Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T21:09:46.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Garden of the Empire: Catherine's Appropriation of the Crimea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Andreas Schönle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the ramifications of the garden trope, as Catherine the Great and Grigorii Potemkin applied it to the Crimea after Russia's annexation in 1783. Schönle argues that Catherine conceived of the province as a kind of garden and that she did so in order to bolster the identification of the Crimea with the garden of Eden and thus appeal to the paradise myth that became an intrinsic part of Russia's ideology of imperial power. The Crimean garden was meant to exemplify the benefits of her loving and protective rule, one that enables multicultural coexistence, eschews the risks of assimilationist imperial policies, and yet brings about a moral transformation of the subjugated population. In both its physical and ethnic geography, the Crimean garden claims universality in that it foregrounds an eclectic diversity of species and peoples. Catherine ascribed religious overtones to the garden trope, and she did so in opposition to a western Enlightenment definition of empire and civility.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my three anonymous referees, whose comments have helped me sharpen considerably the argument developed in this paper, as well as the suggestions made by Andrei Zorin. Work on this article was supported by a Fellowship for University Teachers from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

1. Lopatin, VS., ed., Ekaterina Hi G. A. Potemkin: Lichnaia perepiska 1769–1791 (Moscow, 1997), 155 Google Scholar. On the rationale behind Catherine's imperialist designs, see Raeff, Marc, “In the Imperial Manner,” Political Ideas and Institutions in Imperial Russia (Boulder, Colo., 1994), 156–58Google Scholar, and Fuller, William C. Jr., “Russian Imperialism and Military Power in the Eighteenth Century: Why and How,” Strategy and Power in Russia, 1600–1914 (New York, 1992), 125–76Google Scholar. My study concerns itself less with causality than with the cultural and ideological meanings historical actors and writers ascribed to official policies.

2. The emphasis in this paper will be on the Crimean peninsula, but occasionally I will also draw upon evidence from the refashioning of New Russia, the province north of the Crimea, which was also under Potemkin's stewardship and faced similar challenges.

3. Lopatin, , ed., Ekaterinalli G. A. Potemkin, 180 Google Scholar.

4. In 1770 Catherine had argued that the Tatars’ “inborn intransigence” would doom any annexation of the Crimea, “Vysochaishie reskripty Ekateriny II i ministerskaia perepiska po delam krymskim,” Chtenia v imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom Universitete 4, no. 4 (October-December 1871).

5. Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii s 1649 goda: Sobranie pervoe (hereafter cited asPSZ), vol. 21 (St. Petersburg, 1830), 15.708.

6. See Lessing Baehr, Stephen, The Paradise Myth in Eighteenth-Century Russia: Utopian Patterns in Early Secular Russian Literature and Culture (Stanford, 1991), 1–3, 171–74Google Scholar.

7. See Baehr's chapter “The Happy Garden State,” in his Paradise Myth, 65–89. See, also, Pogosian, E. A., “Sad kak politicheskii simvol u Lomonosova,” Trudy po znakovym siste mam, vol. 24 Google Scholar, Uchenye zapiski tartuskogo universiteta, vol. 882 (Tartu, 1992), 44–57 Google Scholar. Pogosian discusses the semiotic equivalence among the state, the garden, and paradise in Lomonosov's odes to Elizabeth.

8. Buehr, Paradise Myth, 65–68.

9. Zorin, Andrei, “Krym v istorii russkogo samosoznania,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1998, no. 31:135–37Google Scholar.

10. “Pis'mo Imp. k d-ru Tsimmermanu o dvukh napisannykh eiu komediiakh i s prilozheniem svedenii o Kryme,” Sbornik imperatorshogo russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva (SIRIO), vol. 27 (St. Petersburg, 1880), 361.

