Catherine the Great did much in her life to make Russia into a modern power. Educated, one of Russia's most competent rulers, and successful, she has had the bad luck to become a heroine of romantic fiction who is remember more for her sex life than for what she actually did and did not do. This book by Isabel de Madariaga shows us why Catherine was call "the great" and it wasn't because her life and loves. This was the great era of Russian expansion, cultural development (Catherine's offspring would get the benefit of the seeds she planted in the 18th century) and greater westernization. In all areas except one, the persistent problem of serfdom, which dominates the Imperial period of Russian history, Catherine advanced. I doubt very much if this will alter the image of Catherine that has been crafted in 1,000s of works of popular fiction, but readers wanting to know the whole story should take a look at this book.

A tad dry but a good history of a very complex woman who moved Russia into the modern era. If you want to know Russian history this is a must read.

Catherine is one of history's most complex, intelligent, strong-willed and resourceful women. de Mariaga's account is accurate and straightforward. Though she lacks the rhetorical flourish and eye-for-drama that makes Troyat's bio such a joy to read, de Mariaga pays closer attention to historical detail and gives the reader a keener sense of the political atmosphere Catherine faced and then recreated in her image.

de Mariaga doesn't dwell long on Catherine's formative years, dealing with the entire period from German childhood to ascension to the Russian throne in the prologue. She does mention the effect that Plutarch, Tacitus and Montesquieu had on the fifteen year Catherine. When the Swede, Count Gyllenborg urged her to read these authors, Catherine acted on the suggestion by ordering the library of the Academy of Sciences and its bookshop be sent to her. The books, when they came, were over the head of a fifteen-year old, but she turned to them later in life. de Mariaga tells us that years later, while awaiting news from Potemkin during the second Turkish campaign, Catherine (along with her newest consort, Zubov) distracts herself by translating Plutarch' Lives.

Catherine had to deal with many powerful factions when she came to power, following Peter II's secret assassination by the Orlov's. Some of the aristocratic members of her early cabinet, especially Panin, were hoping for a parliamentarian form of government, with a select few advisors wielding the majority of the power. Catherine, with the backing of the Orlovs, displayed her mettle early on in circumventing such notions. As far as she was concerned, Russia would remain an an autocrcy. Yet she was diplomatic enough not to appear heavy-handed in her decision-making and gave the impression, even to those she disagreed with strongly, that she was considering their proposals. She gave into Panin on his idea of a councl, but it was to be fashioned by her, so the old idea of service to the sovereign was reinforced. Even so it took her a good five years to consolidate her authority and spoil the ambitions of those who wanted to keep her a figurehead regent serving only until the czarevich Paul reached his majority.

de Mariaga stresses the importance of the assembly of 1767 in helping validate Catherine's rule and cementing her government. The assembly was important in that it allowed Catherine to come in contact with a wide cross-section of the Empire, and allowed her to confer new status on previously disenfranchised segments of the population (except the serfs, of course), at the expense of the nobility. The nobility found itself unable to resist Catherine's power-grab, for she was now speaking directly to "her children" with the divine voice of the Enlightenment. To have denounced her plan before a national assembly would have been tantamount to denouncing providence itself.

Catherine epitomized the "enlightened despot." She combined the "enlightened" political model of Montesqieu with her own brand of absolute power. A case could be made that she wasn't so much power-hungry as unwilling to share policy-making with those less-enlightened than she; namely, the Russian nobility whom she saw (correctly) as interested primarily in maintaining their wealth and status.

Catherine corresponded frquently with Voltaire. She brought Diderot to Russia. She wrote voluminously on subjects ranging from political science to drama. She was a Rennaissance Man in woman's garb in an Age of Enlightenment. Her diplomatic skills were exemplary. She could be ruthless and iron-fisted when the occasion dictated it. She, like Peter the Great before her, forged a new Russia, less dependent on old superstitions and the whip, more attuned to education and the new humanism. While her sexual proclivities have been vastly over-sensationalized, it could well be stated that in the area of bedroom-diplomacy Cleopatra was her only rival.

Again, if you are a reader interested in good story-as-bio, stick to Troyat. If you are interested in the political panorama of 18th c. Russia, de Mariaga is the best guide I know of.