1.1 Nobility under Peter I

The reign of Peter - 1682-1725 - can be described as a period of transformation of the nobility into a full-fledged estate, occurring simultaneously with its enslavement and increasing dependence on the state. The process of forming the nobility as a single class consists in the gradual acquisition of class rights and privileges.

One of the first events in this area was the adoption of the Decree on uniform inheritance. In March 1714, a decree "On the order of inheritance in movable and immovable property" was issued, better known as the "Decree on Uniform Succession". This decree was an important milestone in the history of the Russian nobility. He legislated the equality of estates and estates as forms of real estate, i.e. there was a merger of these two forms of feudal landed property. From that moment on, land holdings were not subject to division among all the heirs of the deceased, but went to one of the sons at the choice of the testator. It is quite obvious that the rest, according to the legislator, having lost their source of income, should have rushed to the state service. In this regard, most researchers believe that the involvement of nobles in the service or some other activity useful to the state was the main purpose of this decree. Others believe that Peter I wanted to turn part of the nobility into the third estate. Still others - that the emperor took care of the preservation of the nobility itself and even sought to turn it into a kind of Western European aristocracy. The fourth, on the contrary, are convinced of the anti-noble orientation of this decree. This decree, which had many progressive features, caused discontent among the upper class. In addition, like many normative acts of the Petrine era, it was not well developed. The ambiguity of the wording created difficulties in the execution of the decree. Here is what Klyuchevsky notes about this: “It is poorly processed, does not foresee many cases, gives vague definitions that allow for conflicting interpretations: in the 1st paragraph it strongly prohibits the alienation of real estate, and in the 12th it provides and normalizes their sale as needed; establishing a sharp difference in the order of inheritance of movable and immovable property does not indicate what is meant by one and the other, and this gave rise to misunderstandings and abuses. These shortcomings caused repeated clarifications in subsequent decrees of Peter. By 1725, the decree had undergone significant revision, allowing significant deviations from the original version. But anyway, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky: "The law of 1714, without reaching the intended goals, only introduced confusion and economic disorder into the landowning environment."

According to some historians, the Decree on Uniform Succession was created in order to attract the nobles to the service. But despite this, Peter was constantly faced with an unwillingness to serve. This is explained by the fact that service under this emperor was not only obligatory, but also indefinite, for life. Every now and then, Peter received news of dozens and hundreds of nobles hiding from service or study on their estates. In the fight against this phenomenon, Peter was merciless. So, in the decree to the Senate it was said: "Whoever hides from the service, will announce to the people, whoever finds or announces such a person, to him give all the villages of the one who was guarded." Peter fought not only with punishments, but also by legislatively creating a new system of service. Peter I considered the professional training of a nobleman, his education, to be the most important sign of fitness for service. In January 1714, there was a ban on marrying noble offspring who did not have at least a primary education. A nobleman without education was deprived of the opportunity to occupy command positions in the army and leadership in civil administration. Peter was convinced that a noble origin could not be the basis for a successful career, so in February 1712 it was ordered not to promote nobles who did not serve as soldiers, that is, who did not receive the necessary training, as officers. Peter's attitude to the problem of the relationship of various social groups between themselves and the state was fully manifested in the course of the tax reform that began in 1718. Almost from the very beginning, the nobility was exempted from taxation, which legally secured one of its most important privileges. But even here problems arose, since it was not so easy to distinguish a nobleman from a non-nobleman. In the pre-Petrine era, there was no practice of awarding the nobility with the accompanying legal and documentary registration. Thus, in practice, the main sign of belonging to the nobility in the course of the tax reform was the real official position, i.e. service in the army as an officer or in the civil service at a fairly high position, as well as the presence of an estate with serfs.

Another important event of Peter I was the adoption on January 24, 1722 of the "Table of Ranks". Peter personally took part in editing this decree, which was based on borrowings from the "schedules of ranks" of the French, Prussian, Swedish and Danish kingdoms. All the ranks of the "Table of Ranks" were divided into three types: military, civilian (civil) and courtiers and were divided into fourteen classes. Each class was assigned its own rank. Chin - official and social position established in civil and military service. Although some historians considered the rank as a position. Petrovskaya "Table", determining a place in the hierarchy of the civil service, to some extent made it possible for talented people from the lower classes to advance. All those who have received the first 8 ranks in the state or court department are ranked as hereditary nobility, "even if they were of low breed", i.e. regardless of their origin. In military service, this title was given at the rank of the lowest XIV class. Thus, Peter I expressed his preference for military service over civilian. Moreover, the title of nobility applies only to children born after the father has received this rank; if, upon receiving the rank of children, he will not be born, he can ask for the grant of nobility to one of his previously born children. With the introduction of the table of ranks, the ancient Russian ranks - boyars, okolnichy and others - were not formally abolished, but the award to these ranks ceased. The publication of the report card had a significant impact on both the official routine and the historical fate of the nobility. The only regulator of service was personal length of service; "father's honor", the breed, has lost all meaning in this respect. Military service was separated from civil and court service. The acquisition of the nobility by the length of service of a certain rank and the grant of the monarch was legalized, which influenced the democratization of the noble class, the consolidation of the service nature of the nobility and the stratification of the noble mass into new groups - the hereditary and personal nobility.

Absolutism in Russia: conditions for the emergence and characteristics

Foreign policy of Russia under Peter the Great

Russia needed to find allies in Europe in its struggle against the Ottoman Empire. In 1697, Russian diplomacy managed to conclude an offensive alliance against Turkey with Austria and Venice ...

State institutions of the Russian Empire from 1725 to 1755

On December 12, 1741, shortly after her accession to the throne, Empress Elizabeth issued a decree abolishing the cabinet and restoring the Governing Senate (before it was again called the High Senate) in its former position...

The nobility of Kiev in the 19th century

At the beginning of the 19th century, Kiev became one of the largest places in the Russian Empire. In 1797, the turn of the roci vinikla of the Kiev province of Kiev was appointed provincial township. A new development of yoga is being developed ...

Europe in the 18th century

in Russia in the 18th century. Along with the strengthening and formation of the estate system, profound changes are taking place in economic and social development, affecting all aspects of the national economy and the social image of the country ...

The history of the Russian fleet and the Andreevsky flag

The attempt to build a fleet during the Russian-Swedish war in 1656-1661 was also unsuccessful. On the Western Dvina, under the leadership of the governor A.L. Ordin-Nashchekin, the construction of rowing and sailing ships intended for military operations began ...

History of Russia from the Middle Ages to the present day

Between Stalin Joseph Vissarionovich and Peter I there are more similarities than differences. Peter I is an outstanding political and military leader of Russia. Developed industry, created a new type of army, incl. a new kind of troops, built cities, dug canals ...

Peter I and his life

After the victory in the Northern War and the conclusion of the Peace of Nystadt in September 1721, the Senate and Synod decided to present Peter with the title of Emperor of All Russia with the following wording: "as usual from the Roman Senate for the noble deeds of emperors ...

Post-feudal society of transitional England of the 16th-17th centuries.

Gentlemen constituted the upper class, standing immediately behind the king. These included titled nobility (princes, dukes, marquesses, viscounts and barons; they were called lords), knights and esquires. You couldn't be born a knight...

Russian nobility

At the end of the 18th century (1795), there were 362 thousand nobles (2.2% of the population of Russia). In the middle of the XIX century. (1858) the number of nobles was 464 thousand (1.5% of the total population). Of these, hereditary nobles made up the majority (in 1816 - 56%, in 1858 - 55%) ...

Senate of the Russian Empire

On December 12, 1741, shortly after her accession to the throne, Empress Elizabeth issued a decree abolishing the cabinet and restoring the Governing Senate to its former position. The Senate not only became the supreme body of the empire...

Estates

The nobility was formed from various categories of service people (boyars, okolnichs, clerks, clerks, children of boyars, etc.), received the name of the gentry under Peter I, renamed under Catherine II into the nobility (in the acts of the Legislative Commission of 1767) ...

Class legislation of the second half of the 18th century

Becoming a privileged and isolated class, the nobility did not yet have a class organization, and with the abolition of compulsory service, it could also lose its service organization. Institutions of 1775, giving the nobility self-rule...

Socio-economic transformations of Peter I

The creation of such a phenomenon - Petersburg, like other acts of Peter, with all its weight fell on the shoulders of the masses. The people paid ever-increasing taxes, ordinary people died in the thousands on the construction of St. Petersburg, while digging canals ...

