UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Russian Committee of Ministers, 1802 to 1905 : a prosopographical study Darville, Kay Lee Orth 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A8 D37.pdf [ 7.38MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101693.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101693-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101693-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101693-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101693-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101693-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101693-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101693-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101693.ris

Full Text

THE RUSSIAN COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS, 1802 TO I 905 i A PROSOPOGRAPHICAL STUDY by KAY LEE ORTH DARVILLE ..' B. A., University of Kansas, I967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History We accept t h i s thesis as comforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1972 In presenting th i s thes i s in pa r t i a l f u l f i lment o f the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the Un iver s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make i t f r e e l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extens ive copying of th i s thes i s fo r s cho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i c a t i on of th i s thes is for f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion. Department of History • The Un ivers i ty o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT This study i s a prosopographical analysis of the Russian Committee of Ministers during the entire period of i t s existence, 1802 to 1905. Because the Committee was comprised of the highest o f f i c i a l s within the Russian bureaucracy, i t s member-ship constituted a pr e c i s e l y defined e l i t e group. Examination of the s o c i a l and career backgrounds of the Committee's members allows f o r quant i t a t i v e l y grounded descriptions of the admi-n i s t r a t i v e elite, of the Russian Empire and the changes i t underwent through the course of the nineteenth century. On the whole, the members of the Committee of Ministers are found to have been l a r g e l y of Russian n a t i o n a l i t y , while Germans composed a sizable minority. The s o c i a l class which dominated the Committee was the n o b i l i t y , with few ministers not of noble cr royal b i r t h . Relative to the general popula-t i o n , the ministers also formed an educational e l i t e , a majority of whom were schooled i n an i n s t i t u t i o n of higher learning. As a group the ministers had no other occupational a c t i v i t y than service to the Russian state, with ninety per cent of the ministers having entered state service immediately upon f i n i s h i n g t h e i r education. In t h e i r o f f i c i a l careers the ministers spent over three decades i n service before at t a i n i n g membership on the Committee of Ministers, and most of them served i n the m i l i t a r y as well as the c i v i l area of Russian government. While most of the ministers held only one p o s i t i o n on the Committee of Ministers, a large minority held more than two, e i t h e r simultaneously or consecutively? and the o v e r a l l average f o r tenure i n membership i n one po-s i t i o n was six years. While these features were determined f o r the entire membership of the Committee of Ministers, pictures of the Committee as constituted under each of the f i v e tsars of the nineteenth century d i f f e r e d from each other, with Nicholas I's ministers most resembling the p o r t r a i t drawn above. Through the course of four reigns, the base of the Committee's s o c i a l composition widened somewhat to include groups of more diverse backgrounds, and the career pattern of simultaneous m i l i t a r y and c i v i l service s h i f t e d towards one of s o l e l y bureaucratic service i n the c i v i l administration. The importance of higher education as a q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r e l i t e status worked to moderate the influence of inherited s o c i a l p o s i t i o n , and the groups who most benefitted from t h i s tendency were ministers of foreign, non-noble, and German b i r t h , whose generally high l e v e l of educational attainment was suited to the needs of the expanding Russian bureaucracy. Under Alexander I I I , these changes were most i n evidence within the Committee's member-ship, but i n the following reign, under Nicholas I I , the old patterns reasserted themselves as the percentages of landed n o b i l i t y and m i l i t a r i l y trained ministers increased. This resurgence of t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominant patterns r e f l e c t s the landed n o b i l i t y ' s e f f o r t s to r e t a i n o l d p r i v i l e g e s and to r e ga i n t h e i r former eminence, which had been undermined i n 1861 by the emancipat ion of the s e r f s . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS 9 III. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS 17 Age 18 National Origins 2 0 Social Origins 33 Education 51 IV. CAREER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS 6 9 Military and C i v i l Careers 71 Service on the Committee 9 2 V. CONCLUSION 109 POSTSCRIPT 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY 118 APPENDIX. POSITIONS INCLUDED ON THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS 12k v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. National Origins of Members of the Committee of Ministers 25 2. Russian and German Representation on the Committee of Ministers, Arranged by Post and Reign 27 3. Class Representation on the Committee of Ministers, Arranged by Post and Reign 36 4. Ministers* Fathers' Occupations, Arranged by Post and Reign 41 5. Inherited and Bestowed T i t l e s Held by Members of the Committee of Ministers 45 6. Title-Holding on the Committee of Ministers, Arranged by Post and Reign 47 7. F i n a l Educational Experience of the Ministers, Arranged by Date of Completion of Education . . 53 8. Highest Level of Education Achieved, Arranged by Post and Reign 57 9 . Type of Educational Training, Arranged by Post and Reign . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 10. Duration of M i l i t a r y Service of Ministers Holding Security and Non-Security Positions on the Committee of Ministers 76 11. Duration of M i l i t a r y Service of the Ministers, Arranged by Date of Entry into State Service . 80 12. Duration of the Ministers' M i l i t a r y Service, Compared with Type of Education Attained . . . 83 13. Duration of the Ministers' M i l i t a r y Service, Compared with Level of Education Attained . . . 85 14. Duration of M i l i t a r y Experience on the Committee of Ministers, Arranged by Post and Reign . . . 88 v i T a b l e Page 15. Average Ages a t E n t r y i n t o S t a t e S e r v i c e and a t E n t r y onto the Committee o f M i n i s t e r s . . . . . 9^ 16. M i n i s t e r i a l A c t i v i t y a f t e r P o s i t i o n , A r r a n g e d by R e i g n i n which P o s i t i o n Ended 103 v i i ERRATA page 23, footnote 35 reads: Internal A f f a i r s should read: Foreign A f f a i r s page 74, bottom l i n e reads: ninety were should read: eighty were page 75, top l i n e reads: two hundred three should read: two hundred t h i r t e e n page 76, table 10 reads: 87 security, 193 non-security should read: 77 security, 203 non-security CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "Neither remoteness, nor h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n s , nor differences of n a t i o n a l i t y set any l i m i t s to the domination of the St. Petersburg bureaucracy," so wrote an acutely perceptive v i s i t o r to Russia i n the 1880'S.* A massive apparatus, t h i s bureaucracy assisted the tsar i n governing the vast domain of Imperial Russia. While the importance of the Russian bureaucracy has always been asserted by historians of nineteenth century Russia, u n t i l comparatively recently the bureaucracy has seldom been the subject of detailed scholarly inquiry. And, despite the fac t that t h i s paucity of c r i t i c a l examination has begun to be remedied during the l a s t decade, many aspects of administrative hi s t o r y i n t h i s period remain to be explored. Only an i n d i s t i n c t picture has been afforded of the r u l i n g e l i t e of the Imperial bureaucracy heretofore. Much i s known, of course,, about the l i v e s of p a r t i c u l a r l y outstand-ing state servants. And historians have made judgments about the nature of the administrative e l i t e , based l a r g e l y on the 1 . Anatole ,Leroy-Beaulieu, The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians (3 vols., New York, 1894), I I , p. 61. 1 2 impressions presented by these prominent o f f i c i a l s . Recent prosopographical work has begun to check these impressionistic views against detailed s t a t i s t i c a l information c o l l e c t e d about the l i v e s of numerous high-ranking bureaucrats. It i s the aim of the present work, f i r s t , to provide an accurate description of the Russian bureaucratic e l i t e , and, second, to serve as a further test of theories, both old and new, about the personnel of the Imperial state service. This study i s a prosopographical analysis of the Russian Committee of Ministers during the entire period of i t s existence, 1802 to 1905' Because the Committee was comprised of the highest o f f i c i a l s within the Russian bureaucracy, i t s member-ship constitutes a p r e c i s e l y defined e l i t e group. Thus, by examining the s o c i a l and, .career backgrounds of the Committee's members, one may arrive at a q u a n t i t a t i v e l y grounded description of the Imperial administrative e l i t e and the changes i t under-went through the course of the nineteenth century. Although t h i s study i s s i m i l a r to recent works by 2 3 Walter M. Pintner and Don Karl Rowney-^  i n i t s use of prosopo-graphy as a methodological t o o l , i t d i f f e r s from them i n several other respects. One fundamental difference concerns the use 2 Walter M. Pintner, "The S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the E a r l y Nineteenth-Century Russian Bureaucracy," Slavic Review, XXIX, 3 (September, 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 429-443. ^Don Karl Rowney, "Higher C i v i l Servants in the Russian Ministry of Internal A f f a i r s * Some Demographic and Career C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , 1905-1916," S l a v i c Review. XXXI, 1 (March, 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 101-110. 3 of source material for the administrators' lives. While both Pintner and Rowney base their works on o f f i c i a l personnel records kept by the Imperial bureaucracy, the sources used herein are published materials. Beyond this, Pintner and Rowney each focus on different areas of the Imperial bureaucracy during different periods of time." Pintner examines the social and career backgrounds of c i v i l servants who worked in both central and provincial administrative agencies. Drown from a l l fourteen chiny (ranks) of the Table of Ranks, his subjects served during two periods of time, 1798 to 1824 and 1846 to 1 8 55 . . Thus, Pintner's generalizations are pertinent to the Russian bureaucracy as a whole in the early and mid-nineteenth century.. In contrast, this study covers almost a l l of the nineteenth century and in-volves only the members of the highest central administrative institution, o f f i c i a l s who held generally the top three chiny.^ The data presented here bear upon a particular group within the Russian bureaucracy whose status is so high that one is tempted to c a l l i t a super-elite. Rowney's subjects are similar to this elite ministerial group, in that they were a l l high-level members of a defined i n s t i -tution. Rowney examines the social and career backgrounds of bureaucrats who served in only the central administration of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Moreover, his analysis is 4 P. A. Zaionchkovskii, Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie v kontse  XIX s t o l e t i i a (ffoliticheskaia reaktsiia 80-x—nachala 90-x godov) (Moscow, 1 970J , p. 113. confined to those o f f i c i a l s who held the top f i v e chiny. Yet, Rowney's work d i f f e r s from t h i s study i n one c r u c i a l dimension, time. His study begins with the year 1905, and t h i s one ends at p r e c i s e l y that date. Because Rowney's research and the present work are complementary rather than comparable, reference to his work i s seldom made here. One other recent work has used prosopography to i n v e s t i -gate the Russian administration. John A. Armstrong, a p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t , has compared career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t s a r i s t and Soviet e l i t e administrators.^ Besides being concerned with Soviet r u l e , as thi s work i s not, Armstrong's study focuses, during the Imperial period, primarily upon p r o v i n c i a l governors rather than central agency bureaucrats. Unlike Pintner and Rowney, who employ extensive use of s o c i a l variables, Armstrong c h i e f l y analyzes career t r a i t s . Because of the great differences separating the subjects, there obviously can be few d i r e c t connections made between Armstrong's research and the present study. The method of career analysis, however, i s si m i l a r in both works. Armstrong examines e l i t e tenure and turnover s t a t i s t i c s , and those concepts are used also i n the fourth chapter of thi s study. Among these recent s t a t i s t i c a l studies of Russian c i v i l servants, Pintner's i s most useful f o r t h i s work, despite the differences i n his subjects as noted above. Pintner c a r e f u l l y separates the bureaucrats who held the top f i v e chiny, and so ^John A. Armstrong, "T s a r i s t and Soviet E l i t e Administra-tors," Slavic Review, XXXI, .3 (March, 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 1-28. depictions of that group may be compared to descriptions of the ministers, who held the top three. Pintner discovers the trend of professionalization among his top bureaucrats early in the nineteenth century, but this trend is not evident among the more elite group of ministers until late in that century. Consequently, the components of bureaucratic professionalization and their time lag in reaching the Committee of Ministers are explored within this study. The Committee of Ministers is well suited to study by the prosopographical method, which "works best when i t is applied to easily defined and f a i r l y small groups over a limited period of not much more than a hundred years, when the data is drawn from a very wide variety of sources."^ Indeed, the Committee was in existence for one hundred three years, and i t s membership of two hundred eleven ministers may be considered small, especially when compared to Pintner's sample of nearly five thousand o f f i c i a l s . Moreover, the Committee's membership is exactly defined, and the sources for biographical data on the ministers are varied, including biographical dictionaries, encyclopedias, and individual memoirs and/biographies written n. in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Lawrence, Stone, "Prosopography," Daedalus, C, 1 (Winter, 1971) • p. 69. 7 'The composition of the Committee's membership is given in the Committee's o f f i c i a l history, S, M. Seredonin, ed., Istoricheskii obzor deiatel'nosti komiteta ministrov 1802-1902 (6 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1 9 0 2 ) . An additional source was private correspondence with Professor Erik Amburger, who kindly supplied information about the ministers' lives from his private f i l e s . 6 The use of prosopography has involved 'asking a standard set of questions about each of the ministers—about date of b i r t h , death, completion of schooling, entry into state service, about national and s o c i a l origins and educational and career experiences. The answers to one such question are combined to present a picture of the entire group of ministers, and t h i s picture then serves as a baseline against which the ministers belonging to the Committee during d i f f e r e n t reigns are viewed. Thus, the prosopographical method allows analysis of the m i n i s t e r i a l e l i t e ' s changes over time; i t affords a glimpse of the dynamics of history. A d d i t i o n a l l y , answers to two such questions are juxtaposed to discover correlations between the variables. For example, the ministers' s o c i a l o r i g i n s are related to the types of positions they held while on the Committee of Ministers. Regu-l a r l y subjected to t h i s kind of comparative analysis are three groups within the ministers as a whole whose d i f f e r i n g s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s set them apart. The foreign-born ministers, non-noble ministers, and German ministers are singled out f o r detailed scrutiny throughout, t h i s study i n order to e s t a b l i s h correlations between t h e i r i d e n t i f y i n g features and t h e i r other s o c i a l and career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In general, some biographical data has been col l e c t e d f o r each member of the Committee of Ministers. The few extensive lacunae i n the information subjected to analysis are duly noted, but, with these few exceptions, i t i s assumed that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of variables i n known and unknown cases i s 7 • ; i d e n t i c a l . This assumption can be made because the a v a i l a b i l i t y of information about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s seemed in no way r e f l e c t i o n s of those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s but rather accidental to them. The organization of t h i s biographical information requires a word of explanation. Although prosopography gathers biographical information under d i s t i n c t categories, :there i s a c e r t a i n inherent a r t i f i c i a l i t y i n t h i s method. In f a c t , a l l aspects of an individual's biography are interdependent, and they do not have the kind of tidy.conceptual distinctness placed upon them by prosopographical categories. Thus, as t h i s study proceeds through i t s descriptions of members of the Committee Of Ministers within s o c i a l and career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t must engage i n a n t i c i p a t i o n and cross-referencing of other segments of description. There i s no possible organization of t h i s material which would not e n t a i l such cross-referencing of conceptually d i s t i n c t but a c t u a l l y interdependent aspects of the ministers* l i v e s . Moreover, i n using the method of prosopography, one does not begin with the e x p l i c a t i o n of an h i s t o r i c a l process and from that vantage point see c e r t a i n manifestations of the process that are countable. Rather, one begins with the counting i t s e l f , with the d e f i n i t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n of a set of a n a l y t i c a l categories which are thought to be reasonably well f i t t e d to the description of c e r t a i n aspects of the process—the process being i n t h i s case the passage of a select set of men into and through careers as e l i t e administrators of Imperial Russia. 8 • . . A f t e r s t a t i s t i c a l trends or r e g u l a r i t i e s are e s t a b l i s h e d , one then t r i e s to e x p l a i n those f i n d i n g s and t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e by p l a c i n g them w i t h i n t h e i r proper h i s t o r i c a l context. Hence, a l t e r n a t i o n between prosopographical a n a l y s i s and h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a t i v e i s necessary and frequent i n t h i s work. CHAPTER II THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS The Committee of Ministers was the highest administrative institution in the Russian Empire from 1802 to 1905, and i t s membership was comprised of the el i t e of the Imperial bureaucracy. The present study focuses upon this e l i t e composition, rather than upon the Committee as an institution. Thus, what is of most significance in the Committee of Minister's history is the development of i t s eli t e membership, not i t s institutional authority. Of necessity, the Committee's functions are touched upon in relation to other Russian governmental institutions, but these descriptions are meant in no way to be definitive. The elit e membership of the Committee of Ministers and its expansion in conjunction with the growth of the Russian bureaucracy are the primary concerns of this chapter. The following brief history of the Committee thus stresses i t s inclusion of a l l the top-level positions within the Russian state apparatus. The Committee of Ministers was an outgrowth of Alexander I's reorganization of the Russian state administration. The ministerial system of government was introduced to Russia by Alexander in 1802 to replace the dollegial model surviving from the time of Peter the Great. In the statute decreeing the 10 establishment of ministries was one vague reference to a 8 m i n i s t e r i a l committee. From that one l e g a l a l l u s i o n grew the Committee of Ministers, whose o r i g i n i n 1802 was based more on 9 administrative necessity than law. Because the ministers were delegated extensive executive authority within t h e i r own domains, the need was great f o r a governmental body to coordinate t h e i r 10 actions. This function the Committee of Ministers f u l f i l l e d , although imperfectly. In order to serve t h i s coordinating function, the ministers were empowered to bring to the Committee of Ministers the following general types of administrative concerns: (1) a f f a i r s needing the general consideration or assistance of various ministries; (2) a f f a i r s on which a minister was i n doubt; (3) a f f a i r s whose authorization exceeded the authority of each 11 minister and demanded Imperial approval. The remaining Maxime Kovalevsky, Russian P o l i t i c a l I n s t i t u t i o n s ; The  Growth and Development from the Beginnings of Russian History  to the Present Time (Chicago. 1 9 0 2 ) , p. 177. ^N. M. Korkunov, Russkoe gosudarstvennoe pravo, (2 vols., 6 t h ed.; St. Petersburg, 1 9 0 9 ) , I I , p. 235. M. V. Dovnar-Zapol'skii, Zarozhdenie ministerstv v  R o s s i i (Moscow, 1 9 0 5 ) , p. 57. •'••'•George V. Vernadskii, Ocherk i s t o r i i prava russkago  gosudarstva XVIII-XIX VV. (period imperii) (Prague. 1924). p. 75. Under these broad guidelines, i t became the habit f o r ministers to bring to the Committee those decisions f o r which they chOse to evade complete r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , as well as a great deal of minutiae. Consequently, one of the themes stressed throughout the six volumes of the Committee's o f f i c i a l history was the endlessness of t r i v i a l a f f a i r s which choked the Committee, i n h i b i t i n g attention to more es s e n t i a l concerns, and the Committee's desperate but l a r g e l y unsuccessful attempts to excise t r i v i a from i t s agendas. 11 affairs brought to the Committee by the ministers were those specifically designated as being within i t s competence. Of the twenty-two types of affairs enumerated in Imperial law, the f i r s t was most important: "affairs relating to the general tranquillity and safety, to national provisions, and to any 12 extraordinary event." This generally defined authority was broadly construed by the Committee, and under i t were made the • numerous p o l i t i c a l acts of an executive nature taken by the nominally administrative Committee.^ The membership of the Committee of Ministers in 1802 comprised fifteen elite administrative o f f i c i a l s . Included on the Committee were the eight ministers who directed the i n i t i a l l y established Ministries of War, Navy, Internal Affairs, Foreign 1 4 Affairs, Finance, Justice, Education, and Commerce. Joining these ministers on the Committee were the five assistant ministers and two additional o f f i c i a l s of ministerial rank. (Only five of the eight ministers had assistants; these and a l l positions included on the Committee of Ministers are enumerated in f u l l in the Appendix.) The number of high o f f i c i a l s belonging to the Committee remained at fifteen until 1809. Thereafter, newly created ministerial level posts 12 Quoted from the regulations of the Committee of Ministers by A. D. Gradovskii, Nachala russkago gosudarstvennago prava, Vol. VIII of Sobranie' sochinenii (St. Petersburg, 1907). P. 248. n . -^Seredonin, Komitet Ministrov v tsarstvovanie Invperatora Aleksandra Tretiago, p. 16. • Baron B. E. Nol'de, Ocherki russkago gosudarstvennago  pravo (St. Petersburg, 1 9 1 1 ) , p.. 92. 