Nobility in the Russian Empire. XIX

Despite all the changes in the life of Russia, the main privileged class still remained the nobility. But the privileged status was gradually undermined.

The same processes were taking place in Russia that had emerged somewhat earlier in the countries of Western Europe. Some noble privileges were abolished due to their obvious incompatibility with the spirit of the times. For example, the monopoly right to own serfs.

Other privileges were no longer an indispensable property of the nobility, but extended to all citizens of the country. For example, freedom from corporal punishment. In 1906, corporal punishment for peasants was abolished.

Nevertheless, the nobility still remained the first privileged class in Russia.

As in previous times, the Russian nobility was divided into large groups:

Hereditary nobles who were only considered full nobles; and personal nobles, who could not pass on their noble status by inheritance. Noble status was passed on from husband to wife, but was not passed on to children.

Personal nobles did not have the right to participate in the bodies of noble self-government.

According to the All-Russian Census of 1897, there were approximately 1 million 800 thousand hereditary and personal nobles in Russia. The majority were hereditary nobles, approximately 1 million 200 thousand, and 600 thousand were personal nobles. This is 1.5% of the Russian population.

The nobility still remained a more or less open class, not closed. Although access to the nobility for the non-noble population was difficult. The law of 1856 was in force in this regard. In accordance with this law, the following procedure was established for the possibility of obtaining a title of nobility. To obtain hereditary nobility, it was necessary to achieve the rank of actual state councilor or the rank of 4th class, this is like a major general in the army. In military service, in order to receive hereditary nobility, it was necessary to reach the rank of 6th class, the rank of colonel or captain 1st rank.

As for the personal nobility, the same order that was in effect in the 1st half of the 19th century was maintained. To receive personal nobility, it was enough to serve the 1st officer rank in the army. And in the non-civilian service it was necessary to serve the rank of 9th class, this is the rank of titular councilor.

In addition, the acquisition of the status of hereditary nobility gave the award of the 1st degree of any of the Russian orders, with the exception of the Order of St. George and St. Vladimir. Here, an order of any degree, starting from the 4th, gave hereditary nobility. In 1900, a procedure was introduced according to which the Order of the 4th degree of Vladimir did not give hereditary nobility.

In general, despite all these harsh conditions, the penetration of people from non-nobility into the nobility increased.

For a long time, from the 17th-18th to the first half of the 19th century, the concept of a nobleman and the concept of a landowner almost coincided. Although there were also placeless nobility. By 1860, about 85-90% of all nobles were also landowners.

In post-reform times, the situation is changing. The concept of a nobleman and the concept of a landowner are increasingly diverging. By the beginning of the 1900s, 55% of all hereditary nobles were also landowners. The remaining 45%, which is almost half, did not have land ownership. The decrease in the number of landowners among the nobles was caused by two circumstances acting in this direction. Firstly, the increase in the number of officials, the increase in the number of officers, led to the fact that more and more people from non-noble backgrounds, as they moved up the career ladder, reached the corresponding ranks and penetrated the nobility. As a rule, these people did not own land.

On the other hand, this was also facilitated by the process that I spoke about - the process of noble impoverishment. The nobles were forced to sell their estates, and the number of landowners decreased altogether.

In the post-reform reality, the nobility is showing a growing interest in obtaining other sources of income, in particular civil and military service.

The situation was such that the position of the nobility in the army was weakening. By 1900, among the officers in the Russian army, approximately half of the entire composition was of hereditary noble origin. These are precisely those who came from a noble family, whose parents were hereditary nobles.

And there were generally more hereditary nobles. These are those who were not from the nobility, rose to the rank of colonel and received the nobility.

In this case, the half-vins are precisely hereditary nobles by origin.

The situation was different at different levels of the military hierarchy and in different branches of the military. The most non-noble composition was the infantry officer corps, where more than 60% of the nobles came from a non-noble environment, whose parents were non-nobles.

The situation was different in the artillery, cavalry, and life guards. Almost all the officers there were hereditary nobles by birth. Also among the generals.

In the civilian environment, too, the position of the nobility weakened. The number of people in the bureaucracy increased from non-noble backgrounds. The growth in the number of officials took into account the requirements of education, qualifications, and not origin. This led to an increase in the proportion of people from non-noble backgrounds among officials.

By 1900, only about 30% of people holding administrative positions of various kinds were hereditary nobles by birth. The rest came from other groups. The connection between the bureaucracy and the nobility weakened.

The situation was different on different floors of the bureaucratic building. The share of nobles in lower positions was small. Among the highest bureaucracy, the nobility predominated, in ministerial positions and in the diplomatic corps. Noble families appear on the lists of directors of joint-stock companies, although they were often invited there for the sake of titles; among business owners.

In general, the economic and political positions of the nobility weakened. But nevertheless, the nobility remained the 1st estate.

Noble organizations operated. Until 1906, the bodies through which the nobles could protect their interests were local institutions. These were provincial and district noble societies and corporations. Their bodies were provincial and district noble assemblies. Provincial noble assemblies had the right to petition the emperor. True, in the period after noble constitutionalism, this right was curtailed.

During the revolution of 1905-1907, the All-Russian Noble Organization was created to protect the interests of the 1st Estate. It didn't have a specific name. Since the spring of 1906, congresses of representatives of provincial noble societies began to be held annually. Several delegates were elected from each noble society. And 1 or 2 times a year they gathered in St. Petersburg to discuss noble problems. At these congresses, current economic and political problems facing the country were discussed, from the point of view of how these problems affected the position of the nobility.

In the intervals between congresses there was a permanent council, which was elected at each congress. He acted continuously. This council, and after it the entire organization, was called the Council of the United Nobility.

In the ranks of the participants in the noble congresses there were representatives of court circles, there were persons who held senior positions in the state. apparatus. Those. the noble organization had the opportunity to bring its requests to the attention of the emperor.

That. despite the fact that the economic and political positions of the nobility weakened, the nobility still remained the first estate, and belonging to it was very prestigious. Although the very prestige of noble status gradually faded.

There was such a form of obtaining nobility as receiving it by personal order of the emperor. Chekhov was one of those. He never disclosed this fact. And the fact that he received nobility by order of Nicholas 2 became known only in Soviet times. The formation of an absolute monarchy was accompanied by the liquidation
numerous class and bureaucratic groups within the secular feudal lords,
decrees stating that “all serving people from the lands serve, but for nothing
no one owns the lands" (1701), about the prohibition of granting grants to the former
ranks, on single inheritance (1714, finally eliminated the difference between
patrimony and estate, operated until 1731).
In the 1720s, the term "Nobility" in sources meant all
a set of secular feudal lords (approximately 140 thousand people) or
the bulk of medium and small untitled feudal lords, in contrast to
high-born bureaucratic nobility. Finally the term "Nobility" for
designations of the entire class were established under Catherine 2.

In the 1720s, under the leadership, the advantage of serviceability over
origin. In 1721 the right to nobility was granted to all officers and
their children. With the adoption of the Table of Ranks 1722, the right to state
service and, accordingly, receiving nobility ("new" nobility)
arose among representatives of the merchant class, townspeople, commoners and
state peasants A division into personal nobility was introduced (the lowest was given 14-
th class of ranks of the Table of Ranks). Along with this, the principle of receiving
nobility by inheritance from his father - a hereditary nobleman, as well as in
as a result of a grant from the supreme power, in the 2nd half of the 18th century - for
awarding orders.

To identify the number of nobility capable of serving, they organized
reviews of adult nobles and minors became especially frequent under Peter
1 (six reviews in 1704-1721). Since 1712, penalties for failure to appear were
tough measures up to the handing over of half the estate of those who did not appear at the review
(“netchino”) to persons who reported them to the fiscal apparatus. Accounting
nobles and their services, confirmation of nobility if necessary
was in charge of the Heraldry established in 1722.

