Saturday, 3 June 2017

Gustav III of Sweden: An 'Enlightened Absolutist'?

In its traditional form 'Enlightened Absolutism' refers to the idea that in the second-half of the 18th century the domestic policies of most European states were influenced by the Enlightenment. Government now became a systematic and rational attempt to apply new knowledge to the task of ruling, whereas the improvement of educational opportunities, social conditions and economic life became a priority of rulers. The term first arose to prominence in historical writing in the 1930s and for a generation was largely accepted by the scholarly community. However, by the 1960s the term came under increasing criticism,  for its practical impact as a top-down policy, the importance it places on the monarch in governance and as an attempt of the ruling elite to promote stability in the face of increased unrest throughout the period 1763-89. In the 1970s and 1980s the term was steadily redeemed to an extent in scholarship, most notably in the work of Anderson, who stated that he was willing to admit the enlightened intentions, if not the achievements of many rulers. This post shall engage with this debate by assessing whether Gustav III of Sweden (1771-1792) can be used to support or dismiss the idea of 'Enlightened Absolutism'.

Gustav III of Sweden

The first traces of Enlightenment ideals that may have influenced Gustav III can be seen in his youth. His mother, Lovisa Ulrika, sister of Frederick the Great, was interested in the scientific, philosophical and aesthetic trends of the day. In particularly, she admired the work of Voltaire, who she had known in Potsdam. At the age of four, Count Carl Gustav Tessin was appointed as his governor, teaching Gustav the classical ideals of 17th century France. His history tutor Olof von Daln, known as the 'Voltaire of the North, undermined much of the effect of the conventional piety of Tessin.  Sweden in Gustav's youth was in its 'Age of Liberty', an era which increased parliamentary control and therefore once the Estates began to suspect Tessin and Dalin's political principles they replaced them with Count Carl Fredrik Scheffer.

In 1766, Gustav married the Danish princess, Sophia Magadalena, established his own court and began to take a role in politics. From this period onwards we see an increasingly autocratic strain in Gustav's thought. In 1766, he also prepared a rough constitutional draft with a preference for strong kingship. Scheffer, now also disillusioned with the parliamentary politics of Sweden, introduced Gustav to Le Mercier de la Rivière's L'Ordre naturel in 1767. This work argued that competing and particular interest prevented just and efficient government, only a hereditary sovereign with unlimited power could uphold the common good while protecting the legitimate rights of each class.

By March 1768, Gustav drafted a second constitution. Encouraged by the duc de Choiseul in the hope of French aid, this was the beginning of Gustav's attempts to seize power through a coup. However, any attempt to stage a coup would have required the cooperation of the Hats, one of the main political parties alongside the Caps, who were currently out of office and searching for political retribution. To gain the support of the Hats, Gustav made some concessions with his ideology and sought to show this through another speculative constitution. It now stated that a separation of powers should exist, but it still provided for a greatly strengthened monarchy. At the same time Gustav became more immersed in the works of the Enlightenment. Catalogs in the Royal Library in Stockholm show how he quickly acquired the latest works, whereas Gustav's personal correspondence shows some degree of exchange with the philosophes.

                                      L'Ordre Naturel by Le Mercier de la Rivière

The opportunity to seize power finally came as the Swedish Estates entered into political chaos in 1772. The three lower estates began a concerted attack against noble privileges, through the Riksdag and also through an intense period of pamphleteering. Gustav had already previously played at mediating, most notably between the Hats and the Caps at the Riksdag of 1771-72, and so the crises provided a perfect opportunity to increase his power, On 19 August 1772, gained consent from the assembled Estates for a new constitution which strengthened the monarch's power greatly, Gustav III had succeeded in his coup. However, how far can the early stages of Gustav's reign be characterised as autocratic? The new constitution itself proclaimed adbhorrence for despotic power, despite in the detail actually increasing it. Furthermore, the ambiguity of parts of the document seemed to not put too much focus on either the monarch or parliament. The King himself proclaimed that he wished to restablish the constitution of Gustav II Adolf, which in his view included the rallying of the Estates, with the nobility at the head based around the King. It is therefore, clear that at this stage Gustav III can hardly be called an absolutist.

Can Gustav III said to be have been seen following Enlightenment ideals in the early part of his reign? His reception in intellectual circles in Europe seems to have been mixed, Voltaire sent congratulations writing a poem entitled "Young and worthy heir to the name of Gustav. However, Raynal condemned the Swedes for accepting from their monarch rather than imposing on him in the  second edition of his Histoire des deux Indes (1774). Whereas, after dissolving the Riksdag following the regime change he embarked on numerous programmes with the aim of economic and social improvement. The civil administration was improved through the purges of corrupt and inefficient officials, whereas peasant landholdings were consolidated alongside the reclamation and settlement of uncultivated lands. The Order of the Vasa was set up to encourage merit in agriculture, commerce, mining and the arts. The introduction of  a 'Swedish dress' in 1778 sought restrain luxury, reducing expensive imports. Gustav III also took on the notion of an 'enlightened' ruler through some of his humanistic reforms. He immediately abolished torture and penalties on the whole were reduced in severity. In 1781, he proclaimed limited toleration for non-Lutherans, including Roman Catholics. However, Gustav also increased the censorship of the press, particularly in relation to criticism of the monarch himself. Many of Gustav's reforms could also be seen as political maneuvers, his economic reforms would have especially pleased the lower estates who had previously been problematic in the political crisis before he seized power. Gustav III therefore seems to fit the 'Enlightened' part of the model used by historians, to a certain degree.



                Swedish warships being fitted in 1778 for the Russo-Swedish War (1778-1790)

Gustav's reform programme however began to encounter difficulty with the Riksdag of 1778-79, there was increasing criticism of his regime and his opposition to further religious and penal changes also resulted in a degree of discontent. He also began to display growing disillusionment with the Parisian philosophic world, complaining that philosophy generalises everything and that the philosophic-democratic spirit that was prevailing was contrary to his principles. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to assume that Gustav had turned against Enlightenment ideals as a whole. While attending a Christmas mass at St Peter's in Rome he publicised the toleration of Catholics in Sweden. To foreign visitors, such as William Coxe and Francisco de Miranda, he continued to point out the enlightened benefits of his reign: hospitals, prisons, dockyards and canals. His criticisms therefore were directed at certain philosophers, rather than the application of philosophical ideals as a whole,  Gustav also became increasingly absolutist, in 1779 he progressively increased restrictions on the freedom of the press. Yet, the continual increased  in royal power came at cost in the form of increased aristocratic opposition. This generally stemmed from the old Swedish constitutional traditions, but some was based on some of the anti-despotic ideals that came out of the Enlightenment, For example, Locke's social contract or Voltaire's condemnation of the irresponsible tyranny of Charles XII. The ideas of those such as Paine and Rousseau also had an influence on the Swedish aristocracy. The crisis point came with Gustav's declaration of war on Russia, currently at war with the Ottoman Empire, in 1788, violating his own constitution that stated an offensive war required the consent of the Estates.

