Catherine II was Russia’s first ruler, who was considered as enlightened

Catherine II was Russias first ruler, who was considered as tiro. As a child increase up in Germany, she was given an enlightened education. She enthusiastic wholey read enlightened literature, and in brief became a adherent of the enlightenment. As Empress she continued to read the works of Locke, Montesquieu, and Voltaire.Although it is widely accepted that Catherine II was an enlightened despot, it has too been argued that she did nonhing more than allow the continuation of policies that had began in the run of beam I Although she claimed to be an enlightened despot, Catherine II did no more than continue the policies of her predecessors. An separate production line as to wherefore Catherine didnt carry out more enlightened reforms was due to her not wanting to make these enlightened reforms the policies that Catherine II adopted were not adopted because of her beliefs, and/or her desire to create an enlightened society, but were instead rentn out to husband her power, and to satisfy her vanity. Historians alike Harris claim that Catherine lone(prenominal) appeared to be enlightened to enhance her written report with the philosophes.This view is also taken by R. Charques, who states that the enlightenment in Catherine was not much deeper than her vanity despotism on the other hand was connotative in her ambition. 1 There has also been the case that Catherine had appreciate the insecurity of going also further and/or too fast. She had experience the downfall of her husband for doing just that. As H. Nickelson puts it No despot was ever more subtly advised that politics is the art of the possible and that everything can be lost if a states mangoes too far, or too fastAnother valid argument is that Catherine became more conservative, and less involuntary to change the laws of Russia, on the lines of the enlightenment, as she got older, and had come to realise the scale of problems which faced Russia. The enthusiasm with which she began h er hulk soon faded as the reality of Russian backwardness and its intolerance to change sank in. Harris sums up this identify she alter with the exercise of power, her ahead of time idealism was abandoned as she learnt to understand the complexities of the Russian situation, and thus her enlightenment was simply skin deepA Key limitation to her enlightening Russia was the role that the grandness played in documentation and maintaining her power. Although the aristocracy were glad to be rid of the insane shaft of light III, Catherine had no claim to the throne. umpteen in Russia believed that she should only be regent for her son Paul, or that the ex Tsar Ivan IV should be re ap charge uped. but with the abide of the grandeur Catherine could retain power for herself. But without the validate of the nobility there was always the danger of the army who had so easily placed her on the throne could just as easily rouse her.With all these limitations on her power Oppenheim a sks would she attempt to put into practice many of her modern ideas about which she had read, or would she continue to govern Russia in the traditional mannor. 4 Since the death of dickhead I, the nobles had slowly begun to increase their powers. Their tyrannical state service, which asshole I had set up, was firstly cut to twenty-five historic period in the reign of Anna, and later in the reign of Peter III it was completely abolished, for that of hereditary peers, thus securing the role of the nobility in Russian society.Immediately after the death of Peter I there was an attempt by some nobles to restrict the power of the crown, via a supreme secret council. Cowie claims, It consisted of six members drawn from the old and the naked as a jaybird nobility. Its powers included complete control of legislation, but it aroused such(prenominal) opposition from the nobility that these had to be restricted. 5 It is clear to see that the nobility then were powerful enough to attemp t to limit the autocracy, which Peter I had established. However their own class opposed them, which left the councils power restricted.The supreme council tried some years later to limit the power of the monarchy. Upon the nomination of Anna as Empress, she was presented with a document that she had to sign in mark to be crowned. This document would necessitate allowed the nobles to have a share in how the state was run. This would have been to wreak her into a constitutional monarch. 6 Cowie also agrees with this statement If put into practice these proposals would have replaced Russian autocracy by an oligarchy. 7 However the document didnt carry the mass support of the nobility.Again the nobility, which had the power to originate a constitution, also had the power to stop its implementation. The constitutional rights they requested in 1730 were more restrictive on the crown than those they had asked for in 1725, which supports the idea that the nobles had increasingly gaine d power after the death of Peter I. In 1730 the undercover Council itself went against the wish of Empress Catherine I (who had nominated her daughter Elizabeth if Peter II should die) and instead choose and crowned Anna Duchess of Courland.not only was central government under more influence from the nobility, but local anaesthetic government too was rapidly falling back into the hands of the nobility. During the reign of Peter II the nobles who ruled on behalf of the boy- tsar, began to take back some powers in local government which Peter I had taken away. As Harris Puts it if Peter II had lived dogged, all of the work Peter the great had done would have been undone. 