the evolution of service nobilities

November-2006 MAC/TENS-V2 Page-v 1403_933758_02_previ

Contents

List of Maps vii

List of Tables viii

Preface ix

Notes on Contributors x

Glossary of Technical Terms xiii

1 Introduction: The Evolution of Service Nobilities 1H. M. Scott

2 The Swedish Nobility, 1600–1772 13A. F. Upton

3 The Rise and Fall of the Danish Nobility, 1600–1800 43Knud J. V. Jespersen

4 The Nobility of the Early Modern Reich, 1495–1806 74Peter H. Wilson

5 The Junkers of Brandenburg–Prussia, 1600–1806 118Edgar Melton

6 The Nobility in the Bohemian and AustrianLands, 1620–1780 171James Van Horn Melton

7 The Early Modern Hungarian Nobility 210Peter Schimert

8 The Nobility of Hungary in the Eighteenth Century 249R. J. W. Evans

9 The Nobility of Poland–Lithuania, 1569–1795 266Robert I. Frost

v

November-2006 MAC/TENS-V2 Page-vi 1403_933758_02_previ

vi Contents

10 The Russian Nobility in the Seventeenth and EighteenthCenturies 311Isabel de Madariaga

11 Conclusion: The Continuity of Aristocratic Power 377H. M. Scott

Guides to Further Reading 400

Index 421

November-2006 MAC/TENS-V2 Page-1 1403_933758_04_Cha01

1Introduction: The Evolution ofService NobilitiesH. M. ScottUniversity of St Andrews

The second volume of this collection is devoted to Northern, Central andEastern Europe. The development of this region’s nobilities during theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries broadly corresponded to that evidentfurther West. The main themes of the essays which follow are exactly thosewhich dominated the first volume: a visible consolidation of noble power,the central importance of land as a source of income and social authority,a growing stratification within the nobility and the crucial role played bythe State in the evolution of these élites. All four developments were linked.There were differences, both between the eastern and the western halves ofthe continent and between individual nobilities, and such variations wereimportant. Yet they were less striking than the similarities evident all acrossEurope. In important respects, the period c�1600–1800 saw the developmentof greater uniformity between all of Europe’s élites. It was achieved by theconvergence of nobilities in the eastern half of the continent with the broadpattern evident in Southern and Western Europe.

This was particularly apparent in Russia, where changes around 1700produced a nobility which – for the first time – began to resemble thosefound elsewhere on the continent. To a considerable extent these builton an earlier evolution, and it may be that, where the nobility at leastwas concerned, Russia’s chronological development simply lagged behindthat of other continental countries. In the seventeenth century, Russia wasdistinct in important ways, as Professor Isabel de Madariaga makes very clear(Chapter 10). The origins of the Muscovite nobility were to be found less inmilitary service than in its traditional role at the ruler’s court, demonstratedby the Russian term for this élite: dvoryanin, from dvor meaning court. Russia’snobility was distinctive in a second respect. The sole hereditary native titlewas that of prince, which could only be acquired by birth (as the descendantof the princes who had exercised authority under the Grand Prince of Kiev’soverlordship) and could not be awarded by the ruler. All other titles werefunctional, that is to say they described a rank or position and, unlike

1


2 The Evolution of Service Nobilities

their western equivalents, were not hereditary. The princes together withthe boyars ‘reproduced in a sociological sense the aristocrats of the West’.The second element in Russia’s future nobility mainly comprised the Tsar’smilitary servitors, who formed a cavalry force and in return received lands,thereby reproducing ‘in a sociological sense, the knights of the West, the menon horseback’.1 By comparison with the situation in many other countries,the seventeenth-century Russian aristocracy had few privileges, and thosethey did enjoy were ‘customary rather than legal’ in nature.2 This underlinedone central point about Russia’s evolution before the eighteenth century:that the Western concept of Orders and Estates, rooted in the ideology ofthe Roman Catholic Church and subsequently transferred to lay society, didnot exist in Orthodox Muscovy.

Russia’s élite was transformed by some remarkable social engineeringforced through by Peter I (‘the Great’, 1689–1725), whose policies affectedevery area of Russian life. His reforms began to make the nobility what it hadnot been hitherto: an Estate in the Western sense, that is to say a distinctlegal order or Stand which possessed precise and substantial juridical, socialand political privileges. These were far fewer than other European nobilitieshad long enjoyed. The eighteenth-century Russian nobleman could still betortured, while his property could be and was confiscated by the ruler. Hisposition was to be ameliorated under Catherine the Great (1762–96), who in1785 issued a charter to the nobility, which finally secured for the Russianélite the wide-ranging rights and privileges which their European counter-parts had long possessed. The development of a European-style nobility inRussia had also been advanced by Peter I’s introduction of a limited numberof hereditary titles. This evolution was incomplete, however, in one crucialrespect. Though the Emperor attempted to implant the legal device of entailinto Russia through his Law of Single Inheritance (1714), his efforts werewidely unpopular and proved unsuccessful: the measure was repealed afterthe coup of 1730.3 The Russian nobility’s enduring adherence to the part-ible inheritance, which was traditional, prevented the hereditary transmis-sion of wealth and power, and so inhibited the full emergence of the kindof aristocracy emerging in many European countries at this period. It wasone reason why, though there were many great nobles, no full-blown aris-tocratic elite ever developed in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Russia(Chapter 10).

This was unusual in the context of the countries examined in this volume,though certainly not unique. Brandenburg–Prussia was an exception to thistrend (Chapter 5), and so was the Reich. There, as Professor Peter Wilsonmakes clear (Chapter 4), the singular constitutional and political structureand the persistence until 1806 of a framework established at the end ofthe Middle Ages, militated against the emergence of the kind of aristocraticelite coming into existence in many continental countries. So too did theoperation of partible inheritance across large areas of Germany. Elsewhere,


H. M. Scott 3

however, the general evolution in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe wasclear. The early modern period was characterised by the elaboration of thekind of hierarchy of wealth, power and (usually) titles found throughoutmuch of Western and Southern Europe. It exemplified the way developmentsin the two halves of the continent were coming together during the seven-teenth and eighteenth centuries. Around 1600, the nobilities examined inthis volume were usually less stratified, reflecting their shorter, less complexhistorical evolutions. An elementary hierarchy existed, but there were ratherfewer intervening levels between the mass of petty nobles and the greatlords. The relative infrequency of titles throughout Northern, Central andEastern Europe before the end of the sixteenth century was one symptom ofthe simpler structure of these élites.

By 1800, however, they were noticeably more stratified, with the emer-gence of several distinct levels between the aristocracy and the lesser nobility.This was recognised, and to some extent advanced, by the spread of titlesduring the early modern period, both numerically and by degree. Oneimportant reason why this took place is that titles cost next-to-nothingto bestow and might even generate income: further research is needed onthe extent of the sale of honours by hard-pressed monarchs. This madethe granting of a title, or an advancement in rank, a cheap and there-fore attractive way of rewarding State servants, particularly for rulers in theeastern half of the continent whose financial resources were significantly lessthan their western counterparts. Their incomes lagged behind the escalatingexpenditures they had to support from revenues which were often scanty.The new ranks and designations were equally appealing to the noble recipi-ents, engaged as they were in an endless competition for status, prestige andadvancement, and were an economical and efficient way of satisfying theneeds of both donor and recipient.

In Sweden and Denmark, titles made their appearance with the introduc-tion of the ranks of baron and count. Such designations were first grantedin 1563 in Sweden. During the next century very few were created. In 1626when the structure of the Swedish nobility was formalised, there were onlytwelve barons and counts. They were all members of the magnate élite whichincreasingly dominated Sweden’s government and society. The ‘council aris-tocracy’, as it became known, was sharply differentiated through its wealthand political influence as well as its monopoly of titles, from the remainderof the nobility, who resented its dominance. Though seventeenth-centurySweden was unusual for the absence of serious social conflicts, these divisionswere certainly evident at the time. Not until the reign of Karl XI after 1680was there a significant expansion of the Swedish titled nobility (Chapter 2).On the other side of the Sound, the titles of baron and count were introducedin 1671 as part of the new absolute monarchy’s reorganisation of Denmark’snobility. Their appearance finally undermined the cherished principle ofnoble equality, though this had already been seriously weakened in practice(Chapter 3).



