Petersburg in the square in 1825. The Tsar put down the protest, which took place in December, and for which the group was later labeled The Decembrists. And this teaching was men's salvation only until it became organized in the Church and took the principle of Orthodoxy for its foundation. The Church, on the other hand, was a hierarchy, consequently a champion of inequality, a flatterer of authority, an enemy and persecutor of brotherhood among men -- and so it has remained to this day. But the meaning of Christ's message has been revealed by the philosophical movement of the preceding century. And that is why a man like Voltaire who stamped out the fires of fanaticism and ignorance in Europe by ridicule, is, of course, more the son of Christ, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, than all your priests, bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs -- Eastern or Western. (Belinsky 3)
The uprising failed to unseat the Tsar -- that would not happen for another century -- but it cemented the new ideological undercurrent that would eventually overwhelm Russian society from top to bottom. Essentially, all of this was the result of Peter the Great's challenge to the Russian classes to make Russian a Great Power. From Chaadayav to Kakhovsky, the plea for insurgency was soon ringing out. Peter the Great may have had great social ambitions -- but they were at the expense of the nation's religious orthodoxy which was essentially, as Gogol and Dostoevsky would say, the only restraint truly holding Russia's passionate populace together.
Peter the Great must not receive the entirety of the blame, of course, for Russia's spiral toward twentieth century Stalinism. His ambitions were great and genuine: he restored the nation's military to prominence; he brought prestige and honor to the country; he gave them a hero that appeared to be incorrupt. But the worm at the heart of Peter's challenge was that it was rooted in a new doctrine -- the same new doctrine that Belinsky would recite in his letter to Gogol -- only here it would be recited more loudly and more forcefully and more explicitly than in Peter's time.
The new doctrine was based on French liberalism, but, typically, Christ was used as its messenger -- not Rousseau, who actually spun the narrative. A portion of Belinsky's letter is worth quoting in full, for it gets to the heart of what was to lead to Russia's loss of identity: it was rooted in a new interpretation of the Christian ethos -- the doctrine of the saints was replaced by the doctrine of Voltaire, as Belinsky himself states. On the contrary, Belinsky belittles Gogol for wishing to cling to the ancient sense of morality and the wisdom of the Dark Ages:
Proponent of the knout, apostle of ignorance, champion of obscurantism and Stygian darkness, panegyrist of Tartar morals -- what are you about! Look beneath your feet -- you are standing on the brink of an abyss!... That you base such teaching on the Orthodox Church I can understand: it has always served as the prop of the knout and the servant of despotism; but why have you mixed Christ up in it? What have you found in common between Him and any ...
Belinsky hits upon the very heart of the matter upon which Russia was severed: Peter's challenge essentially allowed such a redefining of the Christian ethos to be possible. Russia's writers like Gogol and Dostoevsky attempted to draw attention to the fact. Others, like Tolstoy, were more on the side of liberalization -- despite an attachment to the old world that was disappearing. Such was the extent of the societal confusion that Peter's challenge effected: the old rules and lines of delineation were gone. All that represented the past (Church, hierarchy, orthodoxy doctrine, patriarchy, authority, morality, and true Christianity) was replaced with individualism, "equality," "liberty," "fraternity," liberalism, modern philosophy, a re-interpretation of Christ's Redemption, and idealism.
In conclusion, Russia from the time of Peter the Great to Nicholas I saw a fundamental transformation in its societal ethos that, in the long view, would end in Russian Stalinism. However, from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, the transformation effected both military reform and discipline and prominence (which gave the nation a sense of order and greatness), and radicalism which called for emancipation from that same order and discipline all the way across the board. Such were the good and bad effects of Peter's challenge to Russia: on the one hand, it gave Russia a sense of pride; on the…
And this teaching was men's salvation only until it became organized in the Church and took the principle of Orthodoxy for its foundation. The Church, on the other hand, was a hierarchy, consequently a champion of inequality, a flatterer of authority, an enemy and persecutor of brotherhood among men -- and so it has remained to this day. But the meaning of Christ's message has been revealed by the philosophical movement of the preceding century. And that is why a man like Voltaire who stamped out the fires of fanaticism and ignorance in Europe by ridicule, is, of course, more the son of Christ, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, than all your priests, bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs -- Eastern or Western. (Belinsky 3)
Japanese, Chinese and Russian empires from 1500-1800. We will look briefly at the kind of structures/bureaucratic arrangements that used to keep order and control and to manage their populations . We also will compare and contrast these empires and see that the major thing that paved the way for the eclipse of China and Japan by 1800 was an inward focus while Russia's westward glance gave it the ability
Russian History As the president of the Russian Federation, I am faced with the challenge of building a strong, vibrant nation from the ashes of our Communist past. Our nation today struggles economically, politically, and socially. We must rebuild the stability and power of the Russian Federation through creating a strong economy, social climate, and political structure. I seek a path for Russia that is truly Russian, and based on the
Certainly, the most powerful demonstration of his approach to protection of his authority and the state against political dissent would come in the form of his uncompromising treatment of rebellion. The enormity and ethnic variations defining the Russian empire would subject it inherently to acts of rebellion, regional conflicts and various small but organized efforts at undermining the authority of the tsars. Peter took an extremely decisive approach to these
Russia and the Mongol yoke: How bad was it? The Mongol invasion forever changed the culture of Russia. It brought to an end the period known as the 'Kievan Rus' as the Mongols took control and "captured, sacked, and destroyed Kiev, the symbolic center of Kievan Russia."[footnoteRef:1] The Mongol invasion certainly changed Russia irrevocably: it is not simply that some of the measures of the Mongols were oppressive in nature, but
.. Bolshevik ideology and political culture... rejected liberal parliamentary forms, a "free market of ideas," and capitalism. That state depended on the dedication, idealism, and sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Bolshevik cadres and Red Army soldiers, who entered the fray with enormous confidence in history's outcome and a conviction that they had a moral right to use force and terror against their opponents in order to build a socialist
Author Hughes notes, "More recently M.S. Anderson described the fleet as 'a gigantic, complex and expensive toy built and operated for [Peter's] personal gratification'" ("A Hero of Our Time" 42). In addition, Peter's reign changed Russia from a relatively minor power to a larger, world power, but it also changed the lives of the Russian people in numerous ways. The previous Muscovite era imposed few burdens on Russians other