Navigation – Sitemap

HauptseiteNuméros59/1ArticlesA Servant of Two Masters?

Articles

A Servant of Two Masters?

The role of patronage and clientage in the career strategies of a Moscow official in the late 18th and early 19th centuries1
Au service de deux maîtres ? Le rôle du patronage et du clientélisme dans les stratégies de carrière d’un officiel moscovite à la fin du xviiie et au début du xixe siècle
Maya B. Lavrinovich
p. 7-36

Zusammenfassungen

This paper examines the early stages of the career of Aleksei Fedorovich Malinovskii, who became Head of the Moscow Archive of the State College of Foreign Affairs in 1814. The Archives records and diverse correspondence from the 1780s early 1800s reveal his connections to aristocrats such as Aleksandr Romanovich Vorontsov and Nikolai Petrovich Sheremetev, as well as others among the highest officials of the Empire (vice‑chancellor Ivan Osterman). These nobles were willing to extend their patronage to this low‑level clerk at the Archive, a son of a Moscow priest. The career strategies he pursued in the domain of patronage went parallel to and were no less important than those he pursued in the domain of formal hierarchies. He sought to obtain noble status in order to acquire estates and serfs to gain a symbolic foothold in the elite; to become its full member, he married Anna Islen´eva, a niece of the Vorontsovs who became a rich heiress in 1810. Later in life, he gave his daughter in marriage to Prince Dolgorukov, a distant relative of the Sheremetevs, thus formalizing his relationship with both of his protectors’ clans. A detailed examination of Malinovskii’s rise demonstrates that while changing one’s estate was a legal option in Imperial Russia, only due to his ability to negotiate the “woven web” of patronage based on mutual services and benefit did he actually succeed in climbing the social ladder.

Seitenanfang

Volltext

  • 1 This article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Resear (...)

1In 1835, Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii (1762‑1840), actual privy councilor (deistvitel´nyi tainyi sovetnik), head of the Moscow Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, chairman of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (Obshchestvo istorii i drevnostei Rossiiskikh), a senator, a member of the Russian Academy (Rossiiskaia Akademiia), and a member of several orders, wrote to the minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire, Count Karl Vasil´evich Nesselrode:

  • 2 OPI GIM (Otdel pis´mennykh istochnikov Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia – Manuscript Departme (...)

Your Excellency has allowed me to stay on my estate near Moscow during the summer and to come to my office at the Archive several times per month, but now I have got another occasion: My daughter Princess Dolgorukova, who resides in Tsarskoe Selo, is going to give birth in July. I would very much like to visit her for a week without entering St. Petersburg.2 [Emphasis added.]

  • 3 Anthony G. Cross, U Temzskikh beregov : Rossiiane v Britanii v XVIII veke (SPb., 1996), 46 [Transla (...)

2There would not seem to be anything noteworthy in this letter, unless, of course, we recall that its author was the son of a parish priest. The fact that a person of such humble birth achieved such a prominent position in Russian society of the ancien régime tends to be accepted as normal by historians if they take Malinovskii’s claims of his noble origin at face value.3 When examined carefully, however, the actual circumstances of his impressive ascent up the social ladder turn out to be buried under a thick layer of mythology, or rather, of intentional deception. This pattern of fabrication speaks volumes about the value Malinovskii attached to his imaginary descent from the Polish szlachta.

  • 4 Anna Joukovskaia, Evgenii Akelev, “Iz kazakov vo dvoriane. Shagarovy, mikroistoriia sotsial´noi mob (...)
  • 5 Joukovskaia, Akelev, “Iz kazakov vo dvoriane,” 502.
  • 6 Edward Muir, “Introduction,” in Edward Muir, Guido Ruggiero, eds., Microhistory and the Lost People (...)

3The career of an official can be highly idiosyncratic, but also representative of a larger trend, as has been recently demonstrated by Evgenii Akelev and Anna Joukovskaia in their study of the Shagarovs, a lineage of petty officials from southeastern Russia who in the span of four generations managed to attain hereditary nobility.4 The Shagarovs successfully advanced their careers by using their relative wealth and by finding a balance point at the intersection of several legal and socio‑economic groups.5 The particular case explored in this paper differs significantly; unlike the Shagarovs, Malinovskii was a high‑ranking official and a prominent social and cultural figure. This paper aims to unpack the dense empirical evidence of Malinovskii’s life, still hidden behind official service records and his “normalizing” biographies. It focuses on obscure clues that have traditionally been ignored or undervalued by scholars. More importantly, beyond a personal experience of upward mobility, the case of Aleksei Malinovskii also illuminates the social structures he used to rise to the top. In this respect, the article seeks to reveal the “decisions, restraints, and degrees of freedom faced by real people in actual situations,”6 in order to expose the social relationships that shaped the society Malinovskii and his contemporaries lived in.

  • 7 Alison K. Smith, For the Common Good and Their Well‑Being : Social Estates in Imperial Russia (Oxfo (...)
  • 8 Marc Raeff, “Uniformity, Diversity, and the Imperial Administration in the Reign of Catherine II,” (...)
  • 9 Laurie Manchester, “The Self‑Fashioning of Russian Orthodox Clergymen’s Sons,” Slavic Review, 57, 1 (...)
  • 10 Raeff, “Uniformity,” 110 ; Marc Raeff, Michael Speransky : Statesman of Imperial Russia. 1772‑1839 (...)
  • 11 Raeff, Michael Speransky, 15.

4Although Malinovskii’s advancement might have been exceptional in terms of the degree of his personal success, it was also a part of a broader process of intensive social mobility, a reflection of shifting social boundaries and changing economic demands. In her recent monograph on changing estates in Imperial Russia, Alison Smith demonstrates that both formal and informal social mobility, i.e., mobility accompanied and unaccompanied with changing one’s legal status, was quite common throughout the entire period.7 Malinovskii’s experience and that of many others suggest that individuals made conscious decisions to change their status, and this within the framework defined by law or central authorities, in order to take advantage of the state’s policies allowing such transformations. Naturally, these opportunities were restricted, as the government exerted control over social mobility and the freedom to change one’s social standing. Nevertheless, those individuals who contributed to the common good by virtue of their abilities and entrepreneurial efforts were permitted to rise in status and eventually enter the ruling elites.8 This kind of social ascent was not as unusual as we tend to think: in the early 19th century, over 17% of government officials and about one third of doctors and university professors in Russia came from the clerical estate.9 They all had to make choices or at least accept these new life paths. Both the government and the elites viewed education as a key channel of legitimate social mobility: educated persons from any background were admitted into the bureaucracy.10 Education was also crucial for Malinovskii’s ascent, just as it was for Mikhail Mikhailovich Speranskii (1772‑1839), perhaps the most famous clergyman’s son to make an outstanding career in government. Yet, Speranskii’s case is also suggestive in the sense that his rapid rise in the bureaucratic hierarchy was made possible by both the outstanding abilities he displayed during his study at the seminary and also by the support he enjoyed from influential patrons.11

  • 12 Michail Krom, “Formen der Patronage im Russland des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts : Perspektiven der ver (...)
  • 13 “Patronat i klientella v istorii Rossii (materialy “kruglogo stola”) [Patronage and Clientage in Ru (...)
  • 14 David L. Ransel, “Character and Style of Patron‑Client Relations in Russia,” in Antoni Mączak, ed., (...)
  • 15 Ransel, “Character and Style,” 224 ; Ransel, “Bureaucracy and Patronage,” 165‑167.
  • 16 Ransel, “Character and Style,” 211.
  • 17 Krom, “Formen der Patronage,” 325.
  • 18 Kirill A. Ospovat, “Mikhail Lomonosov Writes to His Patron. Professional Ethos, Literary Rhetoric a (...)

5The concept of patronage also is key to understanding the dynamics of Malinovskii’s social rise. This system of relationships implies long‑lasting, voluntary, unequal and unofficial connections between people of different social statuses based on the exchange of various resources.12 This system penetrated all social and political structures of early modern European societies, including Russia.13 The study of patron‑client relations in the country was pioneered by David Ransel, who highlighted several features of patronage: it replaced social institutions and facilitated social mobility; it protected property, status, and personal security; it facilitated careers and the maintenance of social status in the absence of constitutional guarantees.14 Given his sources, Ransel mostly had to limit his research to the court and upper stratum of the bureaucracy. Yet, he also emphasized the role of letter‑writing manuals (pis´movniki), which are important not only because they provide insights into the values and “unspoken assumptions” of patronage bonds, but also because they facilitated the penetration of this type of relationship into the lower strata of the society by shaping conventions of epistolary exchange.15 Recently, Mikhail Krom has expanded the chronological boundaries of research on patronage in Russia by demonstrating that historical sources also reflect similar social bonds in pre‑Petrine Russia. Krom’s research contradicts Ransel’s assertion that such bonds were “invisible” prior to the 18th century.16 Krom dwells on two important components of the patron‑client relationship: its specific language (both vocabulary and style) and social context, that is, the situations that allowed the relationships to develop.17 Recent research by Kirill Ospovat on the Russian poet and scholar Mikhail Lomonosov’s epistolary exchange with his high‑ranking patrons has revealed that, thanks to the patronage extended to him by the Shuvalovs and the Vorontsovs, Lomonosov was able to assert his social standing as an autonomous scholar and achieve recognition for his scientific results. His social identity was shaped by his patronage connections rather than by his formal position as a professor of chemistry at the University and member of the Academy.18

  • 19 Alexander M. Martin, Enlightened Metropolis : Constructing Imperial Moscow, 1762‑1855 (Oxford : Oxf (...)
  • 20 Sharon Kettering has extensively analyzed the mechanics and vocabulary of patronage : Sharon Ketter (...)

6Patronage functioned not only at the level of high aristocracy, but tied together people from different sostoianiia, revealing active and multifaceted vertical interactions in a society that was arranged, at least legally, on the basis of a rigid status hierarchy.19 In early modern Russia, these relationships could entail giving and seeking regular or occasional financial support; receiving shelter when needed; obtaining advantageous jobs with the help of the patron. In exchange, a client was obliged to render various services and offered support and obedience. My observations on the practice of patronage in this article are in keeping with Sharon Kettering’s conclusions for early modern France: it was the distribution of material benefits to clients and clients’ dependence on them, rather than emotional ties based on mutual affection, that shaped the personal loyalty crucial for these relationships. Nevertheless, the reciprocal exchange of services and expression of friendship expressed and embodied in epistolary traffic were indispensable features of patron‑client relationships – relations that were unequal, but voluntary and based on mutual obligations.20

A priest’s son enters state service

  • 21 I calculated the year of Fёdor Malinovskii’s birth on the basis of the age he reported in the confe (...)
  • 22 RGIA (Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv – Russian State Historical Archive), f. 797 “ (...)
  • 23 Malinovskii’s service record is cited in : Natal´ia Iu. Bolotina, ed., “‘Nadlezhit … vedat´ vse ust (...)

7Fёdor Avksent´evich Malinovskii (1732/37?‑181121), our protagonist’s father, was a Moscow parish priest who successfully built up connections with Moscow aristocrats and members of the imperial ruling elite thanks to his service from 1765 to 1798 as dean of the St. Trinity Church in the Troitskaia suburb (sloboda) in the north of Moscow, on the Samoteka river.22 Aleksei, the eldest of his six children (three sons and three daughters), eventually became a hereditary nobleman and a serf‑owner.23 It was aristocratic patronage, combined with a decision to enroll him at Moscow University’s gymnasium, rather than at the Slavonic‑Greek‑Latin Academy, as it was common for priests’ sons, that later enabled Aleksei to make a successful career.

  • 24 An example of this uncritical approach is Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 183.
  • 25 Vladimir V. Sheremetevskii, Famil´nye prozvishcha velikorusskogo dukhovenstva v XVIII i XIX stoleti (...)
  • 26 Simon S. Ilizarov, “Konchina ‘bezsmertnago muzha.’ Zapiska M.N. Sokolovskogo o G.F. Millere. 1783 g (...)
  • 27 Moskovskie vedomosti, Supplement to issue no. 54 (July 7, 1777) ; Supplement to issue no. 55 (July (...)
  • 28 TsGA Moskvy, f. 203, op. 747, d. 520, l. 318 (alongside Vasilii, who had already embarked upon a ca (...)

8There is no reliable evidence regarding the origin of the Malinovskiis’ family name, which might be taken to sound Polish or Ukrainian. Having secured documents “proving” their noble origin in the 1790s, the brothers so successfully propagated the myth of their descent from the Polish szlachta that they managed to mislead even some contemporary scholars.24 As evidenced by the parish registers of St. Trinity Church, however, neither Fёdor Avksent´ev, as he was known then, nor his father Avksentii Fillippov, a priest at the same parish since 1721, were called Malinovskii until very late in the century. This was quite natural because at the time, members of the Russian clergy did not have surnames passed on from one generation to the next. It was only approximately in the 1730s‑1740s that family names began to be assigned to students at ecclesiastical schools dominated by teachers of Ukrainian origin, such as the Slavonic‑Greek‑Latin Academy where Fёdor Avksent´ev studied from the 1740s on. These made‑up family names usually ended in ‑skii, but some teachers gave their students surnames after high priests of the Orthodox Church.25 Fёdor Avksent´ev may have been named after the Moscow archbishop Platon Malinovskii, a Ukrainian by origin who presided over the Moscow diocese from 1745 to 1751 during Fёdor’s study at the Academy. While the earliest mention of Fёdor Avksent´ev with the last name Malinovskii is dated to the 1780s,26 his three sons, students at the Moscow University’s gymnasium, were listed on the examination registers as Malinovskiis earlier, in the late 1770s.27 In 1782, Aleksei and his brother Vasilii were still listed in the parish register of St. Trinity Church as “arkhivariusy Feodorovy”; three years later, Aleksei and his youngest brother Pavel were registered as “Feodorovy Malinovskie.”28

  • 29 Ioann Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie Moskovskoi Troitskoi Tserkvi, chto v Troitskoi, s eё prikhodom, (...)
  • 30 There is no reliable explanation as to why Fёdor Malinovskii began to be well received by the Shere (...)
  • 31 Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie, 93.
  • 32 Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie, 61 ; Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 200. Ivan Osterman i (...)
  • 33 Vinogradov, Strannopriimnyi dom, 12.

