DOCSLIB.ORG

Download File

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download File The Sheremetevs and the Argunovs: Art, Serfdom, and Enlightenment in Eighteenth- Century Russia Alexandra Helprin Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2017 © 2017 Alexandra Helprin All rights reserved ABSTRACT The Sheremetevs and the Argunovs: Art, Serfdom, and Enlightenment in Eighteenth- Century Russia Alexandra Helprin This dissertation studies a case of Enlightenment art created in feudal conditions of servitude. The Sheremetevs, one of the richest and most powerful families in eighteenth-century Russia, had some of their hundreds of thousands of serfs trained as painters, architects, opera singers, and musicians. Two of these serfs, Ivan and Nikolai Argunov, became successful portraitists who painted a range of sitters from Empresses to fellow serfs. Tensions between social rank and individuality, already a preoccupation for eighteenth-century portrait painters, became particularly pronounced in this situation. While recent scholarship has focused on the Argunovs' cosmopolitan influences, their paintings of fellow serfs and others of low rank are sometimes visually and iconographically distinct from their usual output. This category of portrait, this dissertation argues, should be considered within the context of the other artistic projects of the Sheremetev household. Despite strong Western European influences on the Argunovs, the painters were also exposed to extremely personal and local precedents. These include earlier portraits, garden prints, an atlas project, the Sheremetevs' many collections, and operas staged by the family's renowned serf theater. Working within this visual environment, Ivan and Nikolai Argunov painted their subjects in intricately allusive ways. Their portraits represented and negotiated the complications of serfdom in a setting where unusual social change was possible. Table of Contents List of Illustrations .............................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Family Portraits: The Argunovs' Paintings of the Sheremetevs' Circle ........................................................28 Chapter 2: Through a Little Window: Theatrical Portraits and Performances ...............................................................................80 Chapter 3: The Shabby Camera Obscura: Space and Serfdom ..........................................................................................................120 Chapter 4: The Fight in Kitai Gorod: Collecting, Ownership, and Enlightenment .....................................................................161 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................193 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................205 Illustrations ......................................................................................................................220 i List of Illustrations Note: All paintings are located in the Russian Federation unless otherwise specified. 0.1 Ivan Argunov (after Karl Schurmann), Feldmarshal Count Boris Petrovich Sheremetev, 1753. Oil on canvas, 88 x 71 cm. Kuskovo, Moscow .................................220 0.2 Ivan Argunov, Wife of Cosma Khripunov, 1757. Oil on canvas, 73 x 57.5 cm. Ostankino, Moscow .........................................................................................................221 0.3 Nikolai Argunov, Praskovia Ivanovna Sheremeteva (In a Red Shawl), 1803-1804. Oil on canvas, 134 x 98 cm. Kuskovo, Moscow ....................................................................222 0.4 Nikolai Argunov, Praskovia Ivanovna Sheremeteva (In a Striped Coat), 1803. Oil on canvas, 251 x 188 cm. Kuskovo, Moscow .......................................................................223 0.5 Nikolai Argunov, Praskovia Ivanovna Sheremeteva (In a Coffin), 1803. Oil on canvas, 54.5 x 68 cm. Ostankino, Moscow ......................................................................224 0.6 Ivan Argunov, Portrait of an Unknown Artist (Self-Portrait?), late 1750s — early 1760s. Oil on canvas, 83 x 64 cm. State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg .....................225 0.7 Karl Blank, Charles de Wailly, et al., Kuskovo palace, c. 1769-1775. Moscow .......226 0.8 Pavel Argunov, Vincenzo Brenna, Francesco Camporesi, Andrei Mironov, Ivan Starov, et al., Ostankino palace, completed 1798. Moscow ............................................226 1.1 Ivan Argunov, Anna Nikolaevna Kalmykova (called Annushka), 1767. Oil on canvas, 62 x 50 cm. Kuskovo, Moscow .......................................................................................227 1.2 Anna Rosina Lisiewska, Peter III and Catherine II of Russia, 1756. Oil on canvas, 207 x 143 centimeters. National Museum, Stockholm, Sweden .....................................228 1.3 Ivan Argunov, Varvara Petrovna Sheremeteva, 1766. Oil on canvas, 81 x 64 cm. Kuskovo, Moscow ...........................................................................................................229 1.4 Ivan Argunov, Anna Petrovna Sheremeteva (the Younger), late 1760s. Oil on canvas, 72.5 x 56.7 cm. Kuskovo, Moscow .................................................................................230 1.5 Georg Grooth, Varvara Alekseevna Sheremeteva, 1746. Oil on canvas, 132.2 x 105.5 cm. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow ............................................................................231 1.6 Ivan Argunov, Anna Nikolaevna Kalmykova (called Annushka), detail ...................231 1.7 Nicolas Delapierre, Anna Nikolaevna Kalmykova (Ekaterina Borisovna?), 1772. Oil on canvas, 61.5 x 50 cm. Kuskovo, Moscow ...................................................................232 ii 1.8 Johann Bardou (?), Praskovia Ivanovna Sheremeteva in the Role of Eliane in Grétry's Mariages Samnites, late 1780s — early 1790s. Pastel on parchment, 73 x 59 cm. Kuskovo, Moscow ...........................................................................................................233 1.9 Alexander Roslin, Grand Duchess Natalia Alekseevna, 1776. Oil on canvas, 82.5 x 62 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg ............................................................234 1.10 Jean-Jacques Avril (after Ferdinand de Meys), Catherine II voyageant dans ses états en 1787, 1790. Engraving, 49.2 x 68 cm .........................................................................235 1.11 Letter from Nikolai Sheremetev to his son Dmitri (excerpt), after 1803. RGIA fond 1088, opis 1, delo 72, list 1ob. Russian State Historical Archive, St. Petersburg ...........236 1.12 Anonymous, Praskovia Ivanovna Sheremeteva, 1802-1803. Dimensions unknown. Ostankino, Moscow .........................................................................................................237 1.13 Nikolai Argunov, Praskovia Ivanovna Sheremeteva (In a Striped Coat) (detail) ...237 1.14 Nikolai Argunov, Alexander Matveevich Dmitriev-Mamonov, 1812. Oil on canvas, 151.5 x 125.6 cm. State Treyakov Gallery, Moscow .......................................................238 1.15 Nikolai Argunov, Nikolai Petrovich Sheremetev, c. 1798-1800. Oil on canvas, 67 x 54 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg ............................................................239 1.16 Anonymous, Black-Eyed Sweetheart, Give Me a Kiss, mid 1700s. Copperplate, 34.5 x 27.5 cm ..........................................................................................................................240 1.17 Anonymous, The Pancake Vendor, second half of the 18th century. Copperplate, dimensions unknown .......................................................................................................241 1.18 Paintings from the Sheremetev "Portrait Gallery," installation in Kuskovo orangerie (2016) ...............................................................................................................................242 1.19 Anonymous (after Louis Carravaque), Empress Anna Ioannovna, second half of the eighteenth century. Oil on canvas, 85 x 70 cm. Kuskovo, Moscow ................................243 1.20 Ivan Nikitin, Peter I On His Deathbed, 1725. Oil on canvas, 82 x 60.5 cm. State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg .....................................................................................244 1.21 Johann Tannauer, Peter I On His Deathbed, 1725. Oil on canvas, 48.5 x 63 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg ........................................................................245 2.1 Anonymous, Anna Sheremeteva in Carousel Costume, after 1766. Oil on canvas, 138 x 87 cm. State Hermitage, St. Petersburg ........................................................................246 iii 2.2 Ivan Argunov, Portrait of an Unknown Woman (Anna Buyanova?), 1784. Oil on canvas, 67 x 53.6 cm. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow ................................................247 2.3 Anton Losenko, The Actor Fyodor Gregorievich Volkov, 1763. Oil on canvas, 67.2 x 54.3 cm. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow ....................................................................248 2.4
Load more
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

225 pages remaining, click to load more.

