Caucasus University; Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Film Georgia State University
Associate Professor
Cultural Studies, Art History
Doctor of Art History
Tbilisi, Georgia
ekakiknadze@yahoo.com
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze how the governance of the Viceroy of the Caucasus, Mikhail Vorontsov (1845–1854), was transformed from a historical experience into a cultural myth. The central argument of the paper is that the representation of the Vorontsov era as a “Golden Age” is not so much the result of an objective historical assessment as it is of a deliberate politics of memory—a policy that linked colonial rule to the idea of civilizational progress. Accordingly, the study addresses not only Vorontsov’s cultural policies, but also the discursive and institutional processes through which his governance was turned into a historical myth and a long-lasting symbolic memory was constructed. The research is grounded in the theoretical frameworks of cultural memory, colonial governance, and “active forgetting.” Methodologically, it relies on the analysis of memory formation processes and discourse analysis, which makes it possible to examine how a historical figure is constructed across institutional and cultural spaces. Primary sources include 19th-century Georgian periodicals and publications, as well as archival materials. On the empirical level, the paper analyzes three interconnected dimensions of Vorontsov’s rule. First, administrative and urban transformations: the Europeanization of Tbilisi, infrastructural projects, and the symbolic reorganization of urban space, which gave tangible form to the imperial narrative of a “civilizing mission.” Second, cultural and educational initiatives: the development of the press, the expansion of educational institutions, and the dissemination of European cultural forms, which functioned as mechanisms of social integration and symbolic hegemony. Third, the politics of “active forgetting”: the paper argues that during Vorontsov’s administration, the political radicalism of the 1832 conspiracy gradually shifted to the periphery of memory and was replaced by the illusion of loyalist cultural autonomy, while the history of resistance was rewritten in the language of imperial legitimacy. It is precisely the convergence of these three mechanisms that produced the mythologization of Vorontsov: a ruler who developed cities and established scientific, cultural, and informational infrastructure was easily transformed into a symbol of progress and modernity, rather than an agent of colonial power. The Georgian elite operating within this cultural space often became, even while pursuing their own cultural interests, complicit in imperial legitimation. In this sense, the myth of Vorontsov proved to be remarkably durable—far more enduring than his actual administration. Vorontsov’s figure reveals a form of imperial power grounded less in direct repression than in cultural patronage, institutional integration, and memory management—a ruler who managed to colonize not only territory, but also historical time and collective memory.
Keywords: Mikhail Vorontsov, politics of memory, coloniality, mythologization, 19th-century Georgia.