9Fёdor Malinovskii was ordained a priest in 1760 and succeeded his father in his parish after the latter’s death in 1765.29 He became confessor to Counts Pёtr Borisovich (1713‑1788) and Nikolai Petrovich Sheremetev (1751‑1809).30 His spiritual mentorship was sought after by these prominent nobles either because he was perceived to be an Enlightened priest or simply because of his parish’s location in the vicinity of the Sheremetevs’ Moscow estate Cherkasskie ogorody.31 Count Ivan Andreevich Osterman (1725‑1811), the vice‑chancellor of the Empire,32 was another high‑ranking official whose household belonged to the parish of St. Trinity. In 1798, Father Malinovskii was appointed dean at Moscow University’s St. Tatiana Church and archpriest at the Annunciation (Blagoveshchenskii) Cathedral in the Kremlin. He left his house in the parish and moved into the Sheremetevs’ summer house at Cherkasskie ogorody with his elder son Aleksei, who was by that time a secretary at the Moscow Archive of the College of Foreign Affairs. A few years earlier, between 1792 and 1794, Nikolai Sheremetev had founded a charitable hospital (gospital´) at Ogorody.33

  • 34 Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie, 93‑94. This conclusion is repeated in : Ferretti in A Russian Advoca (...)
  • 35 This suggestion has been made by Georgii Vernadskii in his draft manuscript : GARF (Gosudarstvennyi (...)
  • 36 TsGA Moskvy, f. 203, op. 747, d. 695, l. 60.
  • 37 Konstantin F. Kalaidovich, “Zapiski o zhizni Nikolaia Nikolaevicha Bantysh‑Kamenskogo, upravliavshe (...)
  • 38 Ilizarov, “Konchina ‘bezsmertnago muzha,’ 37, 42 and endnotes 40, 41.

10Historians have explained Malinovskii’s transfer from his parish in 1798 as fallout from the Novikov affair (1792).34 Though Father Malinovskii may have had contacts with Moscow freemasons from the Novikov circle,35 his transfer could hardly have had anything to do with this. According to St. Trinity Church parish registers, Malinovskii remained dean of the church at least until 1796.36 Besides, his new position was too prestigious and involved too much responsibility to be a punishment: Fёdor Malinovskii also became the University’s catechist (zakonouchitel´). Likewise, he enjoyed personal ties with officials of the Moscow Archive of the College of Foreign Affairs. Nikolai Nikolaevich Bantysh‑Kamenskii (1737‑1814), who headed the College’s Archive from 1783 to 1814, was a former classmate of his from the Slavonic‑Greek‑Latin Academy.37 Bantysh‑Kamenskii’s co‑director at the archive until 1799, Martyn Nikiforovich Sokolovskii, mentioned Father Malinovskii and his son Vasilii among his guests following the death of the Archive’s former head Gerhard Friedrich Miller [Müller] (1705‑1783).38

  • 39 Georgii V. Vernadskii, Russkoe masonstvo v tsarstvovanie Ekateriny II [Russian masonry during the r (...)

11In early 1771, nine‑year‑old Aleksei was admitted to Moscow University’s gymnasium as a pupil “at his own expense” (na svoem koshte), i.e., at his father’s. His last years in the gymnasium were the time when Russian freemasons largely transferred their activities from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Nikolai Mikhailovich Longinov and Georgii Vladimirovich Vernadskii list Malinovskii among the members of the first student society, Sobranie universitetskikh pitomtsev (active since 1781) patronized by the freemasons. The members of this society were involved in translating both classic and modern moralistic works. This first translation experience very likely paved the way for Malinovskii’s subsequent translation of French and German dramatic works in the 1780s and 1790s.39

  • 40 Feofanov, Studenchestvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 54‑55.
  • 41 RGADA (Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov – Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts), f (...)
  • 42 Bolotina, ed., “Nadlezhit … vedat´ vse ustavy,” 211.
  • 43 Vernadskii, Russkoe masonstvo, 266.

12In October 1778, Aleksei left the gymnasium without entering the most senior “Rector’s” class; the pupils in the Rector’s class were prepared to enter the university, and meanwhile, they enjoyed the right to attend lectures given by university professors.40 Instead, Aleksei entered service at the Land Survey Chancellery41 in a very humble, non‑ranked (i.e., outside the Table of Ranks) position, as he did not have a university degree. Only a month later, however, he left the chancellery—ostensibly, on the grounds of ill health—with the intention to continue his education at home.42 Most probably, his real intention was to seek another, more promising career avenue. One can suppose that this decision was made under the influence of a member of the freemasonic circles: high‑ranked freemasons quite often made a point of assisting young officials in launching their careers.43

  • 44 RGADA, f. 180 “Kantseliariia Moskovskogo Arkhiva Kollegii inostrannykh del [Chancellery of the Mosc (...)
  • 45 See : Anna Joukovskaïa, “Le service diplomatique russe au xviiie siècle : genèse et fonctionnement (...)
  • 46 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 178 ; Dolgova, Kniaginia E.R. Dashkova, 14.
  • 47 On the powerful influence exerted by the Vorontsovs on the College and its political decisions, see (...)
  • 48 The epistolary exchange between Vorontsov and Miller is in RGADA, f. 199 “Gerhard Fridrikh Miller,” (...)
  • 49 RGADA, f. 1261 “Vorontsovy,” op. 3, d. 1042, l. 1ob.
  • 50 RGADA, f. 199, portfel´ 389, chast´ 1, d. 2, l. 87ob. ; AVPRI (Arkhiv vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi (...)

13As it happened, Aleksei’s new, more promising career avenue was service at the Moscow Archive of the College of Foreign Affairs, which he entered in late 1779 as an “actuary” (aktuarius) with an annual salary of 100 rubles effective February first of the following year. Notably, he did not do too well on the entrance examination in foreign languages.44 In any case, a position either at the College itself or at its Moscow Archive was too valuable to be obtained without patronage.45 It has been suggested that Malinovskii received his position due to the direct interference of Count Nikolai Sheremetev.46 While there is no direct evidence to back up this version, it is quite possible: although Sheremetev himself was not involved with the College, he enjoyed wide‑ranging connections within the elite. In particular, he and his father had close relationships with the Vorontsovs, who controlled the management of foreign affairs directly or through clients such as Aleksandr Andreevich Bezborodko (1747‑1799), one of the highest officials from the early 1780s on.47 Gerhard Friedrich Miller, an academic who headed the Moscow Archive (de facto since 1766), also belonged to the Vorontsovs’ clientele.48 In a letter to Pёtr Sheremetev from 1784, Aleksandr Romanovich Vorontsov (1741‑1805) emphasized the long‑lasting “friendship” between their “houses.”49 It probably also helped that a decree of August 12, 1779, significantly increased the Archive director’s autonomy in such matters as hiring low‑level personnel and setting their salaries within the approved budget, making it easier for him to accommodate any request emanating from his patrons or on Father Malinovskii’s behalf.50 To sum up, a parish on the outskirts of Moscow turned out to be a very advantageous launching pad for Aleksei Malinovskii’s career: building on his father’s connections, the young man managed to enter into contact with aristocrats and freemasons who shaped his early educational and career opportunities and choices.

Malinovskii’s ennoblement

  • 51 RGADA, f. 199, portfel´ 389, chast´ 1, d. 2, l. 112.
  • 52 RGADA, f. 197 “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” op. 2, d. 42, chast´ 1, l. 5ob., 6ob. ; AVPRI, f. 2 (...)
  • 53 See Vasilii Fёdorovich Malinovskii’s letter to Count Aleksandr Vorontsov in Arkhiv kniazia Vorontso (...)

14At first, Malinovskii’s career at the Archive appeared to be unfolding reasonably well, at least for a priest’s son; again, his patrons must have played an important role. By 1781 Malinovskii’s salary increased to 150 rubles per annum.51 In 1783, after Nikita Ivanovich Panin’s death, the leadership at the College of Foreign Affairs was officially assumed by Count Ivan Osterman, who was also a resident (at least, formally) of Moscow’s St. Trinity parish, and Aleksandr Bezborodko was appointed his second‑in‑command and a personal rapporteur to the Empress. Directly following this, in April 1783, Osterman and Bezborodko approved Malinovskii’s promotion to the next rank, that of “translator” (12th). Notably, Malinovskii was one of five lower‑level staffers at the Archive who petitioned for a promotion: Malinovskii, the youngest among them, was the only one whose request was approved.52 In late 1783, after Miller’s death, Aleksei’s younger brother Vasilii, who also served as an actuary at the Archive from late 1781, was summoned to Petersburg to be Osterman’s secretary.53

  • 54 Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii (hereafter PSZ) (SPb., 1830), vol. 17, №12465 (art. 5).
  • 55 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 44.

15By 1792, Malinovskii had twelve years of service at the Archive on his record and could finally aspire to promotion to the rank of collegiate assessor (8th). This rank, according to the 1765 regulation, conferred the rank of hereditary nobility on non‑noble civil servants if the person could somehow demonstrate “faultless service” over a twelve‑year period.54 However, after examining certificates from the College, in late 1792 the Senate refused to promote Malinovskii and several other non‑noble employees of the Archive over this all‑important threshold. The senators claimed that they did not find any “distinction” (otlichnost´) in their performance:55 “Faultless service” alone was no longer sufficient to deserve ennoblement. This must have felt like a bolt from the blue to Malinovskii.

  • 56 PSZ, vol. 17, №12465 (art. 3)
  • 57 PSZ, vol. 23, №16960 ; RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 67, l. 91.
  • 58 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 69, 70.

16Malinovskii’s first avenue was to seek promotion as a nobleman because nobles could move to the next rank by virtue of seniority in service without having to prove “faultless” service or “distinction.”56 But in April 1791, a decree was issued establishing that in order to be promoted to the 8th rank, a nobleman had to present certificates of nobility which were approved and confirmed according to the rules set in the Charter to the Nobility of 1785.57 Thus, bearing the same family name as a nobleman and making up a genealogical chart connecting this nobleman to his own family no longer sufficed. Malinovskii needed official proof of his noble status – and he moved fast. As soon as the official answer from the Senate reached the Archive in January 1793, he took a two‑week leave of absence to travel to St. Petersburg.58

  • 59 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 79ob.

17One reason for this trip was probably to meet with the youngest of the Malinovskii brothers, Pavel. Unlike his two elder siblings, Pavel had entered military service. By the time of Aleksei’s visit, he was a “second major” in a dragoon regiment in St. Petersburg. The previous year, Pavel had secured a certificate from the Archive where his elder brother served that linked him to his noble “ancestor” Ivan (Ian) Malinowski, someone who had allegedly entered Russian service in the mid‑1650s.59 Aleksei may have gone to St. Petersburg to get these or related documents from his youngest brother.

  • 60 AKV, vol. 14 (М., 1879), 446.
  • 61 Z.L. Iatskevich, “Maly gerboўnik Ragachoўskai shliakhty [The small armorial of the Rohaczew szlacht (...)

18Another reason for Malinovskii’s departure to St. Petersburg could have been finding an appropriate person to certify his descent from the Polish szlachta; here, Aleksandr Vorontsov could also have played an indirect part. It turns out that the Polish Malinowskis who eventually signed a certificate representing Aleksei as their kinsman resided in Rohaczew District of Mogilev Province, recently annexed from Rzeczpospolita. One Pavel Artem´evich Levashov, a diplomat and a distant relative of the Vorontsovs, had been granted an estate in this district and had stayed there since 1786. Levashov even mentioned some of the Rohaczew Malinowskis in his letters to Aleksandr Vorontsov.60 All of the Malinowskis who signed Aleksei’s certificate on December 1, 1793, belonged to the same branch of the family, the descendants of Jan‑Samuel Malinowski; one of them, Antonii, a major in the Polish crown army, later became the chair of the noble trusteeship of Mogilev Province (1795).61

  • 62 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 244.

19Another way of overcoming the setback was to prove that Malinovskii had served with “distinction.” In 1793, having just returned from his trip to St. Petersburg, he spent half a year preparing a manuscript of collected documents, a “Historical and Diplomatic Collection of Affairs that Took Place between Russia and Crimea.” In August 1793, it was approved by the Archive’s directors and sent to the College. Malinovskii’s superiors emphasized his zeal in service and asked the College to consider this work as evidence of his “distinction” so as to grant him the promotion to the 8th rank that he had previously been denied. They also emphasized that although Malinovskii had been officially serving in the rank of translator (12th), he was actually performing the duties of the Archive’s secretary. Furthermore, he had compiled the “Collection” voluntarily on his own free time.62

  • 63 Popov’s letter is held at RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 65‑65ob. Notably, Malinovskii received th (...)

20Notably, Malinovskii’s “Collection” was not simply put on a shelf at the College of Foreign Affairs but was actually presented by Vice‑Chancellor Osterman to Catherine II herself. This suggests that Osterman at this point, was the Malinovskii family’s most high‑ranking patron; of course, he might also have been personally interested in the collection of archival documents on Crimea. The sovereign duly granted 500 rubles to Malinovskii: the Archive was informed about this grant in a letter written by the Empress’s secretary Vasilii Ivanovich Popov on March 12, 1794.63 Malinovskii thus got a substantial sum of money and attracted the Empress’s attention, but he still had not received the desired acknowledgement of his “distinction.”

