May 19 2010
The fact that Pushkin recreated in the novel the features of the empress captured by Borovikovsky emphasized the official “version” of the portrait. Moreover, Pushkin pointedly renounced his personal perception of the empress and gave the reader a copy of the 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 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 leaves of the linden trees have turned yellow, the empress, going out for a walk, put on a “sweat jacket”. Her face was “cold,” “full and rosy,” it “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? - 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 the image of the “peasant king” with the image of the ruling empress. 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, artistically realized and perceived by Marina Tsvetaeva: “The contrast between Pugachev’s blackness and her (Ekaterina P. - /'. M.) whiteness, his liveliness and importance, his cheerful kindness and her condescending, his peasant -ness and her ladyship could not help but turn away from her the child’s heart, food-loving and already committed to the “villain.”
Tsvetaeva doesn’t just set out her impressions, she analyzes 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 is in a cap and a shower jacket , on the bench, between all sorts of bridges and leaves, seemed to me like a huge white fish, white fish and even unsalted. (Catherine’s main feature is amazing insipidity.).”
And further: “Let’s compare Pugachev and Catherine in reality: “Come out, beautiful maiden, I will give you freedom. I am the sovereign. (leading Marya Ivanovna out of prison).” “Excuse me,” she said in an even more affectionate voice, “if I interfere, but I am at court...”
How much more regal in his gestures is a man who calls himself a sovereign than an empress who presents herself as a hanger-on.” Yu. M. Lotman is right when he objects to the roughly straightforward definition of Pushkin’s view of Catherine II. Of course, Pushkin did not create a negative Catherine, did not resort to satirical colors. But Pushkin needed the confrontation between Pugachev and Catherine II; such a composition allowed him to reveal important truths about the nature of autocracy. Features of the depiction of Pugachev and Catherine II make it possible to understand on whose side Pushkin’s sympathies lie. “Does Pushkin love Catherine in The Captain’s Daughter?” asked. And she answered: “I don’t know. He is respectful to her. He knew that all this: whiteness, kindness, fullness - things were respectable. So I honored him." The final answer to the questions of why Pushkin introduced the image of Catherine into the novel and how he portrayed her is given by the last scene - Masha Mironova’s meeting with the Empress in the Tsarskoe Selo Garden. Here the reader will learn the true reasons why Catherine declared Grinev innocent. But this scene is important not only for understanding the image of Catherine: during the meeting, the character of the captain’s daughter is finally revealed and the love line of the novel ends, since it was Masha who defended hers.
To understand this fundamentally important scene, you need to remember that it was written with the reader’s presence in mind: Marya Ivanovna, for example, does not know that she is talking with the empress, but the reader already guesses; The “lady” accuses Grinev of treason, but the reader knows very well that this accusation is not based on anything. Pushkin considered it necessary to discover this technique: at the time of the conversation, he reports: Masha Mironova “fervently told everything that was already known to my reader.”
So, Marya Ivanovna, answering the “lady’s” question, informs her about the reason for her arrival in the capital. At the same time, the interlocutor’s favor towards the unknown girl is energetically motivated: the “lady” learns that in front of her is the orphan of Captain Mironov, an officer loyal to the Empress. (The lady seemed to be touched.) In this state, she reads Masha’s petition.
Pushkin creates another emergency situation, instructing Grinev to record (according to Masha Mironova) everything that happened: “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.”
It is very important for Pushkin to emphasize the idea that, even putting on the mask of a private person, Catherine was not able to humble the empress within herself. “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.”
Marya Ivanovna’s meeting with Catherine II reaches its climax after this rebuke from the “lady”: the captain’s daughter from a timid and humble petitioner turns into a brave defender of justice, the conversation becomes a duel.
- “Oh, that’s not true! - Marya Ivanovna screamed.
- - How untrue! - the lady objected, flushing all over.
- - It's not true, it's not true! I'll tell you."
What could she do? Insist on your unfair verdict? But under the current conditions this would look like a manifestation of reckless despotism. Such a depiction of Catherine would contradict the truth of history. And Pushkin could not agree to this. What was important to him was something else: to show first the injustice of Grinev’s conviction and the essentially demagogic pardon of him by Catherine II, and then - her forced correction of her mistake.
