Russian Midterm
In what ways was St. Petersburg an "open doorway" to and from Europe in the late 1700s? Be specific.
-buildings, customs, language -they sought europe's approval, St. Petersburg was the way in which they sought it. St. Petersburg was an open doorway because it was the way which Europeans came to enter Russia, and the way Russians went to enter Europe. Peter the Great had built it to encourage trade with Europe and to really make Russia's place as part of the modern world. St. Petersburg essentially was Europe in its' buildings, customs and language—trying to masquerade as something that they really were not. Only the serfs were free to be Russian, while everyone else wanted to be seen as European. St. Petersburg was the beginning of that expectation for the Russians to be European, and not merely seen as Russian. It was the entire beginning of a Potemkin society among the nobles that lasted for centuries.
How did the French Revolution of 1789 affect Russian society? Be specific.
A society that had previously strongly desired to be French in their customs and language quickly became Francophobes. The word French became something of an insult. In St. Petersburg, since the nobility had been living as unofficial Frenchmen for years, the political reaction led to a conscious effort- led by the aristocracy itself- to rid themselves of the French's intellectual empire. Universal culture became scoffed at, and it became okay to be Russian again—national ways took over the trend of being European. The writer Karamazin soon rallied that everyone should be Russian, not bad copies of the French and he encouraged writers to embrace the Russian language. This was the humble beginnings of true nationalism in the country that would flourish throughout the next century.
In what ways was the War of 1812 a watershed, or major turning point, in the culture of the Russian aristocracy? Be specific.
After 1812, all of the sudden, it became mandatory to speak their native language. It set the nobles aback because they'd been trained in this beautiful language of French, and then practically overnight, it became nearly inexcusable to use it. Because the language hadn't popularly been used for many years, words for certain things did not exist, and these holes were plugged with French words. People began giving up popular French food for the hearty, simple foods of the typical Russian lifestyle, and all of the sudden, people wanted to hunt. It became a statement of Russianness to revert to nature. In the summer, many people would go out and enjoy the beauty and peace of nature in their summer houses or dachas. It became all about returning back to your roots. This showed in art, fashion and makeup. It became popular to wear plain Russian clothes and to have the fresh face that mother nature gave you. Music took on more of a folk style, and people were more eager to paint the Russian peasantry.
Explain Dostoevsky's statement: "We Russians have two fathers: Russia and Europe." Give specific examples to support your explanation.
As is explained shortly thereafter in the book, Europe was not just a 'place' to people anymore. It had been so ingrained through the autocracy that European was best, that people had actually begun to believe it. People lived in Russia, but they wore European fashions, and despite being born in Russia, none of the nobles really conversed in the language. French was the preferred language and only the serfs really knew and understood Russian- many of the nobles' Russian was very primitive and full of peasant slang. People preferred many of the Russian customs behind closed doors, but up front, they were European 110%. Peter the Great, Elizabeth and Catherine the Great had all been so anxious to make Russia a true European nation that they had the nobles abandon pure Russian traditions and lifestyles for an entirely new and European custom. They tried to become something they were not, which in turn, stifled the true Russia for many years. To speak Russian meant to be punished, and it was considered that being Russian needed to be beat out of children at an early age. Religion-particularly Russian Orthodox, was treated as a peasant faith and was not taken seriously by many from the court.
What were the three main pillars of tsarist society in the seventeenth century? Describe each one and explain why it was a "pillar."
Autocracy, Serfdom and the Orthodox Church all proved to be pillars in imperial Russia during the 17th century because of the way that they shaped that century. Autocracy is an obvious one, because its resurrection set events in motion for the Romanov dynasty that would last three centuries. It set the premise for the crown having absolute control, which led to serfdom, the second pillar. Because the peasants all became serfs, they became enslaved to the people who owned the land that they worked on. This changed the attitude of the Russian peasants, their ultimate education, their view of the world, and promoted autocracy. Had serfdom not existed, the revolution likely would've occurred decades earlier, and the face of Russia would've developed much quicker. The Orthodox church remains an important pillar, despite the fact that much of its strength and importance was lost during the 1600s due to Patriarch Nikon's actions. Many people still clung to faith, and used it as a way to make meaning out of their lives, and held the czars accountable for upholding the faith.
Figes writes that "[h]istory was regarded as a battlefield for competing views of Russia and its destiny" (p. 182-3). What role did music and opera play on this battlefield in the late 1800s in Russia? Be specific.