8 Cowie also argues this point the reign of this boy czar was a triumph for the conservative nobility. After the death of the Empress Elizabeth in 1762, Peter III became Tsar, and Catherine became his Tsarina. During his short reign Peter managed to alienate the Russian nobility in particular the guards and the a rmy. He even off antagonised the church and the senate. Dukes claims, the guards could remedy make an empress or break an emperor. 10 He goes on to aver that Catherine had the support of these valuable guards and could control them through Orlov, her lover at the time, and that she used this power to overthrow her husband Peter III.Madarianga agrees with Dukes statement, she claims that Catherines many friends in the army joined in a plot to dethrone Peter III, and seized power with her full approval and participation11 During the coup of 1762 the support of the nobility ensured the quick and efficacious disposition of Peter III, which according to Oppenheim was virtually bloodless, and an easy victory for Catherine, in which the crown was practically offered to Catherine. Oppenheim the claims that the experiences of a poor ruler like Peter III meant that Catherine could only expect to retain as long as she able to demonstrate that she was an effective ruler.This argument has al so been supported by Lentin as such she remained permanently dependant on the good will of the nobility who could dethrone her as easily as they had raised her up. 13 I too agree with both Lentin and Oppenheim, as Catherines first priority was to sentry duty her own position, because those who had enthroned her could just as easily dispose of her. Harris on the other hand claims that Catherine could rely on the devotion of those who had gotten her in to power, and also on the fact that Russia was accustomed to an autocracy, and therefore would not have had to pertain about appeasing the nobility.I disagree with this claim, although Catherine could rely on the devotion of the conspirators she still had to maintain the support of the rest of the nobility. As Lentin writes It was after all, for antagonising the nobility that her husband and her son each met his death. 14 Catherine had watched the downfall of Peter III, and wasnt going to make his mistakes. On coming to power Catherin e had inherited a nation whose workforce was preponderantly conscripted. The serfs worked for the nobles, and although in theory Catherine was against serfdom, she knew few nobles would support her in any move to put down the serfs.Oppenheim claims that Catherine knew that abolishing or even reducing serfdom would entail enormous social upheaval and violent protests from the nobles and that she lacked the administrative machinery and armed forces to employ such a reform against their wishes. 15 Princess Dashkora also tells of the nobles unwillingness to emancipate the serfs she wrote, a noble would have to be out of his mind to voluntarily surrender the source of his own prosperity. Madarianga disagrees with Oppenheim she says that Catherine is criticised for giving away thousands of free peasants to her favourites and public savants, thus enserfing them.This view is also taken by Harris who claims that the Russian occupation of the Ukraine brought with it the oppressions of state power, taxation, squeeze labour and serfdom17 Lentin takes neither views he instead takes the view that the circumstances prevented Catherine from helping the serfs not the nobles The gulf between noble and serf was had grown too wide for Catherine to bridge it. Faced with such an impasse she could do nothing. 18 I agree with both Harris and Madarianga because Catherine introduced serfdom to parts of her empire where it did not exist, where the nobles would not have pushed for it.On her own estates and lands the condition of the serf also worsened. By the end of her reign over a million people were enserfed by Catherine. Catherine was brought closer to the nobility in 1773-75, during the Pugachev revolt. Lentin states that the revolt do the autocracy and the nobility wield together in a common self defence. 20 Harris also suggests that the Pugachev revolt aligned Catherine with the nobility her autocracy had been shown to rest squarely upon the support of the nobility. Stephen Le e has commented that the Pugachev revolt was an significant stage in her reign, which made her see the extent of Russias problems.This is said to have forced her to abandon ultra social reform, and instead maintain the existing social structure. Oppenheim has also claimed that the Pugachev revolt made Catherine more dependant on the nobility the revolt undoubtedly increased social division and made both Catherine and the nobles aware of their dependence on each other. 