Category Archives: Uncategorized

Domostroi Chapters 19-34

Posted on by

The Domostroi focused heavily on religion and obedience and how it is relevant in all aspects of life regardless of social class. Everything in a true Russian Christian’s life must be blessed or prayed on so that God will bless their work. This how-to also instructed men on how to look for a good wife and what made a good wife. A good wife must have all the qualities of a hard worker, a good mother, and is one who puts her family before herself. However the key is that a good woman must be devout and loyal. The next chapter discussed the hierarchal system of the household. The man of the house teaches all, and the power trickles down from the wife to children then to servants. There were heavy religious overtones that described obedience as being extremely important in a servant or a slave in the context that they must be religious and God-fearing, but masters should not abuse their power or position. The Domostroi also instructs good Christians on how to hire people, the requirements for a good servant being a God fearing individual as well as being handy in their respected craft, never have sinned, prone to good deeds. Overall one should be a good Christian; slave should use master’s goods. Another requirement is for servants to save their better clothes for holy days and when public, never when doing work, clean when done.

The Domostroi is quick to claim that God doesn’t discriminate based on class. In order to protect oneself from illnesses, one must stay away from sorcerers, Jews and pagan rituals. If one is ill, the only cure is to pray away the sick, essentially be a good Christian and God will heal all illnesses, God sends diseases to punish sinners. If one does not obey the commandments one will go to hell. It reverts back to the golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Another way to live as a good Christian is to not live outside one’s means and to buy and use what one can afford to. If one lives beyond their worth they will be scorned and ridiculed. If one lives outside their means, no one will help them because it is considered a major sin because it does not please god to live outside one’s means. This is especially shown if one has slaves but cannot afford them. The fear is that the slaves will not be obedient and as a result they will rob, steal, drink, if owned by foolish people.

Role of women was greatly discussed. The overall theme was that men must teach women, but be gentle and civil and not cruel, wives should always be obedient and devout. A good housewife is intelligent, frugal, gentle, generous and devout. A way to keep frugal is to save scraps from cloth used to make clothes to save to use for later. It is important to create a good workspace for each distinct craft, so as to prevent clutter to keep a good and clean household. Another way to keep a good household is to not gossip or entertain gossip. It is also the mistress’ duty to oversee servants’ work, to reward servants for good work, and if the servants do not do their work well, to punish them. Above all, a wife must be loyal and obedient, knowledgeable and social, ask their husband’s advice on everything, obey husband regardless of where she is, do not drink, and behave properly.

The necessity of clear scientific management

Posted on by

In the article, ” The Principles of Scientific Management”, I think the central claim is that employers  need  to  define a clear scientific management to improve the productivity of workers at maximum level. This is because the author, Frederick Taylor mentions the fact that workers have misunderstood the relationship between increasing efficiency and their position . In particular, he repeatedly mentions that workers have thought their increasing productivity of commodities can lead to the fire. Besides this, he also provides another idea of workers, which they are afraid of keeping hard working for a long time because of their great productivity. In addition, he also mentions that some workers are reluctant to work with the maximum effort because they can just receive the same amount of money as other lazy workers. From these facts, the author mainly focuses on the actual situation that the lack of specific scientific management causes, which is the existence of confused workers and low productivity of commodities. In the latter part of the article, he also emphasizes the possibility of improvement by introducing a specific management system that works well in United States of America. This means that he tries to clarify that what kind of measures can contribute to solve the problem of confused workers and low productivity of commodities.Therefore, I think he mainly argues that employers have to set clear scientific management for improving workers’ productivity.

