Basing on a new self-compiled dataset the article reveals features of the distribution of the Moscow nobility’s property in the beginning of the 19th century. New archival sources, noble tax returns, allow to take into account all estates of a landowner throughout the whole Russia that was never done before because of lack of sources. The statistical analysis convincingly demonstrates that the share of Moscow nobility whose estates were located in more than one province was significant, what leads to three fundamentally important conclusions. Firstly, the number of poor nobility in Russia seems to be exaggerated, till now the property of an aristocrat in each province was treated as a separate property so small subordinate estates were analyzed as main estates therefore the number of “poor” nobility was growing, but only on paper. Secondly, the share of female property was not just significant, but amounted to almost 50 %, especially in the category of poor nobility. Thirdly, we cautiously assume that the number of nobility in Russia is overstated if we rely on the assessment of noble property in one province as an independent unit of analysis.
The chapter proposes a wide overview of social processes in the nineteenth-century world. First of all, with all the exceptions also treated in the chapter, it deals with urbanization, democratization and the formation of capitalist classes and class conscience.
This article presents an attempt to reconsider the role of “Germans” in Russia in the 1730s by reconstructing the Pietist anthropological sensibilities of the key “German” ministers of Empress Anna Ioannovna. While these sensibilities did not necessarily translate into a coherently formulated policy program, it appears that they could be reflected in these ministers’ basic “administrative instincts,” in the ways in which they saw human nature and understood human interactions, and that this, in turn, shaped the policy choices they made at the helm of the Russian Empire. In particular, the article explores the reorganization of noble service, the promotion of education, and religious policies. Two themes are stressed: the focus on “interiorization” of obedience and the ways in which this focus drove a shift to developing more intrusive and systematic bureaucratic tools of observation, regulation, and assessment intended to effect this interiorization. From that point of view, the “German” ministers of the 1730s played a key role in extending the project of “Westernization” by actually stepping beyond the Petrine paradigm of “progress through coercion.”