In the first half of the 18th century, the duty to serve was for the nobility
(for life from 15 years old) and property. The latter consisted of monetary
collections, as well as the supply of recruits from estates. At the same time, on
the nobility extended some of the old privileges of the nobility and created
new. The nobles had the right to own the family coat of arms and enjoyed
freedom from corporal punishment and conscription, monopoly (since 1746)
the right to own inhabited lands and serfs.
The tax reform of 1722 freed them from paying the poll tax.
Post-Petrine legislation made it easier for nobles to pass
services. Decree 1727 allowed the release of 2/3 of officers and civil servants from
"gentry" (a term sometimes used to designate nobility
at the end of the 17th - 1st third of the 18th centuries) to their estates to bring the economy into
order. In 1736, the service life of the nobility was limited to 25 years,
the choice of one of the scions of a noble family to manage the estate. IN
1,740 nobles are allowed to choose between civil and military service.
The Manifesto on the Freedom of the Nobility of 1762 abolished the obligation to serve (in
1763 restored, again abolished in 1785), at the same time the nobility received
the right to leave Russia and enter foreign service. From this
time, a layer of local nobility was formed, permanently living in
their estates. The nobles were engaged in industry, trade, organizing
production of bread and other products for sale, kept horse
factories, mining and other enterprises. Formed by decree of 1766
institute of leaders of the nobility (primarily for holding elections
deputies to the Statutory Commission 1767-68).

The legal registration of the nobility as an estate is finally completed
provincial reform of 1775 and the Charter of the nobility of 1785. There were
the privileges of the nobility were confirmed, it was established that deprivation of life,
noble dignity and estate could only be exercised by court,
noble societies and noble deputy assemblies were formed, and
also noble guardianship. To prove class rights in the provinces
Noble books were created, in which nobles were recorded in six
ranks depending on the method of obtaining nobility, the antiquity of the family and
having a title. Information on the number of nobility in the 18th century
insufficient. In 1737, there were 64.5 thousand landowners' estates with
6 million serfs of both sexes. In 1782 there were over 108 thousand in Russia
nobles (0.79% of the population). In 1795 - over 362 thousand (2.22%).

In terms of property, the nobility was heterogeneous. For example, in 1777
year small estate (20 souls of male serfs) accounted for 59%
estates, average estate (20 - 100 souls) - 25%, large estate (over
100 souls) - 16%. Some nobles (F.A. Apraksin, A.R. Bruce, A.D.
Golitsyn, M.F. Golovin, A.N. Demidov, V.V. Dolgoruky, A.L. Naryshkin, A.M.
Cherkassky, P.B. Sheremetev and others) owned tens of thousands of serfs. IN
In the 18th century, the government pursued policies aimed at preventing
or mitigation of the process of impoverishment of the nobility, formed in 1754
Noble loan bank to protect the nobility from moneylenders, in 1786 -
State loan bank; loans were provided from other credit
institutions.

Among the hereditary nobility, the distinction between
untitled (made up the majority of the class) and titled
nobles, the “pillar” nobility was revered, which could prove
antiquity of a kind for more than 100 years. Titles of the Grand Duke and
princes of the imperial blood informed their owners of essential rights
(Order of St. Andrew the First-Called at baptism or reaching adulthood,
respectively, third class rank, as well as significant capital for
account ud. property), the rest legally did not give special rights, but
practice contributed to acceleration in career advancement.

With the expansion of the Russian Empire, the status of the Russian nobility (with
maintaining some features, and sometimes with a number of restrictions)
The social elite of the annexed territories also received knowledge:
Baltic Baltic nobility (1710 and later); among them are the Budbergs,
Wrangels, Rosens, Tizenhausens, etc.), Bessarabian nobility (beginning
18th century, early 19th century; Abaza, Bantysh-Kamensky, Kantemiry, etc.),
knighthood of Finland (1723), Smolensk gentry (1752), gentry of three
Ukrainian provinces (1783), Tatar Murzas after the annexation of Crimea
(1783), Polish gentry (late 18th century), Georgian nobility (beginning
18th century, early 19th century, Amilakhvari, Bagration, Chavchavadze, etc.),
Armenian nobility (early 19th century, Agutinsky-Dolgoruky, Davydov,
Lazarevs, etc.). A special group consisted of foreigners accepted into the Russian
service; according to the decree of 1711, 5 Russians held one position
there were supposed to be 3 foreigners, under Peter! foreigners commanded 22 out of 52
infantry regiments, 11 of 33 cavalry regiments. By the end of the 19th century, among
of the hereditary nobility 53% were Russians, 28.6% were Poles, 5.9%
- Georgians, 5.3% - Turkic-Tatar group, 3.4% - Lithuanian-Latvian
group, 2% - Germans, among the personal nobility 81% - Russians, 9.8% -
Poles, 2.7% - Germans, 2.2% - Georgians.

At the beginning of the 18th century, most nobles were illiterate. Peter 1 is under threat
registration as a soldier, a ban on marriage, confiscation of estates sent young
nobles abroad for training in shipbuilding, navigation, fortification,
diplomatic service. At the same time, a system began to take shape
domestic noble educational institutions, in the 18th century mainly
military educational institutions, among them: Engineering School in Moscow and
Artillery School in St. Petersburg (1712), Naval Academy (1715),
Engineering school in St. Petersburg (1719), Cadet Corps (1732, from 1752 -
Land Noble Cadet Corps), Naval Noble Cadet Corps
(1752), Corps of Pages (1759), Artillery and Engineering Cadet
gentry corps (1762), etc. In the second half of the 18th century it received
spreading the education of children in noble boarding schools: for young men -
at Moscow University, for girls - in an educational society
noble maidens. Open for preparation for civil service
Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum (1811, since 1844 - Alexander Lyceum),
School of Law (1835), etc. In addition, homework was adopted
teaching children by foreign teachers, tutors and governesses.
The education system covered all layers of noble society.

Having taken the position of the social and state elite, the nobility became
play a leading role in the development of secular national culture
(a distinctive feature is a close connection with the culture of other peoples). By
palaces and mansions were built in the capitals, architectural
ensembles on estates, artists and sculptors worked. The nobles maintained
theaters, orchestras, collected libraries. Most famous writers
poets and philosophers belonged to the nobility. Household culture
nobility, especially the capital, influenced the culture of others
layers of society, for the development of decorative and applied arts, as well as
on the style of products of certain industries (glass,
textile, furniture, etc.).

The rights and privileges of the nobility were consolidated in the 1820s during
codification of laws (set out in 9 volumes of the Code of Laws of the Russian
Empire, 1832). The positions of the nobility were strengthened in local bodies
management. In counties and provinces for the elections of noble assemblies
Almost all police and judicial positions were filled. Measures have been taken to
protecting the nobility from the influx of commoners, as well as preserving
noble land ownership. In 1845, in order to prevent the fragmentation of estates
nobles are allowed to pass them on by inheritance only Art. Sons (in
In this case, the estates acquired the status of primordiates). In 1856 classes were upgraded
ranks that gave the right to personal nobility (12th for military ranks and 9th
for civilians) and hereditary nobility (6th for military ranks 4th
for civilians), it has been established that only the first degrees of Russian
orders give the right to hereditary nobility (except for the orders of George and
Vladimir, all degrees of which gave the right until 1900, when it
abolished for those awarded the Order of Vladimir, 4th degree).