  • 64 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 231ob.
  • 65 RGADA, f. 180, op. 16. d. 303, l. 61 passim.
  • 66 RGADA, f. 197, op. 2, d. 42, l. 7‑7ob. Dolgova incorrectly interprets the sources to say that the c (...)
  • 67 Obshchii gerbovnik dvorianskikh rodov Vserossiiskoi imperii [General armorial of noble lineages of (...)

21Meanwhile, by the end of 1793, the Polish Malinowskis confirmed that they shared common ancestors with the Moscow Malinovskiis and that Ivan (Jan) Malinowski, who joined Russian service in the 17th century, was a kinsman of theirs.64 Aleksei Malinovskii unearthed a reference to this Ivan in the Archive and attached it to the certificate he sent to the Heraldry Department of the Senate.65 In June 1794, the marshal of the Nobility of Mogilev Province, Michal Holyński, confirmed that Aleksei Malinovskii was “a natural and real nobleman.” This was the very document Aleksei needed to be promoted to the next rank according to the 1765 and 1791 decrees. Shortly thereafter, on September 10, 1794, he was granted the desired rank of collegiate assessor (effective September 2, 1793).66 His coat of arms (a version of Pobóg of the Polish Malinowskis) was registered in the Heraldry Office and added to “The General Armorial of the Noble Lineages of the Russian Empire” in 1799.67

  • 68 Cf. Douglas Smith, The Pearl : A True Tale of Forbidden Love in Catherine the Great’s Russia (New H (...)
  • 69 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 67, l. 125 passim.
  • 70 RGADA, f. 180, op. 16, d. 303, l. 67.
  • 71 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 183.

22Polish nobles were often willing to sell certificates of nobility, and acquiring Polish nobility was a ubiquitous practice in Russia at that time.68 In fact, this was not Aleksei’s first attempt to find someone from among the Polish Malinowskis who would agree to confirm his descent from their clan. In May of 1791, he had requested a three‑week leave from the Archive and set out for Smolensk Province.69 If Aleksei was thinking about laying the groundwork for his ennoblement, this was the logical place to begin his search; according to the archival record, the Polish Ivan Malinowski owned a small estate in the Smolensk province of Rzeczpospolita.70 Apparently, Malinovskii was unsuccessful on that occasion. The following time, however, he did not bother to make the trip in person. Although it has been asserted that he “found” or “met” the szlachcics Malinowskis in Mogilev Province,71 Aleksei never actually went to this territory.

  • 72 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 329.
  • 73 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 226ob.
  • 74 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 241.
  • 75 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 74, l. 503ob.–504, cited in : Bolotina, ed., “Nadlezhit … vedat´ vse ustav (...)
  • 76 RGADA, f. 264 (Shestoi departament Senata, Moskva), op. 8, d. 110, l. 627. I am grateful to Viktor (...)
  • 77 TsGA Moskvy, f. 4 “Kantseliariia moskovskogo dvorianskogo deputatskogo sobraniia [Chancellery of th (...)
  • 78 TsGA Moskvy, f. 4, op. 14, d. 1140, l. 1, 5‑5ob., 8.
  • 79 I am grateful to Aleksandr Feofanov for providing me with this information. RGIA, f. 1349 “Formulia (...)

23Although dubious from our modern point of view, this affair paved Malinovskii’s road to higher ranks and also enabled him to purchase serfs. This evidently was very much on his mind, if the speed with which he started buying up populated estates is any indicator. In November 1793, even before he received the certificate from Mogilev, Aleksei asked for a seven‑day leave of absence to travel to Kaluga.72 Although he did not indicate the purpose of the trip in his petition, he went there to purchase serfs. In July 1793, translator Aleksei Malinovskii was listed on the Archive’s rolls as a priest’s son who did not own any serfs or peasants.73 A year later Malinovskii, in his own hand, crossed out an identical entry from the staff roll (an official document!) and wrote “from the nobility” as his origins. He further added that he owned 27 male serfs in Kaluga Province.74 By 1798, the Archive’s secretary, Collegiate Assessor Malinovskii, possessed as many as 90 male serfs in the Moscow and Riazan´ regions.75 By 1803, according to documents submitted to the Moscow noble assembly, Malinovskii declared that he owned three estates with a total of 145 male serfs in order to be inscribed in Moscow Province’s register of the nobility (dvorianskaia kniga). In particular, the former priest’s son had bought 20 males and 11 females in Ruza District of Moscow Province in 1794 (perhaps, partially paid for with the 500 rubles he received from Catherine II for his collection of documents on Crimea). A very large set of serfs (70 males, 60 females) was purchased in Riazan´ Province in 179876 (this was the year when, as we shall see below, Malinovskii received 1,000 rubles for compiling a genealogical chart for the Sheremetevs). In 1802, he bought an additional 105 serfs (55 males, 50 females) at an auction in Dmitrov District of Moscow Province.77 In November 1803, he received a certificate of nobility from the Moscow noble assembly as a landowner of Moscow Province.78 By 1820, he owned 719 male serfs scattered across central Russia, not only in Moscow and Riazan´ Provinces but also in Tver´ and Tula.79

  • 80 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 55, l. 153.
  • 81 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 125.
  • 82 TsGA Moskvy, f. 4, op. 14, d. 1140, l. 1ob.
  • 83 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 65f.
  • 84 RGIA, f. 1088 “Sheremetevy,” op. 14, d. 21, l. 21.

24We can see how acquiring higher ranks, nobility, and serfs went hand‑in‑hand for Malinovskii. Over the years, his salary increased from a modest 100 rubles per annum in 178080 to 348 rubles in 1794,81 and 1,200 rubles in 1803.82 He received additional fees for compiling genealogical charts for aristocrats and cash grants for one‑off commissions such as his collection of archival documents related to Crimea.83 In the 1800s, he also earned money for services rendered to Count Sheremetev, such as supervising the construction of Sheremetev’s Almshouse (for that alone he received about 15,000 rubles from 1803 to 1806).84 This income, received both directly from his patrons and thanks to promotions received with their assistance, enabled him to acquire estates that also brought him income.

Malinovskii and Sheremetev

  • 85 Svetlana R. Dolgova suggests that Malinovskii became a confidant of Sheremetev about 1801, see : Do (...)
  • 86 Sharon Kettering defines the patron‑client relationship as a dyadic, personal, vertical, unequal, r (...)

25A variety of sources, both epistolary and official, allow us to reconstruct the relationship between Aleksei Malinovskii and Nikolai Sheremetev in quite some detail. We see very clearly that these two individuals exchanged services throughout the 1790s; the starting point of this exchange, however, is harder to pin down.85 Their long‑lasting ties were structured around the material benefits, advancement, and protection offered by the patron in return for his client’s loyalty and service, demonstration of respect, information and advice.86 Yet, how could this low‑level clerk make himself useful to one of the richest magnates in the empire? What valuable services could he provide to support relationships based on mutuality and exchange? This section focuses on two commissions carried out by Malinovskii in the late 1790s on Sheremetev’s behalf: one of them had to do with compiling genealogical charts for the count and his bride, and the other with managing his philanthropic initiative, his “hospital.”

  • 87 PSZ, vol. 24, №17749 (January 20, 1797).
  • 88 OPI GIM, f. 60 “Vorontsovy,” op. 3, d. 2445, l. 59.

26In 1797, Malinovskii got a chance to display his skills in archival research after Paul I ordered the Heraldry Department of the Senate to compile the All‑Russian Armorial.87 It was natural, of course, that Sheremetev should turn to a client employed at the Archive. The model for such cooperation was well established by that time. The services that Miller, the late director of the Archive, had previously rendered to the Vorontsovs are most instructive in this regard. In the 1750s, Mikhail Illarionovich Vorontsov (1714‑1767), who became state chancellor in 1758, drew on Miller’s archival expertise to make up a genealogical chart that linked the eighteenth‑century Vorontsovs – the offspring of petty service nobles who only appeared in the records in the 17th century – to a boiar lineage of the same name that seems to have died out during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Pavel Mikhailovich Stroev, a prominent Russian archivist employed at the Archive since 1816, wrote in 1858 that the chart was compiled “far too clumsily and boldly, and in the beginning it is simply absurd.” Miller “must not have sought too hard to make his research credible, otherwise he will lose all the fame he has earned.”88

  • 89 See Miller’s explanations in the letter sent to Aleksandr Vorontsov on January 5, 1783 in RGADA, f. (...)
  • 90 RGADA, f. 199, portfel´ 546, chast´ 7, d. 27, l. 11.
  • 91 RGADA, f. 1261, op. 3, d. 751, 11, 13, 14 (published in AKV, vol. 30, 371 passim).
  • 92 AKV, vol. 30, 388.
  • 93 Handbooks on natural law represented “household” (dom) as “private society,” “domestic society,” or (...)
  • 94 Krom, Formen der Patronage in Russland, 322, 326 ; Nikolai Nikitich Popovskii, Lomonosov’s student, (...)

27Aleksandr Vorontsov, however, was very satisfied with the quality of Miller’s archival research. In the 1770s and early 1780s, he also requested historical information from Miller regarding the origins of Russian nobility and other topics.89 In a letter written in 1781, the magnate promised to be at Miller’s service when needed.90 Indeed, thanks to Vorontsov’s efforts, Miller received the Order of St. Vladimir, 3rd degree, shortly before his death, an award that he attributed “mostly to [Vorontsov’s] recommendations.”91 In October 1783, reflecting on Miller’s death in a letter to his widow, Vorontsov called him “a friend of mine and of my household (moi i domu moemu priiatel´).”92 The term “household” (dom) here refers to the notion of “domestic subjecthood,” which included secretaries, relatives, estate managers, and all others who enjoyed the protection of the head of household, including children.93 The word “friend” (priiatel´) thus defined Miller’s standing as Vorontsov’s client, albeit a high‑status one. By that time, euphemistic expressions such as “friends” had largely replaced the more straightforward terms cliens, patronus, clientele in early modern Europe and also in Russia, where since at least the late 17th century the words priiateli, znakomtsy, or drug/druz´ia had begun to be used in this specific context.94

  • 95 A Prussian cultural hero, the mythical ancestor of the Prussian tribes.
  • 96 “Geschlechter‑Tabelle der Familie Scheremetew,” in RGADA, f. 199, portfel´ 279, chast´ 2, d. 40 ; f (...)
  • 97 RGIA, f. 1088, op. 1, d. 208, l. 7ob., 9‑10.
  • 98 Margarita E. Bychkova, Legendy moskovskikh boiar [Legends of the Moscow Boiars] (M. : Bioinformserv (...)
  • 99 Sergei D. Sheremetev, Otgoloski XVIII veka [Echoes of the 18th Century], vyp. 11, Vremia Imperatora (...)
  • 100 “Iz bumag i perepiski grafa N.P. Sheremeteva v tsarstvovanie Pavla Petrovicha [N.P. Sheremetev’s Pa (...)

28Malinovskii’s relationship with and services rendered to Sheremetev largely followed this model. In the Archive, he found documents that allowed him to trace the origins of the Sheremetevs all the way back to the legendary Prussian king Veidevut (Widewuto95), who allegedly ruled over land on the Vistula. To perform this feat, Malinovskii used not only his own findings but also materials collected by Miller regarding the semi‑mythical figure of Andrei Kobyla and his son Fëdor Koshka (mentioned in the testament of Dmitrii Ivanovich Donskoi in 1381).96 As he wrote to Sheremetev in December 1797, the genealogical chart included ancestors “mentioned by my worthy mentor Miller and ancestors whom I added myself after I discovered them [in the Archive].” His reference to Miller as his mentor (uchitel´) in this context was not only rhetorical: he was actually following the path which the famous historiographer had paved as he charted the Vorontsovs’ dubious lineage. Miller, however, appears not to have been deliberately deceiving his readers, but only confirming the allegedly “obvious” fact that the eighteenth‑century Vorontsovs were the descendants of an old boiar´ family. Malinovskii, on the other hand, understood full well what he was doing: in the above letter to Sheremetev, he explained how best to evade “historical criticism” (“predokhranit´ vse dokazatel´stva ot istoricheskoi kritiki”) and added that his “zeal to please your Excellence [is] limitless.”97 Hence, Sheremetev himself knew that his genealogy was a fiction, at the very least as far as the period prior to Andrei Kobyla’s (or his father, Kambila’s) arrival “from the Prussians” is concerned. This fiction, however, was necessary in order to support the family prestige—a concern shared by other aristocratic families who were also working hard to trace their origins to legendary foreign ancestors.98 Sheremetev granted Malinovskii 1,000 rubles for his efforts and promised to be “commensurately … useful” to him when needed.99 This relationship is similar to that which existed between Miller and Aleksandr Vorontsov: one side offered professional skills, the other, political influence at the highest level. In a letter from 1798, Malinovskii congratulated Sheremetev on his appointment as grand chamberlain to Paul I and openly referred to the protection he enjoyed from the count at the time.100

  • 101 Richard Stites, “Female Serfs in the Performing World,” in Wendy Rosslyn, Alessandra Tosi, eds., Wo (...)
  • 102 Smith, The Pearl, 95.
  • 103 Pёtr A. Bessonov, Praskov´ia Ivanovna grafinia Sheremeteva [Countess Praskov´ia Ivanovna Sheremetev (...)
  • 104 Ibid., 82‑83.
  • 105 Ibid., 81 ; Smith, The Pearl, 213.
  • 106 On various requests sent by nobles to the Archive, see : OPI GIM, f. 33, op. 1, d. 55, l. 12ob. pas (...)