The inflation of honours was also evident elsewhere. In the Bohemianand Austrian Lands, the Habsburgs awarded the prized title of prince –which at this period could only be granted by the Holy Roman Emperor andhad hitherto been reserved for members of ruling families – to a handfulof major Houses during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Thefirst to be so honoured was the Liechtenstein in 1608, and before 1700it had been followed by the Lobkovic, Dietrichstein, Wallenstein (tempor-arily: the celebrated condottiere was prince of Friedland by 1623 and itsduke by 1625), Eggenberg, Auersperg, Portia and Schwarzenberg, while theHungarian family of Eszterházy also secured the princely dignity; otherHouses followed in the course of the eighteenth century.4 The same processof differentiation was also underway throughout the middle and lower levelsof the nobility.

Vienna’s powers of ennoblement were evident in the way in which selectedfamilies in the Austrian and Bohemian territories, invariably Catholic andloyalist, were granted a higher title – usually that of baron or count – and withit admission to the Herrenstand (Estate of Lords). This furthered the socialand political rise of the Herrenstand and thus the decline of the lesser nobilityin the Ritterstand (Estate of Knights). It also advanced the stratification ofthe Second Estate as a whole (Chapter 6). The same process can be seen inHungary, where inherited titles were rare until they were introduced by thenew Habsburg rulers who took over in 1526, shortly before the Ottomanconquest of much of the Kingdom. Its reconquest and the growth of Vienna’scontrol during the seventeenth century saw the rapid spread of these ranks.Only two Hungarian families – the Eszterházy in 1687, the Batthány in 1764 –secured the coveted status of prince before 1800. But the dignities of baronand especially of count were distributed much more freely by the Habsburgsand even sold by them, and they contributed to the marked stratificationof the Hungarian nobility which took place during the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, when the aristocracy was marked out partly by itsmonopoly of titles and partly by its distinct legal privileges (Chapter 7).

Two countries diverged from this general pattern, though in differentways. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the only titles were andalways remained those which either had originated in the Grand Duchy ofLithuania before the Union of Lublin with Poland in 1569 or were foreign inorigin. The early modern period did see the development of an elementaryhierarchy within the Commonwealth’s nobility, with State office filling therole played elsewhere by formal titles, but the process did not advance eitheras far or as fast as in most other countries. The strong tradition of szlachtaequality, and the system of partible inheritance which supported it, inhibitedthe full development of the kind of stable aristocracy which was evolvingelsewhere. The élite which emerged in early modern Poland–Lithuania wasnotable for the relatively frequent changes in its composition, with thecontinuing rise and fall of individual families, something which was quiteunusual (Chapter 9).


H. M. Scott 5

Developments in Brandenburg–Prussia were also distinct (Chapter 5).During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries an élite did evolve withinthe nobility and at certain points exercised considerable political influ-ence, particularly during the reign of Frederick William, the ‘Great Elector’(1640–88). Its titles and sometimes even its social origins, however, layoutside the territories of the Hohenzollerns. The Elector – exactly like hisfellow German rulers – could ennoble his subjects, but only to the level ofsimple nobility (Adel). Within the Reich, the higher titles of baron, count andprince could only be conferred by the Holy Roman Emperors, and this mono-poly was jealously – if not entirely successfully – defended against inroadsafter 1648 by the Austrian Habsburgs, for whom it was an important sourceof power, patronage and income. The majority of noblemen throughout thescattered Hohenzollern territories remained simple Adel. During the secondhalf of the seventeenth century, the Great Elector encountered significantopposition to his centralising policies from the territorial nobilities, andin order to circumvent this he built up and worked through a new élite.This ‘imperial’ or ‘Aulic’ nobility was loyal, usually Calvinist (in contrastto the Lutheranism of most Junkers) and often recruited from outside hisown lands. It was also distinguished by the higher titles of nobility whicha grateful Elector secured for his favourites and officials from the HabsburgEmperor.

The eclipse of the Junkers did not prove to be permanent. During theeighteenth century they retrieved their position, forming a partnership withthe ruling family and contributing much to Prussia’s emergence as a majorEuropean power during the reign of Frederick the Great (1740–86). Yet theHohenzollern State long possessed a number of separate territorial élitesrather than one unified nobility, which only emerged after 1800. It inhib-ited the kind of stratification which was underway elsewhere. This wasalso the effect of the Junkers’ adherence to partible inheritance. Thoughfamily agreements to keep the landed properties together were common, therevenues would often be divided among the sons, and this militated againstthe development of a hierarchy among the nobility of Brandenburg–Prussia(Chapter 5).

The national essays which follow underline that the nobilities of Northern,Central and Eastern Europe, like their Western and Southern counterparts,were primarily landed élites. The one partial exception to this generalisationwas the nobility of the Reich (Chapter 4). Elsewhere, the lands which theyowned or leased provided essential income in cash and/or kind together withconsiderable influence over other social groups. Russia was once again anexception to this pattern (Chapter 10). The Romanovs granted serfs ratherthan estates to their servants and favourites, a practice which was essential ina country where many regions were underpopulated, while landholding wasin any case much less stable; noblemen could have their estates confiscatedby the monarch in a way which was highly unusual elsewhere. Successive



rulers also sought to prevent any consolidation of landed power by grantingproperties away from the region where a nobleman was already entrenched.The result was that very few members of the Russian élite were able tobuild up the kind of regional power bases found in other countries, whichrested upon the consolidation of lands together with the social and polit-ical influence which accrued from this. It did not, however, prevent nobleexploitation of peasants being a central feature of Russia’s development, asit was all across Europe.

The way in which the nobilities examined in this volume exploited theirestates was distinctive in one respect. This was the emergence and consolid-ation of a system which can loosely, if not altogether accurately, be styled‘serfdom’, but should more accurately be known as the ‘second serfdom’,within which peasants were tied to the land and legally subject to their lords.By ‘second serfdom’ is meant ‘a massive growth in landlord power over therural population during the early modern period’.5 This was a distinctivefeature of early modern agrarian developments to the north of the BohemianForest and to the east of the river Elbe, and on a small scale in a few regionsof the Reich, to the west of the Elbe also (Chapter 4). Throughout theseareas, the peasantry had emerged in a much-weakened position from theagrarian crisis of the Later Middle Ages.6 This was apparent in the develop-ment, from the sixteenth century onwards, of the system of Gutsherrschaft(‘manorial lordship’). It had two principal characteristics: a nobleman had arelatively large demesne, which he farmed directly, while the peasants werein a dependent position and were forced to provide the essential – and oftenunpaid – labour for the lord to exploit his own lands. The serfs were tiedto their lord’s estate and subjected to a range of social, economic and legaldisabilities. They might not be able, for example, to marry themselves ortheir children, or to move to another estate without his permission. Thetransmission of a peasant’s property from father to son was likely to involvepayment to the lord. The distinguishing characteristic of Gutsherrschaft, inits classic form, was that the peasant was legally unfree.

This system was attractive, and may even have been essential, becauseof the relatively poor soil and low yield ratios throughout the eastern halfof the continent, which obliged nobles to minimise their labour costs inorder to make the exploitation of their estates economically viable. All overEurope nobles were farming part of their own lands, rather than rentingthem out. What was unusual about Central and Eastern Europe was thehigh proportion of these which the lord was cultivating directly, togetherwith the peasantry’s unfree status. The rise of serfdom was assisted by thewidespread political upheavals in many countries, and by the opportunitiesin some areas for the profitable seaborne export of grain and grain-basedproducts to Western Europe, especially between the mid sixteenth and thelater seventeenth centuries. It was facilitated and even accelerated by theState which was also anxious to extract resources from the serf, primarilyconscript soldiers and taxation, to build up its military forces.


