Enlightened Absolutism Analysis

Enlightened absolutism was not a contemporary term to the European rulers it now describes. Consequently, interpretations of enlightened absolutists vary and are dependent on the time of analysis. The term was developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and since then its interpretation has evolved. The idea of enlightened absolutism, however, was observed and the principles were familiar in the second half of the eighteenth century among certain rulers. At first, the term was only applied to German speaking lands, but has since expanded geographically and to include French and Italian Enlightenment philosophy as well as German cameralism in its influences. The perceived benefits and faults of this style of ruling have transformed
throughout time depending on what school of thought is observed. Naturally, this leads to debate over who truly was an enlightened absolutist ruler.
Catherine II of Russia’s status as an enlightened absolutist has been questioned and criticised.
There certainly are factors of her policies and the general progress of Russia that negate the idea of her as an enlightened, rational, and caring monarch, but these negatives become understandable when viewed in context. Fundamentally, Catherine the Great ruled with the principles of the Enlightenment in mind and fulfills the basic definition of enlightened absolutism, at least in intention. However, she was not completely successful in execution. This nonetheless does not ruin her reputation as an enlightened absolutist and rather makes her more typical of her contemporaries. Catherine II’s policies and government endeavoured to improve the lives of Russians, believing this would further solidify her power. In essence, this is the guiding principle of enlightened absolutism and thusly Catherine II of Russia clearly solidifies herself as an enlightened absolutist. Her Russia was more liberal and enlightened than ever before, and arguably ever since. Her failures to follow enlightenment principles fully can be explained by a traditional outlook on foreign policy, advisors’ resistance to such radical ideas, and a fear of losing power. Above all, Catherine the Great was personally extremely “enlightened” given the historical context of her reign and this reflects itself in her earlier actions as empress and in her
writings.
The second half of the eighteenth century was marked by “enlightened” rulers. For enlightened rulers, government became a rational system through which to apply the best and most recent knowledge. This new knowledge was influenced by Enlightenment philosophy and integrated itself into the policies of the enlightened absolutist. The Enlightenment introduced to society an intellectual energy and quest for knowledge, ultimately leading to the use of reason to secure progress. Leaders internalised this rationality, transforming government into a vessel for positive change for their citizens. To be “enlightened” as a ruler, was to aim domestic policy towards the creation of a rational, educated public; improve education, social conditions, and economics. Enlightenment thought was a challenge to traditional European thought and practice. An “enlightened” individual would endeavour to subvert the traditional if rational thought suggested new and better ways. From the Enlightenment sprung the idea that the success of the state depended on the freedoms it could assure to its citizens; reforms should benefit and reflect the needs of the people. In this, there is a certain element of social responsibility, which is particularly striking given the time. The “enlightened” used reason to evaluate every level of society and worked for the good of their subjects embracing the main tenants of Enlightenment philosophy: reason, education, and progress.
When assessing the validity of Catherine the Great’s label of “enlightened absolutist”, it is important to consider the state of Russia itself and its so-called backwardness.
When Catherine II came to power, there were no institutional limits on the power of the ruler, no intermediate bodies as seen in the rest of Europe. Russia’s society was highly regulated and restrictive, while its government was lacking and negligent. The idea of a free citizen did not exist. With the second highest population in Europe, Russia was made up of millions of peasants and a small minority of nobility. Even the nobility was owned, in a sense, by the state. Until 1762, nobles were bound to serve the state in either the military or in civil service for twenty-five years or more. There was also a class of townsmen, registered in their town, collectively responsible for a series of unpaid tasks and the collection of a tax. The social institutions of Russia were extremely deep rooted and dissimilar to those in Western Europe; Catherine’s reforms to social structure would have to combat this severe system in a way other rulers would not need. It would be impossible to reform government because the structure of Russia was not able to handle internal administration as is. There were no established corporate structures, no noble assemblies, and no urban corporations, to which internal administration could be trusted. Catherine’s reforms began with organising and giving legal form and rights to
corporate institutions, to create a sector capable of the internal administration of Russia. This clearly is an aim to improve the social conditions of her country, a very “enlightened” approach.
Catherine worked systematically to reform Russia, attempting to understand its problems, indicating an exceptional rationality. She wrote the comprehensive Instructions in 1767 clearly defining the political theory that would inspire many future laws. With an analytical approach, Catherine examines Russian society and government, determining the change of direction needed. Reform in Russia was completely directed by Catherine herself and the Instructions and other documents she wrote. Additionally, the documents produced by Catherine clearly show Enlightenment influence particularly from Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws. From Montesquieu, Catherine borrowed the ideas of separation of function and condemnation of cruelty. The monarch should not be judge and instead there should be a judicial system, which is fair and not unnecessarily cruel. These were quite radical notions and clearly evidence an interest in creating positive change and forgoing traditional methods; these ideas had never been expressed in Russia before and certainly never from the crown. Catherine created a new type of rule in Russia and opened discussion to topics never discussed in Russia, ultimately greatly impacting the Russian intellectualism towards Enlightenment ideal. This Enlightenment sentiment also echoes in her personal reading and writing. Even before coming to power, she read extensively a wide range of political literature and philosophy: Plato, Bayle’s Dictionary, Hardouin de Péréfixé’s Henri IV, Diderot’s Encyclopédié, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws, Machiavelli’s The Prince, Voltaire, and Rousseau. She held correspondence with Voltaire and conversed with Diderot. Only Diderot’s preparatory note for these conversations still exist, but it is clear they were free and varied. Diderot was immensely disappointed in Russia and misinformed; yet his notes show he thought very highly of Catherine and her thoughts and plans. Letters are an unadulterated source, showing the writer’s temperament and true feelings. Catherine clearly indicates her pragmatic and secular opinions in her correspondence with Voltaire. She distinctly shows her emulation of Enlightenment philosophers and acceptance of their ideals on a personal level. Moreover, Catherine attempts to use her personal beliefs as the basis for her initial reforms, clearly making an endeavour to embrace the Enlightenment and its teachings to better the lives of Russians.
Furthermore, Catherine summoned the Legislative Commission in 1767, calling together representatives of all free estates, government bodies, and Russian people to draft a new Code of Laws based on the condition of the Russian state and local grievances. A meeting of this nature had not occurred for 100 years and would not occur again until the first meeting of the Duma in 1906. This was clearly a somewhat unprecedented move. Moreover, Diderot’s Encyclopédie inspired this large-scale consultation, evidencing Catherine’s tendency to draw from Enlightenment philosophy. Catherine stated, “The commission cannot proceed to undertake its duties until it is fully informed of the current situation in our state, as any amendment must be made not for its own arbitrary sake, but for the purpose of improving any deficiencies, as far as they have been discovered.” This is an impactful perspective for Catherine to take. This comment shows Catherine’s adoption of Enlightenment ideals in that she understands law cannot be arbitrary and must represent the actual people, in order for society to advance. The fact that she wants to analyse her country and realises that only through understanding can she strengthen Russia’s and her own power, demonstrates her desire to be enlightened. Ultimately, the Commission and the Instructions it used were unsuccessful and unsuitable for Russia in implementing actual legislation, but was able to change practice beneficially. Essentially, Catherine’s application of Montesquieu’s principles was not entirely appropriate in Russia. Fundamentally, this is one of Catherine the Great’s greatest failures as ruler; the Enlightenment policies she tried to employ were not applicable in her country, despite her attempts to understand the needs of her people. In part, this is why she is seen as unsuccessful and faux-enlightened. I, however, posit that in the early to middle years of her reign, it was an overambitious zeal to implement enlightened reform that ultimately caused her to fail to seem “enlightened”.