Recommended publications
  • Catherine the Great and the Development of a Modern Russian Sovereignty, 1762-1796
    Catherine the Great and the Development of a Modern Russian Sovereignty, 1762-1796 By Thomas Lucius Lowish A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Victoria Frede-Montemayor, Chair Professor Jonathan Sheehan Professor Kinch Hoekstra Spring 2021 Abstract Catherine the Great and the Development of a Modern Russian Sovereignty, 1762-1796 by Thomas Lucius Lowish Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Victoria Frede-Montemayor, Chair Historians of Russian monarchy have avoided the concept of sovereignty, choosing instead to describe how monarchs sought power, authority, or legitimacy. This dissertation, which centers on Catherine the Great, the empress of Russia between 1762 and 1796, takes on the concept of sovereignty as the exercise of supreme and untrammeled power, considered legitimate, and shows why sovereignty was itself the major desideratum. Sovereignty expressed parity with Western rulers, but it would allow Russian monarchs to bring order to their vast domain and to meaningfully govern the lives of their multitudinous subjects. This dissertation argues that Catherine the Great was a crucial figure in this process. Perceiving the confusion and disorder in how her predecessors exercised power, she recognized that sovereignty required both strong and consistent procedures as well as substantial collaboration with the broadest possible number of stakeholders. This was a modern conception of sovereignty, designed to regulate the swelling mechanisms of the Russian state. Catherine established her system through careful management of both her own activities and the institutions and servitors that she saw as integral to the system.
    [Show full text]
  • From%20Irina%20Reyman%2C%20Ritualized%20Violence
    PHYSICAL INVIOLABILITY AND THE DUEL pUNCH OR STAB: THE RUSSIAN DUELIST’S DILEMMA The Russian duel was a surprisingly and consistently violent affair. I do not imply that Russian duels were more deadly than those in the West (the fatality rate in Russia never approached that in France in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries or in Germany at the end of the nineteenth century).1 I mean rather that conflicts over honor were frequently resolved in unregu lated spontaneous physical confrontations rather than in formal en- counters . Furthermore, those confrontations differed from rencontres in that they involved direct physical contact—hand-to-hand fighting or the use of weapons unrecognized by the dueling ritual, such as walking sticks or whips. The use of standard dueling weapons— swords or pistols—appears to have been optional. In other words, from the introduction of the duel in Russia to its demise, a conflict over honor was as likely (and at times more likely) to result in an im mediate and violent hand-to-hand fight as in a formal duel of honor. This happened so frequently that physical force seems to have been an accepted alternative to the duel. In fact, it would be possible to write (—S A Brief History of Dueling in Russia 97 98 a variant history of dueling in Russia featuring fistfights, slaps in the Everyone present—nobles face, and battering with walking sticks. and commoners, officers and enlisted men, Historians of the Russian women too—had at each other. Klimovich’s wife was beaten with a duel have consistently ignored or dis missed this ugly and violent club and her mother threatened.4 Grinshtein seems to have won this alternative behavior as aberrant.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Complete Volume for 2017
