1E - Tsarina Elizabeth: accession to the throne
Elizabeth presented her accession in 1741 as a return to the legacy of Peter the Great. Her reign expanded education and cultural patronage, pursued changes in law and reorganised taxation. This lesson weighs those developments against their limited social reach and the continuing needs of an autocratic imperial state.
Accession and Petrine legitimacy
Elizabeth's relationship to Peter helped justify her claim, but did not automatically put her on the throne. As his daughter by Catherine I, she could appeal to memories of his reign against the regency of Anna Leopoldovna for the infant Ivan VI. The coup of 1741 required an opportunity, organised supporters and troops willing to act.
A company of the Preobrazhensky Regiment helped Elizabeth seize the palace and remove the regency. Dissatisfaction with the existing government and concern among guards about deployment in the war with Sweden encouraged support. The Presidential Library's coup account records this military context. European diplomats also saw advantages in a change of ruler, but their hopes did not make Elizabeth simply their instrument.
Her accession manifesto claimed legitimacy through Peter's family. The St Petersburg Institute of History's archival presentation allows the manifesto to be studied as a statement made to justify a coup. Its dynastic argument explains the regime's public case; it does not prove that every subject freely chose Elizabeth or that all later policies reproduced her father's.
She rewarded the guards who helped her, creating the privileged Leib Company. She also abolished Anna's Cabinet and restored the Senate's standing. These acts made a Petrine restoration visible and redistributed influence among officials. The ruler still relied on advisers, court connections and noble cooperation to govern.
The distinction between legitimacy and effectiveness is useful. Being Peter's daughter gave Elizabeth a persuasive political identity. Providing rewards, choosing officials and maintaining institutions helped turn that identity into an operating regime. Her long reign contrasted with the rapid changes of 1740–1741, but autocratic authority remained connected with elite support.
The university and educational expansion
Elizabeth's reign continued the development of institutions for European learning while supporting a growing Russian contribution. Moscow University, founded in 1755, was a major example. Ivan Ivanovich Shuvalov used his court influence to advance the project; Mikhail Lomonosov contributed educational ideas and plans. The university's own historical chronicle distinguishes their contributions and records Elizabeth's approval.
The university initially had faculties of philosophy, law and medicine. Associated gymnasia helped prepare entrants. The range of subjects extended beyond the narrow training of an officer for a particular military task: the institution could develop educated professionals and a wider scholarly culture. It also served the state by producing skills and knowledge useful to government and society.
Admission was not confined to hereditary nobles, opening opportunities to some men from other social backgrounds. This should not be confused with universal access. Preparation, money, social obligations and legal status restricted who could actually study. The institution did not emancipate serfs or provide a mass system of elementary education.
Lomonosov's significance lies partly in the development of Russian scholarship alongside foreign expertise. Foreign teachers and European models remained valuable, but Russia was not merely a passive receiver of knowledge. This gives a more precise meaning to Westernisation than the claim that Elizabeth replaced Russian culture with imported culture.
The Academy of Arts, established in 1757 with Shuvalov's support, developed professional training in artistic fields. Its history records the recruitment of foreign teachers and the start of classes in 1758. The Academy's institutional account supports these dates. Education and artistic patronage could reinforce each other: trained artists and architects supplied work for an expanding imperial and elite culture.
Ivan Ivanovich Shuvalov, the educational patron, should be distinguished from Peter Ivanovich Shuvalov, associated with fiscal and economic policy. Similar surnames do not make their responsibilities interchangeable.
Western culture and imperial display
Elizabeth's court used European styles to display the wealth, sophistication and power of the monarchy. French language and manners, theatre, music and elaborate court entertainment became important markers of elite distinction. These habits continued the cultural separation between much of the court and the largely rural population.
Architecture gave Westernisation a particularly visible form. Bartolomeo Francesco Rastrelli designed major imperial buildings, including the present Winter Palace commissioned during Elizabeth's reign and completed in 1762. The State Hermitage's publication summary identifies Rastrelli and the completion date. Elizabeth's initiative should be distinguished from work completed after her death.
The palace's European Baroque vocabulary was adapted to an imperial Russian setting. It served ceremonies, hierarchy and the ruler's image. Borrowing an artistic style therefore did not mean borrowing a European constitution or reducing autocratic power. The same court could appear cosmopolitan and defend Orthodox monarchy.
Cultural patronage also had practical effects. It sustained skilled work, stimulated artistic training and gave Russian elites repeated contact with European forms. These changes went beyond dress alone. Yet extravagant expenditure could compete with other claims on state resources, and most people did not share the court's opportunities.
