Category Archives: History253

This course covers the history of Russia and the lands that were part of its domains and empire from the tenth to nineteenth centuries.

Female Rule – Western Europe vs. Russia

Posted on by

Catherine the Great ‘s fame derives from her leadership and rule of Russia during eighteenth-century Russia. Like all autocrats during the time, she received criticism from countless different sources. However, Brenda Meehan-Waters argues that criticisms of Catherine differ along the lines of the sources’ areas of origin. In particular, Meehan-Waters suggests that Western European and Russian writers differ in that “Russian writers viewed her more positively and displayed much less agitation over the female issue. Catherine is desexualized to the extent that she is treaded as an individual rather than as a women.” ((Kaiser, Daniel H. and Gary Marker. Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings 860-1860s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. 383-384.))

Meehan-Waters examines the writings from the period of Catherine the Great’s reign. These writings, all published by men, carry various perspectives ranging from foreign ambassadors to Russian leaders to Western philosophers (who were also her patrons) such as Voltaire. One fact becomes clear through these writings – whether they criticized or praised Catherine – Westerners often placed her sex at the center of their ideas while Russian authors rarely commented on it. Western authors would associate her positive characteristics with her masculine side while they portrayed her shortcomings as feminine qualities. ((Kaiser, Reinterpreting, 382.)) While Russian writers such as G.S. Vinsky criticized Catherine, Meehan-Waters notes that such critics not base their qualms on her womanhood. ((Kaiser, Reinterpreting, 382.)) Despite identifying the differentiating narratives coming out of Western Europe and Russia, Meehan-Waters offers little in a reason for why such a difference exists.

 

Meehan-Waters notes that Russian had many female autocrats throughout the eighteenth century while few existed in Western Europe. Does Russia’s familiarity with empresses explain the lack of emphasis on Catherine’s sex?

Potemkin 2

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or less – from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Princepotemkin.jpg

Potemkin, one of Catherine’s advisors and former lovers, was the center of much scrutiny and debate among her foreign critics. They saw Potemkin as an example of how women were overcome with sexuality and allowed themselves to be dominated by their lovers.

Reforming Tsars in 18th Century Russia

Posted on by

In Cynthia Whittaker’s The Reforming Tsar: the Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth-Century Russia, she discusses the idea of the reforming tsar. She specifically explores how this idea shaped the Romanov dynasty, the Russian people, and the emerging country of Russia during the Eighteenth Century. Peter the Great created the idea of the reforming tsar through his reshaping of Russia into an innovative country with a strong European influence. After his death later Tsars began to take on the idea of the reforming Tsar because the people of Russia saw Peter’s reign as successful. The introduction of new ideas and laws became instrumental during each new Tsars reign. Russia wanted to feel like they were leading the change in the world. One of the main points in Whittaker’s article is that the Russian people’s belief in the Reforming Tsar is what kept the Romanov line in power for so long. The line was eventually destroyed because the ideas of the Russian people surpassed the laws of the country.

Some of the main ideas that Peter introduced never came in to fruition but as later Tsars followed his lead a huge change happened in Russia. First Secularization began with Peter taking power away from the church and lessening the amount of people, such as monks and nuns, working in the church. Peter saw the importance of respecting laws and working for the state over the unquestioning faith in God that previously permeated Russia. He certainly did not mean to eradicate the Russian Orthodox Church all together but to lesson its control. His second main idea was expand education throughout Russia. This did not happen until years after his death but many of the Tsars, such as Elizabeth, that follow him showed their position as a Reforming tsar through the expanding of education and the creation or reinstating of colleges. The third was the specification of the Law. Catherine the Great played a huge part in this clarification of how the legal system should run.

The people of Russia were looking for a Monarch who could fulfill the role that Peter the Great created. The folklore about his extraordinary reign spread throughout Russia and made the idea of the Reforming Tsar a requirement. What needs to be acknowledged is that because of the illiteracy of a huge part of Russia the passing down of knowledge through folklore was common. With this comes the problem of changing information and this caused much of the ideals regarding Peter the Great to be exaggerated. Many of his reforms did not actually last but the idea of his power did and it shaped the Romanovs and all of Russia.

 

 

 

Whittaker, Cynthia H. “The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth- Century Russia.” Slavic Review 51.1 (1992): 77. Web.

