The Court system was established by “The table of ranks” in 1722. In accordance to it there appeared Court Department (Pridvirnaya kontora). Later there were organized The Main Palace Chancellery (Glavaya dvortsovaya kantselyariya) which was supposed to control the court peasants, Chief-quartermaster Ddepartment (Gof-intendantskaya kontora) which observed the matters of Royal palaces and gardens, and (Kamer-Tsalmeisterskaya kontora), which was in charge of Royal palaces interior, decoration and furnishing.

In 1786 Empress Catherine II abolished the Main Palace Chancellery. Its functions were transferred to the Court department (Pridvirnaya kontora) which was enlarged in terms of staff.

After the death of Peter I the amount of money spent annually for the Court reached the figure of 20-25 % of the state budget. In 1733 the sum received by Court department (Pridvirnaya kontora) for its needs was 260 000 rub. The financial support of the Royal Court in 1785 was much more sufficient - 3 mil. rub[1]. Yet, according to the primary sources even this sum, probably, did not cover all Royal expenses. During the whole century Court department (Pridvirnaya kontora) constantly faced the problem of financial difficulties.

A certain amount was to be spent for courtier wages. However, apart from high rank officials (such as chamberlain (kamerger), marshal (ober-tseremoniimeister), usher (gofmeister)) the sums received for court service were not too high. At the time of Empress Elizabeth the pay list was as follows.

A maid of honor (freilina) got 600 rubles and a high ranked one (kamer-freilina) - 1000 roubles per year. On 30 May 1752 the Empress granted minor maids of honor a yearly wage of 200 rubles annually. Pages (pazhi) got even less – about 110-140 rubles. Moreover, there existed some courtiers (such as ladies-in-waiting (stats-dami) who were not entitled to be paid for their service.

We should also take into consideration the fact that during the eighteenth century a number courtiers was not sufficient. After the death of Peter I there were  only about 25-30 of those at the Court. During the reign of Elizabeth this figure was 65 people. The rule of Catherine II has changed the situation. The Russian Court at the end of the century consisted of about 300 courtiers. Nevertheless, it is obvious that this group though tended to grow did not request extraordinary sum of money.

However, speaking of the Court life researchers often forget that there also existed a category of court servants (See Handout 1). The number of court servants and specialists exceeded the number of courtiers. Moreover, it was rather  subsequent. The pay they got was often much higher than the one obtained by the courtiers. For instance, head waiter (Metrdotel) had about 1200, Quartermaster (Intendant) and Garderobmeister - 788 rubles a year[2]. So we can make a supposition that Court maintenance costs were primarily connected with the category of servants rather than courtiers. Another cause of expenses was probably the Royal family residences keeping.

The group surrounding the monarch though relatively small and moderately paid obtained some special features. One of them was the fact that distribution of high courtier titles was strongly connected to the matter of corporative unity.

Analysis of the eighteenth century female courtiers shows that they were dominantly relatives. By this I do not only meat Emperor/Empress’ next of kin such as Skavronskie, Naryshkiny etc. From the whole number of 284 maids of honor and ladies-in-waiting about 200 women (71%) had relatives among the courtiers. Among them 39 ladies (14 %) who were in the Royal service were actually courtiers’ children, 55 of them (20 %) married Court officials, 81 (29 %) could observe by the Royal throne their sisters, 25 (9 %) had other relatives (the brother, uncle, nephews etc.) who shared Court duties[3]. 

It is well known that in Europe ( Germany and Austria ) up to the beginning of the twentieth century there had been widely spread the system of hereditary courtier  titles. In other words, a certain Court position was to be occupied by the members of single noble family. To a certain extent this custom did exist in Russia . It was especially important for the female part of the Court. For example, in 1746        after death of princess Gagarina who was maid of honor at the Imperial Court her title was giveт to her younger sister Ann[4]. It was not the only case. There  also existed a habit to get entitled sisters or mother and daughter on the same day[5].

Corporative unity of the Court was not entirely noble courtiers’ privilege. With the time being it got spread at the lower level. In 1794 there was announced an edict which claimed that the category of non-noble court attendants was to be recruited from the court servants.

This custom seem to be observed as a part of the then time social main stream. The historiography has already pointed out that corporative way of being was one of the basic features of such structures as the elite of the Russian Army – the Royal Guards regiments and the Navy as long as within state officialdom[6].

