ContentsList of Maps List of Tables Preface Notes on Contributors Glossary of Technical Terms 1 Introduction: The Evolution of Service Nobilities H. M. Scott 2 The Swedish Nobility, 1600–1772 A. F. Upton 3 The Rise and Fall of the Danish Nobility, 1600–1800 Knud J. V. Jespersen 4 The Nobility of the Early Modern Reich, 1495–1806 Peter H. Wilson 5 The Junkers of Brandenburg–Prussia, 1600–1806 Edgar Melton 6 The Nobility in the Bohemian and Austrian Lands, 1620–1780 James Van Horn Melton 7 The Early Modern Hungarian Nobility Peter Schimert 8 The Nobility of Hungary in the Eighteenth Century R. J. W. Evans 9 The Nobility of Poland–Lithuania, 1569–1795 Robert I. Frost v vii viii ix x xiii 1 13 43 74 118 171 210 249 266 vi Contents 10 The Russian Nobility in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries Isabel de Madariaga 11 Conclusion: The Continuity of Aristocratic Power H. M. Scott Guides to Further Reading Index 311 377 400 421 The sole hereditary native title was that of prince. demonstrated by the Russian term for this élite: dvoryanin.1 Introduction: The Evolution of Service Nobilities H. Russia’s nobility was distinctive in a second respect. Central and Eastern Europe. from dvor meaning court. The origins of the Muscovite nobility were to be found less in military service than in its traditional role at the ruler’s court. the central importance of land as a source of income and social authority. which could only be acquired by birth (as the descendant of the princes who had exercised authority under the Grand Prince of Kiev’s overlordship) and could not be awarded by the ruler. To a considerable extent these built on an earlier evolution. that is to say they described a rank or position and. The development of this region’s nobilities during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries broadly corresponded to that evident further West. unlike 1 . In important respects. This was particularly apparent in Russia. All other titles were functional. where the nobility at least was concerned. and such variations were important. a growing stratification within the nobility and the crucial role played by the State in the evolution of these élites. The main themes of the essays which follow are exactly those which dominated the first volume: a visible consolidation of noble power. Russia was distinct in important ways. There were differences. Scott University of St Andrews The second volume of this collection is devoted to Northern. All four developments were linked. the period c 1600–1800 saw the development of greater uniformity between all of Europe’s élites. Russia’s chronological development simply lagged behind that of other continental countries. where changes around 1700 produced a nobility which – for the first time – began to resemble those found elsewhere on the continent. and it may be that. It was achieved by the convergence of nobilities in the eastern half of the continent with the broad pattern evident in Southern and Western Europe. Yet they were less striking than the similarities evident all across Europe. M. as Professor Isabel de Madariaga makes very clear (Chapter 10). In the seventeenth century. both between the eastern and the western halves of the continent and between individual nobilities. rooted in the ideology of the Roman Catholic Church and subsequently transferred to lay society. 1689–1725).3 The Russian nobility’s enduring adherence to the partible inheritance. which finally secured for the Russian élite the wide-ranging rights and privileges which their European counterparts had long possessed. Brandenburg–Prussia was an exception to this trend (Chapter 5). the men on horseback’. His position was to be ameliorated under Catherine the Great (1762–96). that is to say a distinct legal order or Stand which possessed precise and substantial juridical. Elsewhere. So too did the e operation of partible inheritance across large areas of Germany. It was one reason why. and those they did enjoy were ‘customary rather than legal’ in nature.1 By comparison with the situation in many other countries. This was unusual in the context of the countries examined in this volume. This evolution was incomplete. whose policies affected every area of Russian life. The development of a European-style nobility in Russia had also been advanced by Peter I’s introduction of a limited number of hereditary titles. his efforts were widely unpopular and proved unsuccessful: the measure was repealed after the coup of 1730. and so inhibited the full emergence of the kind of aristocracy emerging in many European countries at this period. Russia’s élite was transformed by some remarkable social engineering forced through by Peter I (‘the Great’. These were far fewer than other European nobilities had long enjoyed. no full-blown aris´ lite ever developed in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Russia tocratic e (Chapter 10). His reforms began to make the nobility what it had not been hitherto: an Estate in the Western sense. the knights of the West. which was traditional. The second element in Russia’s future nobility mainly comprised the Tsar’s military servitors. social and political privileges. and so was the Reich. There. while his property could be and was confiscated by the ruler.2 This underlined one central point about Russia’s evolution before the eighteenth century: that the Western concept of Orders and Estates.2 The Evolution of Service Nobilities their western equivalents. militated against the emergence of the kind of aristocratic ´ lite coming into existence in many continental countries. prevented the hereditary transmission of wealth