Russian nobility

Общероссийский смотр 1721-1723 г. известен в историографии как крупнейшее ме-роприятие при Петре I по рекрутированию дворянства и служилых людей. Сохранился бо-гатый архивный историко-биографический материал о дворянах, не состоявших в момент смотра в действующей армии, о служащих петровских учреждений. Исследователи часто обращаются к сказкам этого смотра, но история события остается до сих пор слабо изу-ченной. «Генеральный смотр», как называл его Петр I, был поручен Сенату, действовав-шему поочередно в двух столицах. «Разбор» дворян для выяснения их состояния, физиче-ской годности и грамотности организовали первый герольдмейстер стольник С. А. Колы-чев и сменивший его полковник И. Н. Плещеев. Служащие Герольдмейстерской канцелярии составляли для Сената списки «годных людей» и персонально определенных к коллежским должностям, к другим многочисленным поручениям. Назначения производились после дол-гих согласований с коллегиями. Автор изучает масштаб и итоги всей акции на основе «Ве-домости смотра» 1723 г., которая впервые вводится в научный оборот. «Ведомость» со-держит подробную статистику по учету 17 тысяч человек «всех чинов» шляхетства, явившихся «к сенатскому разбору», по основным статьям (годные к службе, назначенные в учреждения, неявившиеся на смотр) и по множеству дробных рубрик. Автором установле-ны основные вехи смотра, уточняется хронология выбора и назначения первого герольд-мейстера. Изучены варианты названия смотра, мнения историков относительно его ре-зультативности и роли Герольдии. Данные о поименных назначениях в штаты 6 коллегий опубликованы в приложении к статье. Автор приходит к выводу, что генеральный смотр дворянства был задуман в том числе для преодоления кадрового дефицита коллежской и областной реформ и был завершенным мероприятием. Полная аутентичная статистика смотра позволит уточнить степень сохранности архивных документов смотра и точнее исследовать социальный облик дворянства. The General Inspection of Nobility 1721-1723 is known in historiography not only as the largest event under Peter I to recruit the nobility and serving people. There are plenty of historical and biographical documents about serving people outside the active army. Historians often refer to records of the Review, meanwhile the history of the event is poorly studied in historiography. The «General Review», as Peter I called it, was entrusted to the Senate, which operated alternately in the two capitals. The main work on the revision of the nobles to find out their condition, physical fitness, and literacy was entrusted to the First Heraldmaster S. A. Kolychev. Employees of the Heraldmaster's Office made lists for the Senate which personally appointed serving people to the Collegium posts and numerous affairs. The author studies the scale and results of the Review on the basis of "The Bulletin of the Review" of 1723, which is introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. "The Bulletin" contains very detailed statistics accounting for some 16 thousand noblemen of all ranks, who came to the Review, in the following sections: fit for service, assigned to public institutions, no-show. The author sets the main milestones of the Review, specifies the chronology of the selection and appointment of the First Heraldmaster. The study also deals with versions of the name for the review, historians’ views on its effectiveness, and the role of the Herald. Appointments by name to 6 boards are given in the Appendix to the article. The author comes to the conclusion that, firstly, the General Review of the nobility was conceived in part to overcome the personnel shortage of the collegiate reform. Secondly, the full statistics of the Review allows clarifying the degree of the preservation of documents and conducting more accurately a prosopography of the nobility.

