Another aspect of religious life that widened the gap between the Russian Orthodox Church and the peasantry was the incompetence and corruption of the clergy. The local parish priest had the interesting position of living in close contact with the peasantry. In many ways, the parish priest was a peasant—he was poor and had to live off the land, the only difference was that he gave sermons and could, supposedly read. Despite the closeness of the priests in both physical proximity and way of life to the peasantry, folktales often portrayed them as “greedy, drunken, rowdy, and lusty.” The clergy received “the most profound scorn and infinite disgust.’” This perception of priests did not appear out of myth. The reason that the stereotype …show more content…
Under the influence of the Procurator of the Holy Synod, Pobedonostsev, Aleksandr III and Nikolai II increased the state’s relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. The already close partnership became even more important during the last two decades of the Russian Empire. For the peasantry, this meant that while the Church increased in influence and power, the distance between them and the Orthodox hierarchy and their own parish priests widened even more. The most important impact that Pobedonostsev had on the Russian peasantry was in education. As previously discussed, the Russian Orthodox Church had long been the “educators” of the peasantry, but with the Great Reforms came the Zemstvo schools that were much better at educating the peasantry. In the 1880s, Pobedonostsev reasserted the church’s role of educator and moved many schools from the control of the Ministry of Education to the control of the Holy Synod, greatly increasing the number of Parish schools. This shift of control reasserted the importance of religion in peasant education, and it was an attempt to remove the radical populist teachers who had gone “to the people” in the 1870s. While more peasants were educated because of Pobedonostsev’s shift to parish schools, the education they received was reactionary and subpar in comparison. Vague paternalism and lack of understanding of the peasantry by the Russian Orthodox Church, which, under Pobedonostsev, focused solely on regaining power and prestige, characterized Church-peasant
Through these decrees we see how Russian social class is very stratified and there are more high official roles but more people in poverty. Russia still had to serfs until 1861. Also the state of the Russian economy was probably very limited to do the fact that there was no manufacturing company to provide for the empire. The Russian economy was very isolated and they go to areas where they can trade. With Russia’s subsistence economy, they were not able to specialize in other areas.
As well as having different language, these people had different religions which include: 70% Christian Orthodox; 9% Roman Catholic; 11% Muslim; 4% Jewish. Virtually, the whole population of Russia was situated in the fertile land in the southwest. This meant that population density was very high and cities and towns were overcrowded. However, Russia’s low industrial output was not the only problem for the peasants and factory workers.
She found education as the main source towards the means of success and pursued a people filled with knowledge to progress their nation. Catherine established provincial elementary schools to train the children of the nobility and created teacher colleges to equip state with proper educators. In 1755, the University of Moscow was founded and held a number of European emigrants. Peter I also believed in educating and modernizing his people, so Russia would remain level, if not superior to other countries. He encouraged nobleman to experience Western Europe and learn about technology, economic theory, and political sciences. Peter established military schools and staffed them with foreigners, much like Catherine’s University of Moscow.
After their “peasant economy [had] come to a full collapse and ruin, from which it will not recover in several years”, the peasants started getting furious (Document 5). They became frustrated as their living situation continued to decline rather than improve. Anton Chekhov, a physician, and short story writer, depicted in his short story “Peasants” the life of peasants. He wrote that “they lived in discord, quarreling constantly [...] Who keeps a tavern and makes people drunkards? A peasant.” (Document 7). Peasants were seen by many as the root of the problem and trouble makers. They were blamed for many of the problems in the society. After Nicholas II became Tsar and Russia started to industrialize, the peasants were believed to create more tension. Police Report 4894 to the Ministry of the Interior, claimed that “there has recently emerged a series of peasant disorders in the form of systematic damage to the noble’s fields and meadows” (Document 9). The Nobles were significantly favored over the peasants as the new image of them being the cause of the problems engraved the minds of the public. This was the case until Tsar Nicholas II created the Duma in
While most of Europe had develop strong central governments and weakened the power of the nobles, Russia had lagged behind the times and still had serfs as late as 1861. The economic development that followed the emancipation of peasants in the rest of Europe created strong industrial and tax bases in those nations. Russian monarchs had attempted some level of reforms to address this inequality for almost a century before, and were indeed on their way to “economic maturity” (32) on par with the rest of Europe. But they overextended themselves and the crushing defeats of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the First World War in 1917 lost them the necessary support from their subjects and created “high prices and scarcity” which were by far “the most obvious factors in the general tension”
When the aristocrats had all of the power, they were bloodthirsty. They would "sentence a youth to death" for not kneeling to monks. This was a very bad time and this seems extremely evil. It seems as if the peasants were good, yet when the tables turned they acted the exact same way as the aristocrats. The peasants had "eleven hundred defenseless prisoners killed just because they could."