29Soon after he compiled his patron’s genealogical chart, Malinovskii had the opportunity to render Sheremetev another important service by supplying the count’s beloved Praskov´ia Kuznetsova‑Zhemchugova with a noble pedigree. Born in 1768 into the family of a blacksmith in Kuskovo, Zhemchugova established herself as a brilliant actress in Sheremetev’s estate theater. Whereas coercing actresses into a sexual relationship was common practice in private serf theaters,101 Sheremetev genuinely fell in love with Praskov´ia and, after his father’s death in 1788, he openly cohabited with her.102 He manumitted her under the name of Kovaleva in 1798, but did not dare marry her during the reign of Paul I.103 To make their future marriage more socially acceptable, Sheremetev needed to “ennoble” her, that is, to present evidence of her noble origin. So, in tried and true fashion, the magnate sent a servant to the Belorussian provinces to find a szlachcic Kovalevskii who would be ready to sign a certificate confirming his kinship with Praskov´ia.104 With Malinovskii’s help, the count found an “ideal candidate” for the role of Praskov´ia’s ancestor in Razriad records. The szlachcic Jakub (Yakov) Kovalevskii had been captured during the Russo‑Polish war in 1664 and was then accepted into Russian service in 1667.105 After that, linking him to a serf family belonging to Sheremetev was only a matter of skill for Malinovskii. Indeed, Praskov´ia’s ennoblement scheme was identical to that which Malinovskii himself had used in 1793/94. As a matter of fact, this peculiar archival research and genealogy compilation had become routine work for Malinovskii and other Archive employees since 1785.106

  • 107 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 212.

30In November 1801, Nikolai Sheremetev married Praskov´ia Kovaleva. Before the couple left Moscow for Petersburg in early 1802, Malinovskii was appointed head of Sheremetev’s Moscow household office.107 That same year, Malinovskii also accepted Sheremetev’s invitation to supervise the construction of a hospital at the Cherkasskie ogorody estate where he had lived with his father since 1798. Given the importance that Nikolai and Praskov´ia Sheremetev attached to the project, this invitation was an indication of their boundless confidence in Malinovskii. Still, in 1802 the count pointedly wrote to Malinovskii:

  • 108 RGADA, f. 1287 “Sheremetevy,” op. 1, d. 4839, l. 4.

I rely on you entirely and expect that your good disposition towards me will lead to success in this commission. You do know how strong my desire is to see a speedy completion of this good deed, and I am sure that you will offer the assistance that I expect from you.108

  • 109 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 1‑1ob.
  • 110 Aleksei F. Malinovskii, “Mnenie moe o raznykh obstoiatel´stvakh, kasaiushchikhsia do bogougodnogo z (...)

31Malinovskii, in turn, assured Sheremetev of his father’s and his own readiness to serve the count in establishing the “hospital” and sent him reports about his attempts to negotiate lower prices for building materials and other relevant information.109 After Praskov´ia’s death in 1803, Sheremetev moved to reshape the hospital building, hitherto a quite ordinary design by serf architects, into an imposing structure designed by Giacomo Quarenghi. In effect, the hospital became a monument to his late wife. The project itself likewise evolved into the large‑scale “Sheremetev Almshouse” (Strannopriimnii dom grafa Sheremeteva) that in the subsequent years devoured a considerable portion of the count’s fortune.110

32The way in which Sheremetev and Malinovskii described their relationship may lead to some confusion about its nature. Sheremetev wrote in May 1803:

  • 111 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 10‑10ob.

Because of Aleksei Fëdorovich’s friendship towards me, and because of the need to implement what has by now received Imperial confirmation [i.e, the Charter of the Almshouse, confirmed by the Emperor in April 1803], I entrusted him with full authority to finish the construction.111 [Emphasis added.]

  • 112 Mikhail N. Afanas´ev, Klientelism i rossiiskaia gosudarstvennost´ [Clientage and the Russian state] (...)
  • 113 “Iz bumag i perepiski grafa N.P. Sheremeteva v tsarstvovanie Aleksandra Pavlovicha [N.P. Sheremetev (...)

33Sheremetev’s allegedly boundless confidence in Malinovskii, however, stemmed from the very nature of their relationship, which implied both personal subjugation and interpersonal solidarity.112 His letters show that Malinovskii acted as a client within the structure of his patronage and as a “friend.” When sending Malinovskii different commissions concerning his household, from carrying out improvements to his country house to sending him tobacco,113 Sheremetev made clear Malinovskii’s position as client in the hierarchy of his patronage structure. This did not prevent him, however, from emphasizing his “true friendship” towards Malinovskii and his respect towards his father, the priest:

  • 114 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 21.

… [I] sincerely wish you peace of mind and health, and I want you to maintain your affection and friendship for me which is so pleasing and which I wish to retain forever. Besides, I ask you not to give up your care for the Strannopriimnyi dom… Please convey my respect to your batiushka…114

  • 115 RGIA, f. 1088, op. 3, d. 605, l. 10.
  • 116 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 11.
  • 117 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 12ob.
  • 118 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 11, 57. For more details, see my recent article : Maya B. Lavrin (...)
  • 119 “Iz bumag i perepiski grafa N.P. Sheremeteva,” Russkii arkhiv, 8 (1896) : 484.

34In his turn, Malinovskii positioned himself only as a client, within the framework of the patron‑client relationship, in his association with Sheremetev. He neither addressed Sheremetev as a “friend,” nor defined their relationship as “friendly.” Instead, he addressed Sheremetev as his “benefactor” (blagodetel´), expressing his gratitude for the “protection” he enjoyed and emphasizing that the count was the source of his prosperity.115 In June 1803, as he wished Sheremetev a happy birthday, Malinovskii actually compared the count’s role in his life to that of his long‑deceased mother.116 He emphasized that Sheremetev’s favorable disposition was precious to him not because of the “magnificence” of the count’s public persona, but because of “the authentic goodness” of his heart and his “Christian rules,” which were “presently so rare in society (svet).”117 This did not prevent Malinovskii from playing on Sheremetev’s religious feelings and taking advantage of his depressed mood after his spouse’s death to extract additional money from him for the Almshouse construction, on top of the already enormous expenses.118 Yet, while Malinovskii’s obsequiousness in his letters is striking, Sheremetev recommended Malinovskii in 1803 to another person as a man “aussi honnêtte que serviable,” moved only by honor, not by selfish interest: “n’a été guidé par aucun motif d’intérêt, mais seulement par l’honneur.”119

  • 120 Kettering, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients, 18.
  • 121 Ibid., 20‑21.
  • 122 This argument is presented by Dena Goodman, The Republic of Letters : A Cultural History of the Fre (...)
  • 123 Kettering, “Friendship and clientage…,” 143‑144.
  • 124 Vseobshchii sekretar´, ili Novyi i polnyi pis´movnik… [The universal secretary, or A new and comple (...)

35We can only wonder whether the bonds of mutual loyalty that allegedly connected them were emotionally intense and durable, and not just a function of the exchange of services they conducted.120 Loyalty was not necessarily based on affection and its degree differed in every case.121 As a matter of fact, their correspondence appears to reflect a tension between the realities of human ambition, on the one hand, and the effusive but formal rhetoric of clientage in which their relationship was expressed on the other. The language of friendship used by Sheremetev was appropriate for expressing mutual trust and loyalty, whereas the language of courtesy used by Malinovskii was the public acknowledgement of the difference in status between a patron and his client. In Kettering’s view, the language of courtesy was not a reflection of equality,122 but rather a reflection of the need to publicly observe differences of rank and position in a status‑conscious society. Additionally, both resorted to the language of honor: the patron’s honor was enhanced by the respect, courtesy, and loyal service he received from his clients, whereas a client’s honor was enhanced by his patron’s prestige, power, position, and favor.123 From that perspective, it is noteworthy that Malinovskii’s epistolary style was strongly influenced by the guidelines suggested in letter‑writing manuals of that time. For instance, one of the more popular guides, “The Universal Secretary,” pointed out that the most difficult letters to write were the letters that “contained courtesy [uchtivost´]” as they had no content of any substance. The guide emphasized that the words “respect” (pochtenie) or “affection” (priviazannost´) meant nothing in such cases.124

  • 125 Luba Golburt, “Vasily Petrov and the Poetics of Patronage,” Вивлiоөика : E‑Journal of Eighteenth‑Ce (...)
  • 126 Kettering, “Friendship and Clientage,” 142, 146.
  • 127 Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients, 21.

36The American scholar Luba Golburt argues that in the early modern world, a mandatory “shade of flattery” was discursively interconnected with friendship, which explains the exaggerated rhetoric of patron‑client language. Furthermore, Kettering emphasizes the social context of deceit and hypocrisy: it was the differences in rank that gave patron‑client relationships an artificial, sycophantic air.125 Reciprocity of exchange was obligatory for patron‑client relationships, creating dependence, whereas friendship implied the independence of each party because their exchange was voluntary.126 The relationship between Sheremetev and Malinovskii was certainly unequal, that is, based on gratitude and dependence that did not necessarily produce a genuine emotional bond, particularly when the relationship entailed remuneration.127

  • 128 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4840, l. 49.

37Their surviving correspondence from the 1800s, when Sheremetev stayed in St. Petersburg as the grand marshal of the court and Malinovskii directed Sheremetev’s Moscow household office, is as voluminous as when Malinovskii performed duties in the count’s employ in addition to state service.128 Until 1806, when large‑scale embezzlement was discovered at the Almshouse, Malinovskii enjoyed Sheremetev’s full confidence in all domestic and financial matters. Yet, even the revelation of embezzlement did not result in the full loss of the count’s confidence in Malinovskii. In an undated document written sometime soon after the incident, Sheremetev seems to be absolving Malinovskii of responsibility for this debacle:

  • 129 RGIA, f. 1088, op. 3, d. 225, l. 10‑10ob.

A man of learning and good rules, always loyal and diligent towards me, he has won my trust and affection (priviazannost´). Yet, even with all his diligence, good intentions, and honest rules, he could not be expected to achieve the desired success in every aspect [of the enterprise].129

38Nevertheless, work on the project was frozen, and the Almshouse opened only after Sheremetev’s death.

Malinovskii and the Vorontsovs

  • 130 OPI GIM, f. 33, d. 55, l. 27.
  • 131 OPI GIM, f. 33, d. 55, l. 32.
  • 132 RGADA, f. 1261, op. 3, d. 1479 ; in 1801, Vorontsov submitted two memorandums to Emperor Alexander  (...)
  • 133 RGADA, f. 197, op. 2, d. 42, chast´ 1, l. 13.

39Malinovskii’s case is also notable for his ability to cultivate more than one patron at the same time. As we have seen earlier, Count Aleksandr Vorontsov had been indirectly involved in launching Malinovskii’s career. Later on, he became more and more visible as his second patron. Alongside his sister Princess Ekaterina Romanovna Dashkova (née Vorontsova), Vorontsov secured a sustained career for Malinovskii as an official in an important state institution. From 1802 to 1805, Vorontsov held the highest rank and the highest office of the Empire, that of the state chancellor, and in that capacity he formally oversaw the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Moscow Archive. Malinovskii, a collegiate councilor since 1800 and the deputy manager of the Archive, used his expertise in archival research to carry out numerous commissions on Vorontsov’s behalf. On the chancellor’s orders, he put together collections of excerpts from the diplomatic papers of the Archive. One example is from the minutes of negotiations (“conferences”) with foreign ambassadors in Russia between 1725 and 1741.130 In addition to his official duties in 1804 and 1805, Malinovskii was busy compiling “excerpts from all the files of the Supreme Privy Council related to the domestic and foreign affairs of the state with historical explanations.”131 This commission had to do with Vorontsov’s own political ideas and a project for a comprehensive reform of the government that was important to him at the time.132 This presents Malinovskii’s archival work in a different light: whether he wanted it or not, he was de facto drawn into Vorontsov’s unofficial political activities. This commission very much resembled what Miller had done for Vorontsov twenty or thirty years earlier. On March 1, 1805, Vorontsov honored the Archive with a personal visit. One month later his deputy, Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, announced that as a result of this visit Bantysh‑Kamenskii and his employee Malinovskii had earned “His Majesty’s approval” for “the improvements and order found by the Chancellor at the State Archive.” The same year, Malinovskii’s efforts also brought him promotion to the rank of state councilor (5th).133

  • 134 Kettering, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients, 55. Brokers not only secured material benefits for their (...)

40This connection is notable as Malinovskii did not belong to Vorontsov’s “household” (dom), but to Sheremetev’s. He also did not correspond privately with Vorontsov, but it is nonetheless hard to draw a line between his service duties and his private commissions from the chancellor. One way of putting it would be to say that their interests converged in the private sphere; Vorontsov’s sister Ekaterina Romanovna Dashkova performed the role of broker in this relationship, if we are to follow Kettering’s classification.134 The high point of her relationship with Malinovskii was the years when her brother headed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Clearly, she was well positioned to mediate between Malinovskii and Vorontsov and to muster influence and resources for the former.

  • 135 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 177 ; the Assembly was established in 1771 and existed u (...)
  • 136 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 210 ; Rossiiskii featr, ili Polnoe sobranie vsekh rossii (...)
  • 137 Svetlana Shcheglova, “Vorontsovskii krepostnoi teatr [The Vorontsovs’ estate theater],” in Iazyk i (...)
  • 138 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 210 ; Vesёlaia, Dmitriev, “Zapiski kniagini Dashkovoi,” (...)
  • 139 Avgust Kotsebu [August von Kotzebue], Bednost´ i blagorodstvo dushi. Komediia v trekh deistviiakh [ (...)
  • 140 Shcheglova, “Vorontsovskii krepostnoi teatr,” 347‑348 (Supplement II).
  • 141 Vesёlaia, Dmitriev, “Zapiski kniagini Dashkovoi,” 17.