 

Domostroi (Chapters 1-18)

Posted on by

The Domostroi represents the many facets of life for the “fortunate few” in Muscovy’s social hierarchy.  Those living under this social system were subjected to strict and detailed standards of behavior and expectations.  We have determined that at the crux of this system was a “culture of fear” that was responsible for ensuring proper social conduct.  This means that this group of people followed the Domostroi‘s guidelines not because it was necessarily beneficial but because they were motivated by fear of consequences.  These consequences were social, political, and most strikingly, religious.  There is a heavy emphasis on how one should appear to God and to his peers, as he represented his family’s name and place within the religious and social hierarchy.  It seems then, that the household was not restricted to its physical space, but extended into the city, society, and religion of Moscow.

There were many expectations for Christians at this time. Specifically, the head of the household was expected to “Do God’s will faithfully and keep His commandments” (65).  If one did not, he would “…answer for [himself] on Judgement Day” (65). In turn, he was expected to teach these values not only to his wife and children, but also to his servants. However, these values were not to be taught through abuse or violence, but rather through love and by example. Throughout the document there was an emphasis on maintaining the social hierarchy already imbedded within the culture, especially with the emphasis on the importance of both priests and the Tsar. The Domostroi notes to “Always approach bishops eagerly and offer them the honor that is due… Fall at their feet and obey them in everything, as God commanded” (69). Regarding the Tsar, one was expected to “Fear the Tsar and serve him faithfully… Do not say anything false to him, but tell the truth, deferentially, as though you [speak] to God Himself” (71). Throughout the document, explicitly stated within each section were the expectations for Christian individuals and then subsequently the rewards and punishments for adhering to or disobeying these mandates. In addition, another way this order was maintained was through the emphasis on helping others less fortunate than oneself. By encouraging people to donate what they could to the poor, there was no emphasis on rising socially, but rather on staying where you were, and helping those poorer than you. By applying this mentality to the social hierarchy, this document allowed the nobility to maintain order. The culture of fear emphasized not only applied to God and His wrath, but also to the clergy and Tsar.

Another part of the Domostroi lays the rules of savoir vivre attached to hosting events. This section possessed two main parts. The first described the manner in which a priest should be received on holy days. The host was the master of his home and in charge of preparing, inviting, and offering food, while the guests had to show humility and respect. The priests invited were supposed to perform the ritual appropriate for the occasion. The priest had to pray for the Tsar and the Tsaritsa, the members of the clergy and finally “all that is profitable to the man of the house, his wife, children, and servants” hinting the role genders played in the society. It is also interesting to point out that the host had to invite as many priests as possible; it might suggest that such actions were also used to show one’s wealth as well as nobility. The second section regarded the behavior to possess should one invite guests. It demonstrated that not only the host was in charge of the preparation, and conducting the gathering, but that it was also his role to respect God through the evening’s interactions. It was the host’s responsibility that guest behaved appropriately, eat and drink enough to honor God, but not too much. This chapter also used fear as the method of choice to convince its reader. Shall you guest misbehave or utter blasphemy and food will turn into dung in their mouths, angels will report your actions to the Devil as opposed to God and “such deeds will stand on Judgment Day.”

Similarly latter passages of The Domostroi bring that culture of fear to the daily religious lives of the people. Men were told that they should attend church services daily. And women should go as they are able and have their husbands permission. Church goers were instructed to stand like pillars while praying “with fear and trembling, with sighs and tears, {turning the eyes of your body towards the abyss}”(13). Fortunately there were ways to make amends, unceasing prays for long periods of time was said to allow the holy spirit to enter your body. A good priest was also considered an acceptable remedy. A priest was to be held in fear when you come to him in love to confess your sins. This fear was doubtlessly preached throughout Russia and was a significant part of every true christian’s life. The father was taught by the church and he taught his family what they said. That adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards, swindlers and slanderers will not possess the kingdom of God.

