Pravjaščie ėlity i dvorjanstvo Rossii vo vremja i posle petrovskich reform (1682–1750) [Die herrschenden Eliten und der Adel Russlands während und nach den Petrinischen Reformen (1682–1759)]. Otv. sost. N. N. Petruchincev / L. Ėrren. Moskva: Rosspėn, 2013. 455 S., Tab., Graph. = Rossija i Evropa vek za vekom XVII

Pravjaščie ėlity i dvorjanstvo Rossii vo vremja i posle petrovskich reform (1682–1750) [Die herrschenden Eliten und der Adel Russlands während und nach den Petrinischen Reformen (1682–1759)]. Otv. sost. N. N. Petruchincev / L. Ėrren. Moskva: Rosspėn, 2013. 455 S., Tab., Graph. = Rossija i Evropa vek za vekom XVII–XVIII. ISBN: 978-5-8243-1717-6.

This useful collection of essays stemming from a conference with the same title is a welcome addition to the series Rossiia i Evropa vek za vekom XVII–XVIII edited by A. V. Doronin and issued by the German Historical Institute in Moscow. The contributions are divided into four sections, and the contributors are all Russian: from Ekaterinburg, Cheliabinsk, Ufa, Samara, Lipetsk and Novosibirsk as well as Moscow and St. Petersburg, with one from the USA.

While the editorial suggestion that the first half of the eighteenth century has been less studied than the second is well-founded, the last decades of the seventeenth century have been even more neglected and receive comparatively little coverage here. Indeed, the cut-off dates of the book are somewhat misleading, since far less attention is given to the years before 1700 than those following. So, while the collection is based on the assumption that the reforms of Peter I constituted a break with the Muscovite order, this might appear less abrupt if closer attention were given to the earlier period. (After all, Peter himself gave the credit for the formation of the Russian army to his father Aleksei Mikhailovich.) To this end, there could also have been more comparative focus on other nobilities throughout Europe, in Prussia and France for example. Nevertheless, within its own parameters, the collection adds considerably to our understanding, with virtually all its contributions based on archival researches and putting forward worthwhile ideas.

The first of the four sections is entitled The Russian nobility and power: problems of the inter-relationship and structure of the Russian noble elite. It begins with an examination by A. V. Zakharov of the relationship between the sovereign’s court and the actual structure of noble service: it contains several helpful tables. S. V. Chernikov considers meritocratic and aristocratic elements in Peter I’s military elite, again with helpful tables, while O. G. Agaeeva focuses on the relationship between the monarch and the nobility of the capital in the Noble Order of Fools and Jesters. And M. V. Babich adds several appendices to support his argument that “concealed levers” of retirement were more important regulators of service than such well-known legislative acts as the manifesto of 31 December 1736 limiting its periods.

The individual and the elites constitute the second section, with an opening analysis by D. O. Serov of the elite in the Petrine Senate in two embodiments, from 1711–1718 and from 1718–1724, with the former less well-known personally to the tsar and of lower rank than the latter. This anatomy of a group is followed by a series of studies of significant individuals. T. A. Bazarova scrutinises the manner in which the converted Jew P. P. Shafirov rose to the top of the social tree to become the first vice-chancellor, taking advantage of Peter’s patronage like A. D. Menshikov. Ia. I. Prokopenko describes how a foreigner, Heinrich Fick, used his experience as burgermeister of Eckernförde in Holstein to help develop the Russian administration. This essay is well-researched and informative, but one of the introductory statements to the effect that Peter’s reign marked the beginning of the internationalisation of the Russian elite is surprising, since this process was already underway before then. The curious story of Boris Ivanovich Korybut-Kurakin’s self-promotion as an aristocrat is told by E. A. Zitser, while I. A. Voznesenskaia utilises the archive of Ludwig Gruno von Hessen-Homburg to illustrate the history of the military elite in the 1730s. Finally, I. V. Kurukin takes a new glance at A. P. Volynskii and his ‘konfidenty’ in the same decade. He shows familiarity with recent Western writing on aspects of his subject, but, somewhat surprisingly, makes no mention of pre-revolutionary Russian work by Iu. V. Got’e and D. A. Korsakov.

D. G. Polonskii opens the third section, The noble estate: problems of self-consciousness in the epoch of reforms and political crises, with a study of the self-identification of the Russian nobility and the Petrine reform of epistolary etiquette at the end of the XVII century to the beginning of the eighteenth, with one correspondent abasing himself as far as nizhaishii rab nepotrebnyi, ubogii. Next, N. N. Petrukhintsev discusses the consolidation of the noble estate and the problems of its evolving terminology, Peter himself preferring dvorianstvo because shliakhetstvo carried implications of less complete control by the state. M. A. Kiselev focuses on the development of the noble estate’s self consciousness in the first third of the eighteenth century with special reference to the interregnum of 1730, asking the question ‘shliakhetstvo’ or ‘families and shliakhetstvo’? Finally, The court and ‘court society’ in Post-Petrine Russia are addressed by S. V. Pol’skii, applying the ideas of Norbert Elias.

For the fourth section, we move far away from the court and the capitals for prikazchiki and komissary and bureaucratisation of local elites in Siberia in the first forty years of the eighteenth century to be anatomised by D. A. Redin and corporate links in the service town of Ufa in the second half of the seventeenth century and beginning of the eighteenth – by B. A. Aznabaev. The noble goroda of the Novgorod raszriad as indicated in the razbory at the beginning of the eighteenth century receive the attention of T. A. Lapteva before Ia. A. Lazarev brings the collection to an end with an evaluation of the function of informal links in Russo-Ukrainian noble relations in the 1720s and first half of the 1730s.

Undoubtedly, all the contributions to this collection have richly deserved mention. However, in conclusion, a few more general observations are in order perhaps. Consider, for example, the contrast between the post-Soviet and Soviet approaches to the subject. In the earlier period, the relationship between the nobility and the other classes would not have been almost totally ignored. Bulavin’s ‘peasant war’ would almost certainly have received a mention among other instances of conflict. Now, the dvorianstvo appears somewhat separated from the rest of society. Of course, a collection such as this cannot aspire to be comprehensive, but perhaps it is excusable for a reviewer in Aberdeen to recommend a local hero James Keith as a source for our understanding of the events of 1730. And, while several Gordons receive a mention, it always has to be recalled that the Diary of Patrick Gordon is a most valuable source for the second half of the seventeenth century in Russia and throughout Europe. It should be used extensively if and when the editors of this excellent series could be persuaded to bring out another volume on the period preceding 1682–1750.

Paul Dukes, Aberdeen