    Midlands Historical Review Volume 1 2017 Cover Image. Detail from Britannia Saxonica (1695) by Robert Morden. Held within the Public Domain and accessed via Wikimedia Commons. Midlands Historical Review ISSN 2516-8568 Volume I, 2017 Published by the Midlands Historical Review With thanks to the editorial board. David Civil, Founding Editor David Robinson, Founding Editor Jonathan Roche, Founding Editor Gary Fisher, Founding Editor With thanks to the assistant editors Thomas Black Christopher Booth Kate Garland Joe Himsworth Joanne Lord Darcie Mawby Marco Panato Thomas Rose James Smith Kimberley Weir Published by Midlands Historical Review © 2018 Midlands Historical Review Midlands Historical Review Founded 2017 Midlands Historical Review is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, student-led journal which showcases the best student research in the Arts and Humanities. It was founded in 2017 by a group of PhD students from diverse academic backgrounds and receives support from the University of Nottingham’s Department of History and School of Humanities. Students in the Arts and Humanities produce valuable contributions to knowledge which, once a degree has been awarded, are often forgotten. High quality research deserves an audience regardless of the level of education it was produced for. The research published by the Midlands Historical Review encourages and enables later cohorts of students to build upon previous students’ work. Contents Human Nature and the Joint Social Project: Towards a Coherent 1 Notion of Alienation Gaby Beckley Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner and Hollywood’s 17 Misrepresentation of the Politics of Interracial Relationships in 1960s America Sarah Dunne Ants and Cicadas: South American Football and National Identity 28 Mark Orton Pierre Nora, Memory, and the Myth of Elizabeth I 49 Tom Rose The Iconography of Kingship: Masques, Antimasques, and 66 Pastorals Thomas Black The “Russian” Woman? Cultural Exceptionalism among 88 Noblewomen in Late Imperial and Revolutionary Russia Darcie Mawby Book Reviews Belief and Unbelief in Medieval Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Echoes of Theatre O Stantkino
    Deus conservat omnia (God preserves all) Sheremetev family Coat of Arms motto inner space is in no way aligned with Introduction the surrounding area. Yet, regardless A quick glance at any map of of their architectural “merits,” these the city of Moscow is enough to grasp buildings quite quickly became the striking similarity of its layout “rooted” in Moscow’s landscape and with a wheel; not a lightweight spin- their spiky silhouettes have become ning wheel, but a heavy, archaic, the landmarks of the city skyline and a coarse wooden wheel, heavily – something which has never hap- rolling over and grinding everything pened in Warsaw, where a similar that comes its way. That impression is “Stalin skyscraper” did not manage quite justified. Almost all new build- to integrate into the city landscape, ings in Moscow that would initially and to this day looks like something puzzle and amuse its residents never alien and out of place. seemed to fit the city landscape. With It is quite interesting that many the passage of time, however, some- well -known Moscow architectural times it was a short and sometimes monuments, including the Church a very long period, they would be of the Assumption in Kolomenskoye absorbed by the city, and grinded and St. Basil’s Cathedral in the Red by this ever -spinning wheel, would Square, do look like pieces of sculp- become an organic attribute of the ture, as their external design is much Moscow’s landscape. more interesting, expressive and significant, than their interior space. These buildings were meant to be the Building of Moscow landmarks from the very beginning: since 1940 years the church in Kolomna was built to commemorate the birth of Ivan IV, The seven buildings that were and St.
