DOCSLIB.ORG

Catherine the Great and the Development of a Modern Russian Sovereignty, 1762-1796

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Catherine the Great and the Development of a Modern Russian Sovereignty, 1762-1796 Catherine the Great and the Development of a Modern Russian Sovereignty, 1762-1796 By Thomas Lucius Lowish A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Victoria Frede-Montemayor, Chair Professor Jonathan Sheehan Professor Kinch Hoekstra Spring 2021 Abstract Catherine the Great and the Development of a Modern Russian Sovereignty, 1762-1796 by Thomas Lucius Lowish Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Victoria Frede-Montemayor, Chair Historians of Russian monarchy have avoided the concept of sovereignty, choosing instead to describe how monarchs sought power, authority, or legitimacy. This dissertation, which centers on Catherine the Great, the empress of Russia between 1762 and 1796, takes on the concept of sovereignty as the exercise of supreme and untrammeled power, considered legitimate, and shows why sovereignty was itself the major desideratum. Sovereignty expressed parity with Western rulers, but it would allow Russian monarchs to bring order to their vast domain and to meaningfully govern the lives of their multitudinous subjects. This dissertation argues that Catherine the Great was a crucial figure in this process. Perceiving the confusion and disorder in how her predecessors exercised power, she recognized that sovereignty required both strong and consistent procedures as well as substantial collaboration with the broadest possible number of stakeholders. This was a modern conception of sovereignty, designed to regulate the swelling mechanisms of the Russian state. Catherine established her system through careful management of both her own activities and the institutions and servitors that she saw as integral to the system. She used a variety of management strategies that included imposing laws, issuing instructions, and routinizing interactions with administrators. While Catherine’s system, which was noble oriented, had limited purchase in the vast Russian countryside, it established clear expectations about the legitimate exercise of power. After her death, the system would not tolerate lightly any violation of its principles. Catherine’s successors, Alexander I and Nicholas I, largely adhered to these arrangements, allowing the Russian monarchy to remain a robust and viable form of government in the first half of the nineteenth century. 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii Introduction 2 1. Peter III: The Overthrow of a Russian Despot 15 2. The Empress’ ‘Nakaz’: An Instruction in Sovereignty 36 3. Sovereignty and the Art of Command-Giving 52 4. The Empress’ Body: The Routines and Geography of Power 74 5. Emel’ian Pugachev and the Limits of the Empress’ Sovereignty 90 Conclusion 111 Bibliography 115 i Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been completed without the help and encouragement of a great many people. Mabel Lee, Erin Leigh Imana, and Todd Kuebler were pillars of support in the history department, guiding me through the graduate program and finding department funding for archival work in Russia. This research would have been challenging without Igor Alexandrov, who gave me a place to live and restored my spirits after many a dismal day in the archives with his wisdom and good humor. In Berkeley, Liladhar Pendse helped me find electronic manuscripts of Russian books and dissertations, and Zachary Kelly and Jeffrey Pennington of Berkeley ISEEES provided me with a place to read and write on campus. I also owe a debt to many people who took time out of their day to read and comment on my work directly. These include Edward Walker, Daniel Lee, Thomas Dandelet, Yuri Slezkine, Shannon Stimson, and the participants of the Desert Russian History Workshop. I also thank the members of the Berkeley Russian History Kruzhok for their years of friendship, comradery, and pizza, but also their decisive comments on an early draft of chapter 3. Amongst the many individuals that have helped me, I want to single out three who have most greatly influenced my graduate studies and this dissertation. Jonathan Sheehan, whose class in the first semester of graduate school drew me to the history of the Enlightenment, carefully read and commented on all the chapters of this dissertation when they were at an early stage. He constantly posed hard questions and made numerous suggestions about the work’s organization and what its central emphasis might be. I also thank Kinch Hoeskstra, who taught me the importance of careful textual analysis and of how to think better about the tricky concept of sovereignty. I thank him for taking me on as one of his students and for always making time for me, despite being in another department. My greatest debt is to Victoria Frede-Montemayor. From the first day of my graduate studies, she spared no effort in making me a better historian, always holding me to the highest standards, while encouraging me at every turn. She was a constant guiding light in the writing of this dissertation, providing detailed comments and criticisms, and helping me see not only the overall story, but also why what I was doing was important. I am incredibly fortunate to have had such a person as a mentor for such a substantial period of my life. To her I have deep and ever-lasting gratitude. Lastly, I mention my friends. Natasha, who helped me find my feet in Moscow all that time ago, and who taught me the Russian language through our long conversations. I miss those days. And Danny, Jon, and Agnieszka in Berkeley. We came. We read. We forgot. But became wiser. There are none finer to have spent these wonderful years with. All that is good in the pages that follow, I attribute to help of