France in the other half of the XVII century.

The French nobility vyshukuvalo, Crimea direct seigneurial requisitions, and іnshі dzherela exploitation of the peasants. Young blues of noble families often took spiritual dignity...

Convenient article navigation:

Customs and way of life under Emperor Peter I

The era of the reign of Emperor Peter the Great is considered one of the most controversial. On the one hand, the state regularly fought for the right to access ice-free seas, on the other hand, new reforms were introduced. The receipt by Russia of sea trade routes with developed countries made it possible not only to restore the country's economy, but also to enrich its culture, making the life of a Russian person similar to a resident of Europe.

Military service

During the reign of Peter the Great, young nobles who had reached the age of sixteen or seventeen were supposed to serve for life. As a rule, they began their careers as privates in dragoon or infantry regiments. Quite often they were also taken as sailors on ships. It is worth noting that, by order of the tsar, privates and sailors had to wear "German" uniforms.

Like the sovereign himself, the nobleman must have been versed in engineering and artillery. At the same time, in Russia there was no common unified system for conveying knowledge. In addition, the nobles going abroad were required to master one of the sciences in a foreign language: navigation or mathematics. And the exams were taken by Pyotr Alekseevich himself.

In the event that a nobleman wanted to retire from military service, he was appointed to the "civilian", where he served as governor in villages or provincial towns, a poll tax collector or an official in one of the many institutions that were opening at that time.

The appearance of the nobles under Peter I

But what exactly caused the discontent of both the common people and the representatives of the nobility is the change in wearing clothes. It was during this historical period, or rather, on August 29, 1699, that the tsar ordered that all wide-sleeved traditional dresses be changed to dresses of overseas cut. A couple of years later, the sovereign gives a new order, according to which the nobility had to wear French clothes on holidays, and German ones on weekdays.

Another change that shocked the inhabitants of the Russian Empire was the tsar's decree to shave their beards, for violation of which the culprit was fined and beaten in public with batogs. Also, since 1701, all women had to wear exclusively European cut dresses. At this time, a lot of jewelry comes into fashion: jabot, lace, etc. The cocked hat becomes the most popular headdress in Russia. A little later, narrow-toed shoes were introduced, as well as wide skirts, corsets and wigs.

Shaving beards under Peter I

Interior decoration

In addition, thanks to the developed Western trade and the opening of new manufactories, luxury items such as glass and pewter dishes, silver sets, cabinets for important papers, as well as chairs, stools, tables, beds, engravings and mirrors appear in the homes of nobles. It all cost a lot of money.

Also, all nobles had to learn manners. Captured women and officers from the German settlement taught the ladies popular at that time dances (grossvater, minuet and polonaise).

New chronology

According to the royal decrees of December 19 and 20, 1699, the chronology from the Nativity of Christ was introduced in Rus', and the beginning of the year was moved to January 1, as was practiced by the developed Western powers. New Year celebrations lasted a whole week - from the first to the seventh of January. Wealthy inhabitants of the empire decorated the gates of their yards with juniper and pine branches, and ordinary people with ordinary branches. All seven days fireworks were fired in the capital.

Every year, Tsar Peter Alekseevich introduced new holidays, arranged balls and masquerades. Beginning in 1718, the emperor held assemblies, to which men had to come with their wives and adult daughters. In the eighteenth century, chess and cards became popular, and skating on the Neva River was arranged for representatives of the upper classes.

But the life of ordinary peasants during the reign of Peter the Great did not undergo significant changes. They worked for six days for their landowner, and on holidays and Sundays they were allowed to take care of their own household. Children were taught to physical labor from the age of eight or nine, raising them according to their own unwritten rules, which were supposed to help the child feed his family in the future.

All land issues were still in charge of the community, which monitored the observance of order, as well as sorted out the quarrels of fellow villagers and distributed duties. Local affairs were decided by the so-called gathering of married men.

At the same time, a fairly strong influence of customs and traditions has been preserved in everyday life. Clothing was made from cheap materials (most often canvas), and European fashion entered everyday life only at the end of the eighteenth century.

Among the main entertainments of ordinary peasants were round dances on the most significant holidays and mass games, and flour products, cabbage soup and stew served as traditional food. Some peasants could afford to smoke.

Table: Life under Peter I

Cultural reforms

Introduction of a new chronology

New Year celebration

Wearing European clothes

Changing the Appearance of Subjects

The appearance of the first museum (Kuntskamera)

The appearance of the first newspaper "Vedomosti"

Video lecture on the topic: Life under Peter I

"I order the gentlemen senators to keep speeches in the presence not according to the written, but only in their own words, so that everyone's foolishness is visible to everyone."

(From textbooks to senators.)

“The colleges should have their seat every week, except for Sundays, and the Lord’s holidays, and the sovereign’s angels (name days), ... the presidents should come to the Senate Chamber, on the shortest days at 6 o’clock, and on long days at 8 o’clock, and be at 5 o'clock. And if important things happen, then he must, despite the mentioned time and hours, come and send those things; and the clerical servants should sit on all days and come together an hour before the judges (full members of the collegiums - the president, advisers, assessors), and for each time of non-existence a month, and for an hour of non-sitting a week of salary deduction ...

Presidents and vice-presidents have to see that the ministers at the colleges, chancelleries and offices know their position; ... (from) drinking, lying and deceit, and that they are kept clean in clothes, and act impudently in their manners. But if hanging and training do not help and there is no hope for correction, then such a minister will be punished by taking away his rank or very (completely) set aside.

(From the "General Regulations", paragraphs III, XXV.)

On the training of noble minors 1 .

Under Peter, a new type of service for the nobles appeared - the duty to study. It is even difficult to say which duty - service or training - the nobles considered more burdensome for themselves.

The educational institutions created under Peter resembled a barracks, and the students looked like recruits. Students from among the noble recruits, as well as recruits from peasants and townspeople, were recruited forcibly.

In 1715, Peter founded the Naval Academy. A contemporary noted that “in vast Russia there was not a single noble family that would not be obliged to send a son or other relative from 10 to 18 years of age to this academy.” In the instructions for the Naval Academy there is a paragraph written by the tsar himself: “To appease screaming and excesses, select retired soldiers from the guard and be one by one in every chamber, during the exercise, have a whip in your hands; and if one of the students begins to act outrageously, they will be beaten, no matter what his surname may be, under severe punishment, who will beckon”, i.e. will do a favour.

An unknown author captured a curious picture from life: not mature noblemen, in order to avoid studying at the Navigation School, entered the Spassky Monastery. The tsar found out about their act and ordered all of them to beat the piles on the Moika. In vain they persuaded Pyotr Menshikov and Apraksin to pardon the undergrowth. Then Apraksin, having calculated the time when the tsar would pass by the building, took off his caftan, hung it on a pole so that it was noticeable, and began to beat the piles.

Peter, seeing the working admiral, asked:

Why are you hitting piles? He replied:

My nephews and grandchildren are driving piles, but what kind of person am I, what advantage do I have in kinship? After the described episode, the undergrowths were sent to study abroad

Punishment for embezzlement 1 .

I went to see Prince Gagarin hanged not far from the big new stock exchange. He was formerly the governor of all Siberia and, as they say, did a lot of good for the captured Swedes exiled there, for whom in the first three years of his administration he allegedly spent up to 15,000 rubles of his own money. He was called here, as they say, for the terrible plunder of the royal treasury. He did not want to confess his actions and therefore was severely beaten with a whip several times. When Prince Gagarin was already sentenced to the gallows and the execution was to be carried out, the tsar, the day before, verbally ordered to assure him that he would not only grant him life, but would also consign the whole past to oblivion if he confessed his clearly proven , crimes. But despite the fact that many witnesses, including his son, at confrontations convinced them more than was necessary, the guilty did not confess to anything. 2 Then he was hung in front of the windows of the College of Justice in the presence of the sovereign and all his local noble relatives. After some time, he was transported to the place where I saw him hanging ...

He was one of the most distinguished and richest nobles in Russia; the son left after him is married to the daughter of Vice-Chancellor Shafirov. This young Gagarin is now far from the position he was in. After the death of his father, he was demoted to sailors, and he also lost his entire fortune, because all the large estates and, in general, all the property of his father were confiscated. The story of the unfortunate Gagarin can serve as an example for many; she shows the whole world the power of the king and the severity of his punishments, which does not distinguish the noble from the ignoble.

Clerk Dokukin 3 .