Marya Ivanovna is summoned to the palace. The “lady,” already appearing in the image of Empress Catherine II, said: “Your business is over. I am convinced of your fiancé’s innocence.” This statement is remarkable. Catherine II herself admits that she releases Grinev because he is innocent. And his innocence was proven by Masha Mironova, and this truth was confirmed by the reader. Therefore, correcting a mistake is not mercy. Pushkinists attributed mercy to Catherine II. In fact, the honor of freeing the innocent Grinev belongs to the captain’s daughter. She did not agree not only with the court’s verdict, but also with the decision of Catherine II, with her “mercy.” She ventured to go to the capital to refute the arguments of the empress who condemned Grinev. Finally, she boldly threw a bold word at the “lady” - “It’s not true!” entered into a duel and won it; By attributing “mercy” to Catherine, researchers impoverish the image of the captain’s daughter, robbing her of the main act in her life. In the novel, she was a “suffering” person, a faithful daughter of her father, who had internalized his morality of humility and obedience. “Wonderful circumstances” not only gave her the happiness of connecting with her beloved, they renewed her soul, her life principles.
Need a cheat sheet? Then save - "Catherine II and Masha Mironova in Pushkin's story "The Captain's Daughter". Literary essays!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 by 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.
The images of Emelyan Pugachev and Empress Catherine II are symbols of power. We can say that these historical figures are at different poles, they are radically opposite.
Pushkin gave a real portrait of the empress in this episode: “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 ruddy, expressed importance and calmness, and her blue eyes and light smile had an inexplicable charm.”
The image of Catherine II, fair, merciful, grateful, was written by Pushkin with undisguised sympathy, fanned with a romantic aura. This is not a portrait of a real person, but a generalized image. Catherine is the shrine that the nobles defended in the war with Pugachev.
Catherine listens carefully to Masha Mironova and promises to look into her request, although the empress’s attitude towards the “traitor” Grinev is sharply negative. Having learned all the details of the case and being imbued with sincere sympathy for the captain’s daughter, Ekaterina has mercy on Masha’s fiancé and promises to take care of the girl’s material well-being: “... 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.”
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 am indebted to 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.
But Pugachev’s help to Grinev was much more real - he saved his life and helped save Masha. This is a striking contrast.
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 put 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 image of the Russian Empress inspired artists belonging to different eras and generations
Inauguration of the Imperial Academy of Arts on July 7, 1765. Hood. IN AND. Jacobi. 1889
Provided by the author
Almost three and a half decades of reign Catherine II her portraits were painted by leading artists, both domestic and foreign masters who came to Russia. Ceremonial and not so formal, they were supposed to serve certain purposes. The painters glorified the reign of Catherine Alekseevna, presented her as a wise and enlightened monarch, and created the desired image. A number of compositions were of a distinctly allegorical nature; in others, the empress is shown almost in a homely, relaxed atmosphere - and all together they formed an impressive gallery of images, vivid and extremely interesting.
It must be said that not all of the painters’ works were liked by the customer. Thus, the empress spoke with bitter humor about the portrait created Alexander Roslin, noticing that in it she looks more like a Swedish cook. She didn't like the portrait either. Vladimir Borovikovsky, in which she is depicted in casual clothes for a walk in Tsarskoye Selo Park (this portrait became especially famous thanks to “The Captain’s Daughter” Pushkin).
Portrait of Catherine II. Hood. A. Roslin. 1776–1777
Provided by the author
The image of the empress, who is called the Great, remained significant for Russian art even after her death - not to the same extent, of course, as the image Peter I, but still. Two periods of such artistic interest can be clearly traced - the second half of the 19th century, the time after the great reforms of Alexander II, and the beginning of the 20th century, the Silver Age. But first, about the queen’s lifetime gallery.
Princess Fike's smile
The first portrait of Catherine, when she was not yet Catherine, but was a very modest princess of the House of Anhalt-Zerbst, belongs to the brush Anne Rosina de Gasc(née Lisevskaya, 1713–1783) – representatives of a whole family of painters (of which her younger sister, the artist, is best known Anna Dorothea Terbush-Lisevska- one of the outstanding “muses” of 18th century painting).
In the portrait we see Sophia Augusta Frederica of Anhalt-Zerbst at the age of 11, but already this childish image clearly shows the character traits of the future Russian empress. Princess Fike (this was her home nickname) looks at the viewer carefully and at the same time, as if arrogantly. Thin, compressed lips reinforce this impression. And at the same time, here for the first time a feature appears that later distinguishes almost all portraits of Catherine - her signature smile. In general, artists of the 18th century tried to paint portraits of smiling models when they worked to order. A smile ennobles and makes the image more attractive. Another thing is that it didn’t suit everyone.