The Problem of Female Rule – Catherine the Great

Posted on by
Portrait of Catherine II (1763)

Portrait of Catherine II (1763)

In the article Catherine the Great and the Problem of Female Rule, Brenda Meehan-Waters argues that Western European writers and Russian writers view the reign of Catherine the Great differently, and that these views reveal cultural reactions towards women in positions of power. Western foreigner ambassadors and correspondents alike of Catherine II almost always bring into discussion the fact that she is a women and the traits that differentiate men and women. Foreigners describe her as having “a masculine force of mind” with a “weakness vulgarity attributed to her sex” and as “an ambitious and unnatural women” giving the impression that “there was something inherently perverse in female ambition”. ((KM 380 – 382)) In general, the authors states that Westerners who felt threatened by the idea of a women ruler responded either by denying that Catherine held any real power or they exaggerated her negative qualities, therefore making her sound less qualified.

Russians, on the other hand, rarely brought up the fact that she was a women. There are two exceptions to this that the author brings up. Karamzin contrasts the masculinity and femininity of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great and states that their reign complements the other but also attributes masculine traits as positive and negative traits as feminine. Sumarokov too has similar viewpoints articulates that there are strong and weak rulers and Catherine falls in between the two. ((KM 380-381)) In general though, Russians rarely focus on her femininity. The author points out that there was no ideological battle on female rule in Russia as there was in Western Europe, adding evidence that the sex of the ruler was less important to Russians. In fact, Russian empresses are often found in poetry as viewed as great warriors and strong figures. Another reason as to why the Russians view Catherine’s reign more positively is the old Byzantine idea of a hermaphroditic being that united the principles of both sexes. ((KM 384))

At the very end, Meehan-Waters points out that we more often study the reasons why Russians don’t judge her based on sex, and not why Europeans do judge her in this way and that this take on it is backwards.

Question:

Why do you think we assume that the Russian’s acceptance of a female is abnormal? How can this be explained by referring to leading Western thinkers?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Profile_portrait_of_Catherine_II_by_Fedor_Rokotov_(1763,_Tretyakov_gallery).jpg

Peter the Modern

Posted on 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 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 19th 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

The Era of Conservative Reform

Posted on 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

peter-the-great-e1367796598197   Carle_Vanloo_Portrait_de_l’impératrice_Élisabeth_Petrovna_1760-241x300

Works Cited

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

http://russianrulershistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Carle_Vanloo_Portrait_de_l%E2%80%99imp%C3%A9ratrice_%C3%89lisabeth_Petrovna_1760-241×300.jpg

http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/peter-the-great-e1367796598197.jpg

 

Reforming Tsars, Good Tsars, and Tsars in General

Posted on by

Cynthia H. Whittaker talked about how a “good tsar” often gets confused with a “reforming tsar,” and how it may be best to think of someone like Peter the Great as a “reforming tsar.” She seems to re-message and re-package how we think of tsars in a way that we should think of good ones not as “good” but as “reformers.”

Peter the Great Pic

Peter the Great, who is defined by some as an example of a “good” or “reforming” tsar. Image courtesy of Encyclopedia Britannica.

But the confusing thing about this reading was that, while the author critiqued Mikhail Gorbachev’s definition of a “good tsar”[1] she presented all sorts of different definitions of a “good tsar” that have been mentioned over the centuries. In one part, she seemed to define a “good tsar” as someone who “had represented stability and a kingly duty to preserve the status quo.”[2] She also admits that the definition of a “good” or “true” tsar was different yet at some other points of Russian history: a “good tsar” was supposed to be, “a wise patriarch, an impartial and merciful judge, a protector of the downtrodden, open to petitioners and humble enough to seek good advice and avoid flatterers.[3] Then there was the notion of doing something for the “common good”–this was something brought up multiple times over the course of the article.

So while I see what Cynthia H. Whittaker was trying to do in talking about what a “good tsar” was compared to a “reforming tsar,” her exact view on what it meant to be a “good tsar” was either confusing to me, or I missed the point. Or maybe what it means to be a
“good” or “reforming” tsar is too subjective for me to ever get a full grasp of.

What do you think a “good” or “reforming” tsar looks like, and how have any of the rulers we’ve studied embody what it means to be a “good” or “reforming” tsar?

Footnotes:

[1] Cynthia Whitaker, “The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth-Century Russia.” Slavic Review 51 (1992): 77.

[2] Ibid, 78.

[3] Ibid, 81.

Bibliography

Whittaker, Cynthia. “The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth-Century Russia.” Slavic Review 51 (1992): 77-98.

