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

Catherine II was Russias first formula, who was considered as learned person. As a child growing up in Germany, she was presumption an tiro education. She enthusiastic alone(a)y read initiate literature, and soon became a disciple of the depth. As Empress she continued to read the works of Locke, Montesquieu, and Voltaire.Although it is widely accepted that Catherine II was an savant despot, it has as well as been argued that she did nonhing much than allow the continuation of policies that had began in the eclipse of beam of light I Although she claimed to be an enlightened despot, Catherine II did no more than than continue the policies of her predecessors. or so other argument as to why Catherine didnt trickle pop out more enlightened reforms was due to her not wanting to throw off these enlightened reforms the policies that Catherine II adopted were not adopted because of her beliefs, and/or her desire to make out an enlightened society, exactly were instead i nterpreted out to maintain her indicant, and to execute her vanity. Historians like Harris claim that Catherine wholly appeared to be enlightened to enhance her story with the philosophes.This view is withal interpreted by R. Charques, who states that the enlightenment in Catherine was not much deeper than her vanity despotism on the other hand was unspoken in her ambition. 1 There has withal been the case that Catherine had recognised the risk of exposure of going as well far and/or too fast. She had experience the neverthelessfall of her husband for doing just that. As H. Nickelson puts it No despot was ever more subtly conscious(predicate) 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 willing 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 fac ed Russia. The enthusiasm with which she began her mold soon faded as the reality of Russian rearwardness and its superstition to change sank in. Harris sums up this level she coarsened with the exercise of antecedent, her early idealism was wantonnessed as she learnt to understand the complexities of the Russian situation, and thus her enlightenment was only genuflect deepA Key limitation to her enlightening Russia was the role that the splendor played in supporting and maintaining her reason. Although the aristocracy were glad to be rid of the insane quill III, Catherine had no claim to the throne. more in Russia recalld that she should only be regent for her son Paul, or that the ex Tsar Ivan IV should be re appointed. However with the support of the splendour Catherine could retain power for herself-importance. just without the support of the magnificence at that place was always the danger of the military who had so substantially placed her on the throne coul d just as easy displace her.With all these limitations on her power Oppenheim asks would she attempt to put into get along some 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 Peter I, the nobles had slowly begun to increase their powers. Their arrogant state service, which Peter I had set up, was firstly cut to cardinal age in the reign of Anna, and later in the reign of Peter III it was expelly abolished, for that of hereditary peers, thus securing the role of the nobility in Russian society.Immediately after(prenominal) the death of Peter I there was an attempt by some nobles to succorrict the power of the crown, via a tyrannical secret council. Cowie claims, It consisted of six members drawn from the old and the new nobility. Its powers included complete control of legislation, but it aro utilize such opposition from the nobility that these had to be restricted. 5 It is clear to see th at the nobility then were powerful plenty to attempt to limit the autarky, which Peter I had established. However their own assort 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 order to be crowned. This document would thrust allowed the nobles to live a share in how the state was run. This would have been to turn her into a constitutional monarch. 6 Cowie too gives 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 initiate a constitution, also had the power to stop its implementation. The constitutional rights they requested in 1730 were more limiting on the crown than those they had asked for in 1725, which supports the idea that the nobles had increasingly gained power after the death of Peter I. In 1730 the Privy Council itself went against the wish of Empress Catherine I (who had nominative her daughter Elizabeth if Peter II should die) and instead choose and crowned Anna Duchess of Courland. non only was central government under more influence from the nobility, but local anaesthetic government too was rapidly falling back into the men of the nobility. During the reign of Peter II the nobles who rulight-emitting diode on behalf of the son- 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 long, all of the work Peter the immense 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 army. He scour antagonised the church and the senate. Dukes claims, the guards could palliate make an empress or break an emperor. 10 He goes on to distinguish 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 detat of 1762 the support of the nobility ensured the quick and efficient disposition of Peter III, which according to Oppenheim was virtually bloodless, and an blowzy 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 also 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 safeguard 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 cuss on the loyalty 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 worry about appeasing the nobility.I disagree with this claim, although Catherine could rely on the devotion of the conspirators she hitherto 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 dip of Peter III, an d wasnt going to make his mistakes. On coming to power Catherine had genetic a nation whose workforce was pre ascendently conscripted. The serfs worked for the nobles, and although in theory Catherine was against serfhood, she knew hardly a(prenominal) nobles would support her in any move to free the serfs.Oppenheim claims that Catherine knew that abolishing or even reducing serfdom would entail enormous accessible upheaval and lashing protests from the nobles and that she lacked the administrative machinery and armed forces to enforce 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 prominent away thousands of free peasants to her favourites and public savants, thus enserfing them.This view is also taken by Harris who cla ims that the Russian occupation of the Ukraine brought with it the oppressions of state power, taxation, forced labour and serfdom17 Lentin takes neither views he instead takes the view that the circumstances prevented Catherine from fortune 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 tidy sum were enserfed by Catherine. Catherine was brought closer to the nobility in 1773-75, during the Pugachev beat back. Lentin states that the repel 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 nobilit y her autocracy had been shown to rest squarely upon the support of the nobility. Stephen Lee 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 radical social reform, and instead maintain the existing social organize. Oppenheim has also claimed that the Pugachev revolt made Catherine more dependent on the nobility the revolt undoubtedly increased social division and made both Catherine and the nobles aware of their addiction 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 gentle the nobility and to reward them. The Pugachev revolt showed the need for a more efficient local government, as Pugachevs earl y successes were due to poor local administration. Catherine changed Peter I agreement of government, which brought the nobility under the central government, to a frame 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 presumptuousness 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 skillfully 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 bound the nobles to the crown closer than ever before. The reforms of 1775 led directly to the aim of the nobility 1785. Her recognition of the shared 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 rational system of government this was a necessity. 26 Alexander claims that the chart er didnt increase the power of the nobility it merely confirmed in law the power they already had.I agree with Harris that the charter had aligned Catherine with the nobility. Any 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 now 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 often 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 genuine 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 genuine enlightened despot. He goes as far to say that Catherine was a hypocrite, who used enlightened slogans as amask to c one timeal unenlightened policies27 Harris supports the notion that Catherine was not actually 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 tending(p) pupil of the disciples. Oppenhiem also agrees with Harris that her policies contradicted many of her writings. The Nakaz in particular was hypocritical, designed stringently 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 serfs, 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. crowd together White supports blackwood trees claim, and he writes altogether it is fair to describe Catherine as nigh 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 hold in enlightened reform into Russian law was the complexities of the Russian situation.Catherine herself put this plight well, when she wrote to Diderot With all your grea t principles which I understand very well, one would make fine books but very bad business. You forget in all your plans 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 different 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?