    [Show full text]
  • Sculptor Nina Slobodinskaya (1898-1984)
    1 de 2 SCULPTOR NINA SLOBODINSKAYA (1898-1984). LIFE AND SEARCH OF CREATIVE BOUNDARIES IN THE SOVIET EPOCH Anastasia GNEZDILOVA Dipòsit legal: Gi. 2081-2016 http://hdl.handle.net/10803/334701 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ca Aquesta obra està subjecta a una llicència Creative Commons Reconeixement Esta obra está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence TESI DOCTORAL Sculptor Nina Slobodinskaya (1898 -1984) Life and Search of Creative Boundaries in the Soviet Epoch Anastasia Gnezdilova 2015 TESI DOCTORAL Sculptor Nina Slobodinskaya (1898-1984) Life and Search of Creative Boundaries in the Soviet Epoch Anastasia Gnezdilova 2015 Programa de doctorat: Ciències humanes I de la cultura Dirigida per: Dra. Maria-Josep Balsach i Peig Memòria presentada per optar al títol de doctora per la Universitat de Girona 1 2 Acknowledgments First of all I would like to thank my scientific tutor Maria-Josep Balsach I Peig, who inspired and encouraged me to work on subject which truly interested me, but I did not dare considering to work on it, although it was most actual, despite all seeming difficulties. Her invaluable support and wise and unfailing guiadance throughthout all work periods were crucial as returned hope and belief in proper forces in moments of despair and finally to bring my study to a conclusion. My research would not be realized without constant sacrifices, enormous patience, encouragement and understanding, moral support, good advices, and faith in me of all my family: my husband Daniel, my parents Andrey and Tamara, my ount Liubov, my children Iaroslav and Maria, my parents-in-law Francesc and Maria –Antonia, and my sister-in-law Silvia.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Museums Visit More Than 80 Million Visitors, 1/3 of Who Are Visitors Under 18
    Moscow 4 There are more than 3000 museums (and about 72 000 museum workers) in Russian Moscow region 92 Federation, not including school and company museums. Every year Russian museums visit more than 80 million visitors, 1/3 of who are visitors under 18 There are about 650 individual and institutional members in ICOM Russia. During two last St. Petersburg 117 years ICOM Russia membership was rapidly increasing more than 20% (or about 100 new members) a year Northwestern region 160 You will find the information aboutICOM Russia members in this book. All members (individual and institutional) are divided in two big groups – Museums which are institutional members of ICOM or are represented by individual members and Organizations. All the museums in this book are distributed by regional principle. Organizations are structured in profile groups Central region 192 Volga river region 224 Many thanks to all the museums who offered their help and assistance in the making of this collection South of Russia 258 Special thanks to Urals 270 Museum creation and consulting Culture heritage security in Russia with 3M(tm)Novec(tm)1230 Siberia and Far East 284 © ICOM Russia, 2012 Organizations 322 © K. Novokhatko, A. Gnedovsky, N. Kazantseva, O. Guzewska – compiling, translation, editing, 2012 icom.russia@gmail.com www.icom.org.ru © Leo Tolstoy museum-estate “Yasnaya Polyana”, design, 2012 Moscow MOSCOW A. N. SCRiAbiN MEMORiAl Capital of Russia. Major political, economic, cultural, scientific, religious, financial, educational, and transportation center of Russia and the continent MUSEUM Highlights: First reference to Moscow dates from 1147 when Moscow was already a pretty big town.
    [Show full text]
  • Disillusionment and Years of Conflict, 1884– 1905
    chapter 3 Disillusionment and Years of Conflict, 1884– 1905 In 1885, growing tensions between Great Britain and Russia ended a decade of relative ease and no foreign threat to Sweden-Norway. The two great pow- ers ultimately clashed in Afghanistan in the so- called Panjdeh Incident on 30 March 1885. The Russian Empire had been advancing into central and south- ern Asia since 1839, and it pushed on to Afghanistan in the early 1880s. Great Britain considered the advance a threat to India, and quickly entered into dis- cussions about the Afghan border with the Russians in 1882. An agreement on a boundary commission was reached in the summer of 1884, but the Russians kept driving southwards. In March 1885, they crushed the Afghan forces and annexed the Panjdeh district before the commissioners had arrived. The Brit- ish prepared for war, but the issue was eventually settled following the inter- vention of the Amir of Afghanistan.1 Before this solution was reached, however, the strained relations between London and St. Petersburg had transferred to the European territories. With the Baltic Sea forming a natural arena for a war between Russia and Great Britain, Sweden- Norway found itself in the most precarious situation it had been in since the Berlin Congress of 1878. The Swedish-Norwegian government ordered military preparedness when it learned of the confrontation between the British and the Russians, and quickly decided on the rearmament of what was left of its navy and the reinforcement of Gotland’s defences. It also revised its neutrality policy to better support Russia’s interests after Russia’s foreign minister, Nikolay Girs, told the Swedish-Norwegian minister in St.