1 *1 augmented the Committee's numbers at frequent intervals. J After 1809 the Russian ministerial system became in-creasingly complex, as a result of the establishment of new ministries and of separate departments equivalent to ministries. As the ministries and departments grew in number, so too did the number of elite administrative positions. And a l l the new ministers and heads (glavnoupravlialushchii) of independent departments took their respective places on the Committee of Ministers. Moreover, in 1810 the establishment of a. new governmental institution, the State Council, resulted in further additions to the Committee's membership. A consultative legislative body, the State Council was divided originally into four depart-ments to f a c i l i t a t e the review of different types of legislative projects.*^ After the creation of the State Council, the chairmen of i t s four departments were appointed in 1812 to the Committee of Ministers. Concurrently, the Committee received for the f i r s t time.a permanent chairman, who also served as 17 head of the State Council. The addition of five positions *^Seredonin, Komitet Ministrov v tsarstvovanie Imperatora  Aleksandra Pervago, Part I, p. 602. 16 G. V. Sliozberg, Dorevoliutsionnyi stroi Rossii (Paris, 1933). P. 109. 17 'In I865 this practice was changed so that the heads of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers were two different men. Selected from the ranks of high o f f i c i a l s not currently holding membership on the Committee, the chairman of the Committee of Ministers was a presiding officer with no special powers, not a prime minister. Marc Szeftel, "The Form of Government of the Russian Empire prior to the Constitutional. Reforms of 1905-6 ," in Essays in Russian and Soviet History, ed. by John Shelton Curtiss (New York, I 9 6 3 ) , p. 107. .13 . related to the State Council was offset hy the exclusion of the assistant ministers from membership in the Committee of Ministers, although they retained the right to represent their respective ministries on the Committee when their superiors 18 could not attend. In short, from 1812 until the end of Alexander I's reign in 1825, the membership of the Committee of Ministers was approximately eighteen, three more than the number originally appointed to serve on the Committee. During the reign of Nicholas I, the Committee grew to include twenty-three o f f i c i a l s . This increase was partially the result of the expansion of yet another governmental i n s t i -tution. Motivated by a desire to have greater personal control over the state administration, Nicholas I established three" 19 additional sections of His Majesty's Own Imperial Chancery. 7 In existence since 1812, when i t consisted of only one section related to management of the tsar's household, the Imperial Chancery was outside the regular ministerial structure and tied closely to the tsar. Yet the heads of i t s new sections had rights approximately equivalent to those of a minister, and they also were appointed to serve on the Committee of Ministers.^ •^Erik Amburger, Geschichte der BehOrdenorganisation  Russlands von Peter dem Grossen bis 1917. Vol. X of Studien zur  Geschichte Osteuropas, ed. by W. Philipp and P. Scheibert (Leiden, 1966), p. 123. 1 9 M ikhail Aleksandrovich Polievktov, Nikolai I>  Biografiia i obzor tsarstvovaniia (Moscow, 1918), p. 8~+. One additional section was created by^Alexander II.. 2°S.'V. Iushkov. Istoriia gosudarstva_i prava S.S.S.R. (2 vols.; Moscow, 1950), I, p. 502. In Imperial Russia the most important perogative of a minister was his right to make a direct personal report (doklad) to the autocrat. 14 After Nicholas I's expansion of the Imperial Chancery, no further administrative additions were made on such a wide scale. Among the organs of central administration there were of course some additional ministries and departments created; others were abolished. While abolition of a ministry or an independent administrative department necessitated the removal of i t s head from the Committee's membership, the creation of a new ministry did not automatically result in the appointment of i t s minister to the Committee of Ministers. Because member-ship on the Committee had to be designated by the emperor, appointments to the Committee awaited his pleasure. For indi-viduals heading the. surviving seven of the original ministries, this proved to be no d i f f i c u l t y . For the holders of newly created offices of ministerial rank, however, there could sometimes be a lag of two or more years between the assumption of a position and appointment to the Committee of Ministers. For newer positions, the o f f i c i a l ' s right to membership seemed to hinge mainly on the establishment of a precedent. Once there was a breakthrough, the o f f i c i a l ' s successors were 21 appointed members of the Committee with due dispatch. Throughout the remaining years of the Committee's existence— under Alexander II, Alexander III, and Nicholas II—the number of o f f i c i a l s who belonged to the Committee of Ministers was, on the average, twenty-six. Besides a l l c i v i l o f f i c i a l s of ministerial rank, the Seredonin, Komitet Ministrov v tsarstvovanie Imperatora  Nikolaia Pervago, Part I, pp. 4 3 - 4 4 . : ~~ ~ Committee of Ministers included leaders of the military hierarchy as well. From its inception in 1802, the Committee had contained two military posts, the ministers of War and of Navy, ^ always f i l l e d by men active in the military service. During the. reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I, four other high-level military positions were added to the Committee of Ministers, although their inclusion was neither simultaneous nor continuous. Never-theless,, from 1810 the Committee never, had fewer than three 22 high-ranking o f f i c i a l s from within the military hierarchy. ** From Nicholas I's reign dated the custom of naming special members to the Committee of Ministers. No special members were appointed until 1840, when the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Alexander Nikolaevich, was designated to serve on the Committee. Thus a tradition was established that the reign-ing emperor appoint his heir to the Committee of Ministers. There were eleven other special members assigned to the Committee from 1855 "to 1905• Of these, nine were also grand dukes, and most of them held high military positions. The remaining special members were Iakov Rostovtsev, confidant of Alexander II . and head of the Editing Commission for the emancipation of the serfs, and Konstantin Pobedonostsev, close adviser both of Alexander III and of Nicholas II and Over Procurator of the 23 Holy Synod. J p. 123. 22 Amburger, Geschichte der Behflrdenorganisation Russlands. 23 Ibid. The office of Over Procurator i t s e l f entitled i t s holder to attend the Committee of Ministers when matters related to church affairs were to be discussed. 16 Thus, even influential servants of the tsar and the Russian state who held no position regularly included within the Committee's composition were appointed to s i t on that body. Without exception, furthermore, a l l the most famous names within the highest governmental circles throughout the nineteenth century are to be found on the Committee of Minister's r o s t e r — Speranskii, Arakcheev, Loris-Melikov, Witte, to mention but a few. And even when Arakcheev and Loris-Melikov acted, respectively, as "grand vizier" and "sub-emperor" of the Russian 2 Empire, they did so while serving on the Committee of Ministers. In total, two hundred eleven o f f i c i a l s holding the most elite governmental positions within the Empire sat on the Committee of Ministers from i t s establishment in 1802 unti l i t s functional demise in 1905• Drawn from both the c i v i l bureaucracy and the military hierarchy, this varied group of o f f i c i a l s was an all-encompassing e l i t e . With the elite credentials of this ministerial group verified and with i t s patterns of growth charted, a consideration of the aggregate social characteristics of the members of the Committee of Ministers becomes the next concern of this study. oh, Michael Jenkins, Arakcheev: Grand Vizier of the Russian Empire (London, I 9 6 9 ) ; P. A. Zaionchkovskii. Krizis 8 samoderzhaviia na rubezhe 1870-1880 godov (Moscow, 1964J, p. 156. part of the Russian government's response to the 1905 Revolution, the Council of Ministers was created on October 19, 1905 (N. S.). The Committee of Ministers' functions were largely taken over by that new institution, and the Committee was formally abolished on April 23, I906. The Council's member-ship and powers were both broader.than those of the Committee. Nikolai Petrovich Eroshkin, Ocherki i s t o r i i gosudarstvennykh  dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii (2nd ed.j Moscow, 196bj, pp. 277-278. CHAPTER III SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS Information on the i n d i v i d u a l members of the Committee of Ministers has been divided into two main c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and career t r a i t s . This d i v i s i o n f a c i l i t a t e s analysis of the immense amount of data available on the ministers* l i v e s . While the present chapter i n v e s t i -gates s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the following one examines career t r a i t s . In t h i s chapter the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the members of the Committee of Ministers are subdivided into four broad areast age, national o r i g i n s , s o c i a l o r i g i n s , and education. Within each area, m i n i s t e r i a l attributes are described and shown in contrast to the respective characteris-t i c s of the population of the Russian Empire as a whole; such comparisons i l l u s t r a t e the wide s o c i a l differences which separated the Russian governmental e l i t e from the remainder of the Imperial population. Also, s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are determined f o r the members of the Committee of Ministers as constituted under the d i f f e r e n t tsars. Contrasted with each other and pictured against the h i s t o r i c a l backdrops of t h e i r respective ages, these f i v e m i n i s t e r i a l groups are seen to have r e f l e c t e d economic and s o c i a l changes which occurred i n 18 the Russian Empire during the course of the nineteenth century. Age The most striking demographic characteristic that set the two hundred eleven ministers apart from the rest of their fellow countrymen was their longevity. Seventy years was the 26 average age at death for the ministers as a whole. In contrast, thirty-one.years was the average l i f e expectancy 27 for a male inhabitant of European Russia. ' For the ministers of each of the five tsars, the average l i f e expectancies were high consistently, and they were found to be: Alexander I's ministers, sixty-two years; Nicholas I's, seventy years; Alexander II's, seventy-two years; Alexander I l l ' s , seventy-one years; Nicholas II's sixty-nine years. Thus, even i f one considers the lowest figure, that of Alexander I's ministers, the l i f e expectancy of a Russian minister in the f i r s t decades of the nineteenth century was double that of an Imperial subject l i v i n g at the end of the century. Not only did these ministers lead long lives,,but they did not begin to serve on the Committee of Ministers For the sake of brevity, the term "minister" is hereafter used to designate a l l members of. the Committee of Ministers, even those who were not o f f i c i a l l y called , ministers. 27A. G. Rashin, Naselenie Rossii za sto l e t (1811-1933  gg.)> Statisticheskiie ocherki (Moscow, 1956). p. 205. This l i f e expectancy figure was derived from the 1897 census. Its lowness is attributable to the high rate of infant mortality in Russia. Obviously, there is some bias in the comparison of this figure with that of the ministerial group, but no figure was obtainable that was more accurately analogous. 19 until late in their lives. The average age at i n i t i a l entry onto the Committee for a l l ministers is fifty-two years, and the averages for the ministers of each reign do not deviate from that figure by more than two years. The general advanced age of the o f f i c i a l s serving on the Committee of Ministers 2 8 indicates that the Russian Empire was ruled by a gerontocracy. A minister born and educated in the early nineteenth century did not, as a rule, achieve elite status until late in that century; one possible implication of gerontocracy is that the men governing the Russian state were guided by ideas originating in and more suitable to earlier age. — Because of the ministers' seventy year l i f e expectancy, the temporal boundaries of this study are extended. Although the Committee of Ministers i t s e l f existed from 1802 to 1905, the l i f e spans of i t s members reach from the early part of the eighteenth century to the 1940's. Ministerial births occurred as early as the reign of Empress Anne and as late as that of Tsar Alexander II, although ninety per cent of thesbirths were concentrated between 1750 and 18^9. Moreover, many ministers serving under the last two Romanovs lived into the twentieth century and some even into the age of Soviet rule. There is no consideration of ministers' lives beyond 1905, as they are not relevant to the Committee of Ministers i t s e l f . However, the evolution of the ministers' social and career 28 Armstrong convincingly argues that men achieving eli t e status past f i f t y constitute a gerontocracy, "Tsarist and Soviet Elite Administrators," p. 19. 20 patterns are followed from 1740 to 1905, through the course of 29 almost two centuries. 7 National Origins As might he expected of the* ruling elite of the polyglot Russian Empire, the members of the Committee of Ministers were of diverse national backgrounds. Of the two hundred eleven ministers, two hundred one were of native birth; included within this category were two ethnic Russians born abroad. Table 1,? provides a breakdown of the national origins of the ministers, both native and foreign born. But before one begins to examine this table, an excursus is needed to discuss the d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in the identification of the ministers' nationalities, notably among the Slavs. A twentieth century writer's concern to ferret out the precise Slavic nationality of an individual was unhappily not shared by compilers of nineteenth century publications. Most Imperial sources consistently do not distinguish among the various Slavic groups, and Soviet sources do l i t t l e better. Possibly the dissimilarities among Great, White, and L i t t l e Russians may have seemed minor in the face of much greater 30 differences between, for example, Russians and Finns. 29 ^Stephen Thernstrom, "Notes on the Historical Study of Social Mobility," Comparative Studies in Society and History, X (1968), p. I 6 3 . 30 J Even more speculatively, perhaps, since Russkii  biograficheskii slovar' and Entsiklopedicheskii slovar' were compiled when Russification was a high priority for the Russian government, their writers minimized distinctions among Slavs which did not bolster the sense of Russian unity within the tsar's realm. Whatever the reasons for this failure to differentiate among Slavic groups in Imperial sources, i t hampers research into the history of national groups and their representation on the Committee of Ministers, Despite the fact that great care was taken to assign the appropriate ethnic origin to a minister, the chance s t i l l remains that there may "be some White Russians hiding within the ranks of the Russian ministers. Because the Ukrainians proved easier to identify than the Belorussians, 31 the probability of concealed Ukrainians is less. Great discrepancies between the proportions.of nationalities in the Empire as a whole and their representation oh the Committee of Ministers are observable in the statistics for the Russian Empire's population provided in the 1897 census. Although Great Russians comprised seventy per cent of the total membership of the Committee of Ministers, their proportion of the Imperial population in 1897 was only forty-four per cent J Examination of the information on the ministers* birthplaces indicates the possibility of more than five Ukrainians and of some Belorussians among the Committee's members. Data on birthplaces was available for only one hundred two ministers, but, although sketchy, this information shows that nine ministers were born in the Ukraine and six in Belorussian guberniia. This indication of concealed Ukrainians and Belorussians is doubly tenuous because, of course, a person could have been born in the Ukraine and s t i l l have been of another nationality. For example, N. Kh. Bunge, Minister of Finance, 1881 to 1887, and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, I887 to I 8 9 5 , was born in the Ukraine, and he was a Baltic German. -^2The only accurate statistics for the Imperial population are those based on the 1897 census, and, as the census describes the population at only one point in time, the growth of national groups during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries regrettably cannot be traced precisely or compared to the national composition of the Committee of Ministers in different eras. 22 (see table 1). Even i f the percentage of White Russians i n the population i s added to that of the Great Russians—as compensation f o r t h e i r possible inadvertent inclusion i n my f i g u r e s — t h e combined t o t a l of forty-nine per cent i s s t i l l f a r below the seventy per cent Russian representation on the Committee of Ministers. Furthermore, the census l i s t e d the Ukrainians as eighteen per cent of the entire population i n I897, a figure again widely divergent from the two per cent 33 Ukrainian composition of the Committee. J Comparison of S l a v i c national groups such as those above must be made on a basis of informed inference because the groups are not well d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n the available data. But with one Slavic group, the Poles, there was absolutely no d i f f i c u l t y in i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The P o l i s h population of the Empire, of more recent a c q u i s i t i o n than the other Sl a v i c minorities, distinguished i t s e l f by i t s assertive nationalism and longings f o r past freedoms. Recorded i n the census as six per cent of the Imperial population, as indicated i n table 1 the Poles composed two per cent of the Committee of 34 Ministers. Of the six ministers of P o l i s h n a t i o n a l i t y , two served on the Committee during Alexander I's reign i n positions not d i r e c t l y related to P o l i s h affairs;.however, the four -^Richard Pipes, The Formation of the Soviet Union:  Communism and Nationalism (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964), p. 2. Because the,census' figures were based on language, not ti n a t i o n a l i t y , i t s estimate of Great Russians i s a c t u a l l y s l i g h t l y i n f l a t e d , since many non-natives used Russian as t h e i r primary language. Indeed, Pipes suggests that the pro-portion of Great Russians i n the Empire i n 1897 was probably nearer fo r t y per cent than forty-four. 3 ^ I b i d . 23 ministers serving on the Committee after that period held only those positions directly, .involved in the governing of Poland. The intervening Polish revolt of I83O to I83I galvanized Russian chauvinism and called into question the p o l i t i c a l loyalties of the Polish bureaucrats in the Imperial bureaucracy. The revolt seems to. have limited the type of governmental position to which Poles were appointed. To summarize the representation of Slavic nationalities on the Committee of Ministers, the Great Russians easily dominated the Committee, even though they made up a minority of the Empire. Governing a population at least f i f t y - f i v e per cent of which was not Russian, the Committee of Ministers consisted of seventy per cent Russians. If the Great Russians' segment of the Committee was larger than their share of the total population, then in turn the other Slavic groups were under-represented. While the Ukrainians and Poles each had a tiny share of the Committee's membership, the Belorussians seem not to have been represented at a l l . Even when one takes into consideration the reservations noted above concerning the comparability of st a t i s t i c s , the differences are so large that such conclusions are warrantable. The second largest ethnic group on the Committee of Ministers was German. Subdivisions among this group are given -^Eroshkin, Ocherki i s t o r i i gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii  dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii, p. 198. Even the illustrious Prince Adam Czartoryski, assistant minister of Internal Affairs under Alexander I and a member of the Committee during that time, lent his support to the revolt in Tsarist Poland; this decidedly q u-ashed a l l his p o l i t i c a l influence in Russia. 24 in detail in table 1 so that the diversity of the Germans may be appreciated. Ministers who were raised outside of the Baltic guberniia and attended Russian schools are classed as Russified Baltic Germans, distinguishing them from those Baltic Germans who were brought up in the Baltic provinces and who received German schooling. One man, Minister of Foreign Affairs Giers, is liste d as Baltic German and Swedish because of the importance his memoirs attached to his Swedish ancestors. The six ministers of German descent were either two or three generations removed from their families' immigration to the Russian Empire. As with the other nationality groups, the distinctions among the ethnic backgrounds are kept as fine as possible for the sake of accuracy. The differences among them having been duly noted, however, the "Germanic" ministers may a l l be lumped together. This is historically justifiable because of the great national fervor aroused among Russians over the.large number of Germans in influential positions within the government and at court. Beginning in the reign..of Nicholas I, the presence of Germans in high governmental places became a point of heated controversy, and i t remained so until the end of the Empire.J In the 3^ N. K. Giers, The Education of a Russian Statesman: The  Memoirs of Nicholas Karlovich Giers, ed. by Charles and Barbara Jelavich (Berkeley, California, 1962), p. 4. Indeed, Giers was at great pains to diminish his Germanic and Lutheran background and to accentuate his love for the Russian people and the Orthodox church; surely this was a defense against Russian assaults on his Germanic nationality. ^Nicholas Riasanovsky, Nicholas the F i r s t and O f f i c i a l Nationality in Russia-. 1825-1855 (Berkeley. California. 1961). p. 144; V. I. Gurko, Features and Figures of the Past: Govern-ment and Opinion in the Reign of Nicholas II, trans, by Laura Matveev (Stanford, California, 1939), p. 101. 25 TABLE 1 NATIONAL ORIGINS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS Number of Natives.of the Russian Empire ministers Russian . 148 Russified B a l t i c German . . . 19 B a l t i c German . . . . . . . . 9 German descent . . . . . . . 6 P o l i s h 6 Ukrainian . . . . . 5 Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 French descent..'.. 1 Tatar descent . . . . . . . . 1 Scotch descent . 1 Baltic-German and Swedish . . 1 Moldavian . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Serbian 1 201 Foreign born German 5 French 2 Belgian . . . . . . . . . . . 1 $ Greek . 1 I t a l i a n . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10 211 early 1860's, for example, the newly freed Russian press raised an outcry about the inordinate number of Germans holding high c i v i l and military posts. The Russians' concern is understandable. When a l l the categories of the German ethnic groups on the Committee of Ministers are combined, their number is remarkable indeed. There were thirty-five Germanic ministers born within the Russian Empire, and five German ministers born abroad; their total, forty, makes up nineteen per cent of the membership of the Committee of Ministers (see table 1 ) . When one notes that only one per cent of the Imperial population was German in i n 1897, traditional Russian xenophobia seems almost vindicated. 7 In the face of a German presence of nineteen per cent on the Committee, i t might have seemed beside the point to a nine-teenth century Russian nationalist that differences in nation-a l i t y could be moderated by common class interests or common cultural and educational backgrounds. The number of posts attained by Germans actually rose during the five reigns of the Committee's existence, and this increase is illustrated in table 2. (In this table, and in a l l similar tables employing arrangement by post and reign, an individual is counted more than once i f he served under more than one tsar or held more than one position on the 3 8 F o r r e s t t A. Miller, Dmitrii Miliutin and the Reform  Era in Russia (Nashville, Tennessee, 1968), p. 166. -^Hugh Seton-Watson, The Decline of Imperial Russia  1815-1914 (New York, I 9 6 5 ) , p. 31. 27 TABLE 2 RUSSIAN AND GERMAN REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMITTEE BY OF MINISTERS, ARRANGED POST AND REIGN Reign i n which post was held Total number of positions Russian German Other Alexander I, 1801-1825 78 77% 10% 13% Nicholas I, 1825-1855 74 73% 20% 7% Alexander I I , 1855-1881 97 72% 18% 10% Alexander I I I , 1881-1894 49 63% 27% 10% Nicholas I I , 1894-1905^ 51 67% 27% 6% 349 71% 19% 10% -Although the reign of Nicholas II continued to 1917, th i s study does not go beyond 1905. 