LEARNING TO BE NOBLES: THE ELITE AND EDUCATION IN POST-PETRINE RUSIA Igor Fedyukin A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History Chapel Hill 2009 Approved by Advisor: David M. Griffiths Reader: Chad Bryant Reader: Jeffrey W. Jones Reader: Louise McReynolds Reader: Donald J. Raleigh Reader: Jay M. Smith © 2009 Igor Fedyukin ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT IGOR FEDYUKIN: Learning To Be Nobles: The Elite and Education in post- Petrine Russia (Under the direction of David M. Griffiths) This dissertation explores the relationship between the state and the nobility in post-Petrine Russia (1730s-1750s). It focuses on educational policies pursued by the state: specifically, on the establishment and operations of the Noble Cadet Corps and on the reform of noble service in 1736-1737; it also explores the reaction of the nobility to these policies. Traditionally, historians have viewed these measures as concessions granted by the state to the nobility in the aftermath of the succession crisis of 1730. Using a large body of unpublished sources from the archive of the Noble Cadet Corps and the records of the Heraldry Department, this dissertation argues that in the 1730s the government of Empress Anna conducted a campaign of social disciplining with the goal of fashioning a “true nobility” out of the existing elite. Specific changes in the system of noble service, such as allowing the nobles some say in choosing their career path and mode of schooling, were not a result of any political pressure from the nobility, but rather were motivated by the changing theoretical notions of human governability. The leading ministers of the reign believed that the best way to govern was to “encourage” nobles to perform more “diligently” by allowing them to follow their “natural inclinations.” The vast majority of the nobles were not interested in the educational opportunities given them by Anna’s government. At the same time, by 1730 there already existed a small, but iii important stratum of the elite which was willing to actively embrace these opportunities. This dissertation argues, therefore, that the elite in the 1730s did not have any residual influence over the governmental policies, nor was there any room for a negotiated or consultative relationship. At the same time, whatever success the government’s campaign of social disciplining enjoyed, was due to the willingness of some nobles to cooperate with it. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am glad to have this opportunity to express my gratitude to a number of teachers and colleagues: without their guidance, encouragement, friendship, and support this dissertation, most likely, would not have happened. I would like to acknowledge my particular indebtedness to A. B. Kamenskii and A. L. Zorin who first introduced me to the eighteenth-century studies and selflessly supported me ever since. I am grateful to my committee members, Chad Bryant, Jeff Jones, Louise McReynolds, Donald J. Raleigh, and Jay M. Smith, for their support, advice, and willingness to put up with me asking them to read chapters of this dissertation on extremely short notice. In particular, I would like to thank Donald J. Raleigh for being, really, a second advisor throughout my years at UNC. I was extremely lucky to benefit from the advice of Jay M. Smith, who more than anybody else helped me to shape my understanding of early-modern rulership. My colleagues at the New Economic School in Moscow, and Sergei Guriev in particular, provided the best possible environment to continue my work on this dissertation. I am also deeply grateful, for a variety of reasons, to Tracy Dennison, A. I. Miller, Alfred J. Rieber, Danilo Leonardi, Dasha Plakhova-Freshville, Sean Pollock, Rosa Magnusdottir, John Wallace, Anne Langley, Irina Denisova, and Rob Collis. David M. Griffiths, my advisor, set an extremely high standard of human and intellectual generosity: I can only hope that at some point in the future I would be able to emulate his example. Finally, I am indebted, of course, to Katya and Petya. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………..viii Chapter INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..……...1 PART I. “THEY GROW UP LIKE A WILD FOREST”: THE STATE, THE NOBILITY, AND EDUCATION, 1700-1730……………………………..........................16 1 The Soul of the Machine: Human Nature, Society, and the State in Early-Modern Europe………………………..………21 2 “In Reality, Seminaries”: Social Discipline and Early Modern Elite Schooling………………………………………...33 3 “Our Folk are Like Unschooled Children”: Peter I and His Idea of Schooling…………………………………………….52 4 “To Equal the European States”: Reconstructing the Russian Nobility, 1700s-1730s……………………………………72 Conclusion to Part I…………………………………………………...97 PART II. “AMONG THE HONEST NOBLES”: REFORMING THE RUSSIAN NOBILITY, 1730s...