Peasant Superstitions Of Fire example essay topic

Victoria Walsh All Russia is Burning By: Cathy FriersonProfessor Sil so April 27, 2004 In Cathy Frierson's All Russia is Burning, Frierson evaluates rural fire as peasant against peasant issue in Imperial Russia. Her research redirects the historian away from usual templates of Soviet and Western scholars. These scholars had only studied these conflagrations in regards to the peasants rebellion against the nobility which ultimately lead to the Bolshevik Revolutions. Here she not only addresses the causes of rural fires, but also the realities with which they were connected. She clearly investigates the haphazard role of the government and the zemstvos (insurance agency) that shed a light in the long tunnel out of road of fire that never seemed to end. Frierson clearly shows that Russia's economic issues were caused by the peasants themselves and by the lack of government action.

Frierson first explains to the historian the women's relationship with fire and how women came to be seen as one of the causes of Russia's backwardness. A peasant woman's life revolved around fire. She ran the stove and tended to the fire inside all day. Frierson makes it clear that women knew fire well, as it was women's view that they were in harmony with it. The educated elite saw peasant women differently. "It was they (women) whose individualistic greed, ignorant superstitions, and female conspiracies undermined the idyllic village" (Frierson 38).

Her point though is that they, as many people are, were simply careless. The general idea of women then was not much different from the present in that they were seen as emotional and, in fights, vengeful. In introducing women as such right away, Frierson reveals why women became the object of ridicule and responsibility for rural fire and uses this idea throughout the rest of the book. She continues to use many good examples through out the entirety of the book supporting this case. Women in may cases literally and figuratively fueled the fire. In more cases than not women were found to be the culprit to accidental and arson fires making them a center stone in the study of rural fires.

Even though it is plausible that women may have contributed to rural fire, ultimately it was not solely their fault as the educated elite may have thought. Frierson then discusses religion, which is closely tied to peasant superstitions of fire. In Orthodox Russia, fire was never far from religion. There were festivals for St. John the Baptist (Ku palo) where the peasants would build large bonfires and jump through them (Frierson 33). Here religion seems to be one in the same with superstition. Her reason for addressing this is because these two beliefs were so closely intertwined at time when fires broke out: e.g. lightning fires were thought to come from heaven, and peasants would not put them out for fear of punishment.

In a society where fire was considered so sacred, watching entire villages burn was common. This helps the historian to understand peasant beliefs and gives them a window into the reason why these fires were so damaging. Once this point understood the historian must think about the thesis and wonder why the government did not try to fix this issue This results in the historian being able to see the frustration the educated elite, who rejected the peasants victimization and futility, dealt with when trying to change the peasants' perception of fire. The elites attempt to deal with this issue is rooted in the fact that they still feel they need to look out for this poor uneducated peasants. Frierson then addresses the issue of accidental fires. At this time in history many new inventions were being made such as the invention of matches, kerosene lamps and cigarettes.

Each of these inventions added to the enjoyment of everyday life for peasants because they were easier to use and affordable (Frierson 37). The peasants would become careless and do such things as throw their cigarette butts in their yards or put a kerosene lamp by a pile of hay. The modern comforts they acquired and used improperly made clear their lack of fire prevention. Many of these types of accidents occurred often. The government had left them to come up with their own solutions which obviously they could not do on their own. Accidents happen but adding thoughtlessness with superstition and ignorance make one accidents damages catastrophic.

Frierson proves here that many great inventions can be used to make life easier. Yet, without the correct knowledge provided by the government these inventions can hurt a people who are only used to primitive products. Frierson next deals with arson as a cause of rural fires. It is her belief that arson was a way to "maintain a status quo ante in the village" (Frierson 152). At a time when so many had so little, and when kulaks (wealthy farmers) flaunted their wealth or a rich gentry employer treated them unfairly, the peasants took the law into their own hands. The judiciary system had little power to persecute guilty parties and when the state lost power, this only invited violence to the table.

Another major problem was that of self-arson. In this case the peasant would burn their own building for profit. This proved that these peasants had the knowledge to use "compliance with compulsory insurance laws to serve individual interest" (Frierson 153). This chapter clearly gives an adequate evidence that arson was a major contributing factor to Russia's economic poverty.

Arson ties in to peasant beliefs in which they believed that if it hurt no one then it was acceptable. This point supports the idea that the peasants were not fully victims of fire as the historian suggests at the start of the book. In this section Frierson discusses the national fire narrative. The Russian newspapers were the first to bring the seriousness of these fires to an ever expanding reading public. "The result was they constantly kept these fires before the readers' eyes, who may have been far away from the actual scene, thus they created the idea of fire as a constant menace to national well-being and reputation" (Frierson 42).

