In her 2003 monograph, Russian Monarchy: eighteenth-century rulers and writers in political dialogue, Cynthia Whittaker explored the political dialogue surrounding the Russian monarchy from the time of Peter the Great to Catherine the Great through roughly 500 works from about 250 writers. Whittaker utilized these works to illustrate how the entire conception of monarchy in Russia was changed due to political dialogue, which began during the reign of Peter the Great. Through her argument, Whittaker challenges the typical view of Russian monarchy, that Russian monarchs ruled despotically with absolute power over a silent and servile population. Starting with the reign of Peter the Great, Whittaker demonstrates how political dialogue began …show more content…
Peter’s attempt to modernize Russia brought the ideas of the Enlightenment to Russia, which caused the educated elite to begin to engage in political discussions. Whittaker, while discussing Peter’s reforms and ideas, wrote, “He worked to expand the ranks of the educated elite and directed much of his legendary energy at winning its approval for his views by means of a political dialogue that he usually encouraged” (33). This is the first sign of the changing conception of monarchy in Russia. In the past, and in popular belief, the Russian tsars ruled with absolute power, and while Peter technically did, he sought approval for his reforms from the educated elite. Peter understood the importance of gaining support for his modernization of Russia from the educated elite, giving them a political voice and creating some form of public opinion in Russia for the first time. This introduction of public opinion limited the power of the monarch to a certain extent, by forcing them to consider the opinions of the educated elite before making decisions, …show more content…
The introduction of enlightenment ideas and encouragement of political dialogue by Peter the Great was the first step in changing the conception of monarchy in Russia, according to Whittaker. Russia without a doubt remained a monarchy throughout the eighteenth-century, but Whittaker provides compelling evidence of the population embracing monarchy as their ideal form of government, and influencing it through written works. Whittaker also uses the numerous works in order to demonstrate how the idea of monarchy changed throughout the eighteenth-century, along with a writer's role in shaping their political environment. Justification literature served as evidence that the monarchs were concerned with public opinion and did not in actuality have absolute power, it was limited by the educated elite. Whittaker used advice literature to exemplify the influence that writers had over monarchs, as well as how the ideal monarch changed through time, evidence of the changing conception of monarchy in Russia. Although monarchy remained in Russia and resulted in despotism in some instances, Whittaker provides significant evidence of the conception of monarchy in Russia changing throughout the
Absolutism was at its most popular in the 17th century. Monarchs Louis XIV who ruled France from 1643 to 1715, and Peter the Great who ruled Russia from 1682 to 1725 both secured absolute power in their kingdom. Peter the Great, however, managed to accomplish more during his reign than Louis XIV with politics and military. Peter was able to tax his nobles but still keep their loyalty and also change how his army was run by using Prussian organization and discipline.
I believe that there was so much attention given to Peter the Great because of his extensive reforms. Peter brought both social and economic changes to his country. He wanted to make Russia big. Peter transformed the culture; he wanted his people to wear the western European fashion. Many of the people were not thrilled with the change because they did not like the ways of the western European societies. He made his navy stronger, he reformed his army to meet the western standards, and he gained control over the church.
In the early eighteenth-century, a letter from Peter the Great’s court was sent to Russian publishers declaring that all material must be printed with the intention to maintain “The glory of the great sovereign and his tsardom and for the general usefulness and profit of the nation” (The Cambridge History of Russia). The effects of this proclamation reverberated throughout Russia for centuries and laid the foundation on which future rulers such as Catherine the Great and later Alexander III fortified the position of the censor. The strengthening of the Russian censor, consequently, manipulated and stifled the country’s most influential wordsmiths. No Russian writer was safe from the censor, not even a master like Leo Tolstoy. Specifically,
Russia being such a vast country, extending from the borders of Poland to the Pacific Ocean, made the idea of reform seem almost impossible. The changes she made in the areas of education, social services, law and economic policy are detailed throughout. In 1767, Catherine expounded on her vision for Russia’s reform in a long and detailed Instruction. The Instruction expresses her philosophy and beliefs, her hopes and plans. Some historians thought she contradicted herself throughout her Instruction. Catherine believed Russia was, in fact, a part of Europe. The French philosopher Montesquieu, whom Catherine greatly admired, referred to England as a moderate monarchy, which had political liberty as its main principle. He saw Russia as more of an oriental state with despotic, absolute rule. Catherine did not agree with his classification of Russia and she insisted that Russia was an absolute monarchy, not an Asiatic despotism, and could be ruled by administering fundamental laws. The author points out that Catherine’s condemnation of torture, “ The usage of torture is contrary to all dictates of nature and reason: even mankind itself cries out against it, and demands loudly the total abolition of it” shows her true belief in the principles of enlightenment. Catherine’s Statute of 1775 planned to reform many social services, such as the medical and the penal
In conclusion, though the goals and outcomes were different in many ways, Louis XIV and Peter the Great both sought to do great things. Louis XIV died unpopular in his country, having had the spotlight on him for years in Europe. He hadn’t made the huge leaps that he had hoped as far as land goes, but he had made small gains of land, and had gained the crown for his grandson, Phillip V of Spain. He also built fortresses around the country and reshaped the French economy. Peter the Great succeeded in modernizing and westernizing Russia. By his death, Russia was considered much more of a leading state in Europe than ever before. He modernized the army, created a navy, and succeeded in centralizing the government.