H. M. Scott 7

This, in outline, is the traditional view of serfdom and the reasons forits development. Though its origins lie in much earlier periods of histor-ical writing, this very negative view of social developments was stronglyreinforced by the scholarship produced in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europebetween the end of the Second World War and its fracturing during andafter 1989.7 It was shaped by the assumption that peasants were everywheredowntrodden and exploited by the seigneurs. Agricultural production was,as a consequence, inefficient and the whole system was the source of theregion’s backwardness, both then and in later centuries. This approach obvi-ously has had considerable impact upon our view of the nobilities surveyedin this volume. Traditionally, scholarship on agrarian developments hasbeen dominated by statements about the divisions between the continent’swestern and eastern halves, with the river Elbe as a convenient – if inexact –dividing line. In East Elbian Europe, social developments have tended tobe reduced to a few crude generalisations, which indict every nobleman asan oppressor and portray every peasant as a downtrodden serf. Since 1989,however, the break-up of Soviet Eastern Europe has led to an infinitelymore nuanced and sophisticated view of agrarian developments becomingestablished.8

The essays in this volume underline that serfdom was less important tocontemporaries than it has seemed to later historians, in keeping with thereassessment now under way. The national surveys suggest that not onlywas Gutsherrschaft far from universal, but also where it became established,social developments were much less uniform than often supposed and couldalso be much less oppressive. In Russia, for example, around 50 per centof the population seem to have been serfs, but up to 90 per cent can beclassified as peasants until the later nineteenth century.9 A similar situationseems to have existed across all the countries where Gutsherrschaft becameestablished, though the proportions may have differed. The chapters whichfollow emphasise that serfdom was only one important dimension, ratherthan a defining characteristic, of the evolution of the region’s nobilitiesduring the early modern period.

This was especially so for Sweden and, to a lesser extent, Denmark. Swedenis in any case a clear exception to the pattern which prevailed across muchof Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, since serfdom never became estab-lished there. Swedish peasants had always been and remained free men,and though they were certainly exploited by the nobility, they were neverreduced to a state of unfreedom. In the mid-seventeenth century, during aperiod of acute social tension, there had been some talk of the peasantrybeing depressed into a ‘Livonian servitude’. In other words, there was a fearthat the kind of agrarian system which prevailed on the southern shoresof the Baltic would be transplanted into Sweden by noblemen who hadbecome familiar with Gutsherrschaft through military service in these areasduring the wars which ended in 1660. Many of the Swedish elite, the ‘council



aristocracy’, had secured large donations of lands from a grateful Crown,for their role in the conquest of a trans-Baltic empire, and on these estateswere perfectly happy to exploit the labour services which were establishedin these regions.10 Such impositions, however, were never a serious threatto the position of the Swedish peasantry. On the contrary, noble demesnesremained relatively small in Sweden itself, and were more likely to be leasedout than farmed directly (Chapter 2).

Developments in neighbouring Denmark followed a rather different pathduring the eighteenth century. A relatively mild form of peasant servitudewas formalised there in 1733, the so-called stavnsbånd or ‘bond of adscrip-tion’, which in its final form tied all male peasants between the ages offour and forty to the manor where they had been born. This was primarilyconcerned with the system of military recruitment and was of limitedduration: it was undermined by a reorganisation of the armed forces, andwas abolished by the Danish reformers (most of whom were themselvesnoblemen) at the end of the eighteenth century. Though the unpaid workwhich this provided was an important element in the Danish nobility’sprosperity during the mid-eighteenth century, it fell some way short of thesystem of Gutsherrschaft (Chapter 3).

The traditional picture of serfdom’s importance for the nobilities of Centraland Eastern Europe receives only qualified support from the national surveysin this volume. These demonstrate that, though it was widespread, it was farfrom universal and could be far less burdensome than for long believed. Somenoble estates, even in the heartland of serfdom, were leased to tenants in partand even in whole, rather than farmed as demesne. It is also evident that allpeasants in this region were not equally oppressed. Throughout Central andEastern Europe, the peasantry was as stratified as the nobility itself.11 At theapex of agrarian society there was usually an élite of relatively rich peasants,who were themselves landowners, farmed these properties with the help ofhired labour, marketed any surpluses which might be produced and mightbe personally free. Below this there was a complex and changing hierarchyof smallholders and agricultural workers: farmhands, servants, stablehands,maids and so forth. Labour services were normally performed by these hiredlabourers, who were often employed by the richer peasants to discharge theirown dues to the lord. Within the system of Gutsherrschaft, wage labour – byserfs for lords and by serfs for other peasants – was far more common andcertainly more significant than previously realised.

Far from Gutsherrschaft being uniform, moreover, there was considerablevariation, both between individual regions and whole countries, andbetween particular estates. Many established generalisations were based onstudies of larger properties, where the surviving records enabled detailedinvestigations to be undertaken. Yet these landholdings were not necessarilytypical.12 Though some impressive latifundia were to be found in Centraland Eastern Europe, many noble estates were either medium-sized or, in


H. M. Scott 9

many instances, quite small. Such landowners, it can be argued, might bebetter masters, more interested in the economic and social welfare of theirlands and peasants, and less oppressive than the agents or bailiffs who oftenran the larger estates for an absentee aristocratic landlord. It has also beenplausibly suggested that in some respects seigneurial peasants were forcedto be more efficient than their free counterparts, contrary to the classicaltheory of Gutsherrschaft.13 The extra burdens imposed on a serf meant thathe had to produce more grain and also hire labourers to fulfil his personalobligations to the noble lord. One important implication is that serfdomas a whole was economically less backward and more efficient than oftensupposed.

These arguments seriously qualify rather than completely overturn theestablished emphasis on the importance of Gutsherrschaft for the nobilitiesof Central and Eastern Europe. It would in any case be wrong to see thisregion as a land of large estates and a dominant landholding nobility. Somenoblemen owned no land at all, and their numbers may have increasedduring the early modern period. Those who did often possessed relativelylittle property: the practice of partible inheritance across large parts ofthis region – particularly Russia, Poland–Lithuania and Brandenburg–Prussia(Chapters 5, 9 and 10) – militated against the creation and survival ofextensive estates. These did exist in certain countries: the power of a handfulof families at the apex of the noble pyramid was immense, particularly inthe Bohemian and Austrian Lands and – for rather different reasons – inHungary (Chapters 6 and 7), while a handful of substantial landowners wereto be found in parts of Poland–Lithuania and especially its eastern regions(Chapter 9). These latifundia were considerably less common, however, thansome generalisations have suggested.

One reason why rulers had been willing to sanction and assist the consol-idation of serfdom had been their own reliance upon their noblemen aspaid or unpaid agents of their own power. In every country covered by thisvolume, the nobility had consolidated its hold on the State apparatus bythe second half of the eighteenth century, and in one – Sweden – it wasactually ruling in partnership with the bureaucracy between 1720 and 1772(Chapter 2). Even more than in Western and Southern Europe, rulers facedan acute shortage of available personnel, already trained or capable of beingso, in order to fill posts in central and local government and to officer theirarmies, at a period when monarchs were expanding their administrationsand building up their military forces across most of the region. At the sametime, the number and complexity of the tasks which fell upon a State offi-cial or an army officer were increasing. Both developments demanded moreand more specialised personnel, and the nobility was the main reservoir ofsuch talent. While the importance of a rising professional middle class inWestern Europe has been much exaggerated, it remains true that a Frenchor Spanish King had a broader range of potential State servants on whom to



draw than his counterpart in Denmark or Russia. Central and Eastern Europewas a less advanced region, and lacked a sizeable professional or commercialmiddle class.

One solution to this shortage was the widespread employment of non-natives, individuals who came from outside the country in question, thoughthey might speak the same language. Brandenburg–Prussia recruited manyadministrators from neighbouring territories within the Reich, Denmarkemployed Germans in its government, while eighteenth-century Russia gaveemployment to numerous Baltic Germans, who were now under her own ruleafter Peter the Great’s territorial annexations at the end of the Great NorthernWar (1700–21). A significant number of foreigners were ennobled duringSweden’s seventeenth-century Age of Empire (Chapter 2). The Austrian Habs-burgs drew most widely of all, giving employment to officials and espe-cially military commanders drawn from a wide variety of countries. Many ofthese itinerant soldiers or administrators secured admittance to the nobilityof their adopted homelands, some being ennobled for the first time by agrateful ruler. One consequence was that many of the élites examined inthis volume became noticeably diverse in composition during this period.The extension of Vienna’s control over the Kingdom of Hungary at the endof the seventeenth century saw a significant infusion of outsiders (oftenfrom other Habsburg territories) into the Kingdom’s nobility (Chapter 7).Two generations earlier this had been even more evident in the Bohemianand Austrian Lands, where the insertion of mercenary soldiers and, to alesser extent, officials during and after the Thirty Years War made the élite‘the most cosmopolitan in Europe’.14. In the Monarchy’s Hereditary Lands,military service remained an important path into the nobility and to promo-tion within it until 1800 and even beyond (Chapter 6).