……………………….99 5 “Diligent Discussion in the Palace”: Court Politics and Education for Nobility, 1730-1732……………………………...107 6 “Well-Mannered Cadets”: Everyday Life, Foreign Languages, and Disciplinary Practices …………………….122 vi 7 “Easy and Useful Subjects”: Curriculum and Examinations at the Corps………………………………………144 8 “Génie, That Is, the Natural Inclination”: Nature, Merit, and the Definition of Nobility………………………………………..159 9 The Science of Encouraging: Human Nature and the Methods of Governing……………………………………....171 Conclusion to Part II…………………………………………………196 PART III. “SO THAT MY YOUNG YEARS BE NOT WASTED FOR NOTHING”: THE NOBILITY AND EDUCATION, 1730s-1750s…………………...….201 10 Filling the Ranks: Freedom of Choice in Post-Petrine Russia……..................................................................208 11 Living chestno, chisto i neubogo: Wealth, Rank, Birth, and Career Preferences of the Russian Nobility……………………..220 12 “I Wish To Study Foreign Languages, Dancing, and Fencing”: Educational Preferences of the Russian Nobility…………237 14 Networks of Change: Individual Strategies and Westernization of the Elite…………………………………………………………………..253 Conclusion to Part III ………………………………………………..272 Epilogue: Politics of Education in the Reign of Elizabeth....………………..275 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………..288 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………..292 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1. Discussing a School for the Nobility, Late 1720s-Early 1730s……………………………………………………………………….121 2.2. Books at the Library of the Cadet Corps by Language, 1750………………………………………………………………………..135 3.1. Distribution of Russian Landlords According to the Number of Serfs in Their Possession in the Eighteenth Century…………………………………….....................225 3.2. The Noble Cadet Corps and the Noblemen of the Guards, 1740s-1760s…………………………………………………...228 3.3. Previously Studied Subjects Reported by Incoming Cadets and the Results of Examination at the Corps, 1750………………………..242 3.4. Subjects Studied by Nobles Prior to Coming to the Corps, 1730s ……………………………………………………..…243 3.5. Subjects Studied by Nobles Prior to Coming to the Corps, 1750s………………………………………………..……… 246 3.6. Number of Cadets Taking Various Subjects at the Corps in 1737.............................................................................. 247-248 3.7. Number of Cadets Taking Various Subjects at the Corps in 1738………………………………………………………..249 3.8. Wealth and Education of Retired Noblemen, 1762-1777………………….250 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS d. – delo (file/folder). f. – fond (collection). l. – list (page). m. s. – “male souls” ([number of] duzh muzhskogo pola), the number of male serfs in one’s possession, the measure of wealth of a landlord in eighteenth-century Russia. o. – opis’ (subdivision within a fond) ob. – oborot (verso) PSZ – Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii (Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire), 1st series. (References given to the number of the relevant law, not to the volume and page number). RBS – Russkii biograficheskii slovar’ (Russian Biographical Dictionary). RGADA – Rossiiskii Gosudarstvenyi Arkhiv Drevnikh Aktov (Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents), Moscow. RGVIA – Rossiiskii Gosudarstvenyi Voenno-Istoricheskii Arkhiv (Russian State Archive of Military History), Moscow. SIRIO – Sbornik Imeratorskago russkago istoricheskago obshchestva (Publications of the Imperial Russian Historical Society). SK – Svodnyi katalog russkoi knigi grazhdanskoi pechati vosemnadtsatogo veka, 1725-1800 (General Catalogue of Russian Books Published in Civic Script in the Eighteenth Century, 1725-1800). ZA - Voskresenskii, N.A., ed. Zakonodatel’nye akty Petra I. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’svo AN SSSR, 1945. ix INTRODUCTION On January 18, 1730, on the eve of his own wedding, Peter II, the nineteen-year old grandson of Peter I, died of smallpox in Moscow’s Lefort Mansion. The teenage emperor did not leave behind either a designated heir, as he was entitled to do under Petrine legislation, or any direct issue, or even a lawful consort. In fact, he was the last male member of the ruling dynasty. On that fateful night the Supreme Privy Council, a body that had governed the empire during the past few years and consisted of half a dozen leading dignitaries of the realm (represented mostly by the Golitsyn and Dolgorukov princes, two of the most illustrious aristocratic clans) choose as the next sovereign of Russia the widowed Duchess Anna of Kurland, the niece of Peter I and the daughter of Ivan V, his brother and co-ruler from 1682 to 1696.1 In the course of the Council’s deliberations Prince