Catherine's smile is more than just a smile according to portrait tradition. This is an instrument of her politics, her communication, one of many, but an important one. If we turn to the memories of her contemporaries, then in most cases we will find a description of precisely this benevolent, gracious, endearing smile. And Catherine knew how to captivate hearts masterfully. She entered Russian classical literature with a smile. When creating the two most famous images of the empress on the pages of fiction - in "The Captain's Daughter" and "The Night Before Christmas" - Pushkin and Gogol even use the same words: the Russian tsarina has blue eyes and a light smile, so capable of conquering everything around her.
Canny
But time passed. The girl became the bride of the heir to the Russian throne and came to Russia. And soon she was already Grand Duchess Ekaterina Alekseevna. Several portraits of her from that period have survived.
Portrait of Grand Duchess Ekaterina Alekseevna. Hood. L. Caravaque. 1745
Provided by the author
One of the first authors was a Frenchman Louis Caravaque(1684–1754), who gained fame as a court portrait painter even under Peter I. Over many years in Russia, he redrawn almost all members of the imperial family, and young Ekaterina Alekseevna was no exception, whom the artist depicted in his favorite manner - as if shrouded in a light haze. This portrait is characterized by a restrained charm, and a significant role in this was played by the barely noticeable smile that the master was able to capture, but he also managed to show the not too open and sincere nature of the future empress. She, as they say, is on her own mind - a quality that was later recognized by other painters.
Portrait of Grand Duchess Ekaterina Alekseevna in a hunting suit. Hood. G. K. Groot. 1740s
Provided by the author
Very nice portraits of work Georg Christoph Groot(1716–1749), who represented Catherine in various situations, in particular while hunting. In them, the Grand Duchess always smiles, and her face is somewhat pointed. On the canvases Pietro dei Rotari(1707–1762) Catherine, on the contrary, is extremely uninteresting: she is a plump lady, looking at the viewer peacefully and even a little detachedly, although the roundness of her face makes her image quite pleasant. This portrait type was subsequently reproduced Ivan Argunov(1729–1802), Rotary apprentice, and Alexey Antropov(1716–1795), who depicted Catherine seated on a throne, with a scepter and orb, in 1766. There is very little life here in the frozen image of the empress. Finally the same Anna Rosina de Gasc painted a family portrait of Peter and Catherine with a page boy (Groot’s portrait of them as a couple was also executed in this manner): here the static images of the heir to the Russian throne and his wife give the picture an emasculated character.
In search of a canonical image
In the first decade of Catherine's reign, her court artist was a Dane Vigilius Eriksen(1722–1782). It is he, along with the Italian Stefano Torelli(1712–1780) created the official, canonical image of the empress. Numerous portraits of Eriksen are distinguished by their flat character and weak expressiveness. In them, Catherine looks like a static doll, usually with a distant expression on her face: her features are not very attractive, and her smile is rather forced. It’s hard to imagine a more unnatural image. Even a very original portrait of the Empress in shugai and kokoshnik does not leave the best impression: the elderly woman looking at us does not inspire much sympathy.
Portrait of Catherine II on horseback. Hood. V. Eriksen. After 1762
Provided by the author
But despite such a restrained creative style of the artist, Catherine II loved the portrait by Eriksen, where she is depicted at the moment of the coup on her favorite horse Brilliant, in a dress in the uniform of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. Apparently, he responded to the necessary glorification, which was extremely important for the empress when mentioning the “revolution” of 1762. Torelli, on the other hand, created mainly allegorical canvases with images of Catherine, canonizing the image of the empress in the form of Minerva, and in the ceremonial portraits of his brush, we note, the empress looks more alive than in the paintings of Eriksen. However, in the portrait painted by Torelli in Russian dress, she seems completely serious (even without a smile) and rather does not make a very favorable impression.
Portrait of Catherine II. Hood. F.S. Rokotov. 1763
Provided by the author
The portrait of the Empress in profile, created by Fedor Rokotov(1735(?)–1808) shortly after her coronation, in 1763: this image of her is one of the most famous. Catherine II sits on the throne with a scepter in her outstretched hand, the soft features of her face make her profile spiritual, and the pose she adopts is rather light than ponderous - thanks to all this, a feeling of a certain impulse, forward-facing is created, which is not quite expected from a ceremonial portrait. The Empress seems to be looking to the future, to plans and transformations. This portrait is undoubtedly one of the greatest successes in the gallery of official images of the empress. Subsequently, Rokotov created her portrait with the insignia of the Order of St. George. In it, Catherine is both majestic and charming: her gracious smile is addressed to her loyal subjects.
Swedish artist Alexander Roslin(1718–1793), who worked in Russia in the second half of the 1770s, is the same one who painted the portrait that the customer did not like so much. It seems that this portrait is really the most unsuccessful of all in terms of the aesthetic impression it makes: Catherine seems like a flabby old woman, and her smile does not so much give her charm as expresses some disgust. Roslin's portrait was copied by Karl Ludwig Christinek, who obviously softened the features of the queen's image.