The Bohemian and Austrian Lands were typical in one further respect:the evolution of a service nobility. The families who consolidated theirpower or who became established there during the upheavals in thefirst half of the seventeenth century long remained faithful servants ofthe Habsburg dynasty.15. Until the end of the eighteenth century andbeyond, successive generations of these lineages provided ministers andofficials, army commanders and diplomats, and the loyal service of thesenoblemen contributed much to the rise of the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy(Chapter 6). Developments in Denmark after the establishment of absolutismin 1660 were a second striking example of this trend, and were distinctive inone respect. Usually the existing élite became a service nobility, undergoingsignificant structural change in the process. In Denmark, however, the newabsolute monarchy set out to create ab initio, through grants of land andtitles, a new aristocracy which was purely a service élite. The old nobility,divided and in decline, was quickly supplanted at the top of the social andpolitical pyramid. In time, some families from within it became part of thenew élite (Chapter 3).


H. M. Scott 11

A nobility of service was to be found in every country covered by theseessays to some extent. It was not restricted to the eastern half of thecontinent. On the contrary, throughout Southern and Western Europe thesocial élite was coming, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, tofurnish an increasing number of State officials and military commanders.16

This evolution, however, was less formal and perhaps less conscious thanthat occurring throughout Northern, Central and Eastern Europe. There itmeant essentially two things. The first and also the most obvious meaningwas that the nobility served the State and provided it with essential special-ised personnel. Secondly, and rather more importantly, the structure andnature of nobility itself was coming to be shaped by such service. Inother words, noble status and with it social pre-eminence were increasinglydetermined by service and by State rank rather than by birth or lineage.This was particularly apparent in the establishment of formal Table of Rank.These tied social status to the military and administrative hierarchy and gaveprecedence to the claims of merit and service over those of birth, lineageor inherited social position. Denmark led the way in 1671 and Swedenfollowed suit 9 years later, with the Table of Ranks introduced by Karl XI in1680. The most celebrated and also the most significant, however, was thatintroduced in Russia in 1722. Peter I’s Table of Ranks was the centrepieceand the culmination of his wide-ranging reconstruction of the Russian élite(Chapter 10).

The nobilities examined in this volume were increasingly service élites.Successive generations of a family would serve (in the major states) in theofficer corps, and everywhere within central and particularly local govern-ment. In this way, they enhanced their prestige and power, securing a careerand some income. The State gained essential trained manpower, which thenobility alone could supply, and in this way fused the social élite with itsown agencies and identified it closely with its own aims. This, far more thanserfdom, was the principal influence upon the development of the nobil-ities of Northern, Central and Eastern Europe during the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, as the essays which follow will make clear.

Notes

1. Below, p. 317.2. Below, p. 334.3. See Lee A. Farrow, ‘Peter the Great’s Law of Single Inheritance: State Imperatives

and Noble Resistance’, Russian Review 55 (1996), pp. 430–47.4. R. J. W. Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550–1700 (Oxford, 1979),

pp. 171–74, 202.5. Sheilagh Ogilvie, ‘Communities and the “Second Serfdom” in Early Modern

Bohemia’, Past and Present no. 187 (2005), pp. 69–119, at p. 76. This is one of aseries of important articles by Professor Ogilvie on this topic.



6. An important discussion is provided by Edgar Melton, ‘Gutsherrschaft in EastElbian Germany and Livonia, 1500–1800: a critique of the model’, CentralEuropean History 21 (1988), pp. 315–49.

7. See the illuminating comments on the historiography of William W. Hagen,‘Village Life in East-Elbian Germany and Poland, 1400–1800: Subjection, Self-Defence, Survival’, in Tom Scott, ed., The Peasantries of Europe: From the Fourteenthto the Eighteenth Centuries (London, 1998), pp. 145–60.

8. See the remarks of William W. Hagen, Ordinary Prussians: Brandenburg Junkers andVillagers, 1500–1840 (Cambridge, 2002), Introduction, esp. pp. 8–25. ProfessorHagen’s book, a microhistory of the Stavenow lordship in the Prignitz (north-west Brandenburg), is the most distinguished work which incorporates thesenew perspectives to have appeared.

9. David Moon, The Russian Peasantry 1600–1930: The World the Peasant Made(London, 1999), pp. 1, 21 and passim.

10. See Edgars Dunsdorfs, The Livonian Estates of Axel Oxenstierna (Stockholm, 1981),pp. 9, 74, 100 and passim, for a notable example.

11. See the essays by William W. Hagen (‘Village Life in East-Elbian Germany andPoland’), Hermann Rebel (‘Peasantries under the Austrian Empire, 1300–1800’),and Edgar Melton (‘The Russian Peasantries, 1450–1860’), in Scott, ed., Peasant-ries of Europe, pp. 145–89, 191–225, and 227–66.

12. See the comments of Andrzej Kaminski, ‘Neo-Serfdom in Poland–Lithuania’,Slavic Review 34 (1975), pp. 253–68, at p. 256.

13. Melton, ‘Gutsherrschaft in East Elbian Germany’, p. 342.14. Below, p. 176.15. Grete Klingenstein, Der Aufstieg des Hauses Kaunitz (Göttingen, 1975) is a classic

study of the rise of one Moravian ministerial family, the Kaunitz: see ProfessorJames Van Horn Melton’s essay, below, pp. 195–98

16. See the ‘Introduction’, Volume I, pp. 34–48.

November-2006 MAC/TENS-V2 Page-421 1403_933758_16_ind01

Index

In this index there are major entries for the nobilities of each country covered by thisvolume, with many sub-headings related to each nobility. There are also entries onmajor themes in the study of nobilities so that the reader can compare the situationin different countries. For kings and queens listed in the index, regnal dates are given.For individuals birth and death dates are given.

absolutismDanish, 3, 10, 46–7, 53, 56–68, 69Habsburg, 174, 182, 185, 190, 193,

251, 255Hohenzollern, 134, 151, 163Russian, 319, 326, 351, 358Swedish, 25, 29, 34, 41–2

absolutism, seigneurial, 186–93, 199Academy of Chivalry, Sorø, Denmark,

52, 53Accession Charter (1611), Sweden, and

rights of office, 19address, style of, in Russia, 359adscription, bond of, 67–8agrarian developments, 7agriculture, in Denmark, 44–5, 47, 68Allgemeines Landrecht (1794), Prussian

Law Code, 394allodial, xiii, 14, 37, 310, 317, 318,

320, 328Anna Ivanovna, Empress of Russia

(1730–40), 341, 345, 350,351, 358

aristocracy, 377–99Bohemian, 194Brandenburg, 133, 140, 154, 161British, 281Danish, 10, 43–5, 48, 50, 52, 60–1,

62, 63, 67–8Hungarian, 4, 212, 215–20, 239–41,

249–50, 253–5, 265Polish, 4, 288, 292Portuguese, 378the Reich, 74–6, 81, 91–2Russian, 2, 311, 312–16, 318–20, 322,

330–1, 334–5

Swedish, 3, 8, 28see also nobility

aristocratic power, continuity of,396, 418–20

aristocratisation, 395armalistae, 223, 252army, role of nobility in

Bohemia and Austria, 175, 176, 195Brandenburg–Prussia, 142–3, 145–51Denmark, 44, 66–7Hungary, 239, 254the Reich, 91–2, 102–4Russia, 328–30, 344Sweden, 23–4, 27, 28–9, 32

Arnim family, 123–4, 136, 155,157, 183

Assembly of the Land, see Zemsky Soboraulic aristocracy, 5, 175, 181Austria, 10

definition of, 171landholdings in, 187titles in, 4

Austrian nobilityafter Thirty Years War, 171religion of, 171see also Austro-Bohemian nobility;

Bohemian nobility; Habsburgs(Austrian)