By depicting Russia's past in a modern way, many people wondered if others still saw Russia that way and if that's how they were perceived- suffering and oppressed, and uncontrollable and able to control the destiny of their country. This applied to 1917 too, and many people didn't like being seen as weak and not in control. Operas served to parallel what was happening in the early 1900s, with old history, such as Peter's reign, being used to depict as the new against the old, and what clearly won out. Music by Mussorgsky emphasize the old times, showing deadlock and immobility in Russia's progress. He felt that only prayer could overcome sadness and despair of life in Russia.
Assess the impact of Byzantine civilization on the development of Kievan Rus'. Be specific.
By implementing the Orthodox church, Vladimir implemented much more than just a religion, he also implemented much of the Byzantine culture and garnered knowledge as well as law for the region. Naturally, this did not overcome the natural Slavic traditions and values, but many were combined to form a unique lifestyle and outlook very different from Western European ideals and civilization. Due to the differences in their origin and different mindsets, Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans will see the world very differently. Despite the decline of the Kievan Rus', they managed to lay a strong foundation that continues to affect Russians today.
What economic and social changes occurred in Russia during Catherine's reign? How did these influence future developments?
Catherine increased Autocratic power and increased power of the Poles, Ukrainians and non-Slavs with little justification. Since a merchant class didn't formally exist in Russia, Catherine and her government played a greater economic role than was common, maintaining the mercantilism model that Peter had started. However, the economy remained repressive because Catherine did nothing to change serfdom, which kept the economy slow-moving and internally weaker.
What were the major reforms of Catherine the Great? How did these effect Russia's social and political history during her reign?
Catherine strove to build an integrated education system for all levels, which later were able to enroll several thousand students and start Russia on the road to education. She also promoted Western culture activities in her court such as plays, soirees, balls and other light entertainment. She encouraged periodicals and newspapers that would enlighten the country to the news of the outside world, and she heavily encouraged the arts. Under her reign, many writers found their voice and a distinct style was developed, giving Russia a national consciousness.
Why does Figes choose to use Natasha's dance scene as the title of this book? What does it represent? Be specific.
Despite Natasha's growing up away from the peasantry and having led a life more inclined towards European customs, she acts perfectly and dances just as a true Russian would. Even with the separation and the European inclinations in her upbringing, Tolstoy shows that being Russian is not something that can simply be taught. It is part of a national awareness, a proud culture and tradition that strengthens the people as a whole and ties them together despite the vastness of their country, social class and political disturbances that would shake them. Figes' naming of the book is apt, because Natasha's dance is much more than the sum of its' parts - it is a subtle metaphor of what it means to be Russian.
What is the most important legacy that Kievan Rus' left for future generations? Be specific and justify your answer
Despite all that the Kievan Rus' did for society, their best gift to the following generations is Orthodox Christianity. Religion played a vastly different role in the area than it did in Western civilization; in a time where the Soviet government tried to eliminate religion altogether, millions of Christians held onto their faith as a source of strength, and in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, over 50 million Christians were still practicing. Even today, the Orthodox church plays a strong role in politics and social settings, as well as religious.
In what ways did Stravinsky's Firebird reflect the importance of folk music and themes in Russian music and arts in the early 1900s? Be specific.
For starters, the story of The Firebird was dreamt up by a few colleagues around the kitchen table in the true collective spirit of Russian tradition. Stravinsky borrowed a lot of things from Russian folk music and made it its own unique story. The firebird herself became much more than she had ever been previously—becoming the resurgent peasant Russia and embodied an elemental freedom and beauty. Stravinsky ushered in more of a modern style, by assimilating folk music and using it as an element of style, using its melodies and harmonies and rhythms—which many people had previously not really considered to be music. He put Russian music—remade from traditional forms up on the stage of the world.
What insights does Praskovya's life story provide into the role and status of serfs in pre-Emancipation (pre-1861) Russian society? Be specific.
Her status was given to her and could be taken away at any moment. It was granted for sexual favors...people were considered property. Their talents were for their owner's private enjoyment. Often denied love because they had no status. Died with few people attending her funeral Many serfs likely possessed significant talents and were able to perform them for their masters, but it was under the difficult lifestyle of being considered a possession. Many likely also had to submit to their masters in terms of sexual favors, despite it going against their own personal beliefs. This led to the shame and loss of good name among the serfs and among the aristocracy. Even if they deeply loved their master, that love was often never truly declared and realized due to societal commitments. This also goes the other way that some were never able to marry those they loved because their owner wouldn't allow it or would pair them with someone else. When Praskovya dies, she dies the opposite of how she lived. In life, everyone praised her talents and fully used her up, but in death, only the true friends came to her funeral, not the ones who had admired her shimmering personality and talents when she was alive. Overall, the serfs lived lives that were not appreciated, no matter their talents or how they blessed other people's lives.
