The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Official lists of officials of the municipal government of St. Petersburg of the 30-40th of the 19th century as historical source

s. A. Sharapova


Work is presented by department of the Russian history.

The research supervisor - the doctor of historical sciences, professor A.V. Smolin

The author on the basis of the analysis of the official lists of officials which remained in archive of the St. Petersburg City Council provides versatile information on qualitative and quantitative structure of the Duma device: social composition, data on ranks, religion, marital status, data on offenses, etc. The research allows to draw a conclusion that the official structure was corrected during reforms of city self-government for the purpose of formation of more competent authority. Archival official documents along with other historical sources help to restore a complete picture of the St. Petersburg officials.

The author of the article presents all-round information about qualitative and quantitative structure of the State Duma on the basis of official lists of functionaries preserved in the archive of the St. Petersburg Municipal Duma: social structure, data on ranks, religion, marital status, delinquencies, etc. The research allows to make a conclusion that functionary staff was corrected in the course of the city government&s reforms in order to form a more competent body. The archival official documents help to reconstruct an integral image of Petersburg officialdom alongside with other historical sources.


Among sources of studying the Russian bureaucracy the paramount role is occupied by official lists. Their value and value do not raise doubts at researchers.1

For the submitted article the official lists of officials of the St. Petersburg City Council which remained in archive were chosen consider the ten-year period of its work: from 1833 to 1845 2 Contents of forms were supplemented and corrected, but the main columns remained invariable. It is a surname, a name, the official's middle name, his religion, a rank, tenure, service, participation in campaigns, stay under court or recovery of penalty, stay is on vacations or resignation, certification of the official, his marital status.

The analysis of the available lists shows some divergence in data which concerned, as a rule, age and a position, in some cases - data on tenure. Often one position is crossed out by a pencil and atop

It is possible to note that the list of officials finally did not settle. It was connected with work on specification of structure of City Dumas, and probably with a problem of completing of city institutions. The social composition of officials was changed slightly. To the middle of the 1840th uve-

lines another is entered. Perhaps, it was connected with mechanical transferring of some data from the previous lists and negligence of the copyist. Almost all editing is made a pencil.

The contents of the column indicating origin of officials allow to draw certain conclusions, though not rather exact. The instruction "son of the provincial secretary" or "son of the official of the 9th class" does not give the chance to track what estate left the official. Sometimes the rank was not specified.

Lists allow to divide officials into the following groups: noblemen, children of junior officer ranks (subaltern officers, shtabs-captains, corporals, etc.), petty bourgeoises, natives of a ministry, merchant children, soldier's children, children of small attendants (konyushennosluzhitel-sky, pridvornosluzhitelsky, mandative sluzhitelskiye, etc.), foreigners, children of handicraftsmen, volnootpushchenny. The most uncertain group - children of small attendants as here representatives of different estates (tab. 1) can get.

the number of natives of noblemen was treated: from 12 people in 1833 up to 20 people in 1845 and also natives of a ministry - from 4 people in 1833 up to 10 people in 1845. The number of officials - children of junior officer ranks from 35 people in 1833 up to 24 people in 1845 and also - decreases


Social composition of the device city upravleniya3

Origin 1833 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1844 1845

Noblemen 12 12 12 12 13 12 15 23 20

Children of junior officer ranks 35 30 31 31 27 24 23 27 24

Petty bourgeoises 3 5 5 6 6 8 6 5 3

Natives of a ministry 4 3 2 3 5 5 5 8 10

Merchant children 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1

Children of small attendants 16 16 13 18 12 14 12 10 9

Soldier's children 3 4 2 5 5 5 3 4 4

Natives of foreigners 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2

Children of handicraftsmen 1 2 2

Volnootpushchenny 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Not specified 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1

All people 86 79 75 83 77 76 74 85 77

Tay small attendants from 16 people in 1833 up to 9 people in 1845. In isolated cases foreigners, children volnootpushchenny, handicraftsmen, representatives of merchants meet.

the Religion of the official was not distinguished to

in the special column, it was specified near his name. The vast majority of them were Orthodox Christians. The official list for 1839 contains data on 76 people - 66 people ispovedova-

whether Orthodoxy, seven were Catholics, three - Lutherans, at one official the religion is not specified. 4 In 1840 from 73 people - 60 were Orthodox Christians, 1 - evangelic confession, 7 Catholics, 3 Lutherans. At two people the religion is not specified, but with high probability it is possible to assume that it is Orthodox Christians chinovniki5.

Official lists contain data on the ranks specified in tab. 2.