Austrian Succession, War of (1740–48),and role of Bohemianaristocracy, 194

Austro-Bohemian nobility, 171–209agrarian reform, 198–9army careers, 176commerce, involvement in, 192, 193consolidation of, 185–93

421


422 Index

Austro-Bohemian nobility – continuedCourt, 181–2declining influence after 1720, 193–9declining size of, 389education of, 196–8élite, 181, 187estate management, 189–90, 191–3finances of, 183further reading, 407–8influence in Estates, 184inheritance, 185–6international nature, 176–7land ownership, 177, 186–8lower nobility, 177, 187marriage, 181Protestant nobles, 177–8resilience of after 1800, 379–80rural life, 179–81service nobility, 195size of, 177taxation of, 178upper nobility, 177wealth of, 183

barshchina, 334Batthyány, József (b.1727), 258–9Bavaria, electors of, 93, 98, 108bene possessionati, 221–2, 252, 257, 280Benekendorff, Karl von (1713–83), 163Bessenyei, George (d.1811), 242–3Bocskay, Stephen (d.1606), 227–8, 244bocskoros, 223Bohemia, 10, 171

definition of, 171titles in, 4

Bohemian nobility, 171–209declining influence at Court, 193–4foreigners, influx of, 175–6Protestant estates, confiscation of, 174reconstitution after Thirty Years

War, 171religion of, 171, 173see also Austrian nobility;

Austro-Bohemian nobilityBohemian peasantry, 198–9

enserfment of, 171, 186–8Bohemian rebellion (1618), 173–4boiars, in Poland–Lithuania, 271,

272, 273, 293Boris Godunov, 314–15, 321

boyar council, see Dumaboyars, in Russia 313–14, 315, 316, 317,

318, 319, 320, 322–6, 330–5, 336,339, 363

lifestyle of, 331–5number of, 322

Brandenburg, 119–23Brandenburg, electors of, 88, 93Brandenburg nobles, as mercenaries, 124Brandenburg–Prussia, 118–70

inheritance in, 142Junkers ascendancy, 123–30marriage in, 140, 161modernizing élite, 136–7new nobility in, 132–3size of nobility, 177titles in, 5see also Junkers, Brandenburg–Prussia

Britain, resilience of nobility, 380–1Brunswick-Lüneburg, duchy of, 106–7burghers, Polish, and noble status, 278

Cadet Corps, Russian, 362Cadet Corps School, Berlin, 145–6Calvinists, and the Brandenburg Court,

136–7, 139Cantonal System, Brandenburg–Prussia

(1733)army recruitment, 145militarization of Prussian society, 147

Cap government in Sweden, and radicalreforms, 39–40

Catherine II, Empress of Russia, ‘theGreat’ (1762–96), 2, 298, 340, 341,348, 349, 351–2, 353, 355, 356, 357,359, 360, 362, 364, 367

Catholic magnates, in Austro-Bohemia,181

Catholic nobles, promotion underAustrian Habsburgs, 172–3

census, 214, 251Charles XII of Sweden,see Karl XII, King

of Sweden (1697–1718)Charter of Nobility (1612), Sweden, and

privileges, 19Charter to the Nobility (1785),

Russia, 357chief justice, office of, 219Christian V, King of Denmark

(1670–99), 60, 63


Index 423

Civil Code (1804), 391, 392clientage, in Sweden, 35comitats, see countycommerce, involvement of nobility in

Austro-Bohemia, 192, 193Hungary, 237–8Poland, 281the Reich, 111Russia, 349

compossessores, 252conscription, in Denmark, 66–7convents, imperial, 87corona, 250corporal punishment, Russia, 359, 364Cossacks, 274–5Council of the Realm, Danish, 45, 51

dissolution of, 56power struggle with the monarchy,

55–6taxation, 54–5

county, 221–3county administration, 118, 221, 223Court, nobility at

Austro-Bohemia, 181, 195, 196Brandenburg, 136, 141Hungary, 234–5, 240, 241Reich princely courts, 101Russia, 315–16, 330–5, 341, 353, 358–9

Crown estates, in Denmark, 47–8Crown peasants, in Sweden, 14culture

Austro-Bohemian nobility, 181Russia, 333–4, 360, 362, 364Sweden, 33–4

curialistae, 223Czartoryski family, 274, 290,

294, 298

Danish nobility, 43–73‘armorial letters’ patent, 60collapse of old nobility, 56–9, 60, 62constitutional settlement of 1660,

53–4, 55–6Court versus country, 52–3Danish nationalism, 64–5decline of, after 1800, 378definition of, 46economic decline after 1600, 48–9education of, 52–3eighteenth century, 63–8

embourgeoisement of, 68–9estate management, 44–5, 47–8, 49,

57–8, 63, 65–6exclusivity of, 45–6further reading, 402–3hereditary nobility, 59inheritance, 50knighthoods, 61–2lifestyle of, 65–6marriage, 50new élite after 1660, 60–1political power, decline of after 1660,

58–9political rivalry with monarchy to

1660, 45–6privileges of, 44, 56–7, 69rank, 59, 62service nobility after 1660, 59–69size of, 46–7, 57, 59, 61, 63social composition, change of,

59–60, 63taxation, 54, 56, 66titles after 1660, 60–1titles, lack of, 48–9wealth, disparity of, 49–50, 51–2

decrescendo, 395definition of nobility

Denmark, 46Hungary, 210–14Poland–Lithuania, 266–7,

268, 300–2the Reich, 91–2, 110–11Russia, 335–8, 356–8Sweden, 16, 18

Denmark, Kingdom of, 45, 46derogation, xiii, 301, 349dérogeance, see derogationdeti boyarskiye, 329, 330, 335Dienstadel, 195Diets

Austria and Bohemia, 172, 184Hungary, 216, 250, 254, 255, 257;

election of officials, 222;privileged position of aristocracy,216–17

imperial, 81, 90Landtage, 81–2, 121Poland–Lithuania, see SejmSweden, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26,

29–32, 33, 34, 37–41


424 Index

diplomacy, role of nobility in, 380, 382Austro-Bohemia, 181, 197

dualism, see dyarchyduels, 364Duma, 314, 320, 322, 323, 349, 355dumnyy dvoryanin, 314, 322, 328dvoryanin, 1, 314, 317, 328dvoryanstvo, 272, 335dyarchy, 172, 182, 250

East Prussia, 119–23, 138growth of absolutism, 134–5outlook of nobles, 138–9

education of the nobilityAustro-Bohemia, 196–8Brandenburg–Prussia, 139, 162Denmark, 52–3Russia, 333, 343, 360, 363Sweden, 18, 33

Elbe, river, 7electors, German, 77, 80, 81, 82,

89, 92, 109Elizabeth Petrovna, Empress of Russia

(1741–62), 344, 347, 351,353, 357, 358

endogamy, xiiiEnlightenment, The, 109, 242–3, 361,

363, 383ennoblement

Austro-Bohemia, 4, 172, 195Brandenburg–Prussia, 139, 146Denmark, 45, 59–62Hungary, 211, 215, 224, 228, 232–7Poland–Lithuania, 269, 274, 276, 278,

301the Reich, 92–4, 103, 104; by service,

lack of, 75Sweden, 19–20, 28, 29, 31–2,

33, 35, 37entail, xiii, 2, 389, 391, 392, 393, 394

Austro-Bohemia, 185–6Brandenburg, 142, 154Denmark, 61Hungary, 239–40Poland, 291–2the Reich, 106Russia, 345

Estate, noble, in Hungary, 250Estates, in Austria and Bohemia,

172, 184

Estates, imperial, 75, 81, 83–4, 87, 88,90, 92

Estates of Russia, 322, 335estates, size of, 9Estates, in Sweden, 34, 39Estates, territorial, in Germany, 82–4,

95, 121Eszterházy family, 218, 219, 221, 235,

239, 254, 256, 379exogamy, xiii

familiaris, 225–6family, role in nobility

in Bohemia, 174in the Reich, 74, 106–8in Russia, 318, 323

fedecommesso, abolition of, 393feudal rights, in the Reich, 99–100fideicommissum, 185–6, 192Fideikommiss, xiii, 394fief holding, in the Reich, 97–100

cash conversion, 97–8privileges associated with, 95–6

finances of nobilityAustro-Bohemia, 183the Reich, 104–5, 110Russia, 334, 348–9Sweden, 32–3

Finland, integration of into Sweden, 13First Estate, in Hungary, 252–3foreigners, in Austrian Habsburg

nobility, 176–7forms of address, and Russian nobility,

343Four Year Sejm, 298, 301Frederick II, King of Prussia, ‘the Great’

(1740–86), 5, 104, 119–20,147, 148, 149

Frederick III/I, Elector of Brandenburg(1688–1713) and ‘King of Prussia’(1701–13), 133, 134, 135,140, 141, 144

Frederick William, Elector ofBrandenburg, ‘the Great Elector’(1640–88), 5, 120, 131, 132, 134,135–6, 137, 138, 139, 140,141, 142, 145

Frederick William I, ‘King in Prussia’ andElector of Brandenburg (1713–40),143, 145, 149, 152


Index 425

Frederik III, King of Denmark(1648–70), 55, 56

free knights, Reich, 84–9freemasonry, in Russia, 363Freiherren (‘Barons’), 79, 122, 172French nobility after 1789

abolition of feudalism, 383abolition of noble status, 383–4army, reduced influence,

387, 389–90Bourbon restoration, 387declining size of, 389imperial nobility established,

1808, 384land holdings of, 385–6privileges, end of, 385public life, 387revival of rank after 1795, 384, 395status, change of, 385superiority of, 386

French Revolution, and challenge tonobility, 383–7

influence on Russian nobility,364, 367

Gemeinde, 188–9General Land Survey, 355generalitet, Russia, 350gentry, Hungarian, 221–2Georgica Curiosa (1682), 148,

179–81, 189German nobility, see Junkers,

Brandenburg–Prussia; ReichGermanization of Bohemia, myth

of, 174–5gosti, 335, 349government, nobility’s role in

Austro-Bohemia, 195Denmark, 45, 51, 54–6, 65, 68Hungary, 254Poland–Lithuania, 267Prussia, 150–5the Reich, 102Russia, 323–5Sweden, 16–18, 19, 23, 28, 29, 31

Grand Prince of Moscow, 314Grand Tour, 52–3, 196–8, 363Great War (1914–18), impact of, 381Gustav II Adolf, King of Sweden

(1611–32), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Gustav III, King of Sweden (1771–92),and the loss of noble hegemony,40–1

Gutsherrschaft, xiii–xiv, 6–10Austrian lands, 188Bohemia and Moravia, 186–8Brandenburg–Prussia, 126,

155–6, 163

Habsburg nobility, see Austro-Bohemiannobility; Hungarian nobility

Habsburgs (Austrian), 77–9, 81, 83,85, 86, 96, 98–9, 101–4, 111,174, 199, 227

culture, 181–3effect of Thirty Years War, 171and ennoblement, 4, 92–3expansion of rule, 193–4Hungary, 213income of, 183loans from Austro-Bohemian

aristocracy, 183noble loans to, 234relations with Protestant

Estates, 172selling titles, 171

Hadiach, Treaty of (1659), 274hajdú, 226–8, 251Hat government of nobles in

Sweden, 35–8Haugwitz reforms (1749), 194hayducks, see hajdúHerald Master, Russia, 340Herrenstand, 121, 172–3, 177hetman, 286, 289, 290, 293,

294, 299Hochadel, 77, 89Hohberg, Wolf Helmhard von

(1612–88), 148, 179–81, 189Hohenzollern, 74, 77, 79, 80, 93,

104, 108ennoblement, 93growth of absolutism, 134–5growth of Prussia, 120–1, 123–5

Holy Roman Empire, see Reichhonour, Russian concepts of, 318,

319–20, 324, 334, 335, 345, 356,357, 363

Horn, Arvid, 34–5House of Lords, Britain, 381


426 Index

House of Nobility, Sweden, 19–20, 38dispute with the Council, 23ennoblement, 32reduction of privileges, 23restoration of power, 29, 34

Hungarian nobility, 210–65after 1790, 257–61Britain, comparisons with, 249commerce, involvement

in, 237–8definition of, 210–14distribution of, 251élite, 212estate management, 238Estate, 212foreigners in, 236–7, 253further reading, 408–11groups with noble or noble-like

privileges, 224–32growth of lesser nobles, 224higher nobles, 215–20inheritance, 216, 239–40lesser nobles, see lesser nobles,

Hungarianlifestyle, 240–2magnates, see magnates, Hungarianopposition to Austria, 256patriotism, 257privileges, 211–12, 224, 225–32, 252religion, 243–8rights and liberties, 211–12, 252service nobility, 255–6size of, 214–15, 217, 251taxation, 224wealth of, 239

Hungarian noble bodyguard, 241, 256Hungary

county administration, 221–4, 250,254

county courts, 222dualism between king and nobles,

250–1election of officials, 222, 254politics and geography, 209, 213–14,

250royal household, and noble office

holders, 218–20titles in, 4Turkish occupation in, 213, 250

impartible entailment, in Denmark, 61imperial church, 77, 86–7, 90, 104, 111imperial cities, 75, 84, 90, 103imperial diet, see Diet, imperialimperial estates, see Estates, imperialimperial fiefs, 77, 79, 82, 97imperial knights, 75, 85–90, 97, 110–11

cathedral and Abbey chapters, 86–7decline of autonomy, 87

imperial law, 78, 82, 83, 96, 98, 107imperial nobility, 75, 93, 107, 110imperial princes, 76, 77–9, 83, 92,

100–1, 123impossessionati, 270, 279Industrial Revolution, impact of, 382inheritance, partible, xiv, 2, 9, 61inheritance, patrilinear, xivinheritance practice

Austro-Bohemia, 185–6Brandenburg, 142changes in and the decline of nobility,

391–3Denmark, 50Hungary, 216, 239–40Poland, 269, 280, 291–2, 294the Reich, 96, 98, 105–7, 120Russia, 314, 315, 366Sweden, 17

Ivan IV, the Terrible, Russian Tsar(1533–84), 272, 313, 317, 319, 320,321, 322, 323, 325, 345

Jagiellonian dynasty, 267, 271–2, 273Johanniter, 88John Casimir, King of Poland (1648–68),

274, 289, 290, 291, 298Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor

(1765–90) and sole ruler of theHabsburg Monarchy (1780–90), 185,194, 195, 198, 199, 214, 223, 251,255, 256, 258, 259

Junkers, Brandenburg–Prussia, 5, 74,118–70

army careers, 142–4, 145, 146, 148–51;cost of, 150–1

ascendancy in Brandenburg,1500–1620, 123–30

crisis in, 1620–1700, 130–41differentiated from peasants, 125economic weakness of, 131–2, 133–4


Index 427

education of, 139, 162English gentry, comparison with, 159estates of, 125–7, 141, 155–9growth of absolutism, 134Landrat, 152lifestyle of, 159–63marriage, 140military élite, 147–51new nobles, threat from, 135number of, 121peasants, changing relations

with, 158–9political power, 122–3, 127–8, 130portrayal of, 118–19Prussian government, 151–5recovery, 1700–25, 141–7resilience of, 380service under foreign princes, 124status, 122taxation, 122titles, 140wealth of, 136, 161see also Brandenburg–Prussia; Reich,

nobility ofjuridical privileges, loss of, 391

Karl X Gustav, King of Sweden(1654–60), 23, 24, 55

Karl XI, King of Sweden (1660–97),and reduction in noble power, 24–8

Karl XII, King of Sweden (1697–1718),28, 29, 31, 291

Kaunitz, Prince Wenzel Anton(1711–94), 195–7, 198

Kleist, Andreas Joachim von(1679–1738), 143–5, 149, 157

Knights of St John of Jerusalem, 88–9knights, Austro-Bohemian, 177, 178Kołłataj, Hugo (1750–1812), 301–2, 303Kontribution, 152–3köznemesek, 220krugovaya poruka, Russia, 319

land grants, in Russia, 316Land Law, in Sweden, 16–17, 25, 26land ownership, 5–6

Austro-Bohemia, 177Denmark, 44–5, 46, 47, 51–2, 57–8,

63, 66Hungary, 237

Poland, 278–80, 282–3, 295–6Prussia, 154, 155–9the Reich, 97–100Russia, 318, 345, 346, 354–5Sweden, 13–16, 21, 22, 25–6, 31

land tax, in Prussia, 152–3land values, 381Landadel, 75, 79Landeshauptmann, 183Landesregierung, 183Landmarschall, 184Landrat, 152–3landscape gardening in Brandenburg,