In your estimation, what was the single most important positive legacy of the Mongol "Yoke," and what was the single most important negative legacy? Justify your answer.
I would say an important positive legacy of the Mongol would be their influence on the government of Russia. I know overall that might not say much due to the authoritarian government that still rules Russia, but I would say that the influence of the Mongols led to a stronger government than what had led the country pre-Mongol invasion. At that time, it was disorganized, the leaders of the country were busier fighting rather than considering the fate of their country, and not much progress was being made. After the invasion and forcing out of the Mongols centuries later, the rulers knew what they did not want in a government, and more of what they did. It gave the government backbone, which is what led to the country's progression. Secondarily, I could likely say that a negative legacy is also their government, which is still obsessed with security and safety up to this day. But another negative legacy would likely be on their art. While it did lead to an artistic revival and a few great artists came forth at this time, much of the art was destroyed in the initial takeover of Russia, and many artisans and artists were killed. I would say that that was a great loss for Russia and for the rest of the world to have been robbed of what would now be treasured and valued pieces.
We commonly refer to Peter I as "The Great." Do you agree that Peter deserves this title? Why or why not?
I would say that although Peter made a lot of mistakes in his reign and did cause some hardships among his people, he does deserve to be called great. He had a vision that was greater than any of the previous czars before him and was not content to hole up in his palace and idly let time pass by. He was an incredibly hard worker and brought great education to Russia such as ship making, iron casting, dentistry and paintings that changed Russian artists' perspective on the world. He brought Russia into the modern world and secured the country a good chance at success and development, and also prevented Russia from being taken over again by countries with more sophisticated technology, by bringing that tech to Russia himself. Mistakes in ruling come with the personality of the individual and the difficulty of leading millions of people, but the changes he made to Russia are hugely significant and changed the whole course of history.
What, in your estimation, prevented the spread of the traditions of government in Novgorod to other princedoms in Kievan Rus'? Be specific.
I would say that other princedoms more fully experienced Mongol control than Novgorod did, which led to a bit of a freeze on any kind of government change, because in times of distress, familiarity is a security blanket; many also considered the ruler to be the middleman, making sure that the Mongols were kept at a manageable distance. It also didn't seem feasible because the princes had to pay a fee in order to keep their privileges, and I'm sure that no one wanted to explore the option of what would happen if those taxes stopped rolling in.
It can be argued that the history of the Russian Empire in the first half of the nineteenth century (the 1800s) represented a golden opportunity missed. Do you agree with this statement? Provide specific evidence to support your conclusion. Be specific.
I would very much agree with this statement. Russia had everything at its' fingertips the first half of the century. The population was growing rapidly, and education became more of a priority. The nobles and tsars were drawing from European knowledge, and had they done it for more than their frivolous fashions and desire to entertain themselves, they could've drawn on Europe's experience of emerging from serfdom and kickstarted industrial processes. Instead, many of the tsars were to selfish to let go of power and free the serfs. Instead of letting the country rise, the kept it from doing so and Russia fell very much behind the other countries economically, politically and socially which lasted all the way into the twentieth century. It left the country underdeveloped economically, repressed politically and divided socially.
Figes writes: "[t]he greatest strength of the Russian people, and the thing that set them apart from the people of the West, was their voluntary surrender of the individual will to collective rituals and forms of life" (286). Agree or disagree? Why? Be specific.
I would wholeheartedly agree with Figes in this. Throughout the passing centuries, every group- most particularly the peasantry, have worked with a sense of collectiveness. The peasants preferred to work in an obshchina to work for the collective good and provision of everyone and did so even after their emancipation because it was what they knew. When Russia was forced to update on Peter's demands, the aristocracy did so collectively, giving up their personal desires. Women gave up their desires and were often allowed no personal rights—and this worked for the collective good of the peasantry, because this worked towards the collective goal of survival and having more children. Even ballet—an art which they have made their own, has no leading part, only a group of people moving as one to carry the whole of the storyline.
Describe the development of the arts (theater, music and literature) in the late 1700s and early 1800s. What impeded this development and what assisted it? Be specific.
