Heiress of the Russian Empire Anna Ivanovna 1730-1740

After the death of its creator, Peter I, Russia owes the continuation of the task of building the empire to four women – Catherine I, Ann, Elizabeth and Catherine II. The above four women had played an important role in the development of the autocratic system in the Russian state. The power of a Tsarist autocratic ruler was the foundation of his political position at least until the middle of the 19th c. The effectiveness in the execution of the rulers resolutions decided about this right to the throne; it constituted a specific legitimization of power. A weak ruler was often removed through armed rebellion or the spreading of rumors whereas a “true,” strong tsar was installed in his place. The imperial power in Russia was unlimited – it was believed to come from God and sometimes it was even identified with the will of the Nation. The latter theory was opposed by Marxist historiography which gave priority to the social-economic structure of Russia. The women ascended to the throne at a difficult moment in Russia’s history, namely after the death of Peter the Great; they were the potential target of attacks from the aristocratic, court, and army opposition circles, as well as the so called Old Believers, or even ordinary people. The rule of Catherine I who became the successor of Peter and the rule of Peter II, was marked by the stigma of rivalry among the aristocratic and courtly circles. Thanks to the support of the Supreme Privy Council, after the death of Peter II, it was Princess Anne of Courland who ascended to the throne in Russia. The assessment of her rule in historiography varies considerably – for instance, the influence of Anne’s favorite – Biron has been rather negatively assessed. The above pejorative appraisal of Princess Anne’s rule may have its source in the way in which the contemporaries tried to justify the Elizabeth’s coming to power in 1717. Anna became a ruler thanks to the support of aristocracy which strove for power in Russia. She accepted the “Stipulations” – or written conditions of her ascension to the tsarist throne; the latter had limited the ruler’s prerogatives. The Imperial Guards and the gentry under the leadership of Prokopowicz and Tatiszczew had stood on the side of strong tsarist rule. Having taken advantage of the support that was granted to her, Anna had seized autocratic rule, liquidated the Privy Council, crushed the opposition of the aristocrats and resumed a continuation of the reforms in the manner of Peter the Great. She strengthened tsarist autocratic authority, laying the foundations for this form of government for the decades to come

Cerkiew prawosławna w reformach Piotra Wielkiego

In 1701 tsar Peter I resigned from appointing anybody to the throne of patriarch and, in 1721, he subjected  the  Orthodox  Church  to  the  secular  office  of  higher  rank,  the  Office  being  additionally supervised by Oberprocurator as one of the highest officers of the state. There appears a question: what was the cause, the aim and the sense of the reform thus carried out. Did Peter exploit the Protestant patterns. Or did he try to reach only economic, but perhaps also social, objectives. What additionally requires answering in whether the Orthodox Church benefited from the reform or whether the reform led to its fall. Was the subjecting of the Orthodox Church to the secular power only the next step upon the road that led to the strengthening of the patrimonial system in Russia or was this maneuver tantamount to the adoption of the Western model of absolute power? What is also of importance is the significance that Peter the Great attached to the legal form of his reforms. The answer to the aforementioned questions is not always unambiguous. The very formulation of these questions may however contribute to better understanding of Russia in one of the most important stages of its history

Kiedy car był bogiem, a uczony – rymopisem

The article is about the phenomena of sacralization of the ruler in Russian literature of the 17th century. This phenomenon can be traced in the work of Michael Lomonosov. This exceptional polymath, scientific entrepreneur and pioneer of industry, among his contemporaries was primarily recognized as a poet. Among his literary works panegyric singing the praises of the ruling monarch was dominant. He compares the Tsar to God or directly gifts him with God-like characteristics. In his baroque poetry, he uses the picture of the ruler as a mythological god. This article grounds this literary heritage in the social context in which it was created and describes the functions that such literature plays. Finally, the article discusses the motives that Lomonosov had to pursue this type of poetry.Artykuł dotyczy zjawiska sakralizacji monarchy w literaturze rosyjskiej w XVII w. Było ono obecne w twórczości Michała Łomonosowa. Ten wybitny uczony, organizator nauki, pionier przemysłu, wśród współczesnych znany był przede wszystkim jako poeta. W jego twórczości przeważają panegiryki skierowane do panujących monarchów. Poeta dokonuje w nich porównań cara do Boga lub wprost przypisuje mu cechy boskie. W barokowej poezji Łomonosowa łączyły się one często z obrazem władcy jako mitologicznego bóstwa. Autorka skoncentrowała się na przedstawieniu sytuacji społecznej, w której powstawała taka literatura, jej funkcjach, a także na motywach, którymi Łomonosow kierował się jako twórca tej literatury.