Table 2

The high-ranking list of employees in the device city upravleniya6

Class (rank) 1833 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1844 1845

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
7 1 3 3 4 5 4 3 2 2
8 2 2 3
9 28 30 28 34 28 25 23 20 18
10 10 7 11 9 10 8 12 17 15
12 4 12 10 9 8 12 16 17 12
13 1 1
14 10 9 9 12 12 13 5 7 10

Without rank 1 4 1 1

Bureaucrats 13 12 6 8 5 1 10 15 14

Subbureaucrats 2 1 1

Другое& 12 3 4 4 5 5 3 2 1

All people 86 79 75 83 77 76 74 85 77

The ranks which are not specified in sheets occur in lists. Perhaps some of them - a slip.

The analysis of tab. 2 shows that most of office attendants had a cool rank, at least and small. By 1845 the share of the officials having a rank is higher than the 10th class, is reduced. A considerable part of bureaucrats and subbureaucrats - i.e. people, without rank, was made by the young people only starting the office career at the age of 15-20 years. The age was specified in forms very carelessly and often improved, but, as a rule, people of middle age already served to themselves a rank. The column "service" fixed also what encouragement was received by any given official.

The data on a property status of officials which were contained in forms show that mostly they had no real estate. The others

specified in the column of the house, registered for parents, wives, some owned the property which got in inheritance. Sometimes forms contain data on possession of one or two serfs. According to the list of 1833 of 86 people, 27 had property (owned, was available for parents or belonged to wives) 8. In 1840 11 people had the real estate, and 4 persons had serfs krestyan9. Data on tenure - the only instruction in forms on a property status of officials.

Lists fixed data on the offenses committed by officials. So, the head of a desk, the collegiate secretary I.S. Kovyrzin was under examination for vzyatochnichestvo10; public

the notary, the provincial secretary A.I. Valkh consisted under court for dedication of the native of Finland in rekruty11, etc. The interesting formulation met at the surveyor behind collecting an excise from vessels, the titular counselor A.S. Shusherin: "noted for low-respect to the administration" 12. Sometimes offenses were committed on service in bodies of the municipal government, but sometimes "loop" tried to keep step with the official from the past. For example, the head of a desk, the collegiate registrar D.M. Tarasevich was under court of the Vitebsk chamber of Criminal court on the case of dissenters, during service in the Vitebsk Town police as investigative pristava13. The form did not contain a clear post - a novleniye in the matter of Tarasevich, but it is possible to tell that his shadowy past did not affect career in City Duma in any way. Other example, the secretary of City Duma is not less indicative, the collegiate secretary A.S. Petrovsky was judged by the Yaroslavl Criminal chamber for the fact that made frauds with public money and, apparently, theft of svyashchennosluzhebny things. However "according to the decision of this chamber it is accepted in respect the hypochondriac disease which gained it at that time in strong degree and six-month detention, it is kept one more week in custody and for a manor in the apartment prophetic having an appearance svyashchennosluzhebny for what to it it is confirmed that did not dare to do similar" 14. Such loyalty to the guilty officials was not something outstanding. So, on November 20, 1842 under a signature stamp "Confidentially" the Minister of Internal Affairs L.A. Perovsky directed to the civil governor V.A. Sheremetev case of plunders of officials of City Duma. Business was begun in 1838 when huge frauds of the governor of office Mikhaylov and the secretary of office Lastovetsky were opened. Officials were prosecuted for the fact that "... together with the burgomaster Svistunov, participated in abuses on management petty-bourgeois

society why 700 thousand rubles of a shortage of the public sums collected on it, it is spent self-willedally and involuntarily to 600 thousand rubles, about 279 thousand rubles are made to a debt and there were in general different disorders on collecting and the use of the state and public sums and on recruitment". The Duma asked about dismissal of the caught stealing officials, but the resolution was not provided in ispolneniye15.

On December 3, 1842 the answer where it was reported followed that the St. Petersburg Provincial board is valid in 1838 believed Mikhaylov and Lastovetsky to discharge of affairs and to prosecute, but "... definition these g by the being military Governor general is not approved, and on representation its Ruling Senate referring actions of the marked officials of rashness and to omission on a position, of October 11, 1839 for No. 59476 ordered to provincial board, without betraying their Mikhaylov and Lastovetsky to court to make by it, on the basis of the code of laws of volume 2 institutions of provinces from 228, a strict reprimand, with confirmation that for future time in the actions on service tried to observe due discretion that from the Civil governor at the same time was executed" 16.