The rebellious Anjala Confederation, charging Gustav with the breaking of social contract, appealed to Catherine II of Russia and drafted new constitutions which aimed to decrease royal power. Denmark also declared war on Sweden, due to her alliance with Russia, but this rallied the Danophobic and anti-aristocratic passions of the masses. Therefore, once the Danes were repelled, the nobility was isolated and was branded with treason. Ironically, the rebellion gave Gustav the opportunity to increased autocratic powers further. In late 1789 he called a Riksdag and with the support of the three lower Estates forced through an Act of Union and Security. This abolished most noble privileges, while increasing greatly the power of the crown. Can the Act of Union be used to call Gustav an 'absolutist'? This does not seem the case on the whole and seems that the extremity of it was seen as a temporary measure. Although, he renounced France's republican system following the Revolution, he became particularly interested in Delomle's Constitution de'l Angleterre. The influenced of this can perhaps seen when he was forced to call a Riksdag in 1792, where he planned another coup to introduce a constitution based on the English one. A upperhouse of 24 'jarls' alongside a lower house of 240 elected by the people (of course with both roles having high property qualifications). However, Gustav did not try to implement the idea at the Riksdag, the atmosphere during it persuaded him otherwise.

                                                  Pope Pius VI and Gustav III

The case of Gustav III of Sweden shows the limitations of using the term 'Enlightened Absolutism'. In terms of matching the 'Enlightened' part of the definition he seems to have been personally inspired by philosophical trends at the time, especially those which matched with his political principles. But, his opinions were open to change, as seen in his increased criticism of the Parisian intellectual community following the Riksdag of 1778-79. His economic and social reforms could also be said to fit the notion of an 'Enlightened' ruler, but it is difficult to discern whether these were for cynical political usage or as a result of personal belief. It is also difficult to match Gustav III wholly to the 'Absolutist' part of the definition. Although, his reign did see a general increase in authoritarian power, he was certainly open to concession. The Act of Union and Security can be seen as a measure to solve a temporary political crisis, whereas the constitution following the coup of 1772 can be said to have allowed enough to space to gradually increase the power of the monarch, without the dangers of over emphasis. Therefore, Gustav III's reign was much more complex and subject to change than the term 'Enlightened Absolutism' would suggest.




Bibliography:

Barton, H. Arnold. "Gustav III of Sweden and the Enlightenment." Eighteenth-Century Studies 6, no. 1 (1972): 1-34.

Scott, Hamish. M. Enlightened Absolutism: Reform and Reformers in Later Eighteenth-Century Europe. University of Michigan Press, 1990.

Image Credit goes to WikiCommons

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

Iconoclasts and Iconodules: Religious Controversy in the 8th and 9th Century Eastern Roman Empire

The Emperor Leo III ascended to the Eastern Roman Empire in 717. His reign was marked by several notable events including the end of the Twenty Years' Anarchy- a period which saw a high rate of Imperial succession- and the last Arab siege of Constantinople being fought off with the use of Greek Fire. However, the most prominent feature of Leo the Isaurian's reign was the beginning of the Iconoclastic Controversy. In 726 an Imperial edict was issued condemning the veneration of icons, this was essentially the banning of natural figures in religious art and the removal of all images of Christ, the Saints and Old Testament scenes from places of worship.This caused widespread divisions in the Empire and would continue to cause problems intermittently until the mid 9th century.


                                A solidus based on Leo III that was minted in Rome.

There is much debate on the origins of this Imperially sponsored attack on the veneration of icons. Firstly, one could draw from an already established line of Christian thinking that frowned down upon the use of images. Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (d.403) criticised the use of icons in an era which saw the development of distinct Christian art style, during which the standard imagery of Christ, the Angels, the Apostles and Biblical scenes was set. The centuries preceding the Iconoclastic era also saw an intensification of the practice of image veneration. Icons were often believed to provide special access to the who it depicted. This development was very similar to the later emergence of relic cults in the Carolingian Empire. Due to their perceived spiritual nature, relics were believed to have practical impact, therefore during the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople by the Umayyad Caliphate, the Hodegetria, an icon of the Virgin Mary, was regarded as the reason why the siege was eventually lifted. This increased veneration of icons likely stirred up counter-currents, with  fears that such devotion represented idolatry.

There are also Jewish and Muslim influences to consider when explaining the emergence of iconoclasm in the Empire. The Umayyad Caliph Yazid II (720-724) may have forbid the Christian veneration of icons in the territory under his control, but the existence of this edict is debated. Instead, it may have been a fabrication by Iconodules (the supporters of icon veneration) in order to portray the Iconoclasts in a light similar to Islam, which was still seen to some degree as a particularly heretical form of Christianity. Fears of deviation from practice may have been aroused by the large-scale territorial losses of the Empire from the 7th century onward by the rapid expansion of Islam, this coincided with a rise in apocalyptic and Old Testament based beliefs. Therefore, iconoclasm may have been part of a growing sentiment of fear regarding divergence from correct religious practices.

 A Bulgarian depiction of the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople in a translation of  the Manasses Chronicle 

There are some problems with evidence while discussing the supposed implementation of iconoclasm under Leo III.  Firstly,there are only a few textual documents that deal with this early period of persecution, many of them dating decades after the death of Leo III. For example, one of the sources, Theophanes' Chronographia dates from between 810-14, whereas the Apologeticus Minor by Nikephoros dates from 780.  A further problem arises with the sources for this period, Haldon and Brubaker have suggested that opposition to iconoclasm under Leo III may have been exaggerated due to a perceived bias of the later writers, many of who were iconodules. For example, Theophanes states that a rebellion of the Helladic army in 726/727 was a direct response to Leo III's policies and yet there is no contemporary evidence that suggests this. The refusal of Pope Gregory II to deliver revenues from the provinces of Sicily and Italy has likewise been associated with the Iconoclastic Controversy, but an alternative explanation could be the fact that Leo imposed a capitation tax on 1/3 of the populace of Sicily and Calabria (around 724/725). This included Papal lands that had previously been exempt. Therefore, working out what was a response to iconoclasm or a response to another political action provides difficult.


9th century iconoclasm as portrayed in the Chludov Psalter 

However, under Constantine V (741-775) it appears that the ideology of iconoclasm became more prominent. In 754, Constantine called a ecumenical council at Hieria, this was attended by 333 bishops and endorsed the Imperial stance on icons. Further, evidence of this 'state' endorsement can be seen in the refurbishment of religious sites. Furthermore, the Hagia Eirene had been damaged by an earthquake in 740, yet when Constantine ordered his masons to rebuild it the only symbolism present was that of the cross. Other iconography was noticeably absent, for iconoclasts, only the indirect images of the cross and the Eucharist were acceptable ways to represent Christ. A restoration of the Hagia Sophia in 768/769, saw portraits of the saints in  mosaic medallions being replaced by crosses. Furthermore, according to the vita of the iconodule Stephen the Martyr,  Constantine replaced all the Christian frescoes in a church in Blachernai with secular scenes in 754. These actions were part of a much larger and general Imperial building project undertook in Constantinople, which  included the restoration of the walls and the water system. Nevertheless, it is clear that under Constantine, iconoclasm had increased in importance as a doctrine.