and power. did not exist in Orthodox Muscovy. who formed a cavalry force and in return received lands. were not hereditary. who in 1785 issued a charter to the nobility. thereby reproducing ‘in a sociological sense. the singular constitutional and political structure and the persistence until 1806 of a framework established at the end of the Middle Ages. The princes together with the boyars ‘reproduced in a sociological sense the aristocrats of the West’. though certainly not unique. as Professor Peter Wilson makes clear (Chapter 4). The eighteenth-century Russian nobleman could still be tortured. the seventeenth-century Russian aristocracy had few privileges. however. in one crucial respect. Though the Emperor attempted to implant the legal device of entail into Russia through his Law of Single Inheritance (1714). . though there were many great nobles. these divisions were certainly evident at the time. engaged as they were in an endless competition for status. though this had already been seriously weakened in practice (Chapter 3). the nobilities examined in this volume were usually less stratified. titles made their appearance with the introduction of the ranks of baron and count. They were all members of the magnate élite which increasingly dominated Sweden’s government and society. Central and Eastern Europe was clear. they were noticeably more stratified. the general evolution in Northern. An elementary hierarchy existed. but there were rather fewer intervening levels between the mass of petty nobles and the great lords. Though seventeenth-century Sweden was unusual for the absence of serious social conflicts. by the spread of titles during the early modern period. there were only twelve barons and counts. On the other side of the Sound. and were an economical and efficient way of satisfying the needs of both donor and recipient. the titles of baron and count were introduced in 1671 as part of the new absolute monarchy’s reorganisation of Denmark’s nobility. . a cheap and therefore attractive way of rewarding State servants. less complex historical evolutions. This was recognised. In 1626 when the structure of the Swedish nobility was formalised. In Sweden and Denmark. The ‘council aristocracy’. M. The early modern period was characterised by the elaboration of the kind of hierarchy of wealth. however. with the emergence of several distinct levels between the aristocracy and the lesser nobility. It exemplified the way developments in the two halves of the continent were coming together during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Their incomes lagged behind the escalating expenditures they had to support from revenues which were often scanty. One important reason why this took place is that titles cost next-to-nothing to bestow and might even generate income: further research is needed on the extent of the sale of honours by hard-pressed monarchs. particularly for rulers in the eastern half of the continent whose financial resources were significantly less than their western counterparts. Not until the reign of Karl XI after 1680 was there a significant expansion of the Swedish titled nobility (Chapter 2). Such designations were first granted in 1563 in Sweden. was sharply differentiated through its wealth and political influence as well as its monopoly of titles. prestige and advancement. The new ranks and designations were equally appealing to the noble recipients. who resented its dominance. By 1800. The relative infrequency of titles throughout Northern. During the next century very few were created. both numerically and by degree. or an advancement in rank. Around 1600. and to some extent advanced. Their appearance finally undermined the cherished principle of noble equality. This made the granting of a title. from the remainder of the nobility.H. Scott 3 however. reflecting their shorter. Central and Eastern Europe before the end of the sixteenth century was one symptom of the simpler structure of these élites. as it became known. power and (usually) titles found throughout much of Western and Southern Europe. But the dignities of baron and especially of count were distributed much more freely by the Habsburgs and even sold by them. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The same process can be seen in Hungary. The early modern period did see the development of an elementary hierarchy within the Commonwealth’s nobility. other Houses followed in the course of the eighteenth century. and before 1700 it had been followed by the Lobkovic. This furthered the social and political rise of the Herrenstand and thus the decline of the lesser nobility in the Ritterstand (Estate of Knights). when the aristocracy was marked out partly by its monopoly of titles and partly by its distinct legal privileges (Chapter 7). the Batthány in 1764 – secured the coveted status of prince before 1800. The élite which emerged in early modern Poland–Lithuania was notable for the relatively frequent changes in its composition. Vienna’s powers of ennoblement were evident in the way in which selected families in the Austrian and Bohemian territories. Eggenberg. . Its reconquest and the growth of Vienna’s control during the seventeenth century saw the rapid spread of these ranks. the only titles were and always remained those which either had originated in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania before the Union of Lublin with Poland in 1569 or were foreign in origin. The strong tradition of szlachta equality. Portia and Schwarzenberg. something which was quite unusual (Chapter 9). the Habsburgs awarded the prized title of prince – which at this period