21 The Pugachev revolt prompted Catherine to declare that she was an aristocrat, it is my duty, and my profession. The Pugachev revolt showed Catherine that she needed the nobility to maintain peace, stability, law and order.Thus at this point much of her enlightened were abandoned in order to assuage the nobility and to reward them. The Pugachev revolt showed the need for a more efficient local government, as Pugachevs early successes were due to poor local administration. Catherine changed Peter I dodge of gove rnment, which brought the nobility under the central government, to a system which enlisted the co-operation of the nobility in the running of local government. This gave the nobles the authority to govern the provinces in co-operation with central government.Harris sums up this point Central government was recruiting from the nobility they appointed the nobility to be governors and councillors, and the latter ruled the provinces in co-operation with the local nobility. 22 Oppenheim argues that Catherine had not given away any significant power away in the reforms of 1775 since it was still the governor appointed by her who made all the noteworthy decisions at a local level. 23 Treasure sums up Oppenhiems point skilfully Catherine presented the with the semblance of government.She preserved the real power for those she chose the governors. I agree with Treasure that Catherine retained the real power herself, while appearing to appease/ give in to the nobles. The reforms of 1775 bou nd the nobles to the crown closer than ever before. The reforms of 1775 led directly to the mesh of the nobility 1785. Her recognition of the dual-lane interests of Tsar and the nobles was made explicit in the charter of the nobility. 24 The charter established the social pre-eminence of the nobility, and recognised them as a privileged caste with defined rights.Harris claims that by recognising the privileges of the nobility, her own autocracy was left unchallenged, and with the support of the nobility she made Russia the dominant state in Eastern Europe25 Oppenheim takes the viewpoint that to her the charter meant that there was a firm legal basis for the social structure in Russia, instead of the archaic social system of Peter the great. For a ruler intent on giving Russia an enlightened and sensible system of government this was a necessity. 26 Alexander claims that the charter didnt increase the power of the nobility it entirely confirmed in law the power they already had. I agree with Harris that the charter had aligned Catherine with the nobility. whatever threats of a coup by the noble receded. The nobles had received what they wanted, secured privileges and status. Catherine had ensured that she retained all significant power. As Oppenheim puts it The nobles this instant worked as willing junior partners of state, instead of unwilling servants of Peter I. Catherine IIs achievements in her reign were coniderable. However she is much critised for being insincere e. g for not bring about the sweeping reforms that she had advocated at the start of her riegn.Many of her critics question just how sure Catherine really was. Many historians now believe that Catherine wasnt a true disciple of the enlightenment, but instead used the principles of the enlightenment to advance her own popularity, and to satify her own vanity. Lentin supports the idea that Catherine wasnt a material enlightened despot. He goes as far to say that Catherine was a hypocrite, who used enlightened slogans as amask to enclose unenlightened policies27 Harris supports the notion that Catherine was not truly an enlightened despot, but was instead concerned with her reputation with the philosophes and Western Europe.He tells us that Catherine was at great pains to show herself as an apt bookman of the disciples. Oppenhiem also agrees with Harris that her policies contradicted many of her writings. The Nakaz in particular was hypocritical, designed purely to impress the western philosophes. This helps to explain why very few of her ideals which shehad once read about were ever put in to practice. In some cases Catherine actually did the opposite to what the enlightenment proposed. Catherine made Russian society even more unfair.She cemented the privileges of the Russian nobility in law. As Shennen puts it The liberties of the nobles constituted the liberties of a state or class and had significance precisely because other segments of the population, notably s erfs, did not share them28 On the other hand Blackwood suggests that Catherine was a genuine reformer, however the problems that faced Russia prevented her ideas from becoming a reality.James White supports Blackwoods claim, and he writes altogether it is fair to drag Catherine as almost certainly enlightened in her wishes. 29 Andrews sums up both Blackwood and whites argument Catherine was evidently influenced by the ideas of the philosophes but the size of Russia, the political power of the nobles and her own programme of conquest all prevented their being put into practice. I personally agree with the argument that Catherine was genuinely enlightened, and that the reason why she couldnt stop enlightened reform into Russian law was the complexities of the Russian situation.Catherine herself put this predicament well, when she wrote to Diderot With all your great principles which I understand very well, one would make fine books but very bad business. You forget in all your plan s of reform the diference in our positions you only work on paper which endures all things, but I poor Empress, work on the human skin which is irritable and ticklish to a very dissimilar degree. The most important reason why Catherine II could not achieve her enlightened ambitions was her dependence on the nobility. To what extent do you agree with this view?