In the second half of the 19th century, the number of nobility increased: in 1867
hereditary nobles - 652 thousand people (together with class officials
and families), in 1897 hereditary over 1.222 million and 631.2 thousand people
personal. However, due to the modernization and expansion of government
apparatus, the political positions of the nobility weakened somewhat: under
when enlisting for service, preparedness for it and
education, class privileges were less and less taken into account. IN
at the end of the 19th century, the family nobility made up 51.2% of the officer corps and
30.7% of the total number of class officials; only in the civil service was
employs about one quarter of the nobility. Most of them lost contact with
land, salary became the most important, often the only source
income. In local government bodies, the nobility retained the leading position
position. Predominated in zemstvos. Provincial leaders of the nobility
participated in all collegial bodies of local government, district-
actually headed the district administration. Counter-reforms of the 1880-90s
years strengthened the role of the nobility in local government: the 1889 law on
zemstvo chiefs (mainly from hereditary nobles) united in
in their hands are judicial and administrative powers; Zemstvo counter-reform 1890
years confirmed the primacy of the nobility in the zemstvos.

After the peasant reform of 1861, the area belonged to the nobles
land decreased by an average of approximately 0.68 million dessiatines per year: 79 million.
tithes in Europe. Russia in 1861, 73.1 million dessiatines in 1877-1905, approximately
by 30%. The position of the nobility of the nobility worsened due to the agrarian
crisis of the late 19th century. The government took measures to maintain
nobility. In 1885, the Noble Bank was established, providing loans for
preferential terms. As a result of the work of the Special Meeting on the Affairs of the Nobility
estate (1897-1901) laws were adopted on reserved estates, on the establishment
noble mutual aid class, boarding shelters, noble cadets
schools with the participation of capital from the treasury. However, the number of landowners in
among the nobility was declining: 130 thousand families, or 88% of the entire class, in
1861; 107.2 thousand families or 30-40% of the nobility in 1905. At the same time 1/2
of them were small-scale nobles. By 1915 upon implementation
Stolypin agrarian reform small-scale noble farming
almost completely disappeared. In general, noble land ownership
almost completely disappeared. In general, noble land ownership
decreased by another 20%, the rate of decrease in the land of the nobility increased by
on average up to 1.12 million dessiatinas per year. The nobility, although it continued
maintain leading positions, owning 42 million acres of land, gradually
was supplanted primarily by the peasantry.

At the same time, the scope of entrepreneurial activity has expanded significantly
activities of the nobility (participation in the insurance business, railways, construction,
industry, banking); in the agricultural sector were gradually introduced
the latest methods and forms of farming. Tools for classes
the nobility partly received entrepreneurial activity from
redemption operation (2.5 billion rubles by the beginning of the 20th century), mortgages, renting
land for rent (150-200 million rubles per year at the beginning of the 20th century). Early 20s
centuries, the nobles owned over 2 thousand kr. prom. pr-ty, they occupied
about 1,200 positions on boards and councils of joint-stock companies,
many became owners of securities and real estate. So part
nobility joined the ranks of owners of small commercial and industrial
establishments. Many acquired the profession of doctors, lawyers, became writers,
artists, performers, etc. At the same time, a significant part of the nobility
went bankrupt, replenished the proletarian and semi-proletarian strata.

The nobles played a leading role (especially in the 18th - 1st half of the 19th
century) in the development of social thought and social movement. They
occupied positions of an extremely wide range: protective,
educational, revolutionary. They were members of Masonic organizations.
They showed extreme opposition in the speech of the Decembrists. Predominated
among Westerners and Slavophiles. Shaped to a large extent
the movement of liberalism. To the nobility by birth or length of service
The most brilliant reformers of the 19th and early 20th centuries also belonged to it.

In the mid-1860s at the turn of the 1870s-80s and in the mid-1890s
years, deputies of some noble and zemstvo assemblies spoke with
petitions for the introduction of representative institutions in Russia. At first
In the 20th century, people from the nobility became part of all political parties and
organizations: from radical left, liberal to extreme right; in 1906-17
actively participated in the work of the State Duma. In 1906 the local
the nobility formed a class political organization - the United
nobility, which defended the historical privileges of the nobility and
local land tenure.

After the February Revolution, the nobility did not play independently
political role, although its representatives were part of the Provisional
government. After the October Revolution, the nobility was deprived
land ownership in accordance with the Land Decree
26.10 (8.11).1917, as well as class status in accordance with the decree
Central Executive Committee and Council of People's Commissars "On the destruction of estates and civil ranks" from
10(23).11.1917; those who came from the nobility were persecuted.
Some people from the nobility collaborated with the Soviet government, others
did not accept the socialist revolution: they emigrated or participated in
armed struggle against Soviet power, formed the basis of the White Guard.
Many of the nobles who remained in the USSR were repressed in the 1920s and 30s.

Departure for a walk of the nobles - Prince Shcherbakov, Golitsyn, Count and Countess Strog...

- 18.31 Kb

The daily life of nobles at the beginning and first half of the 19th century was very different. Residents of cities and industrialized areas of the country could talk about serious and noticeable changes. Life in the remote province, in the village in particular, went on basically as before. Much depended on the class and property status of people, their place of residence, religion, habits and traditions.

In the first half of the 19th century, the theme of the wealth of the nobles turned out to be closely connected with the theme of their ruin. The debts of the capital's nobility reached astronomical figures. One of the reasons was the idea that had taken root since the time of Catherine II: true noble behavior presupposes a willingness to live beyond one’s means. The desire to “reduce income with expenses” became characteristic only in the mid-30s. But even then, many remembered with sadness about the fun times of the past.

The debts of the nobility grew for another reason. It had a strong need for free money. The income of the landowners consisted mainly of the products of peasant labor. Life in the capital required hard cash. Landowners for the most part did not know how to sell agricultural products, and were often simply ashamed to do so. It was much easier to go to a bank or lender to borrow or mortgage an estate. It was assumed that for the money received the nobleman would acquire new estates or increase the profitability of old ones. However, as a rule, the money was spent on building houses, balls, and expensive outfits. Owning private property, representatives of this class, the “leisure class,” could afford leisure worthy of their condition, and with a demonstration of their high position in the social hierarchy and “demonstrative behavior.” For a nobleman, almost all the time free from official affairs turned into leisure. Having such unlimited leisure, the first estate had the most favorable conditions for the transformation and revision of not only all its previous forms, but also a radical change in the relationship between public and private life in favor of the latter. Since the 18th century, leisure has acquired a status that it had never had before. This process went in parallel with the affirmation of the secular nature of the entire culture and the gradual displacement (but not destruction) of sacred values by secular ones. Leisure acquired increasing obvious value for the nobleman as secular culture established itself. The main forms of this leisure time were initially borrowed in the 18th century, and then in the 19th century they were translated into the language of their own national culture. The borrowing of Western European forms of leisure initially occurred under the pressure of government decrees and in opposition to national traditions. The nobleman was a conductor of this culture and an actor, a performer of this theater. He played out his leisure time, be it a holiday, a ball, an appearance in the theater or a card match, as an actor on stage, in full view of the whole society. It is no coincidence that in the 18th century, interest in theater was enormous; theatrical art dominated over all others, included them and even subjugated them. But the main thing was the theatricalization of the nobleman’s entire life. It manifested itself in private life for show, in the publicity of leisure, in which costume, manners, behavior, important skills and abilities were deliberately demonstrated. This entire demonstration was of a spectacular nature, as in the theater, which became the leader of leisure and a model for the theatrical behavior of a nobleman, for his acting in real life. This study identified factors for the great popularity of social leisure in Moscow. Thanks to the preservation of not only Orthodox, but also pagan roots in the consciousness of the Moscow nobility, the perception of Western forms of leisure took place here much faster. This process was also facilitated by the well-known “everyday freedom” of the Moscow nobility.

The Peter the Great era was marked by new traditions of spectacles. The most important innovation was fireworks, which had a socio-political character. Masquerades were held either in the form of costumed processions or in the form of a display of carnival costumes in a public place. Theatrical performances glorified the tsar and his victories, therefore they became part of official life and made it possible to introduce translated plays and Western European performing arts to a select audience. Under Elizaveta Petrovna, fireworks were extended to the palaces of nobles, masquerades were turned into a costume ball, in which some timid trends were outlined in its evolution towards an entertainment culture. In the first place in the theatrical tastes of the highest aristocracy was the spectacular and musical art of opera. During the reign of Catherine II, state official celebrations with fireworks and masquerades were replaced by private illuminations in noble estates. The flourishing of city and estate theaters during the reign of Catherine II was due to the artistic aesthetics of the Enlightenment and the growing self-awareness of the Russian nobility. With all the variety of genres, comedy remained supreme. In the first half of the 19th century, fireworks became a spectacle of “small forms”, the property of noble estates.

Fireworks, theatrical performances, and ballroom dancing bore the stamp of those artistic styles that existed during this period of development of everyday culture. From colorful baroque fireworks, spectacular pantomime theatrical performances, from slow and monotonous dances in magnificent outfits, they gradually moved to strict architectural forms of fireworks, to classical ballets with natural dances, ancient drama, and fast flying waltzes. But in the first half, the ancient classics turned out to be exhausted and gave way first to romanticism, and then to the national style in everyday culture and attitude. This was reflected in the development of music, theater, dance and entertainment culture.

Along with public masquerades, which preserved class barriers, private ones also flourished magnificently, where all the participants were well acquainted, and incognito intrigue was a thing of the past. The War of 1812 played a great role in the theatrical life of the Moscow nobility. The nobles welcomed popular divertissements, vaudeville and the development of national opera. Ballet art became the fashion of the highest aristocracy, but interest in Russian dramatic art gradually won out in the tastes of the viewer.

The beginnings of home music-making and song art appeared, which existed mainly in the form of lyrical cant and everyday “book songs.” The “Kingdom of Women” on the Russian throne strengthened the role of women in dance culture, and they gradually became the hostesses of the ball. The flourishing of Italian opera and the growth of dance culture contributed to the development of vocal and song art in the noble houses of the Moscow nobility. The reign of Catherine II saw the heyday of private balls and public balls in the Assembly of the Nobility, which became an important part of the self-identification of the Moscow nobility. The salon and ceremony was gradually replaced by the naturalness and relaxedness of the dance culture. Moscow society embraced the musical hobby of playing the piano and vocals. The achievements of this period were serfs, unique horn orchestras, active concert activity, and the spread of song culture. The era of Alexander I and Nicholas I was characterized by the introduction of an entertainment element into ballroom culture. The new dances carried a powerful gender element, a liberated atmosphere and a general emancipation of ballroom culture. The most important factors in the development of performing culture were the flourishing of salons and the distribution of music albums. The nobility became the main contingent among concert listeners. Among the Moscow nobles there appeared real connoisseurs, music experts and even composers. Music became a way of life for the Moscow nobleman.

In the first half of the century, noble children received home education. Usually it consisted of studying two or three foreign languages and the initial mastery of basic sciences. Teachers most often hired foreigners, who in their homeland served as coachmen, drummers, actors, and hairdressers.

Private boarding schools and state schools contrasted home education. Most Russian nobles traditionally prepared their children for the military field. From the age of 7-8, children were enrolled in military schools, and upon completion they entered the higher cadet corps in St. Petersburg. The government considered evasion of service reprehensible. In addition, service was a component of noble honor and was associated with the concept of patriotism.

The home of the average nobleman in the city was decorated at the beginning of the 19th century with Persian carpets, paintings, mirrors in gilded frames, and expensive mahogany furniture. In the summer, the nobles who retained their estates left the stuffy cities. Village manor houses were of the same type and consisted of a wooden building with three or four columns at the front porch and a pediment triangle above them. In winter, usually before Christmas, the landowners returned to the city. Convoys of 15-20 carts were sent to the cities in advance and carried supplies: geese, chickens, pork hams, dried fish, corned beef, flour, cereals, butter.

The first half of the 19th century was a time of searching for “European” alternatives to ancient morals. They were not always successful. The interweaving of “Europeanism” and customary ideas gave the life of the nobility features of bright originality and attractiveness.

In the 19th century, the development of men's fashion began to determine the cultural and aesthetic phenomenon of dandyism. Its basis was a tailcoat with good cloth, skillful cut and impeccable tailoring, which was complemented by snow-white linen, a vest, a scarf, a frock coat, trousers, a top hat and gloves. Russian dandies emphasized material wealth, were fond of fashion accessories, and could not wean themselves from their addiction to diamonds and furs. Women's fashion at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries was marked by the rise of ancient fashion. Dressed in light tunics and flowing shawls, the “ancient goddess” of that time with her costume sharply outlined the role of women in life and society. The airy and fragile appearance of the romantic noblewoman of Pushkin's time was replaced by a socialite, whose costume was characterized by a wide crinoline, smooth, muted forms, emphasizing the earthly beauty of the woman.

Description of work

When we talk about the nobility of the second half of the 18th century, the main association that arises is luxury. Wealthy Russian nobles squandered fortunes on courtesans and at the card table. And the peasant worked for years to pay for a carriage wheel or a button from the caftan of his master, whom he would never see. Was this really so?

Let's imagine the situation in which a nobleman found himself in the second half of the 18th century. In 1754, the first bank opened that provided money. In 1769, the state had the opportunity to make external loans. There is more money in Russia, it is spent more easily. A favorable economic situation arises: there is a lot of imported goods, and there is money to buy it. The state is actively introducing such an institution as noble guardianship: if you squander, the estate goes under guardianship while you improve your financial situation, and then returns. Should we blame the nobles for their luxury? There is an opportunity - why not? What did the state try to do to show the nobles how to spend money correctly? “Proceedings of the Free Economic Society” became a new phenomenon in the cultural history of Russia. This magazine posed important problems and proposed corresponding solutions. Who formulated these tasks? In all likelihood, Catherine II herself had something to do with this. People from her inner circle financed it. The task was formulated as follows: “To create an institution for subsistence with income from 3 to 12 thousand rubles with a detailed description of all those details that relate to the maintenance of the house, service and management in St. Petersburg and Moscow, providing everything for the subsistence of this person.” In modern language, it was necessary to come up with a scheme that would outline all a person’s expenses. What does this money mean? For example, a capitation tax Capitation tax- the main direct tax in Russia in the 18th-19th centuries. Introduced by Peter I in 1724 to replace household taxation. The poll tax was imposed on the entire male population of the tax-paying classes. at that time it was 70 kopecks. Average quitrent amount quitrent- one of the duties of dependent peasants, which consisted of paying tribute to the landowner in food or money.- three or four rubles. Alexander Romanovich Vorontsov, not yet being the chancellor of the Russian Empire, spent about 20 thousand rubles on himself in 1776. This is a lot of money.

The Free Economic Society recommended spending money in such a way that it was clear that a person was living well. All expenses were visible. It was necessary to show the nobles that it was possible to lead a decent lifestyle, but at the same time they did not have to spend more on it than it was worth. For example, you can avoid buying bad wine, but dilute the good one. And there is no need to put on the table something whose quality will not be appreciated. Keeping records of flour is quite difficult, so it is better not to bake bread at home, but to buy it. They also wrote that there is no need to build houses, but rather to rent them. The construction of houses really ruined the nobles. That's an insane amount of money that was never returned. And renting a house was much cheaper, and the conditions were excellent, not like now.