41It is generally accepted that Malinovskii became acquainted with Princess Dashkova in the 1770s when he allegedly attended gatherings of the “Free Russian Assembly” (Vol´noe rossiiskoe sobranie) at Moscow University,135 but it is unlikely that Princess Dashkova paid much attention to a priest’s son, a student in his early teens. At the very minimum, we must acknowledge that there is no evidence of their personal acquaintance at that time. Rather, the point of departure for their subsequent relationship could have been their interest in and involvement with theater. In the early 1780s, Malinovskii participated in the Novikov circle’s translation activities, trying his hand at French plays; ten years later, he turned to German dramatic works and became a regular translator for the Moscow public theater. A number of his translations were published in the magazine Rossiiskii featr edited by Dashkova.136 All the Vorontsovs were fond of the theater: they patronized it and had even housed the Moscow theater at their mansion on Znamenka Street since the late 1760s. After resigning from his official position and settling on his estate Andreevskoe in Vladimir Province at the end of 1792, Aleksandr Vorontsov attempted to create there something similar to Nikolai Sheremetev’s estate theater in Kuskovo.137 In 1799, Dashkova attended a performance of Poverty and Nobleness of Mind (Bednost´ i blagorodstvo dushi; Armut und Edelsinn) at Andreevskoe, a play by August von Kotzebue translated by Malinovskii.138 A year earlier, it had been performed at the Moscow public theater.139 Overall, three other German pieces were staged at Vorontsov’s theater at Andreevskoe, all of them translated by Malinovskii.140 Impressed by what she saw at Andreevskoe, Dashkova decided to set up her own theater on her Troitskoe estate near Moscow, and there Malinovskii could be very useful for her.141

  • 142 See footnote 106.
  • 143 See a critical study of Malinovskii’s archeographic activities : Cornelia Soldat, Das Testament Iva (...)
  • 144 Svetlana I. Mel´nikova, Kotsebu v Rossii [Kotzebue in Russia] (SPb. : Izd‑vo GATI, 2005), 151 ; Zhi (...)

42At the end of the 1790s, however, Malinovskii wrapped up his translation work. We may surmise that by that time he had ample alternative sources of income and was overwhelmed by his numerous other activities. After Sokolovskii’s death in 1799 and Stritter’s resignation the following year, Bantysh‑Kamenskii was the last remaining of the three Archival heads appointed in 1783, and Malinovskii was his right hand. During the 1790s, he compiled numerous genealogical charts commissioned by various aristocrats142 and edited newly discovered historical sources (among them, the Tale of Igor’s Campaign143) for publication. He also ran diverse errands for Sheremetev in the late 1790s. Stepan Petrovich Zhikharev insisted in his memoirs that in the early 1800s Malinovskii “forced” young people who served at the Archive (including Vasilii Andreevich Zhukovskii and the Turgenev brothers) to translate dramatic works from German. Presumably, he edited these translations, had them published and staged them, until the Moscow theater burnt down and closed after the 1804‑1805 season.144

  • 145 This type of friendship between equals bound by mutual trust but not by affection, implied mutual u (...)
  • 146 Russkii arkhiv, 10 (1873) : 1909.
  • 147 RGIA, f. 1088, op. 1, d. 174, l. 1ob., 5, 6, 8, 10.

43It is hard to establish when exactly the correspondence between Malinovskii and Dashkova began, but we can be certain that they communicated starting in the early 1800s and probably earlier. One way or another, their epistolary exchange revolved around Nikolai Sheremetev, with whom Dashkova, as a member of the Vorontsov clan, was bound by ties of “social friendship.”145 The content of this exchange, however, was shaped primarily by Dashkova’s peculiar personality, as she “almost demanded from her numerous relatives, friends, and admirers that they supply her with whatever things and objects they had in abundance.”146 Thus, Sheremetev routinely sent her champagne (150‑200 bottles per shipment) and tobacco, and occasionally Rhine wine, cheese, or candles.147

  • 148 RGADA, f. 188 “Rukopisnoe sobranie RGADA [RGADA manuscript collection],” op. 1, d. 363, l. 19‑29.
  • 149 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 25.
  • 150 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 54.
  • 151 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 19, 23.
  • 152 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 20ob., 25ob. For an opposite and, in my opinion, unfounded view, s (...)

44Malinovskii’s letters to Dashkova have not survived. From Dashkova’s letters and from his own correspondence with Sheremetev, it is obvious, however, that he acted as intermediary between them.148 For example, Dashkova could ask Malinovskii to deliver the wine sent by Sheremetev to another address;149 later, in 1805, she commissioned him to convey to Sheremetev that he should send her only 150 “thick candles” instead of 200, and add 200 bottles of Madeira, and one, rather than two packages of tobacco, and so forth.150 Malinovskii’s own gifts to her were naturally much more modest, usually paper, which had, however, a special significance as a means of communication for Dashkova who mostly resided outside the city.151 Malinovskii was authorized to take whatever he considered necessary from Sheremetev’s house to send to Dashkova. This fact also illustrates Sheremetev’s great confidence in Malinovskii. Though she emphasized in her letters that their relationship was “friendly,” calling it amitié (bien sincère or parfaite), there is no reason to take her words at face value.152 The content of their correspondence is standard for sociable, but not intimately friendly correspondence: the letters contain information about the state of their health and condolences regarding illnesses and afflictions; information about Dashkova’s various visitors; and, finally, instructions concerning Sheremetev’s gifts.

  • 153 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 78.
  • 154 TsGA Moskvy, f. 4, op. 14, d. 1140, l. 8.

45The relationship with Dashkova was beneficial for Malinovskii: it was hardly by accident that parts of the land he bought in 1798 in Ranenburg District of Riazan´ Province (selo Kochury) turned out to be interspersed with those of Prince Pavel Mikhailovich Dashkov (1763‑1807), Princess Dashkova’s son. After Pavel Dashkov’s death in 1807, Malinovskii bought his land in Kochury from the trustees of his property.153 Only four years earlier, Prince Dashkov, the nobility marshal of Moscow Province, had placed his signature on Malinovskii’s certificate of nobility and membership in the Moscow noble assembly.154

  • 155 Copies of the Emperor’s decree in OPI GIM, f. 60, op. 3, d. 2567, l. 6 passim.
  • 156 See Dmitrii Petrovich Buturlin’s (Vorontsov’s nephew) letter to Semën Romanovich Vorontsov dated De (...)
  • 157 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 54.
  • 158 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 23.

46The fact that Dashkova’s brother headed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and hence the Archive, was crucial in determining the trajectory of Malinovskii’s relationship with Dashkova, and its eventual rupture ought to be seen in this context. By the end of 1803, Chancellor Vorontsov had already been having serious health problems. In January 1804, he obtained from the Emperor an indefinite leave of absence to recuperate.155 This was not an ordinary “indisposition.” Vorontsov’s brother, the Russian ambassador to London Semën Romanovich Vorontsov, took pains to negotiate a contract with Doctor James Keir, a graduate of the Edinburgh Medical School. The doctor came to Russia and stayed with Vorontsov as his personal physician until the chancellor’s death on December 3, 1805.156 It is very likely that the rumors about Vorontsov’s declining health emboldened Malinovskii to try to free himself from all informal obligations to the Vorontsovs. His expectation that the chancellor would not live to see the next year must account for the tone and content of the letter that he sent to Sheremetev on August 25, 1805. He permitted himself to make his irritation obvious as he stressed his concern that Sheremetev might be sending gifts to Princess Dashkova only because she requested them via Malinovskii. He asked Sheremetev “to instruct him how to avoid such commissions from her in the future.”157 As her brother Vorontsov was dying, Malinovskii no longer needed Dashkova as a broker and protector. There is only one surviving missive written by Dashkova to Malinovskii sometime in 1808 or later: she thanks him for a “friendly letter” and the paper he sent her, and also requests his expert opinion as to whether there is any hope for a peaceful relationship with England.158 As in 1806‑1807 Malinovskii’s relationship with Sheremetev had also been put under strain because of the large‑scale embezzlement in the Almshouse construction, it must have been much harder for him to provide Dashkova with fruit from the count’s greenhouses. Their long‑lasting relationship, however, would have a strong impact on Malinovskii’s subsequent life.

Malinovskii’s marriage: the culmination of his life strategy

  • 159 Vesёlaia, Dmitriev, “Zapiski kniagini Dashkovoi,” 28. The date of their marriage indicated by the a (...)
  • 160 RGADA, f. 1261, op. 3, d. 599, l. 1.

47The crowning step in Malinovskii’s efforts to establish himself with the imperial elite was the advantageous marriage he concluded late in life. The few historians who have mentioned this marriage have described it as a straightforward love‑match, in addition to getting its date and circumstances wrong.159 Most notably, Malinovskii’s fiancée, Anna Petrovna Islen´eva (1770‑1847), was the daughter of Elizaveta Petrovna Islen´eva (née Khrushcheva, 1747‑1811), a cousin of Aleksandr Vorontsov’s and Ekaterina Dashkova’s, and Lieutenant‑General Pëtr Alekseevich Islen´ev (1745‑1826). It is generally accepted that Anna was “brought up” in Dashkova’s household, but it is quite obvious that throughout most of Anna’s childhood Dahskova was travelling outside Russia (in the years 1776‑1782). In fact, Anna stayed on her parents’ estate until at least 1792 when it was devastated by a fire. At this point, Elizaveta Islen´eva asked Aleksandr Vorontsov for assistance, including helping her to obtain a loan from a Moscow bank.160 It is not clear whether he actually helped her on this occasion, but sending Anna, now deprived of her dowry, to live with Dashkova as a companion would fit the circumstances well: this was a pretty standard way of helping out impoverished relatives. So, if that was the case, Anna likely moved in with Dashkova sometime in 1793.

  • 161 Vesёlaia, Dmitriev, “Pis´ma sestёr Vil´mot iz Rossii, 266‑260 ; original version : The Marchioness (...)
  • 162 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 19 : “I look forward to coming to Moscow as soon as the [winter] r (...)
  • 163 Catherine Wilmot’s letters in Dashkova, Zapiski. Pis´ma sestёr Vil´mot iz Rossii, 239, 247, 302‑303 (...)
  • 164 Dashkova, Zapiski. Pis´ma sestёr Vil´mot iz Rossii, 481‑482.

48At Dashkova’s estate Malinovskii, now about 40 years old and still a bachelor, may have met Anna in the late 1790s or early 1800s. She was already about 30, that is, past marriage age. The sisters Catherine and Martha Wilmot, who lived with Dashkova between 1803 and 1808 and kept a close eye on what was going on in her house, do not mention Malinovskii in their letters even once, though they make some remarks about Anna Islen´eva, hinting at having quarrels with her and competing for Dashkova’s attention.161 Dashkova’s own correspondence with Malinovskii indicates that he visited her at her Moscow house on Bol´shaia Nikitskaia Street where Anna had been allocated a room.162 Malinovskii could have also met Anna at the receptions held in Moscow by various noblemen. For example, they might have met at Osterman’s mansion; the nobleman settled in his home in Father Malinovskii’s former parish after his retirement in 1797.163 And yet, despite these apparently numerous opportunities for Malinovskii to meet Islen´eva, the wedding did not take place until 1810. One may suspect that Dashkova objected to this union, either because she wanted to retain her companion, or because in her eyes Malinovskii, a priest’s son, was not a match for her kinswoman. Nor is it likely that they conducted a clandestine affair: Martha Wilmot mentions that in 1808 Anna was wildly infatuated with an Irish officer who came to visit Dashkova on her estate.164 Most likely, Malinovskii himself was not very eager to marry a woman without a dowry (bespridannitsa), even if she happened to be a niece of his patrons.

  • 165 Vorontsov‑Dahskov, Ekaterina Dashkova, 255 ; Firsova, “Dusheprikazchiki E.R. Dashkovoi,” 189, 196.
  • 166 NIOR RGB (Nauchno‑issledovatel´skii otdel rukopisei Rossiiskoi gosudarstvennoi biblioteki – Manuscr (...)
  • 167 AVPRI, f. 1 “Administrativnye dela [Administrative files],” op. IV‑14, d. 38, l. 22a.
  • 168 TsGA Moskvy, f. 2126 “Tserkvi Sretenskogo soroka Moskvy [The churches of Sretenskii sorok of Moscow (...)

49Rather, Islen´eva suddenly became attractive for Malinovskii immediately after Dashkova’s death. This strongly suggests that for him it was a marriage of convenience: Islen´eva turned 40 the year they married. It was acceptable for widows to remarry, but it was almost impossible for women to marry for the first time at that age. Islen´eva inherited the Dashkovs’ family estate of Murikovo from the princess. The estate contained 318 male serfs in Volokolamsk District worth 52,000 rubles. It is also worth mentioning that earlier, after Dashkova’s return from her short but dramatic exile to Cherepovets District from late 1796 to early 1797, Islen´eva received a gift of 20,000 rubles from her, with 17,000 rubles to be paid immediately, and another 3,000 after the princess’ death.165 The exact date of Islen´eva’s and Malinovskii’s wedding is unknown. In January 1810, Anna Islen´eva, “still unmarried,” was recorded as present at dying Dashkova’s last communion.166 In a petition for leave dated July 11, 1810, Malinovskii mentioned his forthcoming trip to Minsk to visit his wife’s father.167 Hence, the date of birth of their daughter Ekaterina is a reliable reference point for determining the most recent date of their marriage. I found the record in the parish register of the church of Sheremetev’s Almshouse, where Malinovskii lived with his family as the chief overseer. It indicates that Ekaterina Alekseevna, baptized on March 26, 1811, was born on March 19.168 Therefore, her parents married no later than June or early July 1810. Not coincidentally, it was also exactly at that time that the usual six‑month mourning for Dashkova ended (she died in January 1810). The baby girl was named in honor of both the late Dashkova and the late Catherine II; her grandfather—archpriest Fёdor Malinovskii—became her godfather. The timing of Malinovskii’s marriage to Islen´eva—exactly when she became a well‑to‑do heiress—clearly reflects Aleksei Malinovskii’s life strategy: first to become noble, then to become rich.