The reign of Peter, the first Russian emperor, was one of the most difficult. Peter radically rebuilt the Russian order and abruptly carried out his transformations. This was especially hard on the people.

Even those transformations that had in mind the good of the people often led to ruin and intensification of the people's needs.

Wishing to expand the boundaries of the Russian state, to reach the sea, which was necessary for the expansion of trade, Peter waged endless wars throughout his reign, which ruined the already impoverished Russian people; having achieved the Baltic Sea, he began to build a new capital, Petersburg, to strengthen his power; thousands of workers were driven here, who died here from impossible working conditions ...

Peter blindly worshiped Europe, sought to destroy everything national, to remake Russian according to the Western model. This was reflected even in small things - in hatred for those dresses and those long beards that Russians are used to wearing. And in his usual harshness, Peter cut his beards roughly with his own hands. All this only irritated the population. And involuntarily, the eyes turned to his son, to Tsarevich Alexei, who bore little resemblance to his father of a tough temper.

Such a tsar was more to the liking of the Muscovite people. With his accession, they saw the opportunity to return to the old, pre-Petrine, orders. That is why everyone who was dissatisfied with Peter gathered near Tsarevich Alexei. Alexei himself, by his nature, could not become the leader of any movement, but his name was used to incite the people against the reigning emperor. But Peter dealt harshly with his enemies and with his son. Meeting Tsarevich Alexei's disapproval of his transformations, Peter decided to deprive him of the throne and brought him to trial. Alexei died under torture...

In March 1718, the 3-year-old son of Peter from the second wife of Catherine, Peter, was declared the heir to the Russian throne. Printed oaths to the new heir were sent and handed out everywhere ... Everyone unquestioningly swore allegiance to the new heir and signed the oath. Many condemned Peter, but few dared to openly express their condemnation. To oppose the formidable emperor meant going to certain death. And, however, there was such a person who, considering Peter wrong, decided to express to the tsar all the bitterness that was in his soul - this was the clerk Dokukin.

Diary of the chamber junker F.V. Berholz. 1721-1725., quoted from the Reader on the History of Russia. - M., 1995, v.2, p. 190-191.

The information of F.V. Bergolts is not entirely accurate. A letter from Prince M.P. Gagarin to Peter 1 is known, where he pleads guilty to all crimes and asks for pardon. However, during the investigation, he did not name his accomplices and patrons (and, according to some data, A.D. Menshikov was among them), perhaps for this reason he was not pardoned.

Melgunov S. The past of the Old Believers. "Stories from Russian History". - M., 1995,

Larion Dokukin was a man of the old times, of the old faith. All his life he quietly served as a clerk in the artillery order. He hated Peter and was an enemy of the newly introduced orders. In his mind, the new orders entailed those terrible events that Dokukin had to witness. Before his eyes there were executions of archers, before his eyes there were persecutions of fellow believers-Old Believers; before his eyes, those thousands of workers whom Peter sent to Petersburg were dying; before his eyes, taxes and fees increased, ruining the people. He believed that the last time had come, he read the “notebooks” (handwritten essays) that went from hand to hand and angered the people against Peter, and he himself wrote such anonymous letters. Back in 1715, he made extracts from St. Scriptures that, in his opinion, were "disgusting" to Peter and denounced the king. Having supplied these extracts with appropriate arguments, he planted them at the Semyonovskaya church. This letter was found, but for some reason they did not do research, but simply burned it.

Then Dokukin set out to nail on the square near the Trinity Church (... near the palace of Peter) not a letter, but a whole prayer against Peter ...

These studies, however, were interrupted by the news that reached him about the misfortune of Tsarevich Alexei.

Heavy sadness and deep thought attacked Dokukin when he learned about the abdication of Tsarevich Alexei from the throne - with his fall, the last hope for the return of the old seemed to collapse; He also heard rumors about the torture to which all those close to Alexei were subjected. Dokukin was in such a state when they brought him a printed oath of allegiance to the new heir for signatures ... In his shack, near the Sukharev Tower, he considered a bold deed and carried it out on March 2, 1718.

It was the day of the Resurrection of Orthodoxy. The tsar, who lived in the village of Preobrazhensky, went to mass with his entourage. The clerk Dokukin came here. And when the tsar was standing in the church, an old man in poor clothes approached him slowly but boldly and handed the paper to Peter, accepted it and, unfolding it, saw the printed oath to Tsarevich Peter and the renunciation of Tsarevich Alexei; in the place where the swearer's signature should be, it was written in large handwriting: “For disobedience, the excommunication and exile of the All-Russian throne of the tsar ... Tsar Alexei Petrovich, I do not swear by the Most Holy Gospel and on that life-giving cross of Christ I do not kiss and I don’t sign with my own hand ... although for that the tsar’s anger will pour out on me ... for the truth, I’m a servant of Christ, Hilarion Dokukin, ready to suffer ”At the same time, Dokukin handed over to the tsar all his old “extracts”, which were supposed to explain the reason for his behavior.

One can imagine what anger the tsar came to at the boldness of some old man, who did not tolerate any disobedience from his subjects. Peter handed over the paper to Pyotr Andreyevich Tolstoy, the head of the torture chambers (Secret Office). Do-kukin was taken to R prison and tortured so that he would betray his accomplices... From March 15 to March 16, at night, the executions of persons involved in the case of Tsarevich Alexei began. The clerk Dokukin was the fourth to be executed in this case.

Additional material.

Absolutism is a form of monarchy. Established in European countries in the XVII-XVIII centuries. For the emergence of absolutism, a certain level of monetary relations and the development of industry is necessary. Absolutism represents above all the interests of the nobility. But in the policy pursued by absolute monarchs, the interests of industrialists and merchants are also taken into account.

Absolute monarchies are characterized by the following features:

1. The power of the monarch, emperor, king, is not limited by anything, he personifies the highest judicial, legislative and executive power (can condemn or pardon any person, can legislate or cancel them, takes part in the direct government of the country or rules through his their ministers).

2. There is a regular army in the country, on which the monarch can rely in case of disobedience.

3. The punitive and police apparatus is developed.

4. There is a clear hierarchy (seniority) of local and central authorities. Local institutions are certainly subordinate to the central ones.

5. The work of state bodies is provided by officials. They are also called bureaucracy from the French word "bureau" (desk) and the Greek word "cratia" (power). Public service for the bureaucracy is a profession and the main source of income.

6. Under absolutism, the class system is preserved, the origins of which are in the Middle Ages. There are estate privileges of certain groups of the population.

7. The borders and territorial division of the country are clearly defined.

8. There is a unified tax system.

§ 39. Transformations in the field of culture and life.

The upper class in Russia in the imperial era from the time of Peter I began to be called the gentry, and only from 1762 (with the publication of the manifesto on the liberties of the nobility) the nobility.

There were several ways to acquire the latter.

The first way is to recognize the birth, according to which the legitimate children of the nobles also became nobles. The second way can be considered marriage, by virtue of which a nobleman conveys the nobility to his wife, whatever her origin may be, but not vice versa. However, a noblewoman, having married a non-nobleman, does not lose her nobility (Jail. Gram. 1785 and decree July 8, 1787). The third way was the length of service, established by Peter through the publication in 1722 of the Table of Ranks. It has already been said that the significance of this legislative monument in the history of Russian state law in general and in the history of the Russian nobility in particular must be recognized as enormous, since thanks to it, Peter managed to abolish the breed’s influence on the public service, establish the beginning of the suitability of a person and enable every gifted person to advance forward, whatever his race and tribe. Professor Romanovich-Slavatinsky is quite right * (192), saying that the report card was quite democratic in spirit: a staircase of 14 steps separated each plebeian from the first dignitaries of the state, and nothing forbade each person, stepping over these steps, to get to the first degrees in state; she opened wide the doors through which, through the rank, the "vile" members of society could "ennoble" themselves and enter the ranks of the nobility. The consequence of this was that new forces from the people constantly poured into the nobility, and it could not close itself into a special caste.