could only be granted by the Holy Roman Emperor and had hitherto been reserved for members of ruling families – to a handful of major Houses during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Auersperg. shortly before the Ottoman conquest of much of the Kingdom. inhibited the full development of the kind of stable aristocracy which was evolving elsewhere. while the Hungarian family of Eszterházy also secured the princely dignity. with State office filling the role played elsewhere by formal titles.4 The same process of differentiation was also underway throughout the middle and lower levels of the nobility. The first to be so honoured was the Liechtenstein in 1608. and the system of partible inheritance which supported it. Two countries diverged from this general pattern. Wallenstein (temporarily: the celebrated condottiere was prince of Friedland by 1623 and its duke by 1625). Dietrichstein. with the continuing rise and fall of individual families. invariably Catholic and loyalist. were granted a higher title – usually that of baron or count – and with it admission to the Herrenstand (Estate of Lords). where inherited titles were rare until they were introduced by the new Habsburg rulers who took over in 1526.4 The Evolution of Service Nobilities The inflation of honours was also evident elsewhere. but the process did not advance either as far or as fast as in most other countries. though in different ways. It also advanced the stratification of the Second Estate as a whole (Chapter 6). In the Bohemian and Austrian Lands. Only two Hungarian families – the Eszterházy in 1687. and they contributed to the marked stratification of the Hungarian nobility which took place during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. lay outside the territories of the Hohenzollerns. Central and Eastern Europe. the lands which they owned or leased provided essential income in cash and/or kind together with considerable influence over other social groups. Russia was once again an exception to this pattern (Chapter 10). Within the Reich. and in order to circumvent this he built up and worked through a new élite. During the second half of the seventeenth century. The majority of noblemen throughout the scattered Hohenzollern territories remained simple Adel. for whom it was an important source of power. and this monopoly was jealously – if not entirely successfully – defended against inroads after 1648 by the Austrian Habsburgs. M. The eclipse of the Junkers did not prove to be permanent. The one partial exception to this generalisation was the nobility of the Reich (Chapter 4). the higher titles of baron. but only to the level of simple nobility (Adel). The Elector – exactly like his fellow German rulers – could ennoble his subjects. which only emerged after 1800. however. Yet the Hohenzollern State long possessed a number of separate territorial élites rather than one unified nobility. Successive . The Romanovs granted serfs rather than estates to their servants and favourites. and this militated against the development of a hierarchy among the nobility of Brandenburg–Prussia (Chapter 5). noblemen could have their estates confiscated by the monarch in a way which was highly unusual elsewhere. count and prince could only be conferred by the Holy Roman Emperors. patronage and income. Its titles and sometimes even its social origins. It inhibited the kind of stratification which was underway elsewhere. a practice which was essential in a country where many regions were underpopulated. Though family agreements to keep the landed properties together were common. Scott 5 Developments in Brandenburg–Prussia were also distinct (Chapter 5). the ‘Great Elector’ (1640–88). This ‘imperial’ or ‘Aulic’ nobility was loyal. This was also the effect of the Junkers’ adherence to partible inheritance. The national essays which follow underline that the nobilities of Northern. Elsewhere. the revenues would often be divided among the sons. usually Calvinist (in contrast to the Lutheranism of most Junkers) and often recruited from outside his own lands. like their Western and Southern counterparts. the Great Elector encountered significant opposition to his centralising policies from the territorial nobilities. while landholding was in any case much less stable. were primarily landed élites. particularly during the reign of Frederick William. It was also distinguished by the higher titles of nobility which a grateful Elector secured for his favourites and officials from the Habsburg Emperor. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries an élite did evolve within the nobility and at certain points exercised considerable political influence. During the eighteenth century they retrieved their position. forming a partnership with the ruling family and contributing much to Prussia’s emergence as a major European power during the reign of Frederick the Great (1740–86).H. The way in which the nobilities examined in this volume exploited their estates was distinctive in one respect. for example. of the system of Gutsherrschaft (‘manorial lordship’). The rise of serfdom was assisted by the widespread political upheavals in many countries. within which peasants were tied to the land and legally subject to their lords. economic and legal disabilities. which obliged nobles to minimise their labour costs in order to make the exploitation of their estates economically viable. This was the emergence and consolidation of a system which can loosely. They might not be able.6 This was apparent in the development. to build up its military forces. It had two principal characteristics: a nobleman had a relatively