Category Archives: Uncategorized
Changing Areas of Focus
Throughout this semester law codes help show the changes occurring throughout Russian history. Written under the rule of Aleksei the Ulozehnie of 1649 differs greatly from previous law codes such as the Sudebnik of 1497. The Ulozehnie is organized into sections like previous law codes; however, the order of the articles reveals important shifts in the structure of the Russian state. Article I of the Ulozehnie protects the dignity and sanctity of the Russian Orthodox Church. The law code prohibits heresy, harming church officials, bringing political complaints to church services, fighting and/or murdering members of the congregation, and other acts that may interfere with a normal service. (((http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/1649code.html.)) Violators of these laws often received capital punishment – showing how closely the state protected the church. In fact, the Ulozehni depicts an overlapping of the church and state, one where the Tsar’s word reflects the will of God. ((Article I, Section 9, http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/1649code.htm.l)) The Sudebnik protected the Russian Orthodox Church but never with the same vigor or priority.
Instead of focusing on the church, the first articles of the Sudebnik outlined court procedures. (((http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/sudebnik.html)) One finds legal procedures located in first in Article X of the Ulozehnie. (((http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/1649code.html.)) Written during a time of internal turmoil and impending foreign invasion, the Ulozehnie addresses treason and the Prince’s safety in Article II. Twenty-two articles prohibit conspiring against the Prince, knowing of a conspiracy but not reporting it, and aiding outside powers against the Prince. (((http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/1649code.html.)) Again, a traitor received capital punishment after a trial confirmed his or her guilt. The number of these codes focusing on the Prince’s safety allude to the turmoil and instability under Aleksei. The Sudebnik outlaws murder and violence but never addresses the security of the Prince or treason. (((http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/sudebnik.html.))
Considering the content of the Ulozehnie’s first two articles, who would you say is the primary audience of these law codes?
Ulozhenie: Difference Maker or Part of a Trend?
In Chapter Twelve of Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings, 860-1860s, Daniel Kaiser and Gary Marker decide to include the perspective of an author (Richard Hellie) who thought of the Ulozhenie as the defining moment in the history of serfs in Russia. Hellie’s perspective, while interesting, leaves me with additional questions.
The most intriguing part of Hellie’s point-of-view was that his words seem to create a sharp division in Russian history, a division between pre-1649 and post-1649 (since 1649 was the year that the Ulozhenie was written). He did not view the law code as part of a pattern of regressing rights for peasants, but as something which all seemed to happen at once (Kaiser and Marker 181). His view is certainly different from some thoughts on the reduction in peasant rights over time; Kaiser and Marker even said that one school of thought on the disappearance of peasant rights was that it was a long process which began long before 1649 with actions such as the restriction of travel outside of St. George’s Day (Kaiser and Marker 180).
Also interesting was how Kaiser and Marker did not include any documents which introduced the point-of-view that the events over many decades was a bigger factor than any governmental law code. They had a document which addressed how the institution of slavery developed in Muscovy over the course of many decades (namely, during the “Time of Troubles”), but they didn’t do the same with serfdom and how that gradually developed in the decades leading up to the Ulozhenie in 1649.
I am indeed left with multiple questions. Here are the questions I have:
Do you believe that the restrictions on serfdom were a gradual process, or was it something that mostly came out of the Ulozhenie in 1649?
Why would Kaiser and Marker not give more time to the point-of-view that serfdom was an institution which developed over many years, and not mostly from one law code?
On a note unrelated to my response here, how were these masters able to keep control of their peasants when they were so outnumbered by peasants? According to the reading, ninety percent of the Russian population consisted of peasants at one point; this is a percentage so high that it must have been hard to control all of them.
Bibliography
Kaiser, Daniel H. and Gary Marker. Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings, 860-1860s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Marx Podcast
Domostroi, Ch. 24-38
Chapters 24-37 of the Domostroi deal with how the people of the household should live their lives. Men of their household must live a christian lifestyle and treat all of their responsibilities with care. If a man is not able to help those in need or commits crimes against the state, he will bring, “… his soul to destruction and his house to disgrace.” ((Carolyn Johnston Pouncy, trans and ed., The Domostroi: Rules for Russian Households in the Time of Ivan the Terrible, (Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1994,) 121.)) Rulers must be fair to their people and not be selfish in all of their decisions they makes. Not being able to manage expenses is considered a great dishonor. The Domostroi reminded people not to keep, “… more slaves than you can afford,” and to free those slaves one did not need. ((Pouncy, Domostroi, 124.)) The relationship between a landowner and his servants appears to be very close, as a landowner is taught to, “… care for them and reward them as though they were your own children.”((Pouncy, Domostroi, 126.))