On the basis of the report card, the first chief officer rank in military service and the position of the VIII class in civil service gave hereditary nobility * (193). As for the posts below the VIII class (in the civil service), they gave personal nobility. However, the table only says about these ranks: "other ranks, both civil and courtiers, who are not from nobles in ranks, their children are not nobles." And already from the time of Catherine II, this paragraph of the table began to be interpreted in the sense that persons with ranks below the eighth grade (i.e. collegiate assessor) should be ranked as personal nobility. This continued until the manifesto of 1845, when obtaining the nobility was much more difficult, namely: according to the manifesto in military service, the first chief officer rank gave only personal nobility, the first headquarters officer rank - hereditary. As for the civil service, the ranks below the ninth class were given honorary citizenship, the ninth class (titular adviser) - personal, and the fifth (state councilor) - hereditary nobility. Finally, with the issuance of the decree of 1856, it was decided that hereditary nobility is acquired in military service with the rank of colonel, and in civilian service with the rank of real state councilor.

The acquisition of nobility by seniority met with strong opposition from the nobles. Already in 1780, when the nobility, during the election to the throne of Empress Anna Ioannovna, had the opportunity for the first time to express their needs and desires, in their projects submitted to the Supreme Privy Council, they asked for the division of the nobles into two categories, in order not to mix them with each other, namely: on the "genuine" or "ancestral" nobles and on the "new" or "not born" nobles, i.e.

Officials. Even more sharply expressed was the opposition of the nobles during the drafting of the new Code by the Elizabethan Legislative Commission of 1754-1766, and noble deputies were also present. According to this project, what was later partly received legislative sanction in the manifesto of 1845, namely: hereditary nobility could only be obtained in military service by promotion to the first staff officer rank, while personal nobility - in military service by production in first officer rank. Thus, in the civil service it was impossible to reach the rank of hereditary nobility. “Their children,” we read in the draft, “and themselves from the special advantages given to some nobles, to exclude, so that our faithful subjects from the nobles, feeling their advantage, to jealousy, great diligence in the sciences and to show merit both to the fatherland and we (i.e. the empress) were encouraged." As you know, this project has not received legislative sanction. In the same way, the noble commission of 1763, in its report submitted to Catherine II, deviated from the beginnings of the Table of Ranks and spoke in favor of granting non-nobles only the right to petition for their elevation to the nobility when they reached the first staff officer rank both in the military and in civil service and with the purity of the latter (Article 2). In 1767, during the convening of the Catherine's Legislative Commission, the nobles in their orders also spoke out on the issue of "rank". So, in the Yaroslavl order, the nobility asked: “would it not be deigned to have the right to achieve the officer ranks of the noble name, as well as other noble rights, to cancel (which, due to the need of previous circumstances, was given), no matter what rank they had, so that the noble dignity, which only the sovereign should be granted, it was not lowered. In the draft drawn up by the commission on the rights of the nobles (whose members, as you know, were elected by the general commission), the desire of the nobles was heard, and the draft decided: "the nobles, of course, are all those who are born from the ancestors of that time or are again granted monarchs by this name." Thus, length of service, as a way of acquiring the nobility, had to be destroyed. However, this project did not receive legislative sanction, and could not receive it due to the complete disagreement between the views of Empress Catherine II and the aspirations of the nobility. In her Order, the empress remained completely faithful to the principles of the Table of Ranks. “There are few such cases,” we read here, “which would lead more to obtaining honor (i.e. nobility), as military service". "But, although the art of war is the most ancient way, which reached the dignity of the nobility ... however, justice is no less necessary in time of peace, as in war ... and from this it follows, which is not only befitting to the nobility, but this dignity can also be acquired by civic virtues, as well as by military ones. is acquired by service and labor, useful to the empire and the throne. "Thus, the aspirations of the nobles remained unfulfilled, and length of service continued to be considered one of the ways to acquire the nobility. was established by Emperor Nicholas I to discuss various projects left after the death of Emperor Alexander I, and to review many aspects of the state structure and administration, for which he had to submit his conclusions on the necessary transformations in this regard), length of service and receiving an order, as ways of acquiring the nobility, were destroyed ("from now on, - says Art. 12 of the draft, - the dignity of the nobility will be acquired in no other way than by only two images: the right of birth and hereditary elevation to it, approved by a letter signed by the Imperial Majesty's own hand.") However, this project, when it was discussed in the State Council, aroused great opposition against itself , headed by the Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, who presented the sovereign with two detailed notes directed against the project. By the way, the Grand Duke spoke in favor of preserving the length of service as a way to obtain nobility. "This news (i.e., the destruction of length of service)," he wrote , - the state is not adapted to the present circumstances, it will almost serve as a reason for excitation, on the one hand, in many murmurs and complaints, entailing unpleasant consequences, and on the other, the service itself will almost incur tangible harm "* (194) In view of this opposition, one must think that the project did not receive the sanction of the sovereign, but the “news” introduced by him had the force of law.

The fourth way to acquire the nobility was the grant of the sovereign. The award, as well as length of service, were not known in the Muscovite state ("from the townspeople," says Kotoshikhin, "and from priests, and from peasant children, and from boyar people, the nobility is not given to anyone") and began to be practiced only from the time of Peter I*(195). The award often took place in the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine II and sometimes even took on a mass character. So, after the coup d'état that brought her the throne in 1741, Elizaveta Petrovna made all the soldiers of the grenadier company of the Preobrazhensky regiment in the nobility, "before, at the time of our accession to the throne, the regiments of our Life Guards, and especially the grenadier company of the Preobrazhensky regiment, we have a zealous service so showed that they took the throne without bloodshed."

The fifth way to acquire the nobility was the award of the order, which has been practiced since the publication of the Letter of Complaint to the nobility * (196). Subsequently, under Alexander I and Nicholas I, it was precisely determined which orders were given by hereditary and which personal nobility.

Finally, the last way was the indigenate of foreigners, as the Table of Ranks speaks for the first time, ordering to recognize the noble dignity of foreigners only with the permission of the sovereign in each individual case (“no one has a rank to take by nature,” says the table, “which he I received it in other people's services until we confirmed its nature). The report of the noble commission of 1763 also speaks of the indigenate of foreigners, art. 4 of which it decides that "each foreign nobleman, by proof of his origin, receives a diploma from the sovereign, who owns the Russian Empire, for the Russian nobility, and when he receives it, he then legally enjoys all the advantages of the nobility in Russia." The resolutions of the Table of Ranks on the Indigenate received confirmation in a decree on April 29. 1828, according to which, in order to recognize foreign nobles as Russian nobles, they required the presentation of evidence of noble origin and the receipt of the Highest Diploma * (197).

Nobles since the publication of the Table of Ranks were divided into two categories: hereditary and personal. Personal nobles did not pass on the nobility to their children and were a special social class, according to the correct remark of Professor Romanovich-Slavatinsky, "not quite defined in legal and social terms, intermediate between hereditary nobility and tax-paying classes, lagging behind the latter and not adhering to the first" *(198). According to some rights, personal nobles adjoined hereditary ones: they were exempted from corporal punishment, from personal taxes and recruitment duties, but, on the other hand, deprived of the right to own serfs and take part in noble self-government, they did not form a single whole with hereditary nobles. Imp. Nicholas I tried to merge this social class with the city dwellers, which is why he ordered the children of personal nobles to be included in honorary citizenship, and he himself granted the right to enter the city philistine book. According to the Letter of Complaint, personal nobles were granted the rights of hereditary nobility in two cases, namely: 1) if the grandfather, father and son had ranks that give personal nobility, then their children had the right to apply for hereditary nobility, and 2) if the father and son had ranks giving personal nobility and were impeccable in the service, then the grandson had the right to petition for hereditary nobility * (199). Subsequently (in 1815), the Senate interpreted the second paragraph of the Letter of Complaint in the sense that it is possible to apply for hereditary nobility only if the father and grandfather each served in the ranks for at least 20 years, and the petitioner, moreover, is an adult and is in the service. The State Council approved this interpretation of the Senate, motivating the statement by the fact that "the more difficult it is to raise to the nobility, the more useful it will be for the state." The emperor agreed with this opinion.

Among the hereditary nobles, titled nobles stood out in a special group: princes, counts and barons. The princely title is of ancient Russian origin, but in the Muscovite state he did not complain (“and again the Moscow tsar,” says Kotoshikhin, “from the boyars, and from the neighbors, and their other ranks of people, the prince cannot make anyone, because it’s not customary for this to exist and not happened"), in the imperial era, he could be granted by the sovereign. Among the princes, the most illustrious princes stood out, who used the predicate of "lordship", in contrast to other princes, who, together with the counts, had the right only to "lordship". The titles of count and baron are of foreign origin and were first introduced by Peter.