28 Committee. The unit utilized is thus an individual's holding of a ministerial post under one tsar.) Referring to table 2, one notes that the percentage of positions held by Germans doubled from the reign of Alexander I to that of Nicholas I. As mentioned above, i t was under Nicholas that the cry was f i r s t raised against the p o l i t i c a l l y influential Germans; i t was also under Nicholas that the Russian name of Siniavin 40 was needed to "shield" the German one of Nesselrode. The demands of Russian nationalists to r i d the governmental appa-ratus of Germans were certainly not catered to, either under Nicholas I or the later tsars, since Alexander III and Nicholas"II each awarded more than one-quarter of their ministerial positions to Germans (table 2). It seems anomolous that while under these two tsars the Russian share of ministerial positions actually declined, at the same time Russification became an o f f i c i a l policy, even in the Baltic German guberniia where the German nobility had been allowed two centuries of domination over the peasant majority of Lithuanians.and Estonians. The increased percentage of ministerial positions held by Germans under Nicholas I as compared to their share under Alexander I is no surprise because the predilection of Nicholas I 40 Theodor Schiemann, Kaiser Nikolaus vom Hohepunkt  seiner Macht bis zum Zusammenbruch im Krimkriege 1840-1855* Vol. IV of Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I (Berlin, 1919), p. 244. ~ : 41 Robert F. Byrnes, Pobedonostsev; His Life and Thought (Bloomington, Indiana, 1968), p.'187• 2 9 42 for German advisers has been adequately documented. What is a surprise is the increased share of Committee positions held hy the Germans in the f i n a l decades of the nineteenth 43 century, especially in the face of growing Russian nationalism. J An explanation for the seeming indispensability of the services of Germans in the bureaucracy can be sought for in their educational and career patterns. In fact, the Germans themselves asserted that bureaucrats of their nationality were better educated and more administratively adept than the 44 Russians. This assertion deserves careful scrutiny. The Russians assumed that i t made a difference p o l i t i c a l l y whether a Russian or a German held an influential administrative post, and this assumption deserves close attention as well. If Russian nationalists impugned the loyalty of the German bureau-crats, the tsars themselves never did so, always stressing the 45 faithfulness of their high German servants. J "The Russian nobles serve the state, the German ones serve us," declared 42 Sydney Monas, "Bureaucracy in Russia under Nicholas I," in The Structure of Russian Historyt Interpretive Essays, ed. by Michael Cherniavsky (New York, 1 9 7 0 ) . , p. 2 7 4 ; Riasanovsky, Nicholas the F i r s t and O f f i c i a l Nationality in Russia. 1825 - 1 8 5 5 . p. 144; Schiemann. Kaiser Nikolaus vom Hohepunkt seiner Macht  bis zum Zusammenbruch" im Krinikriege 1840-1855. P. 247-.. ^Leroy-Beaulieu, The Empire of the Tsars and the  Russians, I, p. 1 2 5 . ^Baron Sergei A. Korf, Autocracy and Revolution in  Russia (New York, 1 9 2 3 ) , p. 1 7 . ^ B . H. Sumner, Survey of Russian History (London, I 9 6 I ) , p. 3 0 8 . 30 46 Nicholas I. Thus, the establishment of s i m i l a r i t i e s or differences between the Russian m i n i s t e r i a l group and the German one i s a key issue f o r t h i s work, and consequently throughout th i s study, the s o c i a l and career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these two groups are regularly compared. The remaining native ethnic groups l i s t e d i n table 1 are not disporportionate to t h e i r numbers i n the t o t a l population. Not represented on the Committee of Ministers at a l l , however, were the Finns, Jews, and various A s i a t i c n a t i o n a l i t i e s ; and each of these groups claimed a larger share of the Imperial population than did the Germans. D i f f e r i n g explanations may be ventured f o r the exclusion of these ethnic groups from the e l i t e of Russian government. Allowed considerably more l o c a l autonomy than other non-Russian segments of the Empire, the Finns never t r i e d to enter Russian p o l i t i c a l l i f e i n s i g n i f i c a n t 47 numbers. ' The Jews' exclusions from the Committee of Ministers i s not unexpected, burdened as they were with countless govern-48 mental r e s t r i c t i o n s regulating t h e i r every action. While 46 Riasanovsky, Nicholas I and O f f i c i a l Nationality i n  Russia, 1825-1855, p. 144. ^Seton-Watson, The Decline of Imperial Russia 1815-1914, p. 39. Actually, within the Grand Duchy of Finland the Swedish minority predominated among the upper class; neither these Swedes nor the upper class Finns sought service in the Imperial bureaucracy outside Finland. ^ A s a point of c u r i o s i t y , there was one minister whose maternal lineage was Jewish. Professor E r i k Amburger revealed in private correspondence the f a c t that the mother of State Secretary Uexkull-Guldenbandt was of Jewish descent; Uexkull-Guldenbandt i s coded as a Russified B a l t i c German in the data. the Jews were p o l i t i c a l l y handicapped, the Asiatic tribes were economically and educationally disadvantaged, and the climb to the top of the Russian governmental structure for their representatives would indeed have been arduous. The remaining ministers l i s t e d in table 1 were those of foreign bir ;th. Representing five per cent of the Committee's composition, the foreigners merit special consideration because their service on the Committee reveals a pattern significant in the development of the Russian bureaucracy and of the Committee of Ministers. Drawn from five Western European nationalities (see table 1), a l l ten foreigners entered Russian state service within a two decade period, from 1787 to 1808. Four foreign ministers entered Russian service during Catherine II's reign, two during Paul's, and four during Alexander I's. These ministers of foreign birth sat on the Committee of Ministers only in the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I. Hence, no one born outside the reaches of the Russian Empire held i t s highest positions after the Nicholaevian period. This exclusion of foreigners from ministerial posts after the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I marks a dis-tinction between the earlier and later nineteenth century Russian administrations. Several interrelated factors may account for this division. The transfer of European nobility from state service in one country to service in another was common during the eighteenth century, especially in the after-math of the French Revolution.^ , Such movement had a special ^9Marc Raeff, "Russian Autocracy and Its O f f i c i a l s , " Harvard Slavic Studies. IV (1957)» 85. 32. , significance for Russia, since Alexander's and Nicholas' use of foreigners to f i l l high administrative positions may be viewed as a continuation of similar practices initiated by Peter the Great as a means of improving the personnel of the Russian state. The advent of romantic nationalism in the nineteenth century may have diminished both the willingness of Western European nobles to immigrate to Russia and the eagerness of Russian sovereigns to select them for high office. Moreover, the actual need for governmental administrators trained abroad may have been reduced by the expansion of educational f a c i l i t i e s within Russia from the reign of Alexander I.^° This latter argument seems to be corroborated by the increasing numbers of native born ministers trained in Russian higher educational institutions dating from Alexander I's reign. Consequently, within a later discussion of the ministers' educational backgrounds, documentation of this increase and further exploration of the issue are provided. The composite portrait of nationalities on the Committee of Ministers, then, is one dominated by two groups, the Russians and the Germans. The Russian proportion of ministers was larger than their share of the total population, while the Germanic group was even more incommensurate with the number of Germans in the Empire. While a l l of the smaller Slavic nationalities were under-represented in the Committee's -^Nicholas Hans, History of Russian Educational Policy  (1701-1917), p, 35-3 3 membership, other e t h n i c groups comprising s i z a b l e m i n o r i t i e s of the Imperial p o p u l a t i o n were not r e p r e s e n t e d a t a l l . The s h a r i n g of hegemony o f the Committee of M i n i s t e r s by the Russian and German o f f i c i a l s was continuous throughout the course of the n i n e t e e n t h century. Together the Russians and Germans c o n t r o l l e d n i n e t y per cent of the Committee's t o t a l number of p o s i t i o n s , and t h e i r combined share was never l e s s than e i g h t y - s e v e n per cent i n any r e i g n ( t a b l e 2 ) . P a r t i c u l a r l y when one c o n s i d e r s the l a r g e number o f R u s s i f i -c a t i o n p r o j e c t s which were a u t h o r i z e d by the Committee o f 51 m i n i s t e r s , i t i s c l e a r t h a t i n t e r e s t s other than n a t i o n a l ones u n i t e d these two dominant e t h n i c groups. The f a c t t h a t e q u a l l y high p r o p o r t i o n s of the Russian and the German m i n i s t e r s belonged to the n o b i l i t y suggests t h a t c l a s s i n t e r e s t s p r o v i d e d the u n i f y i n g f o r c e . Thus, the important area of the m i n i s t e r s ' s o c i a l o r i g i n s becomes the next concern of t h i s chapter. S o c i a l O r i g i n s The c l a s s which c l e a r l y dominated the Committee of M i n i s t e r s was the n o b i l i t y . Of the two hundred f i v e m i n i s t e r s f o r whom there was i n f o r m a t i o n , one hundred e i g h t y - s i x were, members of the n o b i l i t y , and nine were members of the r o y a l f a m i l y ; these two groups comprised, r e s p e c t i v e l y , ninety-one per cent and f o u r per cent of the Committee's t o t a l membership d u r i n g the n i n e t e e n t h century. Only ten m i n i s t e r s were of -^Seredonin, Komitet M i n i s t r o v v t s a r s t v o v a n i e Imperatora  Aleksandra T r e t ' i a g o , p. 2 3 , 1 3 4 non-noble birth, and they made up the remaining five per cent of the Committee's composition. When one notes that nine,ty-eight and one-half per cent of the population of the Russian Empire was liste d as non-noble in the Tenth Revision of I 8 58 , the picture of the nobility's predominance on the Committee of Ministers is made more vivid. Comprising only a tiny minority of the Imperial population, the nobility composed a ninety-one per cent majority on the Committee of Ministers. Before the Emancipation Edict of 1861, the hereditary landed nobility held sway in the Russian Empire. There was no question of their economic, p o l i t i c a l , or social supremacy, and the cornerstone upon which this ascendancy rested was the nobility's legal right to ownership of serfs. When the Eman-cipation Edict took away the basis of the nobility's strength, the economic position of the nobles as a class began a pre-cipitate decline. One indication of the nobles' straitened financial circumstances was the massive sale of land by the nobility, which from the Emancipation into the twentieth century occurred with increased frequency. From I877 to 1905, nearly one-third of the nobility's lands were sold outright. While movement of the nobility away from their landed estates had begun prior to 1861, this trend was greatly accelerated J A. Romanovich-Slavatmskii, Dvorianstvo v Rossii ot  nachala XVIII veka do otmeny krepostnago prava (St. Petersburg, 1870), p. 509. ^Ceroid Tanquary Robinson, "Rural Russia under the Old  Regime: A History of the Landlord-Peasant World and a Prologue  to the Peasant Revolution of 1917 (London, 1932). p.- 131. 33 by the Emancipation. The economic decline of the n o b i l i t y and th e i r movement from the^land were part of the vast economic and s o c i a l changes occurring i n Russia i n the nineteenth century. One might anticipate that these major changes i n the Russian economic and s o c i a l structure would be r e f l e c t e d i n the s o c i a l origins of members of the Committee of Ministers. Seeking such r e f l e c t i o n s , one f i r s t inquires whether the n o b i l i t y ' s dominance on the Committee of Ministers diminished through successive reigns during the nineteenth century. In an e f f o r t to explore t h i s issue, table 3 i l l u s t r a t e s the class composition of the Committee e>f ministers grouped hy post and reign. By reference to thi s table, one can see that the percentage of posts held by nobles on the. Committee did indeed decline conspicuously a f t e r 1881, from ninety-six per cent under Alexander II to eighty per cent under Alexander I I I . But because the n o b i l i t y ' s l o s t m i n i s t e r i a l positions were divided equally among non-noble members and members of the royal family, the r e s u l t was hardly an unalloyed v i c t o r y f o r the common people of the Empire. In i t s e l f , t h i s breakdown of the composition of the Committee of Ministers into n o b i l i t y , royalty, and commoners i s not an adequate analysis of the s o c i a l differences e x i s t i n g among the Committee's members. Most notably, i t neglects the important d i s t i n c t i o n between the hereditary and service n o b i l i t y . This d i s t i n c t i o n proved d i f f i c u l t to investigate, but should be discussed to the extent possible. Before the time of Peter the Great, the precedence of a Russian noble 36 TABLE 3 CLASS REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS, ARRANGED BY POST AND REIGN Reign m which Number of positions - n n p i o^„->n+,r w«v, x , T j • J-V. i „ j i Nobles Koyalty Non-nobles post was held with known.data ^ 17 Alexander I 78 94% . , 6% Nicholas I 74 96% 1% 3f° Alexander II 95 96%* 2% 3% Alexander III 48 80% 10% 10% Nicholas II 48 84% 8% 6% 343 92% 3% 5% 37 derived from his ancestry, not from his service to the state. J Peter the Great, however, wished to wed social distinction to state service, and to that end in 1771 he established the Table of Ranks, which divided military and c i v i l service into fourteen levels. Upon attainment of the necessary chin (rank), an o f f i c i a l was granted nobility which could be inherited by his descendants.-^ After Peter's time the two types of nobility, pre-Petrine hereditary and post-Petrine service, coexisted, with the former connoting higher social status and the latter greater dependence on the state for subsistence and rewards. Consequently, an effort was made to discover, by a careful reading of the various biographies, whether the ministers' families attained their nobility originally through inheritance or service and from what ages ennoblement dated. Forty-one of the noble ministers were found to be descendants of pre-Petrine noble families, and only seven were identifiable as descendants of post-Petrine service nobility. For the remaining one hundred thirty-eight noble o f f i c i a l s , however, the nature of the families' ennoblement could not be ascertained. Although in the known cases there were almost six times as many pre-Petrine nobles as post-Petrine, this does not unam-J Romanovich-Slavatinskii, Dvorianstvo v Rossii ot  nachala XVIII veka do otmeny krepostnago prava. p. 3. Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the  Ninth to the Nineteenth" Century (New York. 1964), p. 347. Prior to 1845, attainment of the fourteenth military chin or the eighth c i v i l chin brought conferral of hereditary nobility, Thereafter, hereditary nobility was granted with the eighth military chin or the f i f t h c i v i l chin. 38 biguously indicate such a r a t i o of these groups on the entire Committee of Ministers. There i s quite l i k e l y a systematic bias i n the sample, as i t was pr e c i s e l y those families whose hi s t o r i e s were longest and most i l l u s t r i o u s which were most rea d i l y c l a s s i f i a b l e . - ^ Regrettably, i d e n t i c a l lacunae on the nature of ennoblement exist even i n si m i l a r studies based on o f f i c i a l t s a r i s t personnel records. If i t cannot be determined how the majority of the ministers' families were ennobled, another method useful f o r the depiction of m i n i s t e r i a l s o c i a l backgrounds i s c l a s s i f i -cation of the Committee's members according to t h e i r fathers' occupations. Of necessity, the term "occupation" has been used loosely so that i t stretches to include both c i v i l servant and tsar. Also, because many of the m i n i s t e r i a l fathers could not be neatly pidgeon-holed into a single occupational category, they were coded for as many as three occupations, i f necessary.^ D To consider but examples! o f f i c i a l s belonging to renowned families of the pre-Petrine n o b i l i t y included Prince V. A. Dolgorukov, Minister of War from 1852 to I 8 56 , and Prince A. N. Golitsyn, the only man to head the Ministry of Education when i t also included " S p i r i t u a l A f f a i r s " i n i t s t i t l e . 57 •Jl Pintner, "Early Nineteenth-Century Russian Bureaucracy," 438. 5^A grand duke was coded only as the son of a tsar, not also of a landowner. Even though the grand dukes were sons of the largest landowners i n Russia, to l i s t them as sons of landowners would confuse analysis of the s t a t i s t i c s f o r the noble landowners, the class in whose growth or decline t h i s study i s interested. The entry of many grand dukes onto the Committee of Ministers under Alexander III occurred at exactly the time that the sons of noble landowners might be expected to decline. 3 9 For example, for a nineteenth century Russian noble, being a landowner and a c i v i l servant were not mutually exclusive. It was, i n f a c t , common to be both, and often a landholding bureaucrat served simultaneously i n the m i l i t a r y as well. Although information on fathers' occupations was not a t t a i n -able for a l l of the two hundred eleven ministers, i t was f o r seventy-one per cent, enough to provide a more f u l l y delineated picture of s o c i a l backgrounds of the Russian administrative e l i t e . 5 9 A majority of the fathers of the ministers were land-owners. Sons of m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r s and c i v i l servants were also common but much less frequent. Among a l l . t h e fathers there were eighty-eight landowners, sixty-one m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r s , f o r t y - s i x c i v i l servants, nine tsars, four p r i e s t s , four educators, two p h y s i c i a n s a n d one merchant. Having a land-owner as a father; therefore, was a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c shared by six t y per cent of the ministers on the Committee. In turn, forty-one per cent of the ministers had fathers who were m i l i t a r y o f f icers,.. and thirty-one per cent fathers who were c i v i l servants. For the Russian members of the Committee, the most common father's occupation was landowner, whereas for the German ministers i t was m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r . Sons of bureaucrats were about'equally common within each national group. cq J7In the group of one hundred forty-nine ministers f o r whom information could be obtained, s i x t y - s i x fathers were l i s t e d with more than one occupation. Although the total number of sons of landowners on the Committee was very high, their ranks did decrease sharply two decades after the abolition©of serfdom. The figures in table 4 document this decline. During the f i r s t three reigns of the nineteenth century, over half of the positions were held by sons of landowners, while this figure drops below one-third for the f i n a l two reigns. The share of posts held by sons of military officers also shows a steady decline through the nineteenth century, whereas the sons of c i v i l servants increase their percentage of posts, .after a low period during Nicholas I's reign. The entry onto the Committee in Alexander III"s reign of more members from outside the ranks of the nobility, f i r s t indicated In table 3» is shown again in more detail in table 4. Indeed, the Committee of Ministers under Alexander III was more socially heterogeneous than under any of the other tsars. Hereditary landholding as a shared characteristic of the members of the Committee of Ministers, therefore, markedly declined, beginning in the 1880's. By examining a l l holders of the top three c i v i l chiny. Zaionchkovskii has shown that the percentage of landed nobility declined among top o f f i c i a l s from the mid-nineteenth century. According to Zaionchkovskii, fifty-three per cent of the o f f i c i a l s holding the top three c i v i l chiny in 185^ were from the landed nobility? however, in 1888 only thirty per cent holding the top three ranks of the Empire were of such origins. u The evidence presented here ^Zaionchkovskii, Rossiiskoe samoderzhaviia v kontseg XIX s t o l e t i i a , pp. 113-117. TABLE 4 MINISTERS* FATHERS' OCCUPATIONS, ARRANGED BY POST AND REIGN Reign i n which post was held Number of posts with known data Land-owners M i l i -tary C i v i l serv.^ ants Tsars Clergy Educa-tors Physic-ians Merchants Alexander I 5 6 6 4 % 55% 23% t • 5% • • • • * • Nicholas I 5 7 72% 4 2 % 19% 2% 3% 2% • • t • Alexander II 70 70% 4 0 % 3 6 % 3% t t 3% t • Alexander III 3 2 a 25* 2 8 % 34% 16% 3% 6% 6% 3% Nicholas II 3 4 A 32% 32% 4 4 % 1 2 % • • 3% • • 3% : • 2 4 9 5 8 % B 4 1 % 30% 5% 2% 2% 2% 1% aThe small base figure should be noted and the percentage figures used with caution. Nevertheless, percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s t i l l provides the most graphic means of comparison among the d i f f e r e n t reigns. When the percentages i n one horizontal row are added, they w i l l exceed 100% because some o f f i c i a l s ' fathers were coded with more than one occupation. 42 establishes that t h i s decline i n the prominence of the landed n o b i l i t y was also manifest i n the Committee of Ministers 6 l i n the l a t e r part of the nineteenth century. One additional means of establishing s o c i a l d i v i s i o n s among the members of the Committee exi s t s . The ministers may be grouped according to ownership of t i t l e s , either i n -herited or bestowed. This type of information has not been provided in any of the other recent studies of the nineteenth century administrative e l i t e . Because information on t i t l e -holding was completely available f o r a l l of the members of the Committee of Ministers, however, i t was analyzed to see i f any i n t e r e s t i n g trends could be discerned. And inquiry 62 into t i t l e - h o l d i n g did prove rewarding. The number of noble families i n the Russian Empire has already been demonstrated to be small, and the number of t i t l e d families was even smaller. The most commonly held t i t l e s were count and prince, with the l a t t e r denoting the greater eminence. In 1893 a t o t a l of one hundred thirty-one 61 Zaionchkovskii*s figures and those i n table 4 are not, of course, d i r e c t l y comparable because they measure d i f -ferent things. Yet, both sets of figures do mark out the same pattern. Even though the information on fathers' occu-pations i s less complete f o r Alexander I l l ' s and Nicholas II's reigns than for e a r l i e r periods, the decline i s so sharptthat t h i s reading of the table i s j u s t i f i a b l e . 62 This information i s provided i n Amburger, Geschichte  der BehOrdenorganisation Russlands von Peter dem Grossen  bis 1917, i n which the index of administrative personnel of the Russian Empire l i s t s the t i t l e s held by each o f f i c i a l and the dates of t h e i r bestowal, i f not inherited. 43 families had been awarded the t i t l e of count, and some of these families had died out. The number of Russian families of princely rank was much smaller. Within t h e i r orders were descendants of Rurik, A s i a t i c and Lithuanian princes, princes of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as sixteen families awarded 64 the t i t l e of prince from the time of Peter the Great. Also dating from Peter's age, the t i t l e of baron was given, though infrequently. Because i t mainly was bestowed upon successful merchants, the t i t l e baron and i t s holders were scorned by the hereditary n o b i l i t y . After the B a l t i c provinces were annexed to the Russian Empire, i n 1?10 and 1712;. fbrmali'if&X agreements between the Russian government and thetBaltiewGerman n o b i l i t y allowed the German nobles to r e t a i n t h e i r p r i v i l e g e s , and many of them also held the t i t l e of baron.^ 5 T i t l e - h o l d i n g , an occasional and p r i v i l e g e d d i s t i n c t i o n among the Empire's noble f a m i l i e s , was a prevalent feature among the members of the Committee of Ministers. S l i g h t l y over one-half of the members of the Committee were favored with t i t l e s as a mark of s o c i a l status. A t o t a l of one hundred twenty t i t l e s were held by one hundred eight of the ministers, while a minority of the ministers, one hundred three, held no ^ 1 . E. Andreevskii, ed., Entsiklopedicheskii slovar' (82 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1890-1904), LIV, p. 577. . 