English style of, 160–1Landschaft, 153–4latifundia, 8, 296legal tradition in Russia, 366Legislative Commission, 355–6Lehndorff, Ahasverus (1637–88), 139lesser nobles, Hungarian, 212, 241

armalistae, 223bene possessionati, 221–2, 252, 257bocskoros, 223–4curialistae, 223diversity within, 220, 221, 223–4growth of, 224increasing separation from magnates,

240–1, 253local administration, 222–3loss of influence, 220–1religion, 244–6

Liber chamorum, Poland–Lithuania, 277Liechtenstein family, 173, 174,

181, 183, 186, 189, 191,193, 379

Lipsius, Justus (1543–1606), 137Lithuanian nobility

origins of, 271–4structure prior to 1569, 271–3union with Poland (1569), impact of,

273–4see also Polish nobility (szlachta)

local administration in Hungary, seecounty administration

lord lieutenant, in Hungary, 221–2assistant lord lieutenant, election of,

222, 254Lublin, Union of (1569), 267, 273Lutheranism, 78, 86, 88, 105, 109


428 Index

magistrates, imperial, 89magnates, Hungarian, 235

admission to, 235Catholicism, 244creation of, 217legal distinction from other nobles,

218, 222, 240–1, 253lords lieutenant, 221number of, 217office holders, 218–19separation from lesser nobles, 240–1

Mainz, electors of, 87, 105, 111majorat, 385, 386, 391–2Manifesto of 1762, 351, 353, 357,

362, 363manners, of Russian nobility, 342manor house style in Brandenburg, 160manorial farms, in Prussia, 141Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria

and Queen of Hungary andBohemia (1740–80), 174, 176, 184,194, 195, 198, 199, 224, 241, 251,255, 256, 258, 259

marriage, and the nobility, 389, 394Austro-Bohemia, 181Brandenburg–Prussia, 140, 162Denmark, 50Poland, 280–1, 294the Reich, 107–8, 122Russia, 362Sweden, 31

mayorazgo, abolition of, 392Mazovia, 270, 276, 279, 280, 291,

296–7, 303mercantilism, 192mercenary armies and the decline of

noble warriors, 44mésalliance, 281, 394mestnichestvo, 318–20, 324, 325, 330,

335, 336, 363Ministeriales, 79‘Mirror of Honour for Youth’, 342Moritz von Nassau–Siegen, Count

Johann (d.1679), 136, 137Moscow, 314, 318, 321, 323, 327,

332, 334, 343, 349, 360,361, 366

Moscow, nobles of, 317, 318, 327, 330,333, 350

Moscow, princes of, 313–14

Moscow University, 360, 362music, and Habsburg Court, 182–3

Napoleon Bonaparte, 384–5nation, concept of, and the Reich, 110Neo-Stoicism, 137, 139, 179‘Netherlands movement’, the, 137New Mark, Brandenburg–Prussia, 124,

147, 154, 155, 163nobiles unius sessionis, 252nobility

changing nature of after 1800, 390–6convergence across Europe, 1, 3decline of, after 1800, 377–82declining numbers within, 389–90diversification, 10service versus lineage, 11

noble behaviour in Russia, 343noble demography, 389noble peasants, in Sweden, 14noblesse oblige, in Russia, 364noblewomen

Poland, 294Russia, 331, 340–1, 345, 346, 360,

362, 363Sweden, 20

non-noble service class, in Russia, 355

obrok, 334okol’nichi, 314, 336Old Belief, 334oprichniki, 319Order of the Black Eagle, 140Order of the Dannebrog, 62Order of the Holy Cross with Red Star,

87Orders of Chivalry, creation of Russian,

339–40Oxenstierna, Axel, Swedish Chancellor

(1583–1654), 19, 20, 21, 22–3

Palatine, electors of, 80, 97palatine, office of, 218, 255partible inheritance, xiv, 2, 9, 106, 240,

269, 280, 314Partition Settlement (1772), 299patrilinear inheritance, xivpatronage

Habsburg, 172–3Russia, 364Sweden, 24


Index 429

Paul I, Emperor of Russia (1796–1801),364

peasant households in Austria, 187–8peasantry, 6–10

Austro-Bohemia, 171, 177–8, 179,184–5, 186–8, 189, 190, 191, 199

Denmark, 48, 65–6, 67Prussia, 156–9the Reich, 99–100, 109Russia, emancipation of, 391Sweden, 8, 13–16, 18, 22, 47, 48, 65–6,

67, 68peasants, 47Peter I, Tsar of Russia, ‘the Great’

(1689–1725), 2, 322, 324, 326,335–46, 350, 351, 352, 357, 358,359–60, 366, 368, 369

Peter II, Emperor of Russia (1727–30),347, 350

Peter III, Emperor of Russia (1762), 351Pietism, 109Poland

Constitution of 3 May 1791, 303election of monarch, 267, 291monarch’s appointments to high

office, 289–91noble supremacy in, 266–9

Poland–Lithuania, Commonwealth of,266–7, 298–303

Catholicism of ruling élite, 274Cossacks, 274–5end of, 303extinction of nobility, 377–8further reading, 411–15influence on Russian nobility, 335magnate oligarchy, theory of, 287reform of, 302–3royal land in, 282, 294Russian influence, 299titles in, 4

police ordinances, 190Polish nobility (szlachta), 4, 266–310

admission to, 276–9commerce, involvement in, 281definition of, 266–7, 268, 300–2distribution of, 276diversity of, 269–70economic diversity of, 279–85élite, 269, 284, 287–8inheritance in, 269, 280, 291–2, 294

integration of Lithuanian nobility,273–4

lesser nobles, 296–7marriage in, 280–1, 294office and status, 288–9origins of, 269–71political control, 267–8, 285–6, 301private armies, 292–3privileges of, 266–7property requirements, 302–3reform of, 300–3religious persuasion, 267, 274, 275rights, 267senate membership, 288size of, 275–6status within, 286–7

Polizeiordnungen, use by nobility, 190–1poll tax, 359Pomerania, 119–23, 138–9pomeshchik, 316, 317, 322, 329pomest’ya, 316, 317, 318, 328, 329,

343, 344, 345, 346, 355Poniatowski, Stanisław Augustus,

King of Poland (1764–95),298–9, 301

populism, rise of, in Sweden, 38Portugal, decline of nobility after

1800, 378possessores, 279precedence, in Russian nobility,

318–20, 324–5prikazy, 314, 320, 323, 324, 338primogeniture, xiv, 389, 391

Austro-Bohemia, 185–6Denmark, lack of, 50; after

1660, 61the Reich, 105–6, 107, 108Russia, 366

princes, Russian, 312–13, 314–15privileges, basis of nobility

Denmark, 44, 56–7, 69Hungary, 211–12, 224, 225–32, 252Poland–Lithuania, 266–7the Reich, 94–7, 109Russia, 2, 334–5, 358Sweden, 14

Protestant noblesAustro-Bohemia, 178–9, 181erosion of position under Habsburgs,

172–3


430 Index

Protestantism, 171–2Hungary, 227–8, 243–8, 252, 253

provincial administration in Russia, lackof salaries, 355

provincial society in Russia, 362Prussia, 119–23

army officer corps, 104militarization of, 147see also Brandenburg–Prussia; Junkers,