these people. All its shortcomings, weaknesses, misjudgments, and errors are entirely my own. Berkeley, CA April 2021 ii Я предоставляю много власти людям, употребляемым от меня на службу. // I bestow much power on those who are employed in my service. - Catherine the Great, from Zapiski Gribovskogo 1 Introduction In 1762 the thirty-three-year-old empress consort of Russia, Catherine Alekseevna, overthrew her husband, the emperor, Peter III, after a reign of merely six months. At first, many supposed that she would act as regent for their son, Paul; yet, she quickly consolidated power for herself, ruling for thirty-four years until 1796, making her one of the longest-reigning rulers in Russian history. Catherine II, or “Catherine the Great” as she has come to be better known by posterity, aspired to be an enlightened ruler. Historians have rightly credited her with undertaking a number of reforms that modernized central and provincial government, encouraged the growth of towns and enterprise, and furthered education. The major, albeit unsuccessful, codification effort of the country’s laws has also garnered substantial attention.1 From the outset, however, Catherine’s principal project—the only one she spoke of at length in her ascension literature—was to bring order to the exercise of political power in Russia. Catherine justified her overthrow of Peter III by invoking his incorrect understanding of and inability to wield sovereign power. In some basic sense, all monarchs aspire to sovereignty - the exercise of supreme and untrammeled power, and the recognition of their claims as legitimate.2 Although Catherine and Peter shared this rudimentary conception, she believed that Peter had an incorrect understanding of what legitimate, untrammeled power meant, making him the opposite of a sovereign monarch: a despot. Seizing the throne for herself, she promised to rectify Peter’s errors, which, in her mind, undermined Russia’s military and political prestige. She was not alone in this judgment: those high-ranking Russian statesmen who organized the coup that 1 The books on Catherine’s reign are numerous. In the Anglophone literature the definitive general study continues to be Isabel de Madariaga’s Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), followed by John T. Alexander, Catherine the Great: Life and Legend (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) and Simon Dixon, Catherine the Great (New York: HarperCollins, 2009). In the post-Soviet Russian historiography, see Aleksandr Kamenskii, “Pod sen’iu Ekateriny…”: vtoraia polovina 18v (St. Petersburg: Lenizdat, 1992) and Ol’ga I. Eliseeva, Ekaterina velikaia (Moscow, 2013). 2 This definition of sovereignty builds on standard basic definitions of the concept. For example: “The term sovereignty originally and for a long time expressed the idea that there is a final and absolute authority in the political community,” F. H. Hinsley, Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 1. And more recently: “Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory,” Daniel Philpott, “Sovereignty,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/sovereignty/. I add the term ‘untrammeled’ to the more common adjective ‘supreme.’ ‘Supreme’ conveys the idea that there was no power superior to that of the monarch, but that idea was no point of contention or concern in eighteenth-century Russia. ‘Untrammeled,’ in contrast, conveys the notion of power that meets neither restriction nor resistance, and this better captures debates around legitimacy that were important to Catherine. Sovereignty is often defined in terms of ‘authority’ in order to underline legitimacy as a core component. However, I maintain that ‘power,’ understood simply as the capacity to act (above all, to carry out political acts), works better. ‘Power’ helps highlight the fact that not every monarchical decision or action was deemed legitimate. Peter III, for example, exercised power, but in a way that even senior advisors perceived as illegitimate. Eventually, the perception that his actions were illegitimate resulted in a loss of the (untrammeled) powers he claimed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • St. Petersburg Case Study
    250 i\R(HITE<TLIKE: MATERIAL AND IMAGINED Re-forming Architecture and Planning through Urban Design: St. Petersburg Case Study MATTHEW J. BELL University of Maryland INTRODUCTION the city. The program was also designed to appeal to upper- level graduate architecture and planning students and to Political changes in the former Soviet Union have had a sornehow synthesize the traditional concerns of each of those concurrent effect upon the physical landscape of the cities of disciplines: the physical fonn of the city in the case of the that country. Some cities have seen the invasion, for lack of architects; and the problems and in a sense 'fonn' of the city a better way to describe conditions, of capitalism and the from a social and econolnic view in the case of the planning subsequent frenzy of speculative building activity in the st~dents.~ fonn of new office buildings and the explosion of retail centers. Most of this building activity has been confined to HISTORY OF THE SITE Moscow which, because of differences in regional laws and statutes, has been the most aggressive place in seeking new St. Petersburg was founded on the banks of the Neva River development. by Peter the Great in 1703 on one of the most unlikely of In contrast to the exploding development scene in Mos- places, a low lying, swampy area, many miles north of the cow, the czarist capital of St. Petersburg has seen relatively centers of Russian population. Peter established the city in little new construction and a dearth of almost any building order to counter the claims of the Swedish crown to the Gulf activity in its central district.