With the succession of Leo IV in 776, Imperial policy towards icons drastically changed. Rather than carrying on his father's policy of replacement or destruction, Leo sought to mediate between both factions within the Empire. This can be seen in his appointment of Paul as Patriarch in 780, coming from a lower clerical status and a known 'neutral' in the controversy, his appointment can be seen as an attempt to avoid taking an official stance on the veneration of icons. This appointment also meant that factionalism would not hamper Leo's ability to use to the Patriarchy for political advantage.

                                             Leo V (813-820) is proclaimed Emperor

State-endorsement of iconoclasm only reappeared during the reign of Leo V the Armenian (813-820). One of the explanations for this official revival of iconoclasm, is that Leo V was seeking an explanation for the defeats the Empire had suffered under the hands of the Bulgars. During the early years of Leo's reign, the Bulghar Khan Krum had devastated the districts of Macedonia and northern Thrace, even planning an attack on Constantinople. Despite, being saved by the Khan's untimely death in May 814, Leo still needed a justification for these events in order to maintain popular support and reinforce his authority and legitimacy, iconoclasm provided this. Popular support for iconoclasm can be in seen in the attempt of ex-soldiers raiding the tomb of Constantine V in June 813, with the hope of him 'returning' to save Constantinople. Leo sought to take advantage of this popular support, by explaining military defeat in terms of the failure of recent emperors to pursue an iconoclastic policy. By reviving an official anti-veneration stance, Leo secured his position politically by putting the blame elsewhere.

Upon the succession of Michael II in 820, iconoclasm remained an official part of Imperial policy. This could be partially explained by the increased degree of uniformity enforced by Leo V. Theodore of Stoudion, writing under Leo V, remarked that the whole Constantinopolitain clergy now conformed to Imperial policy, whereas the monastic opposition which was found during the reign of Constantine V was nowhere to be found now. Therefore, any radical shift in official religious policy could have been unnecessarily destabilising to Michael II after he assumed the title of Emperor. Nevertheless, continued official Imperial endorsement of the iconoclastic viewpoint, did not mean that Michael II himself was not more lenient than his predecessor to iconodules. His recall of exiles who had been banished by Leo for refusing to share communion with iconoclasts, suggests he was willing to be more meditative between the two factions, even if the official stance on the debate remained the same.

Theophilos (829-842) was the last iconoclastic Emperor and took a more severe approach to iconoclasm than his father, Michael II. In 830, he banished a number of iconodules, such as John of Katharoi and Makarios of Pelekte. Furthermore, in 833, he ordered the seizure of the property of anyone who collaborated or sheltered anyone with iconodules. This sudden intensification of policy, could be possibly explained by the personal beliefs of Theophilos. During his youth, he was tutored by the iconoclastic John the Grammarian, who he later appointed as Patriarch in 837.  It is a distinct possibility, that Theophilos was influenced by his former tutor's teaching. However, this period of increased iconoclasm had a limited impact , as the Emperor's death in 842 quickly saw the return to orthodoxy for the final time. Theodora, regent for Michael III called an ecumenical council in 843. This council saw the final lifting of a ban on image veneration and the end of Imperially sponsored iconoclasm and therefore the end of the Second Iconoclastic Period.


                                          Theophilos, the last iconoclastic Emperor


 To conclude, official support of iconoclastic policies can be most closely related to the individual policies of different rulers and their circumstances.  In the instance of Leo V, endorsement of iconoclasm made political sense as a means of legitimisation, whereas under Michael II ensuring dogmatic continuity prevented large-scale destabilisation. Imperial adoption of iconoclastic views, could perhaps also be explained by personal belief (Theophilos) and as a response to a growing debate on the nature and uses of icons (Leo III). Regardless, it is clear that in all these instances, official support of iconoclasm was  situational and highly dependent on the Emperor. This is not to deny the existence of a movement outside of the Imperial court, far from it, but to suggest that adoption of iconoclasm as official policy by the Emperor was highly dependent on their personal and political circumstances. Because of this, Imperial support of iconoclasm could only have a highly limited impact, a lack of a sustained policy prevented religious policy under the iconoclasts from having  any long-term impact on the Empire as a whole.






Bibliography:


Brubaker, Leslie and John F. Haldon. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680-850 : a History.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Europe, 300-1000. History of Europe. 2nd ed.  New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999.

Image Credit goes to WikiCommons




Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Review: Postmodernism for Historians by Callum Brown

 Callum G. Brown, in his 2005 book 'Postmodernism for Historians', aims to provide the first dedicated primer on Postmodern theory for  History students. So to what extent is he successful to doing this?  And does he do this in a clear and accessible way?  Brown's account is also sympathetic to Postmodernism as a whole. With himself being a practitioner of many of the techniques associated with it. Because of this, the book is not just an introductory guide, but an argument for application of Postmodernism in History as a whole, as we shall see.

 Each chapter of the book is split into three main sections: 'Theory', 'Application in History' and 'For the student to do'. The first, as the name suggests concentrates on  the main aspects of 'Postmodern' theory relevant to History and forms the largest part of most chapters. The second draws from a variety of historians' works, exploring how they  have applied this theory while carrying out research. The third section concentrates on how a student could apply Postmodern techniques while studying. This format for the most part works well, but the final section is always the smallest- which is a disappointment considering the book's target audience.





In the introduction, Brown lays out the key tenets of Postmodernism. Firstly, that reality is unrepresentative in human forms of culture (such as textual and visual material). The second tenet then is that because of this no authoritative account can exist of anything. This of course causes conflict with a 'scientific' or 'empiricist' view of history- which would argue that one of the purposes of history is to reveal what actually happened in the past. He takes this idea forward in the first chapter in the first chapter 'Empiricism' which explains the reasons behind these principles. Firstly, by explaining the difference between a 'fact' and an 'event'. An 'event' is something that happened in the past, a 'fact' is a human construction- it is a record and expression of the 'event'. Because of the processes that go into trying to reconstruct the 'event'- such as consulting historical documents- an array of problems arise that obscure the truth, such as biases, accuracy and editing. This problem of being unable to represent reality becomes worse when the historian tries to make something meaningful out of their research. As Brown notes, it may be possible to objectively say 'the Bastille was overrun by people on 14 July 1789' but as soon as you develop this point it becomes a 'narrative-statement', For example, to say the storming of the Bastille marked the beginning of the French Revolution is to make a judgement based on the importance of an event. And as the historian's job involves more than a simple statement of an event- their work inevitably becomes a reflection of reality based  rather than a proven 'truth', as they develop narratives.

