Category Archives: HIST253-Archive

The Overcoat

Posted on by

The story of The Overcoat by Nikolai Gogol is a witty commentary on the efficiency of the bureaucracy in Russia. The main character Akakiy Akakievitch is a short, bald toped red head who has an abundance of personal issues; he is shy, unconfident and a terrible communicator. Despite these traits, Akakiy loves his job in a “certain department” as a copier and is very good at his job, in fact he lives to copy things. The plot of the story is formed as Akakiy clearly needs a new cloak, for the harsh Russian winter is coming and he is constantly being made fun of at the office for his “cape” rather than cloak. This is important because dress is a determining factor of rank so if Akakiy is wearing the wrong dress, he is diminishing his position in society. The means to a new coat consumes Akakiy’s life, as his already simple life is forced to be cut due to the price of a new cloak. After nearly a year of limited resources, Akakiy finally purchases his new cloak from Petrovitch, the one eyed, drunk tailor and is amazed by the quality. He loves his new cloak and it is extremely well perceived at the office. After walking home from a party one night, something that Akakiy being shy and timid rarely did, he was robbed and his coat was stolen. Akakiy goes through a great deal of measures to get his cloak back but is shut down at nearly every department he does to. He eventually makes his way to a prominent personage, who is supposed to be able to actually give Akakiy some aid according to another source, however he is once again disappointed and forced to walk home in a snow storm. He catches a fever and later dies. No one at the office even notices until days later. Gossip concerning an apparition who snags the coats of the backs of many lingers through-out St. Petersburg and one day this apparition seizes the cloak of the very prominent personage who earlier had hindered Akakiy’s claims for his coat. The apparition fits perfectly into his new cloak and is rumored to no more take the coats of men, as he had finally found the one that fits him best.

 

There are many social critiques made by Gogol through-out the story. He makes is clear the bureaucracy of Russia is like Akakiy Akakievitch, which translates to something along the lines of Poop who does nothing. Suggesting that he thinks that Russia needs to make reforms to departments across the country. The fact that he has such a hard time filling a claim shows that the bureaucracy  is tough to work with and is genuinely bad at what they are supposed to do. The watchmen who didn’t come help Akakiy when he was being robbed also shows a general lack of productiveness.

Does the character of Petrovitch, a one-eyed drunk who does great, cheap work, reveal any values that Gogol might hold?

What aspects of the story could be seen as reasons to westernize or not?

Nicholas and the Decembrists

Posted on by

At the very beginning of his reign, Nicholas I faced rebellion as his succession to the throne was called into question.  3,000 members of the Russian military stood against the state on the date which subjects were to pledge fielty to the new emperor.

As Alexander I had no heirs before his sudden death, the next logical successor was his brother Constantine.  Constantine was favored by Russian subjects as they viewed him to be more liberalized, mainly because he was living in Poland and isolated from St. Petersburg society.  A reign under Constantine would have been interesting, as he was the Viceroy of Poland, had more training to rule than his younger brother, Nicholas, and was married to a catholic Polish commoner.  Arguably, Constantine had the makings to be another reforming monarch; however, Constantine would never rule as he privately refused to rule.  Since Constantine’s decision not to become the next emperor, Russian subjects were left in the dark about the decision for Nicholas to rule instead.  As a result, rumors spread that Constantine may have been forced to denounce his rule, or that he was waiting to gather full support of the Polish army before taking the throne.

Either way, the Russian public, especially members of the Russian army, did not want Nicholas to come to power.  They witnessed his brash manner in the barracks, a dull personality, unnessecary brutality towards soldiers, and even the compete displacement of military groups as a part of “paradomania.”  This led to the formation of officer-led rebel groups within the ranks of the Russian army, which, unfortunately, were all defeated by Nicholas’ troops.

What was perhaps most interesting, as Marc Raeff mentions in The Decembrists, is that the Decembrists recognized the main issue with the state was the institution of Serfdom.  All agreed it needed to be abolished; however, no one could come up with a solution that would benefit both serfs and landowners.  Many were sore about how Alexander I had acknowledged the issue during his reign, but never acted upon ending it, like his grandmother, Catherine II.