Surprisingly enough those at the Court formed a very stable group. By this I mean that courtiers of different ranks tended stayed at the Court notwithstanding the fact that the eighteenth century was the time of unrest within the Royal family or in other words the period of coup d’etat and palace revolutions. The composition of the Court was not to be changed together with the change of monarchs as one might assume. Quite on the contrary only those who had strongly opposed the new monarch before were sent away. Yet, the most courtiers kept their positions. The princess Marie Yurievna Cherkasskaya, countesses Avdotiya Ivanovna Chernysheva, Praskoviya Yurievna Saltykova and Anna Alekseevna Tatischeva were ladies-in-waiting both of Empress Anna Ivanovna and Empress Elizabeth. Even the death of Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses has not often brought shift. Young Court ladies-in-waiting E.I.Nelidova and N.S.Borscheva had the same titles fulfilling duties by both wives of the Grand Duke Paul (Natalia Alekseevna and Mariya Fedorovna).

Moreover, quite often if a husband fell from favour this did not necessarily mean the need to leave the Court for a wife. Such ladies were often allowed to remain here. A famous lady-in-waiting countess Ekaterina Ivanovna Golovkina was granted this right even after her husband vice-chancellor Golovkin was exiled to Siberia in 1742.

The other feature of the group was the fact that it did not have to live in the atmosphere of total control, subordination and dictate as the matter of Court regulation was not strict in comparison to other European Courts ( France , Spain ) and the Russian Court of the nineteenth century.

Obviously there is no doubt that by the eighteenth century the mode of Court behavior had been formulated. The matters of Court fortune, fall from favor, rewarding, forcing, ignoring, returning to power were already created. The matters of ceremonies were also paid great attention. Special Court events (such as foreign countries ambassadors audience, coronations, etc.) were to be strongly regulated. For instance the legislation of  “Ceremonial of foreign ambassadors audience at the Russian Imperial Court (1744)” meticulously described the whole procedure from ambassadors arrival to the capital city up the Royal palace audience organization.

However, primary sources indicate the fact that despite this courtiers’ being was rather relaxed and free. There is no doubt that certain control did exist. One could not help noticing a great number of rules specifying courtiers’ suits.[7]  The matter of discipline was as well given a overwhelming attention especially at the time of Empress Elizabeth (See Handout 2)[8].

Nevertheless, Catherine II constantly informed her favourite prince Potemkin that she had been unable to come to his room at night as there were “all sorts of animals" wondering around his place and along the corridor (meaning Court people mostly servants like foot-men (lakeis and gaiduks). She as well was complaining of the fact that her maids of honor and ladies-in-waiting would come to her private room to stare at her diamond collection. Yet, there is no remark that ladies were somehow punished for what they had done[9]. Catherine II was also trying hard but in vain to stop habitual games of young Grand Dukes with the guardsmen. It was she who banned in 1762 the direct introduction to the Empress  (except the one of ministers and ambassadors). Since that time the people wishing to be introduced have had to get approval from the high Court officials (kamergers and ober-gofmeisterinas)[10]. This list is definitely not complete. Catherine II continued her struggle with the Court habitual disorganization throughout her reign.   

Yet, the most important feature of the 18^th century Russian Court was the fact that it failed to form and to represent clear-cut structure.

First of all, relatively late development of the courtier rank system should be pointed out. The legislation declared the organization of the Court as the institution with its unique hierarchy was the famous “Table of ranks” (1722).

Moreover, both according to the law (by this I mean “Table of ranks” which structured all the ranks by the right of seniority by giving advantage to military and civil ranks) and to practice the Court ranks were considered to be second within the state system. Moreover, unlike Europe the first Russian Grand Court was organized not around the Emperor but around the Empress[11] which made them even less popular among the nobility. Taking into considerations all these factors courtiers tended to obtain positions within military or civil governing systems. In 1731 the Empress Anna Ivanovna even had to remind her courtiers that the simultaneous occupation of Court, state and military positions had been prohibited[12].    

Secondly, the created structure seemed to lack the notion of system. The Court positions appeared according to the emerged need and did not often got a place in the hierarchy. The were very few regulations of courtiers responsibilities and duties. The key issue of assignment, appointment and rank promotion was not clarified. The number of possible combinations was never limited to some patterns. For instance, ladies could begin their Court service as either maids of honor or ladies-in-waiting (stats-dami). Maids of honor could leave the Court right after marriage, could be entitle to be a ladies-in-waiting (stats-dami) on the wedding day (Varvara Alekseevna Sheremetyeva, Marfa Simonovna Safonova, Ekaterina Dmitrievna Gilitsina) or which was the most wide-spread tradition several years after or even some decades later (Darya Alekseevna Golisina). They could get service both at the Grand and the Young Courts, transfer from one to another (princess Avdotiya Mihaylovna Beloseliskaya), leave it after some years of service due to some reasons and return to it later (Catherine Ivanovna Nelidova[13]). The list might be continued.