Noble families were recorded in special books, of which there were six in each province (they were introduced by the Charter to the nobility). But long before that (after the destruction of localism in 1682), one genealogical book (Velvet Book) was introduced, where all noble families were entered. Under Elizaveta Petrovna, it was supplemented by the inclusion of the descendants of the nobles and the children of the boyars, recorded in the previous dozens, as you know, compiled in the era of the Muscovite state by counties (decree of November 13, 1758). However, the nobility wanted to decentralize the maintenance of noble books and already in 1730, in their projects submitted to the Supreme Privy Council, they asked for the establishment of two books: one for the clan, and the other for the bureaucratic nobility. The project of the Elizabethan Commission, during the discussion of which, as is known, the noble deputies were also present, spoke in favor of four books or lists: princely, county, baronial and noble. The nobility orders of 1767 (for example, Yaroslavl) wanted to "paint" the nobility by city and in each city to establish six registers of noble families. This desire for orders was heard by the imp. Catherine II, and in the Letter of Complaint, she ordered that six noble books be kept in each province, and the nobles should be entered in them as follows: in the 1st book - granted by the sovereign, in the 2nd - those who received nobility in military service, in the 3rd - those who received the nobility in the civil service, in the 4th - foreign nobles recognized as such in Russia, in the 5th - titled nobles and in the 6th - "ancient noble families" that can prove a century of their nobility (by 1785).

Under Peter, with the establishment of the Senate, under the latter, a special post of King of Arms was established, whose functions were to manage the nobility as a service class, to draw up noble lists * (200) and to oversee the education and entry into the service of young nobles. Thus, the king of arms inherited the competence of the Moscow Discharge. With the division of the Senate under Catherine II into departments, the management of the nobles was concentrated in the first department, and since 1848 in the department of heraldry, in which the king of arms began to act as chief prosecutor. In the era under study, thanks to the estate spirit of the times, the nobility was already fully imbued with the consciousness of the commonality of their estate interests and estate honor. The idea of ​​a noble "corps" or "corps" of the nobility, as something integral and isolated from other social classes, was quite ripe at that time and can be ascertained in almost all statements emanating from the nobility. An illustration of what has been said are the orders of the nobility submitted to the Catherine's Legislative Commission. "The corps of nobles," we read in the Moscow order, "contains its own advantages and security." "The corps of the nobility," says Bolkhov's order, "should be separated by rights and advantages from other people of various kinds and ranks." "So that the autocratic authorities grant rights and advantages to the corps of the nobility," the deputy's order "from the corps of the Volokolamsk nobility" intercedes. Similar statements were made by the deputies during the meetings of the commission. “The nobility,” one of the latter said, “should be a special kind of people in the state, whose duty is to serve it and, from their midst, replace the middle authorities placed between the sovereign and the people.” In other words, according to the views of the nobles of the era under study, the whole society should have been sharply divided into two classes: "noble" and "vile". Indeed, both of these terms receive the right of citizenship in official acts of the XVIII Art. So, already in the reign of Peter the predicate of "nobility", to which only the sovereign had the right in the Muscovite era, begins to belong to the nobles. Here is what Bruce wrote about this in 1706 to the director of the Moscow printing house Kipriyanov: "If in what press of yours the name of the sovereign tsarevich is mentioned, then you should not write the tsarevich noble, because every noble noble is written noble." In 1721, when the imperial title was introduced, it was ordered to title the members of the imperial family "blessed" instead of "noble", "because it is low to be titled nobility to their highnesses according to the current usage; for nobility is given to the gentry". In the same way, in all later acts, we encounter the term "Russian noble nobility." Simultaneously with the term "noble" comes into use the term "mean" in the sense of a synonym for the lowest. However, already in the middle of the XVIII century. this term provokes protests. “I don’t have anything vile,” said one deputy in the Catherine’s Commission, “a farmer, a tradesman, a nobleman, each of them is honest and distinguished by his labors, good upbringing and good manners; vile ones are only those who have bad properties, perform deeds that are contrary to laws , obscene to their rank, violating the general peace, and, finally, those who, not for the good of others, pass their lives idly.

Separating themselves from the "vile", "noble", according to the views of that era, in everything they had to differ from the first and try at all costs not to mix with them. These goals could be achieved by giving the nobles such rights and duties that would distinguish them from the entire mass of the population, placing them in special and exceptional conditions. We will now deal with the consideration of these rights and obligations, and we will begin with the latter.

Prior to the manifesto on the liberties of the nobility of 1762, the nobles were required to carry out permanent service - military or civil; moreover, under Peter, this service for each nobleman began with the achievement of 15 years of age and necessarily (in military service) had to begin with a soldier. So, the decree of 1714 decided "from now on, from the noble breeds, those who served as soldiers should not be written to the officers, since they" do not know the foundation of the soldier's business. Subsequently (in the forties of the XVIII century), service in the lower ranks was managed by the fact that children were enrolled in different regiments and, without actually serving, were promoted to officer ranks, from which they began their active service, upon reaching adulthood * (201). On the contrary, under Peter, promotion to officers and, in general, to higher ranks took place only in accordance with the abilities and zeal of the employee. According to the Military Regulations (Chapter I), only literate people and those who had previously served "honestly, soberly, moderately, courteously and bravely" could be promoted to officers, and the authorities were strictly forbidden to promote them not for personal merit, but also for selfish purposes, or by philanthropy, indulgence, "poohlebstvo", etc. (Ch. X).

Members of the "noble" nobility usually entered the guards, and the rest of the nobles in the army. However, Peter gave an extremely peculiar interpretation of the concept of "nobility", prescribing in 1724 the noble nobility "according to suitability", i.e., in other words, to accept into the guard persons who are physically fit for this, which could obviously be stately, strong and tall nobles. In the same way, under Anna Ivanovna, “age” and “age-bearing” nobles were supposed to enter the guard, and “who are young” were assigned to the army. In view of the permanent nature of the service, resignation, or, as it was said then, abshid, was conceivable only in cases of decrepitude, illness, or wounds that prevented the continuation of service. However, in view of the need to release the nobles to manage their estates, the so-called "visit to recreation" became a custom, i.e. leave from service for a certain period with the obligation to come back on first demand * (202).

In addition to the military, the nobles were also obliged to send civil service, to which they treated with much greater hostility than the first, considering it incompatible with their dignity. In view of this point of view, the General Regulations ordered "not to reproach" the nobles for their civil service. At the same time, Peter determined a certain proportion of the nobility serving in the civil service, namely, one third of the members of each family. In 1737, at the initiative of the Senate, the government ordered the recruitment of minors of the nobility from 15 to 17 years old and distribute them, as clerks, to serve among the Senate, colleges, offices, etc. The minors were to be called senatorial, collegiate, etc. nobles, "than the most they can give others the desire to give and excessive reproach and humiliation of orderly people away from themselves." Capable in five years were made secretaries, the incapable were determined as soldiers. However, in 1740 this measure of forcible appointment of nobles to the service was abolished, "it is impossible to teach them to order matters, not willingly." At the same time, the Senate, seeing that they were undersized, "looking at the origin of the military service of their other brothers of the nobility, they are more attached to it and take pains," decided to accept only those who voluntarily enter the civil service. We have already said that Catherine II in her Order put the civil service on a par with the military, saying that "justice is no less necessary ... and the state would collapse without it." However, the nobility still abhorred the civil service, which forced the empress to instruct the provincial governments in 1796 to "encourage young nobles, after completing their sciences, to deal with the laws of their land and the manner of legal proceedings, and for this they would be determined in orders, without imputing this in prejudice to nobility." The civil service under Peter also began with lower positions, i.e. "in the same order as in military ranks" (Table of Ranks). However, exceptions were made to this rule in favor of persons who received a scientific education and special training, who had the right to start their service not from lower positions. Subsequently (from the beginning of the 19th century), obtaining a well-known education became a necessary condition for appointment to certain positions and for promotion to certain ranks (Regulations on the organization of schools on January 24, 1803, decree on promotion to ranks on August 6, 1809, Regulations on promotion to the ranks on June 25, 1834, etc.).

Service, both civil and military, was rewarded with salaries and the distribution of populated estates (especially under Catherine II and Paul I), which replaced the distribution of estates practiced in the Muscovite era.