Nicholas’ reign, as the Decembrists predicted, would be problematic in regards to the abolition of serfdom.  He had no training in statecraft, and his reign was one of conservatism and restrictions instead of progressive reform.  The start of his reign set a tone of reaction toward rebellion or notions of disapproval, meaning that instead of making state or social progress, he trammeled it severely.  Because of this, it pull Russia further into “backwardness” and continue the oppression of Russian serfs.

The Decemberist Uprising

Posted on by

On December 14th, 1825, a group of about 3,000 soldiers amassed on Senate Square in protest over the crowning of Nicholas I.  Nicholas, hesitant at first, commanded his artillery to open fire.  All the revolt’s leaders were arrested and all the participating soldiers were ordered to stay in their barracks. The Decemberist Uprising was first true test of Nicholas I mere days after taking the throne.  What had caused such discontent in the ranks of the military to warrant such a large protest over their new commander?

The basis for the revolt came about after the death of Alexander I.  Having no successor, Alexander’s younger brother, Constantine, was to take the throne; however, Constantine quietly relinquished his claim, telling only the church and his close relatives.  This unique situation caused some nobles and elites to pause and speculate why Constantine would do something so significant, and tell no one.  Thus, the elites were skeptical of Nicholas’ claim.

Since Nicholas was the third in line to the throne, he had little training on how to govern and rule, and was only schooled in military tactics.  Thus, he had very little charisma and was a harsh general.  Soldiers grew to loathe Nicholas’ “petty and harsh disciplinary actions” (5).

The e fact that a new monarch was to take the throne also caused soldiers and officers to be fed up.  As a result of Russia’s campaign West in pursuit of Napoleon, soldiers and officers witnessed an Enlightened Europe.  These enlightened ideals took root within the soldiers and they became increasingly dissatisfied with their treatment and lack of acknowledgement.  These ideals took root within the military, and with the question of succession, some individuals considered establishing a provincial administration.

 

Nicholas’ actions during the Decemberist Revolt symbolized how his reign was going to be.  As a result of his general ignorance on how to rule a nation, Nicholas primarily ruled in a reactionary sense, that his implemented policies were created as a result of a negative event.  A prime example of this is the Restriction on Educational Opportunities for Nonpriveledged members of Russian Society.  As a result of the Decemberist Revolt, Nicholas sought to curb any new learning of the enlightened ideals that led the soldiers to protest, thus limiting education opportunities.  Additionally, Nicholas was not nearly as enlightened as the Tsars before him, especially Peter the Great or Catherine the Great.  Thus, his conservative tendencies were seen as repressive in the more modern Russia.  One such proclamation was his Manifesto on Peasant Unrest, which gave governors the authority to conduct surveillance over all the serfs in their region, as well as removing the peasantry’s right to petition, and instead, prosecute them.

The Decembrists

Posted on by

The Decembrist Revolt was a result of and consisted of a state of confusion. Russians in whole did not have a firm understanding of the line of succession, and so when Nicholas came to power rather than Constantine many people felt betrayed. The Decembrists revolt came from a group of people in the Russian army who decided to make a public statement by not swearing allegiance to Nicholas as their loyalties were with Constantine. However, because the declaration of Nicholas as tsar was abrupt the organization of the revolt was as well (“poorly and hastily planned, inadequately executed… no other units joined them”). There was some hierarchy in the design (from the various officers in the army) but in general there was no order. Nicholas suppressed this revolt quickly by ordering the artillery to fire against them, and many leaders that survived were either forced into exile along with their families or were hanged. This event determined much of Nicholas’s mentality toward his reign. This was his very first experience as tsar: To see a lack of loyalty towards the imperial rule and a lack of respect towards the hierarchy of the state proved to him that he must strictly enforce his will. His entire regime was a reactionary tactic against people who didn’t support him (censorship for the intellectuals, secret police for the underground societies, supporting serfdom for the peasants) because he viewed his reign as constantly being pushed back against by the people- and the more he pushed back, the more the people disapproved of his rule