Male positions and ranks t the Royal Court were also a matter of confusion. For instance, the correspondence between the Court ranks and the ranks of the Royal Guards regiments is hard to consider and explain. It is well-known that Royal pages (pazhi) quite often became guardsmen. However, they very often returned to the Court. Those “voyages” to the Guards regiments and back seemed to be made on the regular basis but the purpose is, yet, not known.   

It is well known that a female was often rewarded by getting the place at the Court and becoming a maid of honor or a lady-in-waiting. Yet, the best reward for a man was a position and a rank at the Guards, not at the Court. According to this tradition the daughter of famous Peter I official Alexander Menshikov Alexandra Menshikova was named the Royal Court maid of honor, her brother got a position in Preorazhenskii Guards regiment.

Moreover, Court ranks were not entirely integrated in Russian state rank system. Though having first appeared in “Table of ranks” Court titles and ranks did not seem to correspond to other sphere of state governing. By this I do not mean the total isolation of Court people. Noblemen obviously obtained the right to change spheres of state service and to be moved from Court to the Guards, Army or civil administration. Yet, throughout the eighteenth century all numerous the legislations on issues of state service and rank promotion did not raise the matter of Court. While in the first case every single detail had to be identified, remodeled or even reformed the necessity to shape or reshape either Court structure or its people duties and privileges did not seem to emerge at all.

Thirdly, Court ranks did not seem to occupy an exact place within state social system. High noble origin was not considered to be the basis of Court organization in terms of high ranked people. The majority of lower rank courtier  belonged to lower class of the society. One should bare in mind that in structures like the Royal Guards social status was not under question[14].

It should be also pointed out that the Royal Imperial Court was in fact open for all sorts of people in terms of religion. At least neither Empress Anna Ivanovna nor Catherine II seemed to be disturbed by the presence of some catholic (lady-in-waiting Luiza Emmanuilovna Tarant[15]) and protestant (Baroness lady-in-waiting Anna Doroteya Mengden).

Finally, one could not help seeing that the Russian imperial Court was flooded with people who had nothing to do with it in terms of ranks or duties. Throughout the whole century especially at the reign of Empress Elizabeth the Court composition contained a sufficient number of children mostly orphans living and learning at the Сourt. Yet, we should not forget about a wide spread tradition to reward someone with the right to live by the Court with the family (Mariya Simonovna Choglokova since 26.05.1746).

With the time being the group of these “Court children” enlarged and its requests and needs had to be observed. Primary sources provide us with the data that shows that in 1740s - 1760s at the Russian Royal Court there was at least a kindergarten supervised by an Italian emigrant Yaganna Petrovna Noli who did not have any Court rank. It is hard to speak of a regular school at the Court. However, children were supposed to get education, thus, there existed a group of teachers and mentors.

Yet, what is important for us is the fact that the system was not considered to be a certain training place for courtiers-to be. The girls, for example, were to be brought up, taught till the age of 14 and then set free which actually did not mean that they were sent away. Quite the contrary, they were allowed to stay in palace as long as they needed and even without any service enrollment. Indeed, the question of whether to join the Court or not was open. Among 284 eighteenth century maids of honor and ladies-in-waiting only 11 was accepted to the Court in childhood. Even the foundation of Smolinii institute in 1764 has not canceled the tradition as in 1765-1767 some more infants were joined the Royal kindergarten.

Poor development of the Court system led to the phenomenon of the Young Courts (maliye / molodiye dvori), limited circles of people surrounded a potential heir/heiress of the state and throne (Grand Duke or Grand Duchess) and tended to carry complicated relations with the Grand Royal Court.

The right of Emperor to name his successor declared by Peter I in 1722 as long as traditional perception of children legal equality[16] led to the fact to the time of unrest within the royal family as even after an announcement of the ruler to be he/she was never guaranteed of the right. The relationship between the older and the younger generation of the Royal family members were not regulated. Having been based on mutual fear it turned to be very complicated.