large demesne. The transmission of a peasant’s property from father to son was likely to involve payment to the lord. rather than renting them out. while the peasants were in a dependent position and were forced to provide the essential – and often unpaid – labour for the lord to exploit his own lands. from the sixteenth century onwards. The serfs were tied to their lord’s estate and subjected to a range of social. It was facilitated and even accelerated by the State which was also anxious to extract resources from the serf. the peasantry had emerged in a much-weakened position from the agrarian crisis of the Later Middle Ages. and by the opportunities in some areas for the profitable seaborne export of grain and grain-based products to Western Europe. The result was that very few members of the Russian élite were able to build up the kind of regional power bases found in other countries. and may even have been essential. which he farmed directly. By ‘second serfdom’ is meant ‘a massive growth in landlord power over the rural population during the early modern period’. however. if not altogether accurately. but should more accurately be known as the ‘second serfdom’. This system was attractive. together with the peasantry’s unfree status.5 This was a distinctive feature of early modern agrarian developments to the north of the Bohemian Forest and to the east of the river Elbe. in its classic form. be styled ‘serfdom’. prevent noble exploitation of peasants being a central feature of Russia’s development. It did not. as it was all across Europe. was that the peasant was legally unfree. The distinguishing characteristic of Gutsherrschaft. . Throughout these areas. All over Europe nobles were farming part of their own lands. which rested upon the consolidation of lands together with the social and political influence which accrued from this.6 The Evolution of Service Nobilities rulers also sought to prevent any consolidation of landed power by granting properties away from the region where a nobleman was already entrenched. What was unusual about Central and Eastern Europe was the high proportion of these which the lord was cultivating directly. because of the relatively poor soil and low yield ratios throughout the eastern half of the continent. especially between the mid sixteenth and the later seventeenth centuries. and on a small scale in a few regions of the Reich. to the west of the Elbe also (Chapter 4). to marry themselves or their children. primarily conscript soldiers and taxation. or to move to another estate without his permission. Swedish peasants had always been and remained free men. which indict every nobleman as an oppressor and portray every peasant as a downtrodden serf. social developments have tended to be reduced to a few crude generalisations. both then and in later centuries. of the evolution of the region’s nobilities during the early modern period. In the mid-seventeenth century.9 A similar situation seems to have existed across all the countries where Gutsherrschaft became established. for example. In Russia. is the traditional view of serfdom and the reasons for its development. there had been some talk of the peasantry being depressed into a ‘Livonian servitude’. they were never reduced to a state of unfreedom. This was especially so for Sweden and. this very negative view of social developments was strongly reinforced by the scholarship produced in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe between the end of the Second World War and its fracturing during and after 1989. Central and Eastern Europe. rather than a defining characteristic. there was a fear that the kind of agrarian system which prevailed on the southern shores of the Baltic would be transplanted into Sweden by noblemen who had become familiar with Gutsherrschaft through military service in these areas ´ lite. Denmark.7 It was shaped by the assumption that peasants were everywhere downtrodden and exploited by the seigneurs. and though they were certainly exploited by the nobility. The chapters which follow emphasise that serfdom was only one important dimension. to a lesser extent. M. Many of the Swedish e . with the river Elbe as a convenient – if inexact – dividing line. Scott 7 This. In other words. social developments were much less uniform than often supposed and could also be much less oppressive. the break-up of Soviet Eastern Europe has led to an infinitely more nuanced and sophisticated view of agrarian developments becoming established. but also where it became established. Though its origins lie in much earlier periods of historical writing. during a period of acute social tension. Sweden is in any case a clear exception to the pattern which prevailed across much of Northern.H. since serfdom never became established there. Since 1989.8 The essays in this volume underline that serfdom was less important to contemporaries than it has seemed to later historians. in outline. In East Elbian Europe. the ‘council during the wars which ended in 1660. as a consequence. however. but up to 90 per cent can be classified as peasants until the later nineteenth century. Traditionally. Agricultural production was. in keeping with the reassessment now under way. around 50 per cent of the population seem to have been serfs. scholarship on agrarian developments has been dominated by statements about the divisions between the continent’s western and eastern halves. The national surveys suggest that not only was Gutsherrschaft far from universal. though the proportions may have differed. inefficient and the whole system was the source of the region’s backwardness. This approach obviously