    [Show full text]
  • From%20Irina%20Reyman%2C%20Ritualized%20Violence
    PHYSICAL INVIOLABILITY AND THE DUEL pUNCH OR STAB: THE RUSSIAN DUELIST’S DILEMMA The Russian duel was a surprisingly and consistently violent affair. I do not imply that Russian duels were more deadly than those in the West (the fatality rate in Russia never approached that in France in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries or in Germany at the end of the nineteenth century).1 I mean rather that conflicts over honor were frequently resolved in unregu lated spontaneous physical confrontations rather than in formal en- counters . Furthermore, those confrontations differed from rencontres in that they involved direct physical contact—hand-to-hand fighting or the use of weapons unrecognized by the dueling ritual, such as walking sticks or whips. The use of standard dueling weapons— swords or pistols—appears to have been optional. In other words, from the introduction of the duel in Russia to its demise, a conflict over honor was as likely (and at times more likely) to result in an im mediate and violent hand-to-hand fight as in a formal duel of honor. This happened so frequently that physical force seems to have been an accepted alternative to the duel. In fact, it would be possible to write (—S A Brief History of Dueling in Russia 97 98 a variant history of dueling in Russia featuring fistfights, slaps in the Everyone present—nobles face, and battering with walking sticks. and commoners, officers and enlisted men, Historians of the Russian women too—had at each other. Klimovich’s wife was beaten with a duel have consistently ignored or dis missed this ugly and violent club and her mother threatened.4 Grinshtein seems to have won this alternative behavior as aberrant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Minor an Eigliteentli-Centuryfarce By
    The VO Russian and East European Studies Center is proud to present The Minor an eigliteentli-centuryfarce by Denis Fonvizin HedopoCJlb ,[I;eHHca <POHBH3HHa :9Liapteaby Ju[ia Nimirovs~aya 'With Songs by'Yu[ii 1(jm fJ)irector~ 9{ptes Russia in the 18th century was known as a "woman's kingdom." During the course of almost 70 years there was a woman on the throne. Longer than any other ruled the most powerful, the most clever and educated of them all-Catherine the Great. Many Western philosophers, such as Voltaire and Diderot, considered her a truly enlightened monarch. Denis Fonvizin was the secretary of her personal enemy, Count Panin. Fonviziil wrote his most famous comedy The Minor in 1782; it is one of the 10 most famous Russian plays in the canon and one of the most frequently produced. Contemporaries read it as a criticism of female dominance and a satire on Catherine's reign, with the message that a strong woman is worse than a tyrannical man. The play's other goal was to show the audience that education improves people morally, while ignorance allows them to degrade and become mere beasts (thus the pig-loving Skotinin). In this comedy, all the educated people are kind and good, and all the uneducated people behave like animals. Of course, according to the laws of classical comedy, light and goodness con~er darkness and malice. It was not always this way in the 18t century-goodness did not always win. But we remember this century as a time of brilliant individualities, when strong personalities, eccentrics, and other talented people made their mark.