The correspondence of Senator Count Roman Vorontsov with captain of Preobrazhenskii regiment Petr Chebyshev and Marshal of Shlissel´burg nobility Alexander Artsybashev is a unique source revealing unofficial negotiations regarding the election of Vorontsov as a deputy to the Legislative Commission of 1767 and the composition of the instruction (nakaz) addressed to him. It demonstrates that Roman Vorontsov initiated his election and gave recommendations as to which requests to the Monarch should be included in the instruction to the deputy. The Shlissel´burg nobles elected Vorontsov without apparent hesitation and in most cases took his advice as to the instruction’s content. However, they abandoned some of the count’s ideas and included some claims of their own. The preface to the publication of the documents contextualizes the case in the following respects: personal information on Shlissel´burg nobles participating in the election; the connection of Vorontsov’s activities as Shlissel´burg deputy with his views expressed as a senator and co‑author of the Moscow nobility’s instruction; the importance of the Shlissel´burg instruction case for the exploration of other instructions of the nobility. The investigation leads the author to the conclusion that the demands drawn up by Roman Vorontsov were to a great extent in accordance with the wishes expressed by rank‑and‑file nobility despite some differences in claims and ways of argumentation. The electors first of all appealed to the Monarch’s mercy for their needs whereas the deputy tended to justify his claims with considerations on the State’s well‑being. The task of formulating their interests and problems significantly enhanced communication among the nobility and promoted the dissemination of shared ideas as well as the expression of relatively specific ones. Last, the information provided by this presentation of the Shlissel´burg nakaz can be useful for understanding other instructions as the result of the interaction of different views and not as the final position of all the nobility of a district.

The article is about the decoration of the former Demidoffs' house church in the villa of San Donato. A part of it is now located in the church of the Nativity of Christ and St. Nicholas the Thaumaturge in Florence (architect M. T. Preobrazhensky). The author has suggested the probable appearance of the house church in the villa of San Donato based on notes of contemporaries , analysis of the palace's blueprints and the remaining elements of the decoration. The ecclesiastical purpose of the surviving building of the "Demidoffs ex-chapel" has been questioned and analyzed, based on D. Silvestri's original sketches, from which it follows that this is the building of the Odeon-a concert and theater hall. Particular attention is paid to the carved decoration of the church, made in A. Barbetti's workshop, to the iconostasis and the gallery of local and small icons. Local icons of the iconostasis and icons of the apostles executed in an academic manner by famous religious painter V. V. Vasilyev. However, the gallery of small icons of the second tier of the iconostasis and the doors-kiots is stylistically close to the icon-painting of the 17 th century. Also, based on historical analysis and analysis of style, the author sets up a hypothesis that the gallery of small icons from Demidoffs' church belong to "Nevyansk" or "Peshekhonovsk" icon-painting schools. Keywords: Demidoff the Prince of San Donato, Church of the Nativity of Christ and St. Nich-olas the Thaumaturge in Florence, M. T. Preobrazhensky, D. Silvestri, A. Barbetti, V. V. Vasilyev, "Nevyansk" icon-painting, "Peshekhonovsk" icon-painting.

The case studied in this chapter deals with the social sphere located between
the official cosmopolitanism promoted by the court and rivalries and tensions
characteristic of professional corporations. The critical reappraisal of interactions
between foreigners and local elites nuances the opposition between aristocratic
cosmopolitanism and nascent nationalism—an opposition that informs
social and cultural histories of the Russian nobility (Greenfeld 1990). How did
Russian nobles feel about their foreign peers who had to leave their country
and to abandon property (and rent), and who came to Russia to enjoy ranks,
pensions, and honors dispensed by the imperial court? Did the local elite pride
itself on its new capacity as the host offering refuge to those who, until recently,
pretended to be the role model of the civilized world? These questions will guide
my essay in the social history of perceptions of Europeans among Russian elites.

Статья посвящена характеристике политической мысли Н.И. Панина, видного государственного деятеля России второй половины XVIII в. Анализируются идеи Панина относительно роли и места государственных институтов (таких, как Императорский совет или Сенат) и гражданских добродетелей в политическом процессе и, в частности, в "сдерживании" абсолютной власти императора. Автор приходит к выводу о том, что своеобразным лимитом суверенной власти должны были выступать не процедурные ограничения, но особые качества государственных мужей, помогающие совершать поступки ради "общего блага".

The article discusses burials of Russian military leaders inside churches in XVIII—XIX centuries. The author analyzes social and religious motives were changed over centuries and served as the basis for creating a memorial memory of domestic commanders, regardless of their social and ecclesiastical status.