Shepelev, Leonid Efimovich - The official world of Russia: XVIII - beginning. XX century

The death of a scientist, full of days, who has made a thorough and fruitful academic journey in science, of course, is filled with sadness, but, usually, a sadness that is bright and somehow satisfied. Peace be upon him! - we whisper to ourselves and add: - May God grant us at least half the same. But when this death passes unnoticed, sharp bitterness takes the place of light sadness. The death of Leonid Efimovich Shepelev, which followed a week ago, unfortunately, remained almost unnoticed by anyone. And this is unbearably bitter.

It is perhaps unnecessary to talk about Leonid Efimovich’s contribution to science. Let us give only an incomplete list of his monographs - he is more than eloquent: “Archival Research and Research” (M., 1971); "Joint-stock companies in Russia" (L., 1973); "Ranks, ranks and titles abolished by history Russian Empire"(L., 1977), later revised into "Titles, uniforms, orders in the Russian Empire" (L., 1991; M.: St. Petersburg, 2005; M.: St. Petersburg, 2008), “Tsarism and the bourgeoisie in the second half of the 19th century: problems of trade and industrial policy” (L., 1981), “Tsarism and the bourgeoisie in 1904-1914: Problems of trade and industrial policy” (L., 1987), “Sergei Yulievich Witte: Chronicle. Documents. Memoirs" (SPb., 1999); "The official world of Russia, XVIII - early twentieth centuries." (SPb., 2001), "Heraldry of Russia, XVIII - early XX centuries." (SPb., 2003; SPb., 2010) “Joint stock companies in Russia: XIX - early XX centuries” (SPb., 2006); "Problems economic development countries in the 19th - early 20th centuries. : documents and memoirs of statesmen" (St. Petersburg, 2007) "The Destiny of Russia. Problems of the country's economic development in the 19th - early 20th centuries. : documents and memoirs of statesmen" (St. Petersburg, 2007); "The apparatus of power in Russia. The era of Alexander I and Nicholas I" (St. Petersburg, 2007), "Capital Petersburg. City and Power" (co-authored with E.I. Zherikhina, M.: St. Petersburg, 2009). And this is only a small part of what has been done. Many articles and publications of sources, the yearbook "English Embankment" ... It’s breathtaking and I can’t believe that one life - albeit a long one - was enough to master such a gigantic work. And not just work. Let us pay attention to the repeated reprints, to the numerous editions of the last fifteen years. Scientific creativity Leonid Efimovich was not just valuable, but also deeply in demand, arousing constant interest even in our superficial and unreading times.

But with the death of L.E. Shepelev we have lost not just a brilliant researcher, a dedicated archivist, a historian in the best, classical sense of the word. We have lost one of the most principled and harsh critics of St. Petersburg scientific world, and this loss is irreparable. Many people disliked and were afraid of Leonid Efimovich. Because nothing - neither friendly relations, nor administrative circumstances could save low-quality, much less unscrupulous work from its never emotional, but inevitably objective, compelling analysis. When the author of these lines asked Leonid Efimovich to be an opponent of his PhD thesis, many thought that I had gone crazy and for some reason decided to deliberately “cut myself off.” How many times, while attending rather weak defenses, have we heard: “If only Shepelev didn’t come.” It seems to us that this fear is the best recommendation that a real scientist can deserve in professional community. Unbiased and objective criticism is the only true bond of real science, its heart and blood, what, in fact, allows science to become science, its only defense against dishonesty and amateurism - terrible ulcers, alas, corroding history in our days. And Leonid Efimovich was a true - one of the last - knight of science, without fear or reproach, not because of the cold dictates of the mind or emotional outbursts, but at the call of the heart, by the strength of the soul itself, always, everywhere and to the end, standing for its purity. He simply could not, did not know how to do otherwise.