    [Show full text]
  • Olympic Flame in St. Petersburg Monday, 21 October 2013 19:35
    Olympic Flame in St. Petersburg Monday, 21 October 2013 19:35 {joomplu:2610 left} Olympic Flame in St. Petersburg The Olympic flame will visit 125 cities in Russia, 14,000 athletes and 30,000 volunteers will take part in the relay. The torch will travel 65,000 kilometers, and will visit Lake Baikal under the night sky. The Olympic torch journey will end at the opening of the Winter Olympics in Sochi on February 7th, 2014 at the Fisht stadium. In the end of October, St. Petersburg will welcome the Olympic flame. We will explain to you the details and route the flame will take in St. Petersburg, so you can have the unique experience of seeing it in person. The Olympic flame will visit several areas of the city and will begin its journey from Victory Square (Ploshad Pobedy) and finish at Palace Square . In total, the city government will spend more than 36 million rubles for this celebration. Petersburg will be 33rd city which will hold the Olympic torch relay. The flame is a symbol of the Olympics and, will arrive in the northern capital on October 26th after a visit to Gatchina. St. Petersburg will turn into a big sport and music festival. The relay will start on Moskovsky Prospect to the Fontanka River. Next, the Olympic flame will go along the following path: Goroxovaya - Malaya Morskaya - St. Isaac's Square. Then go to Dekabristov – English embankment (Angliyskaya naberezhnaya) – Blagoveshensky Bridge- Lieutenant Schmidt Embankment - 18 and 19 line of Vasileostrovksaya – Bolshoi Prospect. 6th and 7th lines of Vasileostrovskaya - University Embankment – Strelka on Vasileostrovskaya - 1 / 3 Olympic Flame in St.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter the Great and His Changing Identity Emily Frances Pagrabs Wofford College
    Wofford College Digital Commons @ Wofford Student Scholarship 5-2016 Peter the Great and His Changing Identity Emily Frances Pagrabs Wofford College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wofford.edu/studentpubs Part of the European History Commons, and the Slavic Languages and Societies Commons Recommended Citation Pagrabs, Emily Frances, "Peter the Great and His Changing Identity" (2016). Student Scholarship. Paper 17. http://digitalcommons.wofford.edu/studentpubs/17 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Wofford. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Wofford. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Peter the Great and His Changing Identity Senior History Honors Thesis May 11, 2016 Emiley Pagrabs Pagrabs 1 Introduction Well aware of the perception that foreigners held of him, Peter the Great would never apologize for his nationality or his country. A product of his upbringing, Peter did have some qualities that many foreigners criticized as barbaric and harsh. Said Peter: They say that I am cruel; that is what foreigners think of me, but who are they to judge? They do not know what the situation was at the beginning of my reign, and how many were opposed to my plans, and brought about the failure of projects which would have been of great benefit to my country obliging me to arm myself with great severity; but I have never been cruel…I have always asked for the cooperation of those of my subjects in whom I have perceived intelligence and patriotism, and who, agreeing with my views, were ready to support them.1 Essentially, Peter I was simply a Russian.
    [Show full text]
  • February, 2010 Kevin J. Mckenna EDUCATION
    February, 2010 Kevin J. McKenna EDUCATION: Ph.D. Degree 1977, University of Colorado: Slavic Languages and Literatures M.A. Degree 1971, University of Colorado: Russian Literature B.A. Degree 1970, Oklahoma State University (OSU): Humanities NDEA Intensive Slavic Language Institutes at the University of Kansas and Leningrad State University, 1968, 1969, 1970 Dissertation Title: Catherine the Great's ‘Vsiakaia Vsiachina’ and The ‘Spectator’ Tradition of the Satirical Journal of Morals and Manners RESEARCH GRANTS, FELLOWSHIPS, AWARDS: Consultant and collaborator to U.S. Department of Education/Department of State grant to develop a nationwide portfolio project for High School through College Critical Foreign Language Programs in Arabic, Chinese and Russian (2009-2013) Consultant and collaborator to U.S. Department of Education Title VI National Resource Center grant proposal to promote and strengthen international studies-based curricula in higher education (PI Professor Ned McMahon) Recipient of the Robert V. Daniels Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of International Studies, May 7, 2009 Nominee for Kroepsch-Maurice Outstanding Teacher Award, 2009/2010 U.S. State Department grant ($350,000.00) “Karelia/Vermont Sustainable Development Partnership, 2007-2010.” Co-Principal Investigator with Prof. Pat Stokowski. Named as UVM Woodrow Wilson Fellow for "Scholars as Teachers," 2000-2001 Named as UVM Service-Learning Faculty Fellow, 2000-2001 2 RESEARCH GRANTS, FELLOWSHIPS, AWARDS: (continued) Principal Investigator for Department
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Museums Visit More Than 80 Million Visitors, 1/3 of Who Are Visitors Under 18
    Moscow 4 There are more than 3000 museums (and about 72 000 museum workers) in Russian Moscow region 92 Federation, not including school and company museums. Every year Russian museums visit more than 80 million visitors, 1/3 of who are visitors under 18 There are about 650 individual and institutional members in ICOM Russia. During two last St. Petersburg 117 years ICOM Russia membership was rapidly increasing more than 20% (or about 100 new members) a year Northwestern region 160 You will find the information aboutICOM Russia members in this book. All members (individual and institutional) are divided in two big groups – Museums which are institutional members of ICOM or are represented by individual members and Organizations. All the museums in this book are distributed by regional principle. Organizations are structured in profile groups Central region 192 Volga river region 224 Many thanks to all the museums who offered their help and assistance in the making of this collection South of Russia 258 Special thanks to Urals 270 Museum creation and consulting Culture heritage security in Russia with 3M(tm)Novec(tm)1230 Siberia and Far East 284 © ICOM Russia, 2012 Organizations 322 © K. Novokhatko, A. Gnedovsky, N. Kazantseva, O. Guzewska – compiling, translation, editing, 2012 [email protected] www.icom.org.ru © Leo Tolstoy museum-estate “Yasnaya Polyana”, design, 2012 Moscow MOSCOW A. N. SCRiAbiN MEMORiAl Capital of Russia. Major political, economic, cultural, scientific, religious, financial, educational, and transportation center of Russia and the continent MUSEUM Highlights: First reference to Moscow dates from 1147 when Moscow was already a pretty big town.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Lands of the Romanovs: an Annotated Bibliography of First-Hand English-Language Accounts of the Russian Empire
    ANTHONY CROSS In the Lands of the Romanovs An Annotated Bibliography of First-hand English-language Accounts of The Russian Empire (1613-1917) OpenBook Publishers To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions Go to: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/268 Open Book Publishers is a non-profit independent initiative. We rely on sales and donations to continue publishing high-quality academic works. In the Lands of the Romanovs An Annotated Bibliography of First-hand English-language Accounts of the Russian Empire (1613-1917) Anthony Cross http://www.openbookpublishers.com © 2014 Anthony Cross The text of this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to adapt it and to make commercial use of it providing that attribution is made to the author (but not in any way that suggests that he endorses you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information: Cross, Anthony, In the Land of the Romanovs: An Annotated Bibliography of First-hand English-language Accounts of the Russian Empire (1613-1917), Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/ OBP.0042 Please see the list of illustrations for attribution relating to individual images. Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omissions or errors will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher. As for the rights of the images from Wikimedia Commons, please refer to the Wikimedia website (for each image, the link to the relevant page can be found in the list of illustrations).
    [Show full text]
  • The Education of Alexander and Nicholas Pavlovich Romanov The
    Agata Strzelczyk DOI: 10.14746/bhw.2017.36.8 Department of History Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań The education of Alexander and Nicholas Pavlovich Romanov Abstract This article concerns two very different ways and methods of upbringing of two Russian tsars – Alexander the First and Nicholas the First. Although they were brothers, one was born nearly twen- ty years before the second and that influenced their future. Alexander, born in 1777 was the first son of the successor to the throne and was raised from the beginning as the future ruler. The person who shaped his education the most was his grandmother, empress Catherine the Second. She appoint- ed the Swiss philosopher La Harpe as his teacher and wanted Alexander to become the enlightened monarch. Nicholas, on the other hand, was never meant to rule and was never prepared for it. He was born is 1796 as the ninth child and third son and by the will of his parents, Tsar Paul I and Tsarina Maria Fyodorovna he received education more suitable for a soldier than a tsar, but he eventually as- cended to the throne after Alexander died. One may ask how these differences influenced them and how they shaped their personalities as people and as rulers. Keywords: Romanov Children, Alexander I and Nicholas I, education, upbringing The education of Alexander and Nicholas Pavlovich Romanov Among the ten children of Tsar Paul I and Tsarina Maria Feodorovna, two sons – the oldest Alexander and Nicholas, the second youngest son – took the Russian throne. These two brothers and two rulers differed in many respects, from their characters, through poli- tics, views on Russia’s place in Europe, to circumstances surrounding their reign.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact and Presence of the Writings of Laurence Sterne In
    The Impact and Presence of the Writings o f Laurence Sterne in Eighteenth-Century Russia © Maria Lobytsyna A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Letters Department of English University of Glasgow Department of Slavonic Languages and Literatures 2001 ProQuest Number: 13819011 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 13819011 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 GLASGOW 1 UNIVERSITY (LIBRARY: ooPM 'i 2 Abstract The works of Laurence Sterne have made a significant and long-lasting contribution to the literary and cultural life of Russia. The early translations of the Letters from Yorick and Eliza and A Sentimental Journey as well as the critical discussions in the Russian media of the 1770s-1790s brought Russia into the mainstream of eighteenth century politics of Sensibility. The eighteenth-century Russian translations of Sterne’s Letters from Yorick to Eliza by Apukhtin (1789), Kolmakov (1793) and Karin (1795) and the first translation of A Sentimental Journey by Kolmakov (1793) reinforced the contemporary approach to questions of self­ development and morality, having anticipated the interpretation of literature as the enlightenment of the heart.