Elizabeth's attachment to Orthodoxy and her appeal to Peter's Russian legacy coexisted with imported styles. Westernisation was selective and socially uneven. Judgements should identify whether they concern elite tastes, educational capacity or the social relations of the whole country.
Court culture and educational institutions made Westernisation more embedded in elite life. Their growth strengthened imperial prestige without removing autocracy, Orthodox identity or the barriers separating elite experience from rural society.
Criminal law and codification
Elizabeth's legal policy included a significant restraint on formal execution, but did not remove the coercive character of government. Her moratorium on the death penalty meant suspending its implementation rather than deleting every capital provision from the existing law. This distinction prevents the claim that she introduced a complete modern abolition statute.
Her reign also addressed the treatment and responsibility of juvenile offenders. These developments suggest an attempt to distinguish categories of offender and restrain punishment. Dariusz Szpoper's research on Elizabeth's criminal law, particularly the discussion on printed pages 413–417, distinguishes the moratorium, continuing punishments and juvenile measures.
The limits are substantial. Preventing formal executions did not mean eliminating severe corporal punishment, exile, imprisonment or coercive investigation. Nor did it give subjects a representative institution that could prevent the sovereign from directing political justice. A judgement about more humane punishment must specify which practices changed.
The Codification Commission established in 1754 attempted to organise and revise the law inherited from the 1649 Code and subsequent decrees. It produced drafts, but Elizabeth refused to approve its project in 1759 and sought revision. Its retention of capital punishments conflicted with her policy. The distinction between a proposal and implemented law matters here as much as in Peter's administrative reforms.
Why was codification difficult? Many decrees and privileges had accumulated, and reconciling them required decisions about power, property and social status. Technical tidiness could therefore become politically contentious. A monarch could favour clearer law while avoiding changes that threatened the interests on which government relied.
The result was partial legal reform within continuing autocracy. The restraint on execution deserves weight; incomplete codification and continuing harsh penalties qualify any claim of a complete transformation in justice.
Customs, taxation and state needs
Elizabeth's government sought to stimulate commerce while retaining the revenue needed for the army, court and administration. Removing a tax obstacle and reducing the total burden of taxation are different achievements.
The decree of 1753, implemented from 1754, abolished internal customs and numerous small charges that obstructed movement of goods. Peter Ivanovich Shuvalov advanced the policy. The Presidential Library's account of customs reform records the decree, implementation and intended replacement revenue.
Repeated internal charges raised costs and required encounters with officials as goods crossed administrative boundaries. Their removal could make domestic exchange simpler, encourage merchants to serve larger markets and allow producers to sell more readily. The change therefore had an economic purpose as well as an administrative one.
Government nevertheless needed to replace lost revenue. Increased duties collected at ports and frontiers formed part of the plan. The customs statute of 1755 and tariff of 1757 extended the reorganisation. The policy shifted the location and composition of fiscal demands rather than abolishing taxation.
The poll tax remained central to the fiscal system. Taxes and state demands still fell heavily on the taxable population, while noble privileges separated the experience of the governing elite from that of rural households. Court expenditure and military commitments limited how far reform could simply relieve burdens.
The gains were also uneven. Easier exchange could benefit merchants and landowners selling produce, but it did not release dependent peasants from landlord demands. Trade reform could strengthen the economy within the existing social structure.
Judging Elizabeth's domestic reforms
Elizabeth's policies should be assessed by distinguishing an institution founded, a practice changed and a social foundation retained. This avoids treating every announced initiative as either a complete success or mere decoration.
| Field | Concrete development | Basis for qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Government and accession | Petrine dynastic appeal, guard backing and restored Senate standing | Personal and elite support remained necessary |
| Education | Moscow University and Academy of Arts | Restricted access and continued reliance on preparation and patronage |
| Westernisation | Court culture, artistic training and imperial architecture | Elite reach; autocracy and Orthodox identity continued |
| Law | Moratorium, juvenile measures and codification work | Harsh coercion persisted; drafting was not comprehensive implementation |
| Taxation | Removal of internal customs | Replacement revenue and poll-tax burdens remained |
An original practice claim that Elizabeth's reforms only benefited the court underestimates educational and commercial developments. A university could support knowledge beyond court entertainment, and removing customs affected merchants and producers. However, court patronage was a route through which reform advanced, and benefits were not shared equally.
A supported judgement is that Elizabeth consolidated the cultural and educational direction associated with Peter while making selected administrative and legal changes. She did not dismantle the social hierarchy or the fiscal foundations of imperial power. The extent of reform differed markedly between elite opportunity, legal punishment and the everyday obligations of peasants.