A Young Court in the eighteenth century Russia was extremely unstable and dependent “power center” ever appeared. It was not supported by either the succession tradition or a clear perception of its status. It lacked the fixed hierarchy and lived with the strong feeling of financial and moral dependence[17].

Yet, despite obvious determination and vulnerability of the Young Courts being they managed to create a unique concept of independence to be gained. The young society fighting for the life space brought the question of the first challenges: to adopt or to decline perceptions and affairs existed, to be accepted or to be rejected, to copy or to produce something new. These in outward appearance abstract questions were tended to be realized in the form of quite practical answers – a prince’s and, therefore, the whole party’s choice of food and drink, fashion and entertainment (theater, games, hunts, carnivals, balls), books and music. Artists and musicians to be supported, intellectuals, reformers, generals and diplomats to be spoken to were favored according to this comprehension. The lack of confidence in future was as well compensated in the existential importance of Past and got conceived in the search for an historical idle to copy and to draw inspiration from.

The questions tended to be answered in terms of extremely aggressive opposition to the Grand Court . The method to present and stress the opposition was to attach oneself to an alternative life models. If the state policy was to support the union with Austria (Empress Ann Leopoldovna) the Young Court tended to establish collaboration with Sweden and France (princess Elizabeth), if the ruler launched a war against Prussia (Empress Elizabeth) the Grand Duke and the Grand Duchess made some efforts to influence the situation and to provide the enemy with certain help (the heir Peter Fiodorovich and his wife Catherine). If the whole society including its elite adored France (Empress Elizabeth) the heirs admired Germany (the heir Peter Fiodorovich and his wife Catherine). If the expression of the patriotic feelings became popular, the Grand Duke and his company ignored the mere study of the Russian language. In general the members of the Young Courts were hostile to many noteworthy issues of cultural, administrative and governmental importance. A creation of a successor’s personal “company” often turned into organization of his own regiment(s) (Poteshnie and later Preobrazhenskii and Semenovskii regiments of the would be Peter I, Peter III’s Golshnintsi and Paul I’s Gatchintsi). These actions were not just the matter of young people constant revolt against the constructed cosmos but a certain traditional pattern of a heir’s behavior.

To sum up, one my say that the Court system was rather unstructured, confusing and to a certain extent undeveloped. To my mind it was caused by the status of the Royal family in the eighteenth century Russia .

By the beginning of the eighteenth century the new dynasty of the Romanovs failed to get the clearly presented practice of the power succession. First of all before the reign of Peter I there were no edicts specifying such rules. At the end of the seventeenth century the Russian Royal throne it was de facto occupied by two children (Peter himself and his brother Ivan) controlled by the almost omnipotent female regent Sofia (1682-1689). One should also take into consideration that the first Romanov Mikhail (1613-1645) was elected. The elections in their turn were precipitated by a period of disorder, civil war and occupation or, in other words, by the Time of Troubles that broke with of the previous customs. In other words the elected monarch, children and even a female appeared in the seventeenth century as the supreme rulers.

This uncertain tradition turned into a certain rule in 1722 when the Emperor issued a succession law by which the monarch designed his successor. The legislation was accompanied by the official confirmation signed by 12 Russian high rank officials - archbishops and senators. This shaped the Russian Royal family status at least for the century to come.

As a result of this regulation the Royal family as such became an extremely unstable as succession of the throne throughout the rest of the century was decided by a series of coups d’etat. Moreover, eighteenth century Russian Grand Dukes or Grand Duchesses were practically not taking part in the administration and governing system, therefore, they did not fulfill so called “non-specific functions” of the Royal family (military and governing duties for male and charity matters for female)[18] which were considered  to be the basic obligation for the nineteenth and twentieth century Romanovs. To sum up, it is obvious that at that time the Royal family was not yet institutionalized. Thus, the dynasty had to encounter with a lot of problems (succession tradition was the first). Consequently, as the Court was oriented dominantly to a sovereign, was to deal with the necessities, private needs and business of the only one and to support realization of entirely monarch’s representation there was simply no need to develop a more elaborate structure. Thus, the system of the eighteenth century Court was static and awkward since there was no need to improve it essentially.

The new stage of the Russian Court started in 1797 when the Emperor Paul I issued the new legislation concerning the throne inheritance. According to it the state power always was to be left for a monarch’s first-born male child. As son as the Royal family got institutionalized there immediately appeared a necessity to reform the Court which in its turn was done during the reign of Paul I and his sons. 