The discussion of daily life and family relationships shows the importance of children in families and society.  Parents were expected to care for and protect their children or be ridiculed by their neighbors.  These relationships were also highly gendered, as mothers were responsible for their daughter’s instruction in female crafts and fathers were responsible for teaching their son a specific trade.  Education was considered important because it made the daughter or son more marriageable, thus enabling families to improve their social position through their children.  The same concept applies for the establishment of a dowry, which was considered a father’s responsibility.  The culture of fear began early in children’s education, even before the children started learning themselves.  Parents that failed to instruct their children away from sin would pay the price on Judgment Day and be publicly shamed, possibly having their house dishonored and paying a fine to the government.  As part of their education, children were taught to fear God, but they were also taught to fear their parents.  The Domostroi references biblical passages that advised fathers beating their sons so that they might behave properly, and there is little mention of affection between parents and children (96).  Even the discussion of caring for parents in old age is framed in terms of cleansing sins instead of familial love.  It is clear from these chapters that the level of respect between family members was a means of establishing social position and proving one’s religiosity and merit to the community.

The Unification of Germany

Posted on by

Otto von Bismarck’s successful unification of Germany is one of the most important events in European history.  Unifying over thirty principalities and other smaller states within the geographical vicinity of modern day Germany is, by far, Otto von Bismarck’s greatest achievement.  Starting as a Prussian statesman, Bismarck eventually rose to the title of Minister President.  At this point, Bismarck was beginning to make his move to unify.  In 1866, he had the states of Germany attack Austria.

Within the “Documents of German Unification”, Otto von Bismarck reviews his victory over Austria.  He interestingly notes that he wanted to “avoid wounding Austria too severely; we had to avoid leaving behind in her any unnecessary bitterness of feeling or desire for revenge”.  He continues, stating that he sees Austria as a future ally, and simply cannot afford to have a hostile nation to his east when he attacks France.  Additionally, Bismarck states that this conflict also enabled the German states to obtain more feelings of unity and nationalism under Prussia.

While still serving the Prussian crown, Bismarck already begins to create a collective German state.  Bismarck’s uses the cover of war to covertly instill nationalism within the citizens.  A brilliant albeit brutal move, Bismark will eventually utilize the tactic of using war to force unification when he attacks France.

Was Bismarck wrong to use war to create more German nationalism?  What would you have done differently?

Fichte – To the German Nation

Posted on by

Johann Gottlieb Fichte began his argument by outlining what makes a natural border for a people. He determined that language was a natural border that defines a people because they can communicate and grow. Germany was united by a common language and way of thinking. He then argued that foreign countries intentionally divided us the German peoples for their own benefit. Germany was unsuspecting and naively fell for their tricks. Fichte claimed that foreign countries manipulated Germany for their own selfish benefit. Some people were considering a universal monarchy as a remedy but Fichte exclaimed that monarchy was the very opposite of what the Germans needed to unify. Perhaps he too saw the repeated mistake the French made or making progress, then undoing it by reinstating a monarch. Instead he wanted to let natural borders reunify the German people.  Otherwise, the nation established would not hold up to the test of time.

Fichte emphasized that the intention of foreign countries was to manipulate unsuspecting Germans and turn them against one another for their own selfish benefit. However, it is difficult to believe that all the blame ought to be on the foreign countries. Maybe the foreigners did have selfish intentions, but they were more likely meant to benefit the foreigners less than to malign Germans. It just happened that Germans suffered from their gains. Also, Germans should have realized. Therefore, Germans were not as united as Fichte claimed in the first place. Were natural borders like language and common ways of thinking truly determinant of a people, Germans would not have been so susceptible.

Portraiture in History

Posted on by

When reading the History of Russia textbook, something caught my eye. In chapter fifteen, which discusses the history of Ivan the Terrible, there was an image on page 136. It was a portrait of Ivan the Terrible, and the caption is what specifically caught my attention. It simply stated “Ivan IV in a psychological portrait by Victor Vasnetsov, 1897”. I had no idea what a psychological portrait was, but after further research found that it was a portrait that depicted the inner man. That was extremely interesting to me.