  • 169 These estates are indicated in her income declaration of 1812 in TsGA Moskvy, f. 4, op. 1, d. 3238, (...)
  • 170 NIOR RGB, f. 218 “Sobranie Otdela rukopisei [Manuscript Department collection],” d. 751, l. 138.

50And indeed, Anna Petrovna continued to bring him wealth even after their marriage. When her mother died in 1811, she inherited the family estate in Tula Province. The estate, alongside the one inherited from Dashkova, brought her an annual income of 2,000 rubles.169 After her father’s death in 1826, Anna Malinovskaia probably inherited an estate of 1,200 male serfs granted to him by Catherine II in 1795 in the Minsk Province in the annexed Polish territories.170

51In 1833, Ekaterina Alekseevna Malinovskaia married Prince Rostislav Alekseevich Dolgorukov (1805‑1849). He was a grandson of Aleksei Alekseevich Dolgorukov, the brother of Emperor Peter II’s unfortunate favorite Ivan Alekseevich Dolgorukov (1708‑1739) who had been sentenced to death by Anna Ioannovna. Ivan Dolgorukov was married to Natal´ia Borisovna Sheremeteva (1714‑1771), Nikolai Petrovich Sheremetev’s aunt. Thus Malinovskii, who was already related by marriage to the Vorontsovs, also became related to the Sheremetevs, albeit 24 years after his patron’s death. Hence, the marriage of Malinovskii’s daughter was the final—and symbolic— step in the fantastic trajectory that brought a priest’s son to the top stratum of the imperial elite. By that time, however, none of his patrons was still alive.

Conclusion

52The impressive rise of Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii, a Moscow parish priest’s son, was made possible by his grand patrons. It was also based on his and his father’s early strategic choices, most notably, the decision to enter the gymnasium at Moscow University instead of an ecclesiastic academy. Later, thanks to his father’s connections, he was admitted to the Moscow Archive of the College of Foreign Affairs, but his successful advancement in the domain of patronage was parallel to and no less important than in the realm of state service. By the early 1800s, Malinovskii concentrated the management of Count Sheremetev’s Moscow household and the construction and management of the Sheremetev Almshouse in his hands. A low‑level archival clerk in the 1780s, he now headed the Moscow Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and became one of the most influential players on the Moscow bureaucratic scene. Malinovskii’s marriage to a Vorontsov relative in 1810 significantly enhanced his financial and political standing, and his daughter’s 1833 marriage to Prince Dolgorukov, a distant relative of the Sheremetevs, also symbolically reinforced his position as an independent figure, rather than a client of aristocratic patrons, as had been the case previously. He successfully converted his service capital into symbolical capital. By the end of his life, Malinovskii managed not only to reach the top rungs of the career ladder, but also to secure his status and financial independence.

  • 171 Manchester, “The Self‑Fashioning of Russian Orthodox Clergymen’s Sons,” 72, 74.
  • 172 Laurie Manchester, Popovichi v miru : dukhovenstvo, Intelligentsiia i stanovlenie sovremennogo samo (...)

53When examined, his private and semiprivate correspondence and papers from a wide range of institutions illustrate how his official career path appears inextricably integrated into the tangled network of aristocratic patronage. A detailed examination of Malinovskii’s rise demonstrates that while changing one’s estate was a legal option in Imperial Russia, only due to the “woven web” of patronage did one actually succeed in bypassing the framework of the law. And while the change itself was not as exceptional an achievement at that time as we might think, most people who achieved it did not come close to Malinovskii’s level of success as a result. Again, his success was due to his skillful manipulation of “protection.” My observations amplify those made by Laurie Manchester in her study of popovichi in the post‑Reform period. The historian argues that the clergymen’s sons who left the clergy continued consciously to identify themselves with their church heritage and to carry the religious ideal of service and salvation over to their secular professions, usually pedagogy and medicine. In sharp contrast to Malinovskii, they rejected service in the bureaucracy precisely because it reminded them of the corruption and dependence on patronage networks that they sought to escape by leaving the clergy.171 Moreover, in late Imperial Russia, clergymen’s sons often confronted the aristocracy, challenged the culture of the nobility, and constructed their identity in opposition to the noble intelligentsia.172 The case of Malinovskii, a bureaucrat in the pre‑Reform period, illustrates a radically different approach. He strove to abandon or to forget his origin, to merge himself completely into the privileged estate, and to represent his life path as normal.

54Malinovskii’s trajectory raises questions about the nature and the origins of the nascent “bureaucracy” in late eighteenth‑ and early nineteenth‑century Russia. When interpreted through the lens of official papers, Aleksei Malinovskii appears to be an organic part of the new bureaucracy, the quintessential commoner who made a brilliant career as a bureaucrat thanks to his education and skills. But what role exactly did education play in his career if his advancement was primarily secured by his patrons? Was it totally irrelevant? Or rather, would they have been so willing to promote him if not for his efforts to acquire a proper education? Would they have been ready to acknowledge him as a “friend” if he was not able to engage in literary translations and maintain polite correspondence? Most importantly, would he have been able to develop the archival and administrative skills that allowed him to become useful to his patrons and offer them valuable services if not for his education? In short, education appears to have mattered a lot for Malinovskii’s career, but its importance should not be understood exclusively, or even predominantly, in the context of the formal, “meritocratic”‑bureaucratic mechanism. Indeed, it was by the types of relationships and subtle connections explored in my paper that society appears to have been held together from within. Indeed, these connections simultaneously supported the ancien régime and contributed to the emergence of professional bureaucracy from the chaos of patronage.

Seitenanfang

Anmerkungen

1 This article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2017

2 OPI GIM (Otdel pis´mennykh istochnikov Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia – Manuscript Department of the State Historical Museum), f. 33 “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” op. 1, d. 5, l. 31.

3 Anthony G. Cross, U Temzskikh beregov : Rossiiane v Britanii v XVIII veke (SPb., 1996), 46 [Translated from : Anthony G. Cross, By The Banks Of The Thames (Newtonville, MA, 1980)] ; Paola Ferretti, A Russian Advocate of Peace : Vasilii Malinovskii (1765‑1814) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998), 12.

4 Anna Joukovskaia, Evgenii Akelev, “Iz kazakov vo dvoriane. Shagarovy, mikroistoriia sotsial´noi mobil´nosti v Rossii, XVII‑XVIII v. [From Cossack to noble : The Shagarovs, a microhistory of social mobility in Russia, 17th ‑ 18th centuries],” Cahiers du Monde russe, 57, 2‑3 (2016) : 457‑504.

5 Joukovskaia, Akelev, “Iz kazakov vo dvoriane,” 502.

6 Edward Muir, “Introduction,” in Edward Muir, Guido Ruggiero, eds., Microhistory and the Lost Peoples of Europe (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1991), ix–x.

7 Alison K. Smith, For the Common Good and Their Well‑Being : Social Estates in Imperial Russia (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014), 5, 48.

8 Marc Raeff, “Uniformity, Diversity, and the Imperial Administration in the Reign of Catherine II,” in Hans Lemberg, Peter Nitsche, Erwin Oberländer, eds., Osteuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Festschrift für Günter Stökl zum 60. Geburtstag (Köln – Wien : Böhlau Verlag, 1977), 100‑101.

9 Laurie Manchester, “The Self‑Fashioning of Russian Orthodox Clergymen’s Sons,” Slavic Review, 57, 1 (Spring 1998) : 52.

10 Raeff, “Uniformity,” 110 ; Marc Raeff, Michael Speransky : Statesman of Imperial Russia. 1772‑1839 (The Hague : Nijhoff, 1957), 366.

11 Raeff, Michael Speransky, 15.

12 Michail Krom, “Formen der Patronage im Russland des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts : Perspektiven der vergleichenden Forschung im europäischen Kontext,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas N.F., 57, 3 (2009), 321. This definition follows the classic paradigm suggested by Shmuel Eisenstadt and Luis Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends : Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge – New York : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984).

13 “Patronat i klientella v istorii Rossii (materialy “kruglogo stola”) [Patronage and Clientage in Russian History (“round table” materials)],” in Mikhail Krom, ed., Novaia politicheskaia istoriia [The New Political History] (SPb. : Aleteia, 2004), 271 ; for a detailed study of how patronage functioned at the household level see : Aleksandra V. Bekasova, Sem´ia, rodstvo i pokrovitel´stvo v Rossii XVIII veka : “domovoe poddanstvo” grafa P.A. Rumiantseva : Avtoreferat… kand. ist. nauk [Family, kinship, and patronage in 18th‑century Russia : “The domestic subjecthood” of Count P.A. Rumiantsev : Ph.D. thesis abstract] (SPb., 2006), 4.

14 David L. Ransel, “Character and Style of Patron‑Client Relations in Russia,” in Antoni Mączak, ed., Klientelsysteme im Europa in der Frühen Neuzeit (München : Oldenburg Verlag, 1988), 222‑224, 231 ; Ransel also addressed this topic in an earlier article : David L. Ransel, “Bureaucracy and Patronage : The View from an Eighteenth‑Century Russian Letter‑Writer,” in Frederic Cople Jaher, ed., The Rich, The Well Born, and the Powerful : Elites and Upper Classes in History (Urbana – Chicago – London, 1973), 154‑178. Patronage relationships at the College of Foreign Affairs have been represented as “work relationships” by Anna Joukovskaïa, “Hiérarchie et patronage. Les relations de travail dans l’administration russe au xviiie siècle,” Cahiers du Monde russe, 47, 3 (2006) : 551‑580.

15 Ransel, “Character and Style,” 224 ; Ransel, “Bureaucracy and Patronage,” 165‑167.

16 Ransel, “Character and Style,” 211.

17 Krom, “Formen der Patronage,” 325.

18 Kirill A. Ospovat, “Mikhail Lomonosov Writes to His Patron. Professional Ethos, Literary Rhetoric and Social Ambition,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, N.F., 59, 2 (2011) : 256.

19 Alexander M. Martin, Enlightened Metropolis : Constructing Imperial Moscow, 1762‑1855 (Oxford : Oxford Univ. Press, 2014), 149.

20 Sharon Kettering has extensively analyzed the mechanics and vocabulary of patronage : Sharon Kettering, “Friendship and Clientage in Early Modern France,” French History, 6, 2 (1988), 139‑158 ; Sharon Kettering, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients in Seventeenth‑Century France (New York : Oxford Univ. Press, 1986), 19‑21 ; regarding the emergence of patron‑client relationships out of service relationships in Moscow urban society, see my recent article : Maya B. Lavrinovich, “The Role of Social Status in Poor Relief in a Modernizing Urban Society : The Case of Sheremetev’s Almshouse, 1802‑12,” Russian Review, 76, 2 (2017) : 224‑252.

21 I calculated the year of Fёdor Malinovskii’s birth on the basis of the age he reported in the confessional registers of St. Trinity Church (TsGA Moskvy – Tsentral´nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Moskvy, Tsentr khraneniia dokumentov do 1917 goda – Central State Archive of the City of Moscow, Center for pre‑1917 Documents), f. 203 “Moskovskaia dukhovnaia konsistoriia [Moscow Ecclesiastical Consistory],” op. 747, d. 311, l. 7 ; d. 396, l. 122 ; l. 520, l. 318. It differs from the year of birth usually cited in the literature (1737).

22 RGIA (Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv – Russian State Historical Archive), f. 797 “General‑prokuror Sinoda [The General Procureur of the Synod],” op. 1, d. 2710, l. 3 ; Svetlana R. Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” in Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii, Obozrenie Moskvy (M. : Moskovskii rabochii, 1992), 200.

23 Malinovskii’s service record is cited in : Natal´ia Iu. Bolotina, ed., “‘Nadlezhit … vedat´ vse ustavy gosudarstvennyia i vazhnost´ ikh’ : Dokumenty RGADA po istorii gosudarstvennoi sluzhby Rossii. XVIII v. [“One must know … all state charters and their significance.” Archival documents from RGADA on the history of state service in Russia. 18th century],” Istoricheskii arkhiv, 2 (1999) : 212‑213.

24 An example of this uncritical approach is Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 183.

25 Vladimir V. Sheremetevskii, Famil´nye prozvishcha velikorusskogo dukhovenstva v XVIII i XIX stoletiiakh [Russian clergymen’s surnames in the 18th and 19th centuries] (M., 1908), 3‑4, 95‑96. On the social relevance of Ukranian family names in Russia see : Boris A. Uspenskii, “Sotsial´naia zhizn´ russkikh familii, [The social life of Russian surnames],” in Boris A. Uspenskii, Izbrannye trudy, vol. 2 (M. : Gnozis, 1994), 166‑167.

26 Simon S. Ilizarov, “Konchina ‘bezsmertnago muzha.’ Zapiska M.N. Sokolovskogo o G.F. Millere. 1783 g. [The death of an “immortal man.” M.N. Sokolovskii’s memoire on G.F. Miller. 1783],” Istoricheskii archiv 1 (2006) : 32, 38 ; Stepan P. Zhikharev, Zapiski sovremennika : Dnevnik studenta [The memoires of a contemporary], vol. 1. (L. : Iskusstvo, 1989), 235, 254.

27 Moskovskie vedomosti, Supplement to issue no. 54 (July 7, 1777) ; Supplement to issue no. 55 (July 11, 1778) ; Supplement to issue no. 97 (December 3, 1782), n.p.

28 TsGA Moskvy, f. 203, op. 747, d. 520, l. 318 (alongside Vasilii, who had already embarked upon a career at the Archive at the end of 1781) ; d. 542, l. 11 (Vasilii is not mentioned here because he had moved to St. Petersburg at the end of 1783).

29 Ioann Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie Moskovskoi Troitskoi Tserkvi, chto v Troitskoi, s eё prikhodom, sostavlennoe sei tserkvi sviashchennikom [A historical description of Moscow St. Trinity Church in Troitskaia sloboda and its parish ; compiled by this church’s priest] (M., 1844), 50, 93‑94.