Another obligation of the nobles, introduced by Peter, consisted in compulsory education, for which the sovereign, after certain periods of time, reviewed the noble youths, severely punishing those who did not succeed in the sciences. Young nobles (undergrown) were supposed to attend these reviews, starting from those who had reached the age of 10, and the minors were sent home after the review with the obligation to appear at a certain time for service, and adults and those fit for service were enrolled in it immediately. Under Anna Ivanovna (in 1737), these reviews were ordered as follows: all boys who had reached the age of 7 came to the first review and were entered in special lists; the same boys, but already 12 years old, appeared at the second review, and at the same time they were given an exam from reading and writing, which they, under pain of punishment from their parents, were obliged to pass; they were supposed to appear at the third review when they reached the age of 16, and they were given an exam from the Law of God, arithmetic and geometry, and those who could not stand were enrolled forever as sailors. Finally, young people appeared at the fourth review when they reached the age of 20, and they took an exam in geography, history and fortification, after which they entered the service. Under Peter, in order to encourage learning, it was ordered to allow marriage only for those of the nobles who would present evidence of their knowledge of arithmetic and geometry (decree February 28, 1714) * (203).

The severity of service and compulsory education entailed the mass harboring of young nobles from appearing at reviews, and with such "netchiks" (as they were called at that time who did not appear at reviews), the government waged a merciless fight, threatening them and punishing them with all sorts of punishments, starting with fines and corporal punishment and ending with defamation (i.e. deprivation of all rights and outlawing) and confiscation of property. The names of the netchiks were nailed to the gallows with drumming, "so that everyone would know about them, as if they were disobedient to decrees and equal to traitors," and everyone was obliged to inform on them, for which he was rewarded from their property. Coverers of netchiks were also severely punished. By order of 23 Aug. In 1720, they were threatened with whipping, nostrils being torn out, and eternal penal servitude. Even governors and governors were threatened with heavy fines for negligence in searching for netchiks. But nothing helped, and the netchiks continued to exist * (204) until the destruction of the obligatory service of the nobility. The latter, in 1730, when Anna Ivanovna was elected to the throne, petitioned in her drafts to limit her service to 20 years. Anna Ivanovna partly heeded this request and with a manifesto on December 11, 1736, she limited the service of the nobles to 25 years, and it necessarily began at the age of 20. After 25 years, the nobleman received an abshid, but with the obligation to put up a certain number of recruits in his place (from 100 souls - one). In addition, the manifesto allowed one of the sons or brothers to stay at home to do chores and not enter the service. Finally, in 1762, a well-known manifesto on the liberties of the nobility was held, by which the compulsory service of the nobles was destroyed. According to the manifesto, the nobility received the right to serve or not to serve, with the exception of wartime, when all nobles could be called up for service * (205). Then the nobles received the right to serve in foreign countries, and when they transferred to the Russian service, they were recognized for the rank they received in foreign service. Finally, the nobility could raise their children wherever and however they liked, but with an indispensable obligation to educate them. Having freed the latter from service, the manifesto of 1762, however, expressed the hope that persons of the upper class "will be encouraged not to retire, to hide from service, but with zeal and desire to enter into it and to continue it in an honest and shameless manner, no less than children with diligence and zeal to teach decent sciences", threatening otherwise to prescribe "to all the true sons of the fatherland" "to despise" and "destroy" (sic) those "who have no service anywhere and spend their time in laziness and idleness." The charter of 1785 confirmed these decrees of the manifesto with the following, however, proviso: "at any time necessary for the Russian autocracy, when the service of the nobility for the common good is necessary and necessary, then every noble nobleman is obliged, at the first call from the autocratic power, not to spare a single work , not the belly itself for the service of the state".

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, the decrees of the Letter of Complaint regarding the freedom of education and service of the nobles were repeatedly violated. Thus, the freedom of education was significantly limited by a decree of 1831, which forbade young people under the age of 18 from traveling abroad for the purposes of education, then by a decree of 1834 nobles were forbidden to stay abroad for more than five years, and by a decree of 1851 - even longer than three years, and for the issuance of a foreign passport, the second decree ordered to charge 250 rubles. For half a year.

As for the freedom of service, it was limited by the decree of 1837, which ordered all those entering the service to begin it without fail in the provinces and only after three years to transfer to the service in the ministries and other central institutions. At the same time, the governors were entrusted with the duty of supervising newcomers to the service "so that they would take care of these young people not only as bosses, but as fathers of the family, to whom well-bred children are entrusted, for the first steps in the field of service, and about their behavior would be reported to His Imperial Majesty every six months." Finally, in 1853, the governors-general were instructed to observe "that the nobles in all provinces would not be in harmful idleness and would devote themselves to the service of the state."

Since the time of Catherine II, the nobility has become a privileged estate, as it receives such rights and advantages that other estates do not have. These privileges include: firstly, service advantages, both military and civilian. For the first time, the nobles received such an advantage regarding military service in 1762, when it was prescribed "to all nobles who are dismissed from service due to illness, but not with officer ranks," to give these latter, "so that they, before those who are not from the nobles, will be dismissed, had an advantage." Then, by the colonel's instruction of 1765, the government ordered that nobles be promoted to officers, preferably over non-nobles. Orders also took the same point of view, petitioning Catherine II to “save the nobles entering the service forever from being soldiers and non-commissioned officers” (Opochetsky) and to prohibit the production of non-nobles into officers (Kerensky and others). True, the government did not fulfill this desire, but instead granted the nobles many other official privileges. So, in 1787, an order was issued to admit only nobles to the guard, in 1790 - to allow only nobles to transfer from civil service to military service, etc. Under Pavel Petrovich, the desire for orders was also fulfilled. At first, the statutes on the service of the infantry and cavalry, it was decided to promote to officers: nobles after serving them for three years (moreover, ordinary nobles served only three months, and then were promoted to non-commissioned officers), and not nobles after serving 12 years, and not only for excellence and merit. Finally, by decree of 1798, the government completely forbade the promotion of officers to persons who did not belong to the upper class, "because only nobles should be in these ranks." And only the law of 1829 allowed the production of non-nobles into officers, but not otherwise than after they had served 6 years in soldiers (however, only single-palace residents could use this right, for raznochintsy, a 10-year term of service in the guards and 12- summer in the army).

Privileges on civil service date back to 1771, when there was a ban on the admission to the named service of persons of taxable states * (206). Then, in 1790, rules were issued on the terms of production to the ranks, on the basis of which the nobles received the right to be promoted to the rank of the 8th class after three years of service in the 9th class, and non-nobles - after 12 years; then, upon retirement, the right to be promoted to the next rank could belong only to a nobleman * (207). Under Nicholas I, several laws were issued, by virtue of which access to the civil service was granted primarily to one noble, and members of other estates were admitted to it with great restrictions (for example, the law of October 14, 1827). In addition, in the same reign, new rules on promotion to ranks appeared (in 1834), according to which nobles were promoted to the next ranks at shorter intervals than non-nobles. The destruction of these laws occurred in 1856, when general terms were introduced for promotion to ranks for persons of all states, since "rewarding promotion in ranks, like all other awards in service, should be given only for permanent ... labors in the service itself, without respect for any circumstances that preceded this service.

Secondly, privileges in the field of criminal law. So, already the Military Charter of 1716 freed the nobles from torture, with the exception of trials of cases for certain state crimes and murder. In addition, under separate decrees, nobles were sometimes placed in more favorable conditions than non-nobles. So, the decree of 1711 threatens "the nobles of the highest ranks to be in his, the great sovereign, anger, and the lower ones - in cruel torture." In the same way, in many decrees on hiding souls in revision tales, the following punishments are prescribed: for landlords - a kind of fine, expressed in the fact that they were recruited twice as many people compared to those hidden, and for clerks and elders - the death penalty, etc. .P. However, the nobles were not satisfied with these benefits, why the following decree was passed in the draft of the Elizabethan Commission: “nobles should not be arrested for any crimes, unless they are actually caught in a crime, brought red-handed, or they will be partly exposed in court, and the importance of this crime requires it." Then, according to the project, the nobility is freed from torture, biased interrogation and from "any punishment indecent to its nature", such as: a whip, cats, lashes and batogs. Finally, reference to government work and confiscation of property cannot be applied to nobles. In the same way, the commission of 1763, established by Catherine II to revise the manifesto on the liberties of the nobility, spoke out for the release of the nobles from corporal punishment and confiscation of property and for the need, when considering "criminal cases" of the nobles, "more powerful evidence than against non-nobles" (Articles 13, 14 and 16 of the commission's report). The noble orders of 1767 were also of the same point of view. executions." The Yaroslavl order also turned to the Empress with a similar request. “Wouldn’t it be nice,” we read in it, “to distinguish between nobles and ordinary people in punishments,” because otherwise “noble children will lose noble thoughts that, after a long time, parents tried to put in them.” The same principles formed the basis of the "project for the rights of the noble" drawn up by the legislative commission of 1767. unsubscribes, and then only acquired, and not generic. Catherine II drew attention to some desires of the nobility and in the Letter of Complaint to the latter abolished corporal punishment and confiscation of property. Under Paul I, however, corporal punishment began to be applied again to the nobles, due to the peculiar interpretation of the decrees of the Charter by this sovereign. So, regarding one case, Paul I put the following resolution: "as soon as the nobility is removed, then the privilege does not concern him, why continue to act." Thus, corporal punishment was applied to the nobles, but only beforehand they were deprived of their noble dignity. Alexander I restored the prescription of Catherine II, and the nobles were already forever freed from corporal punishment * (208). Then, by decree of July 19, 1802, it was forbidden to forge criminals from the nobility * (209) into iron, and by the regulation of the Committee of Ministers of 1826, shaving half the head of prisoners from the nobility. Finally, the Code of Laws (ed. 1857) finally sanctioned the ruling that "a nobleman is free from any corporal punishment, both in court and during detention" (Article 199, IX vol.).