In the mid 1700s, it became fashionable to have serfs who could do operas and theater. Much of this was derived from Catherine the Great herself. She wrote plays and comic operas and ushered in the popularity of French theatre and gave Sheremetev the idea (indirectly) to build a theatre. He put his son Nikolai in charge of it who hired Europeans from the court to train his serfs to sing, play instruments, dance and to act. Within a period of time, Emperor Alexander also took notice and brought in a young Italian to run the Bolshoi Kamenny. Glinka, a Russian music writer took many of his cues from Cavos- giving him a great deal of influence on Russian music by developing its' national character, despite the fact that he was a foreigner. As for literature, there was very little authentic Russian literature. A lot of early Russian literature simply had the settings and characters changed from European tales and were claimed by Russians. Members of Catherine's court russified several French plays, and eventually hundreds of works were published in Russian ---although only seven of those works were of authentic Russian construction. A huge setback was that Russia didn't really have a literary language. It was stuck between the trendy language of French (aka, not Russian) and the old Slavonic and clumsy language of the church. A few of the poets and writers would try to introduce new words in order to give the Russian public a new consciousness and to uncannily take Russia back. poets and writers had to try to break away from the foreign hold of French on the language and soul of Russia.
What myth did Anton Chekhov's Peasants and Ivan Bunin's The Village help destroy? Why was this such a shock to Russian society? Be specific.
It destroyed the myth that the peasant was "good". It showed that peasants were human too, and were brutalized and coarsened by poverty, not acting in a special role to bear special moral lessons for society. Many people denounced Chekhov for not reflecting the spiritual ideals of the peasant life and saying that he didn't really understand the peasants and had made them out to be something that they were not. Society had promoted being a poor peasant as something of an ideal for so long, that it had made it into something that it never was. Many Slavophiles were shocked and said that it was a slander against Russia because that was the ideal that they had built their identities on. After leaving behind Western European ideals they had turned to the example of the everyday peasant in what to look like, what to dress like, and to understand the Russian language. Chekhov wasn't a liar though, he had seen these things with his own eyes and had observed how crude and mistrusting that they could be. As a doctor, he saw the peasants in everyday life, not acting as servants, but as their own person.
Why was the decision to emancipate the serfs in 1861 so difficult to make in practical terms? What obstacles prevented the emancipation from becoming a truly transformative event in Russian history?
It was a difficult decision to make because it meant the entire change of society. The nobles wouldn't be waited on anymore unless their serfs were paid, and it meant a difficult transition for the serfs that many people were uncertain about, certain that it would lead to further problems and the collapse of Russia. Obstacles of the emancipation were the taxes set upon the peasants to buy their land and pay back the landlords who had governed them for years. It also lead to a heavy governmental burden, and with the further addition of greater population, it put everyone in a worse spot. No one had food, no one could afford anything and food was scarce. Many people thought it was going to be the downfall of Russia and hated Alexander for it.
Why did absolutist authority, which expanded greatly under Ivan the Terrible, survive despite the Time of Troubles? Be specific.
Ivan had led the country in such a mess, that the country needed a czar again, and it needed to be reunified. With a weak economy, a strong government was very important in order to mobilize people, motivate them and give tasks that would unify the people again. Secondly, the czar over the years had become a symbol of unification and strength for the people, and during the times without a ruler, the people had only known chaos and extreme poverty. Third, because Peter the Great had created unity with the Orthodox church, and the Muscovite princes had tightened the relationship with the church over the years, a czar seemed very important, and acted as a defender of the faith- with church and state acting in great support to one another. And lastly, in that day and age, it seemed impossible for anyone besides a czar to unite so many people and govern such a large land. The lower classes had been so competitive and that was a reminder of Kievan Rus' days, but after Ivan's rule, hardly any nobility existed to challenge the czar.
What were the negative impacts of Ivan's rule on Muscovite Russia? Do these impacts outweigh the positive attributes of Ivan's reign? Why or why not? Be specific.
Ivan was definitely a commanding leader, and many of the effects that he left behind were very negative. He was a leader that did not like to be challenged and killed many boyars that even gave the throne a second glance. The people lived in oppression, and no one dared speak up for fear of receiving a visit from the oprichniki; the economy atrophied, and Russian society was weakened and torn by the persecution from Ivan and the constant fear he kept them in. These impacts significantly outweigh the good he did, because once Anastasia died, much of the good that had happened was undone. He managed to claim the eastern frontier, but the fact that people lived in fear in addition to the state of Russia nearly collapsing, anarchy reigning, and by killing his own succeeding heir- he left the people of Russia with a destabilized economy and times of famine and great poverty, not the best end to a czar's reign.