30 There is no reliable explanation as to why Fёdor Malinovskii began to be well received by the Sheremetevs. For alternative versions, see : A.I. Vinogradov, Strannopriimnyi dom grafa Sheremeteva v Moskve, 1810‑1910 [The Sheremetev Almshouse, 1810‑1910] (M., 1910), 8, 17 ; Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie, 58‑59 ; Svetlana R. Dolgova, Kniaginia E.R. Dashkova i sem´ia Malinovskikh [Princess E.R. Dashkova and the Malinovskii family] (M. : Drevlekhranilishche, 2002), 100.

31 Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie, 93.

32 Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie, 61 ; Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 200. Ivan Osterman inherited this house from his uncle Vasilii Ivanovich Streshnev in 1782 and actually settled there as soon as he left state service in 1797 (Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie, 66‑67, the date here mistakenly : 1795).

33 Vinogradov, Strannopriimnyi dom, 12.

34 Orlov, Istoricheskoe opisanie, 93‑94. This conclusion is repeated in : Ferretti in A Russian Advocate of Peace, 14.

35 This suggestion has been made by Georgii Vernadskii in his draft manuscript : GARF (Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii – State Archive of the Russian Federation), f. 1137 “Vernadskii Georgii Vladimirovich,” op. 1, d. 89, l. 7 ; and later by Andrei I. Serkov in Andrei I. Serkov, Russkoe masonstvo. 1731‑2000 : Entsiklopedicheskii slovar´ [Russian Masonry. 1731‑2000. Encyclopedic Dictionary] (M. : ROSSPEN, 2001), 515. As a matter of fact, Catherine II brought up his name in the questions she penned for the Novikov investigation, wondering if “pop Malinovskii” was also involved in freemasonic activities. In his dictionary, Serkov lists Fёdor Malinovskii as a possible freemason : “Malinovskii Feodor,” in Serkov, Russkoe masonstvo, 515.

36 TsGA Moskvy, f. 203, op. 747, d. 695, l. 60.

37 Konstantin F. Kalaidovich, “Zapiski o zhizni Nikolaia Nikolaevicha Bantysh‑Kamenskogo, upravliavshego Moskovskim Arkhivom Kollegii Inostrannykh del [Memoires on the life of Nikolai Nikolaevich Bantysh‑Kamenskii, the Head of the Moscow Archive of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs],” Vestnik Evropy, 6 (1814) : 116.

38 Ilizarov, “Konchina ‘bezsmertnago muzha,’ 37, 42 and endnotes 40, 41.

39 Georgii V. Vernadskii, Russkoe masonstvo v tsarstvovanie Ekateriny II [Russian masonry during the reign of Catherine II] (SPb : Izdatel´stvo im. N.I. Novikova, 2001), 276‑277. Mikhail N. Longinov, Novikov i moskovskie martinisty [Novikov and the Moscow Martinists] (M., 1867), 135, 137. Aleksandr M. Feofanov also lists Aleksei Malinovskii among the university students who contributed translations to Novikov’s freemasonic magazine “Utrennii svet” in the late 1770s. (Aleksandr M. Feofanov, Studenchestvo Moskovskogo universiteta XVIII – pervoi chetverti XIX veka [The students of Moscow University in the 18th – early 19th century] (М. : Izd‑vo PSTGU, 2011), 206. Note, however, that from 1777‑1779 the magazine was published in St. Petersburg, which makes Malinovskii’s contribution to it somewhat less likely.

40 Feofanov, Studenchestvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 54‑55.

41 RGADA (Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov – Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts), f. 1294 “Mezhevaia kantseliariia [Land Survey Chancellery],” op. 2, d. 3606, l. 1‑2. Contrary to oft‑repeated assertions, Malinovskii not only never graduated from the university, but never even entered it. (Vinogradov, Strannopriimnyi dom grafa Sheremeteva, 17 ; Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 177‑178 ; Dolgova, Kniaginia E.R. Dashkova, 14 ; in 1778, he petitioned the Land Survey Chancellery as a pupil (uchenik) of Moscow University.

42 Bolotina, ed., “Nadlezhit … vedat´ vse ustavy,” 211.

43 Vernadskii, Russkoe masonstvo, 266.

44 RGADA, f. 180 “Kantseliariia Moskovskogo Arkhiva Kollegii inostrannykh del [Chancellery of the Moscow Archive of the College of Foreign Affairs],” op. 1, d. 55, l. 153.

45 See : Anna Joukovskaïa, “Le service diplomatique russe au xviiie siècle : genèse et fonctionnement du Collège des Affaires étrangères,” Ph.D. dissertation (Paris, 2002), 295‑297.

46 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 178 ; Dolgova, Kniaginia E.R. Dashkova, 14.

47 On the powerful influence exerted by the Vorontsovs on the College and its political decisions, see : Joukovskaia, “Le service diplomatique russe,” 152 ; on “Vorontsov’s party,” see : James Joseph Kenney, The Vorontsov Party in Russian Politics, 1785‑1803 ; An Examination of the Influence of an Aristocratic Family at the Court of St. Petersburg in the Age of Revolution, Ph.D. dissertation (Univ. of Yale, 1975), 46.

48 The epistolary exchange between Vorontsov and Miller is in RGADA, f. 199 “Gerhard Fridrikh Miller,” portfel´ 546, chast´ 7, d. 27.

49 RGADA, f. 1261 “Vorontsovy,” op. 3, d. 1042, l. 1ob.

50 RGADA, f. 199, portfel´ 389, chast´ 1, d. 2, l. 87ob. ; AVPRI (Arkhiv vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi Imperii – Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire), f. 2 “Vnutrennie kollezhskie dela [Internal Collegiate Affairs],” op. 2/1, d. 2253, l. 42‑43.

51 RGADA, f. 199, portfel´ 389, chast´ 1, d. 2, l. 112.

52 RGADA, f. 197 “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” op. 2, d. 42, chast´ 1, l. 5ob., 6ob. ; AVPRI, f. 2, op. 2/1, d. 2253, l. 186‑188ob.

53 See Vasilii Fёdorovich Malinovskii’s letter to Count Aleksandr Vorontsov in Arkhiv kniazia Vorontsova [Prince Vorontsov’s Archive] (hereafter AKV), vol. 30 (M., 1884), 391.

54 Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii (hereafter PSZ) (SPb., 1830), vol. 17, №12465 (art. 5).

55 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 44.

56 PSZ, vol. 17, №12465 (art. 3)

57 PSZ, vol. 23, №16960 ; RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 67, l. 91.

58 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 69, 70.

59 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 79ob.

60 AKV, vol. 14 (М., 1879), 446.

61 Z.L. Iatskevich, “Maly gerboўnik Ragachoўskai shliakhty [The small armorial of the Rohaczew szlachta],” in Arkhivaryus : Zbornik navukovykh pavedamlenniaў i artykulaў, Vyp. 8 (Minsk : NGAB, 2010), 256‑257 ; Mesiatseslov s rospis´iu chinovnykh osob v Gosudarstve na leto ot Rozhdestva Khristova 1795 [State calendar – the register of state officials for the year 1795 A.D.] (SPb. : Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1795), 245.

62 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 244.

63 Popov’s letter is held at RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 65‑65ob. Notably, Malinovskii received this award after the Novikov investigation, and Catherine II was certainly aware that the collection’s author was the son of the “pop Malinovskii” mentioned earlier in the questions for Novikov ; see : Sbornik Imperatorskogo russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva [Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society], vol. 2 (SPb., 1868), 105, 117. This further confirms that neither Aleksei’s failure to receive promotion in 1792 nor Fёdor’s transfer to another church were related to the Novikov affair.

64 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 231ob.

65 RGADA, f. 180, op. 16. d. 303, l. 61 passim.

66 RGADA, f. 197, op. 2, d. 42, l. 7‑7ob. Dolgova incorrectly interprets the sources to say that the confirmation was signed by the College of Foreign Affairs : Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 183.

67 Obshchii gerbovnik dvorianskikh rodov Vserossiiskoi imperii [General armorial of noble lineages of the Russian Empire] (s.l., 1799), part IV, 111‑112 ; on the Polish Malinowskis’ coat of arms see : František Piekosiński, ed., Herold Polski : Czasopismo naukowe illustrowane, poświęcone heraldyche i sfragistyce polskiej [Polish Herald : An Illustrated Journal Dedicated to the Heraldry and Polish Sphragistics] (Krakowie, 1898), 74 ; Iatskevich, “Maly gerboўnik,” 257.The text of the certificate that Aleksei received from the Polish Malinowskis is published in : Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 183. Related documents, including the Senate resolution, are in RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 79 ; d. 70, l. 232ob.

68 Cf. Douglas Smith, The Pearl : A True Tale of Forbidden Love in Catherine the Great’s Russia (New Haven – London : Yale Univ. Press, 2008), 213.

69 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 67, l. 125 passim.

70 RGADA, f. 180, op. 16, d. 303, l. 67.

71 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 183.

72 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 329.

73 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 69, l. 226ob.

74 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 241.

75 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 74, l. 503ob.–504, cited in : Bolotina, ed., “Nadlezhit … vedat´ vse ustavy,” 211‑212.

76 RGADA, f. 264 (Shestoi departament Senata, Moskva), op. 8, d. 110, l. 627. I am grateful to Viktor Borisov for providing me with this archival reference.

77 TsGA Moskvy, f. 4 “Kantseliariia moskovskogo dvorianskogo deputatskogo sobraniia [Chancellery of the Moscow Nobility Assembly],” op. 14, d. 1140, l. 1ob. It is worth noting that Nikolai Bantysh‑Kamenskii also owned serfs in Ruza District of Moscow Province : did he assist Malinosvskii with this purchase ? (RGADA, f. 180, op. 3, d. 21, l. 189ob.)

78 TsGA Moskvy, f. 4, op. 14, d. 1140, l. 1, 5‑5ob., 8.

79 I am grateful to Aleksandr Feofanov for providing me with this information. RGIA, f. 1349 “Formuliarnye spiski chinov grazhdanskogo vedomstva [Registers of state officials],” op. 4, d. 133, chast´ 1.

80 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 55, l. 153.

81 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 125.

82 TsGA Moskvy, f. 4, op. 14, d. 1140, l. 1ob.

83 RGADA, f. 180, op. 1, d. 70, l. 65f.

84 RGIA, f. 1088 “Sheremetevy,” op. 14, d. 21, l. 21.

85 Svetlana R. Dolgova suggests that Malinovskii became a confidant of Sheremetev about 1801, see : Dolgova, “Graf N.P. Sheremetev and the Malinovskii family,” in Pamiati Lukicheva : sbornik statei po istorii i istochnikovedeniiu [In memoriam Lukichev : a collection of articles on history and historical sources] (M. : Drevlekhranilishche, 2006), 365.

86 Sharon Kettering defines the patron‑client relationship as a dyadic, personal, vertical, unequal, reciprocal, exchange relationship : Kettering, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients, 20. The definition has been accepted as standard in studies on early modern history.

87 PSZ, vol. 24, №17749 (January 20, 1797).

88 OPI GIM, f. 60 “Vorontsovy,” op. 3, d. 2445, l. 59.

89 See Miller’s explanations in the letter sent to Aleksandr Vorontsov on January 5, 1783 in RGADA, f. 1261, op. 3, d. 751, l. 1–1ob. ; the same in German : RGADA, f. 199, portfel´ 546, chast´ 7, d. 27, l. 12–13 ; on Miller’s research on Russian nobility see : Aleksandr B. Kamenskii, “Istoriia sozdaniia i publikatsii knigi G.‑F. Millera ‘Izvestie o dvorianakh rossiiskikh’ [A history of the compilation and publication of G.‑F. Miller’s work ‘On the Russian nobility’],” in Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1981 god (M. : Nauka, 1982), 169 ; in 1782, Miller sent two copies of his “Izvestie o dvorianakh” to Vorontsov, see : V.A. Petrov, “Obzor sobraniia Vorontsovykh, khraniashchegosia v Arkhive LOII AN SSSR [An overview of the Vorontsov papers held at the Archive of the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR],” in Problemy istochnikovedeniia, vyp. 5 (M. : Izd‑vo AN SSSR, 1956), 107, 122.

90 RGADA, f. 199, portfel´ 546, chast´ 7, d. 27, l. 11.

91 RGADA, f. 1261, op. 3, d. 751, 11, 13, 14 (published in AKV, vol. 30, 371 passim).

92 AKV, vol. 30, 388.

93 Handbooks on natural law represented “household” (dom) as “private society,” “domestic society,” or “domestic subjecthood” (domovoe poddanstvo) : Bekasova, Sem´ia, rodstvo i pokrovitel´stvo v Rossii XVIII veka, 4‑5.

94 Krom, Formen der Patronage in Russland, 322, 326 ; Nikolai Nikitich Popovskii, Lomonosov’s student, in his translations of Horace used the words “znakomtsy” and “druz´ia” to render the Latin “clientium” (Horace III, 1 :15–16), published as : N.P. “Odi profanum volgus et arceo,” Poleznoe uveselenie, 7 (1760), 3‑5.

95 A Prussian cultural hero, the mythical ancestor of the Prussian tribes.

96 “Geschlechter‑Tabelle der Familie Scheremetew,” in RGADA, f. 199, portfel´ 279, chast´ 2, d. 40 ; f. 199, portfel´ 246, d. 9 (copies of the charters granted to the Sheremetevs).

97 RGIA, f. 1088, op. 1, d. 208, l. 7ob., 9‑10.

98 Margarita E. Bychkova, Legendy moskovskikh boiar [Legends of the Moscow Boiars] (M. : Bioinformservis, 1997), 16.

99 Sergei D. Sheremetev, Otgoloski XVIII veka [Echoes of the 18th Century], vyp. 11, Vremia Imperatora Pavla : 1796‑1800 gody [The Time of Emperor Paul I. 1796‑1800] (M., 1905), 230.