Brown is keen to point out that Postmodernist critique does not extend to the empirical method- in fact it as ever remains a key part of a historians toolkit to verify their work. Instead, it is a critique of the empiricist philosophy of knowledge. Brown also importantly refutes a common criticism of Postmodernism- that it denies the existence of reality. A Postmodernist does not deny the existence of reality, but simply the ability to reflect it fully and objectively.


                                                          Roland Barthes

The  chapters 'Sign' and 'Discourse' are mainly concerned with theory. The first of these deals with 'semiotics', one of the cornerstones of Postmodern theory. One way it does this is by engaging with the theorist Ferdinand de Saussure, engaging with theorists is a  recurring feature of Brown's exposition of Postmodernism. Which he often makes this easier through 'boxes' set aside from the main text, which is simple but effective. Semiotics is constituted of the study of 'signs', 'signs' are the constituent parts of any form of communication. These are often words, but can appear in other forms ,for example the word 'mouse' conveys the same meaning as the drawing of a mouse. A sign has two parts the signifier (the sign's physical form, such as a sound, printed word or image) and the signified (the mental conception of the idea expressed by the sign).The signifier is quite arbitrary and bears no resemblance to the signified. Crucially, each 'sign' is part of a 'sign system' through which it gains its meaning via similar or opposing signs. So how is this relevant for the historian? Brown refers to the work of Roland Barthes- who took the concept of sign-systems to cultural studies. He argued that everyday forms of culture have hidden languages with political meanings- using the example of a wrestling match. As such a historian can decode these languages or sign-systems within societies in the past. Semiotics also allows the historian to take more notice of the words they use in their work and what hidden meanings they may have.

The second of these chapters deals with 'Discourse'. Discourse can be loosely defined as something that is embedded in the 'signs' and is a result of a collection of statements based on these signs that form a narrative that conveys its meaning across society. This is perhaps, best understand through an example, something Brown uses to his advantage to help in understanding theory. For example, Michel Foucault in Madness and Civilisation explored the social construction of the idea of 'madness' throughout different eras. For example, in the Medieval era and the Renaissance madness was seen in a positive light, having a 'holy quality' in the former and representing 'high knowledge' in the former. From 1650 onwards, Foucault noticed a dramatic reconstruction of the idea of madness towards it resembling pure illogicality and lack of reason. Brown then argues that this- discourse analysis- is one of the easier tools sometimes associated with Postmodernism that one can pick up.

                                   The Libirare Plon edition of Madness and Civilisation

'Post-structuralism' explores the movement of the same name. In Post-structuralism, all knowledge is socially constructed- structures such as class, gender and race are not concrete and are the fabrications of society. For the historian, Brown suggests, this means instead of structures being used to study history (for example, a Marxist using class) they themselves should be studied, including how they originated and how the meaning and language has changed over time. Therefore, a post-structuralist would examine how a structure was understood within a period, rather than applying one to the whole of history. 'Text' dissects how the Postmodernist would look a text. Instead, of a simple piece of literature, for the Postmodernist 'text' is the material manifestation of signs, discourse and structures. This manifestation is not always written, in fact a 'text' can also be 'visual' or 'audible', such as an image or music. 'Texts' form 'stories' or 'narratives' and in turn 'metanarratives', which influence the former. The Postmodernist deconstructs these 'texts' in various ways, including identifying its intertexuality (how it borrows from other texts) and the signs, discourses and structures within the text. These are only some of the methods of deconstruction that Brown discusses. He also points towards the work of Hayden White, whom saw history as more of literary exercise than a science- they have to make the same decisions as any writer and they do these on poetic grounds.

The chapter 'Self'' is about Postmodernist ideas regarding the construction of our own identity. We construct the 'self' through how we perceive ourselves and our reaction to how others perceive us. In exploring this theme in relation to History, Brown mainly focuses on the 'Application in History' section of this chapter. One notable aspect historians have noticed is how people draw from society in the construction of their identities. For example, Alistair Thomson interviewed Anzac veterans and noticed overwhelmingly their recall of serving in the military was not based on their own experiences, but on the reconstruction of their memories based on Australian national culture. This chapter also deals with the agency of the individual in history and the practice of reflexivity. Whereas, Morality deals with perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of Postmodernism in History- the fact that morality should not be based on empiricism. Brown argues this through the idea that morality changes throughout societies and time, but also through the fact Postmodernism denies an authoritative account of the past and thus anything is up to debate. However, as Brown suggests,  Ermarth has already noted that the lack of an authoritative account can actually have positive moral implications. Modernist and empiricist history has tended to led to authoritative and immoral stances (such as racist and sexist stances) to be held across society.According to Brown, Postmodernist history, with its endless debate, would not allow this to happen.

The final chapter 'Criticism of Postmodernism in History' is the only section completely dedicated towards negative views of the school of thought. Brown could have expanded on this, but then as points out there are plenty of works already out there that provide a thorough exposition of the supposed faults of Postmodernism. This section mostly acts as a refutation of these criticisms and these vary in strength. Nevertheless, this chapter is a welcome, if underweight, concluding chapter.

                               Hayden White discussed the literary nature of writing history


In summary, Callum Brown is mostly successful in providing an accessible introduction for students to Postmodernism and its relationship to history. It fills a large gap in the market, while also introducing the reader to a wide-range of theorists and further reading, which they may wish to follow. It also has some practical advice for students and how they can begin to apply these to their studies. The format of the book works well, but sometimes the large amount of theory could be balanced out with more practical advice of how to implement Postmodern techniques. Nevertheless, 'Postmodernism for Historians' overall is an enjoyable and useful introduction.

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

The Bacaudae of Gaul and Hispania: Class Conflict and the Later Western Roman Empire



Economic explanations form a significant part of the debate and discourse on the fall of the Western Roman Empire. However, one aspect that has often been overlooked in this discourse is the role of class conflict. This has been to some degree due to the sparsity and relevance of evidence, especially relating to the poorest in Roman society. This in turn may also account for the extremely limited amount of attempts to interpret the fall of the empire in this light, when compared to the literature on the 'catastrophic' mass migration theories and other models, such as ethnogenesis. However, what can be inferred is that there were large scale internal revolts in Hispania and Gaul from the 2nd century onwards that were not associated with the designation of 'barbarian' or rebellious Roman officials and that these posed a serious enough problem to warrant forceful military action, when compared to other forms of lawlessness. The question is then to what extent do these mirror the modern conception of 'class conflict'?