Closer observation reveals that the Ivan depicted in this portrait was standing on a staircase, his posture quite regal, and his facial expression imposing, if not blatantly intimidating. His eyes have bags under them, and his beard is unkempt, showing strands of white. His clothing appears very ornate, and he is holding what appears to be a string of beads (maybe something like a rosary? I’m not sure if that is used in Russian Orthodoxy), along with a spear pointed downward that has very fine engraving etched into the handle. Everything about this portrait emphasizes the simultaneously regal, yet threatening nature of Ivan IV.

This portrait reminds me of work that I did in my Historical Methodology class last semester. Our class looked at a series of portraits of Benjamin Franklin, and noted how even the most seemingly minute details in fact conveyed a lot of information. We discussed the role of portraiture in the study of history, and how historians can learn a lot about the subjects depicted. After reading the chapter on Ivan the IV a lot of the details in the portrait make sense. As mentioned before, the eyes and unkempt beard were maybe purposefully done, with both of these perhaps indicating his exhaustion, and the psychological battles tormenting his mind. I am particularly interested by the spear facing downward however. Is it even a spear? And why would it be facing downward? In addition, why would Ivan the Terrible be holding what appears to be a rosary?

My theory is that the artist Victor Vasnetsov was subtlety conveying his own opinion about his subject. Perhaps this is more a sympathetic portrait of Ivan IV. The downward facing spear may have been depicted as such to show Ivan as not threatening or aggressive even. That, combined with the rosary type object (which could indicate Ivan’s religious beliefs) may have been used to make Ivan the Terrible, who has always been seen as a ruthless tyrant, more human. Looking more closely at his facial expression, the artist truly conveys not only the exhaustion, but also maybe sadness, grief for his wife’s death, and for what he believes is a betrayal by his most trusted advisors.

There is of course the obvious question of the validity of my claims. With portraiture, there is a very blurred line between what information can be derived from an image, and was constitutes as being too far of an inference to make. It is impossible to know if this portrait accurately paints the inner man of Ivan IV. After all, it was painted centuries after this infamous tsar lived. It is an interesting question to ponder though, how much reliance can be placed on the study of portraits in history?

 

Bismarck and Imperialism

Posted on by

The documents referring to German unification in the 20th century highlight the continual, consistent ideologies that prominent German diplomats maintained towards the struggle of unification for Germany throughout the 19th century. The mutual sentiments of these prominent diplomats advocated for the shifts towards unification with a willing and ambitions Prussia in order to solidify German nationality to restore the German imperial title under Wilhelm IV. Bismarck’s strong diplomatic influence was overpowered, however, when a council was held in his room, and it was decided, with the support of the Wilhelm IV, that Prussia should continue in its pursuit of imperialist endeavors. Bismarck had foreseen this, as he feared an large increase in Prussian power would shift Wilhelm IV’s original stance of unification peacefully as a proper long terms means for German stability to an imperial conquest.

Germany pre rev 1848

A map of Germany prior to the revolutions of 1848 displays the geographical mixture between Prussia and the German states and the overlap the Austrian Empire had with the German confederation.

Germany 1871

This map, however, shows the unification of Germany with Prussia after the Proclamation of 1871. Although the Austrian Empire held its original territory overlapping the German confederation, it was greatly weakened as a European chess piece relative to the new found power which lay in Prussia’s restoration of the German imperial title.

These shifts in power as a result of a century of calculated German diplomacy would have a monumental impact on the alliances between Prussia and the Austrian Empire into the 20th century.

 

Fichte, To the German Nation

Posted on by

I chose the first passage of Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s To the German Nation. He was a great patriot and believed that it was important that the German population embrace their culture. As a reformer and supporter of the French Revolution, he had nationalist ideals and strongly believed that language and history bind a country together.