Wives of the household rulers are to be submissive to their husbands and follow their commands. It’s even mentioned that a wife should consult her husband on any matter of importance.((Pouncy, Domostroi, 132.)) The wife has a tight reign on what is happening in the household and must set an example for the servants to follow. She must be intelligent in the way of knowing how to cook meals for every occasion, keep records of the household, and work tirelessly as ”she should even fall asleep over her embroidery.”((Pouncy, Domostroi, 127.)) The expectation of women continue on and on; drunkenness is impermissible, gossiping is intolerable, idleness is unheard of, and women must act as the example for all other household workers. ((Pouncy, Domostroi, 138.))
While these regulations all explicitly address the individual, they create a larger social contract. The Domostroi creates standards are enforced communally – regulating actions not through a punishment by the state but through a loss of grace and respect of the community. This system only works when a population embraces the same standards. When one strays from the norm they feel the exclusion and chastisement of the whole community. The Domostroi heavily religious messages illustrate the extent to which the church and religion permeated everyone’s lives.
Furthermore, when examining the Domostroi in the context of what Muscovy was experiencing during the rule of Ivan, it takes steps to take even more control into the lives of the people, notably the boyars. Ivan released his own Sudebnik in 1550, and this centralized power in things a law code would normally address, such as theft, property disputes and so on. The Domostroi seeks to control what happens in the home, which fits in with Ivan’s desire to centralize power. The new autocratic ideals Ivan clearly sought to implement within his own government can also be seen in his ambition to control how the boyars and normal people lived their own private lives.
Ivan’s Insecurities
Ivan “The Terrible” during his later reign, seems to be pretty catastrophic for Muscovite Russia. The creation of the oprichniki was his way of getting rid of anyone that could threaten his rule. This group became extremely problematic, as they had unrestricted authority wherever they went. There required garb of black further linked them to a sort of “Unholy” group that was linked to Ivan, not the church. The oprichniki were able to steal property and money from the zemskie people without any punishment. Anyone who stood in the way of this group or tried to stop them were immediately killed. One of the governors even fled to Poland once he discovered what was going on with the oprichinia (KM, 152). Country sides were being ravaged without orders and shows how much power they had accumulated. Ivan had anyone who he thought suspicious killed and it could be imagined the amount of people living in fear.
However, we see the the Tsar having the leaders of the oprichninia killed as well. Perhaps it seems that he believed that they had gained too much power and were becoming a threat to himself at this point (KM, 153). The killing of these leaders was brutal and sent a message to the people in Russia that he was not to be reckoned with.
Was Ivan’s terrorizing rule perhaps good for guaranteeing loyalty for future Tzars?
Marx in Soho
Marx came stomping in through stage left as “Money” by Pink Floyd played, demanding why we must always declare him dead. The answer is simple: by declaring him dead, we declare his ideas dead along with him. Yet “Marx in Soho” clearly shows how Marx’s ideology is very much still alive by relating his work back to the present day. By stating the flaws of today, he clarified just how in need of revolution society is. His many examples of contemporary problems revealed the necessity for something such as communism. Relating his ideas to problems not previously discussed in his work made the concept of communism all the more astounding and necessary. But then he would take moments to discuss his family, reminding his audience of his humanity. He made a joke about how Jesus was not coming back, and instead he did. Yet this is exactly what this performance was. Marx came back to clear his name, and to bring clarity to the people who had the potential to make a change. The way he weaved his personal story in with his explanation of communism was meant to constantly remind the viewers of his humanity; Marx may have been ahead of everyone else in his ideas but he was still a flawed human being. The actor, Bob Weick, made himself vulnerable, which in turn made his argument even more tangible. His critique on today’s capitalist society was spot on, and how he demonstrated that Walmart and its treatment of its workers was not dissimilar to the factories in London during his time really put into perspective how little the world has changed. The performance in and of itself was profound, and because the message was so precise, Marx’s ideas are going to be given much more consideration.