Peter the Great’s top-down reforms

Posted on by

Peter the Great sought to create a nuanced hierarchy of the Russian population. This goal is evident in his system of ranks and orders, which outlines military grades and created a new basis for determining social status. The system represents Peter’s efforts for top-down modernization of his population: he believed that by catering to the needs of the elite classes and bringing them up to pace with Western Europe, he would create a class of leaders that would then bring change to the common and peasant classes. To borrow a term from the Reagan administration, Peter executed his reforms with the belief that an organized court, military, and bureaucracy would create a “trickle-down” effect of lawfulness and order among his whole population.

This “trickle down” system of modernization meant that Peter had to identify and differentiate between the members of the upper, middle, and lower classes of the population. In order to mobilize his administration, he also had to create a hierarchy of command and different grades of civil servants. The Table of Ranks explain the duties of each rank and create a pecking order within the army, navy, and civil sectors. Such a system ensures that each member of the state and political structures know their place within a larger system of governance, eliminating any reasonable grounds for challenging the authority of those with higher power.

 

 

trickledown

Food for thought….Were Peter’s reforms more successful than Reaganomics?

Peter The Great

Posted on by

Peter the Great was a formidable leader, creating an era of heavy changes in Russia as it began to Westernize through his multiple reforms. However, the majority of his reforms tend to focus on social hierarchy and importance of having or obtaining a title for oneself. For example, the Table of Ranks “expressed new definitions of nobility and opened up new avenues of achieving it” ((Kaiser and Marker 228)) in order to suppress the boyars and other nobility from the previous years. Peter the Great desire to create different ways to either obtain nobility or move up the social ladder can be understood as a way to get rid of the old system set in place or as a way to implement western culture in Russian life through the notion of the class system.

.Peter_the_Great_Russia-v1-front

Through the enforcement of the Table of Ranks, the chin system was set in place, a “system of rank ordering and niche assignment” ((Kaiser and Marker 232)) . This rank-ordering system created a competition within the people of Russia to try and be the closest to the tsar; the Table of Ranks made it clear how all offices were to interact with each other. Even more importantly, the Table of Ranks “indicated [the officer’s] proximity to the Emperor” (Kaiser and Marker 233). Peter the Great also created ways to give certain people positions higher up in the office, through “birth, time spent in office, or because of skills or actions valued by the Emperor” (Kaiser and Marker 234). Peter the Great’s reforms focused heavily on establishing a social hierarchy in order to continue Westernizing Russia.

 

https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&tbm=isch&q=peter%20the%20great&tbs=sur:fmc#imgrc=C1V2q0Y4Nn4MuM%3A

The Iron Bridle

Posted on by

Peter the Great was certainly a man of directness. Whether it was his reforms to westernize Russia or slaughtering those who opposed him, it was his way, or the highway. Through his reforms, the trend of servitude to the state for the sake of westernizing sticks out like a sore thumb. Peter enforced an education requirement for rights, while it seems harsh and that those rights should be unalienable, the education would teach the men to serve the state. These services were often directed towards progress and advancing the country towards what Peter wanted. He wanted people to have the same desire for progress that he had. “Peter wanted for Russia an elite composed of individuals capable of taking an active role in transforming society.” (Kaiser 247) He was such a passionate and powerful figure that he seized Russia with the iron bridle and dragged her with him to wherever he thought was best.

statue-315430_640 Peter’s desire to westernize was portrayed in many different ways, but through self portraits and statues, he shows a very clear image of how people should look. The Cap of Monomakh and emphasis on the Church was gone, in it’s place was well trimmed facial hair and clothing that would appear in a western European court.

His directness in getting what he wanted shines through in his Table of Rank. Peter established a hierarchy in the military and civil service that allowed him to give out rewards for serving the state. It was a way to undermine boyars, similar to how Ivan gave out control in the appanage system. By their way of achieving rank through the actions of Peter, they were more loyal to him. People could now go and achieve higher stations in society by serving the state. This new nobility could be passed down hereditarily as well, adding even more incentive to give one’s life to the state. (Kaiser 229) The Chin system allows for Peter to have nobility that are dedicated to serving the state rather while at the same time serving their own personal interests. He brilliantly combines their personal interests with the path to achieving higher levels of nobility.

How effective was the Table of Rank, and did it the newer nobility have any authority in society?

Daniel H. Kaiser, and Gary Marker. Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings, 860-1860’s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

https://pixabay.com/en/statue-bust-head-monarch-peter-l-315430/