Blog on Pages 60-121

Posted on October 27, 2015 by

Frankenstein begins to take a turn towards the “monster’s” perspective in pages sixty through one hundred twenty one. While Frankenstein’s perspective still plays a role, the monster’s perspective on life is a heavy feature to this reading. The monster meets with Frankenstein and begins to discuss his life where the reader realizes what the monster has gone through. From first finding out where he was to eventually learning language, the reader can see how truly intelligent this creature is. Victor is able to realize this also and this creates a strong connection between the two when he notices all the similarities between them. Victor notices that they both share a love for sublime nature, they both are concerned with the power of knowledge, and very sensitive. The monster goes on to speak about the cottagers that he, unknowingly to them, has lived with and the role that they play in his life. With such a developed subplot, the reader can understand the connections the monster has made to these people and the role that they play to him. Except when the monster tries to approach them, he is scolded away, causing him to have vengeance towards all human beings especially Victor. The reader can feel his emotion toward the human race and how he wants to be a part of something so bad which is why he tries to convince Victor to create another being like himself. Victor is very up and down about what he wants to do but promises he will make another female creature for the monster. During this process Victor begins to have second thoughts and destroys his progress. The monster is furious, swearing to Victor he will see him on his wedding day. The chapter ends with Victor fleeing back towards Clerval until he is thought to have murdered someone in a nearby town.

A passage that really stuck out to me was in chapter 15 when the monster talks about his identity. “”Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow devils, to admire and encourage him, but I am solitary and abhorred.” ( Pg 93) This passage stuck out to me because the monster started to realize what he truly was and how much this not only disgusted him but every one else. This is one part where the monster realizes that the knowledge he obtained has hurt him and what his personal identity is. Although he may not have a name or even a species, he knows that he is hideous and without anyone else in his species he will forever be lonely. This passage captures his emotions towards himself and shows what everyone else believes of him.

Exploration #3

Posted on October 26, 2015 by

Peter the Modern

Posted on October 25, 2015 by

Peter the Modern

Peter the Great could be characterized as a “reforming tsar” as opposed to his predecessors who strived to be “good tsars.” The reign of Peter even though in some ways categorized as ruthless, introduced Russia to the modern era. This meant Russia entering the global field amongst Western countries and further developing in social, economic, and political ways that were secular.

The original founding of the name “Tsar” was meant to be a ruler dedicated to his country, but first and foremost to God. Peter tried to reform this way of thinking by separating the state from the church. One way he did this was by abolishing the need to kneel in from of his presence. Another way was by removing any religiously associated diction from his title as Tsar, resulting in usage of words such as “emperor” and “autocrat.” Even though Peter was an Orthodox Tsar just like previous tsars, his focus was on his people and not on the word of God.

This resulted in the concept of the “good of the common wealth.” The idea was that the absolute monarch or ruler was a servant to his people. This also was meant to justify the tsar’s unlimited amount of power. Hence every action taken by Peter was meant to advance the state. He was able to excuse his strict ruling hand by saying that such a backward nation as Russia needed a heavy ruling hand to achieve modern Western standards.

Overall, Peter maintained absolute rule is Russia with a plan of action to reform most of Russian stardom. By distancing himself from the Church as well as being a man of the people and redesigning social hierarchy in Russia, Peter mimicked what Western monarchs were doing. This resulted in Russia not being seen as backwards, but instead as modern.

Questions:

Do you agree that prior to Peter’s rule Russia was a “backward” state? In what ways have we discussed Kiev and/or Muscovite eras as progressive rather than backwards?

How much of Peter’s reforms were carried out since he made the mistake of not appointing a new Tsar to the throne before his death?

Works Cited

Whittaker, Cynthia H. “The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth-Century Russia.” Slavic Review 1992:77. JSTOR Journals. Web.

Father of the Fatherland: A Modern Tsar

Posted on October 25, 2015 by

The concept of a “reforming tsar” as a secular and progressive position is interesting, given the long history Russian rulership has with the Orthodox Church. Indeed, in the sixteenth and seventeenth century the tsar was a far cry from the parallel monarchs of Western Europe. He was assumed to be a protector of the lower “castes,” and, bound in such a role, was unable to provide the domineering influence necessary of a true autocratic ruler to provide guidance.

Peter the Great did away with the notion of the tsar as a servant of God, replacing it with the concept of subservience to the state as a whole. Such an ideological shift provided the motivational impetus necessary to seize the power and “modernize” Russia, as it were. Peter set into place a concept that would become the crux of tsarship until the destruction of the position in 1917. With Peter’s fascination with Western Europe, and the modernizing reforms that followed, came the idea among the Russian people that it was appropriate, if not necessary, for the tsar to take it onto himself to be a vessel for change.

Cynthia Whittaker posits that is was the concept of the “reforming tsar” that allowed the autocracy to survive so long, and abandoning the idea was what brought the position to an end. To be accepted as a worthy ruler of the people, the tsar had to be responsible for bringing innovation. In fact, many subsequent tsars claimed a connection between their own reforms and Peter’s, to feed off of the legitimacy of his innovation.