Allegories on a given topic
We can say that the classic smiling and very attractive image of Catherine in painting was born in the early 1780s, that is, approximately in the middle of her reign. He went down in history. The right features in her representation were finally found.
Portrait of Catherine II. Hood. R. Brompton. Around 1782
Provided by the author
Already in 1782, a completely charming, bright and spiritual image of the empress was created Richard Brompton(1734–1783), a brilliant English painter who became the empress’s court artist for several years. Perhaps this is the most vivid portrait of Catherine ever painted.
But the majestic pleasantness of the empress received its complete embodiment, of course, in the portraits of the work Dmitry Levitsky(1735–1822), among which the image of Catherine the Lawgiver in the Temple of the Goddess of Justice (1783) stands out. This second wave of allegorical depictions of the empress was largely initiated Nikolay Lvov- an architect, poet, musician, draftsman and engraver, as well as a friend of Levitsky.
Portrait of Catherine II - legislator in the temple of the Goddess of Justice. Hood. D.G. Levitsky. 1783
Provided by the author
In fact, Lvov proposed the “program” for this painting. Catherine appears here not in the robes of an ancient goddess - the patroness of the sciences and arts, but in the classic image of a triumphant, legislator and guardian of the welfare of her subjects. The priestess's light tunic symbolizes the purity of her thoughts and deeds; a laurel wreath and a seascape with ships - military victories and successes in the field of diplomacy; The poppies burned on the altar of Themis represent vigilant care for justice, and the eagle with Peruns gives the majestic image a resemblance to Jupiter. For all their formality, Levitsky’s portraits (and there are several versions and repetitions of them) are distinguished by the creation of an image of a soft, merciful, encouraging and at the same time self-confident queen, and, by the way, the smile that this painter was so brilliantly able to convey plays here very important role.
Portrait of Catherine II in traveling suit. Hood. M. Shibanov. 1787
Provided by the author
The end of the 1780s in the portrait gallery of Catherine is represented by a portrait of her in a traveling suit by a former serf, an artist Mikhail Shibanov(biographical information about him is extremely scarce), written during her famous trip to Crimea (1787). This portrait is interesting for its intimate, “homey” character, and the Empress looks at it somehow sadly and even somewhat surprised. This version of her representation hardly corresponded to the already established official tradition of the pictorial depiction of the queen, and its presence in the gallery of images of the empress is significant.
Catherine II on a walk in Tsarskoye Selo Park (with the Chesme Column in the background). Hood. V.L. Borovikovsky. 1794
Provided by the author
Finally, in the last years of her life, Catherine was captured Johann Baptist Lampi the Elder(1751–1830) and Vladimir Borovikovsky(1757–1825), although the latter also has an earlier ceremonial portrait of the Empress. Both of these works did not please the aging monarch. Lampi tried to pick up Levitsky's baton by depicting Catherine pointing to the allegorical figures of Fortress and Truth. But the queen looks overweight and ponderous here, her face is puffy, and overall it makes a rather repulsive impression (this was only slightly corrected by the painter in another ceremonial portrait of Catherine). The portrait by Borovikovsky (known in two versions) shows the empress in purely “home” conditions - on an ordinary walk in Tsarskoye Selo Park, but at the same time it is not without allegory (the background in one of the versions is the Chesme Column, in the second - the Cahul Obelisk). The Empress walks, leaning on a cane, accompanied by her beloved Italian greyhound Zemira, smiling discreetly, which evokes sympathy, which arises largely due to the charming informal atmosphere surrounding her. It was this pleasant impression that served as the basis for Pushkin to create the famous episode of the story “The Captain's Daughter” (the poet was familiar with the portrait from an engraving by Nikolai Utkin, very popular in his time).
Catherine II. Bust by F.I. Shubina
Provided by the author
The classic image of Catherine in sculpture was created Fedor Shubin. The busts of his work present us with an empress as attractive, gracious and smiling as Levitsky’s paintings.
Catherine from the 19th century
Catherine's posthumous artistic fame began only in the 1860s. This was the era of the centenary of her reign. In Russian historical painting of that time, the image of the great empress of the 18th century, apparently, first appears in a purely student painting by a Polish artist Ivan Miodushevsky, who studied at the Imperial Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg. The painting was painted in 1861 according to an academic program, and for its sketch the author was awarded a large silver medal. This is “Scene from “The Captain’s Daughter” by A.S. Pushkin”, depicting the moment the empress presented the letter Masha Mironova about pardon Petra Grineva. An everyday scene of a literary nature takes place in the chambers of the Catherine Palace in Tsarskoe Selo in the presence of an unnaturally young Pavel Petrovich and princesses Ekaterina Dashkova. The appearance of the empress here is rather close to what we see in the portraits of Lampi, but significantly ennobled.