Handout 1

18^th century Royal Court servants and specialists

·        Stoker (Istopnik)

·        (Ziliberdiner)[19]

·        (Skatertnik)[20]

·        (Kelermeymter)[21]

·        Brewer (Pivovar)

·        Cooper (Bochar)

·        Vodka maker (Vodochnyh deals master)

·        1 rank Cook (Povar pervoi statyi)

·        2 rank Cook (Povar vtoroi statyi)

·        3 rank Cook (Povar tretei statyi)

·        Kitchen boy (Povarskoy uchenik/povarenok)

·        Foot-man/man-servant (Lakei)

·        Confectioner (Konfektnii master)

·        Confectioner Apprentice (Podmasterye)

·        1 rank Baker (Hlebnik pervoi statyi)

·        2 rank Baker (Hlebnik vtoroi statyi)

·        3 rank Baker (Hlebnik tretei statyi)

·        (Kuhenshreyber)[22]

·        Laundress (Prachka)

·        Linen-keeper (Kastelyansha)

·        Footman (Skorohod)

·        Cutter (Zakroischik)

·        Tailor (Portnoi)

·        Seamstress (Shveya)

·        Gold Seamstress (Zlotoshveya)

·        Clerk (Kantselarist)

·        Clerk assistant (Podkantselarist)

·        Cleaner (Uborschik)

·        Stableman (Konukh)

·        Carpenter (Plotnik)

·        (Black)smith (Kuznets)

·        Clock man (Chasovoi master)

·        Poultry-man (Ptichnik)

·        Dwarf (Karlik)

·        Musician (Muzikant)

·        (Palm-)reader/sexton (Psalomschik)

·        Priest (Svyaschennik)

·        Gardener (Sadovnik)

·        Physician (Pridvorni Lekar)

·        Teacher/mentor (Uchitel)

·        Artist (Pridvorni Hudozhnik)

·        Architect (Pridvorni Arhitektor)

·        Banker (Pridvorni Bankir)

Handout 2

(Волков Н.Е. Двор русских императоров в его прошлом и настоящем.

М., 2001. С. 26-27.)

^“О ящиках, надеваемых на лиц, разговаривающих в церкви, во время богослужения. Ее императорское величество изволила указать именным своего императорского величества указом, во время божественной службы в придворной ее императорского величества церкви, ежели кто какого чи­на и достоинства ни был, будет с кем разговаривать, на тех надевать цепи с ящиками, какие обыкновенно бывают в приходских церквах, которые для того нарочно заказать сделать вновь: для знатных чинов медные позо­лоченные, для посредственных белые луженые, для прочих чинов простые железные; того ради придворная контора во исполнение оного ее импера­торского величества именного указа приказали: вышеописанные ящики с цепями заказать сделать оловянных дел мастеру Давиду Осипову и сколь­ко на них материалов употреблено будет и за какую цену оные сделаны будут, о том велеть придворной конторе отрапортовать, причем и те ящи­ки представить в придворную контору и о том ему, Осипову, объявить. (Книга 91 высочайших повелений, 9 января 1749 г. Арх. м-ва импер. дво­ра)”.

“О неупотреблении табаку в церквах во время отправления службы ее императорское величество изволила указать именным своего император­ского величества указом, обретающимся при дворе ее императорского ве­личества кавалерам и фрейлинам и прочим чинам без изъятия, объявить свой императорского величества указ, дабы никто в придворных церквах во время отправления службы божий, стоящих как внутри, так в близости и вне церкви в первых комнатах от церкви, в которых стоят для слушания божественного пения табаку отнюдь не употребляли, а ежели затем ее им­ператорского величества указом в противность оному, табак будет кто употреблять, у таковых табакерки отбирать камер-лакеям и лакеям, кто таковых усмотрит и обратно их не отдавать, а тому у кого за приемы или употребление того табаку табакерки требованы будут, отдавать без всякого спору дабы опасаясь того охотники употреблять табак в таковое, божественной службы время, могли воздержаться и в исполнение оного ее им­ператорского величества именного указа, придворной конторы приказали о действительном по сим оного указа исполнение обретавшимся при дво­ре ее императорского величества всем высшим и прочим чинам объявить через гоф-шталмейстера, квартирмейстера и камер-фурьеров, а у кого табакерки ими отобраны будут в придворную контору рапортовать. (Книга 73 высочайших повелений 28 апреля 1747 г . Арх. м-ва имп. двора)”.