Explain the phrase "Petersburg is our head, Moscow is our heart" in the context of 19th-century Russia. Be specific.
Many people saw Moscow as their true home, despite the fact that they may not have even grown up there. It fully embodied a sense of the old Russia where many people found their strength and heritage in Moscow. Although it remained a provincial capital for several centuries after St. Petersburg was built, it was always considered the culture capital of Russia, and it still showed off the Russian ways, old traditions and things of comfort. St. Petersburg had long been a stiff and formal place of vigor, and it did not have the same personal feeling due to not being built on tradition. For the Slavophiles, they saw it as Peter's city and a symbol of the rupture with Holy Rus'. The Westerners considered it a progressive sign of Russia's Europeanization. Gogol often portrayed St. Petersburg as cold and uncaring—and appearances became very important in maintaining one's self-worth. Moscow was where you were always welcome; in St. Petersburg, the set times to visit were regarded as stiff and impersonal.
Peter the Great's rule has been described as a collection of paradoxes. Identify several such paradoxes and describe how they shaped Russia during his reign.
One very prominent paradox is the fact that Peter had great incentive to modernize Russia and turn it into a Western European nation. He loved Western Europe's modernity, technologies and art, and he wanted all of that for Russia. However, much of the changes he wanted to impose on people came abruptly and without warning or coordination, so only a small percentage of his population sincerely modernized. The rest either didn't get the memo (because enslavement is a full-time job and all) or found Peter's ideas foolish and too forward. Another paradox is the two sides of Peter's reign. While Peter did establish lay schools and encouraged modern dress, and established a navy and a million other things, he also spent so much money from the mercantile economy that he had set up, that it became questionable as to whether he really helped the country or hurt it.
Do you think Moscow's rise to prominence was inevitable? Why or why not? Be specific.
Personally, I see their rise as something inevitable because they knew how to work the crowd and how to sell it. In Russia, life had primarily been unstable and overall dangerous up until the Muscovites took over. They saw that need that the people had for security, protection and assurance and filled it; they also knew that the kingdom would run out of money- later causing poverty, starvation and possibly more war, so they built a simple tax system and made sure that it was implemented. The princes knew how to survive and how other countries/regions needed to be dealt with so that they used their resources efficiently, and that war did not remain a constant. Everything that they worked for was for the success of Moscow, not the success of just the individual, and that is why Moscow rose to prominence. If it hadn't happened when it did, then it would've been later- because Moscow had the strong leadership and protection that the people desired at the time.
Why did Peter the Great hate Muscovy so much and what role did the Russian Orthodox Church play in that hatred? Be specific.
Peter saw Moscow as medieval and backward, very dark from the lighthearted and enlightened Western society that he had quickly grown to love. Muscovy was isolated culturally and historically and part of the culture of the church discouraged that and encouraged people to hang on to tradition which Peter did not like. He was all about throwing open the windows and getting a fresh breath of change, and Muscovy was not part of the Reformation or the Renaissance and the city could not be considered "great" in the European sense. He hated the archaic culture and the superstitious fear and resentment of West Europe and the incredible control that the church seemed to pose over everything.
How did the Sheremetev's palace on the Fontanka symbolize Peter the Great's hopes and aspirations for Russia and its elites? Be specific.
Peter wanted Russians to delve wholeheartedly into the European ways, and the Sheremetevs are a peachy example of that. They built these lavish homes designed to compete with courts comparing to Versailles or Potsdam, they imported art and furniture and fabric for their clothes. Everything that was done, was done in a West European style, but bigger. There were more servants, clothes were owned in abundance and if it was from Europe, it was better than if from Russia. In essence, much of the original European customs were cast off, and the Sheremetovs became European. If not in ethnicity, then certainly in manner, dress and the way they carried themselves. Peter wanted Russia to cast off the unsightly and dull old Russia, and create a Russia of prestige, power and totality.
Discuss the development of painting, folk art, theater, and avant-garde art in the 1800s in Moscow. Be specific.