If class conflict can be understood as antagonism between people of different socio-economic standing we must firstly consider what 'class' in the Roman Empire actually was. A traditional understanding would differentiate between those who were citizens and non-citizens, following this would be the distinction between those of aristocratic lineage and privilege and free commoners. The aristocratic elite could consist of those the senatorial class, the equestrians and local provincial elites and these in general held more practical power than other citizens. Of course, non-citizens, such as slaves also formed a lower part of the social hierarchy. Nevertheless, there are problems with this form of interpretation of class, definition by nature is restrictive and it is difficult to fully grasp the Roman conception of class outside of our contemporary understanding. With this in mind, it is possible to assess the role of class conflict in the fall of the Roman Empire.

Image result for later roman empire


The term Bacaudae came into existence in the 3rd century and often became synonymous with banditry throughout the Roman Empire. However, it has also been used to describe a variety of movements in the Later Roman Empire that could be associated with the idea of class conflict. Two main periods of activity can be identified in the 5th and late 3rd centuries that suggest there may have been some form of mass anti-elite action in the later Roman Empire, however it may also be possible to identify a degree of social tension and indeed revolt long before the term was invented. In the 2nd century, the revolt of the deserter Maternus attracted a wide range of discontents and was far beyond mere banditry. At first, Maternus mainly plundered villages and importantly estates, but as his movement gathered momentum it began to attack cities and soon overran large portions of Gaul and Hispania. The revolt was so dangerous that Septimus Severus, then governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, was unable to put it down and the central government was obliged to send an army into central and southern Gaul.

Can this revolt, neither identifiable with Roman authority nor barbarian, instead be described as the result of class conflict? The rebellion sprung up during a period of crisis, the latter 2nd century saw the calamitous campaigns of Marcus Aurelius, plague and also the civil wars of Septimus Severus and his rivals. There is no doubt that the poorer classes would have been heavily burdened by these events as landowners would most likely to have used them to curtail any consequences of the events. Furthermore, the fact that Maternus was able to overrun large portions of Gaul and Hispania suggest he had the support of the local populace, something which simple deserters or bandits would not be able to achieve. However, a key aspect of this revolt suggests it had no desire to overhaul the social order. Eventually, rebels began to infiltrate Italy and plot to assassinate the Emperor Commodus with the aim of replacing him with Maternus. So can the revolts after the coining of the term Bacaudae be more clearly connected with class conflict?

Image result for armorica
Armorica, the centre of 5th century Bacaudic activity, its borders the Loire and the Seine are marked. 


Likewise with the revolt of Maternus, we can possibly identify social tension after another series of calamitous events- The Crisis of the Third Century. Aurelius Victor, a Roman historian and politician, noted a revolt, beginning in 283-284, led by Aelianus and Amandus who gathered an army of farmers and brigands and mentions how the people of Gaul called them Bacaudae. This revolt in Gaul was only crushed when the Emperor Diocletian appointed Maximian as co-emperor in the West, with the sole purpose of defeating it. Before the revolt was defeated in 286. This revolt then was mainly made up of those of lower social standing and it was considered a significant enough threat to warrant serious action.

However, the Bacaudic revolts of the 5th century are perhaps even further identifiable with significant class conflict. The period brought a series of revolts especially in Armorica, the region of Gaul between the Seine and Loire rivers. It was here the longest and most successful revolt broke out between 407 and 417 and also the revolt of  Tibatto from 435 to 437. However, this century also saw saw conflict in Tarraconensis, Hispania. This period of Bacaudae activity was so severe that it required the Master of Both Services (the supreme military commander in the West) Flavius Asturius to take to the field against them in 441, by 454 the Romans were recruiting the support of the Visigoths to help defeat the Bacaudae. It is therefore clear that during the 5th century numerous large-scale revolts associated with the word Bacaudae broke out and can therefore possibly be identified as the result of social tension.


                                       Pillards Gaulois by Évariste-Vital Luminais

Does anything else suggest that the Bacaudic revolts can be directly associated with social tension? There is some evidence regarding the peace-time life of Bacaudae in a comedy called Querolus. It describes that by the Loire justice was not adminstered by a governing body, but by private individuals and countrymen. Thompson has also noted the fact that the comedy seems to suggest that the rich landowners were now being forced to work on the fields by the Bacaudae and that the small amount of evidence available suggests a lack of state control.

However, it is arguable that the idea of a 'peasant' revolutionist explanation for the Bacaudae can be overstated. Drinkwater has noted the differences between the revolts of the 3rd century and the 5th century- the similarity is only in the use of linguistics. In his opinion the revolts in the 3rd century were caused by a collapse of the authority of the Gallic aristocracy and peasants seeking security in second-order figures of authorities, such as lesser aristocrats, yeomen and even bandits. This was mostly as a result of the Third Century Crisis. In contrast, the revolts of the 5th century were not caused by hardship. By the beginning of the century the population of Gaul had took a severe hit due to barbarian invasion, civil war and the associated famine and disease. Therefore, by the middle of the century the peasantry should have been benefiting from the shortage of manpower. This would have been due to the fact that such a shortage would result in increased wages, lower and longer rents and more mobility in terms of where they could work. In this Gallic peasants standard of living increased and the revolts were a consequence of rising economic expectations.

A final point to consider is whether the Bacaudae had any role in the 'fall' of the Western Roman Empire and whether this has been underplayed. Those termed Bacaudae certainly seemed to have required severe military action and that they were a constant threat across centuries. However, the main problem with engaging with this idea is the lack of evidence- nearly all of it is text, with a substantial part of it only being indirect. Nevertheless, based on what we do have is reasonable to be assumed they were perceived as a major threat. Can the Bacaudae be put in a wider 'class conflict' narrative for the fall of the Empire? There is good reason to assume that the cause of these revolts were heavily motivated by economic trends in the latter years of the Empire. But we must also make this assumption mainly based on wider contextual evidence. Nevertheless, it is perhaps reasonable to make these connections.



Bibliography:


Drinkwater, J.F. "The Bacaudae of fifth-century Gail." In Fifth-century Gaul : a crisis of identity?, edited by J. F. Drinkwater and Hugh Elton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Thompson, E. A. "Peasant Revolts in Late Roman Gaul and Spain." Past & Present, no. 2 (1952): 11-23.

https://libcom.org/history/bagaudae-historys-first-revolutionaries-pablo-romero-gabella

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/pw/ancient-warfare/blog/roman-rebels-the-bacaudae/

Image Credit goes to:

Wikicommons

http://theancientweb.com/2011/01/language-and-identity-in-the-roman-empire/


Monday, 21 November 2016

The Posthumous Cult of Henry VI: Martyrdom, Piety and Veneration

Today, Henry VI's reign is most commonly seen as cataclysmic, the loss of the Hundred Year's War, Jack Cade's Rebellion and the upheaval of the Wars of the Roses have also contributed to a perception of him as a weak and ineffectual ruler. Yet, following his death in the Tower of London in 1471, a cult of veneration emerged almost immediately. This cult would grow into one of the most popular within England, at one point with more people visiting the shrine of Henry VI at Windsor than the shrine of Thomas Becket at Canterbury. This post shall try to examine the characteristics of this cult and at the same time try to answer why it took the form and garnered the popularity it did?