Women's and men's expenses were very clearly separated. For example, a woman was supposed to spend more money on charity, a man less. Both of them had card money. But the woman was not supposed to have any expenses other than those prescribed. It was clearly stated that she had the right to spend 500 rubles a year on pins, a card game and cosmetics, for example. And the man - 500 rubles for a card game, gifts and other expenses that he may not advertise. Moreover, a woman’s carriage had to cost more than a man’s carriage. This is a status thing.

Was this consistent with how the nobles lived? What did they spend the money on? And how can you find out what exactly they spent on? At some point, the nobles began to keep income and expenditure books, in which they recorded the exact dates when they received money and when they spent it. Why did they start doing this? I think this is due to the increasing complexity of economic reality. The need to record where you spend your money and where it comes from comes when you have more than one source of income. And the expenses are more than two or three standard ones. When I was looking through the notebooks of Alexander Romanovich Vorontsov, I noticed his ink. They had light glitter. It must have been expensive ink. And yet he spent money to fill out his financial document with this ink. What will we find there? What could be conventionally called “gold and diamonds” is not there. There are expenses for the house, there are expenses for alms. For example, when Alexander Vorontsov made charitable contributions to the church, he wrote receipts. Once he even paid a debt for a charitable contribution, and it was written down: “And another 15 rubles for last year’s debt,” although charity, in theory, is a voluntary matter, you pay when you want.

The nobles themselves noted that they were very much involved in spending travel and education. When Vorontsov’s father, Roman Illarionovich, was dying, and it became clear that he had quite a large debt, his sons wrote to him: “We know that these debts arose due to the fact that we received an education in Europe.” Is it so? Hard to tell. If you translate how much, for example, Alexander Romanovich spent in France, it turns out that it is no more than 5 thousand rubles a year. It's not that much money. And yet it was believed that this, among other things, led his father to ruin. Of course, they spent money on construction. As soon as the question of construction arose, everyone wrote that it was very expensive, but it was a status thing, it was important.

How did women take into account their finances? Let us consider, as an example, two women whose income and expense books have been preserved. It so happened that later their fates crossed. The first is Ekaterina Alekseevna Vorontsova, who wrote her book in 1782, shortly before her death and almost immediately after the birth of her son Mikhail. The second woman is no less famous. This is Alexandra Vasilyevna Branitskaya, who kept the book in 1796. She was also a young mother, and subsequently the children of these noblewomen became husband and wife.

She spends almost 10% of the money that Ekaterina Alekseevna Vorontsova receives on gifts for her father-in-law, close relatives, and distant relatives. She spends a significant part of the money on purchases for her son, who was just born. This is surprising, because, in theory, she was supposed to receive all this from the village. But nevertheless, she buys swaddles, ribbons, a cradle, rattles, she repairs rattles. Her minor expenses are spent on purely feminine needs, for example on cosmetics - this is less than one percent of the total amount. She receives money primarily from her husband. We don't see the money that came from her fiefdom.

And Alexandra Vasilyevna Branitskaya, 10 years later, is conducting much more active economic activity. Some of the payments, quite large, 120 thousand each (which is a large amount), are related to loan repayments. Part of the money is paid as a deposit for the diamonds. She lends quite actively herself, for example Derzhavin. She sends substantial gifts to important people. For example, two hundred bottles of life essence to the same Derzhavin.

That is, two young mothers in approximately the same time period behave completely differently. One leads a patriarchal, domestic lifestyle, and the second quite actively participates in both the economic and, apparently, the social life of the country (her status allowed her to do this).

Receipt and expense books reflect the peculiarity of the noble mentality of that era, and primarily the elitist one, because the provincial nobles did not preserve these books in such quantities. These books come into clear conflict with the systems of rationed spending that the Free Economic Society put forward. In fact, this source reflects that the recommendations of society conflicted with the habits of the nobles. They preferred to spend money on gifts, drink alcohol and build the housing that we now admire. It is thanks to this that our idea of luxury is formed, but it also ruined the nobles, drove them into debt - and it is precisely about debts that we will continue to talk with you.

Decoding

We're talking about the poll tax. Why is it important? The poll tax, a direct tax introduced by Peter I to maintain the army in peacetime, was one of the most important financial arteries in our state, which for a very long time formed half of the budget.

We know three key figures about taxes: how much needs to be collected, how much is actually collected, and then, through a simple arithmetic operation, we get the amount of taxes that are not collected. At the moment, there are two points of view in historiography: the first is that the arrears were large, the second is that they were small. I can responsibly declare: both are right. Both numbers really exist. If we talk about large arrears, that taxes were paid poorly, we take this from the reports that were in the government; if the arrears are small, then we turn to those documents that remained in the provinces and governorates. What's behind these numbers?

There was no centralized budget in Russia; money was not sent anywhere.
About 4 million rubles were collected per year. According to the law, it was impossible to put more than 57 kilograms in one barrel - that is, 2 thousand rubles in silver coins. And there were also a lot of copper coins, which were even larger in volume and weight. That is, 4 million rubles is at least 2 thousand barrels. In Russia there were no premises where these 2 thousand barrels could be placed - there was no single budget.

Peter I decided that it was pointless to bring money to one place: they would not be delivered anyway. Besides, carts are an expense; To buy barrels, you also need money; To tie the bags you need ropes. And he said: “We will deliver from places.” That is, distribute money immediately locally, without bringing it to the center. What was in the center? The center only had reports. Local reports are written by local officials, and final reports are written by central officials. And at the end of almost every final report there is an amazing phrase: “And how much is truly in the milk That is, how much money is missing., it is impossible to know.” That is, reports were compiled, figures were written, decisions were made on their basis, but the officials themselves admitted: we do not know the exact data.

Yakov Petrovich Shakhovskoy in 1762, in a report on the collection of the poll tax for 30 years, wrote: “Millions of the treasury are in the unknown.” Please note: they were not stolen, not spent, but simply unknown where they are. Because the money is being transported from the provinces. What does it mean to write a report to the province? Let's imagine a chamber of officers at a capitation levy.

In the Moscow province, this chamber was in the basement in the building of the Berg College, and they wrote in their report in the same 1760s: “We have one chamber. There are three chests in it to store money, and another 30 chests containing documents. We have nowhere to store these documents. Even during the day we count money by candlelight.” And if a request came, it would physically take a lot of time to disassemble these 30 chests. This means that there is a great danger of miscalculation.

Imagine what copper money is. If we brought, relatively speaking, 10 rubles in copper, that’s at least 20, 30 coins. They need to be counted and checked whether they are fake or not. By candlelight. Where there is only one table and the whole room is crowded. If the scribe sits, then there is no place for the officer during the poll collection. And they write to the center: “Please give us a place for a guardhouse at the Ivanovo Bell Tower.” They were refused then, but that’s not the point. The point is that for three years they could not find a place for themselves and wrote to the government that if there were arrears, then it would be pointless to fine them, because they simply could not physically calculate everything correctly.

It was under such conditions that the reports were written. Everything needs to be counted and recorded in huge books. In addition, local officials were illiterate. Central government officials realize that the reports are incorrect, and half of them never arrived at all. This is how complex double-entry bookkeeping appears. The Arkhangelsk City Office has not sent its reports for 20 years. I still cannot find figures on how much taxes were paid there - they are not in any archive. Due to the fact that the report was not received or was not received in full, we end up with huge arrears at the top, but at the bottom everything is collected. Moreover, it was taken to places and spent.