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is to Be Done? Discussions in Russian Art Theory and Criticism I
    WHAT IS TO BE DONE? DISCUSSIONS IN RUSSIAN ART THEORY AND CRITICISM I 6th Graduate Workshop of the RUSSIAN ART & CULTURE GROUP September 20th, 2018 | Jacobs University Bremen Cover: Nikolai Chernyshevsky, Manuscript of his novel “Что делать?” [What Is to be Done?] (detail), 1863; and Ivan Kramskoi, Христос в пустыне [Christ in the Desert] (detail), 1872, Tretyakov Gallery Moscow. WHAT IS TO BE DONE? DISCUSSIONS IN RUSSIAN ART THEORY AND CRITICISM I The sixth graduate workshop of the Russian Art & Culture Group will focus on main tendencies in Russian art theory of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, responses to the question What Is to Be Done? (Что делать?) in academic circles as well as by art critics, writers, impresarios, and other members of the Russian intelligentsia shall be explored. 2 | PROGRAM 6th Graduate Workshop of the Russian Art & Culture Group Jacobs University Bremen, Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Lab 3. PROGRAM THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20TH 10.30 Opening: Welcome Address Prof. Dr. Isabel Wünsche, Jacobs University Bremen Panel I: The Academy and Its Opponents Chair: Tanja Malycheva 11.00 Russian Pensionnaires of the Imperial Academy of Arts in Venice in the Second Half of the 18th Century Iana Sokolova, University of Padua 11.30 Escape from the Academy: Why Russian Artists Left St. Petersburg and Moved to Munich at the End of the 19th Century Nadezhda Voronina, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich 12.00 A Critic’s Tale by Vladimir Stasov Ludmila Piters-Hofmann, Jacobs University Bremen 12.30 Lunch Break (not included) Panel II: New Approaches and Aesthetic Norms Chair: Ludmila Piters-Hofmann 14.00 The Discussion of the Protection of the Russian Cultural Heritage in Russian Art Journals at the End of the 19th / Beginning of the 20th Century Anna Kharkina, Södertörn University 14.30 Pre-Raphaelites and Peredvizhniki: Pathosformel and Prefiguration in the 20th Century Marina Toropygina, Russian State Institute for Cinematography (VGIK) PROGRAM |3 15.00 “Colors, Colors ..
    [Show full text]
  • Of Peter the Great's Reforms
    RUDN Journal of Russian History 2021 Vol. 20 No 1 88–107 Вестник РУДН. Серия: ИСТОРИЯ РОССИИ http://journals.rudn.ru/russian-history https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8674-2021-20-1-88-107 Research article / Научная статья The “Flip Side” of Peter the Great’s Reforms Tatiana V. Chernikova Moscow State Institute of International Relations, 76, Vernadsky Prospekt, Moscow, 119454, Russia, tchernikova1961@mail.ru Abstract: Under discussion the question if Peter the Great’s reforms were truly revolutionary. The author focuses on two aspects: the extent to which his innovations altered the patrimonial system that had dominated Muscovy over the previous three centuries, and the role arbitrariness, bribery, embez- zlement and other kinds of corruption played during his reign. She examines the first Russian emperor’s changes that most affected Russia’s various estates, including the introduction of a poll tax, the conver- sion of peasants on state lands into state serfs, as well as the intensification of the nobility’s service obligations and the reduction of its privileges. The author concludes that Peter not only did not destroy Muscovy’s traditional patrimonial system, but intensified it and even used it to impose his reforms on a reluctant population. Meanwhile, although the emperor’s initiatives in the sciences, arts and secular education were important, they only affected the upper class. In other respects, Peter’s efforts to wes- ternize his realm were only superficial. The author also considers how Russians regarded the notion of “freedom.” She argues that there is a connection between seemingly opposite phenomena – the popular desire for freedom and arbitrariness of the service nobility.