Brandenburg–PrussiaPrussian Junker, misleading term, 119Prussian nobility, 119

territorial nobilities, 119–20see also Junkers, Brandenburg–Prussia

Quitzow family, 126–7

Radziwiłł family, 137, 284, 286, 289,290, 292–3, 298, 299, 301

Reformation, 76, 83, 96, 105, 123Danish nobility, 45Hungarian nobility, 212

regnum, 250Reich, 2

distinctions between social groups, 75feudal systems, 75

Reich, nobility of, 74–117‘ancient nobility’, 110–11commerce, involvement in, 111complexity of, 89–90criticism of, 109–10definition of, 91–2, 110–11distinctiveness, 74–6, 110–11, 156emergence of, 80–4ennoblement, 92–4finances of, 104–5, 110formation of, 76–84further reading, 403–6higher nobility, 75, 121imperial nobility, 75inheritance, 96, 98, 105–7, 120lesser nobility, 79, 84–9, 121marriage in, 107–8, 122military orders, 88–9origins of, 90–2privileges of, 94–7, 99, 109, 394–5provincialism, 162regional corporations, 84relationship to emperor, 75religion, 96

size of, 79–80state employment, 104–5survival strategies, 105–11taxation, 95, 96–7, 122territorial nobility, 75territorial sovereignty, 78–9territorial states, 100–5see also Junkers, Brandenburg–Prussia

Reichsadel, 75Reichsfürsten, 77Reichsgrafen, 122Reichskammergericht, 86Reichskirche, 76–7Reichsritter, 85–90Reichsstände, 75, 81Reichstag, 81, 86, 88, 92Reichsunmittelbarkeit, 76, 77representative institutions, see Diets;

Duma; Estates, imperial; Reichstag;Sejm; Zemsky Sobor (Assembly of theLand)

Rittergüter, 90, 94, 96, 97, 98, 104, 105Ritterstand, 121, 177robber baron, 74Robot, 187, 198–9, 283Roman Catholic Church

Austro-Bohemia, 171, 195Hungary, 219–20, 222, 227, 243–8,

252, 253, 258Poland, 274, 275the Reich, 76–7, 86, 87, 122

Romanov Dynasty, 322Russia, 7

early history, 311–20lack of large estates, 5–6resilience of nobility until 1917, 380

Russian nobility, 1–2, 311–76commerce, involvement in, 349compulsory service, 347, 350, 351consolidation of, 335corporate rights, 357definitions of, 335–8, 356–8development of a European-style

nobility, 2education, 333, 343, 360, 362–3élite, 350estates of, 332, 348, 354, 359further reading, 415–18Herald Master, 340


Index 431

hereditary nobility, 312, 315,317, 318, 325, 335, 339, 353,356, 366

inheritance, 314, 315, 366Ivan the Terrible, 319land with serfs, monopoly of, 355, 356landholding, 318, 345lifestyle, 358–64marriage, 302militarization of, 338–9, 365military service, 316–17, 318, 328–30origins of, 311–12, 365Peter the Great and power over, 358–9Petrine reforms, 336–43, 366–7political power, 320, 326–8, 349–58,

366precedence, 318–20, 324–5,

331, 336–8privileges of, 2, 334–5, 357–8provincial nobility, 327ranks of, 315–16, 318, 336–8security of status, lack of, 347–8service to the State, 343–5, 347, 350,

351, 353, 364, 366size of, 322, 344, 365, 388structure of, 316–18superiority of, 365taxation, 359, 365uniform for, 365

Russian Orthodox Church, 326,333, 334, 360, 363, 367

Ruthenia, 271, 272, 273, 274

Sacred Crown, Hungary, 247–8, 256St. Petersburg, 342, 343, 361Saldern, Matthias von (c.1505–75),

128–9Sarmatian myth, 267, 269Schloss Raudnitz, 182Schwarzenberg, 379second serfdom, in east central Europe,

186–8Secret Committee, Sweden, 30, 34, 35,

36, 38, 39seigneurial absolutism, 186–93, 199Sejm, 267, 269, 270, 273, 285, 293, 296,

299derogation, abolition of, 301entails, 291noble creations by, 276, 278, 301

Protestants excluded from, 275reform of, 302–3

sejmiki, 267Senate, Russian, 349serfdom, 6–10

in Hungary, 213, 221–4, 227–31, 232,233, 238, 244

in Poland–Lithuania, 266–7, 283,284, 293

in Russia, 348, 353, 361;introduction of, 319, 328, 334;owners, 353–4

serfs, see peasantsservice nobility, 311, 314, 316

emergence of, 10–11further reading, 400

‘service people’, 316, 338, 356,359, 365

shaving, requirement to, 341Silesia, 119–23size, of nobilities

Austro-Bohemia, 177Brandenburg, 121Denmark, 46–7, 57, 59, 61, 63Hungary, 214–15, 217, 251in nineteenth century, 388–90Poland, 275–6the Reich, 79–80Russia, 322, 344, 365, 388Sweden, 18–19, 20, 30

sköldebrev, 18Smolnyy Institute, 360smotr, 343, 346, 351Sobraniye, 352Spanish nobility, declining

size of, 392Sporck family, 175, 183Ständestaaten, 120, 121starosties, see starostwastarostwa, 282–3, 294–5State Council (Habsburg), 255State, bureaucratic, emergence

of, 382–3State, and the nobility, 9–10

Denmark, 51, 54, 65, 68the Reich, 100–5Sweden, 18, 19, 29

State, use of foreignadministrators, 10

Statthalter, 255


432 Index

status of nobility, how acquired, 11Denmark, 44–5, 56, 59Hungary, 210–11, 232–7Poland–Lithuania, 286–7the Reich, 89–94Russia, 316–17, 336–8, 339, 356–7Sweden, 16, 18, 19, 21, 28

stol’niki, 315, 336structure of nobility, 3

Denmark, 59Hungary, 215–32, 251–3Poland, 279the Reich, 74, 79Russia, 316–18, 336–8, 358Sweden, 19–20, 24, 28

stryapchiye, 315Sweden, 378–9Sweden, kingdom of, 13

decline of nobility after1800, 378–9

lack of serfdom, 7–8Swedish nobility, 13–42

Crown estates dispersed, 21,22, 25–6

definition of, 16, 18education of, 18, 33emergence of titles, 3exclusivity of, 20–1, 32finances of, 32–3further reading, 400–2growth of, 28hegemony, loss of, 34–42inheritance, 17loss of property and rights, 26–7magnates and lesser nobles,

16, 18–24magnates, power of, 18–26marriage in, 31official salaries, 32–3partnership with Gustav Adolf, 20political power after 1719,

29–30, 34–42privileges of, 14promotions to nobility, 20–1protection in the Land Law, 16–17rank, disputed, 24relations with peasantry, 15–16rentier landlords, 16, 33royal absolutism, 24–9self-preservation, failure of, 41–2

service nobility from 1650s, 23, 31size of, 18–19, 20, 30statutory position, 19taxation, 21–2titled nobility, power of, 17–18

Székeley, 228–32, 251Szeklers, see Székeleyszlachta, 4szlachta, see Polish nobility (szlachta)szlachta brukowa, 280szlachta człstkowa, 279szlachta czynszowa, 285szlachta osiadła, 279szlachta zagrodowa, 279

Table of Ranks (1722), Russia, 11,336–9, 350

Table of Ranks, Sweden, 11, 28, 39‘taxpaying people’, 316, 338, 365Teleki, Sámuel (b.1739), 258, 259territorial Estates, in Austria and

Bohemia, 181, 184territorial fiefs, 97territorial government in

Austro-Bohemia, 183–5territorial states in the Reich,

administration of, 102–3Teutonic Knights, 88–9, 122Thirty Years War, economic effect

of, 132, 141Time of Troubles (1598–1613),

321–2titles, 1–3, 395

Denmark, lack of, 48; newtitles, 60

functional, 1–2hereditary, 1Hungary, 216, 220, 253Poland, 286Prussia, 140the Reich, 90Russian, 315–16, 336–8, 339, 364Sweden, 17

Trepka, Walerian (d.1640), 277–8Tripartitum (1517), Hungary,

211–12, 252Trolle, Herluf, 43–4

Ukraine, 274–5unigeniture, 345


Index 433

Vienna, Habsburg Court at, 181–2voyevody, 315

wage labour, and Junkers estates, 158–9Waldeck, Count George von, 136Wallenstein family, 174–5, 183, 192–3wealth and aristocratisation, 395Werboczy, Stephen (d.1541), 210–12,

214, 225, 247, 248, 252

Westphalia, Peace of (1648), 78,86, 178

Year of Revolutions (1848), 379–80

Zamoyski family, Poland–Lithuania,283–4, 285, 289, 291, 292, 302

Zemsky Sobor (Assembly of the Land),320, 321, 323, 326–8

the evolution of service nobilities

Documents