has had considerable impact upon our view of the nobilities surveyed in this volume. A relatively mild form of peasant servitude was formalised there in 1733. This was primarily concerned with the system of military recruitment and was of limited duration: it was undermined by a reorganisation of the armed forces. however. The traditional picture of serfdom’s importance for the nobilities of Central and Eastern Europe receives only qualified support from the national surveys in this volume. though it was widespread. which in its final form tied all male peasants between the ages of four and forty to the manor where they had been born. It is also evident that all peasants in this region were not equally oppressed. and on these estates were perfectly happy to exploit the labour services which were established in these regions. the peasantry was as stratified as the nobility itself. there was considerable variation. These demonstrate that. who were themselves landowners.12 Though some impressive latifundia were to be found in Central and Eastern Europe. and between particular estates. Developments in neighbouring Denmark followed a rather different path during the eighteenth century. marketed any surpluses which might be produced and might be personally free. where the surviving records enabled detailed investigations to be undertaken. even in the heartland of serfdom. were leased to tenants in part and even in whole. Throughout Central and Eastern Europe. stablehands. Far from Gutsherrschaft being uniform. it fell some way short of the system of Gutsherrschaft (Chapter 3). Though the unpaid work which this provided was an important element in the Danish nobility’s prosperity during the mid-eighteenth century. had secured large donations of lands from a grateful Crown. Yet these landholdings were not necessarily typical. who were often employed by the richer peasants to discharge their own dues to the lord. wage labour – by serfs for lords and by serfs for other peasants – was far more common and certainly more significant than previously realised. and was abolished by the Danish reformers (most of whom were themselves noblemen) at the end of the eighteenth century. moreover. were never a serious threat to the position of the Swedish peasantry. Many established generalisations were based on studies of larger properties. maids and so forth.10 Such impositions. the so-called stavnsbånd or ‘bond of adscription’.11 At the apex of agrarian society there was usually an élite of relatively rich peasants. rather than farmed as demesne. Within the system of Gutsherrschaft. servants. many noble estates were either medium-sized or. it was far from universal and could be far less burdensome than for long believed. in . farmed these properties with the help of hired labour. Labour services were normally performed by these hired labourers. and were more likely to be leased out than farmed directly (Chapter 2). On the contrary. noble demesnes remained relatively small in Sweden itself.8 The Evolution of Service Nobilities aristocracy’. Below this there was a complex and changing hierarchy of smallholders and agricultural workers: farmhands. for their role in the conquest of a trans-Baltic empire. Some noble estates. both between individual regions and whole countries. the nobility had consolidated its hold on the State apparatus by the second half of the eighteenth century. quite small. more interested in the economic and social welfare of their lands and peasants.H. at a period when monarchs were expanding their administrations and building up their military forces across most of the region. and less oppressive than the agents or bailiffs who often ran the larger estates for an absentee aristocratic landlord. 9 and 10) – militated against the creation and survival of extensive estates. While the importance of a rising professional middle class in Western Europe has been much exaggerated. Both developments demanded more and more specialised personnel. it remains true that a French or Spanish King had a broader range of potential State servants on whom to . particularly in the Bohemian and Austrian Lands and – for rather different reasons – in Hungary (Chapters 6 and 7). In every country covered by this volume. might be better masters. than some generalisations have suggested. contrary to the classical theory of Gutsherrschaft. and their numbers may have increased during the early modern period. rulers faced an acute shortage of available personnel. the number and complexity of the tasks which fell upon a State official or an army officer were increasing. One important implication is that serfdom as a whole was economically less backward and more efficient than often supposed. in order to fill posts in central and local government and to officer their armies. while a handful of substantial landowners were to be found in parts of Poland–Lithuania and especially its eastern regions (Chapter 9). Scott 9 many instances. Such landowners. already trained or capable of being so. and in one – Sweden – it was actually ruling in partnership with the bureaucracy between 1720 and 1772 (Chapter 2). These arguments seriously qualify rather than completely overturn the established emphasis on the importance of Gutsherrschaft for the nobilities of Central and Eastern Europe. These latifundia were considerably less common. Poland–Lithuania and Brandenburg–Prussia (Chapters 5. It has also been plausibly suggested that in some respects seigneurial peasants were forced to be more efficient than their free counterparts. and the nobility was the main reservoir of such talent.13 The extra burdens imposed on a serf meant