Leonid Efimovich did not live for science - he lived for science; science was not a profession for him, but a nature, the harmonious essence of his nature. In serving science, he had neither ambition nor personal scores. When in 2001 a certain G.A. Murashev published the book “Titles, Ranks, Awards” - an absolute plagiarism of the most popular (four editions) work of Leonid Efimovich - friends and colleagues were indignant, called for legal proceedings, and Leonid Efimovich... rejoiced! Yes, yes, he was happy! “So I wrote a good book,” he said. “And now it will spread even wider. This is wonderful! But under whose name - what difference does it make?”

Any researcher was afraid of coming under criticism from Leonid Efimovich. But working with him was a real pleasure. Always impeccably elegant, always friendly and with a keen sense of humor, he was a wonderful colleague and a worthy leader. It is no coincidence that in 1994 he became deputy head of the State Heraldry under the President of the Russian Federation, and in 1995 - president of the St. Petersburg Scientific Society historians and archivists, from 1999 to 2004 he was deputy chairman of the Heraldic Council under the President of the Russian Federation. He was not afraid to take on new, bold undertakings and knew how to organize them in a special spirit, unique to him. Without haste, heat and pressure, without a desperate desire for an immediate result, but with the necessary thoughtfulness and thoroughness, with constant deep professionalism, with a view to the years ahead and to a result that will not be immediate. Leonid Efimovich took on a lot of things, giving his colleagues and subordinates wide freedom of creativity and initiative. And he was never afraid to put an end to it if he considered the topic exhausted or his further participation in the work unpromising.

Now Leonid Efimovich is no longer with us. St. Petersburg historical world orphaned And nothing will make up for this loss.

About the book

Academy of Sciences of the USSR

Series "Pages of the history of our Motherland"

L. E. Shepelev

Leningrad, "Science", Leningrad branch, 1991

Doctor's book historical sciences L. E. Shepeleva talks about the system of military, civil, court and family titles and ranks and the corresponding uniforms and orders in the Russian Empire (XVIII century - 1917).

The publication is intended for historians, art critics, archival and museum workers, as well as a wide range of readers interested in Russian history.

Executive Editor Corresponding Member USSR Academy of Sciences B. V. Ananich

Leonid Efimovich Shepelev

Titles, uniforms, orders in the Russian Empire

Approved for publication by the Editorial Board of Serial Publications of the USSR Academy of Sciences

Publishing editor R. K. Paegle

Artist V. M. Ivanov

Technical editor Y. N. Isakov

Proofreaders L. Z. Markova And K. S. Fridland

Delivered to set 11/30/89. Signed for publication on March 6, 1991. Format 84×108 1/32. Photocomposition. Literary typeface. Offset paper No. 1. Offset printing. Conditional oven l. 11.76. Conditional cr.-ott. 12.15. Academic ed. l. 12.95. Circulation 40,000 copies. Zach. 20386. Price 3 rubles.

Order of the Red Banner of Labor publishing house "Science".

Leningrad branch. 199034, Leningrad, V-34, Mendeleevskaya line, 1. TsKF VMF

ISBN 5-02-027196-9

On the cover of the book there are drawings of different types of uniforms.

On front side covers: ceremonial uniform with top-class embroidery. 1834

On the back cover:

1. Uniform of the late 18th century. (German-style caftan).
2. Uniform coat of military cut (for equestrians and jägermeisters). 1834
3. First dress uniform thirds of the XIX V. (French style caftan).
4. Dress uniform. 1834
5. Dress uniform of military cut. 1869
6. Uniform frock coat. 1904
7. Outer uniform (coat and cap). 1904
8. Uniform for court officials (civil cut). 1856
9. Ceremonial dress for court ladies. 1834

Publisher's abstract: The book by Doctor of Historical Sciences L.E. Shepelev talks about the system of military, civil, court and family titles and ranks and the corresponding uniforms and orders in the Russian Empire (XVIII century - 1917). The publication is intended for historians, art critics, archival and museum workers, as well as a wide range of readers interested in Russian history.