There was need for a shock and the stories and statistics that flowed out of the newspapers prompted the activists to take action. It was their hope to eradicate the idea of divine agency from the peasants. If it was not for these narratives much of the progress, like creating zemstvo, would never have been accomplished. Frierson clearly believes that the activists (educated elite) saw the peasants as unable to help themselves.

The activists thought it was their duty to take action. This situation clearly shows the peasants as helpless victims who needed the guidance of an outside source. These narratives clearly presented the peasants as a people not able to solve their own biggest problem fire. Frierson adequately uses the stories from these narratives to prove the idea that peasants were though of as victims. She uses the story of an old woman who got out of a fire, but realized she forgot her money ran back in and got badly burnt but managed to live (Frierson 47). Frierson follows up with the insurance program called zemstvo.

It was a major step in the right direction towards helping peasants fight the destructive nature of rural fires. The peasants were required pay into a mutual fund that would pay them for their losses in the cases of a fire. The system that came with zemstvo for "reporting fires and giving out insurance imposed order on the fire experience" that for so long had been chaotic (Frierson 188). Creating order was very important to the educated elite since the cause of much fire damage was the result of the chaos that erupted during a fire. A example of this hysteria as one observer wrote, "She fell to the ground, began to crawl along the street, to tear her hair out, and then she jumped up and threw herself at the burning house" (Frierson 57). Later on it then became the job of the zemstvo agents to plan and build fire-resistant houses (Frierson 203).

They made much progress, slowly but surely they were able to reconstruct villages by giving out loans and grants to those living to comply with the Building Code. In this chapter Frierson uses many striking examples of their progress, such as the one on page 213: "Although the number of fires did not decrease, their scope did. The average number of structures that burned fell steadily". She provides numbers and graphs to support her conclusion regarding the progress made. The final topic is the creation of the volunteer firefighting brigades. These were formed by the privileged who gathered local peasants together and payed for everything out of their own pockets.

It became very popular to be part of these groups because it created "the engagement of people from all levels of Russian society" (Frierson 247). The most important fact is that these volunteer firefighters had a connection to the high courts. This allowed them to travel and share ideas nationally and internationally. Most of the members of these brigades were peasants themselves. The position of the peasant was reversed. Instead of being the victims of fire they were now in a position where they could prevent and stop fires.

To keep the autocracy interested, firefighting had to interest them in some way. This was solved when they created language and training based on military concepts and identified fire as the internal enemy (Frierson 257). They always lagged behind the rest of the modern world but this was a huge step to curb the infamous "fire question". In this chapter Frierson displays what in forty years Imperial Russia was able to accomplish. Through her illustrations of these brigades, her quotes from The Firefighter's Cause, and The Firefighter, the historian is able to quickly reference her sources. It is clear in that the educate elite won in that they finally formed something that opened peasants' eyes.

It is here that the reader comes to understand one of Frierson's many points, which is although the peasants added to the cause of rural fires, it was the government that could have taken more action to solve the problem faster. Throughout the entire book Frierson clearly and through ly explains Russian institutions in a way that even non-Russian historians can understand. An example would be how well she explains piece by piece how the zemstvo (insurance program) works. Frierson mainly does this in chapters six and seven, but it is a topic she mentions in many other places in the book. There are two types of historical texts, those that are for the any historian or reader, this book, and those that are for a specific type of historian.

Overall she gave adequate descriptions for all the major institutions that a non-Russian historian would need to know to be able to comprehend her thesis. Lastly in many paragraphs in the book Frierson uses Russian words but does not give its English translation. In the sentence, .".. that played between the metis of traditional practices... ". (Frierson 274). She uses the Russian word metis without giving its' English meaning and then a few sentences later she uses the word again without giving its meaning.

Frierson also fails to put the definition in index or the notes section in the back of the book. Therefore, if the historian reading this is a non- Russian historian they will not be able to decipher it and may ultimately not understand the sentence. While Frierson does lack to give some translations of Russian words she uses, for others she consistently gives both the Russian and English words as on page 153 "self-arson". The only comment would be with her lack of consistency with foreign terms. The problem with a book is sometimes just one little mistake that can detour a possible reader. A historian especially when writing in a crowd other than those in her concentration should always explain what they mean clearly..