                                                               Henry VI

The cult initially emerged from rumours regarding the suspicious nature of his death. During the night of May 22nd 1471, Henry VI died in the Tower of London. For less than a year, Henry VI had been restored to the throne of England with the Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker, betraying his once close friend Edward IV.  However, the tables had now turned again and in May 1471 Edward had returned to retake the crown. Suspicion was aroused by the fact that following the death of Henry VI, Edward was recrowned the following morning. Rumours circulated that Henry had in fact been murdered by Richard, the Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III), who was in charge of the Tower of London at the time and was Edward's brother, this contradicting the jailers claims that he died of 'melancholy'. Henry's body was supposedly hurried along to the out-of-the-way Chertsey Abbey, further rumours regarding his 'murder' circulated, for example that he bled during his funeral, which was seen as typical for all murder victims. Yet, a further claim was made, that he was performing posthumous miracles. For this reason pilgrims began to appear at Chertsey.

                                           A wall of the now ruined Chertsey Abbey

Edward IV tried to suppress this cult, which was certainly growing very rapidly. For example, by 1473 prayers were being said and and lights lit before his statue on a stone screen at York Minster, in 1479 Edward had this removed. Aside from this, one of the main forms of this suppression was by trying to stop pilgrims going to Chertsey Abbey.  Interestingly, Richard III decided to patronise the cult of his Lancastrian rival- some suggestions have been that he did this out of guilt for the murder he may have committed or because the attempts to suppress the cult  had been unsuccessful.  One of the main ways he did this was by moving the body of the deceased king to St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle. It was here the dean of St George's began to compile miracles performed on visiting pilgrims, 174 of these were in recorded by 1500. 

As the patronage of the cult of Henry VI was at its height under the Tudors, it is no surprise that many historians have seen it as phenomenon of political propaganda. By portraying Henry VI has a devoted and sacred king rather than weak - there was still much to be gained in political legitimisation, despite the unification of the branches of Lancaster and York with the marriage of Henry VII to Elizabeth of York.  Sometime before 1492 Henry VII had appealed to Rome to begin the official process for the canonisation of Henry VI as a saint. By the 1520s, under Henry VIII, these proceedings had reached a point where papal representatives were seeking to find people who could bear testimony for the verification of the posthumous miracles. 

The cult eventually waned under Henry VIII, after 1528 the canonisation process was halted due to the dispute with Rome. By 1538 further damage to the cult was done by the banning of pilgrimage, votive offerings at shrines and the veneration of relics. However, this does not mean Henry VIII now opposed this cult fully due to the new reality- in his will he left his wishes for the tomb of Henry VI at St George's to be made more imposing and for the banner of 'King Henry the Saint' to be carried at his funeral. 

St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle


One way to explain why this cult garnered so much support is to look at the death of Henry VI as a martyrdom by looking at how he was viewed contemporarily and for a good part of a subsequent century. John Blacman, a Carthusian monk and a former close spiritual advice of Henry VI, wrote a vita (a memoir of sorts) describing Henry's piety, for example simplicity as exemplified by  shabby clothes he supposedly wore with a hair shirt worn beneath them and another example being his sexual puritanism. Although, he was not viewed as a saint , his mercy and generosity was recognised during his lifetime. In one instance he ordered a traitor's impaled quarter taken down, stating that he would let no man suffer in such a way for him. On Good Friday 1452, he issued 144 pardons following the an abortive rebellion by the Duke of York. He also refrained from hunting because it would be wrong to kill an innocent animal. Henry VI was also supposedly generous in terms of  charity. Hymns mention his donations to the poor and Blacman mentions his lack of will to tax his subjects for fear of being too oppressive.  

In this way we can see why Henry has been accused of political weakness because by being so generous he left the royal finances in a shambolic state. Nevertheless, with contemporaries recognising Henry's 'virtues', his personal acts formed an integral part of the image that defined his posthumous cult.

Henry's piety however was not only recognised in his character, but also through religious ceremony. Blachman noted his regular attendance at mass, which he always carried out in a highly respectable and devout manner. Public appearance such as these led many to believe that he carried out many similarly self-disciplinary acts in his private-life, such as fasting. With these  supposed devotional practices and charitable acts in mind it is clear that one of the reasons behind the development of a cult of veneration after Henry VI's death was the fact that he was seen by some as religiously righteous when he was alive. The perceived martyrdom of such a man by Richard, the Duke of Gloucester would then only contribute to this development even more.

A final consideration should be made for how this 'pious character' benefitted propagandists, contemporary and Tudor. Henry VI suffered from two extensive periods of serious mental illness. His frailty then was transformed from a supposed weakness into a new understanding of religiosity. Therefore, his dislike for the violent and forceful could be replaced with an explanation that did not highlight his 'weakness' and instead portrayed him as a devout figure, which was more useful for showing political legitimacy.


        Two English Martyrs St Edmund of East Anglia (left) and Henry VI (right) are commemorated on the rood screen at St Catherine's Church in Ludham.

We can now see why Henry VI became such a popular figure of veneration following his death, despite the chaotic nature of his reign. The cult's sponsorship under Richard III, Henry VII and Henry VIII fitted political reality. Under the former it was a response to previous attempts of suppression failing, under the latter two it represented a form of legitimacy for their claims to the throne.  This cult also grew due to the perceived sanctity of Henry, if he was such a pious man of the age, then surely it was no surprise that he would be performing miracles posthumously. In these ways, we can see that the development of the cult of Henry VI was equally based around his own life and also those who patronised him following his death.




Bibliography:

Craig, Leigh Ann. "Royalty, Virtue, and Adversity: The Cult of King Henry VI." Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 35.2 (2003): 187-209.

Seward, Desmond. "The Miracle of Henry VI." History Extra. BBC History Magazine, 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

Image Credit goes to:

http://www.historyextra.com/article/premium/miracle-henry-vi
WikiCommons






















Saturday, 10 September 2016

American Dream or Nightmare?: Analysing Post-War Suburbia in the United States

Suburbia was the quintessential representation of the characteristics of Post-War America. The suburb was the American Dream embodied, affordable and yet high quality housing free from the noise, pollution and distractions of the city. At the same time, it was also close enough to the city to commute. The second characteristic was that of the prejudice still inbuilt in American society after World War 2, in many suburban communities, African Americans and Asian Americans were mostly denied residence.


                        The archetypical 'Nuclear Family' in the 'ideal neighbourhood.'