"Table of ranks of all ranks"

Noble titles, coats of arms and uniforms

Nobility

Nominal formula and family relations

Family titles

Family coats of arms

Military and retinue titles and uniforms

Military ranks

Naval ranks and uniforms

Retinue ranks and uniforms

Titles and uniforms of civil department officials

Civil ranks

Civil ranks and uniforms

Holy Orders and Robes

Court titles and uniforms

Ranks and titles

Order badges and robes

Elimination of titles, uniforms and orders in 1917

Literature

Dictionary of basic private and general titles

Notes

Titles, uniforms and orders as a historical and cultural phenomenon

The concepts listed in the title are internally related. Titles are verbal designations established by law for the official and class-tribal status of their owners, which briefly define them legal status. General, State Councilor, Chamberlain, Count, Aide-de-Camp, Secretary of State, Excellency and Lordship are some of these titles. Uniforms were official uniforms that corresponded to titles and visually expressed them. Finally, orders are a complement to both: the rank of order (holder of the order) represents special case title, special order attire is a special case of a uniform, and the order badge itself is a common addition to any uniform. In general, the system of titles, uniforms and orders constituted one of the foundations of the tsarist state machine and important element social life Russia in the 18th and early 20th centuries.

The core of this system was the rank - the rank of each civil servant (military, civilian or courtier) according to the fourteen-class “Table of Ranks of All Ranks...” established by Peter I and which lasted for almost 200 years. More than a hundred years ago (in 1886), Secretary of State A. A. Polovtsov (one of the organizers and leaders of the Russian Historical Society) wrote Alexander III: “The time will come when it will be difficult for a historian to explain what this rank was, this one hundred and fifty years in the making, ingrained in the habits of Russian ambition,” a phenomenon that “could not be ignored.” The validity of the prediction is now beyond doubt. Next, we will take a closer look at the history of the emergence and content of this phenomenon, but here we will only note that the rank gave the right to fill civil service positions, as well as a set of rights, without which, according to the authoritative testimony of a contemporary (V. Ya. Stoyunin), “a person even if somewhat developed and educated, it was unbearable to live in society" (especially before the abolition of serfdom).

It can be said that titles (and especially ranks), together with uniforms and orders, were the most noticeable sign of the era, so deeply did they penetrate the social consciousness and life of the propertied classes. Along with this, they were reflected in historical sources, memoirs and fiction, V fine arts: sometimes these are arguments that directly affect the problems of public service and social relations; more often - private references to the titles, uniforms and orders of specific persons in order to indicate their legal status or simply name them.

When faced with the mention of titles, uniforms and orders, the modern reader (and sometimes a specialist historian) often finds it difficult to understand their meaning. And this is natural, since the system of titles, uniforms and orders that existed in the Russian Empire was abolished back in 1917 and has since been thoroughly forgotten. There are no special reference books about them (with the exception of encyclopedias and dictionaries, in which the relevant terms are given separately, in a general alphabetical order). Before the revolution, the need for such reference books was small, since there were departmental instructions, and the very tradition of using titles, uniforms and orders was alive. The difficulties are aggravated by the fact that the mention of titles, uniforms and orders in literature is not always formally correct and can be replaced by the bureaucratic or high society jargon accepted at that time. So, in different contexts we can talk about the “grant of lordship”, the award of a court or other uniform, key or cipher, the receipt of “white buttons” or “cavalry”, the award of a “cranberry” for a saber, etc. In this In this case, for obvious reasons, reference to reference books is generally impossible.

There are many examples of this kind that can be given. Let's point out some of them.