Catherine II and Enlightenment Reforms

Posted on by

In Catherine’s Statute on Provincial Administration, she hoped to strengthen provincial governments and create a more efficient system than seen before. In the statute, there is a clear desire for a separation and distinction of powers between upper land courts and district courts, followed by a concern for those who are struggling, as evident in the Noble Wardship, which must house noble widows and children.  The Bureaus of Public Welfare’s concern for the establishment of public schools reflects the Enlightenment support of secular education as well.There is also evidence of gentry political participation as the town mayors and officials are elected by ballot every three years. The Charter to the Nobility most obviously reflects Catherine’s hope for gentry participation local administration. After outlining the specific rights and privileges of the elites, the nobility are both permitted and encouraged to assemble and articulate their needs and interests to the Governor. However, the nobility’s most important obligation is always to the state, to whom they may “spare neither labor nor even life itself in service”. In rising the position of the gentry, Catherine also extended and strengthened serfdom. This unfortunate side-effect perhaps reflects the rationalism of the Enlightenment, or more specifically the concept that the end justifies the means.

Catherine The Great’s Enlightened Policies

Posted on by

From the minute Catherine the Great seized the thrown in 1762, enlightened policies were enacted. That very year, She published The Manifesto Freeing the Nobility From Compulsory Service. In this script she grants the release of all nobility from the Table of Ranks, and preserves this right for future generations to come. Within this document Catherine stresses the new right to travel, showing her desire for a more cultured and global perspective for the nobility. Although the Manifesto repeals Peter the Great’s Table of Ranks, it also praises his work for progressing the military as well as civil and educational affairs. These are certainly traits of Peter’s reformist campaign that Catherine wished to continue in later documents such as The State on Provincial Administration along with other enlightened values. In this document Catherine develops multiple administration positions within the Gubernii, after the Pugachev Revolution in the South revealed the lack of control the state had in these regions. She also creates programs that resemble a form of public welfare and programs that had never been offered to the lower class before. These structural adjustments include requiring a health care clinic to be in every region with at least one doctor and apprentice so the trait could be passed down. Education was now public and encouraged for all classes, and also in the control of the state by using administrative boards in each region. Article Sixty-Four includes the process of elections and terms in order to have new ideas always being in a position of authority. In 1785 the Charter to the Nobility provided many privileges to this group of people but also held them accountable for crimes committed as everyone in Russia was now under the law. Catherine’s vision of Russia was a perpetual state of progress where the Monarch continued to act as a patriarch for all of it’s citizens.

1.) Which one of Catherine’s reforms were most well perceived in Russia? How should the Nobility view Catherine after these laws were enacted?

2.) Is Catherine the Great the most effective Tsar in Russia’s History of reformist rulers?

Cynthia Whittaker and the Reforming Tsar

Posted on by

In her article “The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth Century Russia” published in Slavic Review in 1992, Cynthia Whittaker claims that the reign of Peter the Great and his reforms led to an era of new rulers with a new mentality and aim of becoming a “reforming tsar” instead a “good tsar.”

Overall, this is a reflection of how Peter’s reign changed rule in Russia.  Firstly, the transition from “good tsar” to “reforming tsar” marks how Peter transitioned Russia from a medieval era to a modern one.  The connotation behind a “good tsar” is one that’s tied more to passivity as well as a strong upholding of the Russian Orthodox faith. The connotations change when addressing the notion of a duty to the people as well as the state, ensuring reform happened for “the common good.”

Whittaker goes on to summarize how Peter’s reign was succeeded by a string of incompetent heirs until Catherine the Great came to rule after a coup d’etat.  In this time (especially during the reign of Anna) Russians looked back to the time of Peter with great nostalgia.  There was a theme to this nostalgia by evidence Whittaker presents of how tales of Peters came into popular culture through traditional legends, such as when “he [brought] two lovers together, save[d] a child from a burning hut, execute[d] a foreman for mistreating his coal miners” (pg. 89).  This entails that Peter the Great was a hero of the common-folk.  His deeds set expectations for his successors from all levels of society.

Because Peter the Great set these expectations of new monarchs, being a “reforming tsar” was a new role they had to fulfill, and each one, especially Catherine II, took the notion of a “reforming tsar” to fit the need and time period of their reign.  For example, when she ascended to the throne, she stated ” . . . state your grievances, say where the shoe pinches you.  We will try to reform it.  I have no particular system.  All I want is the common good” (pg. 92).  Her reforms included reorganization of the Senate, secularization of church land, improvements in town planning and in medicine, as well as new commercial policy, among other things (pg. 92).  Like Peter, her reforms brought enlightenment to Russia and she was able to be a contemporary “tsar of reform” for her time.