In the second line he states, “Those who speak the same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself, long before any human art begins; they understand each other and have the power of continuing to make themselves understood more and more clearly; they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole.” This relates to the topic of nationalism that we have been discussing in class. The people of a country are bound together by a common language, and although different dialects may emerge, they are still united by this factor. By saying “they belong together and are by nature one and an insuperable whole” reinforces the fact that although different groups, factions or regions of a population are created, in the end they all share the same history and background. Another line reads, “men dwell together-and, if their luck has so arranged it, are protected by rivers and mountains-because they were a people already by a law of nature which is much higher.” Every country has a history that is shared amongst its people. Even though they may go through different experiences, and at times may be divided, their common history and language unites them and allows men to overcome these differences.

Wilhelm, Bismarck, and Fichte on Austria

Posted on by

Fichte, Wilhelm and Bismark all had similar ideas regarding the unification of Germany; their ideas of why and how to do that varied, however. Fichte wrote about how Germany was divided by foreign imperialists who failed to see and value the unity of the German people under one state. He believed that the primary reason to seek German unification was to unify the German people, not to bolster the power of the German Empire or that of Prussia. He simply wanted to unify the German people. He wrote,“it is not because men dwell between certain mountains and rivers that they are a people, but, on the contrary, men dwell together-and, if their luck has so arranged it, are protected by rivers and mountains-because they were a people already by a law of nature which is much higher.” The German people had been divided and needed to be reunited according to a higher power.

Wilhelm had different reasoning for why he wanted to go to war with Austria and reunite Germany. He wanted to wage war in order to unite Austria with the German Empire, to the dismay of Bismarck. Wilhelm initially wanted to unite the German people under his crown by peaceful means: “And may God grant that We and our successors on the imperial throne may at all times increase the wealth of the German Empire, not by military conquests, but by the blessings and the gifts of peace, in the realm of national prosperity, liberty, and morality.” Once he began to gain power, however, he sought a less peaceful means to an end. The acquisition of land was not even the primary motive; Wilhelm and his generals primarily wanted Austria to submit to German hegemony. Bismarck feared “that the king and his advisors would be intoxicated by the brilliant victory over Austria and would wish to press on, and perhaps lose much in the end.”

Count Cavour and Nationality

Posted on by

In “The Program of Count Cavour” from 1846, around the beginnings of the Italian Unification, Count Cavour expresses that “no people can attain a high degree of intelligence and morality unless its feeling of nationality is strongly developed. This noteworthy fact is an inevitable consequence of the laws that rule human nature”. As a powerful figure in the unification of Italy, Cavour makes purposefully strong statements such as these to fuel a sense of determination and obligation in the peoples of Italy. In order to prompt in his people a feeling of duty, Cavour subtly suggests that those who have not cultivated a sense of nationality will not achieve intelligence or morality. He insinuates that a sense of nationality and belonging has always been present in human nature, and that awareness of this sense of nationality has always been the key to reaching “a high degree of intelligence and morality”, or in other words, enlightenment. In this manner, Cavour cleverly encourages nationalism in Italians. In a way, he makes those lacking in nationalistic values out to be ignorant and unconscionable. Cavour chooses to tie morality to nationalism because one who is patriotic has a sense of loyalty to a greater population, rather than just himself. Therefore when someone thinks only of himself, and not of his country too, he has a lower standard of morality.

I definitely understand Cavour’s sentiments in relating intelligence and morality to nationalism, but it definitely is not true in many situations. Nations which employ immoral practices should not feel entitled to feelings of nationalism from its people, particularly if there are laws or policies that do not protect the welfare of its people. Sometimes the most intelligent and moral people are those who speak out against a nation, questioning certain practices and systems in place. A sense of nationalism can also be a detrimental thing for a nation’s people. Governments can convince and/or force its people to perform immoral, inhumane acts in the interests of the country. Nationalism may be the best thing for an individual country, but may hurt its people and affect other countries in a negative manner. Is Cavour right in saying that nationalism is tied to high levels of intelligence and morality? Is this relevant in any nations today? Was it only relevant at the time for Italy?