Plays/Theatre: Ostrovsky was inspired by many of the mores of the Moscow business world and wrote plays about it, showing off the intimate details of the business world and putting them in a certain light—being viewed as either negative or positive, depending on the person reading/watching. These were a commentary of society, and the plays changed as society changed. The plays often were a commentary of society. Mamontov wanted to train people to see beauty everywhere and set up an artists' colony to revive peasant crafts that were being pushed out by the convenience of having a railway system. Abramtsevo was a place where artists went to learn from the old peasant handicrafts and assimilate their style to their own work. These workshops helped create spectacular interior designs with wood carving, and folk style. Vashkov was a silver craftsman who created his own modern style, creating sacred objects and combined his unique style with tradition. Avant-garde: The modern art was one that merchant patrons embraced. They saw it as a part of their own campaign to transform the old Russia to modern times. It was all about experimentation in art, theatre and music. It became about creating art for the future. Painting: Russian painters had begun to develop a "Russian style", and with the Patronage of Tretiakov, they were able to survive their first years until more interest developed in their art. Artists sought to break free of bureaucratic controls and worked to raise the public's consciousness of art. They created a new market and appreciation for art.
Why was Russia often considered the most powerful country in Europe during the first half of the 19th century and how did it lose this distinction? Be specific.
Russia had gained this power and prestige from beating Napoleon in the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon had never suffered defeat from any of his other rivals and was very confident and practically seen as unstoppable. When Russia beat him, it was a major upset that no one was expecting, especially since he'd taken Moscow. The fact that Russia was able to come back and beat him after essentially having been "taken", earned them that respect of all the other European countries and made them falsely miscalculate how strong and powerful Russia was, and perhaps giving them more power in European affairs than was truly deserved. This distinction was lost in the Crimean war when Nicholas misjudged a few very important points. He figured that the British would ally with the Russians for the fight and miscalculated the Ottoman empire's strengths. After being outnumbered, sorely beaten and everyone thought about it, they realized that Russia hadn't been that hard to beat and that Russia had some serious weaknesses. After this, everyone lost respect for Russia and continued on modernizing and industrializing, leaving Russia in the dust.
Describe the "Russian" way of life that exiles experienced in Siberia in the aftermath of the Decembrist Revolt. How did Volkonsky deal with exile?
Sergei and Maria ended up in Nerchinsk, which was merely a settlement of wooden huts. Both settled in, with Maria never forgetting her upbringing, but learning to do all kinds of new things, and with Sergei becoming more and more Russian as the years went by. He grew out his beard, and dressed like a peasant. Both he and Maria learned to converse in Russian and settled into Russian customs. Eventually Volkonsky became something of a "prince" among the peasants, learning new ways to garden better and teaching others his science. Many of the exiles married local girls and built homes in Siberia, adopting the Russian way of life from cuisine, down to the tradition of hunting in the forests. The Decembrists also saw Siberia as a democratic hope and studied the folklore and history, set up village schools and took up peasant crafts or worked the land.
Why was St. Petersburg mythical in Russia and how was it supposed to "reconstruct the Russian as a European man"? Be specific.
St. Petersburg was mythical in Russia because of the mythical way it sprung up. It was built on sand and swamp land, something that had never been done before in Russian history, and it was built so quickly that it almost felt as if it was overnight. This was unprecedented for any kind of building at the time. Due to primitive technologies and usually a limited crew of people, buildings could take 3-4 times longer to finish normally. The city also looked nothing like regular Russian cities, making it seem otherworldly. All of the architects came from Europe to create the majesty and beauty of St. Petersburg, giving it the architecture of everwhere in Europe, but also giving the city its' own unique feel. This city was Peter the Great's baby and visualized all that he wanted for Russia and also was set up to compel Russians to adapt to becoming "European." He told his nobles how to live, where to build their houses, how to build them and how many servants to keep and exactly how he wanted them to behave. St. Petersburg was essentially a European-in-training school.
In many ways, the seventeenth century was a transitional period in the development of Russian imperial society. What specific evidence can we provide to support this conclusion? Be specific.
The 1600s proved to be very important in reestablishing the autocracy and cementing it in place for the next few centuries because Russia needed a leader that could give the country and its people the stability needed. Contact was reestablished with Western Europe which proved to be a very big thing in and of itself- leading to the importance of education, new technologies and trade- things that Russia had not had access to since the years of the Kievan Rus. All of these things made headway to what the czars' pursuits and education were, which ultimately was an important building block in Russian imperial society's development.
Who are the Children of 1812? How does Sergei Volkonsky exemplify this group? Be specific.