Empress Catherine II with M.V. Lomonosov. Hood. I.K. Fedorov. 1884
Provided by the author
Two more works, drawing from 1880 Alexey Kivshenko(1851–1895) and a painting by a little-known artist Ivan Fedorov, created in 1884, are dedicated to the same event - the visit of Catherine II Mikhail Lomonosov in 1764. In both cases, the empress in a light dress, accompanied by her retinue, sits and listens attentively to the explanations of the great scientist.
In the painting of a famous historical painter Valeria Jacobi(1833–1902) shows the inauguration ceremony of the Academy of Arts in 1765. This painting was created in 1889 for the 125th anniversary of the academy. Here the artist presented to the audience not only the empress herself, but also a large number of courtiers, prominent cultural and artistic figures of the era of her reign ( Panin, Razumovsky, Dashkov, Betsky, Sumarokov and many others). In the process of work, he turned to famous portraits of these figures, and his Catherine seemed to have stepped out of the ceremonial profile canvas of Fyodor Rokotov.
It is curious that on the walls of the hall where the celebration takes place, Jacobi “hung” paintings from Catherine’s time, including allegorical portraits of the Empress by Torelli (in the image of Minerva) and Levitsky (in the image of the priestess of the goddess of Justice), although neither of the portraits 1765 did not yet exist.
Catherine II at the tomb of Empress Elizabeth. Hood. N.N. Ge. 1874
Provided by the author
Without a doubt, the most famous work of Russian historical painting, where the image of Catherine is not just present, but plays one of the main roles, is the painting Nikolai Ge(1831–1894) “Catherine II at the tomb of Empress Elizabeth” (1874). This work, extremely interesting from a compositional and coloristic point of view, shows Catherine in mourning: accompanied by Dashkova, she follows to the coffin Elizaveta Petrovna, which, however, is not marked. This movement in the foreground contrasts with Peter III receding into the distance in the depths of the picture, also accompanied by courtiers, and the contrast is achieved not only by the different vectors of the moving groups and the correlation of the canvas plans, but also by the color scheme. The figure of Catherine is illuminated by the flames of candles, and the expression of her face, cold and even arrogant - she seems to grin with her restrained smile - demonstrates her absolute superiority over the situation, which does not really endear the viewer to the heroine of the picture.
Monument to Catherine II in St. Petersburg. Sculptor M.O. Mikeshin. 1873
Provided by the author
A year earlier, in 1873, a monument to Catherine II was unveiled in St. Petersburg in front of the Alexandrinsky Theater. Its author Mikhail Mikeshin(1835–1896) had already depicted the great empress once - on the monument to the Millennium of Russia in Novgorod: there she is, laying a laurel wreath on the head of someone bowing before her Grigory Potemkin, is represented among many outstanding figures of Russian history. Now Mikeshin created a monument to Catherine herself, but he used the compositional solution of the Novgorod monument, which turned out to be extremely successful, here too.
The proudly smiling empress rises like a rock, surrounded by a belt of her companions. Mikeshin brilliantly conveyed the very essence of Catherine’s reign: she is in the galaxy of eagles skillfully selected by the monarch, which made up her glory. This decision for a long time determined the compositional tradition of Catherine’s monuments to the empire: this is the monument to her in Odessa (1900), and this is the same in Yekaterinodar, as modern Krasnodar was called (1907, designed by the same Mikeshin). Everywhere the Empress rises above the audience, and everywhere she is not alone. The impression from the St. Petersburg monument, and to a greater extent from the personality of the queen herself, was excellently expressed by the wonderful poet Alexei Apukhtin in the poem “The Unfinished Monument.”
Catherine II's departure for falconry. Hood. V.A. Serov. 1902
Provided by the author
The beginning of the 20th century brought interest in the private life of the empress. On the bookplate made Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva(1871–1955) for Sergei Kaznakov, Catherine (only her silhouette can be guessed) is depicted with one of her favorites on a moonlit night in the Cameron Gallery of Tsarskoye Selo Park. And in the picture Valentina Serova(1865–1911), created for the famous publication Nikolai Kutepov According to the history of royal and imperial hunting, we see the empress going out in the evening for falconry. She half-turned towards us, looking back at her favorite accompanying her. This “evening” Catherine of the Silver Age completes the gallery of her artistic images created in old Russia.