Marx in Soho
Emily Armando
In his play Marx in Soho, playwright Howard Zinn resurrects Karl Marx and his ideas by asking his twenty-first century audience to reconsider Marx as more than just a name in a textbook. Through this creative one-man play, Marx comes to life as a relatable human being. He “clears his name” from being associated with failed attempts at communism and establishes a one-on-one relationship with each member of the audience, asking them to consider “What would Marx think?” He lets each of them in on his disappointment and frustration that the same problems he offered solutions for in the nineteenth century continue to be perpetuated almost two hundred years later. He cites the continuous mistreatment of workers, obsession with private property, and disparity of wealth as proof that little has changed since the time of his writing The Communist Manifesto. Marx in Soho humanizes Marx in order to prove to its twenty-first century audience that although he may be dead, his ideas and analyses of capitalist society remain relevant and useful. By presenting Marx as a human whose ideas are just as vivacious as he once was, Marx in Soho proves that problems brought onto humanity by capitalism and private property are still prominent and in desperate need of being re-examined and resolved.
Although disappointed with the current state of society, the character of Marx reiterates his belief that people are still fully capable of inciting a revolution that can better society. Despite failures of so-called “Marxism” and “communism” in the past which have given the ideas (and Marx) a negative connotation, his true theories are still valid and applicable to the twenty-first century. Once the workers themselves recognize the injustice of the capitalist system as well as the power the have in numbers, they have both capability and responsibility to start a revolution for a more equal society.
Marx in Soho
Bob Weick starred as Karl Marx in Howard Zinn’s production Marx in Soho, a monologue about Marx’s life and his idiosyncratic ideas on the flaws of capitalism. Weick acts around a scene set up of one table with a red tablecloth, two chairs, a large bag, newspapers, books, papers, a beer with a glass, and a scarf in remembrance of Jenny.
The basis of the play is to have Karl Marx come back to life to explain how his preachings are still relevant today with the rise of capitalism, poverty, and exploitation of the worker. All of which Marx had warned the world would happen if drastic change didn’t come. Marx gives examples of the destructive nature of capitalism by mentioning the increase in large manufactures like Wal-Mart, bank mergers, student loans, and a rampant boost in consumerism. Marx disapproves of these because they all add to the concentration of wealth of the 500 individuals who own 3,000 billion out of the 5,000 billion dollars of America’s gross product.
Marx provides solutions to these problems unlike other philosophers who he claims, “Only interpret what is wrong with the world”. He states that in order to put an end to the reign of the Bourgeoisie the Proletariats need to lead a revolution that would abolish private property. This in effect would distribute the wealth to the actual workers.
Zinn’s reasoning behind creating this play could be that he sees how many of the problems Marx wrote about are still abundant today yet no one has correctly executed a revolution of the working class, for the working class. Zinn is trying to draw focus to these problems and hoping to influence change through his writings. And attempts to allow people to understand that change is plausible as long as the workers unite under the unified cause of economic and social equality.
Marx In Soho
Bob Weick eloquently executed the one man performance: Marx in Soho, written by Howard Zinn. Karl Marx entered stage right, briefcase in hand ready to share his message. He enticed the audience of college students and professors, by speaking of some of the outstanding complications he sought out in the 19th century. In doing so, the correlation was made between the 21st century problems with the 19th century issues. Throughout the beginning of the play, the matter of ignorance enabling todays society to advance was a strong point that was heard by every person attending the play. Each audience member from that moment on was reflecting on the day to day social and economic problems that are prevalent globally today. With a problem comes a solution, of taking it head on and attacking it by the roots. The script was relatable to todays society emphasizing on the problems that continue to float throughout America. Revolutions in todays world were brought up, such as political figures who are morally unsuitable and the on going struggle occurring between large industrial companies with their workers, trying to lessen the divide between social classes, this battle has proved to be continuous since Marxs time. Tying in current labor laws to those which were being worked through previously, once again drew in the audience to think about what type of world we are living in today, and more importantly how do we correct our past mistakes by glancing back in time.
Bob performed with passion, conducting the personality of Marx with a complete understanding and knowledge on his views on capitalism. He kept the audience intrigued by changing his tone, and projection of his voice. Along, with moving around the stage, he proceeded to be standing on top of a box, sitting and standing throughout the duration of the play. The play had a wonderful turnout of audience members, and really showed some of the comparisons between the two centuries.