her conversations with Diderot that he didn't grasp that. So I think that is the fundamental difference. I also think that she was an intelligent woman. She was immensely hard working. She was a genuine bluestocking, but she wasn't an original thinker. She took ideas from the philosophes, saw what she felt could be applied to Russia the way it could be applied, and did it. But she didn't in herself contribute to that philosophical thought.
- [35:25]
Advertiser
That was Janet Hartley, emeritus professor at the London School of Economics and author of several books on Russian history, including her most recent the A History of Russia's Greatest river, published by Yale University Press in 2021. Interested in delving deeper into the history of the Russian czars? Be sure to check out the link in the episode description where you can hear more from Simon Sebag Montefiore. From the ancient origins of their regal title to the monarchy's dramatic collapse. Thanks for listening to today's Life of the Week. Be sure to join us again next time to learn about another fascinating figure from the past.
- [36:16]
Janet Hartley
This episode is brought to you by Allstate. Some people just know they could save hundreds on car insurance by checking Allstate first. Like you know to check the date of the big game first before you accidentally buy tickets on your 20th wedding anniversary and have to spend the next 20 years of your marriage making up for it. Yeah, checking first is smart. So check Allstate first for a quote that could save you hundreds. You're in good hands with Allstate Savings. Vary terms apply. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates, Northbrook, Illinois. Rated RP to M. You're listening to an ad for PC Game Pass. Want new games on day one? Like a vow to Football Manager 25. Say nothing if you're getting excited. Thought so. Did I mention legendary franchises like Diablo? And all for one low monthly price. Three words. We got you learn more at xbox.com PCGame Pass some games referenced Coming Soon. Game catalog varies by region and over time. Any questions? Just kidding. I can't hear.