This is what we read in the diary of the Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Valuev (1) for 1865: “January 1. In the morning in the palace. I saw Prince Gagarin with a portrait, Butkov with the diamond signs of St. Alexander, Milyutin in the uniform of a member of the State Council, Chevkin - with the ribbon of St. Vladimir." And here is the entry for October 28, 1866: “Count Berg was promoted to field marshal. Generals Kotzebue and Bezack were given St. Andrew’s ribbons, Adjutants General Grabbe and Litke were elevated to the rank of count, and the first of them was seated in the Council. Members of the State Council, except for him , the Tsarevich, General Duhamel, Admiral Novosilsky, Prince Vyazemsky, N. Mukhanov, Count Alexander Adlerberg and Prince Orbeliani were appointed, in addition, they were granted, together with Venevitinov, to the obershenki. How to understand such a passage from the same diary for 1867, which gives the impression of some ambiguity: “April 16. Bright Sunday. At night in the Winter Palace... Count Panin takes away the diamonds of St. Andrew as a farewell, and Zamyatin takes the diamonds of St. Alexander"?

It is not immediately possible to understand the meaning of the story of the head of the III Department and the chief of the gendarme corps, Count P. A, Shuvalov. In 1686, in a circle of close acquaintances, he recalled how 20 years ago Count M.N. Muravyov (pacifier Polish uprising 1863, and in 1866, the chairman of the Supreme Commission of Investigation in the case of D.V. Karakozov’s assassination attempt on Alexander II) asked Shuvalov in connection with the end of the investigation (which was conducted “with great brutality”) to “report to the sovereign that he... . wishes to be appointed adjutant general."

When this was conveyed to the tsar, he exclaimed: “My adjutant general - no way!.. Give him St. Andrew’s diamond insignia, but without a rescript.” Muravyov, “dissatisfied that he was not given the reward he asked for, went to his Luga estate,” where he died suddenly. “The courier who brought him diamonds there found him dead...” (Please note that Shuvalov’s story characterizes not only morals, but also the scale of value of various awards).

In the same 1886, A. A. Polovtsov considered it important to write down in his diary as a characteristic feature of the time that he found Count P. A. Shuvalov with Field Marshal Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolaevich, “who in a white uniform came to thank the Grand Duke for interceding this smart suit." Here, too, not everything is clear: what is this “white uniform”, what did receiving it mean?

In the book by K. A. Krivoshein about his father - a prominent statesman of pre-revolutionary Russia - it is said that in May 1905 A. V. Krivoshein “was appointed assistant chief manager” of the department of land management and agriculture and “was awarded the chamberlain uniform, holding the position of chamberlain , corresponding to the rank of general, actual state councilor." First of all, we note that there is an inaccuracy here: A.V. Krivoshey at the time of the award was not “in the position of chamberlain,” but was promoted to it through “awarding the chamberlain uniform.” What kind of “position” is this and should A.V. Krivosheiy have combined it with the position of comrade-in-chief? Let us clarify right away that in reality such an award did not mean an appointment to the position of chamberlain, but the award of an honorary court title, absurdly called “in the position of chamberlain.”

A characteristic feature of classes is the presence of social symbols and signs: titles, uniforms, orders, titles. Classes and castes did not have state distinctive signs, although they were distinguished by clothing, jewelry, norms and rules of behavior, and ritual of address. And in feudal society, the state assigned distinctive symbols to the main class - the nobility. What exactly did this mean?

Titles are verbal designations established by law for the official and class-clan status of their owners, which briefly define the legal status. In Russia in the 19th century, there were such titles as general, state councilor, chamberlain, count, adjutant, secretary of state, excellency, lordship, etc.

Uniforms were official uniforms that corresponded to titles and visually expressed them.

Orders are material insignia, honorary awards that complement titles and uniforms. The rank of the order (“Cnight of the Order”) was a special case of a title, the special attire of the order was a special case of a uniform, and the order badge itself was a common addition to any uniform.