The Children of 1812 are the Decembrists, a group of rebels and soldiers who wanted to take down the autocratic regime and create a constitution. Volkonsky was born in the lap of privilege and joined the army. But while there, he discovered that the peasants had great moral worth and wanted to help them gain an education and propose changes to better serve the soldiers. They drew up army constitutions and Volkonsky himself wrote a set of "Notes on the Life of the Cossacks in Our Battalions" where he proposed progressive measures to improve the lives of the poorer Cossacks and lessen their forced dependence on the nobles. Volkonsky was the perfect example of the Children of 1812, or the Decembrists because he truly understood came to understand Russian inequality at its finest when meeting some of the peasant soldiers. Many of them were very intelligent but had been denied any real education because of their rank, and many would've benefited greatly from a more equal system and constitutional rights. Volkonsky saw this need and wanted to make it happen, even if it meant risking his own life.
How did the Decembrist Revolt come about and what were the results? What price did Sergei Volkonsky and his family pay for his role in the revolt?
The Decembrists started off as a small band of soldiers that were committed to instituting a constitutional monarchy in Russia. In traveling through Europe with Alexander they had seen some ideas of a constitutional monarchy that they favored. Many respected Alexander and petitioned to end serfdom, but Alexander hesitated to give up any power. Colonel Pestel was one of the most radical of these leaders and called for the Tsar's overthrow. The plan for the insurrection was not scheduled to happen for some time, but when Tsar Alexander died suddenly, the Decembrists decided to strike while the iron was hot (despite only having 3000 men, and Nicholas the I was not yet certain in his role as Tsar. Tsar Nicholas took charge after hearing the Decembrist's demands, and had his loyal soldiers fire into the crowd against those mutinying. Sixty soldiers were shot, the ringleaders were hung, and many soldiers were sent to Siberia. Volkonsky was dealt with harshly, probably due to Nicholas feeling that he had betrayed him. He was sentenced to 20 years hard labor, and permanent settlement in Siberia. He was stripped of his noble title and lost control of everything he owned. His family became nothing more than state peasants. His family put the tsar before him and refused to keep contact with him, he was even rejected by his own mother.
How did Stasov, Mussorgsky, and the others of the Mighty Five try to distinguish themselves from Tchaikovsky and other Russian composers and artists of the time? Why do you think they did this? Be specific.
The Mighty Five wanted something real and closer to the native soil rather than classical and Westernized. They wanted what was authentically Russian. They incorporated what they had heard in village songs, Cossack and Caucasian dances and the tolling of church bells. They wanted to produce Russian live in Music. They wanted to forget about the formal rules of elaboration or development that other more formal Russian composers had stuck with over time. It was time to bring Russia to life in music. Russian artists wanted to cast off the ideals of Western Europe and create their own art, they wanted people to see the importance of history and Russia's past and depicted historical scenes and the people's native customs all while exploring the class between the people and the modernizing state.
How did the Westernizers and Slavophiles' competing interpretation of Russian history differ? Be specific. Whose views do you think ultimately conquered and why?
The Westernizers wanted Russia to take the Western path of modernization and to "rediscover itself". Karamzin's First Letter concluded that Russia stood outside of time, without a past or a future since it had not taken part in conquering the world and had mostly concentrated on itself. The Westernizers believed that there was so much more to Russia than they had previously experienced due to Russians copycatting the French. They wanted them to continue with a new type of government, and to begin industrializing like Western Europe was prepped to do. The Slavophiles rejected the universal culture of the enlightenment and emphasize indigenous traditions, emphasizing being Russian and regressed back to what they considered to be the purity of Russian ways. They saw the narod as being the true bearer of the national character and that they upheld the country's identity. It became important to develop Russian styles, Russian music and Russian writing.
Describe the Russian "cult of childhood" in the 1800s and how it may have affected the children of the Russian nobility.
The aristocracy saw childhood as a precursor to adult life and decided that their children should be made ready for adulthood and prepared to enter society at an early age. Children were expected to behave as adults; should they behave as children today, they were considered simpletons. Young girls were taught to dance, and in a period of no more than two to three years, they were attending what could be called, "children's balls", graduating to regular balls by the age of thirteen or fourteen. Young boys were signed up for the military regiment at the tender age of six and were trained in the military- officially beginning military service when they were sixteen. School wasn't overly popular and was seen as more of an apprenticeship for civil services or real life. Children lived their lives distanced from their parents, living completely separate lives that only crossed paths once or twice a day to say good morning and goodnight. It was also not uncommon for the children to have little to no parental discipline, since the parent was usually absent. The children often liked spending more time with the serfs their parents owned rather than being with their own parents. Their life seemed more real, and there was an atmosphere of warmth and intimacy that didn't emanate from the children's own parents. Many lasting contacts with nannies were established, many being cared for in their old age by those they had bathed and dressed as babies.