    [Show full text]
  • BETWEEN PHILOSOPHIES: the EMERGENCE of a NEW INTELLECTUAL PARADIGM in RUSSIA by Alyssa J. Deblasio Bachelor of Arts, Villanova
    BETWEEN PHILOSOPHIES: THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW INTELLECTUAL PARADIGM IN RUSSIA by Alyssa J. DeBlasio Bachelor of Arts, Villanova University, 2003 Master of Arts, University of Pittsburgh, 2006 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2010 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH School of Arts and Sciences This dissertation was presented by Alyssa J. DeBlasio It was defended on May 14, 2010 and approved by Tatiana Artemyeva, Professor, Herzen State Pedagogical University (St. Petersburg, Russia), Department of Theory and History of Culture Vladimir Padunov, Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures James P. Scanlan, Emeritus Professor, The Ohio State University, Department of Philosophy Dissertation Advisor: Nancy Condee, Associate Professor, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures ii Copyright © by Alyssa J. DeBlasio 2010 iii BETWEEN PHILOSOPHIES: THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW INTELLECTUAL PARADIGM IN RUSSIA Alyssa J. DeBlasio, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2010 This dissertation takes as its primary task the evaluation of a conflict of paradigms in Russian philosophical thought in the past decade. If until the early nineties Russian philosophers were often guilty of uncritically attributing to their domestic philosophy a set of characteristics that fell along the lines of a religious/secular binary (e.g. literary vs. analytic; continuous vs. ruptured), in recent years the same scholarship is moving away from the nineteenth-century model of philosophy as a “path” or “special mission,” as it has been called by Konstantin Aksakov, Aleksei Khomiakov, Ivan Kireevskii, and later, Nikolai Berdiaev, among others.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tsars' CABINET
    The Tsars’ Cabinet: Two Hundred Years of Russian Decorative Arts under the Romanovs The Tsars’ Cabinet: Two Hundred Years of Russian Decorative Arts under the Romanovs Education Packet Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………..2 Glossary……………………………………………...........5 Services…………………………………………………….7 The Romanov Dynasty.……………………………..............9 Meet the Romanovs……….……………………………….10 Speakers List...…………………………………..………...14 Bibliography……………………………………………….15 Videography……………………………………………….19 Children’s Activity…………………………………………20 The Tsars’ Cabinet: Two Hundred Years of Russian Decorative Arts under the Romanovs is developed from the Kathleen Durdin Collection and is organized by the Muscarelle Museum of Art at the College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, in collaboration with International Arts & Artists, Washington, DC. The Tsars’ Cabinet This exhibition illustrates more than two hundred years of Russian decorative arts: from the time of Peter the Great in the early eighteenth century to that of Nicolas II in the early twentieth century. Porcelain, glass, enamel, silver gilt and other alluring materials make this extensive exhibition dazzle and the objects exhibited provide a rare, intimate glimpse into the everyday lives of the tsars. The collection brings together a political and social timeline tied to an understanding of Russian culture. The Tsars’ Cabinet will transport you to a majestic era of progressive politics and dynamic social change. The Introduction of Porcelain to Russia During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, Europe had a passion for porcelain. It was not until 1709 that Johann Friedrich Böttger, sponsored by Augustus II (known as Augustus the Strong) was able to reproduce porcelain at Meissen, Germany. After Augustus II began manufacturing porcelain at the Meissen factory, other European monarchs attempted to establish their own porcelain factories.
    [Show full text]