11. Quoted by Zorin, “Krym,” 135.

12. See Shvidkovskii, Dmitrii O., The Empress and the Architect: British Architecture and Gardens at the Court of Catherine the Great (New Haven, 1996), 41–42, 102–5Google Scholar, and Schonle, Andreas, “Prostranstvennaia poetika Tsarskogo Sela v ekaterininskoi prezentatsii imperii,“ Tynianovskii sbornik, vol. 11 (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

13. Elias, Norbert, The Court Society (New York, 1983), 227–28.Google Scholar

14. D. S. Likhachev strongly de-emphasizes the political function of gardens in his stylistic periodization of landscape design: Poeziia sadov: K semantike sadovo-parkovykh stilei. Sad kak teksl, 2d ed. (St. Petersburg, 1991). For a survey specifically of Russian gardens, see Vergunov, V. P. and Gorokhov, V. A., Russkie sady i parki (Moscow, 1988)Google Scholar. For a discussion of Catherine's involvement in designing estates, see Shvidkovskii, Empress and the Architect.

15. Romm, Zhil'ber, Puteshestvie v Krym v 1786g. (Leningrad, 1941), 29 Google Scholar.

16. Lopatin, , ed., Ekaterina II i G. A. Potemkin, 221 Google Scholar.

17. Bobrov, Semen, Tavrida, Hi moi letnii den’ v tavricheshom khersonise: Liriko-Epicheskoe pesnotvorenie (Nikolaev, 1798), 157 Google Scholar.

18. Ivan III had put a crowned, double-headed eagle on the imperial seal, emulating the seal of the Holy Roman Empire. Catherine had eagles embroidered on one of her robes, and the double-headed eagle figured on the coat of arms that was given to the Tauric region by law in 1784. Wortman, Richard S., Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy, vol. 1 Google Scholar, From Peter the Great to the Death of Nicholas I (Princeton, 1995)Google Scholar, 115;RSZ, vol. 22, 15.953. In the early parts of Catherine's reign, the eagle often served as a metaphor for Aleksei and Grigorii Orlov, who played crucial roles in the Russo-Turkish war of 1768–1774 (see Petrov's 1769 ode “On the Taking of Khotin“), but after the Orlovs lost their influence, the metaphor began to stand more broadly for the empire.

19. Pallas, P. S., Bemerkungen auf einer Reise in die südlichen Statthalterschaften des russischen Reichs in den Jahren 1793 und 1794 (Leipzig, 1801), 2:382 Google Scholar.

20. Zorin, “Krym,” 125–26.

21. Fisher, Alan W., The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 1772–1783 (Cambridge, Eng., 1970), 100–105 Google Scholar, and Bartlett, Roger P., Human Capital: The Settlement of Foreigners in Russia, 1762–1804 (Cambridge, Eng., 1979), 130–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Raeff, “In the Imperial Manner,” 162-64.

22. Petrov, Vasilii, Sochineniia, vols. 1 and 2 (St. Petersburg, 1811), 1:181 Google Scholar.

23. Chernykh, P. la., Istoriko-etimologicheskii slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo iazyka (Moscow, 1993), 1:566–67Google Scholar; Fasmer, Maks, Etimologicheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka (Moscow, 1987), 3:58 Google Scholar.

24. Petrov, , Sochineniia, 1:182 Google Scholar.

25. Ibid., 1:183.

26. PSZ, vol. 20, 14.943; Barkhudarian, V. B., Istoriia novo-nakhichevanskoi armianskoi kolonii (1779–1861 gg.) (Erevan, 1967), 456–58Google Scholar.

27. Bronevskii, Vladimir, Obozrenie iuzhnogo berega Tavridy v 1815 godu (Tula, 1822), 157–58Google Scholar.

28. Ibid., 140.

29. Gablits, Karl, Fizicheskoe opisanie tawicheskoi oblasti, po ee mestopolozheniiu, i po vsem trem. Isarstvam prirody (St. Petersburg, 1785), 76 and 86Google Scholar.

30. Pratt, Mary Louise, Imperial Eyes: Traxiel Writing and Transculturation (London, 1992), 25 Google Scholar.

31. “Pis'mo Imp. k d-ru Tsimmermanu,” 361.

32. Markevich, Arsenii, “Materialy arkhiva kantseliarii Tavricheskogo gubernatora, otnosiashchiesia k puteshestviiu Imperatritsy Ekateriny II v Krym v 1787 godu,” Izvestiia Tawicheskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi kommissii, 1891, no. 11:98 Google Scholar

33. “Mirnye prednachertaniia Kniazia Potemkina,” Russkii arkhiv, 1874, no. 2:294.