that he had to produce more grain and also hire labourers to fulfil his personal obligations to the noble lord. Even more than in Western and Southern Europe. M. One reason why rulers had been willing to sanction and assist the consolidation of serfdom had been their own reliance upon their noblemen as paid or unpaid agents of their own power. Some noblemen owned no land at all. At the same time. It would in any case be wrong to see this region as a land of large estates and a dominant landholding nobility. it can be argued. however. These did exist in certain countries: the power of a handful of families at the apex of the noble pyramid was immense. Those who did often possessed relatively little property: the practice of partible inheritance across large parts of this region – particularly Russia. Until the end of the eighteenth century and beyond. who were now under her own rule after Peter the Great’s territorial annexations at the end of the Great Northern War (1700–21). One solution to this shortage was the widespread employment of nonnatives. One consequence was that many of the élites examined in this volume became noticeably diverse in composition during this period. while eighteenth-century Russia gave employment to numerous Baltic Germans. was quickly supplanted at the top of the social and political pyramid.10 The Evolution of Service Nobilities draw than his counterpart in Denmark or Russia. Denmark employed Germans in its government. successive generations of these lineages provided ministers and officials. military service remained an important path into the nobility and to promotion within it until 1800 and even beyond (Chapter 6). army commanders and diplomats. . Many of these itinerant soldiers or administrators secured admittance to the nobility of their adopted homelands. the new absolute monarchy set out to create ab initio. In time. undergoing significant structural change in the process. Usually the existing élite became a service nobility. Developments in Denmark after the establishment of absolutism in 1660 were a second striking example of this trend. The families who consolidated their power or who became established there during the upheavals in the first half of the seventeenth century long remained faithful servants of the Habsburg dynasty. In Denmark. giving employment to officials and especially military commanders drawn from a wide variety of countries. divided and in decline.14 . In the Monarchy’s Hereditary Lands. The old nobility. individuals who came from outside the country in question. and the loyal service of these noblemen contributed much to the rise of the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy (Chapter 6). The extension of Vienna’s control over the Kingdom of Hungary at the end of the seventeenth century saw a significant infusion of outsiders (often from other Habsburg territories) into the Kingdom’s nobility (Chapter 7). and lacked a sizeable professional or commercial middle class. a new aristocracy which was purely a service élite.15 . The Bohemian and Austrian Lands were typical in one further respect: the evolution of a service nobility. to a lesser extent. where the insertion of mercenary soldiers and. through grants of land and titles. A significant number of foreigners were ennobled during Sweden’s seventeenth-century Age of Empire (Chapter 2). some being ennobled for the first time by a grateful ruler. Brandenburg–Prussia recruited many administrators from neighbouring territories within the Reich. some families from within it became part of the new élite (Chapter 3). Central and Eastern Europe was a less advanced region. Two generations earlier this had been even more evident in the Bohemian and Austrian Lands. officials during and after the Thirty Years War made the élite ‘the most cosmopolitan in Europe’. however. though they might speak the same language. and were distinctive in one respect. The Austrian Habsburgs drew most widely of all. which the nobility alone could supply. 3. noble status and with it social pre-eminence were increasingly determined by service and by State rank rather than by birth or lineage. Central and Eastern Europe. 1979). This. . however. 202. This is one of a series of important articles by Professor Ogilvie on this topic. 76. ‘Communities and the “Second Serfdom” in Early Modern Bohemia’. Denmark led the way in 1671 and Sweden followed suit 9 years later. Sheilagh Ogilvie. These tied social status to the military and administrative hierarchy and gave precedence to the claims of merit and service over those of birth. and in this way fused the social élite with its own agencies and identified it closely with its own aims. the structure and nature of nobility itself was coming to be shaped by such service. they enhanced their prestige and power. at p. 187 (2005). J. 2. pp. with the Table of Ranks introduced by Karl XI in 1680. far more than serfdom. 