The prototype of the American Suburb was Levittown, Long Island in New York state. William Levitt is described as the father of this form of suburbia. In 1929 William's father, Abraham, founded the real-estate development company Levitt & Sons. William Levitt served as the company's president and controlled most aspects, except the design of the homes which fell to his brother Alfred. They had produced a number of middle-class houses on Long Island before the war, but construction prices soared during the war. William Levitt served in the Navy during the war and following his return he saw the need for homes for veterans.

Several factors caused a high demand for housing after WW2. The postwar years in the US created a baby boom. A housing crisis saw apartments congested with reunited couples and their children. The city of Chicago had been selling its retired trolley as homes. Furthermore, some 50,000 returning veterans had took up residence in army huts. Levitt's solution was cheap, affordable housing, and provided a more ideal and modern form of accommodation. Using techniques he had learned from those he had used in military building, he used mass production through an assembly-line system. As Levitt put it 'We were not builders, We are manufacturers.' also declaring his company 'the General Motors of the housing industry.' Although Levitt did not invent this method, it had been used before in California, he was certainly the first to implement it on the scale he did for his newly-built communities. At the peak of Levittown's construction a home was produced every 16 minutes. This allowed him to sell housing cheaply, his product first sold for $7,990 with a 5% down payment, 0% if you were a veteran and a 30 year mortgage. GI Bill benefits ensured that all returning soldiers were guaranteed a home loan, furthermore the Housing Bill of 1948 also contributed against the housing shortage.

                                The large-scale manufacturing of houses in Levittown.

The popular image of the suburb is that of the white-picket fences, the General Motors car and the family dog. This may be because the suburban homes were duplicates, this furthering the level of Mass Production. TVs came with the purchase of the house. Kitchens were fully fitted with the latest appliances. Potential buyers were informed of the benefits of open plan living, in contrast to the walled and cramped dining experienced in the city. The large green spaces, also provided a welcome respite to the city life. The problem was that all this led to accusations of conformism and materialism. And although the suburbs appeared to be popular among potential home-buyers, there were notable critics.

Eric Larrabee in Harper's Magazine called 'the little Levitt house American suburbia reduced to its logical absurdity' and urban historian Lewis Mumford described the community that these houses constituted 'a uniform environment from which escape is impossible.' In these communities, arose several authors who criticised the supposed suffocating nature of the suburb. Richard Yates, writer of Revolutionary Road, pointed the 'blind, desperate clinging to safety and security at any price, as exemplified politically in the Eisenhower administration and the Mccarthy witch hunts'. For those who had lived through the Great Depression and World War II, the suburbs represented unimaginable luxury. To some the suburb was seen as easy way out- safety, but at the expense of conformity.

The similitude within these mass produced suburbs, also meant that most of the people living in the neighbourhoods were at the same stage of life and of the same economic status. This resulted in a situation where class divisions were lowered, as homeownership grew and the postwar economic boom went hand in hand with people moving to the suburbs and the growth of the middle-class. Furthermore, long-standing prejudices in the suburbs based on religion and ethnicity weakened, such as those between Italians and Germans, or Catholics and Jews, due to the shared experience of veterans during the war. However, the suburbs also showed the prejudices that were still prevalent in American society.

                                           Aerial view of Levittown from 1959.


Many suburbs denied residence to African Americans or Asian Americans.Agreements were in place between homeowners in suburbs  in which it was agreed people would not sell their home to these minorities. It was believed that if they moved it would lower house prices. Although in 1948, the Supreme Court made this type of agreement illegal, they were not enforceable. Segregation continued and often it was enforced by violence and intimidation. In 1960 there was a single black person in Levittown. Banks also refused to lend money for new homes or improvements for inner city neighbourhoods where minorities lived, this was called redlining- derived from mortgage security maps where minority neighbourhoods were shaded red to mark them as 'risky investments'. This meant that government subsidies for suburban building furthered the physical and economic distance between African Americans and whites.

The development of suburbs also furthered the conformism surrounding the role of women in society. Although, 30% of women did work outside of the home to some degree in the 1950s, in popular culture it was evident that there a shift from the praise of women for their role in the war effort to portraying them as the stereotypical housewife. This role included raising a family, tending to their husband's needs and buying the latest household appliances. Whereas, during the war 350,000 women had served in the armed forces and the female percentage of the workforce rose from 27% to 37% (1940-45) ,due to the large scale enlistment of males, in the 1950s this dropped back by 7%. However, at the same, partially due to being empowered by the war, many women began to question whether life should be confined to the household.

On the left an advert praises the role of female servicemen, on the right the woman prepares to serve her husband when he returns presumably from work.

The suburb also also played a role in Mccarthyism in the 1950s. The racial segregation within suburbia was used justify a communties 'Americanism', those who supported integration within these were seen as the most un-American person, a Communist. One of the ways the US Government tried to address the housing shortage was through some public housing programmes, right-wing politicians vilified this as a form of socialism. Senator Joseph Mccarthy himself called public housing projects 'as breeding ground[s] for communism'. Mccarthy and the Levitts joined forces in promoting Levittown as an alternative and more capitalistic approach than public housing to the shortage of homes after World War II. William Levitt is quoted as saying 'No man who owns his own home and lot can be a Communist, he has too much to do.' However, others also used the idea of of communism in regards to suburbs.  In Levittown only slight variations could be found within the homes colour, window treatment and roofline. The writer Pearl Buck once compared the architectural and racial uniformity of suburbia as reminiscent of the conformism found in Communist China. The production of identical housing also meant that differences within regional architecture and urban planning began to fade within the United States.


                                             Houses within Levittown in 1950.

The suburbs also affected the everyday life of the American citizen. A large part of this change was due to the distance between home and work, commuting  became a part of everyday life. By 1950, 80% of Levittown males commuted to Manhattan. The rise of commuting also meant the rise of the car as part of everyday life. By 1955 US car companies were producing 8 million cars a year, this was three times the number produced in 1945. As a result of the increasingly car-based society, states and federal government increasingly spent money on infrastructure to meet this demand, for example they invested in an interstate highway system in the late 1940s and the 1950s. The rise of suburbia helped to promote a 'car-culture' which replaced public transportation. Another issue regarding the postwar population shift to suburbs was political, people pay taxes based on where they live  and political representatives can be distributed on the basis of population.

                                              Adverts for Cadillac cars from 1960.

The legacy of the suburbs of post-war America. is mixed for many people it represented an increase in living standards that equivocate to a modern and less crowded way of life. Arguably, the suburbs were seen as a form of increased social mobility. Anybody, could now live the 'American Dream', as long as they fitted the criteria.  Racial prejudices meant that minorities, such as African Americans, could not live this 'dream'. Whereas, as women were once again confined in their assigned role of the housewife. To some the conformism of the suburb was almost a suffocation of individuality and the height of uniformity. Nevertheless, the movement to the suburbs had a profound affect on American society, even today 4 out of 5 Americans live in suburbs. The large scale migration of people to the outskirts of cities nevertheless had a huge impact on the shift of population and the building of infrastructure.  Therefore, the building of the post-war suburbs can be essentially seen as a change to a culture based on commuting to work.