During the course of the eighteenth century, both Peter I and Catherine II rose to power as Russian tsars implementing their social and political power upon their kingdom and people. They aimed to westernize Eastern Europe, amassing great power and tracts of land, yet the tactical process in which they did so differed for each individual. Peter I and Catherine the Great made effective changes within the structures of military, nobility, education, and peasantry.
The quote “The ideas and beliefs of philosophers and leaders have led to changes in the nation and regions,” is a perfect example of the changes made by Peter the Great during the time he ruled. Tsar Peter I, better known as Peter the Great lived an adventurous life from the year 1672 to the year 1725. Peter the Great was an absolute ruler who reigned from 1682 to 1689. Peter the Great had many goals, beliefs, and accomplishments that he achieved during this period of time. He took control of Russia, and additionally, was able to change the way of life in Russia during the time he ruled.
Mosse, Werner E., “Alexander II and the modernization of Russia”. London, English Universities Press ltd. 1958.
In “Hatshepsut: His Majesty, Herself”, by Catherine Andronik, she informs the reader about Hatshepsut and her role as an effective female pharaoh in ancient Egypt. One supporting detail proving her leadership was when she acted as a regent, an adult who can take control of the country. Another detail that supports the fact that Hatshepsut was an effective leader is in paragraph 11 where the text states, “ She appointed officials and advisors, dealt with the priests; appeared in public ceremonies first behind, then beside, and eventually in front of her nephew.” this quote explains that because Hatshepsut’s nephew, Tuthmosis III, was too young to be a powerful ruler, Hatshepsut, who was second in command, ended up doing everything for him. Hatshepsut
Peter the Great was trying ultimately to make the Russian Empire more Europeanized or Westernized. He wanted to protect and enhance the vulnerable Russian Empire. Peter the Great saw that other European countries are colonizing in other regions like the New World, Asia, and Africa. Peter saw this as a threat and didn’t want for the Europeans to conquer Russia. Through decrees to shave and provisions on dress, he was trying to make them European. He also wanted to make military and economic reforms that could help the empire itself. If they built factories, they didn’t need to get supplies from Europe.
The memoir gives a unique perspective of the noblewoman in this period of Russian society. A male-centered society made it difficult for women to shape and control their lives, however it was possible through means of gaining respect. The society respected woman who had a virtuous demeanor. Especially, those who lived with an immoral spouse and still were able to show virtuous characteristics. Anna is able to gain the respect of people higher in authority than her husband receiving special treatment for various requests. Through her marriage, she recognizes that her husband has rights that she doesn’t have in shaping and controlling her life privately and especially publicly. This society causes for women to depend on men completely.
Catherine the Great, really was a great ruler. I think that overall, she was trying to be very fair to everybody. In 1773 Catherine the Great had an edict called “Toleration of All Faiths.” With this edict I thought she was showing how everybody should be treated fair by tolerating free practice of people’s faith. However, the main purpose she did this was she thought it was a good way to pacify frontier territory. Then there were some instances such as how she treated the Jews and when she attacked the privileges of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was not tolerating all faiths. Putting that instance behind though I think that she really was aware of what her duties were and what she was supposed to do. She made it very clear in her law code that the End of Monarchy was to “Not to deprive People of their natural Liberty; but to correct their Actions, in order to attain the supreme Good.”
Absolutists during the 16th and 17th centuries were often times focused too heavily on military or other such rather than the people they were ruling. Peter the Great is a good example of this type of ruler because he did great things for Russia like improving the navy; however, Peter the Great did nothing to help the people of Russia, and according to Michael Gibson in document 8, he "failed to create the large, thriving
Observing that European technological superiority allowed it to enjoy extraordinary benefits, he adopted many European practices to assert his own dominance and increase Russia’s protection against its adversaries. In doing this, Peter the Great formed himself a lasting legacy. Although Peter the Great originally mimicked Louis XIV in his staunch practice of absolutism, he ultimately surpassed Louis XIV in his goal of supremacy. Peter replaced the previous head of the Orthodox Church, and had both religious and earthly supremacy. Thus, Peter achieved something that Louis could never manage: a control of both church and state. Outside of Russia’s borders, Peter succeeded in his endeavors to a much greater extent than Louis XIV. The Great Northern War against Sweden effectively gave Russia access to a warm water port: Saint Petersburg, where Peter created his own Versailles, the Winter Palace, that fulfilled goals similar to those of Louis. Thus, where Louis fell, Peter
Peter the Great, the Russian Czar, inherited his absolutist power from his brother, Ivan V. Born in aristocracy, Peter’s dad was the Czar, and later his brother, and after his brother’s death, him. He was a firm believer in the possible benefits from the control of a single leader to make decisions for the people, and he exercised this divine right to create many renouned institutions. At the beginning of Peter’s reign, Russia was in a poor condition: many rejected modernization from the Renaissance, and large spending from his brother’s reign caused economic droughts. He took advantage of his absolutist power to help ameliorate Russia’s situation and first decided to minimalize power from the other aristocrats. The subduction of the rich allowed