69–119. Central and Eastern Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The first and also the most obvious meaning was that the nobility served the State and provided it with essential specialised personnel. as the essays which follow will make clear. pp.H. 317. Russian Review 55 (1996). was less formal and perhaps less conscious than that occurring throughout Northern. Below. M. p. This was particularly apparent in the establishment of formal Table of Rank. pp. Scott 11 A nobility of service was to be found in every country covered by these essays to some extent. The State gained essential trained manpower. There it meant essentially two things. W. and everywhere within central and particularly local government. The nobilities examined in this volume were increasingly service élites. It was not restricted to the eastern half of the continent. Below. however. was that introduced in Russia in 1722. Notes 1.16 This evolution. Peter I’s Table of Ranks was the centrepiece and the culmination of his wide-ranging reconstruction of the Russian élite (Chapter 10). during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 171–74. p. was the principal influence upon the development of the nobilities of Northern. On the contrary. See Lee A. 5. lineage or inherited social position. The most celebrated and also the most significant. Farrow. R. to furnish an increasing number of State officials and military commanders. ‘Peter the Great’s Law of Single Inheritance: State Imperatives and Noble Resistance’. Evans. throughout Southern and Western Europe the social élite was coming. and rather more importantly. Past and Present no. The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550–1700 (Oxford. In other words. 334. 430–47. In this way. securing a career and some income. Successive generations of a family would serve (in the major states) in the officer corps. Secondly. 4. and Edgar Melton (‘The Russian Peasantries. Grete Klingenstein. An important discussion is provided by Edgar Melton. The Peasantries of Europe: From the Fourteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries (London. Survival’. p. 1981). is the most distinguished work which incorporates these new perspectives to have appeared. Below. 13. 145–89. ed. a microhistory of the Stavenow lordship in the Prignitz (northwest Brandenburg). pp. in Tom Scott. 1300–1800’). 1500–1800: a critique of the model’. See the remarks of William W. 253–68. Hagen. 191–225. pp. 1. Hermann Rebel (‘Peasantries under the Austrian Empire. SelfDefence. and 227–66. 100 and passim. pp. 315–49. Der Aufstieg des Hauses Kaunitz (Göttingen. Peasantries of Europe. David Moon. See the ‘Introduction’. Volume I. . 8. 11. 74. the Kaunitz: see Professor James Van Horn Melton’s essay. 195–98 16. 1998). pp.. Hagen (‘Village Life in East-Elbian Germany and Poland’). 1999). in Scott. See the illuminating comments on the historiography of William W. See Edgars Dunsdorfs. 342. 14. Slavic Review 34 (1975). pp. 145–60. at p. 8–25. 7. 256. The Russian Peasantry 1600–1930: The World the Peasant Made (London. pp. See the essays by William W. Melton. esp. Professor Hagen’s book. pp. 21 and passim. 12. ‘Gutsherrschaft in East Elbian Germany’. ‘Village Life in East-Elbian Germany and Poland. 34–48. The Livonian Estates of Axel Oxenstierna (Stockholm. ed. 9. Ordinary Prussians: Brandenburg Junkers and Villagers. pp. 176. p. Introduction. pp. ‘Neo-Serfdom in Poland–Lithuania’. Central European History 21 (1988). 1400–1800: Subjection. ‘Gutsherrschaft in East Elbian Germany and Livonia. 15. for a notable example. 1975) is a classic study of the rise of one Moravian ministerial family. 1450–1860’). 9. 2002). See the comments of Andrzej Kaminski. below.12 The Evolution of Service Nobilities 6.. 10. 1500–1840 (Cambridge. Hagen. in Denmark. and role of Bohemian aristocracy. 317. 19 address. 46–7. 68 Allgemeines Landrecht (1794). 252 army. 136. 134. 4. 345. 28–9. 10 definition of. 326. 251. 330–1. see Zemsky Sobor aulic aristocracy. 187 titles in. 194 Brandenburg. 394 allodial. 91–2. 154. style of. 66–7 Hungary. 395 armalistae. There are also entries on major themes in the study of nobilities so that the reader can compare the situation in different countries. 81. 34. 239–41. 253–5. 161 British. 69 Habsburg. Prussian Law Code. xiii. 265 Polish. 7 agriculture.Index In this index there are major entries for the nobilities of each country covered by this volume. 155. 190. continuity of. 53. Sweden. seigneurial. 53 Accession Charter (1611). 351. 334–5 Swedish. 63. 192. 182. 194 Austro-Bohemian nobility. 142–3. 56–68. 145–51 Denmark. 175. 351. 10. regnal dates are given. 288. 418–20 aristocratisation. War of (1740–48). 14. 67–8 Hungarian. 185–93 421 . 62. 171 landholdings in. 8. 43–5. 10. 358 Swedish. 311. 358 aristocracy. 3. Denmark. involvement in. Empress of Russia (1730–40). 44–5. 193 consolidation of. 396. 91–2 Russian. 151. 378 the Reich. 198–9 army careers. 171–209 agrarian reform. 4 Austrian nobility after Thirty Years War. 328 Anna Ivanovna. 171 religion of. 171 see also Austro-Bohemian nobility. 215–20. absolutism Danish. 199 Academy of Chivalry. 318–20. 183 Assembly of the Land. 359 adscription. 3. 249–50. 157. 52. 27. 186–93. 23–4. and rights of office. 175. For individuals birth and death dates are given. 41–2 absolutism. role of nobility in Bohemia and Austria. 181 Austria. 223. in Russia. 5. 344 Sweden. 29. 123–4. 32 Arnim family. 212. 102–4 Russia. 281 Danish. 163 Russian. 350. 60–1. with many sub-headings related to each nobility. 50. 185. 2. 319. 254 the Reich. 322. 318. 37. bond of. 25. Habsburgs (Austrian) Austrian Succession. 52. 328–30. 47. 133. 28 see also nobility aristocratic power. 320. 48. 140. Sorø. 44. 67–8 agrarian developments. 310. Bohemian nobility. 193. 195 Brandenburg–Prussia. 239. 74–6. 176 commerce. 292 Portuguese. For kings and queens listed in the index. 341. 312–16. 377–99 Bohemian. 176. 174. 4. 255 Hohenzollern. 314–15. 359. see Duma boyars. 10. 139 Cantonal System. 198–9 enserfment of. 177 titles in. 351–2. 19 Charter to the Nobility (1785). as mercenaries. 355. 176–7 land ownership. 136–7. 142 Junkers ascendancy. 331–5 number of. 108 bene possessionati. promotion under Austrian Habsburgs. 316. Stephen (d. 179–81 service nobility. and radical reforms. 171. 145–6 Calvinists. and the Brandenburg Court. 223 Bohemia. 183 further reading. 258–9 Bavaria. 