6 4 Romanovich-Slavatinskii, Dvorianstvo v R o s s i i ot  nachala XVIII veka do otmeny krepostnago prava, p. 39» ^ 5Blum, Lord and Peasant i n Russia from the Ninth to  the Nineteenth Century, pp. 348-349. Most of:..the(ministers who held the t i t l e of baron were from the B a l t i c "German n o b i l i t y . kk t i t l e s at a l l . Inherited t i t l e s would seem to have been more prestigious than bestowed, since the former served as an indicatio n that the o f f i c i a l ' s family had a t r a d i t i o n of pro-minence. A minister upon whom a t i t l e was bestowed could, i n p r i n c i p l e , have been of the most common s o c i a l background. Bestowed t i t l e s served to s i g n i f y the immediate worth of an ind i v i d u a l minister to a tsar, rather than to denote his family's status. Among t i t l e s held by members of the Committee of Ministers, sixty-four were inherited and f i f t y - s i x bestowed (see table 5 ) ' The percentage of posts held by ministers with inherited t i t l e s and ministers with bestowed t i t l e s were equal, as i n -dicated in-table* 6 . Of the f i f t y - s i x bestowed t i t l e s , twelve were granted to o f f i c i a l s who already had another t i t l e . Seven ministers held two bestowed t i t l e s , and fi v e second t i t l e s were bestowed upon ministers who were hereditary t i t l e -holders. T i t l e - h o l d i n g was equally common among the ministers of foreign b i r t h and of native b i r t h and also equally common among Russian and German ministers. It was not prevalent among the small non-noble group of ministers. Obviously, the non-nobles did not i n h e r i t t i t l e s , but neither did they garner many bestowed ones. Only two non-nobles acquired t h i s singular d i s t i n c t i o n , and both played quite distinguished roles i n the history of the Russian bureaucracy, the Russian Speranskii and 45 TABLE 5 INHERITED AND BESTOWED TITLES HELD BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS T i t l e Number inherited Number bestowed Grand duke-heir 3 . . Grand duke 6 . , Prince 23 9 Count 23 46 Baron 8 . . Marquis 1 . . 64 56 46 66 the German Kankrin. While twenty per cent of t h i s admittedly small sample of non-nobles were granted t i t l e s , twenty-eight per cent of the noble ministers were thus favored. Table 6 shows the r e l a t i v e frequency of t i t l e - h o l d i n g on the Committee of Ministers under the l a s t f i v e tsars. The proportion of posts held by n o n - t i t l e d men grew s t e a d i l y throughout the nineteenth century. By the reign of Alexander I I , a majority of the Committee's members were n o n - t i t l e d . Under Alexander I, Nicholas I, and Alexander I I , however, approximately one-third of the Committee's positions were held by members with h e r e d i t a r y - t i t l e s , L T a n i n d i c a t i o n of belonging to families of long-standing prominence. The proportion of positions held by ministers with hereditary t i t l e s f e l l sharply with the advent of Alexander I I I , then rose again s l i g h t l y under Nicholas II. This consideration of t i t l e - h o l d i n g i n the various reigns again confirms a widening of the Committee's membership to include o f f i c i a l s from families of more varied backgrounds. This pattern has been repeatedly indicated i n each of the three temporally arranged tables describing s o c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n s among the Committee's members (tables 3> >^ and 6). The information in these three tables on n o b i l i t y , fathers' occu-£if> Speranskii served on the Committee of Ministers under Alexander I i n two capacities of Assistant Minister of Justice and State secretary; under Nicholas I he sat on the Committee as chairman of the State Council Department of Law. During the early part of his career Speranskii assisted Alexander I i n r a t i o n a l i z i n g and reorganizing the state administration, while in the 1830's he oversaw the c o d i f i c a t i o n of Imperial law. Kankrin served on the Committee of Ministers from 1823 to 1844, during which time he was Minister of Finance and responsible f o r numerous important f i n a n c i a l reforms. TABLE 6 TITLE-HOLDING ON THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS, ARRANGED BY POST AND REIGN Reign in which post Number of total Inherited Bestowed No was held positions t i t l e s t i t l e s t i t l e s Alexander I 78 30% 45% 25% Nicholas I 74 32% 42% 26% Alexander II 97 30% 18% 52% Alexander III 49 18% 10% 72% Nicholas II 51 22% 12% 66% 349 27% 27% 46% 48 pations, and t i t l e - h o l d i n g i s remarkably consistent. Under Alexander I, Nicholas I, and Alexander I I , the Committee of Ministers was quite homogeneous i n i t s s o c i a l composition. Almost a l l of i t s members were nobles, most were sons of land-owners, and one-third were from t i t l e d f a m i l i e s . The per-centages of o f f i c e s held by these three groups were a l l highest under Nicholas I. With Alexander III a major change occurred. Under his aegis, the Committee of Ministers opened up to include more members of non-noble b i r t h , sons of fathers of more varied occupations, and more non - t i t l e d o f f i c i a l s . Under Nicholas I I , however, t h i s widening of the Committee's narrow s o c i a l composition was reversed. The old patterns were reasserted somewhat, on a l l three of the dimensions considered here. Viewed against the changing backdrop of Russian history, the s o c i a l composition of the Committee of Ministers r e f l e c t e d the economic and s o c i a l changes occurring during the course of the nineteenth century. In the f i r s t three reigns of the century, the Committee of Ministers' homogeneous s o c i a l origins accurately r e f l e c t e d the p o l i t i c a l and economic preeminence of the landed n o b i l i t y . Yet, two decades a f t e r the a b o l i t i o n of serfdom, the landed gentry's unchallenged p o l i t i c a l and economic ascendancy was ending, as i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n began i n 67 earnest. As the Russian bureaucracy i n general received 67 'Theodore H. Von Laue, Sergei Witte and the Industri-a l i z a t i o n of Russia (New York, I963), p. 19. > 9 ever greater numbers of non-landed nobility into i t s midst, so too i t began to be staffed with more members of the non-noble 68 classes of the Empire. And these processes have been shown to have b,egun to occur among the highest administrative levels, among the members of the Committee of Ministers. In the existence of the Committee, the apogee of these interrelated phenomena has been demonstrated to have occurred during the years of Alexander III. In the 1890's, a resurgence of the landed gentry took place, as they fought the requirements of industrialization and clamored for a return to old privileges 69 and protection. 7 This, too, is indicated in the social composition of Nicholas II*s Committee of Ministers, : noticeably different from that of Alexander I l l ' s . The varying social composition of the bureaucratic elit e under the five tsars is further illustrated by an exami-nation of the periods in which the ten ministers of non-noble birth served. Four of the non-nobles began their Russian service careers during Alexander I's reign, one during Alexander II's, and five during Alexander III's«ifcEyidentlyy!thenli?.the age of Nicholas I was a very.difficult time for a man of common birth to achieve the topmost positions in the Russian 70 bureaucracy. This' is indicated in two ways by the data on 6R Zaionchkovskii, Rossiiskoe samoderzhaviie v kontse  XIX s t o l e t i i a , p. 112. 69j_ u, B . Solov'ev, "Pravitel'stvo i politika ukrepleniia klassovykh p o z i t s i i dvorianstvo v kontse XIX veka," in Vnutrenniaia politika tsarizma (seredina XVI-nachalo XX v.), ed. by N. E. Nosov (Leningrad, 1967K p. 2«0. ^^Sydney Monas, "Bureaucracy in Russia under Nicholas Vi" p. 2 7 k . 50 the l i v e s of the non-noble ministers: f i r s t , no ministers of common b i r t h o r i g i n a l l y began service careers under Nicholas I; second, only two m i n i s t e r i a l positions were held by men of non-noble b i r t h during Nicholas' reign (table 3)» "the above-mentioned Speranskii and Kankrin, both of whom i n i t i a l l y achieved e l i t e bureaucratic status under Alexander I. The reigns during which i t was easiest, comparatively, for a commoner to achieve high administrative status were those of Alexander I and Alexander I I I . This r e l a t i v e ease of advancement for non-nobles i s apparent both i n terms of the numbers of non-nobles beginning service and i n terms of the numbers serving on the Committee of Ministers. The evidence on Nicholas II's reign i s l e s s complete since only one future minister began service i n that reign; however, the diminished percentage of posts held by non-nobles and the increased percentage of posts-held by nobles, shown in table 3, together suggest that for o f f i c i a l s of non-noble b i r t h advancement to high administrative o f f i c i e s was more formidable under Nicholas II than during his father's reign. T" These ten ministers' l i v e s , then, help i n i n d i c a t i n g the varying degrees of ease i n service advancement under the f i v e tsars. Also within the l i v e s of the ten non-noble ministers i s another s a l i e n t feature, r e l a t i v e l y high educational a t t a i n -ment, that helps to explain.their rare s o c i a l mobility. Thus, one turns f i n a l l y i n t h i s examination of the backgrounds of the ministers to a discussion of educational experience. 51 • ' • Education The members of the Committee of Ministers have been characterized as drawn la r g e l y from s o c i a l l y e l i t e groups within the Russian Empire. One might expect, s i m i l a r l y , that the ministers were recruited from an educational e l i t e also. A consideration of the ministers' educational experiences reveals that such i s indeed'the case. For a l l of the members of the Committee, the average age upon completion of education was eighteen years. If the ministers are grouped according to the reign i n which they f i r s t served on the Committee of Ministers, i t can be seen that the average age increased throughout the nineteenth century. These average ages were established f o r ministers entering the Committee during the following reigns: Alexander I, f i f t e e n years; Nicholas I, sixteen years; Alexander I I , eighteen years; Alexander I I I , twenty-one years; Nicholas I I , twenty years. Thus, the only group of ministers which did not show an increase was that of Nicholas II. This overall?, increase i n time spent i n educational a c t i v i t i e s points to an advancing l e v e l of education among ministers throughout the nineteenth century. Such an increase in educational attainment among the ministers can be documented by s c r u t i n i z i n g t h e i r educational experiences. Accordingly, i n table ? information on the ministers' schooling i s presented i n d e t a i l . A minister's education i s categorized according to the f i n a l educational i n s t i t u t i o n attended and the half century in which i t was completed. A l l those receiving private t u i t i o n were placed 52 under: the heading of home education. Table 7 shows that for future ministers in the eighteenth century, home education was the rule. F i f t y per cent of the fifty-two o f f i c i a l s educated in that century were instructed at home. Home tuition among the future ministers was much less common in the nineteenth century, however. Table 7 indi-cates that of those educated in the f i r s t half of the nine-teenth century, only fourteen, or nineteen per.cent, received private tuition; for the last half of the century this group declined to fifteen per cent. Conversely, over this same span of one hundred f i f t y years, the percentages of university educated ministers increased. While only seventeen per cent of future ministers attended universities in the eighteenth century, twenty-one per cent did so in the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century, and thirty-two per cent in the second half. Put another way, this information shows that while half of the eighteenth century ministers received no institutional instruction at a l l , one-third of those schooled from 1851' to 1900 attended . . 71 universities. Of the total forty-two ministers who attended universi-ties, thirty-one went to Russian universities, nine to German and two to Italian. The latter two ministers were from Italian and Greek aristocratic families.' Information on the faculties of universities attended was sparse; eight attended faculties of law and two faculties of philosophy. Of those with detailed information, twenty-three ministers received candidate degrees (equivalent to Honors bachelor degrees), four earned doctoral degrees, and five did not complete their studies. Of this latter group, four had their university studies interrupted by the war with the French in 1812. • Of the three holders of doctorates for whom service dates are known, one entered service under Tsar Paul, one under Alexander I, and one under Alexander II, 53 TABLE 7 FINAL EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF THE MINISTERS, ARRANGED BY DATE OF COMPLETION OF EDUCATION Educational institution Number of ministers completing education 1750-1800 1801-1850 I 8 5 I-I9OO No dates Home education Private secondary school Private academy Gymnasiia, Russian Seminary Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum St. Petersburg University Moscow University Kazan University Kiev University Odessa University Military school, unspecified Cadet corps Imperial Corps of .Pages Academy of the General Staff Military institute Agricultural institute Main Pedagogical Institute School of Jurisprudence Technical institute Polish academy German gymnasium Prussian cadet corps German university Italian university Unknown 26 2 2 2 1 3 4 1 1 « 6 2 14 4 • 1 1 12 3 10 1 1 • 1 8 7 9 1 1 6 1 6 8 2 3 52 77 41 41 54 The large number of future ministers educated at home i n the eighteenth century r e f l e c t s the unorganized state of Russian education during that time. "In f a c t , " noted one h i s t o r i a n , "there was no such thing as a school system before Alexander I; 72 there were schools but no system." From Alexander I's reign dated the greatest growth of Russian educational f a c i l i t i e s . In the realm of higher education, the opening of f i v e new uni-v e r s i t i e s and the enlargement of the one i n Moscow occurred at the behest of Alexander I, who intended that these u n i v e r s i t i e s produce better q u a l i f i e d personnel to s t a f f the Russian admini 73 n i s t r a t i o n . J Similar motivations prompted the establishment of the Lyceum at Tsarskoe Selo i n 1810 and, under Nicholas I, 74 the School of Jurisprudence i n 1835. Also, under Nicholas I, the Academy of the General S t a f f was established i n 1834 i n order to provide better trained personnel f o r the m i l i t a r y 75 service. J The o r i g i n a l purpose of a l l these higher i n s t i -tutions was to provide better t r a i n i n g f o r future servants of the Russian state? that these schools served t h i s function i s 72 * ' Vladimir G. Simkhovich, "History of the School i n Russia," The Educational Review (May, 1907), p. 489, c i t e d by William H. E. Johnson, Russia's Educational Heritage (Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 1 950 ) , p. 65. ^James T, Flynn, "The U n i v e r s i t i e s , the Gentry, and the Russian Imperial Services, 1815-1825," Canadian Sla v i c  Studies, I I , 4 (Winter, 1968), p. 487. 74 Edward C. Thaden, Conservative Nationalism i n  Nineteenth-Century Russia (Seattle, Washington, 1964), p. 12. ^ 5John Shelton Curtiss, The Russian Army under Nicholas I,  1825-1855 (Durham, North Carolina, 1965), p. 105. 55 indicated by the fact that some of t h e i r e a r l i e s t graduates became members of the Committee of Ministers. As soon as these higher i n s t i t u t i o n s were established, they became part of the educational backgrounds of the future ministers. For example, Minister of Foreign A f f a i r s Prince A. M. Gorchakov graduated from Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum i n 1816, Minister of War D. A. M i l i u t i n from the Academy of the General Staff i n I836, and Over Procurator Pobedonostsev from the School of Jurisprudence in 1846. Despite the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of Russian u n i v e r s i t i e s , the oldest one, Moscow University, continued to produce the most future ministers during the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century, but a f t e r I 8 5 O St. Peters-burg University took the lead by graduating nine of the eleven future ministers who attended Russian u n i v e r s i t i e s during that period (see table 7). Undoubtedly, the u n i v e r s i t i e s at Moscow and Sto Petersburg,located near .the seats of Imperial power, -enjoyed a prestigious advantage over the u n i v e r s i t i e s i n pro-v i n c i a l c a p i t a l s . It has been suggested from a reading of table 7 that ministers schooled during the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century received more formal education than those schooled during the eighteenth, and that ministers educated during the l a s t half of the nineteenth century attained the highest l e v e l of formal education of a l l . This has been indicated i n a general way by the f a l l i n g percentages of future ministers educated at home and the r i s i n g percentages educated at uni-v e r s i t i e s during these three f i f t y - y e a r periods. The point i s 56 made more c l e a r l y by grouping the numerous schools attended by the ministers into l e v e l s . Therefore, table 8 arranges the educational experiences of the ministers holding positions on the Committee during d i f f e r e n t reigns into three levels—home, secondary, and higher education. Some explanation i s required for each of these. In table 8 home education i s kept as a separate l e v e l because i t i s impossible to relate i t to attendance at any formal educational i n s t i t u t i o n . Sons of emperors and sons of p r o v i n c i a l gentry a l i k e received home education, and t h i s means that the category i s f a r from d e f i n i t i v e as regards the duration or sophistication of educational experience. So, when one says that the l e v e l of schooling among the ministers increased throughout the nineteenth century, one means, l i t e r a l l y , the l e v e l of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d schooling. No ministers received formal schooling of an elementary nature, and therefore the study of l e v e l s of schooling actually begins with secondary education. The category of secondary education i n table 8 includes the following schools: private secondary, both Russian and German gymnasiia. both Russian and German cadet corps, and unspecified m i l i t a r y schools. A l l the remaining educational i n s t i t u t i o n s l i s t e d i n table 7 are cate-gorized i n table 8 as higher education, as entrance to each of them required c e r t i f i c a t i o n of secondary l e v e l education. Included in the higher education category i s Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum, whose courses of i n s t r u c t i o n were divided into two parts. Pupils entered the junior section from the ages of ten 57 TABLE 8 HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ACHIEVED, ARRANGED BY POST AND REIGN Reign i n which post occurred Number of posts with known data Home education Secondary education Higher education Alexander I 73 44% 26% 30% Nicholas I 68 46% 34% 20% Alexander II 83 23% 34% 43% Alexander III 46 11% 13% 76% Nicholas II 46 7% 13% 80% ' 316 . 28% 26% 46% 58 to twelve and received secondary- l e v e l education when they advanced to the senior section, they received i n s t r u c t i o n from university professors on advanced subjects."^ The t r a n s i t i o n from the predominance of home education to that of higher education i s again documented i n table 8, which also reveals that the Committee of Ministers i n each successive reign had ministers more highly schooled than those of the previous reign. This i s indicated by the d e c l i n i n g percentage of positions held by home tutored ministers and the r i s i n g percentage of positions held by ministers with higher education. The sole exception to t h i s rule was the m i n i s t e r i a l group of Nicholas I, during whose reign thetautonomy of i n s t i -tutions of higher learning, e s p e c i a l l y the u n i v e r s i t i e s , was severely c u r t a i l e d by r e s t r i c t i v e governmental regulations of 77 I835 and 1848. Even i n Nicholas* group of ministers, however, the increase i n secondary schooling almost o f f s e t the decline in higher education. The significance of the ministers' generally high l e v e l of formal education i s threefold. F i r s t , the ministers were recruited from an educational e l i t e . This point i s reinforced by noting the rate of enrollment i n a l l Russian higher edu-cational i n s t i t u t i o n s . During the entire existence of the Committee of Ministers, enrollment i n a l l higher educational i n s t i t u t i o n s , expressed as a proportion of the t o t a l Imperial ^ Andreevskii, ed., Entsiklopedicheskii slovar', XXXIV, p. 859. Students at the Lyceum spent three years i n each of the two sections. 77 Johnson, Russia's Educational Heritage, pp. 96 -99 . 59 population, increased from one-tenth of one per cent i n 1801 to three and one-half per cent i n 1905 . 7 8 In Russia i n the nineteenth century, therefore, higher education was a rare p r i v i l e g e . In the Committee of Ministers i t was a commonly shared t r a i t . Second, i t was noted above that foreigners served on the Committee of Ministers only during the early nineteenth century, and an increase i n the number of better educated native personnel was proposed as a possible explanation f o r foreigners' exclusion from the Committee i n l a t e r years. This argument i s corroborated by the increased percentages of ministers trained i n Russian higher i n s t i t u t i o n s , as indicated i n tables 7 and 8. After the growth i n Russian higher education in the early nineteenth century, i t seems to have been no longer necessary to look abroad f o r well educated bureaucrats. . Third, because, the Committee of Ministers was made up primarily of the most highly educated men Russia could o f f e r , the dismal picture of poorly trained high Imperial o f f i c i a l s 79 painted by some needs retouching.'. There seem to be two bases f o r the argument that even highly placed Russian admi-n i s t r a t o r s were poorly educated. F i r s t , there i s the question of the qu a l i t y of a minister's education, whether good or sup e r f i c i a l ? such a topic cannot be explored within the scope of t h i s study. Second, the argument may be made that a general 7 8Hans, History of Russian Educational Po l i c y (1701-1917). p. 242. "^Raeff, "Russian Autocracy and Its Officials,; 1 p. 87. 60 80 education was not the best t r a i n i n g f o r a bureaucrat. While the biographical data available cannot indicate what kind of education was best f o r a Russian c i v i l servant, i t can at l e a s t shed some l i g h t on t h i s issue by demonstrating the types of educational t r a i n i n g the ministers a c t u a l l y received. In order to i l l u s t r a t e the nature of Russian ministers* educational emphases, table 9 divides the i n s t i t u t i o n s they attended into the three categories of general, m i l i t a r y , and technical and professional education. This l a t t e r r ubric sub-sumes t r a i n i n g of a ' l e g a l i s t i c or applied s c i e n t i f i c type, and includes the School of Jurisprudence, the a g r i c u l t u r a l and technical i n s t i t u t e s , and the few known f a c u l t i e s of law. Of the m i l i t a r y schools named i n table ?J, only His Majesty's Own Corps of Pages needs explanation} i t was an e l i t e cadet corps which provided m i l i t a r y schooling f o r the sons of the best 81 families i n Russia. The Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum i s c l a s s i f i e d as providing general education, even though i n i t s senior section there was an emphasis on l e g a l t r a i n i n g . In the f i r s t place, t h i s l e g a l emphasis was not pronounced i n the f i r s t two decades of the Lyceum's existence; and, i n the second place, a l l the in s t r u c t i o n i n the junior section, as well as a large portion i n the senior section, dealt with general educational R O Flynn, "The U n i v e r s i t i e s , the Gentry, and the Russian Imperial Services, 1815-1825," p. 501 . M i l l e r , D m i t r i i M i l i u t i n and the Reform Era i n Russia, p. 124. 61 TABLE 9 TYPE OF EDUCATIONAL TRAINING, ARRANGED BY POST AND REIGN Reign i n which post occurred Number of posts with known data General education M i l i t a r y education Technical and professional education Alexander I 73' 11% 22% 1% Nicholas I 68 11% 28% 1% Alexander II 83 61% 28% 11% Alexander III 46 56% 15% 29% Nicholas II 46 38% 28% 34% 316 63% 25% 12% 62 82 subjects—languages, history, geography, mathematics. Un i v e r s i t i e s were placed under the heading of general education, with the above noted exception of f a c u l t i e s of law known to have been attended.