Question for class:

Whittaker mentions it is astounding the autocracy could survive until 1917, which is partially due to how the notion of a “reforming tsar” became myth.  What else could have led to the tsar system’s survival for so long?

Cynthia Whittaker’s “The Reforming Tsar”

Posted on by

Cynthia Whittaker explores how the autocracy changed their own definition of a traditional ruling body into that of one that changes and reforms Russia.  Whittaker claims that the fact that the Russian Autocracy was one of reformist ideals was one of the major reasons why autocracy was allowed to be the predominant governing body for over a century.

Whittaker begins her argument stating that the reforms that the autocracy put in place were “dynamic and progressive” in nature.  Peter was able to intertwine the  the crown and the new reforms that he was putting into place and that this tradition would continue with each new generation.  The Tsar would see to the needs of the people and reform the laws as he/she saw fit.  This way of thinking paved the way to the idea of an enlightened absolutist that would be emulated across Europe.

Whittaker also points out that while other ruler such as Louis XIV named ‘Divine Right’ and Reason d’ etat as the reason why he was allowed to rule, Peter cast away the divine right aspect of his right to rule, instead replacing it with “divine duty”, giving him a more secular and enlightened approach to absolutism.  Peters impressive work ethic also made him stand out among other despots.

Whittaker continues, stating that with this removal of the autocracy and religion, Peter changed the idea of the Tsar of being a paternal ruler, to that of one that is a servant to the state.  With this in mind, the populace now was not solely serving Peter, but they were serving the state that “he was entrusted with”.  He even forced his subjects to swear an oath to the ruler, as well as one to the state.  Additionally, Peter decided that he must determine who is to be the next Tsar and that it may not necessarily be his son.  This supported the idea that Peter was doing everything in his power to strengthen the state, even if it meant he must sacrifice some himself.

What other comparisons and contrasts can be drawn to other European Rulers at the time?

Do you agree with Whittaker?  Was the idea of reformation of law the predominant reason why Tsar’s were able to rule for about a century after Peter’s death?

Whittaker- The Dual Autocratic Identity

Posted on by

Whittaker’s thesis and stance on the reforming of Russia encompasses the two mentalities of Russia: the conservative history under autocracies and the desire for progress. She mentions that because Russians had only ever truly been governed under a strong, authoritarian leadership that there was an expectation of that way of societal structure (as nothing else had ever been implemented) where the state always came before the individual. However, she importantly notes the contrast that was brought about by reforming tsars. Once reforms were initiated into society, people began to demand more and more of their government and continuously wanted more and more reforms for a better way of life (as seen, and referenced in this article, to Mikhail Gorbachev with glasnost and perestroika). Thus, as western ideas flooded into Russia, the Russians constantly asked for more- but still under the mixed ideology of being under an authoritarian government. This left the tsars in a place where they had to continue to modernize Russia culturally yet maintain much of the control that had been taught to them as the way to govern Russian society.

Peter the Great

Posted on by

Peter the Great strived to shape Russia into a systematic state focused on gaining nationalism through order. Inn 1722 after the Table of Ranks was established to clearly define roles in society however, Peter’s intentions never really formed. Russia’s theme of orderliness is exemplified here. Whether it be house-hold as seen in Domonstroi or general customary law such as the Pravda Russkaia; Russia has always been concerned with the well being of citizens and this was reinforced by the idea of orderliness. The Table of Ranks divided the upper/middle class into categories based on merit. An Admiral, or a chancellor would be a 1 while a artillery man or a college registrar would be a 13 and 14. Ranks were passed down from family and one would marry into a their future husbands rank. Russia has been constantly occupied with turmoil concerning ranks, for instance The Time of Troubles occurred because there was no one in the system to take the throne. Peter the Great intended to leave behind a system in which ranks would be the ultimate decider for claims and fill-ins. One of Peters largest goals was to make Russia more united, thus trying to put in this nationalistic system. He wanted to make Russians, excluded the peasantry, accountable for their state so they took pride in performing their civil duties.

1.) In what ways was “The Table of Ranks” a good idea? bad idea? over ambitious idea?

2.) How did Peter fulfill his goal of making Russia a prouder country?