34. Dolgorukii, Ivan, Slavny bubni za gorami ili puleshestvie moe v koe-kuda 1810 goda (Moscow, 1870), 186 Google Scholar.

35. Romm, Puteshestvie v Krym, 27.

36. Bobrov, , Tavrida, 2 Google Scholar.

37. Ibid., 163.

38. Ibid., 57.

39. Ibid., 44.

40. Bronevskii, , Obozrenie iuzhnogo berega, 1–2 Google Scholar.

41. Ibid., 184; Gen. 2:8–9.

42. “Pis'ma kniaziu G. A. Potemkinu-Tavricheskomu,” Zapiski odesskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei (ZOOID), vol. 9 (1875): 257 Google Scholar.

43. Beer, Adolf and von Fidler, Joseph Ritter, eds., Joseph II. und Graf Cobenzl: Ihr Brieftuechsel, Oesterreichische Geschichtsquellen. Diplomataria et Acta, vol. 54 (Vienna, 1901), 2:162 Google Scholar. See also “Pis'ma kniazia Bezborodko,” Arkhiv kniazia Vorontsova: Bumagi grafov Aleksandra i Semena Romanovichei Vorontsovykh (Moscow, 1879), 13:59 Google Scholar.

44. “Pis'ma Imperatritsy Ekateriny II k Iakovu Aleksandrovichu Briusovu 1787 goda,“ Prilozhenie k kamer-fur'erskomu zhurnalu 1787 goda (St. Petersburg, 1889), 21 Google Scholar, and Memoirs and Recollections of Count Segur, Ambassador from France to the Courts of Russia and Prussia, etc. etc. (London, 1825), 3:107 Google Scholar.

45. Lopatin, , ed., Ekaterina Hi G. A. Potemkin, 209 Google Scholar.

46. Taurische Reise der Kaiserin von Russland Katharina II (Coblenz, 1799), 142, 170Google Scholar.

47. Longinov, M., “Zametki na stat'i russkogo arkhiva,” Russkii arkhiv, 1865, no. 7:868 Google Scholar.

48. Dolgorukii, , Slavny bubny, 113 Google Scholar.

49. Beer, and von Fidler, Ritter, eds., Joseph II. und Graf Cobenzl: Ihr Hriefivechsel, 148 Google Scholar.

50. Lopatin, , ed., Ekaterina Hi G. A. Potemkin, 216 Google Scholar.

51. “Rasporiazheniia svetleishego kniazia Grigoriia Aleksandrovicha Potemkina-Tavricheskogo kasatel'no ustroeniia Tavricheskoi Oblasti v 1781 po 1786 god,” ZOOII), vol. 12 (1881): 285 and 303Google Scholar.

52. Romm, , Puteshestvie v Krym, 51 and 53Google Scholar.

53. Izvestiia Tavricheskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi kommissii, 1889, no. 8:1–11 Google Scholar.

54. Dolgorukii, , Slavny bubny, 114 Google Scholar.

55. Gen. 2:9.

56. de Ligne, Prince Charles-Joseph, Coup d'Oeil at Beloeil and a Great Number of European Gardens, trans, and ed. Guy, Basil (Berkeley, 1991), 151–52Google Scholar.

57. Bobrov, , Tavrida, 169 Google Scholar.

58. PSZ, vol. 21, 15.708.

59. Raeff deems this professed respect for cultural and religious differences a temporary measure meant as a transition toward complete absorption and Russification. In keeping with “the cameralist belief in the uniformity of human nature,” administrative assimilation was to lead to “institutional and social, and finally cultural” uniformity. Raeff, “Uniformity, Diversity, and the Imperial Administration in the Reign of Catherine II,” Political Ideas and Institutions in Imperial Russia, 141–55.

60. For a synthetic treatment of the multiethnic and multicultural situation of premodern Russia, see Kappeler, Andreas, Russland als Vielvölkerreich: Entstehung, Geschichte, Zerfall (Munich, 1992)Google Scholar, esp. chaps. 2 and 4. Kappeler stresses the continuities between the administrative handling of the Crimea and integration methods used previously with regard to the Khanate of Kazan’ (49).

61. Memoirs and Recollections of Count Segur, 3:155–57.

62. Reddaway, W. F., ed., Documents of Catherine the Great: The Correspondence with Voltaire and the Instruction of 1767, in the English Text of 1768 (Cambridge, Eng., 1931), 8 Google Scholar.

63. Taurische Reise, 81.

64. Druzhinina, E. I., Severnoeprichernomor'e v 1775-1800gg. (Moscow, 1959), 92–146 Google Scholar; Raeff, , “In the Imperial Manner,” 164–66Google Scholar; Fisher, , Russian Annexation, 139–50Google Scholar; Kappeler, , Russlandals Vielvölkerreich, 49–50 Google Scholar.

65. PSZ, vol. 21, 15.798. Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, 2d. ed. (London, 1991), 54 Google Scholar. Potemkin supported the multilinguistic nature of the Crimea by publishing books in various languages (such as a translation of the Al Koran from English into Russian) for the benefit of its inhabitants, ZOOID, vol. 8 (1872): 263–64.

66. Bobrov, , Tavrida, 21 Google Scholar.

67. Ibid., 118.

68. Ibid., 131–33.

69. Ibid., 155.

70. Ibid., 207.

71. The descriptive poem was written in the early 1790s and published in 1798, duly equipped with the requisite words of praise for the new ruler, Paul I.

72. Pratt, , Imperial Eyes, 6 Google Scholar.

73. Lopatin, , ed., Ekaterina II i G. A. Potemkin, 209 Google Scholar.

74. Gablits, , Fïzicheskoe opisanie, 198 Google Scholar.

75. Bobrov, , Tavrida, 273 Google Scholar.

76. Livanov, Mikhailo, O zemledelii, skotovodstve i ptichevodstve (Nikolaev, 1799)Google Scholar, dedication to Potemkin.

77. Druzhinina, , Severnoe prichernomor'e, 120 Google Scholar. On the settlement by foreigners, see Bartlett, , Human Capital, 125–34Google Scholar.

78. Druzhinina, , Severnoe prichernomor'e, 65 Google Scholar, and Bartlett, , Human Capital, 126 Google Scholar.

79. Druzhinina, , Severnoe prichernomor'e, 122 Google Scholar; PSZ, vol. 22, 16.548.

80. Pallas, , Bemerkungen, 368 Google Scholar.

81. Bobrov, , Tavrida, 75 Google Scholar.

82. Gablits, , Fizicheskoe opisanie, 68 Google Scholar.

83. Druzhinina, , Severnoe prichernomor'e, 112 Google Scholar.

84. Bronevskii, , Obozrenie iuzhnogo berega, 62, 108, 115Google Scholar.

85. Ibid., 62.

86. Druzhinina, , Severnoe prichernomor'e, 8 Google Scholar.

87. PSZ, vol. 22, 16.255.

88. Owing to its sensitive role as port and zone of free trade, Theodosia was to become a purely Christian city. Bakhchisarai, in return, was designated as an area reserved for Tatars, as was Karasu-Bazar, . Izvestiia Tavricheskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi kommissii, 1889, no. 8: 10 Google Scholar, and 1888, no. 6:6. Druzhinina, , Severnoe prichernomor'e, 141 Google Scholar.

89. Taurische Reise, 134 and 147, respectively.

90. PSZ, vol. 22, 15.935.

91. Izvestiia Tavricheskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi kommissii, 1891, no. 11:58.

92. Pratt, , Imperial Eyes, 6 Google Scholar. The expression “the empire writes back” belongs to Salman Rushdie; quoted by Aravamudan, Srinivas, Tropicopolitans: Colonialism and Agency, 1688–1804 (Durham, 1999), 5 Google Scholar.