Thirdly, the right to land property, i.e. to own both inhabited and uninhabited estates. This right finally received legislative sanction in the reigns of Anna Ivanovna, Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine II. So, by decree of 1730, on the basis of the Code of 1649 (Art. 41. Ch. XVII), it was forbidden for boyar people, monastic servants and peasants to acquire real estate both in cities and in counties, and the acquired ones were already ordered to be sold in six months since the issuance of the decree. In 1746, the same ban on the purchase of county lands took place with regard to the merchants, guilds, Cossacks, coachmen and "other raznochintsy, consisting of a capitation salary." These prohibitions with the obligation to sell the available lands within six months were repeatedly confirmed later, however, in practice, all estates competed with the nobles in acquiring real estate both in cities and in counties. The nobility orders of 1767 drew attention to this phenomenon, asking "to allow only the nobility to have villages and use them, and no one else, even if someone has not reached the highest rank, and has not been granted the nobility, should not use that right" (Kashinsky order). Most orders contain such a request, Catherine II heeded her and in the Letter of Complaint of 1785 again confirmed (Article 27) the exclusive right of the nobles to own landed property. From the decree of 1801 issued by Alexander I, this right was somewhat limited, due to the permission of members of other classes, with the exception of serfs, to own uninhabited estates. With the decree of 1848, the serfs also received this right. In connection with this right, there was, fourthly, the right to own serfs (however, de facto other classes owned serfs, despite the constant prohibitions on this by the government * (210); the last prohibition took place in the decree of 1836 * (211 ) and entered the Code of Laws). Also in connection with the right to landed property was, fifthly, the right to own houses in cities, sanctioned to the nobles by the Charter of 1785.

Sixth, the rights in the field of trade and industry. Under Peter, on the basis of the decree on uniform inheritance of 1714, only the younger sons of the nobles, the so-called cadets, could engage in trade, due to the deprivation of their land property, which was inherited by the eldest son or in a testamentary order to one of the sons at the choice of the father. With the abolition of the decree in 1731, the right to trade of the Cadets was also destroyed (the nobles, on the basis of the decree of 1726, could sell only their village products or, as the decree puts it, "goods that will be born in their villages and among their peasants, but not stingy with others ")*(212). However, the nobility was extremely dissatisfied with the restriction of their trading rights, and this dissatisfaction was expressed in the orders of 1767. So, the Moscow mandate (signed by representatives of 17 princely families) asked, "that the nobility be allowed to sell, wherever they want, zemstvo villages of their products, enter into external and internal gross and petty auctions and undertake all sorts of crafts with exposure to themselves, however, under all those rights and burdens that, when establishing and establishing commercial affairs in the empire, for each petty-bourgeois trade, can be especially legitimized. The Yaroslavl order also petitioned for the same. “As all the most learned peoples have already recognized,” we read in it, “that the right to trade outside the state, if the nobles enter into it, is useful to the state, and in Russia, which has not yet been so studied in foreign languages, is lower than the calculus itself in the merchant class, the nobility would don't ban it." The Mikhailovsky order went even further, demanding the establishment of a grain trade monopoly for the nobles, "for only everything for the nobleman, as one land, therefore, its growth belongs to him alone."

However, the views of Catherine II on the trade rights of the nobles were different, and she expressed them in her Instruction. “People,” we read here, “think that it is necessary to establish laws that encourage the nobility to conduct trade; this would be a way to ruin the nobility without any benefit for trade. for cities and would take away the convenience of buying and selling their goods between merchants and the common people. It is also contrary to the essence of autocratic rule for the nobility to carry out trade in it. tamo into the impotence of the former established government." Despite such a point of view on the trade of the nobles, the Empress, however, in the Letter of Complaint granted the latter the so-called city law, i.e. the right to record in the guild * (213). Obviously, this was a concession on her part to the nobility, eager to have trading rights. The same explains, of course, the permission given by the empress to the nobles in 1783 to own the shops and barns located in the latter's houses. However, at the end of her reign, Catherine II significantly limited the trading rights of the nobles. So, by decree of 1790, the latter were forbidden to enroll in the guild. The reason for issuing the said decree was the conclusion of the provincial prosecutor, presented by him to the general meeting of the Moscow provincial board and chambers: the civil and criminal courts, convened by the Moscow commander-in-chief, Prince. Prozorovsky in 1790 to resolve the issue of the right of nobles to enroll in the guild. “The very essence of the nobility,” the prosecutor said in his conclusion, “obliges every nobleman to exercise not in the turnovers of trade, but most importantly in the military service, but in peacetime in the administration of justice,” which is why “the nobility should not enter the trade along with the merchants , since it is impossible to combine both of these titles together and to one right, for each of them has been prepared from infancy by a way of thinking that is very distant from each other, and what a convenience it is for a nobleman recorded in the merchant class to demand alms for public needs and burdens. The ban on the nobility to enroll in the guild lasted until 1807, when, by a manifesto issued on January 1 of this year, it was again allowed, but only to those of them who were not in the public service. The motive for the publication of the manifesto was the desire to strengthen the relationship between both state classes, as well as "so that the nobles could contribute to the common good in the field of commercial diligence." However, in 1824, the beginnings of the manifesto of 1807 were violated, since at that time a new restriction on the trading rights of the nobles took place, namely, they were allowed to enroll in only one first guild and were forbidden to own shops in the gostiny yards, rows and markets. But already in 1827, the nobles again received permission to enroll in all the guilds and, consequently, to trade on equal terms with the merchants.

In connection with the trading rights of the nobles, there was also the right to be bound by bills of exchange from the latter. It has already been said that the Charter on bills of 1729 ignored the nobles in this regard, which is why they, in their orders of 1767, petitioned Catherine II to grant them the said right. However, the empress ignored these petitions, and the Bankruptcy Charter of 1800 even expressly forbade the nobles to be bound by bills. The nobility received this right only in 1862.

As for the rights in the field of industry, from the time of Peter and up to the publication of the Charter of Letters, the nobles enjoyed the right everywhere (both in cities and in the villages) to start and operate all sorts of factories and plants for their own benefit. According to the project of the Elizabethan Commission, this right even turned into an exclusive privilege of the nobility, since only nobles could maintain most factories and plants (Art. 7. Ch. XXIII. Part III). The motives for this decision were the following considerations: 1) "so that the nobles, being in various services, would rather and more zealously send them and be able to support themselves in a decent manner with dignity and rank" and 2) the hope of the government that the nobility "will bring factories and factories into excellent condition ", since the government "saw with extreme displeasure" that the merchants did nothing in this respect. The orders of the nobility submitted to the commission in 1767 did not require any exclusive rights, but insisted that "the nobility should be allowed to start and maintain factories and manufactories and undertake all sorts of trades" (Moscow). However, in the commission, such desires aroused the protest of the city deputies, who were joined by some nobles. Here is what, for example, the noble deputy Glazov said about this: “if the nobles start factories and factories, then the merchants will be brought to insult and lose their merchant benefit in this, but the nobles should have factories from earthen growth, as well as mining plants , and the merchants must have all sorts of factories and factories without exception. Obviously, this protest was heard by the Empress, and in the Letter of Complaint she somewhat limited the rights of the nobles in the field of industry, allowing them to have factories and plants only in the villages. However, even earlier, with the publication of the Charter on distillation of 1765, the right of the nobles everywhere to smoke wine and take contracts for the supply of it, which they had used since the time of Peter I * (214), was destroyed, and they could only smoke wine in their villages. without the right to sell it. The supply of wine and ransom began to be regarded as an exclusively merchant's right. However, this prohibition continued in law only until 1774, when the nobles again received their former rights in the field of distillation. As for the supply of wine, since 1769 the nobles were again allowed to it, and since 1786 they were generally allowed to enter into all kinds of farms and contracts. Finally, in 1827, the nobles received the right to start factories and plants everywhere (and not just in the villages), but with the obligatory entry into the guild in such cases.

