Catherine The Great Impact

During the time of the Enlightenment, western Europe saw an evolution in its society due to the flourish of literary growth, stern reevaluations on the significance of organized religion, and the advancements surrounding science and technology. However, the neighboring country of Russia was wholly detached from these western advancements, remaining underdeveloped and overwhelmingly agricultural (Dmytryshyn 2). Urging Russia to be involved in this culture of mass westernization, Peter the Great, also commonly referred to as Peter I, sought to transform aspects of Russian society—notably the establishment of an educational system—to match the trends of modernization, but the end of his reign left matters unfulfilled (de Madariaga 370). Fortunately,

his efforts were later carried on by future ruler Catherine the Great, otherwise known as Catherine II. Her vision of absolute rule set the foundation that introduced western European ideals and practices to Russia, aiming to uplift her nation and people. This analysis over Catherine the Great’s reign is to understand her efforts in continuing and improving the trend of Russian modernization that was initiated by her predecessor, marking her importance in Russian history. As empress, she accomplished this by: reforming the country’s economic stature through her prolific document titled the Nakaz, expanding on Russia’s accessibility to education, and gaining support from her advisors that would immortalize her legacy despite her criticisms and reforms over the beloved Peter the Great’s rule. These factors distinguish Catherine II as a paramount ruler of Russia in the time of the Enlightenment.

Due to Catherine’s noble birth in Germany, she had been fond of the ideologies and privileges she was often exposed to in her life (Dixon 674). Through her ascension to the throne in Russia, early in her reign, she found Russia’s lacking development evident whenever she would traverse the Russian countryside (Dmytryshyn 3). These excursions led Catherine to reach a better understanding of what her rule needed to accomplish. Over the course of two years, Catherine wrote and refined, with aid from her advisors, the most noteworthy document to come out in her time as empress, the Nakaz. In short, the Nakaz is a political document that embodied Catherine’s ambitions to develop Russia in the direction of westernization (Dmytryshyn 1-2). The challenge lied in properly executing ordinances that were heavily influenced by western European thought due to Russia’s predominately undereducated and impoverished population. Her first major effort to improve the nation’s economy was the establishment of official committees. These committees would handle matters such as the education of the Russian people regarding agricultural and industrial developments, the importance of home management, and the implementation of more effective agricultural and assembly methods (Dmytryshyn 3-4). Furthermore, Catherine encouraged production and efficiency in her empire, citing her belief that negligence and idleness brewed behaviors that counteracted these efforts to better the status of the nation. This production came to fruition due to the economic orders detailed in the Nakaz, showing the impressive understanding of economic upheaval Catherine and her advisors had, starting the development with agriculture to ignite commerce and production among the common people.

The invigorated economic growth aided the prosperity of the nation, but an arguably more taxing job was how the officials would better the development of their citizens. The Nakaz contains upwards of 655 articles, various publications being added over two years to handle matters that were relevant in Russia (Dmytryshyn 1), but there remains a surprising lack of discussion on how education should be handled. There were brief mentions on the type of curriculum that needed to be incorporated, but it failed to elaborate on exactly how the system would be organized (de Madariaga 374-375). Furthermore, the condition of the educational system established by Peter the Great became a challenge to worth it, especially when Catherine disapproved of how Peter established the system (Rasmussen 55-56). The few and far-between schools that existed were run by priests, teaching young boys, regardless if they matched the standards of the monastery, with a system that failed to interest either party; moreover, many of the boys taught in these environments often went on to join the armed forces (de Madariaga 370). So, like her approach with economics, Catherine chose to set up a commission to start working on this matter. Having various perspectives in these committees to represent that was needed out of these changes, this congregation led to the publication of “Betskoy's General Plan for the Education of Young People of Both Sexes,” an ordinance establishing the principles for Russian academics, particularly emphasizing the separation of the youth from the potentially damaging influences brought on by parents and international turmoil (de Madariaga 376). Catherine was not working blindly, however. She is often praised for her work as a writer, providing material that would be performed in St. Petersburg (O’ Malley 34), and her passion for literature “extended to her patronage of the arts and sciences as a whole” (Dixon 676). Once they had found a starting point on what the children would be exposed to in their curriculum, the foundation of schools, such as the founding of St. Catherine’s in November of 1777, allowed education to become more accessible, accommodating to the situations of the common people (de Madariaga 381). For a system that lacked any coherent organization, Catherine’s practice of creating committees to understand the situations and needs of her citizens resulted in a powerful start to an important aspect of Russian society.

With the success of Catherine’s methods on approaching critical matters, as well as the reception of the Nakaz, it is easy to keep Peter the Great in mind when reflecting on the progress of Russia during the Enlightenment. Peter I and his rule initiated the trend for Catherine to build off of, but there is evidence to show the unfulfilling aspects of his rule (de Madariaga 369), and this retrospective gave Catherine insight as to what her role as express needed to accomplish. To Catherine, she found the image of Peter as a farsighted and triumphant ruler persuasive or helpful in some contexts, inadequate or uncomfortable in others” (Rasmussen 51). There is evidence that strongly suggests that Catherine denounced the praise of Peter the Great’s reign, and the best example of this is in Catherine’s handling of the Russian judicial system. Her goal was to adjust how all manners of crime were handled, highlighting the differences between the two styles of justice by restricting the use of crueler punishments in favor of imprisonment and by forming decrees that altered the methods surrounding judicial proceedings and sentences (Rasmussen 61-62). This trend of Catherine openly criticizing Peter is shown in other aspects of Catherine’s rule, even her approach to war: “During the Second Turkish War Catherine reflected as frequently on Peter's way of doing things as she had during the first, still seeking assurances that ‘her way’ was at least as good as his” (Rasmussen 57). This continual comparison between her practices in her rule with Peter’s provides insight on how perpetuating of an image Peter was in Catherine’s role as empress. Her time on the throne was met with various expectations due to her being a female ruler continuing the efforts of a predecessor, predominately differentiated by the methods and attitudes of the two. This comparison strongly suggests that her changes and innovations, while relevant in helping Russia as a country and as a people, were points to justify her rule and ascension to the throne (Rasmussen 67). However, the transformation of Russia’s condition as a nation, going from impoverished to vibrant, is evidence on Catherine’s effect as a ruler, even under the expectations set from Peter the Great’s time as emperor.

The legacy in Catherine the Great is centered around her stance on modernizing Russia to keep the country’s power and culture from diminishing.

In the 34 years of her rule, Catherine accomplished necessary tasks to improve the nation for its prosperity and for the development of her people. However, her place as a female ruler overturning the nation this drastically led to divisiveness regarding her actions while in power. Those who looked up to her were compelled to keep her deserved name alive and well, a mere exchange with the empress said to leave an impression on her subjects (Dixon 649-653). Moreover, the Nakaz not only revised and improved numerous aspects of Russian life and politics, but it was often seen as a symbol of what Catherine’s time on the throne meant—a representation of her autocracy (Dixon 670). On the other hand, the criticisms centering around Catherine’s rule brought up exactly how much she had changed in Russia, and certain reforms, such as the judiciary’s alterations, were a result of acute feminization influencing how the nation would be operated (Dixon 678). Although these praises and criticisms are justifiable, the impact Catherine the Great had on Russia is inarguable. Her application of western thought on a nation that remained isolated from the advancements of its European neighbors set Russia on a path to become one of the great powers of the world. In short, Catherine the Great was the face of Russian modernization, and it is this accomplishment that empowers her reputation long after her time as empress has

passed.