If we look at all these documents, I can say for sure that the poll tax was paid well in Russia. The average level of arrears in Russia was 5-6%. It is not enough. Why do I say that 5-6% is a good collection rate? Because a little earlier in Prussia they tried to introduce the same tax - and they abandoned this idea within five years, because they simply could not collect more than 60%. Russia, in the difficult conditions of lack of infrastructure, lack of a sufficient bureaucratic apparatus, lack of roads, facilities for collecting and storing money and reports, was able to ensure that taxes were paid well and taxes were collected well.

How was the poll tax collected? Did fiscal violence really play a big role? Interestingly, the laws did not imply that the government would have to force people to pay. It was prescribed that the peasants themselves must collect the poll tax, bring it to the nearest administrative center themselves, hand it in, receive the paper and leave. It is important to note that in most cases the peasant actually came himself.

What if arrears arose, that is, the peasant did not come? The state believed that everyone should pay. It was ready to extract even 30 kopecks of arrears. What were the fiscal coercion measures? The first thing that comes to mind for absolutely any person who is familiar with Russian textbooks is right. This is a method of debt collection when peasants were placed barefoot on the snow (often this was in the fall, winter, because at that time the fiscal year ended) and violent acts were committed against them, beaten with sticks. This is a vivid image that easily fits into the logic of large arrears. In fact, the measures were quite varied.

The first is sending a command. It is important to understand that the team could only be recruited from retired military personnel, and retired military personnel at that time could not, by definition, be healthy people. That is, it was actually a gathering of disabled people: 5-10 people, one of them is deaf, another suffers from epilepsy, the third cannot walk, the fourth is blind, the fifth does not read, the sixth does not appear. What should they have done? They had to bring a paper that said: “Pay the poll tax.” Of course, they could try to beat up the defaulters, but they could also beat them up or kick them out. Usually it was just a payment reminder.

If the arrears were not paid, what happened next, what measures? It was possible to put the landowner peasants under guard, under arrest, until the arrears were paid. This measure was used quite often, and officials, reporting, wrote that “all arrears are sitting on guard.” They could have imprisoned the landowner. This is less often talked about, but in the 30s, landowners whose peasants did not pay often found themselves under guard next to their peasants. Moreover, the landowners could die there - and then their young children, for example, would be under guard.

Is sending such commands fiscal violence and what does the arrival of a command actually mean? First of all, they can misbehave; and by law the community had to feed them. What if a team of five people came? Feed everyone. It's good if he gets off in one day. What if they stand still? Here it is no longer physical, but economic coercion. It's easier to pay on time. Especially if he brings the money himself: he will bring the fish as a gift and will be on good terms with the official.

Since we say that taxes were collected well, then there was something that ensured good tax collection. In our minds, the image of Russia is easily associated with fiscal violence, but whether it was serious is a moot point.

Decoding

After sitting in the archive for almost six months, I realized that in Russia, from the second quarter until the end of the 18th century, taxes were collected well. But how was it spent?

To make it clear what it means to spend money collected through the poll tax, I will give an example in which there are several institutions: this is the Volokolamsk Provincial Chancellery, which is subordinate to the Moscow Provincial Chancellery, the Moscow Provincial Chancellery, which, in turn, is subordinate to the Kriegskomissariat in St. Petersburg, and the Moscow Carabinieri Regiment, which is assigned to the Volokolamsk Provincial Chancellery.

The per capita money that was collected in Volokolamsk was supposed to be sent to support the Moscow Carabineer Regiment. And so the provincial office writes to the Moscow office: “We don’t know where this regiment is located. He should have come, but he didn't. We have 20 thousand lying around. Where should we send them?” And by law, they must send capitation money immediately after collection. And they, not knowing what to do, simply sent them to a higher authority, to the Kriegskomissariat. We received a receipt. After some time, the Moscow provincial chancellery wrote to them: “Why did you send the money to the Kriegskomissariat? You should have asked us and waited for an answer." But if they waited for an answer, they would be fined for having money lying around.

After some time, it turns out that the Kriegskomissariat did not receive the money: at that time, Prince Khovansky was nearby with his own interests. He needed money, so he took 20 thousand from Volokolamsk, giving a receipt that he would then return it to the Kriegskomissariat. And from the Volokolamsk office, which collected the money, gave it, received a receipt, they demand another 20 thousand rubles, which it cannot pay.

What do we see in this example? Firstly, it is not clear where to send the money. Peter's original idea was for the money to go straight to the shelves and not linger anywhere. However, when he came up with this system, the regiments were stationed in the provinces. Later, since the population did not agree that the army would live in their villages, the regiments were withdrawn from the provinces. But the attachment remains. As a result, the provincial chancellery is looking for a regiment to which it should send money. Secondly, in this example we see that if funds were needed for some additional needs, they could take them from the per capita money. However, a mechanism for returning them and reporting what was taken was not developed.

I was going to submit it twice a year. Money was transported in bags and barrels from one place to another. In April, the collection for the first half ended, and from April they began delivering barrels and bags throughout Russia. One cart, second cart. Even if the capitation money was stolen (by the way, not very often), it was found within a month—the barrel of money had to be hidden somewhere, which is quite difficult. Some of it was spent, but most of it was returned back. It was a collection system designed and written into laws down to who exactly packed the bag. But the state was unable to develop a further system. After the introduction of the poll tax, Peter the Great died very quickly, and the system began to function without an ideological inspirer.

The provincial chancellery had to send money to the regiments, and not just one, but several. The regiment was initially assigned to the province, but an entire regiment cannot be stationed in the province. Several regiments were stationed there in units. One provincial office had to take money to several regiments, to Moscow, to St. Petersburg, to give the requested money Request money- money collected from the population in addition to regular taxes., if any arose, and all this took place at the local level. Why did they think that local provincial officials could handle this? In the second half of the 18th century, money also changed. There are copper ones, there are silver ones, and there is new paper money - banknotes. What to do with them, how to store them? Repeatedly, during the per capita collection, officers wrote that the banknotes were poorly stored - they did not want to transport them, it was inconvenient, although it certainly reduced the volume of transportation. It turns out that there are three types of money that need to be taken into account in some way. There was one exchange rate of copper money in relation to silver money, and another in relation to banknotes. That is, it was difficult to calculate the total amount of money collected and spent.

You don't run Russia with its crazy money, but if I ask you, do you remember exactly where you spent the money four days ago? If you had cash, you will say one way, and if you had a debit card, you will say another. And you won’t always be able to say exactly how you spent this money. It was the same with the state: until a unified budget appeared, it simply did not know where it was spending the money.

We find these models of fiscal behavior in the 18th century. So, perhaps, we generally come from there, including with our understanding and with our attitude towards taxes, towards what we pay to the state.

The daily life of Russians at the beginning and first half of the 19th century was very different. Residents of cities and industrialized areas of the country could talk about serious and noticeable changes. Life in the remote province, in the village in particular, went on basically as before. Much depended on the class and property status of people, their place of residence, religion, habits and traditions.

Nobility.

Officers and bureaucracy

The problem of material support became the most important one for officers in the first half of the 19th century. Officer salaries generally grew, but at a slower rate than for food and services.

At the beginning of the 19th century, most of the officers owned land and other property. His salary was therefore not his only source of income. By the middle of the century the situation had changed. Elements of social protection appeared: pensions, provision for fallen officers, etc.

The officers satisfied cultural needs without incurring additional expenses. The officers' meeting occupied the most important place in his daily life. Here the officers spent most of their free time, got to know each other, and celebrated holidays. The regiment commander regularly gave balls and dinner parties. On other days, officers stationed in a town or city were invited to balls at the local noble assembly.