100 “Iz bumag i perepiski grafa N.P. Sheremeteva v tsarstvovanie Pavla Petrovicha [N.P. Sheremetev’s Papers and Correspondence during the Reign of Pavel Petrovich],” Russkii arkhiv, 7 (1896), 329.

101 Richard Stites, “Female Serfs in the Performing World,” in Wendy Rosslyn, Alessandra Tosi, eds., Women in Russian Culture and Society, 1700‑1825 (London – New York : Palgrave McMillan, 2007), 31.

102 Smith, The Pearl, 95.

103 Pёtr A. Bessonov, Praskov´ia Ivanovna grafinia Sheremeteva [Countess Praskov´ia Ivanovna Sheremeteva] (M., 1872), 77.

104 Ibid., 82‑83.

105 Ibid., 81 ; Smith, The Pearl, 213.

106 On various requests sent by nobles to the Archive, see : OPI GIM, f. 33, op. 1, d. 55, l. 12ob. passim ; RGADA, f. 180, op. 3, d. 21, l. 97 passim.

107 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 212.

108 RGADA, f. 1287 “Sheremetevy,” op. 1, d. 4839, l. 4.

109 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 1‑1ob.

110 Aleksei F. Malinovskii, “Mnenie moe o raznykh obstoiatel´stvakh, kasaiushchikhsia do bogougodnogo zavedeniia, Vashim Siiatel´stvom sozidaemogo. S primechaniiami na poliakh N.P. Sheremeteva, [My opinion about the different circumstances pertaining to the charitable institution… With marginalia by N.P. Sheremetev],” in Stoletnie otgoloski. 1802 god (M., 1902), 34 ; a draft I found in RGIA, f. 1088, op. 14, d. 6, l. 14‑20.

111 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 10‑10ob.

112 Mikhail N. Afanas´ev, Klientelism i rossiiskaia gosudarstvennost´ [Clientage and the Russian state] (М., 2000), 42.

113 “Iz bumag i perepiski grafa N.P. Sheremeteva v tsarstvovanie Aleksandra Pavlovicha [N.P. Sheremetev’s papers and correspondence during the reign of Aleksandr Pavlovich],” Russkii arkhiv, 8 (1896) : 486.

114 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 21.

115 RGIA, f. 1088, op. 3, d. 605, l. 10.

116 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 11.

117 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 12ob.

118 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 11, 57. For more details, see my recent article : Maya B. Lavrinovich, “Kak possorilis´ Nikolai Petrovich s Alekseem Fёdorovichem : patron‑klientskie otnosheniia v russkom obshchestve rubezha XVIII‑XIX vv. [How Nikolai Petrovich quarreled with Aleksei Fёdorovich : Patron‑client relationships in Russian society in the late 18th and early 19th centuries],” Rossiiskaia istoriia, 3 (2016) : 91‑110.

119 “Iz bumag i perepiski grafa N.P. Sheremeteva,” Russkii arkhiv, 8 (1896) : 484.

120 Kettering, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients, 18.

121 Ibid., 20‑21.

122 This argument is presented by Dena Goodman, The Republic of Letters : A Cultural History of the French Enlightenment (Ithaca : Cornell Univ. Press, 1994), 3 passim.

123 Kettering, “Friendship and clientage…,” 143‑144.

124 Vseobshchii sekretar´, ili Novyi i polnyi pis´movnik… [The universal secretary, or A new and complete letter‑writing guide] (M. : Ridiger & Claudii, 1796), vol. I, XXIX–XXX.

125 Luba Golburt, “Vasily Petrov and the Poetics of Patronage,” Вивлiоөика : E‑Journal of Eighteenth‑Century Russian Studies, 3 (2015) : 61 ; Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients, 21.

126 Kettering, “Friendship and Clientage,” 142, 146.

127 Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients, 21.

128 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4840, l. 49.

129 RGIA, f. 1088, op. 3, d. 225, l. 10‑10ob.

130 OPI GIM, f. 33, d. 55, l. 27.

131 OPI GIM, f. 33, d. 55, l. 32.

132 RGADA, f. 1261, op. 3, d. 1479 ; in 1801, Vorontsov submitted two memorandums to Emperor Alexander I : Aleksandr R. Vorontsov, “Primechaniia na nekotorye stat´i kasaiuschiesia do Rossii [Notes on some articles related to Russia],” Chtenia v Moskovskom Obshchestve istorii i drevnostei Rossiiskikh 1 (1859), 89‑102 ; Aleksandr R. Vorontsov, “Primechaniia o pravakh i preimushchestvakh Senata [Notes on the rights and privileges of the Senate],” Chteniia v Moskovskom Obshchestve istorii i drevnostei Rossiiskikh 1 (1864), 108‑111.

133 RGADA, f. 197, op. 2, d. 42, chast´ 1, l. 13.

134 Kettering, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients, 55. Brokers not only secured material benefits for their clients, they also connected them to the wider world and interceded on their behalf when regular channels proved inadequate.

135 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 177 ; the Assembly was established in 1771 and existed until 1783 ; others date its foundation as late as 1774, the year its first volume was issued (Gaira A. Vesёlaia, Sergei S. Dmitriev, “Zapiski kniagini Dashkovoi i pis´ma sestёr Vil´mot iz Rossii [Princess Dashkova’s memoirs and the Wilmot sisters’ letters from Russia],” in Ekaterina R. Dashkova, Zapiski. Pis´ma sestёr Vil´mot iz Rossii (M. : Izd‑vo MGU, 1987), 10. One should remember that 1771 was the year of the plague outbreak in Moscow, and so all gatherings were prohibited by the authorities.

136 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 210 ; Rossiiskii featr, ili Polnoe sobranie vsekh rossiiskikh featral´nykh sochinenii, parts 1‑43 (SPb. : Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1786‑1794).

137 Svetlana Shcheglova, “Vorontsovskii krepostnoi teatr [The Vorontsovs’ estate theater],” in Iazyk i literatura, vol. 1 (L., 1926), 331‑332 ; Aleksandr I. Vorontsov‑Dahskov, Ekaterina Dashkova. Zhizn´ vo vlasti i v opale [Ekaterina Dashkova. Life in power and in disgrace] (M. : Molodaia gvardiia, 2010), 232.

138 Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 210 ; Vesёlaia, Dmitriev, “Zapiski kniagini Dashkovoi,” 16 ; F. Gepfert, “O dramaturgii E.R. Dashkovoi [On Dashkova’s dramatic works],” in Aleksandr I. Vorontsov‑Dashkov, ed., Ekaterina Romanovna Dashkova : Issledovaniia i materialy [Ekaterina Romanovna Dahskova : Studies and archival materials] (SPb. : Dmitrii Bulanin, 1996), 150.

139 Avgust Kotsebu [August von Kotzebue], Bednost´ i blagorodstvo dushi. Komediia v trekh deistviiakh [Poverty and Nobleness of Mind. Comedy in three acts] (M. : Ridiger & Claudii, 1798). The piece was staged in Germany for the first time in 1795.

140 Shcheglova, “Vorontsovskii krepostnoi teatr,” 347‑348 (Supplement II).

141 Vesёlaia, Dmitriev, “Zapiski kniagini Dashkovoi,” 17.

142 See footnote 106.

143 See a critical study of Malinovskii’s archeographic activities : Cornelia Soldat, Das Testament Ivans des Schreckliches von 1572 : eine kritische Aufklärung (Lewiston – New York : Edwin Mellen Press, 2013) ; reviewed by Aleksandr Lavrov in Cahiers du Monde russe 55, 3‑4 (2014) : 332‑338.

144 Svetlana I. Mel´nikova, Kotsebu v Rossii [Kotzebue in Russia] (SPb. : Izd‑vo GATI, 2005), 151 ; Zhikharev, Zapiski sovremennika, 75‑76.

145 This type of friendship between equals bound by mutual trust but not by affection, implied mutual utility and convenience : Kettering, “Friendship and Clientage,” 145.

146 Russkii arkhiv, 10 (1873) : 1909.

147 RGIA, f. 1088, op. 1, d. 174, l. 1ob., 5, 6, 8, 10.

148 RGADA, f. 188 “Rukopisnoe sobranie RGADA [RGADA manuscript collection],” op. 1, d. 363, l. 19‑29.

149 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 25.

150 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 54.

151 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 19, 23.

152 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 20ob., 25ob. For an opposite and, in my opinion, unfounded view, see : Dolgova, Kniaginia E.R. Dashkova, 14 ; here I tend to accept the concept of “friendship” as a form of human existence in the secularized social environment that can be defined as “society.” See : Dmitrii Ia. Kalugin, “Istoriia poniatiia ‘druzhba’ – ot Drevnei Rusi do XVIII veka [History of the notion of friendship – from Early Rus´ to the 18th century],” in Oleg V. Kharkhordin, ed., Druzhba : Ocherki po teorii praktik (SPb. : Izd‑vo Evropeiskogo universiteta, 2009), 255.

153 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 78.

154 TsGA Moskvy, f. 4, op. 14, d. 1140, l. 8.

155 Copies of the Emperor’s decree in OPI GIM, f. 60, op. 3, d. 2567, l. 6 passim.

156 See Dmitrii Petrovich Buturlin’s (Vorontsov’s nephew) letter to Semën Romanovich Vorontsov dated December 3, 1805 in AKV, vol. 32 (M., 1896), 414 ; OPI GIM, f. 33, op. 1, d. 26, l. 24.

157 RGADA, f. 1287, op. 1, d. 4839, l. 54.

158 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 23.

159 Vesёlaia, Dmitriev, “Zapiski kniagini Dashkovoi,” 28. The date of their marriage indicated by the authors (1812) is erroneous (the same date is cited in Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 209). Dolgova considered Dar´ia Illarionovna to be a cousin of Dashkova (as well of Alexander Vorontsov), but she actually was an aunt of the Romanoviches (Dolgova, “Aleksei Fёdorovich Malinovskii,” 232, endnote 7).

160 RGADA, f. 1261, op. 3, d. 599, l. 1.

161 Vesёlaia, Dmitriev, “Pis´ma sestёr Vil´mot iz Rossii, 266‑260 ; original version : The Marchioness of Londonderry, H.M. Hyde, eds., Catherine and Martha Wilmot, The Russian Journals of Martha and Catherine Wilmot …1803‑1808 (London : Macmillan and Co., 1934).

162 RGADA, f. 188, op. 1, d. 363, l. 19 : “I look forward to coming to Moscow as soon as the [winter] road is settled, and I hope to enjoy your pleasant conversation there,” wrote Dashkova in one of her undated letters to Malinovskii ; see also : Ekaterina N. Firsova, “Dusheprikazchiki E.R. Dashkovoi. Nasledstvo i nasledniki, [The executors of E.R. Dashkova’s will. Her heritage and heirs],” in Larisa V. Tychinina, ed., E.R. Dashkova i Ekaterina Velikaia : kul´turnoe nasledie i sovremennost´ (M. : Izd‑vo MGI im. E.R. Dashkovoi), 183.

163 Catherine Wilmot’s letters in Dashkova, Zapiski. Pis´ma sestёr Vil´mot iz Rossii, 239, 247, 302‑303 ; Zhikharev, Zapiski sovremennika, 75.

164 Dashkova, Zapiski. Pis´ma sestёr Vil´mot iz Rossii, 481‑482.

165 Vorontsov‑Dahskov, Ekaterina Dashkova, 255 ; Firsova, “Dusheprikazchiki E.R. Dashkovoi,” 189, 196.

166 NIOR RGB (Nauchno‑issledovatel´skii otdel rukopisei Rossiiskoi gosudarstvennoi biblioteki – Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library), f. 178 “Muzeinoe sobranie [Museum collection],” №7557, l. 6ob.

167 AVPRI, f. 1 “Administrativnye dela [Administrative files],” op. IV‑14, d. 38, l. 22a.

168 TsGA Moskvy, f. 2126 “Tserkvi Sretenskogo soroka Moskvy [The churches of Sretenskii sorok of Moscow],” op. 1, d. 1049, l. 11ob.

169 These estates are indicated in her income declaration of 1812 in TsGA Moskvy, f. 4, op. 1, d. 3238, l. 64. I am grateful to Elena Korchmina for providing me with this information.

170 NIOR RGB, f. 218 “Sobranie Otdela rukopisei [Manuscript Department collection],” d. 751, l. 138.

171 Manchester, “The Self‑Fashioning of Russian Orthodox Clergymen’s Sons,” 72, 74.

172 Laurie Manchester, Popovichi v miru : dukhovenstvo, Intelligentsiia i stanovlenie sovremennogo samosoznaniia v Rossii [Translated from : Holy Fathers, Secular Sons : Clergy, Intelligentsia, and the Modern Self in Revolutionary Russia (DeKalb : Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 2008)] (M. : Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2015), 47.

Seitenanfang

Zitierempfehlung

Papierversionen:

Maya B. Lavrinovich, A Servant of Two Masters? Cahiers du monde russe, 59/1 | 2018, 7-36.

Online-Version

Maya B. Lavrinovich, A Servant of Two Masters? Cahiers du monde russe [Online], 59/1 | 2018, Online erschienen am: 01 Januar 2020, abgerufen am 28 März 2024. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/10238; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/monderusse.10238

Seitenanfang

Autor

Maya B. Lavrinovich

mlavrinovich@hse.ru, School of History, National Research University Higher School of Economics

Seitenanfang

Urheberrechte

Der Text und alle anderen Elemente (Abbildungen, importierte Anhänge) sind „Alle Rechte vorbehalten“, sofern nicht anders angegeben.

Seitenanfang
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search