Bibliography:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/postwar-era/a/the-dark-side-of-suburbia
http://ushistoryscene.com/article/levittown/
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/american-women-in-world-war-ii
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/28/levittown-america-prototypical-suburb-history-cities
https://envisioningtheamericandream.com/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/66434/man-who-built-suburbia

Image credit goes to:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/28/levittown-america-prototypical-suburb-history-cities
https://envisioningtheamericandream.com/
WikiCommons







Tuesday, 23 August 2016

Korenizatsiya: The Soviet Nationalities Policy for Recognised Minorities

When the Soviet Union inherited the lands of the Russian Empire, it also inherited the rich ethnic diversity of its people. Under the Russian Empire the process of Russification was forced upon the differing ethnic groups. In the 1920s and into the 1930s the Soviet Union's policy was actively the opposite of this, Korenizatsiya (also spelled Korenizatsiia), which literally means 'nativisation' or 'indigenisation', aimed to appeal to the masses in the ethnically non-Russian regions of the Soviet Union. There several thought processes and ideas behind this.


                             An ethnic map of European Russia from before World War 1.


One of the most eminent ideas behind, can be seen in the words of Stalin, who is quoted to have said 'Allow a (disconcerted minority group) to use its native language and the discontent will pass by itself'. Nation-building had been the objective of many of the minorities of the Russian Empire following the collapse of the Russian Empire and the successive Russian Civil War, many of these groups had actively opposed the Bolsheviks during the war.  For example, the Democratic Republic of Georgia and the Ukrainian People's Republic actively opposed the Bolsheviks. Korenizatsiya aimed to not only amend this, but also encourage more harmonious relations with the ethnic minorities in the name of the unity of the Soviet Union.

The policy of Korenizatsiya also fitted the Socialist ideal, Lenin and Stalin both persisted that eventually an international culture and language would exist.. The concessions to nationalities could be seen as part of an effort to show that the ethnic minorities were to not be discluded as they had been under the Empire's policy of Russification, which had been a significant part of imperial policy, as such as that seen during the intense period under Alexander III after the Crimean War. An important point is that Stalin himself was an ethnic non-Russian, of Georgian heritage, despite his later reintroduction of Russifying based policy after the period of Korenizatsiya.

Korenitsiya had several key means of implementation. Territories however were built for each officially recognised minority, regardless of their size.The creation of the Soviet Union in 1922 and the ongoing creation of its republics formed a part of this process. Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics (ASSRs) were often found within Union Republics, for example the Karelian ASSR formed part of the Russian Soviet Federative Republic. Both types of republics were typically based on ethnic lines.   Furthermore, although the USSR would become much more centralised, technically each constituent republic part of the was allowed to secede from the union as per the Soviet Constitution.


A children's book shows changes in agriculture in Central Asia under the Soviet Union.


A key part of Korenizatsiya was linguistics. Each minority was assigned its own national language, whether or not it had previously existed. Extensive cultural and language programmes were rolled out in this language.  Minorities were also actively encouraged to take part in government and bureaucracy, with each minority having a degree of local government ruled by themselves. Minorities were also encouraged within in the Communist Party. Books for Russian speaking children informed them of the more distant parts of the Soviet Union and told them about the everyday lives of their 'fellow citizens'. It is important to realise that some of these nations were artificial and did not always align culturally with the actual inhabitants.

We can also seen a distinguishment between certain nations, some were seen as more 'backwards'. A group of children's books went beyond describing exotic nations and actively  showed the rapid change in Central Asia caused by the Soviet Union. A common theme was the contrast in the way the 'old way' was portrayed in comparison to the Soviet rule. Now science, technology and equality was present instead of  poverty, hardship and inqequality between the classes and genders, according to the books.


This military poster which uses Ukrainian language and imagery, showcasing Ukrainisation as a wider part of Korenizatsiya.


Naturally, Korenizatsiya evolved during the period it was in place. The idea itself can be seen as early as 1913, when Lenin sent a young Stalin to Vienna, as capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire it was culturally diverse. Stalin returned with his ideas for the policy. In 1919 Lenin, following the revolution, managed to persuade officials to reverse the policy of Russification and in 1923 the idea started to become in practice. At the 12th Party Congress in 1923, Stalin identified two major threats to the Soviet nationalities policy, local nationalism and Russian chauvinism against minorities.

It was at the 16th Party Congress in 1930 that Stalin emphasised that the plan was to build a universalised society, with a common language and currency as previously mentioned. The 1936 Constitution finally saw the idea that the states of the Soviet Union now formed a harmonious union to serve one state, Stalin proclaimed that the basis for a socialist society was now born and thus now the Soviet Union was now officially a Socialist state.

However, contrary to this, Stalin also began to reverse the idea of Korenizatsiya in the mid 1930's and followed the policy of Russification like the preceding Russian Empire. Purges saw a large portion of minority officials removed from power. Stalin altered the nations that had existed, in what became Karachay-Cherkessia, Stalin combined Caucasian and Turkic peoples whose languages were mutually unintelligible. But, not only were different peoples combined into fewer republics, Stalin also divided ethnic groups. The former Mongolian Buryat Autonomous Republic was divided into 3: Buryatia, Aga Buryat and Ust' Orda. Stalin also deported large numbers of people from their native territory before and during WW2, such as Volga Germans and the Crimean Tatars.The official reason given was that these various groups were collaborating with the Germans or that they were anti-Soviet rebels.

From 1937 onwards, the press began to praise Russian language and culture. Changes once again took place within education to suit the new Russification. Russian heroes from history were once again glorified. The Soviet Union was re -energised with patriotism, thus it was no suprise that World War II was to be called 'the Great Patriotic War'.

                                                     
                               Representatives of Soviet Nationalities in Red Square.


Korenizatsiya was never wholly popular as policy. Although it won over many of those who went against the Bolsheviks on national grounds during the Civil War. Opposition was not only to be found by Russians living within non-Russian areas, but also by people of non-Russian origin who had been Russified. Therefore, although Korenizatsiya did pacify some of those who had initially opposed the socialist ideal of internationalism proposed under the Soviet Union, the idea itself was to be only reversed fully by the head of the Soviet state and one of it's original proponents,  Joseph Stalin.







Bibliography:
https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/webexhibits/sovietchildrensbooks/nationalities.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/cccp-nationalities-stalin.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/cccp-nationalities-lenin.htm
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ussr-established
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/731/2/the-soviet-nationality-policy-in-central-asia

Image Credit goes to 

WikiCommons
http://russiasperiphery.blogs.wm.edu/central-asia/general/korenizatsiia/
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0124-scientists-map-the-dna-of-ethnic-groups-in-former-soviet-union/
https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/webexhibits/sovietchildrensbooks/nationalities.html