Camping life, service in conditions unsuitable for normal life, in remote areas, frequent moving from city to city were not conducive to starting a family. Having decided to get married, the officer most often retired “due to domestic circumstances.”

The financial situation of the bureaucrats was even more difficult.

The situation of people on salaries was aggravated by the continuous fall in the exchange rate of banknotes: less and less paper money in silver was given for the ruble. The working day of a clerical employee exceeded ten or more hours. The work was usually purely mechanical. They had to rewrite papers in the mornings and evenings by candlelight, on which the authorities mercilessly skimped. Loss of vision was a common illness for most employees. Malnutrition, stuffy offices, fear of superiors led to tuberculosis (consumption) and nervous diseases.

The bureaucrats tried in their own way to make up for the lack of funds, robbing petitioners, extorting bribes, committing forgery and other crimes. The entertainment of the overwhelming majority of officials was very unpretentious.

Merchants

Merchants were slower than other segments of the urban population to embrace innovations in everyday life, partly due to the traditional hostility of the “aristocracy of blood.”

The bulk of the merchants still followed the traditional way of life and methods of doing business. In the houses, strict subordination was maintained, similar to the requirements of Domostroy. In order to increase and preserve capital, merchants preferred to personally control the progress of affairs, not trusting assistants and clerks too much. They sat in their barns and shops for 8-10 hours a day. An ordinary merchant family lived on a common household, purchasing material for clothing “in pieces,” for everyone. For a long time, the cash register of an enterprise or establishment was also general, and at the end of the year the total amount of cash was withdrawn. In his private life, the merchant gravitated towards peace and comfort, surrounding himself not so much with European novelties, but with durable and conveniently crafted items of traditional everyday life.

The picture of the life of the privileged classes of Russia clearly reflects both the changes that have occurred and the inconsistency and slowness of these changes. The everyday demands and living conditions of the nobility, officers, bureaucrats, and merchants gradually became closer. But the borders, erected and artificially maintained, remained inviolable.

Peasantry and workers

Contemporary about changes in the peasant environment in the 40s. wrote this: “... rural huts are being made cleaner and tidier, peasants are no longer keeping pets in their living quarters.” These observations relate primarily to the houses of wealthy peasants. There were significant differences in clothing: the rich peasants exchanged bast shoes for boots, an army coat and rough trousers for a caftan, and corduroy pants, a felted hat for a cap.

The peasants ate mainly vegetables grown in their own gardens. In the first half of the 19th century, a peasant consumed three pounds of bread a day. Potatoes had not yet become one of the most important crops; only 1.5% of the sown area was allocated to it. Not many of the peasants could enjoy pies, jellies or noodles. Kalach was considered a delicacy, gingerbread was a real gift. Tea became a popular drink among rural residents, replacing sbitni and brews.

The development of otkhodnichestvo influenced the life of the village. The otkhodniks, albeit in a distorted form at times, introduced their fellow villagers to urban customs and way of life. Rural youth were especially quick to pick up on innovations. Interest in dancing increased; On holidays, simple carousels were installed in villages and booths were erected for puppet shows.

The lifestyle of the factory people of Russia was just taking shape. It was a homeless, camp life, unsettled, creepy. The workers were subject to strict instructions from their bosses, who tried to regulate not only their working hours, but also their daily lives. The workers lived in multi-story barracks, in small rooms on the sides of a through corridor.

The workers' table was poor; porridge and bread helped out. The mortality rate was twice the national average. The literate were as rare among them as among the peasants; of all the entertainments, only the tavern and the tavern were available to them. There was no factory labor legislation. The manufacturer and local authorities were all-powerful in dealing with the working people.

Life in the cities

The mass of the population was small, and some were even completely illiterate, who did not consider themselves a full part of society, lived with a very limited horizon and concentrated all their vital interest in the trifles of life, trade, crafts, clerical service, and were content with local gossip and as spiritual food fantastic chatter on political and other topics. The entire population obediently and resignedly obeyed the regulations, customs and orders.

Religiosity reached a high development, but the external side prevailed - the unaccountable, trusting execution of rituals and rules... The Old Believers were of no small importance in Moscow at that time, apparently strictly persecuted, but despite this, partly thanks to this, they flourished significantly and possessed large amounts of money. The Moscow merchants... little advanced... into the arena of public life: they were closed and lived by special spiritual and material interests.

Both on the Internet and in the press one often comes across myths, inaccuracies, naive ideas or simply nonsense about the nobility. It seems to us necessary to clarify some aspects associated with the nobility, which are most often misunderstood.

Firstly, not all noble families are titled. In the Russian Empire there were a lot of nobles who did not bear any title, and at the same time belonged to families so ancient that many titled nobles could envy (for example, the Pushkins, Bakunins, Naryshkins...). In addition, the title was often given to an individual representative of the family, who thus began a new, titled clan. Therefore, there are Counts Apraksins and simply noblemen Apraksins, Counts Golovins and simply noblemen Golovins, etc.

Secondly, some people falsely believe that the title of count is the most prestigious. In fact, among the three Russian noble titles, the most prestigious was always the princely one. Of course, due to some inflation of the princely title (in particular, a lot of new princely titles were recognized when the Caucasus was annexed to the Russian Empire, which greatly increased the already large number of princes, while there were less than three hundred count families), and also because Peter I began to give the count title for special merits; gradually the idea of the count title as more prestigious developed, but this is a mistake. There is a fairly clear hierarchy of titles, generally accepted throughout Europe, according to which the Russian three titles in order are prince, count, baron. Among the princes, the most prestigious, of course, are the Grand Dukes (members of the royal family), then the most serene princes (Lopukhins, Volkonskys, Yuryevskys, etc.), and “simply” princes.

Thirdly, another myth concerns the “Velvet Book” (the compilation of which began in 1682 and continued until 1687), about which many people think that it is an indispensable condition for confirming the antiquity of the family. In fact, a number of undeniably ancient Russian clans (Apraksins, Arsenyevs, Glebovs, Karacharovs, Levashovs, Rtishchevs, Sumarokovs, Yazykovs and many others, with a total number of more than 700 clans!) were not included in the Velvet Book simply because their representatives were not submitted the requested documents to the Discharge Order. In addition, the Velvet Book itself contains many inaccuracies and unreliable information...

We also note, fourthly, that contrary to naive ideas, not all noble families were rich. The noble class in general was extremely heterogeneous. How can one compare, for example, the Volkonskys, Gagarins or Obolenskys, who each owned several TENS, OR EVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, HECTARES OF LAND, with those noble families, whose possession was 5-20 dessiatines, or even nothing at all (by the end of the monarchy , many nobles did not own any real estate at all, especially after the abolition of serfdom). Impoverished noble families were forced to live little better than their former peasants. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. It often happened that nobles embarked on entrepreneurship, or even simply became artisans. Again, before 1861, not all nobles were owners of serfs, due to the fact that many of them were simply granted personal nobility for merit or as a result of achieving a certain rank, and there were also many noble offspring who did not inherit any “souls.” "from their fathers, when talking about numerous families.

Fifthly, extreme inequality among the nobles is also noticeable in terms of their proximity to the Court. In the minds of many Russians today, nobles are mostly courtiers. Some people like to tell unfounded stories about their great-grandmother-maid-of-honor, etc. In fact, the highest nobility (titled court families) was a very small stratum of the noble class, which was overwhelmingly provincial, i.e. lived in the provinces. Many served the Emperor all their lives without ever seeing him. Many hereditary nobles lived from generation to generation in the same place, and with the exception of those who went to military service, they often never visited the capitals.

