Catherine’s views for Russia certainly lacked continuity. Particularly troubling was her establishment of the necessity of an absolute monarchy (Dmytryshyn, p. 80), and the exclusion serfs from her Legislative Commission (Madariaga, p. 35). The latter is especially confusing, given her apparent sympathy for serfs and her inclinations towards the eventual abolishment of serfdom. Madariaga notes that although the sections of the draft were redacted, Catherine advocated for the idea that “…serfs should be allowed to accumulate sufficient property to buy their freedom and that servitude should be limited to six years” (Madariaga, p. 31). However, despite her humanitarian tendencies, Catherine was ultimately paternalistic. I’m wondering, in what ways was Catherine’s rule a continuation of Peter the Great’s policies? Obviously they both were “looking West” and didn’t care much for tradition, but how else did Catherine uphold Peter’s vision for Russia? In what ways did she digress?
Another thought I had concerns Catherine’s views on torture. In the Instruction, it is stated that “In such Extremity [torture], even the innocent Person will roar out that he is guilty, only to gain Respite from his Tortures” (Dmytryshyn, p. 85). This is actually a pretty forward-thinking observation for her time. To me, it indicates that although her laws are ultimately arbitrary, their purpose is to advocate for justice, rather than to intimidate Russians into subservience. Additionally, Catherine seemed to have a genuine concern for widespread access to knowledge amongst the Russian populace, that extends beyond the construction of a Western image – for example, her revival of the law and her desire for everyone to understand the law. I feel like Catherine’s interest in political philosophers like Montesquieu influenced her in more ways than just pseudo-democratization. In a way, she seems to be humanizing the Russian populace in a pretty revolutionary (hah) way.
I would say that Catherine cared a lot more about tradition than Peter did. For example, unlike Peter, she seemed to put the Church (slightly) above the ruler – religion is the first thing mentioned in the Nakaz. I think Catherine’s combination of humanitarian and paternalistic (to us) views was very common in the 18th century, particularly among the ruling classes; for example, most abolitionists of slavery in America did not think blacks and whites were equal, and many wanted to send them “back” to Africa. Like Peter, Catherine knew that too much change too quickly would be damaging.
Catherine’s legal system indeed seems to be based on intimidation, but the fear of shame rather than of torture. Ideally, of course, one would love the state and want to serve it, but she feels that a “slap on the wrist” type of punishment would be enough of a deterrent as long as it carries sufficient stigma (rule 88 in the Nakaz). I was also a bit confused about her views on torture – is she saying it should be used in certain cases, and is her objection to it based on pragmatism or principle?
I think that despite her apparent sympathy for serfs, the issue of serfdom came into conflict with her desire for modernization (and/or Europeanization). While Madariaga notes that in the Instruction “Catherine states that a ruler should avoid reducing people to a state of slavery” (Madariaga, 31), she was also aware that serfs were essential to military conscription and, more importantly, that the labor of serfs was essential to the economy. As is stated in the Instruction: “agriculture is the first and principle Labour” (rule 313 in the Nakaz).
It might also be noted that the apparent exclusion of serfdom in the Instruction may have been the responsibility of Catherine’s advisors. Her “unpublished drafts” were more sympathetic of serfs than the final published version, which Madariaga is careful to note “had been shown to several of Catherine’s advisers” (Madariaga, 31). This is not to say that Catherine was ‘liberal’ (Madariaga is very clear on this on page 37), but that her power was possibly more limited than we might imagine.