At the dawn of the 19^th century, however, reform was no longer tied to Peter, but viewed as an intrinsic duty of the office of tsar. The concept of a single authority as the only political entity capable of fomenting change is reminiscent of the early Roman emperors, dictators to free the state from the floundering of a bloated and fractured ruling body. The title “Most Pious Tsar” was shed in favor of “Father of the Fatherland,” a decisive move to represent the primacy of a tsar’s mortal responsibilities over his religious ones.

An interesting thought is the parallel between the concept of the tsar’s duties as “Father” and the duties of a father in a traditional Russian household demonstrated to us in earlier sources. Both represent harsh realities of leadership and made use of a strong hand to instill discipline as the father saw fit.

Peter the Great, First Father of the Fatherland (1672-1725)

Whittaker, Cynthia. “The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth-Century Russia.” Slavic Review no. 51 (1992): 77

Frankenstein pg.1-61

Posted on October 25, 2015 by

The Novella Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, begins with the four opening letters, which tell Victor Frankenstein’s narrative through R. Walton’s own narrative. Walton’s narrative discusses the desire of company, friendship, and lack of sympathy regarding Victor’s voyage and experimentation. After the letters, Victor becomes the sole narrator, as he explains his early life story. As a child his family moved around a lot from Naples to Milan to finally Geneva. Victor is very expressive of his dear sister Elizabeth, who to him, represents not only beauty and perfection, but comfort. After Victor’s Mom dies, Victor goes off to Ingolstadt, and brings his friend Henry to accompany him. Victor works very hard in his studies and with the help of his professors finds a passion for science and creation. Victor and Henry then embark on their adventure, where it takes Victor about two years to create his monster. After the creation, Victor is exhausted and his joy and passion that he once had for his creation is gone. His family back home wonders why he has not been in touch and why he has not traveled home. Victor is then notified that his little brother William has died. This breaks Victor’s heart, and Elizabeth especially, who accuses herself of being responsible for the death. Victor decides to travel home to Geneva to pay his respects and to comfort his sister and the rest of his family. Justine, a family friend, is convicted of murdering William. Townspeople and the family believe that she is the murder, but Elizabeth and Victor know she is not. In fact, Victor is distraught, as he knows for a fact that the monster, his own creation, is responsible for murdering William. However, Justine pleads guilty as she sees no brighter future, and is executed the next morning.

A passage that stood out to me in the reading was on page twelve where Walton states “ Even broken in spirit as he is, no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature.” This made me think of how beauty in Shelley’s world was defined opposed to how it is defined in modern day. In addition, Victor saw beauty in his creation of the monster, but was it truly a beauty of nature? One could argue that science pertains to nature. However, Victor’s forced creation of his monster shows otherwise.

The Era of Conservative Reform

Posted on October 24, 2015 by

Peter the Great’s hectic reign was characterized by a flurry of reforms dragging Russia into the modern era. In Cynthia Whittaker’s “The Reforming Tsar: the Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth-Century Russia” she discusses the emergence of enlightened absolutism initiated by Peter. Before Peter, a “good Tsar” was a man whose first obligation was to preserving the Orthodox faith; Peter redefined what it meant to be sovereign of Russia by establishing the superiority of the state over the church. He commanded that people not kneel in front of him in order to ensure the clear differentiation between God and the Tsar. The goal of enlightened absolutism was a “trickle down” effect of enlightenment and knowledge. Peter considered himself an example for his people who would hopefully learn to be as industrious and curious as he was, thus creating a generally more intelligent and efficient populace. Peter’s legacy was more influential than his own reforms as he became the model for Tsars for nearly two centuries after his death.

“Peter praise” as Whittaker called it, was the likening of a sovereign’s intentions to those of Peter’s, and it became a necessary component of a Tsar’s perceived legitimacy among the people. Every new autocrat following Peter’s death claimed he or she would continue Peter’s works and it gave him or her legitimacy. Even the most weak and ineffectual of rulers, such as Peter’s niece Anna Ivanovna, maintained a level of support as long as they continued to issue some type of reform. When Catherine II (The Great) ascended to the throne in 1762 she legitimized herself by reforming the senate, the armed forces, and secularizing church lands. She was granted the title “The Great” by the senate after she had issued the progressive Nakaz which gave principles for how high government officials and the Tsar should act. In the 1770s, scholarly opinion of Catherine began to turn as many began to be concerned with unlimited monarchs inevitably becoming tyrants. This trend continued and many Russians started to believe that the only way a Tsar would ever forsake absolute power in favor of a constitutional monarchy would be if a successful revolution occurred. This revolution would not occur until 1917, but the autocracy held power for the century leading up to it partially thanks to the myth of the “reforming Tsar.” It was assumed by some that if each new sovereign continued to issue progressive reforms, the development of some form of constitutional monarchy was inevitable, but the reforms served only to delay the collapse of enlightened absolutism.