    [Show full text]
  • Moscow and St Petersburg
    Creating a ‘Public’ in St Petersburg, 1703-1761 Paul Keenan School of Slavonic and East European Studies, UCL Ph.D. History 1 UMI Number: U592953 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U592953 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract The thesis deals with the creation of a ‘public’ in St Petersburg during the first half of the eighteenth century. The term ‘public’ has generated a considerable historiography dealing with its implications for the field of eighteenth-century studies, which are discussed in the introduction along with the contemporary definitions of the word. In eighteenth-century Russia, the term ‘public’ usually carried the meaning of ‘audience’, typically in reference to the theatre and other spectacles. The definition of this and other similar terms provides an important framework through which to analyse the various elements of this phenomenon. This analysis has centred on the city of St Petersburg in this period for several reasons. Firstly, it was the seat of both the Russian government and the Court around a decade after its foundation and Peter I ensured its rapid population.
    [Show full text]
  • Merchants of War: Mercenaries, Economy, and Society in the Late Sixteenth-Century Baltic
    Merchants of War: Mercenaries, Economy, and Society in the Late Sixteenth-Century Baltic by Joseph Thomas Chatto Sproule A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto © Copyright by Joseph Thomas Chatto Sproule 2019 Merchants of War: Mercenaries, Economy, and Society in the Late Sixteenth-Century Baltic Joseph Thomas Chatto Sproule Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto 2019 Abstract The polities of the sixteenth-century Baltic competed and cooperated with one another and with local power groups in fluctuating patterns of rivalry and expedient partnership. Mercenarism thrived in this context, as early modern governments were seldom equipped with the fiscal and logistical tools or the domestic military resources needed to wholly meet the escalating challenges of warfare, while mercenaries themselves were drawn to a chaotic environment that afforded opportunities for monetary gain and promotion into the still- coalescing political elites of the region’s emerging powers. This study sits, like the mercenary himself, at the intersection of the military, the economic, the social, and the political. Broadly, it is an analysis of mercenaries in Livonian and Swedish service during the so-called Livonian War of 1558 to 1583. Mercenaries are examined as agents of the polities for whom they fought and as actors with goals of their own, ambiguously positioned figures whose outsider status and relative independence presented both opportunities and challenges as they navigated the shifting networks of conflict and allegiance that characterized their fractious world. The aims of this study are threefold. The military efficacy of Western and Central European professional soldiers is assessed in an Eastern ii European context, problematizing the notion of Western military superiority in a time of alleged military revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Catherine I: Empress of Russia
    Catherine I: Empress of Russia From Rags to Riches th David Green – Nov 4 2009 This is a true rags-to-riches story, both literally and figuratively. The origins of Catherine are obscure to say the least; she was born, probably in 1682, in either Ringen in present day Estonia, or Jakobstadt, Latvia. In any case that area was under Swedish rule as the province of Livonia. Born Marta Skowronska, she was the daughter of Samuil and Elisabeth. Her father was of Polish origin and probably Catholic; it is surmised that he was an escaped serf who took odd laboring jobs such as grave digging. In either 1684 or 1685 both of her parents died of the Plague, leaving Marta, one of 5 orphans, to be brought up by an aunt, a difficult task and one of which she divested herself as soon as possible by giving Marta to Ernst Gluck, a Lutheran pastor in Marienburg. Ernst Gluck was the first man to translate the Bible into Latvian, thus he was well known, an educator (although he seems not to have practiced on Marta as she was illiterate all her life), and well connected. In fact she was a servant, but one to whom was ascribed remarkable beauty - we have no portraits of her from her youth, but later developments bear this out. The pastor's wife, troubled by the presence of a beautiful servant and her son managed to arrange a marriage for Marta to a dragoon in the Swedish army, variously referred to as Johan Cruse or Johann Rabbe.
    [Show full text]