The main challenge Alexander II faced in his projects towards modernization of Russia was a compromise between advancing his state thorough improving the lives of his subjects, without falling prey to the demand for further reforms he would be unable to satisfy. Westwood, revisiting Russian History in 1981 phrased the problem as follows: “how to advance the education of the state by educating the people, without educating the people to questions the state? ”.
From the Middle ages, the church faced many problems such as the Babylonian Captivity and the Great Schism that hurt the prestige of the church. Most of the clergy lived in great luxury while most people were poor and they set an immoral example. The clergy had low education and many of them didn’t attend their offices. Martin Luther had witnessed this himself, “In 1510 he visited Rome and was shocked to find corruption on high ecclesiastical places”
The Pagan Rus did not have a difficult time identifying and worshiping Orthodox Christianity because Orthodoxy fit their general ethical boundaries. The Rus, however, still had to find ways to make the opposing views of polytheism and monotheism culturally fit. They did this via a practice called double faith. Certain pagan rituals and stories were saved and some pagan rituals and stories were tweaked by locals to fit Christian saints and God. In this way, Russian Orthodoxy arguably adapted more to paganism and traditional folklore than vice-versa. This helped create one of the most unique cultures that permeates Russia to this day.
“Days of a Russian Noblewoman” is a translated memoir originally written by a Russian noblewoman named Anna Labzina. Anna’s memoir gives a unique perspective of the private life and gender roles of noble families in Russia. Anna sees the male and female gender as similar in nature, but not in morality and religiosity. She sees men as fundamentally different in morality and religiosity because of their capability to be freely dogmatic, outspoken, and libertine. Anna implies throughout her memoir that woman in this society have the capacity to shape and control their lives through exuding a modest, submissive, and virtuous behavior in times of torment. Through her marriage, Labzina discovers that her society is highly male centered.
Despite the considerable effort put in by Russian Monarch Peter the Great, Russia remains to this day in many ways separate from modern Europe. This is mainly because of the influence of prominent Slavophiles, who were deeply concerned with the preservation of Russian culture in the aftermath of a time when Peter and the Monarchs who followed after him were concerned with the Westernization of Russia. These Slavophiles came into direct conflict with people known as Westernizers who felt that the best way to improve Russia was through the enlightenment teachings, which were at this time popular among scholars in Western Europe. The differences in the opinions of Westernizers and Slavophiles can be seen through their treatment of Religion and
The period is the early 19th century; those involved and discussed in this essay are for the most part Russian gentry. Increasingly relaxed social mores in the “developed” world, including the greater freedom to choose to whom one gets married to as well as increased women’s sexual rights, were much more uncommon during the time that War and Peace takes place. Tolstoy, an outspoken critic of arranged marriages, uses the characters in his novel as a way of exploring the various types of love, and in general the interactions between men and women of the time. This essay will attempt to focus on these relationships in an effort to get a better idea of Tolstoy’s views on the proper roles that men and women should play as friends, lovers, or spouses. By exploring the male/female relationships among the noble families, a detailed picture of both the expectations and realms of acceptable behavior will be established.
Many bishops and abbots (especially in countries where they were also territorial princes) bore themselves as secular rulers rather than as servants of the Church. Many members of cathedral chapters and other beneficed ecclesiastics were chiefly concerned with their income and how to increase it, especially by uniting several prebends (even episcopal sees) in the hands of one person, who thus enjoyed a larger income and greater power. Luxury prevailed widely among the higher clergy, while the lower clergy were often oppressed. The scientific and ascetic training of the clergy left much to be desired, the moral standard of many being very low, and the practice of celibacy not everywhere observed. Not less serious was the condition of many monasteries of men, and even of women (which were often homes for the unmarried daughte...
Russia culture is very different from any other culture that I have ever read about. This is a country that is dominated by males. Males actually run the county of Russia. The men are so dominated that every Russian women dream is to be married and have a family with these men. Russia is known for its poor society. In the book Sakharov he mentions how he moved from one place to another. He first was in Moscow’s larger apartments with his family. In this apartment there were six families. With thin the six families they had to share the kitchen and the bathroom. Then he states that he moved into a very old house and in this old house there was a leaking ceiling. With in this house there were still six families that shared everything. (Sakharov 24-25)
By insisting on complete orthodoxy is society only hurting itself? I believe when a society demands orthodoxy it is asking for problems. Orthodoxy to a small extent can be helpful to society, but when it is required by the people, and they demand it to the fullest it can do nothing but cause problems. There is many reasons whey complete orthodoxy only hurts society. First off, it greatly diminishes all forms of creativity among the people and doesn’t allow for new ideas that can help benefit society. It also reduces the overall intelligence of the people. When it comes to orthodoxy and religion, it can weaken the quality of worship and the person’s relationship with God. In general, orthodoxy in a way sets limits to progress and development of society and doesn’t allow new ideas to become accepted or acknowledged.