The core of the system of titles, orders and uniforms was the rank - the rank of each civil servant (military, civilian or courtier). Before Peter I, the concept of “rank” meant any position, honorary title, or social position of a person. On January 24, 1722, Peter 1 introduced a new system of titles in Russia, legal basis for which the “Table of Ranks” served. Since then, “rank” has received a narrower meaning, referring only to public service. The “Table” provided for three main types of service: military, civilian and court. Each was divided into 14 ranks, or classes.

The civil service was built on the principle that an employee had to go through the entire hierarchy from bottom to top, starting with the service of the lowest class rank. In each class it was necessary to serve a certain minimum of years (in the lowest 3-4 years). There were fewer senior positions than lower ones. Class denoted the rank of a position, which was called class rank. The title “official” was assigned to its owner.

Only the nobility—local and service nobility—were allowed to participate in public service. Both were hereditary: the title of nobility was passed on to the wife, children and distant descendants in the male line. Daughters who married acquired the class status of their husband. Noble status was usually formalized in the form of a pedigree, family coat of arms, portraits of ancestors, legends, titles and orders. Thus, a sense of continuity of generations, pride in one’s family and the desire to preserve its good name gradually formed in the mind. Together they constituted the concept of “noble honor.” Total number nobles and class officials (with family members) was equal to one million in the middle of the 19th century.

The noble origin of a hereditary nobleman was determined by the merits of his family to the fatherland. Official recognition Such merits were expressed by the common title of all nobles - “your honor.” The private title “nobleman” was not used in history. Its replacement was the predicate “master,” which over time began to refer to any other free class. In Europe, other replacements were used: “von” for German surnames, “don” for Spanish ones, “de” for French ones. In Russia this formula transformed into indicating the first name, patronymic and last name. The nominal three-term formula was used only when addressing the noble class; use full name was the prerogative of the nobles, and the half-name was considered a sign of belonging to the ignoble classes.

The upper layer of the noble class was the titled nobility, that is, noble families who had baronial, count, princely and other family titles. In Europe, they denoted different degrees of vassalage. Until the 18th century in Russia there was only a princely title, which denoted membership in a family that in ancient times enjoyed the right to reign ( public administration) in a certain area. Under Peter I, the family titles of Western states were introduced for the first time: count and baron. In the 18th century, the title of count was regarded as equal to or more honorable than that of a prince.

Princes and counts could be: 1) sovereign (real), having land plot, 2) titular, not possessing land ownership. In Russia, at the end of the 19th century, there were 310 count families, 240 baronial families, and 250 princely families (of which 40 were descended from the descendants of Rurik and Gediminas).

Family titles were granted and inherited. Highest degree The princely title was the title of Grand Duke, which could only belong to members of the imperial family. Grand Duke- the heir to the throne (usually the eldest son of the emperor) also had the title “Tsarevich”. The Emperor had the general title "Your Imperial Majesty", and the heir and other great princes - "Your Imperial Highness". In 1914, the imperial family numbered more than 60 people.

In the class hierarchy of Russia, achieved and ascribed (innate) statuses were very intricately intertwined. The presence of a pedigree indicated the ascribed, and its absence indicated the achieved. In the second generation, the achieved (granted) status turned into ascribed (inherited).

Adapted from source: Shepelev L. E. Titles, uniforms, orders. M., 1991.

To narrow down the search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search in several fields at the same time:

Logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the method in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search with morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is performed taking into account morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a “dollar” sign in front of the words in a phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, you need to put a hash " # " before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthetical expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one was found.
Not compatible with morphology-free search, prefix search, or phrase search.

# study

Grouping

In order to group search phrases you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the Boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

When searching, words such as "bromine", "rum", "industrial", etc. will be found.
You can additionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

By default, 2 edits are allowed.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity criterion, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of the phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Relevance of expressions

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the " sign ^ " at the end of the expression, followed by the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression, the word “research” is four times more relevant than the word “development”:

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should indicate the boundary values ​​in parentheses, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.

Such a query will return results with an author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in a range, use square brackets. To exclude a value, use curly braces.