The period from 1855 to 1881 is often called the era of the "Great Reforms." In your analysis, which reforms were the most important and why? Be specific.
The emancipation of the serfs was definitely one of the most momentous reforms made that snowballed into a change greater than had even been imagined. Alexander was not afraid to stir up change and made governance more orderly, efficient and just. Another important reform was partial self-government with municipal institutions helping manage issues of education, public works, health and welfare. Limits on military service were also established, education was expanded and improved and journalism and book printing were encouraged. These all were important in orchestrating the revolution that was to happen later. Had no changes been made, the country would've remained solid as it was. But to unleash the serfs and then give them all this power of education? The country was moved to change by Alexander to prepare for the future.
Describe the social and political goals of the narodniki and the khozhdenie v narod movement. How was the movement received by the peasantry and what actual reforms did the movement lead to? Be specific.
The narodniki sought to create a nation of 'brotherhood' rather than the one that currently existed that was built by blood, sweat, and tears. They wanted to work alongside the peasants and free them from their ignorance. They suffered the guilt of privilege and they wanted to liberate the peasantry from the oppression of the aristocracy and the state. They saw themselves as the people's debtors and wanted to make it right. These idealistic hopes were buoyed up by the emancipation of the serfs this is often known as the khozhdenie v. narod movement.
What do 19th-century wedding customs and family life among the Russian peasantry teach us about the plight of women in Russia at that time? Be specific.
The prenuptial khorovod was a bitter and sad song about the life in their husband's home, which meant that married life was viewed rather pessimistically about what their husband's family would think of them. Russian women were not really given much of a choice about whom they wanted to marry, because romantic marriages were far and away simply not done. Many people used a matchmaker, and marriage contracts were considered. If a man wanted a woman and had the means to provide a dowry or be considered worthy of her, he could have her. The woman's feelings weren't considered. Once married, the husband had dominion over the wife and were at a severe disadvantage when it came to any kind of rights. They had no right to challenge their husband's authority, or to even consider a separation and there was no protection against physical abuse.
How does Ilya Repin's Volga Boat Haulers painting reflect the aims and philosophy of the Peredvizhniki (Wanderers) and Narodniki (Populists) movement? Be specific.
Their goal was to work side by side with the peasantry to repay their "debts" to them and to help catch them up with the rest of society by teaching them to read, newer technologies etc. In sketching these boat haulers, Repin came to learn about their lives and discovered that much of their talents were being wasted on boat hauling, simply because they could not afford to live a life without working or hard labor. To him, he saw their bondage as a sign of the Russian people's oppressed creativity. Many people merely saw the painting as a 'fine thing', but Repin meant it to show the contrast between the fortunate wealthy and the peasantry who had not been blessed with such luxuries.
How did the culture of central autocratic rule facilitate the rise of Moscow at the end of the Mongol period? Be specific.
This worked out very well during this time period because all of the princes of Moscow were able to reign for several years uninterrupted, which was crucial to the development and stability of the city. Over a period of 195 years, there were only five kings, which was practically a record in those days. This also proved to be an asset because each king could assert his position and carry out the policies that he desired. Had the Kievan Rus' system been in effect, every five to ten years there would've been a new ruler, and growth would have ranged from inconsistent to nonexistent. Having a single ruler worked for this time period because he was simply able to enact his policies and move the country forward rather than having things get stuck in parliamentary/congress conversations which would've slowed growth tremendously before it had hardly even begun.
In what ways did Leo Tolstoy, the famous author and example of Russian nobility, idealize the Russian peasant? Why did he do this? Be specific.
Tolstoy wanted happiness and justice, but he decided that was only to be found in constant labor and for the good of others. Tolstoy wanted to do this for his serfs, but they were weary of his offer, thinking he might've had bad intentions so they said no. After losing everything in a bad gamble at a card game, Tolstoy gave a lot of his land to the peasants and wanted to give away the privileged existence he led by giving away his wealth. He wanted 'the simple life', but it just didn't work out for him. He hadn't been brought up to farm and understood nothing about raising animals, making butter or ploughing the fields. Tolstoy wanted the best of both worlds- he loved the culture of the elite aristocracy, but he also saw it as shameful and saw labor as a noble pursuit, with simple pleasures to be found in laboring on the land. Much of this obsession was captured in his obsession with Aksinia Bazykina—he saw the spiritual strength and liveliness of her character, and her pride, and strength despite her suffering and considered he the true embodiment of what it meant to be a peasant.