The privileges of the nobles also included freedom from personal taxes, from recruitment duty and from standing. Freedom from personal taxes was established from the time of the introduction of the poll tax, which sharply divided the entire population of Russia into two classes: taxable and non-taxable; the second included the nobility. Recruitment duty did not affect the nobles due to their compulsory service. As for the rent service, the nobles were exempted from it only in the villages, while their city houses did not enjoy this privilege.

The exclusive rights of the nobility (as well as members of the commercial and industrial class) should also include the right to majorates. However, we have already seen how the nobles reacted to the decree on single inheritance of 1714, which resulted in its cancellation in 1731. However, over time, the views of the nobility changed, and in the report of the noble commission of 1763, as well as in their orders in In 1767, the nobles petitioned for granting them the right to majorates. Thus, the report of the commission of 1763 called for the establishment of "in the inheritances of the nobility of the right, called fidei-commission or the right of refusal, or the right of seniority", according to which the testator can "give his estate to his eldest son or to whomever he pleases so that the heir to the estate, in Whatever it was, whether movable or not movable, he could neither sell nor mortgage it, but only received income from it for his living and left it intact to another, older in himself, or to someone who was prescribed in the spiritual. According to the report, such an order of things will contribute to "refraining from spending" and contribute to the fact that "surnames will not become impoverished and turn into poverty" (Article 19 and "explanation" to it). The orders of 1767 also speak of the primacy. So, the Moscow order asks the empress that, “in accordance with other well-established Christian regions in Europe, every owner was given the right to power something and some kind of property of his own movable and immovable estate to determine by good invention into an indivisible inheritance to whom, whoever wishes to give it, with an order instructing how to pass it from generation to generation "In the same way, in the Pereyaslav-Zalessky order we meet a similar request, namely:" it would seem to be useful for preserving the family name and houses, if it was allowed, whoever he wishes, with himself or at the end of his life, one or how many villages he wants to refuse a surname. True, until 1845 the law on the majorate did not follow, but in practice its establishment was sometimes allowed. This continued until 1845, when the well-known regulation on reserved estates was issued, which is still in effect.

The nobles also enjoyed some honorary rights. So, they had the right to coats of arms, which appeared in practice at the end of the 17th century. and for the first time received legislative sanction in the Table of Ranks and in the instructions to the king of arms of 1722. On the basis of the latter, the named official had to draw up a coat of arms common to all noble families, guided by the decent books of other states. According to this instruction, the right to a coat of arms was recognized for all chief officers of military service, whatever their origin, for nobles who could prove their nobility a hundred years before 1722, and for foreign nobles recognized as such in Russia. In 1797, a decree was again issued on the compilation of a general armorial, in which all the coats of arms of noble families were to be included. This armorial, compiled in 1798, is kept in the Senate, in the department of heraldry, and in total 11 parts of it were compiled (the 11th part was completed by its compilation already under Alexander II). Then the nobles enjoyed the right to dress their lackeys in special liveries, "because the nobility and dignity of the rank of which person is often diminished when the dress and other act do not match," ride in carriages drawn by a certain number of horses, depending on the rank of the nobleman, and have a special uniform (since 1882 - the uniform of the Ministry of the Interior * (215)).

In order to put an end to the rights and privileges of the nobility, it is necessary to say a few more words about the inviolability of noble dignity, which the nobles have repeatedly been busy with since 1730. This year, in the “conditions” proposed to Anna Ivanovna by the Supreme Privy Council and accepted by her, it was decided so that "the belly, property and honor of the gentry should not be taken away without a trial." The noble decrees of 1767 also interceded for the same. Catherine II heeded these requests and in the Letter of Complaint decided: "not only is it useful for the empire and the throne, but it is also fair that the respectful state of the noble nobility be preserved and affirmed unshakably and inviolably, as a result, yes not a nobleman or a noblewoman will lose her noble dignity, if they themselves did not deprive themselves of this crime, on the grounds of the noble dignity of the contrary," therefore, "without trial, may the noble noble dignity, honor, life and estate not be deprived." Moreover, on the basis of a charter, any court verdict depriving a nobleman of nobility or life had to be submitted to the Senate and confirmed by the sovereign, without which he had no legal force * (216). This decision of the charter was confirmed by decree on 8 September. 1802 on the rights and obligations of the Senate, by virtue of which the latter, in criminal cases of nobles, entailing the deprivation of noble dignity, had to submit reports to the sovereign and await confirmation on them.

“At this time, Peter appointed 35 boyar and noble children, whom he sent to foreign lands to study engineering, ship art, architecture and other sciences. He gave them a letter of recommendation and petition to Caesar, kings, the Dutch General States, electors, princes, counts and other primary people and subjects and free maritime miners, about their free passage, about patronage and assistance.

For his part, Peter promised all patronage to their subjects who came to his state. These letters were written in Russian and in Latin. Golikov had a copy of the letter given to the nobleman Kolychev. B.P. Sheremetev, pleasing the sovereign, at the same time asked him for permission to travel around part of Europe and set off on a journey with many young nobles and with letters from the sovereign to various sovereigns (to the King of Poland, to the Austrian emperor, to the pope, to the Doge of Venice and to the Maltese grandmaster).

Sending young nobles abroad, Peter, in addition to the benefit of the state, had another goal. He wanted to hold on to the fidelity of his fathers during his own absence. For the sovereign himself intended to leave Russia for a long time, in order to study in foreign lands everything that the state, immersed in deep ignorance, still lacked.

Soon the intention of the sovereign became known to his subjects and produced a general horror and indignation. The clergy saw in communication with heretics a sin forbidden by the Holy Scriptures. The people eagerly listened to these interpretations and were angry at foreigners, considering them to be debauched young king. The fathers of sons sent to foreign lands were afraid and sad. Science and art seemed to the nobles an unworthy exercise. Soon a conspiracy was discovered, of which Peter almost became a victim.

Peter sent to foreign lands at public expense not only nobles, but also merchant children, instructing everyone to come to him to receive the necessary instruction. He directed the philistines to study in Holland, stone craftsmanship, brick burning, etc. He ordered the nobles in Amsterdam, London, Brest, Toulon, etc. study astronomy, military architecture, etc. He confirmed to his ambassadors and residents about the recruitment and expulsion of foreign scientists to Russia, promising them various benefits and his patronage. He ordered the Russian chiefs to receive them and support them. He himself examined young people returning from foreign lands. He handed out places to those who had success, assigned them to different positions. Those who, due to stupidity of concept or laziness, did not learn anything, he gave at the disposal of his jester Pedriello (Pedrillo?), who defined them as grooms, stokers, regardless of their breed. […]

Peter pointed out that women and girls should have complete freedom in dealing with men, go to weddings, feasts, etc., without closing. He established tables, balls, assemblies, etc. at the court and among the boyars, ordered theatrical performances to be held in Moscow, at which he himself was always present. […]

Stralenberg speaks about the two sides that exist in Russia, for and against Peter I. The opposition is indignant.

1) to raise people from a low rank to high degrees, without distinction from the nobles.

2) that the sovereign surrounded himself with young people, also indiscriminately,

3) what allows them to ridicule the boyars who observe the old customs,

4) that he allows officers who have risen from the soldiers to his table and treats them familiarly (including Lefort),

5) that he sends the sons of the boyars to foreign lands to study arts, crafts and sciences, unworthy of the title of nobility. […]

For sending young people to foreign lands, the old people grumbled that the sovereign, alienating them from Orthodoxy, taught them infidel heresy. The wives of young people sent overseas put on mourning (blue dress) (Family tradition).

The people revered Peter as the Antichrist…”

Pushkin A.S. , History of Peter I. Preparatory texts / Historical notes, L., "Lenizdat", 1984, p. 253-254, 274, 225 and 226.