^ The remainder of the schools enumerated i n table 7 are gathered under-general education—not excluding home education or the Main Pedagogical I n s t i t u t e . When the educational data i s arranged under these three categories, as i n table 9, the o v e r a l l predominance of general education becomes evident. Of the t o t a l number of positions with known data, sixty-three per cent were held by ministers who had received general, non-technical, non-military education. While a sizable minority of the positions, twenty-five per cent, were held by m i l i t a r i l y - t r a i n e d ministers, the percentage of positions held by ministers t e c h n i c a l l y or p r o f e s s i o n a l l y 85 trained was only half that of the m i l i t a r y , twelve per cent. J Overall, general education was the norm, and few of the 82 Andreevskii, Entsiklopedicheskii slovar*. XXXIV, p. 859. ^ F o r only one-quarter of those attending u n i v e r s i t i e s were the f a c u l t i e s of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n determinable. Of t h i s group of ten, eight ministers attended l e g a l f a c u l t i e s . Because of t h i s lacuna iri the biographical data the figures f o r pro-fessi o n a l and technical t r a i n i n g probably tend to be conservative. 84 Johnson, Russia's Educational Heritage, p. 112. ^Armstrong, i n " T s a r i s t and Soviet E l i t e Administrators," p. 18, reports that twenty-three per cent of his t s a r i s t pro-v i n c i a l governors attended m i l i t a r y schools; he argues that technological t r a i n i n g i s concealed i n that group. S i m i l a r l y within the Committee of Ministers,*the twenty-five per cent who studied at m i l i t a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s undoubtedly also included some technologically trained. 63 ministers received t r a i n i n g of a. nature directly, related to 8 6 l e g a l or technical governmental work. As shown i n table 9 the percentage of positions held by ministers with professional or technical t r a i n i n g did increase during the nineteenth century. The increase began on the Committee under Alexander I I , two generations a f t e r the p r o l i -f e r a t i o n of higher professional and technical schools. There was an even larger increase under Alexander I I I , two decades a f t e r the reform of the Russian l e g a l system i n 1864 and the consequent surge i n l e g a l faculty enrollments. 8 7 By the reign of Nicholas I I , one t h i r d of the positions represented on the Committee of Ministers were held by ministers with technical or professional t r a i n i n g and, as has been noted, there i s an undoubted conservative bias i n t h i s figure. Table 9 also evidences a pattern s i m i l a r to that found i n e a r l i e r temporally arranged tables (3, 4, and 6). During Alexander I l l ' s reign, when the Committee's membership was most s o c i a l l y heterogeneous, the greatest increase i n technical and The educational background of Count D. N. Bludov i s i l l u s t r a t i v e of how lack of formal l e g a l i s t i c t r a i n i n g did not hamper a bureaucrat's service career i n the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century. One of the two men ever to hold s i x positions on the Committee of Ministers, Bludov was educated at home but rose.to be the foremost j u r i s t of his time. For over twenty years, from 1839 to 1861, Bludov headed both the Imperial Chancery Section on C o d i f i c a t i o n and the State Council Department of Law. In 1861 he was appointed chairman of the Committee of Ministers, a post he held u n t i l his death i n 1864. Certainly lack of professional t r a i n i n g did not impede Bludov's career as a bureaucrat. 'Samuel Kucherov, Courts. Lawyers, and T r i a l s under  the Last Three Tsars (New York, 1953), p. 122. 6k professional t r a i n i n g occurred, together with a corresponding decline i n m i l i t a r y education. Under Nicholas I I , however, the trend towards more professional t r a i n i n g was slowed, and the trend towards le s s m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g was reversed, just as the old homogeneity of s o c i a l o r i g i n s was reasserted. One can surmise that the tables^showing s o c i a l origins and educational t r a i n i n g indicate i n t e r r e l a t e d phenomena. Under Alexander I I I , that i s , s o c i a l o r i g i n s were l o s i n g some of t h e i r former significance f o r the attainment of high office^, and, corres-pondingly, professional t r a i n i n g was increasing i n importance. This apparent trend towards the selection of ministers on a basis of formal q u a l i f i c a t i o n s rather than t r a d i t i o n a l t i e s 88 was reversed under Nicholas I I . The connection of education with the s o c i a l and national ori g i n s of the ministers deserves additional exploration. The suggestion has been made that the key to the high s o c i a l mobility of the ten non-noble ministers might be found within t h e i r educational backgrounds. S i m i l a r l y , the proposal has been made that foreigners served on the Committee of Ministers i n the early decades of the nineteenth century because of t h e i r superior t r a i n i n g by contemporary Russian standards. Both of these arguments are supported by examining each group's l e v e l of educational attainment. Both the group of ten non-noble ministers and the group R R Further substantiation of these differences between the periods of Alexander III and Nicholas II are seen i n the career t r a i t s characterizing the ministers during these two reigns, an issue taken up i n the next chapter. 65 of ten foreign ministers were quite well educated, i f attainment of higher education is used as an indication of superior train-ing. Eight of the non-noble ministers attended higher edu-cational institutions and two attended secondary schools; none were home tutored. Of the foreign born ministers, five attended secondary schools, three went to higher institutions, and one 89 was tutored at home. 7 The outstanding educational achievement of the non-noble group i s self-evident. And, within the context of the years 1878 to 1808, when a l l the foreigners entered Russian state service, the level of their training is high, too. For these two groups, indeed, "education had become the 90 route to a successful career." 7 If education was the key to unlocking high administrative doors for the non-nobles and the foreigners, i t does not seem unreasonable that the Germans opened doors in the same manner. Some historians have explained the large numbers of Germans in high Imperial offices largely on the basis of tsar's personal preferences, while others have stressed the p o l i t i c a l loyalty 91 of the Germans to autocracy. As noted earlier, the Germans themselves asserted the superior educational achievement of their nationalc-rgroup, relative to the Russian bureaucrats. 89 'Educational data was not available for one minister of foreign birth. 90 7 Pintner, "The Social Characteristics of the Early Nineteenth-Century Russian Bureaucracy," p. 443« 91 7 Riasanovsky, Nicholas I and O f f i c i a l Nationality  in Russia, p. 144. 66 Certainly this German assumption of superiority is lent credence hy the comparison of the educational backgrounds of the German and of the Russian ministers. Again i f one assumes that attainment of higher education indicates superior training, the German ministers were better educated than their Russian colleagues. Sixty-two per cent of the Germans had attended institutions of higher learning, as opposed to only fortyi-two per cent of the Russians. Within the higher education category i t s e l f , thirty-eight per cent of the Germans had attended universities, as opposed to only seventeen per cent of the Russians. Conversely, while only five per cent of the Germans received private tutoring, thirty-92 two per cent of the Russians were educated at home./ The high educational attainment shared by these three groups—the non-nobles, foreigners, and Germans—indicates that educational success helped, in turn, to bring success in a service career. The high educational attainment of the ministers as a group indicates again that advancement in state service was facilitated by the achievement of a high level of education. Indeed, government regulations themselves institutionalized the boost up the service ladder given by attainment of higher edu-cation. A university student's attainment of a candidate's 92 7 It is notable that only Russian and German ministers attended Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum and the Imperial Corps of Pages; these two elit e schools were attended by future ministers of no other nationality. This fact underlines the favored position of the Russian and German nationalities within the Empire. 67 degree brought conferral of the twelfth c i v i l chin,93 and graduates of Tsarskoe Selo Lyceum were e n t i t l e d to chin fourteen qh. through nine, depending upon t h e i r f i n a l educational standing. 7 To round out thi s examination of the ministers* edu-cational backgrounds and to introduce the following discussion of career t r a i t s , a c t i v i t i e s pursued by future ministers upon completion of t h e i r studies are considered. Here the common model i s quite d e f i n i t e . Ninety-two per cent of the ministers entered state service upon completion of t h e i r education. The remaining eight per cent were divided equally among teaching and t r a v e l l i n g . Overall, however, the pattern of entry into state service upon completion of education was prevalent among members of the Committee of Ministers during a l l periods of i t s existence. Moreover, with but few exceptions, the ministers had no occu-pational experiences outside of state service. There exists a p o s s i b i l i t y that b r i e f periods of time within a minister's o f f i c i a l career were spent outside state service. Although 9-^Flynn, "The Universities, the Gentry, and the Russian Imperial Services, 1815-1825," p. 491. ok 7 Andreevskii, ed., Bntsiklopedicheskii slovar', XXXIV, p. 859. q c -'while travelling was indicated by five ministers as a post-educational occupation in the 1 7 70 's and 1780*s, four ministers taught before entering bureaucratic service in the 1840's and 1850*s. These were the only periods when less than ninety per cent of the future ministers entered state service directly after completing education. 68 indications of such career "breaks were few i n the biographical information obtained f o r the ministers, i t i s conceivable that such leaves were taken but not recorded i n the biographies. Even with t h i s chance of a minister's mid-career hiatus from service, the dominant pattern f o r the ministers as a whole was that of l i f e l o n g service to the state. The stage i s thus set fo r an examination of these ministers* service careers and of relationships between career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the s o c i a l a ttributes described within t h i s chapter. CHAPTER IV. CAREER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MINISTERS The career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s chosen f o r study bear p r i -marily upon two periods during a minister's o f f i c i a l l i f e , his i n i t i a l entry into state.service and his service on the Committee of Ministers. In general, these t r a i t s involve the early and the f i n a l , most i n f l u e n t i a l years of a minister's career. There i s one p a r t i a l exception to the exclusion of mid-career charac-t e r i s t i c s ; c ertain attributes were selected for study which indicate the amount of m i l i t a r y service the members of the Committee of Ministers performed, i n order to disclose how many ministers served solely as c i v i l bureaucrats and how many had careers of combined c i v i l and m i l i t a r y service. The follow-ing information, therefore, was assembled on each minister's careen l a t e of entry into state service, area of state service f i r s t entered; duration of m i l i t a r y service, m i l i t a r y chin; post held on the Committee of Ministers with attendant datesj a c t i v i t y a f t e r post. No detailed charting of positions held during the mid-career period i s attempted for two reasons. F i r s t , coding of a l l the positions held by a successful bureaucrat over a lengthy period of time would be mechanically impracticable. Second, consideration of a l l positions held by an i n d i v i d u a l i n order to map the vagaries of his career would involve, of 69 70 necessity, a scheme fo r ordering the importance of these positions, again nearly an impossible task. What t h i s chapter undertakes i s thus a description of certain areas of the path -traversed by a minister's career, not an exploration of i t s 96 t o t a l course. In the previous chapter, descriptions of m i n i s t e r i a l s o c i a l backgrounds were tused to characterize both the ministers as a whole and the ministers separated into f i v e groups according to the reign or reigns i n which they held positions. In t h i s chapter, descriptions of ministers* o f f i c i a l careers are s i m i l a r l y u t i l i z e d . The f i r s t concern i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c i v i l and m i l i t a r y service i n m i n i s t e r i a l careers, with the choice of service area being related to the ministers' positions on the Committee and to t h e i r s o c i a l backgrounds. In the second part of the chapter, the period of m i n i s t e r i a l careers spent i n actual service on the Committee of Ministers i s investigated. Career t r a i t s drawn from t h i s examination are used to characterize the Committee as constituted during the f i v e reigns of i t s existence. Such an arrangement of the data reveals prominent patterns both i n the l i v e s of the mii n i s t e r s and i n the l i f e of the Committee of Ministers. 96 7 Armstrong's study, " T s a r i s t and Soviet E l i t e Administrators," which deals extensively with career a t t r i b u t e s , also omits consideration of o f f i c i a l s ' mid-career years. 7 1 M i l i t a r y and C i v i l Careers The extent of m i l i t a r y service i n the careers,of the members of the Committee of Ministers has a double s i g n i f i c a n c e . F i r s t , historians of the Imperial period have t r a d i t i o n a l l y emphasized the m i l i t a r y ' s influence on a l l aspects of Russian government from the time of Peter the Great onward, with the age of Nicholas I the proverbial high point of m i l i t a r y influence 97 i n the nineteenth century. 7' Since the Committee of Ministers was the highest administrative i n s t i t u t i o n within the c i v i l bureaucracy, a high proportion of members with m i l i t a r y careers would represent one manifestation of such an extensive m i l i t a r y influence on the d i r e c t i o n of c i v i l i a n a f f a i r s . Second, Marc Raeff maintains that i n the la t e eighteenth and early nine-teenth centuries, movement of servants of the Russian state from one area of government to another was common, as was the 98 practice of simultaneous m i l i t a r y and c i v i l s e r v i c e . 7 Yet, Pintner, as stated e a r l i e r , emphasizes the predominance of exclusively c i v i l careers i n his sample of Imperial bureaucrats, 99 even among his topmost group, by the early nineteenth century. 7 The data collected f o r t h i s study can indicate whether the mixing of m i l i t a r y and c i v i l careers described by Raeff continued ^Monas, "Bureaucracy i n Russia under Nicholas I," p. 271. 9 8Marc Raeff, Plans f o r P o l i t i c a l Reforms i n Russia.  1730-1905 (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1966), p. 12. " p i n t n e r . "Early Nineteenth-Century Russian Bureaucracy," p. 431. 72 throughout the existence of the Committee of Ministers and when the trend towards pr o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n i d e n t i f i e d by Pintner appeared within i t . It w i l l be remembered that the Committee of Ministers at a l l times included within i t s membership heads of the m i l i t a r y departments; t h e i r representation was never below two. Because the Ministers of War and Navy t r a d i t i o n a l l y were m i l i t a r y servants i n Imperial Russia, these members of the Committee of Ministers at l e a s t may be expected to have had m i l i t a r y careers. But, m i l i t a r y men could have held high c i v i l as well as m i l i t a r y p ositions. One measure of m i l i t a r y prominence i s the proportion of future ministers f i r s t entering Russian state service i n the m i l i t a r y . Data on service entry i s available f o r one hundred ninety-eight of the ministers. Of that number, one hundred twenty entered m i l i t a r y service. Only seventy-eight entered c i v i l service, and, of those, three served i n the m i l i t a r y at some point during t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a r e e r s . * 0 0 The t o t a l number of ministers who spent at l e a s t part of t h e i r l i v e s i n m i l i t a r y service—one hundred twenty-three—is a cle a r majority, over sixt y per cent of the t o t a l . F u l l y one hundred ministers served continuously i n the m i l i t a r y throughout t h e i r service careers; moreover, some service i n the c i v i l bureaucracy was indicated i n a l l of these * ^ 0 f the three ministers who i n i t i a l l y entered c i v i l service and only l a t e r acquired m i l i t a r y experience, two b r i e f l y l e f t bureaucratic careers to serve i n the Russian army against the invading French i n 1812. 73 one hundred ministers' service h i s t o r i e s . An additional twenty-three ministers spent from one to ten years i n the m i l i t a r y before switching to the c i v i l bureaucracy and sole service i n that area. Thus of the one hundred ninety-eight ministers f o r whom data i s avail a b l e , f i f t y per cent had m i l i t a r y careers, and an additional twelve per cent had some m i l i t a r y experience. Only t h i r t y - e i g h t per cent served s o l e l y i n the c i v i l bureaucracy before entering the Committee. One further measure of t h i s m i l i t a r y predominance i s the f a c t that f u l l y f o r t y per cent of the Committee's members held a high 101 m i l i t a r y chin, from rank one to four. An ostensibly c i v i l i a n administrative body, the Committee of Ministers* included vast m i l i t a r y representation. To further investigate t h i s m i l i t a r y presence, i t may be asked how many minis t e r i a l ; positions of a non-military character were f i l l e d by m i l i t a r y leaders. To pursue t h i s question, c r i t e r i a were devised to separate a l l of the Committee of Minister's positions into two basic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , security and non-security. The term security designates the broadest set of positions on the Committee which could be thought of as most reasonably held by an o f f i c i a l with m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g . This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , therefore, includes not only positions d i r e c t l y related to war and defense but also those dealing with the maintainence of order within the Empire. 101 This information, l i k e the data on t i t l e - h o l d i n g , i s provided uniformly f o r the state personnel l i s t e d i n Amburger, Geschichte der BehSrdenorganisation Russlands von Peter dem  Grossen b is 1917* 7k Besides the above-mentioned ministers of War and Navy, o f f i c e s dealing with external defenseiincluded chiefs of the Army and Naval S t a f f s , head of the Naval Ministry, and the chairman of the State Council Department of M i l i t a r y A f f a i r s . The following o f f i c e s were concerned with i n t e r n a l order i minister and assistant minister of Internal A f f a i r s , minister of P o l i c e , St. Petersburg M i l i t a r y Governor, heads of Imperial Chancery Sections III and V (managing respectively the secret police and P o l i s h a f f a i r s ) , chairman of the State Council Department of A f f a i r s of T s a r i s t Poland, and minister-state secretary f o r T s a r i s t Poland. Of these positions, only the three dealing with P o l i s h a f f a i r s need further explanation. A p o s i t i o n related to Poland was f i r s t represented on the Committee of Ministers i n I 8 3 2 , immediately a f t e r the f i r s t P o l i s h r e v o l t . A l l three positions were included i n the Committee's membership only during the mid-nineteenth century, the years of greatest 102 unrest within the P o l i s h part of the Empire. A l l of t h i s indicates that these positions were primarily concerned with in t e r n a l s e c u r i t y . 1 0 3 Of the t o t a l two hundred ninety-three positions held during the Committee of Ministers' existence, ninety were classed 102 Of the three P o l i s h posts on the Committee of Ministers, only two overlapped i n tenure, from 1841 to 1861. 103 ^The i n c l u s i o n of so many o f f i c e s related to i n t e r n a l security i s one r e f l e c t i o n of the Imperial government's authoritarian p r i o r i t i e s , i t s intense concern with the control of i t s population. 7 5 as security and two hundred three as non-security. In table 10, which compares the m i l i t a r y backgrounds of holders of security and non-security positions, the percentages are based on those two hundred eighty positions f o r which there was information. There i s an association between m i l i t a r y experience and the holding of a security p o s i t i o n . M i l i t a r y careers were twice as common among holders of security positions as among holders of non-security positions (see table 10). While eighty-one per cent of the ministers f i l l i n g security o f f i c e s had some m i l i t a r y service, only half the holders of non-security positions did so. But, viewed from a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t perspective, t h i s information reveals that f u l l y half of the non-security positions on the Committee of Ministers were held by men who had had some m i l i t a r y experience—over one-third by men who had made t h e i r careers i n the m i l i t a r y . While a m i l i t a r y history may be seen as functional f o r holders of security positions, i t s relevance to non-security, t o t a l l y c i v i l i a n o f f i c e s seems more questionable. Yet holders of certai n c i v i l positions quite commonly had m i l i t a r y service. ink The top four m i l i t a r y chin were commonly held by o f f i c i a l s i n the following non-security positions on the Committee of Ministers! minister of State Lands, Education, Imperial Court, and Means of Communication, chairmen of the Committee i t s e l f and of the State Council Department of State Economy, and the special members. Since technical and 104 High m i l i t a r y chin i s used as an indicator of sustained m i l i t a r y careers. 76 TABLE 10 DURATION OF MILITARY SERVICE OF MINISTERS HOLDING SECURITY AND NON-SECURITY POSITIONS ON THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS • Number of Type of position positions No military Military 1-10 years held with known service career military information Security 87 19* 73?* 8*5 Non-Security 193 50* 35* 15* 280 41* 46* 13* 77 105 engineering training were available in the army, J military backgrounds may be seen to have provided practical knowledge useful for the heads of two agencies, Means of Communication and State Economy. Off i c i a l s serving in both of these capacities handled affairs related to the technological development and modernization of the Russian Empire. The military status of the special members, chairmen of the Committee, and ministers of State Lands and Imperial Court attest to the emperors' preferences for military advisers. The special members and chairman of the Committee of Ministers were named at the tsar's pleasure, regardless of their o f f i c i a l capacities; and the ministers of State Lands and Imperial Court were more closely related to the 107 tsar's personal affairs than to state administration. ' The remaining position, minister of Education, was held by twenty o f f i c i a l s during the Committee's existence, five of whom held 108 high military chin. At f i r s t glance, military training 105 -^Armstrong,"Tsarist and Soviet E l i t e Administrators," p. 18. Eroshkin, Ocherki i s t o r i i gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii  dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii, p. 280. 107 As a palace preserve, the Ministry of Imperial Courts was even outside the financial jurisdiction of the state controller. After the state serf s were freed in 1866, the Ministry of State Lands administered the remaining crown proper-ties; in 1894 i t became the Ministry of Agriculture and State Lands. Ibid., p. 214, 281. 108 • " . The combined tenures of ministers of Education holding high military rank equalled twelve years—nine years under Nicholas I, one under Alexander II, and two under Nicholas II. Five other education ministers had also had some service in the military, and their total tenure was twenty-seven years. 78 might seem irrelevant to educational matters. However, the Ministry of Education in tsarist Russia was concerned not only with the quality of education hut also with the control of schools and their often obstreperous students. It is not far-fetched to assume that, from the government's point of view, a knowledge of security procedures was useful for an education m i n i s t e r . 