Thus, although the nobility was a privileged class, such glaring inequality was observed among itself that it becomes impossible to generalize one’s ideas about the nobility. There was a gap between a small district official in the Tambov province, who reached a certain rank at the end of his career and barely earned himself personal nobility, and a descendant of an old princely family, close to the emperor, occupying the highest government positions, for example. from the Golitsyn or Lvov family. In addition to internal contradictions between personal and hereditary nobles, and among the latter, between titled and untitled families, there was also a serious difference in the amount of wealth (lands, palaces, serfs, movable property, icons and relics...), as well as in proximity to power and influence on her.

Sixthly, another naive myth concerns the privileged position of the noble class. Of course, the nobles had many rights and privileges. But, however, considering them all to be rich slackers, mercilessly exploiting the people and living at their expense, is also a caricatured exaggeration, inherited by many Russians from seventy years of Bolshevik propaganda. In fact, the nobles had to earn their privileges. They had to serve the Throne (and therefore Russia) in military or civil service; they had many responsibilities for organizing the country, from collecting taxes to recruiting the army. They were the first to fall in war and paid for their privileges with blood. Under Peter I, their position as the sovereign's forced servants was even more enshrined in law; it was young nobles who Peter sent abroad to study, and nobles who were forced to work for the state. Compared to the situation of the nobility in the first half of the 18th century, the charter granted to the class in 1785 by Catherine II seemed to them in many ways liberating.

Regarding, seventhly, the number of nobles - according to the ideas of many Russians, the class was extremely narrow, almost several thousand or tens of thousands of people. In fact, this can be said with some stretch only about titled nobles and the highest nobility. But the nobles in general in the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. there were about 1-1.2 million people (if you count both personal and hereditary nobles). However, in comparison with Western European countries, the proportion of nobles was still somewhat narrower: slightly less than a percent of the population in Russia, about one and a half percent in France or England. Thus, although the nobility was the ultimate dream for many people from the lower classes, it was still not something sky-high and inaccessible, especially after 1722 (Petrine’s “Table of Ranks”) for those who received a minimum education and, thanks to their diligence and mind was able to move up the hierarchy of ranks. Climbing the social ladder could take several centuries. An indicative example is the former peasants Strogonovs, who became merchants at the end of the 15th century, a century and a half later - industrialists, nobles, barons, and then counts, already in the 18th century.

Eighth, when it comes to the Romanovs, there are often misconceptions about them and their origins. The promotion of this rather average boyar family in 1613 was due only to the position of Mikhail Romanov’s father (Patriarch Filaret) and proximity to the last monarchs of the Rurik dynasty (not blood proximity, but thanks to the wedding of Ivan IV the Terrible with Anastasia Zakharyina-Yuryeva, the “Romanov” family itself was even then did not exist). A number of noble families are much older and more noble than the Romanov family, especially the Rurikovichs (Odoevskys, Baryatinskys, Volkonskys, Lvovs, Kropotkins, Drutskys, etc.). Not to mention the fact that the Romanov family, strictly speaking, came to an end with the death of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna in 1761, because her heir Peter III was already a representative of the new (and German!) dynasty on the Russian throne, the Oldenburg (or Holstein-Gottorp), and only by the decision of Elizabeth the dynasty continued to be officially called the Romanov dynasty.

Ninth, many of the surnames correspond to several noble families, sometimes completely unrelated to each other. For example, more than five genera are known of the Suvorovs, Yazykovs or Chulkovs. Sometimes this could happen because the same surname was spontaneously created more or less simultaneously in different localities; sometimes genera have an indisputable common ancestor, but exact data are lost, and some of them are reliably traced only to a certain extent; and sometimes, especially in the case of common surnames such as the Ivanovs, Stepanovs or Kozlovs, the ancestor of a noble family is a specific non-nobleman living recently who was granted hereditary nobility. Again, after the abolition of serfdom, many of the peasants who did not have surnames were recorded by the surnames of their former landowners, etc. Thus, the fact that your surname, for example, is Balashov, Gorokhov, Kupriyanov or even Golitsyn, does not mean at all that you necessarily have nobles of this surname among your ancestors. That is why strict genealogical work is necessary to establish one’s ancestors (very often one has to see completely unfounded and ridiculous claims from various people, both sincere and deliberately dishonest: for example, it is quite clearly known that Nikolai Petrovich Rezanov, traveler and diplomat, one of the founders of the Russian -American company (1764-1807), left no offspring, both of his children died too early; and the Rezanov nobles were never counts. The authors of the famous rock opera embellished the story, making Commander Rezanov a count. some of the Rezanovs present themselves as possible direct descendants of N.P. Rezanov, and some call themselves Count Rezanov, which is historical nonsense).

Not everyone knows, tenthly, that not all noble families of Russia had their own coat of arms. The official “Armorial Book” includes only about 3,000 coats of arms, many of which are personal (not family). In Russia there are much more noble families. Very often, only one specific branch had a coat of arms, which, naturally, does not give any right to other noble families (and even more so just namesakes!) to legitimately use this coat of arms as their own.

Eleventh, in Russian tradition, surnames, nobility (and titles) were transmitted exclusively through the male line. Also excluded from inheritance until 1917 were the so-called. “illegitimate” (illegitimate or adulterous) children, although many of them, especially children of representatives of the royal family or the highest nobility, received a different surname and nobility (there are many examples of this, for example, the Bobrinsky counts, whose ancestor was the illegitimate son of Catherine II). Adopted children sometimes received nobility at the request of their parents, by “The Highest Permission.” Considering that since the last century, especially after the Second World War, many children were born out of wedlock and received the mother's surname, a large number of today's Russians bearing noble surnames (and actually having nobles among their ancestors) from a pre-revolutionary point of view are not nobles (not to mention let alone the fact that legally the very concept of nobility in Russia has not existed since October 1917).

Twelfth, and finally, no awards of the Russian nobility (and certainly no titles) after February 1917 are completely illegitimate, since nobility can only be granted by the reigning monarch. Since February 1917, Russia has been a republic. In addition, the House of Romanov in exile is headed by individuals whose status is at least controversial, but in fact simply groundless for a number of reasons, because The Kirillovichs were excluded from succession to the throne back in 1905/07 due to the marriage of Kirill Vladimirovich Romanov (1876-1938), which was not permitted by the Emperor, and also contradicted the establishment of the Orthodox Church, and even more so due to the well-known betrayal of the Emperor and the monarchy by Kirill Vladimirovich in 1917, not to mention already about the morganatic marriage of his son Vladimir Kirillovich Romanov (1917-1992) and a whole series of “problems” with compliance with the clear rules of succession to the throne established by Paul I. Thus, there is absolutely no need to talk about any new noble families or titles after 1917, even if any were “granted” by pretenders to the throne (not to mention all sorts of crooks trying to sell fantasy noble titles, and for which there are sometimes ignorant and stupid buyers).

For all these reasons, no one can seriously consider themselves nobleman of the no longer existing Russian Empire, but the maximum can (provided that this is strictly proven and complies with the traditional Russian rules for the transfer of hereditary nobility, and is not just a coincidence of surname) be called either representative any noble family, or descendant any noble families (then no longer tied to the rules of transfer of nobility and mandatory compliance with various principles). This is precisely the (correct) choice made by the modern Russian Noble Assembly, the full name of which also places the necessary emphasis - “The Union of Descendants of the Russian Nobility - the Russian Noble Assembly”, and which accepts into its ranks any proven descendants of nobles (even for descendants through female lines or with transition through children born out of legal marriage and whatever their religion, etc.). In general, it is mathematically obvious that among living Russians there are almost no people who did not have nobles among their ancestors. It's just that the vast majority are not aware of it and are not interested in it.

Nobility in the Russian Empire. XIX - early XX centuries

Decoding

Decoding