93. Fisher, , Russian Annexation, 144 Google Scholar.

94. Romm, , Puteshestvie v Krym, 39 Google Scholar.

95. Beer, and von Fidler, Ritter, eds., Joseph II. und Graf Cobenzl: Ihr Briefwechsel, 148 Google Scholar.

96. Taurische Reise, 145.

97. Izvestiia Tavricheskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi kommissii, 1891, no. 11:64.

98. The governor of the Crimean region, Vasilii Kokhovskii, regarded with much skepticism the possibility of enticing Tatars into allegiance to Russia, claiming that religious differences were insuperable and that the fanaticism and cruelty of their faith prevented them from enjoying the prosperity brought about by lawfulness; “Pis'my [sic] pravitelia tavricheskoi oblasti Vasiliia Vas. Kokhovskogo praviteliu kantseliarii Popovu, V. S., dlia doklada ego Svetlosti kniaziu Grigoriu Al. Potemkinu-Tavricheskomu,” ZOOID, vol. 10 (1877): 288 Google Scholar. He therefore took every opportunity to persecute and expel Islamic clerics, convinced as he was that only “after we have reduced the number of mullahs and scribes will we get good ploughmen” (294), a policy Potemkin condoned. See Kireenko, G., “Ordera kniazia Potemkina za 1786 g.,” Izvestiia Tavricheskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi kommissii, 1888, no. 3:30 Google Scholar.

99. Catherine, II, HochineniiaEkateriny II, vol. 7, Antidote (St. Petersburg, 1901), 72–73 Google Scholar.

100. Wolff, Larry, Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment (Stanford, 1994), 284–331 Google Scholar.

101. Ibid., 129.

102. For a discussion of the Greek project, see Ragsdale, Hugh, “Evaluating the Traditions of Russian Aggression: Catherine II and the Greek Project,” Slavonic and East European Review 66, no. 1 (1988): 91–117 Google Scholar.

103. Note the curious fact that this desire to claim a connection with Greek antiquity did not translate into a concern for preserving Greek artifacts, which suggests that Catherine saw such claims purely as a matter of discourse, not policy.

104. Zorin, Andrei, “Russkaia oda kontsa 1760-kh-nachala 1770-kh godov, Vol'ter i 'grecheskii proekt’ Ekateriny II,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1997, no. 24:9 Google Scholar.

105. The classical statement of this view belongs to Charles Duclos: “those who live a hundred miles from the capital, are a century away from it in their modes of thinking and acting.” Duclos, Considérations surles moeurs (1750; reprint, Cambridge, Eng., 1939), 13. On Catherine's somewhat confused attempt to assess the uniqueness and greatness of Russia in comparison with the west, see Rogger, Hans, National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), 262–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106. Catherine, II, Antidote, 55 Google Scholar. On the motif of Russia as a multinational empire in Catherine's rhetoric of power, especially during the second half of her rein, see Wortman, Scenarios of Power, 1:137–38.

107. Petrov, , Sochinenia, 2:19 Google Scholar.

108. Wortman, , Scenarios of Power, 1:113, 131Google Scholar.

109. Ibid., 1:122–23.

110. Ibid., 1:132–33.

111. Ibid., 1:138–39.

112. On the essentialist roots of the opposition between Greeks and barbarians, see Koselleck, Reinhart, Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten (Frankfurt am Main, 1979), 218–22Google Scholar. For the Enlightenment reinterpretation of this opposition, see Starobinski, Jean, Le remède dans le mat: Critique et légitimation de l'artifice à l'âge des Lumieres (Paris, 1989), 11–59.Google Scholar

113. Memoirs and Recollections of Count Segur, 3:139.

114. “Zapiska ob amazonskoi rote,” Moskvitianin, 1844, no. 1:266–68.Google Scholar

115. On Herodotus's notion of Scythians as the other to the Greeks, see Hartog, Francois, Le miroir d'Hérodote: Essai sur la représentation de l'autre (Paris, 1980)Google Scholar.

116. Raeff writes of the element of “play” present in Potemkin's style and activities, “In the Imperial Manner,” 174. For a discussion of the “Potemkin villages,” see Panchenko, A. M., “'Potemkinskie derevni’ kak kul'turnyi mif,” XVIII vek 14 (1983): 93–104 Google Scholar. On the journey itself, see Brikner, A., Istoriia Ekateriny vtoroi (1885; reprint, Moscow, 1991), 406–18.Google Scholar

117. Memoirs and Recollections of Count Segur, 3:130. Joseph traveled to the Crimea incognito, under the guise of the Count of Falkenstein.

118. Loudon, J. C., Encyclopaedia of Gardening, 3d ed. (London, 1835), 255.Google Scholar