1 0 9 Conversely, the type of c i v i l i a n positions in which military backgrounds were least common illustrates a significant pattern in the c i v i l i a n bureaucracy. The holding of military chin by o f f i c i a l s in the following positions Was exceedingly rare: ministers of Finance and Justice, state secretary, state controller, head of Imperial Chancery Section II on codification, and chairman of the State Council Department of Law. A l l of these positions dealt with complex l e g a l i s t i c or financial areas. A degree of professionalization of the personnel f i l l i n g these specialized offices is indicated by the fact that few of them were from the military e l i t e . The incidence of military service on the Committee of Ministers may also be considered along a temporal dimension. Simultaneous military and c i v i l service has been described as 109 After the i n i t i a l outbreak of student unrest in Kharkhov in I 8 58 , student strikes became a prevalent feature of Russian l i f e , with disorders in St. Petersburg in 1861, 1869, 1874, widespread disturbances in the early 1880's, and parti-cularly notable ones in 1894, I 8 96 , I 8 99 , 1901, and 1904. Originally sporadic and accidental, the student revolts merged into an organized p o l i t i c a l movement by the 1870's. Hans, The History of Russian Educational Policy (1701-1917), passim. 79 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of bureaucratic careers i n the l a t e eighteenth 110 and early nineteenth centuries. The question i s thus raised whether m i l i t a r y careers were more prominent among the administra tive e l i t e of the Empire i n the early reigns of the nineteenth century than i n l a t e r parts of the century. Indeed, when the m i l i t a r y experience of the ministers i s arranged according to the half-century i n which they entered state service, temporal d i s t i n c t i o n s i n career patterns can be seen. Table 11 presents the ministers* m i l i t a r y experience i n t h i s manner. The contrast between eighteenth and nineteenth century career patterns i s s t r i k i n g . I t was c l e a r l y more common f o r a future minister entering state service i n the eighteenth century to serve i n the m i l i t a r y than i t was f o r either his early or late nineteenth century counterpart. By the mid-nineteenth century, entry into state service i n the c i v i l bureaucracy characterized a majority of future ministers. At the same time, however, one must not underestimate the continued importance of the career pattern of simultaneous service among the administrative e l i t e , since f u l l y forty-two per cent of the o f f i c i a l s entering state service even i n the second half of the nineteenth century had combined m i l i t a r y and c i v i l careers. The connections between s o c i a l backgrounds and m i l i t a r y or c i v i l service may also be traced. By r e l a t i n g the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s determined f o r the ministers i n the l a s t 1 1 0 R a e f f , "Russian Autocracy and Its O f f i c i a l s , " p. 82. 80 TABLE 11 DURATION OF MILITARY SERVICE OF THE MINISTERS, ARRANGED BY DATE OF ENTRY INTO STATE SERVICE Period i n which Number of No M i l i t a r v 1-10 vearc, ministers entered ministers, with m i l i t a r y i I 7 x - f u . y e a r s state service known data service career m i l i t a r y 1750-1800 50 20* 60* 20* 1801-1850 78 " 42* 48* 10* 1851-1900 33 58* 42* . . No dates 37 35* 51* 14* 198 38* 50* 12* 81 c h a p t e r — n a t i o n a l and s o c i a l origins and, educational experiences— to t h e i r service careers, additional influences on the choice of a service career may he seen. In the previous chapter, the Committee of Minister's membership was divided into several groups based on various s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Singled out f o r detailed comparative study were the ministers of non-noble b i r t h , the ministers of foreign b i r t h , and the Russian and German ministers. Consider-able differences are apparent among these groups i n t h e i r degree of i n c l i n a t i o n toward m i l i t a r y careers. Service of a combined m i l i t a r y and c i v i l nature was common among ministers of noble, of Russian, and of foreign b i r t h , but f o r ministers of non-noble or German b i r t h s o l e l y c i v i l service was the norm. While only t h i r t y - f i v e per cent of the noble-born ministers had no m i l i t a r y service, seven of the ten non-noble ministers served only i n the c i v i l bureaucracy. While a minority of the Russian ministers, thirty-three per cent, had no m i l i t a r y service, a f i f t y - s i x per cent majority of the German ministers had only c i v i l service. Among the group of ten ministers of foreign b i r t h who immigrated to Russia at the turn of the century, eight entered Russian m i l i t a r y service and made t h e i r l i f e l o n g careers i n that area. One may explore as well the connections between the occupation of a minister's father and the career choice of his son. Approximately t h i r t y per cent of the ministers who were either sons of landowners or of m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r s had no m i l i t a r y service, while f u l l y f i f t y - s i x per cent of the sons 82 of c i v i l servants served only i n the c i v i l bureaucracy. The small groups of p r i e s t s ' sons and educators' sons were divided equally between m i l i t a r y careers and s o l e l y c i v i l ones, while the two physicians* sons and the only merchant's son had no m i l i t a r y service at a l l . Among sons of landowners and m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r s , the practice of j o i n t m i l i t a r y and c i v i l service was common; however, the majority of bureaucrats* sons did not have m i l i t a r y service, but worked i n the bureaucracy l i k e t h e i r fathers before them. Before drawing together a l l of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the incidence of m i l i t a r y and c i v i l careers among members of the Committee of Ministers, one f i n a l topic should be explored; the e f f e c t of the ministers' educa-t i o n a l t r a i n i n g on t h e i r choice of service area. To examine t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between educational experience and career choices, tables 12 and 13 u t i l i z e the methods of c l a s s i f y i n g educational t r a i n i n g employed i n the previous chapter. Table 12 compares the ministers' type of education to t h e i r patterns of c i v i l service or combined m i l i t a r y and c i v i l service. There i s a strong c o r r e l a t i o n between the type of educational t r a i n i n g attained by the ministers and t h e i r choice of service area. Not unexpectedly, attendance at a m i l i t a r y school i n -fluenced a minister's choice of service career tremendously. As shown i n table 1 2 , only f o r the ministers trained i n m i l i t a r y educational i n s t i t u t i o n s was i t most common to have a m i l i t a r y career. Conversely, of those ministers receiving a general 83 TABLE 12 DURATION OF COMPARED THE MINISTERS' MILITARY SERVICE WITH TYPE OF EDUCATION ATTAINED Type of education Number of ministers with known data No m i l i t a r y M i l i t a r y career 0-10 years m i l i t a r y General education 1 1 3 46% 40% 14% M i l i t a r y education 5 0 2% 84% 14% Technical and professional education 22 82% 14% 5% 185 38% 49% 1 3 % 84 e d u c a t i o n , n e a r l y h a l f had no m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e whatsoever . Among the few m i n i s t e r s i d e n t i f i e d as t r a i n e d i n p r o f e s s i o n a l and t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l s , m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e was l e a s t common. Whi l e the p r e d o m i n a n t l y l e g a l i s t i c t r a i n i n g o f t h i s l a t t e r group d i c t a t e d a s o l e l y b u r e a u c r a t i c c a r e e r , m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g d i d o t h e r w i s e . L i k e the type o f e d u c a t i o n r e c e i v e d by a m i n i s t e r , the l e v e l o f f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n he a t t a i n e d a l s o i n f l u e n c e d h i s s e r v i c e c a r e e r . T a b l e 13 c a t e g o r i z e s the m i n i s t e r s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r l e v e l s o f e d u c a t i o n and t h e i r c i v i l o r m i l i t a r y c a r e e r s . Here a g a i n there i s a v e r y s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n between e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e and s e r v i c e c a r e e r . As i n d i c a t e d i n t a b l e 13, the more h i g h l y s c h o o l e d a f u t u r e m i n i s t e r , the more l i k e l y he was to have ao s o l e l y c i v i l s e r v i c e c a r e e r . Both those groups o f m i n i s t e r s who were home t u t o r e d and who a t t e n d e d secondary s c h o o l s most f r e q u e n t l y had m i l i t a r y c a r e e r s . But t h i s p a t t e r n was r e v e r s e d f o r those m i n i s t e r s who had a t t e n d e d h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . Of those f o r whom there i s complete d a t a , f u l l y s i x t y - s e v e n p e r cen t o f the m i n i s t e r s educated i n h i g h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s served o n l y i n the c i v i l b u r e a u c r a c y , w h i l e o n l y f i f t e e n p e r cen t o f the home educated and t e n p e r c e n t o f secondary educated o f f i c i a l s 111 had no m i l i t a r y e x p e r i e n c e . I l l W i t h i n t h i s c a t e g o r y o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , f i f t e e n o f the seventeen m i n i s t e r s who graduated from T s a r s k o e S e l o Lyceum became s o l e l y c i v i l s e r v a n t s . S i m i l a r l y , o f the f o r t y - t w o m i n i s t e r s who had a t t e n d e d u n i v e r s i t i e s , t h i r t y - t w o had s t a t e s e r v i c e c a r e e r s e n t i r e l y i n the c i v i l b u r e a u c r a c y . 85 TABLE 13 DURATION OF THE MINISTERS' MILITARY SERVICE, COMPARED WITH LEVEL OF EDUCATION ACHIEVED Level of education Number of ministers with known data No m i l i t a r y service M i l i t a r y career 0-10 years m i l i t a r y Home education Secondary education Higher education 46 51 88 185 15% 67% 38% 70% 70% 25% 15* 20% 8% 13% 86 The close r e l a t i o n s h i p "between a t o t a l l y c i v i l career i n the state service and higher education would seem, therefore, to be evident i n these careers of the ministers. Indeed, t h i s connection between higher education and c i v i l service serves to l i n k a l l of the i n t r i c a t e relationships among the variously d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s o c i a l groups and t h e i r choice of c i v i l or m i l i t a r y career. Both the German group of ministers and the non-noble group had a demonstrably high l e v e l of formal schooling; both of these groups went i n greatest numbers into the c i v i l bureaucracy rather than into the m i l i t a r y . This career pattern of these two highly educated groups plus the tendency of sons of bureaucrats to enter the c i v i l service, not the m i l i t a r y , indicate that the c i v i l service drew educated talent from a widening s o c i a l base and was becoming a self-perpetuating group. In contrast to these highly schooled, s o c i a l l y diverse groups of future ministers who went more frequently into the c i v i l bureaucracy, the m i l i t a r y drew from a l e s s highly educated group and from the landed Russian n o b i l i t y . That both land-owners' sons and m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r s ' sons most commonly had m i l i t a r y educations and subsequent m i l i t a r y careers attests to the convergence of these t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominant s o c i a l groups upon the m i l i t a r y area of state service. Information on the careers of the members of the Committee of Ministers thus suggests that the c i v i l bureaucracy was becoming the only career f o r large numbers of better trained, upwardly mobile servicemen by the mid-nineteenth century. Yet, table 11 also indicates that the combination of 87 m i l i t a r y with c i v i l service was s t i l l common among future members of the administrative e l i t e . In order to assess the r e l a t i v e frequency of the two career patterns, exclusive service i n the c i v i l bureaucracy and simultaneous service i n the m i l i t a r y and c i v i l areas, on the Committee of Ministers, one must turn to a description of career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Committee during each of the f i v e reigns of i t s existence. Accordingly, table 14 i l l u s t r a t e s the duration of m i l i t a r y experience of the ministers according to the reigns i n which 112 they held positions. Table 14 documents that the positions on the Committee of Ministers were f i l l e d increasingly during the course of the nineteenth century by men who had served s o l e l y i n the c i v i l bureaucracy. While under Alexander I a majority, f i f t y - t h r e e per cent, of the Committee's positions were held by m i l i t a r y c a r e e r i s t s , by the reign of Alexander II the percentages of positions on the Committee held by men with some m i l i t a r y experience and by those with none at a l l were equal. The reign of Nicholas I, much touted by historians f o r his m i l i -t a r i s t i c outlook, indeed was the high point i n the Committee's existence f o r the share of o f f i c e s held by m i l i t a r y c a r e e r i s t s . A f t e r t h i s peatesof m i l i t a r y influence on the Committee, the 112 As with such previous tables, the unit employed i s an individual's holding of a m i n i s t e r i a l post under one tsar. 11? ^Under Nicholas I half of the Committee's positions were f i l l e d by o f f i c i a l s holding the top four m i l i t a r y chiny; i n a l l other reigns of the Committee's existence, t h e i r share only approximated hal f of the posts. 88 TABLE 14 DURATION OF MILITARY EXPERIENCE ON THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS, ARRANGED BY POST AND REIGN Number of Reign i n which positions No m i l i t a r y M i l i t a r y 0 - 1 0 years post was held with known service career m i l i t a r y data Alexander I 77 2 2 * 5 3 * 2 5 * Nicholas I 72 2 6 * 5 7 * 1 7 * Alexander II 88 5 0 * 4 3 * 7 * Alexander III 46 6 5 * 28* 7 * Nicholas II 49 5 9 * 3 9 * 2 * 332 42* 1 2 * 8 9 largest increase in the percentage of posts held by c i v i l i a n ministers occurred under Alexander II. The only reign in which the military's share of positions grew from the preceding reign was that of Nicholas II. Increasingly through the course of the nineteenth century, then, the places on the Committee of Ministers were f i l l e d by o f f i c i a l s whose only area of service had been the c i v i l bureau-cracy. This trend may be seen as reflecting two different processes. On the one hand, as the c i v i l bureaucracy grew in size and increased in the complexity of the tasks i t undertook, i t s need for competent personnel to run the state apparatus grew. Concurrently, the decline in the economic status of landed nobility, hastened by the emancipation, caused them to s e l l their estates and to seek financial and status rewards in the expanding bureaucracy. Thus, mutual needs f a c i l i t a t e d ! this identification of part of the nobility with the bureau-114 cracy. The trend towards professionalization of the Imperial bureaucracy has been noted by Pintner. What is most interesting in comparing his findings for top c i v i l bureaucrats with data for the members of the Committee of Ministers, i s that, while he suggests that by the beginning of the nineteenth century even the topmost levels of the bureaucracy had become a pro-fessional, self-perpetuating group, this pattern does notfebecome 114 Baron S. A. Korf, Dvorianstvo i ego soslovnoe  upravlenie za stoletie 1 7 6 2 - 1 8 5 5 godov (St. Petersburg, I 9 0 6 ) , p. 4 7 4 . 90 the dominant one on the Committee of Ministers until after the 115 age of Alexander II. What seems most notable, then, about the figures documenting the greater numbers of Committee positions held by c i v i l bureaucrats under Alexander III is that the trend towards professionalization among bureaucrats was so long in reaching the administrative e l i t e . Concurrently, one sees that the habit of simultaneous service, which Raeff identifies as an eighteenth and early nineteenth century phenomenon, was s t i l l f a i r l y common on the Committee in the late nineteenth century, and actually underwent a resurgence under Nicholas II (table 14). Pintner generalizes, too, that by mid-nineteenth century the bureaucracy was. comprised of approximately half nobles and half non-nobles, while one quarter of his sample of top level 116 bureaucrats were non-nobles. In contrast, the number of the Committee's positions held by non-nobles was greatest under Alexander III, but even then was only ten per cent (table J), Relative to Pintner's sample of top bureaucrats, the findings on the continued significant numbers of military men are consistent, then, with the earlier conclusions about the widening of the social composition of the Committee which took place during Alexander I l l ' s reign. What is demonstrated here 115 -'Pintner, "Early Nineteenth-Century Russian Bureau-cracy," p. 431. It i s to be remembered that while Pintner's group of top c i v i l o f f i c i a l s includes holders of the top five c i v i l chiny. the Committee members held the top three. l l 6 I b i d . . p. 437, table 9. 91 seems to be the i n t e r r e l a t i o n of several phenomena, a l l operating together, making up one consistent, i n t r i c a t e pattern. As i d e n t i f i e d i n Pintner's study, the picture of a self-perpetuating, professionalized c i v i l service was made up of many components. Among these were movement of the n o b i l i t y from dependence on t h e i r landholdings to dependence upon the c i v i l service f o r both subsistence and status and concurrently movement of l i m i t e d numbers of non-nobles through the ranks of the c i v i l service f a c i l i t a t e d by the achievement of higher education. According to Pintner, a l l these processes were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the top l e v e l of the bureaucracy at the middle of the nineteenth century. A l l of the components of t h i s picture have been i d e n t i f i e d also i n the foregoing descriptions of s o c i a l and career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the members of the Committee of Ministers. But i f Pintner's picture i s an accurate one for the bureaucracy as a whole at the turn of the nineteenth century and f o r the top l e v e l at mid-century, i t i s an inac-curate depiction of the Committee of M i n i s t e r s — u n t i l the advent of Alexander I I I . The only part of Pintner's picture which has been a prominent image i n these descriptions of the Committee of Ministers has been the role that higher education played i n determining administrative advancement. In short, the s o c i a l and economic forces which played t h e i r part i n p r o f e s s i o n a l i z i n g the c i v i l service took longer to a f f e c t changes i n the e l i t e reaches of Imperial service. This has been indicated i n the previous chapter by the t i t l e d , 92 landowning n o b i l i t y ' s continued, persistent hold of the greatest portion of the Committee's positions and i n t h i s chapter by the continued presence of the m i l i t a r y on the Committee i n s i g n i f i c a n t numbers. Yet, the components of p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n f i n a l l y reached even to the Committee of Ministers. As shown with complete consistency i n the tables which have arranged the ministers' s o c i a l and career charac-t e r i s t i c s by the reigns i n which they held positions on the Committee, the reign of Alexander III was the turning point f o r a l l the components of p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n studied. Again with complete consistency, the following reign of Nicholas II saw a reversal of t h i s pattern. That t h i s r e v i v a l of more t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominant groups occurred on the Committee of Ministers under Nicholas II has been connected to the resurgence of the representatives and interests of the landed n o b i l i t y during his reign. In turning now to a f i n a l exploration of the ministers' careers during t h e i r actual periods of service on the Committee of Ministers, one must be on the watch fo r other patterns evident within the Committee's history which might serve to connect i t further to the forces of change at ^ work outside the Committee's door. Service on the Committee The path to the Committee of Ministers f o r an advancing o f f i c i a l was a long one. Since the ministers* average age at entry onto the Committee was fifty-two years, bureaucrats spent over three decades i n state service before a t t a i n i n g e l i t e status on the Committee. Moreover, the road to m i n i s t e r i a l 93 power was almost equally long during a l l the reigns of i t s existence. When the two average ages of entry into state service and onto the Committee are determined f o r each tsar's ministers as a group, and the pre - m i n i s t e r i a l career period determined from these averages, the variations are s l i g h t indeed (see table 15)• Even though age at entry into state service rose throughout the nineteenth century, approximately the same period of time was spent i n state service before reaching the Committee fo r ministers of Alexander I as f o r those of Nicholas I I , t h i r t y - f o u r years and thirty-three years, respectively. Most of the ministers had no career experience other than t h e i r lengthy state service, and few innovations requiring s o c i a l change could be expected to emanate from a group of men who had spent three decades exclusively i n govern-mental work which emphasized order and hierarchy. Conventional bureaucratic solutions to problems of vast complexity might rather be anticipated of the Committee of Ministers, on which 117 gerontocracy was the ru l e . ' • 'It i s notable .that ttwo men who sought far-reaching solutions to governmental problems, Speranskii and Witte, were quite youthful by the Committee's standards when they f i r s t entered the Committee. Speranskii was t h i r t y - e i g h t when he f i r s t sat on the Committee i n 1808$ Witte was forty-three when he entered the Committee i n 1892. Speranskii*s service on the Committee f e l l into two d i s t i n c t periods, 1808 to 1812, when he was abruptly dismissed from power by Alexander I, and I838 to I 8 39 , the year of his death. When Speranskii rejoined the Committee he had completed compilation of a l l the Empire's laws, an important task, but not requiring change on a wide scale, as had his plans f o r governmental reform i n the 1800's. Marc Raeff, Michael Speransky" t Statesman of Imperial Russia  1772-1839 (The Hague. 1957). passim. 9^ TABLE 1 5 AVERAGE AGE AT ENTRY INTO STATE SERVICE AND AT ENTRY ONTO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS ^ I S s t e r ^ f r s ? 1 ^ Average age Average age Average entered the a - t e n ^ r ^ i r r t o a t entry onto p r e - m i n i s t e r i a l Committee state service the Committee career period Alexander I Nicholas I Alexander II Alexander III Nicholas II 16 years 1 7 years 18 years: 21 years 21 years 5 0 years 5 3 years 5 2 years 5 K years 5 K years 3 K years 3 6 years 3 K years 3 3 years 3 3 years 95 Once o f f i c i a l s reached the Committee of Ministers, i t was not uncommon for them to hold more than one m i n i s t e r i a l p o s i t i o n . As mentioned e a r l i e r , a Uo&a&Llofftw^Tintod^essKi mfctoeirvsA Qft^the Committee of Ministers, and among them they held two hundred ninety-three positions. One hundred f i f t y - t h r e e ministers held only one p o s i t i o n on the Committee, forty-four held two, nine held three, two held four, one held f i v e , and two held s i x . A l l of the ministers who held more than three positions joined the Committee under Alexander I or Nicholas I. No one serving a f t e r the 1860*s held more than three m i n i s t e r i a l positions. The greater holding of simultaneous or consecutive positions during the early reigns of the nineteenth century was perhaps a response to the smaller number of educated personnel available to s t a f f high administrative positions. This holding of multiple posts during Nicholas I's reign also confirms the judgement of historians who have noted that once Nicholas chose to t r u s t an o f f i c i a l he was hesitant to lose him, p r e f e r r i n g 11 ft a very small c i r c l e of o f f i c i a l s to perform countless duties. While v e r s a t i l i t y may have been feasi b l e f o r Nicholas' o f f i c i a l s , the greater magnitude and complexity of governmental a f f a i r s 119 a f t e r the 1860*s 7 seems to have c u r t a i l e d the m i n i s t e r i a l practice of holding many high positions either simultaneously or consecutively. 