In general, the official picture of offenses reflected in forms was not depressing. So according to the list of 1835 of 77 people, under court consisted 4 cheloveka17, in 1839 - from 76 people under court were 5 chelovek18, and in 1845 - under court consisted of 77 people 6 chelovek19. But it was the official statistics which is not absolutely reflecting the real situation. It is difficult to agree with B.N. Mironov's opinion that "writers and contemporaries intentionally exaggerated shortcomings of the Russian bureaucracy to discredit it and indirectly to discredit supreme authority" 20.

Lists of the 30th of the 19th century do not contain data on education, but it is possible to assume that with this problem in Peterbur-

ge the situation was better, than in the province. Record about not certification chinovnika21 is only once found. Very seldom marks meet, sometimes pencil "it is certified capable" 22, but it does not give the grounds to draw any conclusions. A number of foreign historians believed that in the subsoil of the conservative, police state approximately from 30th of the 19th century there was a formation of the so-called "the educated bureaucracy" which was grouped in a number of the central institutions and owing to the beliefs, education, views shared social expectations intelligentsii23. Data on social composition only indirectly can confirm this assumption. Most of officials was children of noblemen, junior officer ranks, persons of a ministry and consequently, quite could have basic education. The gradual ascension on an office ladder noted at most of officials promoted formation of knowledge and, perhaps, certain beliefs. It is possible to draw final conclusions only with use of other sources.

At last, the last column was devoted to marital status of officials, it contains the information about the wife and children. Here too there are divergences connected with mechanical transferring of data. Besides, forms contain the information not only about juvenile children, but also about the grown-up offsprings who are not dependent on the head of family.

Thus, studying official lists gives the researcher information not only about quantitative, but also about the qualitative structure of bureaucracy in City Dumas. Data of forms allow to draw a conclusion that the structure of city institutions was in a development stage, was specified and adjusted during reforms of city self-government though quantitatively it changed a little.

The qualitative players of officials of City Dumas were slightly changed. To the middle of the 1840th the number of natives of noblemen and a ministry increased, the most part of officials had a cool rank. Therefore, it is possible to assume that the structure of City Dumas was completed from the people who had certain knowledge. Besides, most of officials consistently passed career steps and became competent of the business.

Data of the studied lists allow to tell that the government faced untidiness of bureaucracy and often receded before this problem. Characteristic is the fact that for most of the officials convicted of offenses, public service proceeded without restrictions.

In total with other types of sources the official lists help to recreate a complete picture of the St. Petersburg officials.

1 P.A. Zayonchkovsky. Machinery of government of autocratic Russia in the 19th century of M., 1978. Page 9-10; V.A. Ivanov. Provincial officials of the 50-60th of the 19th century in Russia. Historical and source study essays. Kaluga. 1994 Pages 7.
2 At our disposal there were lists for 1833, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1840, 1844, 1845. For 1839 three various lists remained: see CGIA F. 788. Op. 4 78, 78a, 79
3 CGIA SPb. T. 788. Op. 4. HH. 76, 76 and, 77, 77 and, 78 and, 79, 80, 81, 82. In CGIA archive there are three various lists for 1839. As the divergence in them is insignificant and it seems not basic, data of one of lists were entered in the table: CGIA F. 788. Op. 4 79
4 CGIA F. 788. Op. 4. 79.
5 In the same place. 80
6 CGIA SPb. T. 788. Op. 4. HH. 76, 76 and, 77, 77 and, 78 and, 79, 80, 81, 82.
25 1
7 The ranks which are not specified in sheets occur in lists. Perhaps some of them - a slip
8 CGIA SPb., F. 788, Op. 4. 76
9 In the same place. 80.
10 In the same place. 78. L. 149 about.
11 In the same place. L. 200 about.
12 In the same place. 81. L. 264 about 265.
13 In the same place. 78. L. 232 about.
14 In the same place. 81. L. 17-18.
15 RGIA. T. 1287. Op. 37. 99. NN. 12-12ob.
16 In the same place. NN. 18-18 about.
17 CGIA. T. 788. Op. 4. 76 and.
18 In the same place. 79.
19 In the same place. 82.
20 B.N. Mironov. Social history of Russia. T. 2. SPb., 2003. Page 173.
21 CGIA F. 788. Op. 4. 79. L. 322.
22 In the same place. 82. L. 246.
23 Administrative reforms in Russia HUSh-H1H of centuries in comparative-historical prospect. Scientific state-of-the-art review. M, 1990. Page 15.
Larsen Tord
Other scientific works: