Document Analysis Paper Review

This paper deserved an A because aside from a perfect spelling and punctuation, the author’s writing was to the point. The paper had no superfluous statements, and each sentences worked toward answering the thesis. In addition, the author does a great job at contextualizing his topic thus making it accessible to any readers.  The usage of quotes followed the same pattern: quotations from the text were only given to illustrate his point while additional references were simply paraphrases.

The argument itself was well constructed: The author’s interpretation of the reign of Peter the Great and Catherine II were correct and logical. Furthermore, the author’s analysis of the documents was used as a mean to both analyze the continuation of the reformist ideals throughout the century, but also changes within reigns, particularly that of Catherine II, thus providing solidity and depth to the argument. Such analysis of the sources allows the author to both give context and prove the thesis.

The structure of the paper was also interesting. In the case of Peter, the author started the argument through a description of the table of ranks, only referring to Peter to articulate that Russia was in need of centralization, therefore making a good usage of topic sentences. Following this brief description, the author then explained Peter’s aim behind the table of ranks as well as the consequences it had on Russia. In the case of Catherine II, this time the author first focused on the environment in which Catherine was at the beginning of her reign, period in which the Charter to the nobility was written. Then proceeded to explain why this environment caused her to create the Charter to the towns. While such method permitted the author to emphasize on Catherine’s reign, it also allowed tying the two periods in a manner that solidified the argument. In other words, the structure of the paper is organized well enough so that it eases the flow of the argument.

Peter I, Catherine II paper review

This paper I an A ranked paper for several reasons. It possesses all of the normal trimmings that are needed to insure that it can function as an academic piece; citations, indentations, correct spelling. It also includes the equally or even more important characteristic of being a well written essay. It has a clear statement of the characters that it will discuss (Peter I, Catherin I) fallowed by a brief statement of the timeframe they lived and worked. Fallowing that is the ever important evidence and a clear and concise thesis contained in one solid sentence. The thesis focuses on the actions that the paper is discussing, in this case the stratified and expanded government roles. The intentions of Peter the Great and Catherin II with their motivations for their actions. Later in the paper the author brings into the argument the evidence listed before the thesis. In order to do this a small amount of historical motivation is always included, often with some quotes. For example when discussing Peter the Great and the “Table of Ranks” the author mentions Peter’s affinity for the westernization of Russia and how that would be a significant motivator.

Once the Author has finished discussing Peter the Great they move on to Catherin II. They completely skip over any mention of the intervening monarchs deciding to spend more of their time properly explaining the relevance of Peter and Catherin. The transition from one monarchs to the next is seamless with a brief interlude discussing both monarchs for context. Thankfully at the beginning of the Catherin there is a much needed interlude explaining the context for Catherin’s actions and her legislation. The author tells us about the Pugachev rebellion in the beginning of her rule which shaped much of her domestic policy.

After explaining and elaborating on the actions and intentions of Catherin II the author turns their attention to what they have just learned. An excerpt from a noted authority starts off the conclusion telling us how the monarchs were perceived by the Russian aristocracy and public. Fallowing that is a brief conclusion stating what the evidence showed the author in their logical argument. There is little to no sugar coating, instead the author tells us that Peter the Great and Catherin II did not truly care about the people. Instead they did what the author believed them to have done and extended government.

18th Century Serfdom

Something that stood out to me in this chapter was the quote by Sumner at the beginning of the reading.  He states that serfdom lasted longer in Russia than in the West because “humanitarian and other ideas of the value of the individual spirit were little developed.”  It is strange to attempt to reconcile that fact that Catherine the Great set up a Noble Wardship and a Bureau of Public Welfare for the peasants but that she was also the monarch responsible for entrenching serfdom the most.  I understand that there was a division between peasants and serfs, but I do not agree with Sumner’s statement.  I think that in Russia, at least on a theoretical level, there was a conception of individual rights and social duty.  In the “Charter to the Towns” for example, the merchants were granted private property based on their individual right and under law.  Obviously the concept of individual rights applied more to the upper classes than to the peasants, but I would go as far to say that serfdom became so important because of the new Enlightenment value placed on the individual.  The serfs became the patrimony of the nobles and the merchants because the upper classes were entitled to them by virtue of being a human with an inalienable right to property.  It is hard to apply humanitarian and spiritual concerns to a group of people barely considered human by law.

On a related note, I was surprised to learn that merchant run factories had the ability to own their own peasants as “industrial serfs.”  I do not think of Russian factories at this time period to be mechanized enough to support unskilled labor and had assumed that there would be more unindustrialized craft involved.

The readings for this weekend were all three on very different topics. The first one Manifesto Freeing the Nobility was a brief piece of legislation published by Peter III before his assassination by his wife Catherine. In it he sets the nobles free, in other words he allows them to resume completely independent action and free migration. The next two readings were discussions of Catherine the greats reign. The first one by Isabel De Madariaga revolves around the legislation she writes, specifically the Nakaz and The Statute of Local Administration. Brenda Meehan takes a different tact when examining Catherine the Great. She discuses both the effect of Catherine’s gender on the international stage and the possibility that Catherine may not have had as much power as we assume.

In reading these texts one overarching theme comes to mind, that the nobility of Russia may have had a very complex relationship with the Russian thrown. In 1762 Peter the third sets the nobles free. He did this because he wanted to improve the quality of the serving class. He specifically mentions that any nobles that are not serving their purpose should be cast out. In the next text more support is found in Catherine’s actions, she creates The Statute of Local Administration to separate the nobles a bit from their power and stabilize the populace. All of this implies that the Russian nobles were under the crowns authority. But the last text questions this by asking weather in actuality she was the pawn of a greater scheme.