118 Polievktov, N i k o l a i I r B i o g r a f i i a 1 obzor t s a r s t -vovahiia, p. 84. 119 ^Eroshkin, Ocherki i s t o r i i gosudarstvennykh  uchrezhdenii dorevoliutsionnoi R o s s i l , p. 202. 96 The actual positions held on the Committee of Ministers can he related to the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the o f f i c i a l s who held them. Among the groups of ministers whose i d e n t i f y i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were non-noble b i r t h , foreign b i r t h , and German n a t i o n a l i t y , there are s i m i l a r patterns i n the positions commonly held. To explore these differences, two c l a s s i f i -cations of the Committee's positions are u t i l i z e d . The f i r s t i s a d i v i s i o n into security and non-security o f f i c e s , as employed i n the previous section. The second i s a d i v i s i o n into technical and non-technical categories. Positions involving matters of law, state finance, or Applied science are c l a s s i f i e d as t echnical. O f f i c e s dealing with l e g a l a f f a i r s included the minister and assistant minister of J u s t i c e , and heads of Imperial Chancery Section II on C o d i f i c a t i o n , State Council Committee of Law, and the C o d i f i -120 cation Department. Handling the finances of the Empire were state treasurer, state c o n t r o l l e r , minister and assistant minister of Finance, and chairman of the State Council Depart-ment of State Economy. F i n a l l y , o f f i c e s of an applied s c i e n t i f i c nature included ministers of War and Navy, chiefs of the Naval and Army S t a f f s , head and minister of Means of Communication, head of the Naval Ministry, and chairmen of the State Council Departments of M i l i t a r y A f f a i r s and of Industry, Science, and 1 2 0Upon the a b o l i t i o n of Section II i n 1882, the C o d i f i -cation Department was created within the State Council to handle l e g a l matters formerly under Section II's j u r i s d i c t i o n . Amburger, Geschichte der Behordenorganisation Russlands von  Peter dem Grossen bis 1917. P« 82. . 97 Trade. Of the two hundred ninety-three positions held on the Committee of Ministers, one hundred thirty-three are therefore included in the technical category. It can he assumed that these offices a l l required a higher degree of specific know-ledge than the remaining positions represented on the Committee of Ministers. It should be noted that the two classification systems employed—technical and non-technical, security and non-security—are not mutually exclusive, but indeed overlap in some cases. (Offices involving the army and navy are classed both as security and as technical positions. Of the two hundred ninety-three positions held by ministers on the Committee, eighty are placed under the security designation.) The ten ministers of non-noble birth held a total of thirteen positions, none involving security matters. Undoubtedly, this reflects the lack of military service among the non-nobles, only three of whom had military careers. Nine of the thirteen posts were technical, and within this group two non-noble ministers with military careers headed the Department of Means 121 of Communication. A l l of the four non-nobles with legal schooling used their legal expertise in legal positions. Thus, the earlier demonstrated high level of education of the non-nobles was utilized in offices requiring special knowledge. On the average the non-nobles entered state service at twenty-seven years; this a t y p i c a l l y l a t e beginning-fefour of the non-121 Created in 1802 as an independent department con-cerned with transportation and construction of governmental buildings, Means of Communication became a ministry in I865. Ibid., p. 260. 98 noble ministers taught before entering state service-- pushed their average age of f i r s t entry onto the Committee to f i f t y -seven years; however, their in-service career period, was three years less than average. Similarly, the foreign-born ministers also entered state service later than the overall average, at twenty-five years, but this did not retard their progress toward e l i t e status. In fact, their in-service career period was the shortest of any group, only twenty-seven years. Of the ten positions held by the foreigners, eight were technical. In light of the strong military backgrounds of the foreigners—four had military education, eight had served in the military in Europe—it seems curious that only two of their positions on the Committee involved security matters. A fear of foreigners as poor security risks seems not to have kept them from security appointments; indeed, a Frenchman held a security post through-122 out the Russian conflict with Napoleon. Rather, engineering s k i l l s acquired by foreign-born ministers in European military service seems to have led to their holding technical, non-security positions. This pattern is most evident in the fact that four of the f i r s t six heads of the Department of Means of Communication were from either France of the German states. The foreign ministers then represented a continuation of the Petrine tradition of importing technical expertise from Western Europe. 122 Marquis I. I. Traversay was Minister of Navy from 1811 to 1828. A former French fleet captain, he immigrated to Russia in 1791 during the French Revolution. 99 Like the non-nobles and the foreigners on the Committee, the Germans occupied mostly technical posts. F i f t y - f i v e per cent of the positions held by German ministers required technical knowledge, and only ten per cent involved security matters. The types of o f f i c e s held by the Germans therefore r e f l e c t e d both t h e i r high l e v e l of educational attainment and t h e i r o v e r a l l lack of m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g . In comparison with the Germans, one t h i r d of the positions held by the Russian ministers were security positions, and only f o r t y per cent are c l a s s i f i e d as t e chnical. Put another way, the biographical information on the ministers reveals that of the eighty security positions held on the Committee of Ministers, eighty per cent were f i l l e d by Russians. As with the other groups, education and extent of m i l i t a r y background determined the placement of Russian and German o f f i c i a l s . With predominantly m i l i t a r y backgrounds, the Russians held the security positions, while the Germans held technical o f f i c e s . Both the higher l e v e l of education of the Germans and t h e i r exclusively c i v i l careers led to technical positions, i n d i c a t i n g a greater degree of p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n i n t h e i r careers. The specialized nature of the Germans' duties i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the f a c t that seven of the f i f t e e n ministers of Finance were Germans On the average, the German ministers entered Imperial service at age twenty-one and began service on the Committee at age forty-nine. Their in-service career period, twenty-eight years, was f i v e years shorter than the o v e r a l l average. I t can be postulated that both the higher l e v e l of education and i n 100 turn the greater degree of p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n among the German group hastened t h e i r advance to e l i t e status and member-ship on the Committee of Ministers. (Averages found f o r the Russian group were no d i f f e r e n t than those f o r a l l ministers on age of entry into state service and entry onto the Committee of Ministers.) Higher education was seen by the government as a desirable q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r top bureaucratic positions, and i n the ease of the non-noble, foreign, and German ministers, higher education not only aided t h e i r climb to m i n i s t e r i a l status but seems to have accelerated the process as well. The o v e r a l l average f o r duration of service on the Committee of Ministers was six years. The type of p o s i t i o n and the period during which i t was held, however, both affected the length of time ministers remained i n t h e i r positions. While ministers with non-security duties held o f f i c e f o r s i x years, matching the o v e r a l l average, those holding security posts were in o f f i c e for f i v e years. S i m i l a r l y , the non-technical average was i d e n t i c a l to the o v e r a l l average, but holders of technical positions retained t h e i r Committee places f o r seven years. These variati o n s are s l i g h t , but the tendency of f a s t e r rotation among security office-holders points toward greater p o l i t i c a l pressures brought to bear on security o f f i c e s . Conversely, with t h e i r more complex s k i l l s , and t h e i r emphasis on administrative rather than p o l i t i c a l matters, heads of tech-n i c a l agencies were l e f t to t h e i r s p e c i a l i t i e s s l i g h t l y longer than average. The average tenure of ministers during each of the f i v e 101 reigns indicates the r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y or i n s t a b i l i t y of the Committee's membership during the nineteenth century. According-l y , the average number of years spent i n a m i n i s t e r i a l p o s i t i o n was established f o r the Committee's membership during the following reigns i Alexander I, f i v e years? Nicholas I, nine years; Alexander I I , six years; Alexander I I I , six years; Nicholas II;, four years. J The s a l i e n t feature of these tenure s t a t i s t i c s i s t h e i r confirmation of a pattern already manifested, Nicholas I's preference f o r a small coterie of trusted o f f i c i a l s . The brevity of Committee membership under Nicholas II compared to membership under Alexander III i s also notable. Comparison between these two averages can be made with few reservations because the reigns of these sovereigns were roughly equal, and both came at the close of the nineteenth century. The end of the Committee of Ministers i n the middle of Nicholas II's reign does not even prejudice the s t a t i s t i c s because, to c i t e to a l a t e r f i n d i n g , the turnover i n m i n i s t e r i a l o f f i c e s was so great i n 1905 that only two ministers retained t h e i r o f f i c e s . 1 9k a f t e r 1906. * This f i r s t i n d i c a t i o n of i n s t a b i l i t y of the Committee's membership under Nicholas II must be supported from other evidence before causes f o r t h i s apparent i n s t a b i l i t y -^Ministerial terms of o f f i c e which extended through more than one reign were s p l i t , so that the years served under one tsar were included i n the average of one reign, and years served under the following tsar were included i n that reign. An exception to t h i s rule i s that ministers who carried over from a previous reign were not included i n the second reign i f they l e f t o f f i c e within one year of the new emperor's ascension. 1 2 i*Uexkull-Guldenbandt kept the Office of state secretary u n t i l 1909, and Baron V. B. Frederiks served as Minister of Imperial Court u n t i l the end of Romanov rule i n 191?. 102 can be ventured. While tenure averages are concrete data, ministers* reasons f o r leaving t h e i r Committee positions are more d i f f i c u l t to measure consistently. With the obvious exception of a minister's demise, reasons f o r the vacation of a high l e v e l post were i r r e g u l a r l y reported i n available sources. Con-sequently, rather than seeking causes f o r termination of positions, t h i s study considers the kind of a c t i v i t y under-taken by a minister upon leaving a Committee p o s i t i o n . Table 16 presents t h i s information f o r the ministers serving on the Committee under each of the f i v e t s a r s . Undoubtedly due to the ministers' advanced ages, death was the most frequent conclusion to t h e i r careers. Twenty-four per cent of a l l members of the Committee died i n o f f i c e . The f a c t that almost half of Nicholas I's ministers died i n o f f i c e i s a staother.indication of s t a b i l i t y of the Committee's membership during his reign. Table 16 further i l l u s t r a t e s that the holding of multiple Committee positions was more ch a r a c t e r i s t i c of the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century than the last,as indicated by the greater portions of both conse-cutive and simultaneous positions held under Alexander I and Nicholas I. A few m i n i s t e r i a l careers were interrupted during periods of war with the French under Alexander I, with the Turks 125 under Alexander I I , and with the Japanese under Nicholas I I . ^ 125 -'It i s d i f f i c u l t to speculate on reasons f o r the other major Russian c o n f l i c t ' s f a i l u r e to interrupt any m i n i s t e r i a l careers. No ministers l e f t the Committee fo r active m i l i t a r y duty during the Crimean War. TABLE 16 MINISTERIAL ACTIVITY AFTER POSITION, ARRANGED BY REIGN IN WHICH POSITION ENDED A c t i v i t y a f t e r p o s i t i o n ended Reigns in which positions ended Alexan-der I Nicholas I Alexan-der II Alexan-der III Nicholas II Total Death i n d f f i c e 14 22 17 5 14 72 Consecutive Committee po s i t i o n 11 5 12 8 4 40 Retention of a Committee p o s i t i o n 5 2 2 • • • • 9 Active m i l i t a r y command 3 • • 1 • • 2 6 State Council membership3. 2 3 15 2 7 29 Administrative changes 1 3 • • t • 2 • • 9 11 Assumption of emperorship • • • 0 1 1 1 3 Non-Committee governmental p o s i t i o n 12 2 18 8 7 47 Temporary retirement 4 • • • • • • 4 F i n a l retirement 11 13 • 16 7 10 57 Unknown 1 3 5 4 2 15 63 50 89 35 56 293 a A l l ministers held e x - o f f i c i o membership on the State Council, i n contrast to active membership which i s indicated here as a post-ministerial a c t i v i t y . Administrative changes include a l t e r a t i o n i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the post held and termination of the Committee. 104 The practice of sending ex-ministers to serve i n the State Council, inaugurated hy Alexander I, was most common under Alexander II who habitually appointed former ministers as l i f e t i m e members of the State Council, upon dismissing them 126 from o f f i c e . Temporary retirements from state service occurred only during the f i r s t decade of the Committee's existence, when four ministers l e f t o f f i c e because of Alexan-der's a l l i a n c e with Napoleon. A l l four returned to active service, however, during the war i n 1812, remained i n service a f t e r the war's conclusion, and l a t e r served on the Committee of Ministers again. From some of the a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n table 16, one can safely draw some conclusions about the causes of the ministers' termination of o f f i c e . On one hand, death, administrative changes, and service i n another m i n i s t e r i a l post or as tsar or i n active m i l i t a r y command connote no demotion i n p o l i t i c a l status. On the other hand, the categories of service i n the State Council, service i n a non-ministerial p o s i t i o n , and temporary retirement indicate a l o s s i n status. The category of f i n a l retirement does not indicate dismissal, since i t was purposely designed to include those ministers about whom sources d i f f e r e d . Thus, the category cloaks those who were actu a l l y dismissed from o f f i c e as well as those who chose to Zaionchkovskii, Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie v kontze  XIX s t o l e t i e . p. 99. 105 d e p a r t . 1 2 7 Two categoriesr— State Council membership and holding of a non-ministerial post—may be used as indicators of pos-s i b l e dismissal from the Committee of Ministers. The number of positions f a l l i n g i n these two categories during each reign reveals p a r a l l e l s to some of the findings i n the examination of tenure i n o f f i c e . I f these possible dismissals are used as an index of i n s t a b i l i t y of the Committee's membership, Nicholas I's Committee i s shown again to be the most stable i n membership, and H Alexander II's to have been the l e a s t stable. While the Committee as constituted under the other three tsars did not d i f f e r greatly from the o v e r a l l rate of twenty-six per cent possible dismissal, only eleven per cent of Nicholas I's ministers as compared to f u l l y f o r t y per cent of Alexander II's ministers appear to have suffered dismissal from Committee 128 positions. While the picture of Nicholas I's Committee i s i d e n t i c a l l y drawn by tenure and dismissal indices, the i n s t a b i l i t y of e i t h e r Alexander II's or Nicholas II's Committees must be 127 "Relieved of o f f i c e at his own request" was the phraseology common i n Russkoe b i o g r a f i c h e s k i i slovar'. I t i s impossible i n most cases to get behind t h i s obvious facade of o f f i c i a l protocol. 128 Of course, some ministers were dismissed from a high-l e v e l p o sition and appointed to a le s s e r o f f i c e , only to regain admission to the Committee at a l a t e r date. Such was the case of Minister of Internal A f f a i r s P. A. Valuev, who, upon dismissal from that p o s i t i o n i n 1868, worked i n the Sitate Council. Regaining membership on the Committee of Ministers i n 1872, Valuev was appointed to head the Ministry of State Lands. He became chairman of the Committee of Ministers i n 1881 and retained that post f o r two years. P. A. Valuev, Dnevnik P. A.  Valueva, ministra vnutrennikh d e l , ed. by P. A. Zaionchkovskii (2 vols.} Moscow, 1961), I, pp. 30-49. 106 investigated further, since the two indices are at variance over these reigns. While the dismissal index i s tenuous,\ turnover s t a t i s t i c s documenting rates of appointments to the Committee, l i k e the tenure figures, are based on concrete data. .Turnover s t a t i s t i c s are more useful than tenure figures, however, because they can be grouped according to single years, clusters of years, or decades, and thus they afford a more detailed view of h i s t o r i c a l events. A high rate of turnover among governmental e l i t e s i s generally associated with assumption of a new leader, a dr a s t i c change i n administrative p o l i c y , or governmental problems of c r i s i s proportions. Turnover s t a t i s t i c s f o r the Committee's e l i t e membership, when calculated by decades, r e f l e c t the i n -creased rate of governmental c r i s i s following the Great Reforms. While the only decade of high turnover of Committee personnel before the Emancipation Edict was i n the 1810's, i n the post-reform period the decades of high turnover came more frequently. The 1860's, 1880's, and the half decade from 1900 to 1905 each had more than double the average rate of turnover of the Committee's membership. Conversely, the decades of l e a s t turnover occurred from 1820 to 1849. The turnover index under-l i n e s again the quiescence of Nicholas I's Committee. When the turnover index i s based on p a r t i c u l a r years, the periods of highest turnover among the Committee's members 10? 129 f a l l in approximately three-year clusters. These three-year clusters, like the decades, occurred once during Alexander I's reign and then again with increasing frequency after the eman-cipation of the serfs. More specifically, the following years had at least double the average rate of turnover among the Committee's membership: 1810 to 1812, 1861 to 1863, 1879 to 1881, 1882 to 1884, 1893 to 1895, and 1902 to 1905. The connections of the f i r s t two clusters to historical events seem definite, the f i r s t to the conflict with France and the second to the Emancipation Edict. The connecting clusters, I879 to 1881 and 1882 to 1884, saw the struggle of autocracy with a revolutionary movement, the assassination of Alexander II and ascension of Alexander III in 1881, and the institution of 130 counter-reforms. J The period of 1893 to 1895 witnessed the premature death of Alexander III and assumption of his son, Nicholas II. Finally, the high turnover among the Committee's membership from 1902 to 1905 i s obviously connected to the war with Japan and the subsequent revolution. The relative s t a b i l i t y or instability of the Committee of Ministers' elite membership therefore reflect periods of 129 7Armstrong found six three-year clusters of high turnover among Imperial provincial governors, but in only one cluster of years was there a corresponding high rate of turnover among the Committee's personnel, the period immediately follow-ing the Emancipation Edict, 1861 to I 8 6 3 . Armstrong, "Tsarist and Soviet E l i t e Administrators," p. 20. 130 J The overlapping of these two stressful periods on the Committee of Ministers lends support to Zaionchkovskii's view that the period from 1881 to 1882 was a continuation of the c r i s i s of autocracy. Zaionchkovskii, Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie, p. 429. 108 c r i s i s within the Russian Empire; and. periods of rapid minis-t e r i a l turnover indicate a major difference between Russia before and a f t e r the Emancipation E d i c t . As indicated by the rate of turnover of the Committee's membership, there was only one extremely s t r e s s f u l period before the Reform Age. During the f i r s t reign of the Committee's existence, the danger to the Empire came from without, from a foreign enemy, Napoleon and the French. In contrast, the greater number of periods of stress i n post-Emancipation Russia may be seen as indications of i n t e r n a l pressures rather than external dangers. Reshuffling of o f f i c i a l s at the top, among the Committee of Ministers' members, seems to have been an administrative attempt to deal with the complex s o c i a l forces unleashed by the Emancipation. Es p e c i a l l y under Nicholas I I , with i t s resurgence of Committee members from the t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominant m i l i t a r y and higher landed n o b i l i t y , bureaucratic, b a s i c a l l y conservative responses to the r i s i n g l e v e l of c r i s i s i n the Empire were expectable. The inappropriateness of bureaucratic solutions to Russia's problems seems indicated by the f i n a l period of stress during the Committee of Ministers' existence,'which culminated i n the reorganization of the Committee i t s e l f and f i n a l l y the a b o l i t i o n of the i n s t i t u t i o n altogether. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION Throughout i t s century-long existence the Committee of Ministers was dominated by representatives of the leading s o c i a l group within the Russian Empire. Always comprising a majority on the Committee were Russian ministers of noble b i r t h . While t h i s configuration of i d e n t i f y i n g t r a i t s remained common i n the Committee's membership throughout the nineteenth century, two processes were at work during the same period which moderated i t s t r a d i t i o n a l dominance. F i r s t , t h e economic decline of the landed Russian n o b i l i t y was associated with i t s loss of the r i g h t to own s e r f s . From the Emancipation onward, theixnobility sold t h e i r estates with increased frequency. As the nobles gave up t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l reliance on the hereditary agrarian patrimony, the prop to t h e i r ascendant s o c i a l and economic status, they moved into the welcoming arms of the Russian state bureaucracy, which pro-vided a new basis f o r t h e i r support and status. S t r i v i n g f o r successful service careers and attainment of high chiny. the n o b i l i t y i d e n t i f i e d with the bureaucracy and i t s needs; i n -creasing numbers of nobles assumed c i v i l rather than m i l i t a r y positions; and likewise increasing numbers of noble ministers were of non-landowning f a m i l i e s . This i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the 109 110 n o b i l i t y with the bureaucracy altered the early nineteenth century p o s i t i o n of the n o b i l i t y as an agrarian e l i t e . Second, within the bureaucracy i t s e l f , the greater or-ganizational complexity and scope of tasks undertaken necessi-tated a reorientation of certain administrative practices. The government began sel e c t i n g personnel to promote i t s own interests i n e f f i c i e n c y rather than to maintain the t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominant gentry. To meet i t s own organizational needs, the state service sought personnel on the basis of c a p a b i l i t i e s acquired rather than i d e n t i t i e s inherited. Thus the o v e r a l l l e v e l of education increased among the state's topmost personnel. At the same time the bureaucracy's equation of higher education with superior administrative c a p a b i l i t y allowed members of the Imperial population not commonly found within e l i t e c i r c l e s to use education as a route to high state rank. The easiest access to m i n i s t e r i a l o f f i c e f o r a non-noble was i n govern-mental areas requiring technical knowledge, areas i n which the bureaucracy most needed expertise and e f f i c i e n c y . Together these two in t e r r e l a t e d processes constituted a trend towards p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n . This trend has been found i n the bureaucracy as a whole by the mid-nineteenth century, but the whole set of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t y p i f y i n g i t did not appear within the governmental e l i t e , as represented by members of the Committee of Ministers, u n t i l the reign of Alexander I I I . While some features of pr o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n are dis c e r n i b l e e a r l i e r , many of i t s components were s t i l l germinating. The second aspect of t h i s general trend towards pro-I l l f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n was p a r t i c u l a r l y vulnerable. The importance of educational attainment had begun to minimize the role of t r a d i t i o n a l l y decisive s o c i a l o r i g i n s . Of course education could never e n t i r e l y supplant those t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l o r i g i n s , f o r they determined i n practice who attained higher education. Ministers of noble o r i g i n therefore remained i n the vast majority, although that majority declined under Alexander III and although the noble ministers* career patterns showed fewer agrarian and m i l i t a r y features. Alexander I l l ' s r e i g n — i n s o f a r as i t d i v e r s i f i e d the s o c i a l o r i g i n s of ministers and v i t i a t e d t h e i r l i n k s to the t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominant c l a s s — i n d e e d proved to be the peak of the trend of p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n % because Nicholas II $ww®& sympathetic to demands f o r former protection and p r i v i l i g e s by the t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominant m i l i t a r y and landed n o b i l i t y . These constantly i n t e r a c t i n g trends, the t r a d i t i o n a l and the professional, can also be viewed i n a p a i r of composite p o r t r a i t s of ministers drawn i n terms of t h e i r s o c i a l andfcareer c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The prototypical member of the Committee of Ministers i n the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century was a Russian from the landed n o b i l i t y who served i n both the c i v i l and m i l i t a r y areas of government and who held more than one e l i t e p o s i t i o n within the r e l a t i v e l y unprofessionalized bureaucratic apparatus. These types of s o c i a l and career t r a i t s were overwhelmingly ascendant on the Committee during the age of Nicholas I. As the century progressed, however, another prototype, with an e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t career pattern, 1 1 2 "became v i s i b l e . This minister was indeed a bureaucrat, with his c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s defined by the needs of the c i v i l service. He acquired a high l e v e l of education and professional s k i l l s , and those q u a l i f i c a t i o n s enabled him to r i s e through the c i v i l ranks regardless of inherited n a t i o n a l i t y or s o c i a l o r i g i n s . This prototype had more numerous manifestations as the nineteenth century wore on, as the government increased i n size and complexity. On the whole, the s o c i a l o r i g i n s and educational experiences of the ministers served to channel t h e i r careers close to one prototype or the other. Bureaucrats of German and non-noble b i r t h attained a high l e v e l of education, standing them i n good stead i n the c i v i l service, which they entered f a r more frequently than m i l i t a r y service. As a consequence both of t h e i r higher education and t h e i r lack of m i l i t a r y service, the Germans and non-nobles on the Committee were drawn to o f f i c e s requiring technical proficiency. In somewhat the same way, the foreign born ministers* high education and technical t r a i n i n g directed t h e i r careers toward technical positions, toward the area of government most ready to seek professional c a p a b i l i t i e s as a substitute f o r inherited e l i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In contrast to these three groups, the Russian ministers tended to have l e s s higher education and more m i l i t a r y service; they consequently predominated i n security positions on the Committee of Ministers. The two prototypes, one prominent i n the early nineteenth century and the other nascent i n the l a t e r part of the century, 113 can be brought into graphic r e l i e f by presenting concrete embodiments of them. The lives and careers of two influential ministers are described below, with emphasis on their proto-typical characteristics. Aleksandr Nikolaevich Golitsyn served on the Committee of Ministers continuously from 1810 to 18k2. From a Russian family whose noble ancestry pre-dated the age of Peter the Great, Golitsyn inherited the t i t l e of prince. The son of a landowner and a guards' captain, Golitsyn was born in 1773 during the reign of Catherine II. He was sent to be educated at the Imperial Corps of Pages after having f i r s t received private tutoring at home; and at Catherine's court he became a friend of the young grand duke, Alexander Pavlovich. At age nineteen he entered state service in an elit e guards' corps, a typical practice of the nobility at the time, and thereby avoided service in the ranks. Also like many other serving nobles of his age, Golitsyn retired from the military in 1799, during the brief, aberrant reign of Paul I, but he re-entered service in 1801 immediately after the ascension of his friend who had become Alexander I. Golitsyn did not, however, return to the military, but rather switched to the c i v i l service. Many of the f i r s t appointments made by Alexander I were men younger than the average holder of elite office, and Golitsyn was no exception. He entered the Committee of Ministers in 1810 upon appointment to head the newly created Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Confessions. In 1816 he also became Minister of Education, holding the two offices simul-114 taneously until their administration was merged in the following year. Thereafter he supervised "both religious and educational affairs as Minister of Education and. Spiritual Affairs. Additionally, in 1819 he became head of the Postal Department. Thus from 1819 to 1824 Golitsyn was again a member of the Committee in two capacities. Although he seems to have resigned from the Ministry of Education in 1824 under pressure,, he s t i l l retained the postal position, even into the following reign. Golitsyn f i n a l l y retired from state service in 1842 at the age 131 of sixty-nine. He died two years later. J Golitsyn.'s early years and o f f i c i a l career display most of the traits which define the prototypical early nine-teenth century minister. His distinguished social origins were those of the dominant social group at the turn of the nineteenth century, and the pattern of his career was not professional—he switched service areas, held several e l i t e positions both simultaneously and consecutively, and administered unrelated governmental areas. His especially long tenure in the postal department emphasizes the st a b i l i t y that was a consistent feature of Nicholas I's Committee. The patterns illustrated in Golitsyn's prototypical career remained strong on the Committee of Ministers throughout the nineteenth century, but a r i v a l prototype, more suitable to '^"''Alexander Kornilov, Modern Russian History from the  Age of Catherine the Great to the End of the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1970), p. 188.$ Andreevskii, Entsiklopedicheskii  slovar'. XVII, pp. 5 0 - 5 1 . 115 the needs of the growing bureaucracy, was emerging. And no one more s t r i k i n g l y exhibited t h i s new pattern than Sergei I u l i e v i c h Witte. In contrast to Golitsyn's ancient noble lineage, Witte came from a family ennobled i n the nineteenth century; i t s membership i n noble ranks was therefore due to state service rather than ancestral prominence. A German native of the Russian Empire, Witte*s father was raised i n the B a l t i c provinces, educated at Dorpat University j and served i n the Imperial admi-n i s t r a t i o n i n the Caucausus. Born there i n 1849, Witte attended u n i v e r s i t y i n Odessa and specialized i n mathematics. Upon graduation at the age of twenty-two, he entered state service i n the c i v i l bureaucracy. Focusing i n his early career years on r a i l r o a d management, W.itte acquired technical t r a i n i n g i n bureaucratic areas where professionalism was c r u c i a l . Witte became a member of the Committee of Ministers under Alexander III at the age of forty-three a f t e r twenty-one years i n Imperial service. The f i r s t p o s i t i o n which e n t i t l e d him to membership on the Committee was Minister of Means of Communication, a post he only held f o r six months because of his subsequent appointment as Minister of Finance. A f t e r Nicholas II came to the throne i n 1894, he retained Witte as finance minister u n t i l 1903, at which time he "promoted" Witte to Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, a p o s i t i o n nominally higher but i n f e r i o r i n terms of actual executive power. In that capacity, Witte presided over the demise of the Committee of Ministers i n 1905, having conceived the plan f o r i t s successor, the Council of Ministers. He b r i e f l y chaired that new admi-116 n i s t r a t i v e body u n t i l he was made a count and dismissed by Nicholas. His professionalism and zeal f o r modernization out of step with the times, he l e f t state service i n 190?, l i v i n g on i n b i t t e r retirement u n t i l 1916.* 3 2 The features of Witte's biography s a l i e n t f o r t h i s study include his German n a t i o n a l i t y — a l w a y s well represented on the Committee of M i n i s t e r s — h i s s o c i a l o r i g i n s i n the service n o b i l i t y , and his univ e r s i t y education. E s p e c i a l l y i n compari-son to Golitsyn, whose career involved a hodgepodge of educa-t i o n a l , r e l i g i o u s and postal a f f a i r s , Witte had a professionalized service record, with his education and early career experiences leading d i r e c t l y into related f i e l d s of technical expertise. Not only did Witte's career exemplify the trend of professionalism i n the Russian bureaucracy, Witte himself a c t i v e l y sought to increase professionalism and modernism i n the government and the Russian state, even at the expense of superannuated groups and i n t e r e s t s . Yet, p r e c i s e l y those forces which Witte fought, the landed n o b i l i t y and t h e i r agrarian i n t e r e s t s , regained p o l i t i c a l vigor under Nicholas II and triumphed over Witte and the pattern represented by him on the Committee of Ministers. The n o b i l i t y ' s v i c t o r y proved to be, however, short and dearly bought. * Witte, The Memoirs of Count Witte. -passim; Von Laue, Sergei Witte and the I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of Russia, passim. POSTSCRIPT It should be noted that t h i s study has used prosopography mainly for one of i t s two chief uses, to describe a govern-mental e l i t e and to trace s o c i a l mobility within i t . There i s another use of prosopography which has not been elaborated herein, although i t s existence has been assumed throughout the work. Prosopography may be used as a tool to uncover the roots of p o l i t i c a l action, to relate ideas and actions of p a r t i c u l a r individuals to t h e i r d i f f e r i n g backgrounds. In t h i s work, the ministers* various s o c i a l and career c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been related to each other; but ideas espoused or actions taken on the Committee of Ministers have been but barely touched upon. In order to investigate the existence of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l o r i g i n s and ideas, one could use the present study as groundwork fo r a new one, which could explore the p o l i t i c a l opinions of the ministers and t h e i r actions on the Committee of Ministers. Preserved i n the Committee's o f f i c i a l h istory, many of the ministers' ideas and actions are r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i The b e l i e f may be; ventured, however, that few correlations between m i n i s t e r i a l backgrounds and ideas can be found which are as neat as those traceable through Witte*s l i f e . 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY I. History and Structure of the Committee of Ministers and the Russian Government The o f f i c i a l history of the Committee of Ministers, S. M. Seredonin, ed., Istoricheskii obzor deiatel'nosti komiteta  ministrov 1802-1902 (6 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1 9 0 2 ) , provides a useful l i s t of members in each reign, but i t s general focus is on the development and use of the Committee's institutional powers. M. V. Dovnar-Zapol'skii. Zarozhdenie ministerstv v  Rossii (Moscow, 1 9 0 5 ) , is a c r i t i c a l description of the estab-lishment of, ministries;- in Russia and also of the founding of the Committee. A monumental work on the history of the Russian bureaucracy is Erik Amburger, Geschichte der BehQrdenorganisation Russlands  von "Peter dem Grossen bis 1917. Vol. X of Studien zur Geschichte  Osteuropas, ed. by W. Philipp and P. Scheibert (Leiden, I 9 6 6 ) . It again is most useful for i t s l i s t of bureaucratic personnel. A recent Soviet study, Nikolai Petrovich Eroshkin, Ocherki  i s t o r i i gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii (2nd ed.; Moscow, I 9 6 8 ) , is a carefully detailed history of the Imperial governmental structure. The following are standard surveys of the institutions of prerevolutionary Russian government, a l l of a l e g a l i s t i c characters 118 1 1 9 Gradovskii, A. D. Nachala russkago gosudarstvennago prava. Vol. V l l l c f Sobranie sochinenii. St. Petersburg, 1 9 0 ? . Iushkov, S. V. Istoriia gosudarstva i prava S.S.S.R. Part 1. Moscow, 1 9 5 0 . Korkunov, N. M. Russkoe gosudarstvennoe pravo. 2 vols. 6th ed. St. Petersburg, I909. Kovalevsky, Maxime. Russian P o l i t i c a l Institutionst The Growth and Development from the Beginnings of Russian  History to the Present Time. Chicago, 1 9 0 2 . Nol'de, Baron B. E. Ocherki russkago gosudarstvennago prava. St. Petersburg, 1 9 1 1 . Sliozberg, G. V. Dorevoliutsionnyi stroi Rossii. Paris, 1 9 3 3 . Szeftel, Marc. "The Form of Government of the Russian Empire prior to the Constitutional Reforms of I905-6." Essays in Russian and Soviet History. Edited by John Shelton Curtiss. New York, I963. Vernadskii, George V. Ocherk i s t o r i i prava russkago gosudarstva  XVIII-XIX W. (period imperil). Prague, 1924. Also consulted were these o f f i c i a l histories of Imperial ministries: Ogorodnikov, S. T. Istoricheskii obzor r a z v i t i i a i deiatel'nosti  morskogo ministerstva za sto l e t ego syshchestvovaniia (1802 -1902 gg.). St. Petersburg, 1 9 0 2 . Rozhdestvenskii, S. V. Istoricheskii obzor deiatel'nosti  ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia, 1802-1902. St. Petersburg, 1 9 0 2 . II. Biographical Information on the Ministers Chief sources for biographical data on the ministers were two encyclopedic works of the late Imperial period, A. A. Polovtsov, ed., Russkii biograficheskii slovar' ( 2 5 vol.; St." Petersburg, I 8 9 6 - I 9 I 8 ) , and I. E. Andreevskii, ed. , . Entsiklopedicheskii slovar' (82 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1 8 9 0 - 1 9 0 4 ) . Of the two, the f i r s t gives more extensive coverage of the 120 ministers' lives, but i t is deficient for members of the Committee during Nicholas II's reign. Biographical information was also gathered from these memoirs and biographies: Byrnes, Robert F. Pobedonostseyt His Life and Thought. Bloomington, Indiana, 19o8. Giers, N. K. The Education of a Russian Statesman: The Memoirs  of Nicholas Karlovich Giers. Edited by.Charles and Barbara Jelavich. Berkeley, California, I962. Gurko, V. I. Features and Figures of the Past: Government and  Opinion in the Reign of Nicholas IP. Translated by Laura Matveev. Stanford, California, 1939. Jenkins, Michael. Arakcheevs Grand Vizier of the Russian  Empire. London, I969. Kokovtsov, Vladimir Nikolaevich. Out of My Past: The Memoirs  of Count Kokovtsov. Edited by H. H. Fisher. Translated by Laura Matveev. Stanford, California, 1935. Lamsdorf, V. N. Dnevnik 1891-1892. Edited by F. A. Rotshtein. Moscow, 1934. ^ Miller, Forrestt A. Dmitri! Miliutin and the Reform Era in  Russia. Nashville, Tennessee, 1968. Raeff, Marc. Michael Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia  1772-1839. The. Hague, 1957. Valuev, P. A. Dnevnik P. A. Valueva, ministra vnutrennikh del. Edited by P. A. Zaionchkovskii. 2 vols. Moscow, I 9 6 I . Witte, Sergei Iu. The Memoirs of Count Witte. Translated and edited by Abraham Yarmolinsky. Garden City, New York, 1921. III. Prosopography'in Application and Theory The recent works of scholarship using the prosopographical A method which are discussed in the text are: Walter M. Pintner, "The Social Characteristics of the Early NineteenthrCentury Russian Bureaucracy," Slavic Review, XXIX, 3 (September, 1 9 7 0 ) , . pp. 429-443; Don Karl Rowney, "Higher C i v i l Servants in the 121 Russian Ministry of Internal A f f a i r s : Some Demographic and Career C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , 1905-1916," Slavic Review. XXXI, 1 (March, 1972), pp. 101-110; John A. Armstrong, " T s a r i s t and Soviet E l i t e Administrators," Slavic Review, XXXI, 1 (March, 1972), pp. 1-28. Another "article hy Rowney related to his above work i s Don Karl Rowney, "The Study of the Imperial Ministry of Internal A f f a i r s i n the Light of Organization Theory," i n The  Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies, ed. Roger E. Kanet (New York, 1971), pp. 209-231. N . • Discussions of the method of prosopography can be found in the following: . . Furet, Francois. "Quantitative History." Daedalus, C, 1 (Winter, 1971), I 5 I - I 6 7 . Rowney, Don Karl and James Q. Graham, J r . , eds. Quantitative History: Selected Readings i n the Quantitative Analysis  of H i s t o r i c a l Data. Homewood, I l l i n o i s , I 969 . Stone, Lawrence, "Prosopography." Daedalus, C, 1 (Winter, I 9 7 I ) , 46-79. Thernstrom, Stephen. "Notes on the H i s t o r i c a l Study of S o c i a l Mobility." Comparative Studies i n Society and History, x (1968), 162-172. IV. H i s t o r i c a l Background Aleksandrov, M. Gosudarstvo. b i u r o k r a t i i a , i absolutizm v  i s t o r i i R o s s i i . Moscow, 1 9 2 5 « Blum, Jerome. Lord and Peasant i n Russia from the Ninth to the  Nineteenth Century. New York, 1964. C u r t i s s , John Shelton. The Russian Army under Nicholas I.  1826-1855. Durham, North Carolina, 1965. Flynn, James T. "The U n i v e r s i t i e s , the Gentry, and the Russian Imperial Services, 1815-1825." Canadian Slavic Studies. II, 4 (Winter, 1 9 6 8 ) , 486 - 5 0 3 . Hans, Nicholas. History of Russian Educational P o l i c y  (1701-1917TJ New York, 1964. 1 2 2 ' . Johnson, William H. E. Russia's Educational Heritage. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1950. Korf, Baron Sergei A. Autocracy and Revolution i n Russia. New York, I 9 2 3 . . Dvorianstvo i ego soslovnoe upravlenie za s t o l e t i e 1762-1855 godov. St. Petersburg, I9O6. Kornilov, Alexander. Modern Russian History from the Age of Catherine the Great to the End of the Nineteenth Century. Translated by Alexander S. Kaun. New York, 1 9 5 2 . Kucherov, Samuel. Courts. Lawyers, and T r i a l s under the Last Three Tsars. New York, 1 9 5 3 . ! Leroy-Beaulieu, Anatole. The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians. 3 v o l s . Translated by Zenaide A. Ragozin. New York, 1894. Monas, Sydney. "Bureaucracy i n Russia under Nicholas I." The Structure of Russian History; Interpretive Essays. Edited by Michael Cherniavsky. New York, 1 9 7 0 . . The Third Section; Police and Society under Nicholas I. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1961. Mosse, W. E. Alexander II and the Modernization of Russia. London, 1 9 5 8 . Pipes, Richard. The Formation of the Soviet Union; Communism  and Nationalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964. ' , ed. Karamzin's Memoir on Ancient and Modem Russia; A Translation and Analysis. New York, 1966. Polievktov, Mikhail Aleksandrovich. N i k o l a i It B i o g r a f i i a i  obzor tsarstvovaniia. Moscow, 1918. Pypin, A. N. Istoricheskie ocherki obshchestvennoe dvizhenie  v R o s s i i p r i Aleksandr I. St. Petersburg, I 8 8 5 . Raeff, Marc. "Home, School, and Service i n the L i f e of the Eighteenth Century Russian Nobleman." The Structure of  Russian History; Interpretive Essays. Edited by Michael Cherniavsky. New York, 1 9 7 0 . Plans f o r P o l i t i c a l Reform i n Russia. 1730-1905. Englewood, C l i f f s , New Jersey, I 9 6 6 . . "Russian Autocracy and Its O f f i c i a l s . " Harvard Slavic Studies. IV ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 7 7 - 9 1 . Rashin, A. G. Naselenie R o s s i i za sto l e t (1811-1933 gg.)t  S t a t i s t i c h e s k i e ocherklT Moscow, 1 9 5 6 . 123 Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. Nicholas the F i r s t and O f f i c i a l Nationality in Russia, 1825-1855• Berkeley, California, Robinson, Geroid T. Rural Russia under the Old Regime. London, 1932. Romanovich, Slavatinskii, A. Dvorianstvo v Rossii ot nachala XVIII veka do otmeny krepostnago prava. St. Petersburg, 1870. Schiemann, Theodor. Kaiser Nikolaus vom Hflhepunkt seiner Macht  bis zuro Zusamm'enbruch im Krimkriege 1840-1855. Vol. IV of Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I. Berlin, 1919. Seleznev, Ivan l a . Istoricheskii ocherk Imperatorskago, byvshago Tsarskosel'skago. nyne Aleksandrovskago l i t s e i a  za pervoe ego p i a t i d e s i a t i l e t i e , c 1811 do 1861 god. 3 vols. St. Petersburg, 1861. Seton-Watson, Hugh. The Decline of Imperial Russia 1815-1914. New York, 1965. Solov'ev, Iu. B. "Pravitel'stvo 1 politika ukrepleniia klassovykh p o z i t s i i dvorianstvo v kontse XIX veka," in Vnutrenniaia politika tsarizma (seredina XVI-nachalo XX v.). Edited by N. E. Nosov. Leningrad, I 9 6 7 . Sumner, B. H. Survey of Russian History. London, I96I. Thaden, Edward C. Conservative Nationalism in Nineteenth- Century Russia. Seattle, 1964. Uspenskii, K. N. "Ocherk tsarstvovaniia Nikolaia II." Nikolai II, Materiali d l i a kharakteristki lichnosti i tsarstvovaniia. Edited by S. P. Mel'gunov. Moscow, I 9 17 . Von Laue, Theodore H. Sergei Witte and the Industrialization  of Russia. New York, I 9 6 3 . " Zaionchkovskii, P. A. Krizis samoderzhaviia na rubezhe 1870-1880 godov. Moscow, 1964. • Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie v kontse XIX s t o l e t i i a ~ rpoliticheskaia reaktsiia 80-x—nachala 90-x godov). Moscow, 1970. ' APPENDIX Positions included on the Committee of Ministers Position with dates of inclusion Number of men to on the Committee of Ministers hold the position Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, 1812-1905 16 Minister of War, 1802 -1905 14 Minister of Navy, 1802-1836 4 Minister of Internal Affairs, 1802-1905 • 2 3 Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1802 -1905 10 Minister of Finance, 1802 -1905 1 5 Minister of Justice, 1802 -1905 16 Minister of Education, 1802-1905 20 Minister of Commerce, 1802-1810 1 Minister of Police, 1810-1819 2 Minister of Imperial Court, 1826 -1905 5 Minister of State Lands, I837.-I905 10 Minister of Appanage, I 852 - I 856 .1 Minister of Post and Telegraph, I865-I868, 1880-1881 3 Minister of Means of Communication, 1865-1905 > 9 Assistant minister of Internal Affairs, 1802-1810 2 Assistant minister of Foreign Affairs, 1802-1810 2 Assistant minister of Finance, 1802-1810 1 Assistant minister of Justice, 1802-1810 2 124 125 Position with dates of inclusion Number of men to on the Committee of Ministers hold the position Assistant minister of Education, 1802-180? 1 State treasurer, 1802-1811 2 Head (gla vno upr avlaaiushchlj) of the Postal Department, 1802-1868 4 Head of Means of Communication, 1809-1865 8 State secretary (gosudarstvennyi sekretar 1), head of State Council Chancery, 1810-1814, I893-I905 6 State controller, 1811-1905 1 0 Head, of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Confessions, 1810-181?, 1828-1831. - . 2 Head of the Codification Department, 1882-1893 2 Head of Section II, Codification, 1839-1882 5 Head of Section III, Police and Corps of Gendarmes, 1 8 2 6 - 1 8 8 0 7 Head of Section IV, Institutions of Empress Maria, I86I-I905 5 Head of Section V, Polish Affairs, I866 - I 8 7 8 2 Chairman, State Council Department of Law, I 8 I 2 - I 9 0 5 17 Chairman, State Council Department of Military Affairs, 1812-1858 4 Chairman, State Council Department of C i v i l and Spiritual Affairs, 1812-1905 11 Chairman, State Council Department of State Economy, 1812-1905 16 Chairman, State Council Department of Affairs of Tsarist Poland, I 8 3 2 - I 8 6 I 2 Chairman, State Council Department of Industry, Science, and Trade, 1 9 0 5 1 Minister-State secretary for Tsarist Poland, 1841-1866 4 126 Position with dates of inclusion Number of men to on the Committee of Ministers hold the position St. Petersburg Military Governor, 1812-1830, 1846-1847 4 Chief of Naval Staff or Naval General Staff, 1822-1855 2 Chief of Army Staff, 1824-1830 1 Head of the Naval Ministry, 1855-1905 9 Special members, 1840-1905 12 293 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101693/manifest

Comment

Related Items