341. in Austro-Bohemia. Berlin. duchy of. Brandenburg–Prussia Britain. 193–4 foreigners. 362. office of. 183 barshchina. Russian. 2. 349. 278 Cadet Corps. 364. 119–23 Brandenburg. 181–2 declining influence after 1720. 219 Christian V. 132–3 size of nobility. 380–1 Brunswick-Lüneburg. 171 religion of. 317. 330–5. Russia. 177. 93. Brandenburg–Prussia (1733) army recruitment. 362 Cadet Corps School. 177.422 Index Austro-Bohemian nobility – continued Court.1811). 334 Batthyány. 242–3 Bocskay. 39–40 Catherine II. 293 Boris Godunov. 315. 177 taxation of. 163 Bessenyei. 186–8 Bohemian rebellion (1618). 336. 171–209 declining influence at Court. 171 titles in. 273. 175–6 Protestant estates. 4 Bohemian nobility. Austro-Bohemian nobility Bohemian peasantry. 319. 272. 357 chief justice. 173 see also Austrian nobility. 161 modernizing élite. 60. 367 Catholic magnates. in Poland–Lithuania. Karl von (1713–83). 191–3 finances of. 181 Catholic nobles. 340. 214. electors of. 360. 252. influx of. 98. 227–8. 136–7 new nobility in.see Karl XII. 177 wealth of. 187 marriage. Empress of Russia. 193–9 declining size of. 184 inheritance. 251 Charles XII of Sweden. 280 Benekendorff. 318. 189–90. 93 Brandenburg nobles. King of Sweden (1697–1718) Charter of Nobility (1612). resilience of nobility. 407–8 influence in Estates. 118–70 inheritance in.1606). George (d. 5 see also Junkers. 357. 389 education of. 88. Sweden. 322–6. 348. Polish. 257. 106–7 burghers. and privileges. 147 Cap government in Sweden. ‘the Great’ (1762–96). confiscation of. 321 boyar council. 145 militarization of Prussian society. 178 upper nobility. 244 bocskoros. 363 lifestyle of. 123–30 marriage in. 171 definition of. 271. 171. 174 reconstitution after Thirty Years War. 186–8 lower nobility. 63 . electors of. 181. 221–2. in Russia 313–14. 187 estate management. József (b. 322 Brandenburg. 185–6 international nature. and noble status. 320. 177–8 resilience of after 1800. 353. 195 size of.1727). 298. 379–80 rural life. 172–3 census. 181 Protestant nobles. King of Denmark (1670–99). 140. 356. 196–8 élite. 173–4 boiars. 339. 124 Brandenburg–Prussia. 356–8 Sweden. 210–14 Poland–Lithuania. lack of. 63–8 423 embourgeoisement of. 49. 359. imperial. 65–6 marriage. 290. 195. 18 Denmark. 91–2. involvement of nobility in Austro-Bohemia. 59. 391. 335–8. 266–7.Index Civil Code (1804). 33–4 curialistae. 61. 333–4. 268. 181. 53–4. 46 economic decline after 1600. 45. 250 corporal punishment. 29–32. 54–5 county. 63 social composition. 274. 358–9 Crown estates. 43–73 ‘armorial letters’ patent. 66–7 convents. 52–3 eighteenth century. 301. 33. 349 compossessores. 118. 274–5 Council of the Realm. 47–8. see derogation deti boyarskiye. 56. in Denmark. 60–1 political power. 50 knighthoods. 62 service nobility after 1660. 59–60. 64–5 decline of. 237–8 Poland. 300–2 the Reich. 392 clientage. 50 new élite after 1660. 51–2 decrescendo. 20. 47–8 Crown peasants. in Denmark. 69 rank. 63. 101 Russia. 66 titles after 1660. 193 Hungary. 44–5. 48–9 wealth. nobility at Austro-Bohemia. 254. 56–9. 329. 37–41 . 349 dérogeance. decline of after 1660. change of. 35 comitats. 55–6 taxation. 49–50. 298 Danish nobility. 221. 330–5. 62 constitutional settlement of 1660. 136. 364 Sweden. 25. 46 Hungary. see Sejm Sweden. 60–1 titles. 34. after 1800. 195 Diets Austria and Bohemia. 330. 57. 81–2. 68–9 estate management. 364 Cossacks. 87 corona. xiii. 81. 111 Russia. Kingdom of. 55–6 Court versus country. 341. Russia. 52–3 Danish nationalism. 17. 402–3 hereditary nobility. 221–3 county administration. 45–6 privileges of. 57–8. 56 power struggle with the monarchy. 240. 184 Hungary. 26. 63 taxation. 46–7. 16. 223 Court. 110–11 Russia. 58–9 political rivalry with monarchy to 1660. 241 Reich princely courts. 315–16. 234–5. 362. 51 dissolution of. 257. 14 culture Austro-Bohemian nobility. 56–7. 360. election of officials. 65–6 exclusivity of. 45–6 further reading. 59. 192. 60. 252 conscription. privileged position of aristocracy. 395 definition of nobility Denmark. 216–17 imperial. 61–2 lifestyle of. 222. 13. 250. 45. Danish. in Sweden. 181 Russia. 335 Dienstadel. 54. disparity of. 90 Landtage. see county commerce. 141 Hungary. 353. 294. 281 the Reich. 378 definition of. 59 inheritance. 44. 196 Brandenburg. 19. 255. in Sweden. 23. 60 collapse of old nobility. 121 Poland–Lithuania. 172. 216. 48–9 education of. 46 derogation. 59–69 size of. 223 Czartoryski family. 145. 104–5. 39 Estates. 149 Frederick III/I. territorial. 137. 353. 344. 28. ‘King in Prussia’ and Elector of Brandenburg (1713–40). 106 Russia. 383 ennoblement Austro-Bohemia. 239–40 Poland. 83–4. abolition of. 254. 323. 256. 59–62 Hungary. 2. 110 Russia. 215. 322. integration of into Sweden. 106–8 in Russia. 184 Estates. 90. 360. 174 in the Reich. 345 Estate. 92 Estates of Russia. 5. 104. 232–7 Poland–Lithuania. 32–3 Finland. 132. in Germany. 120. 77. 358 endogamy. 95. 328 dvoryanin. 298. The. 80. 74. 224. in Hungary. 242–3. 250 Estates. 335 dyarchy. 81. 4. 81. 35. 31–2. 29. 119–20. 343. 379 exogamy. xiii Enlightenment. 183 the Reich. 335 estates. noble. 145 Frederick William I. 162 Denmark. 182. 89. 133. 82. 97–100 cash conversion. 393 feudal rights. 138 growth of absolutism. 104. 393. 176–7 forms of address. 195 Brandenburg–Prussia. 301 Frederick II. 196–8 Brandenburg–Prussia. in the Reich. 143. 88. size of. 37 entail.424 Index diplomacy. 382 Austro-Bohemia. 235. 142. 211. 172. 318. Elector of Brandenburg (1688–1713) and ‘King of Prussia’ (1701–13). 139. 134. 34. ‘the Great’ (1740–86). 95–6 finances of nobility Austro-Bohemia. 140. 252–3 foreigners. 322. 317. 92–4. 109 Elizabeth Petrovna. 192 Fideikommiss. 323 fedecommesso. 9 Estates. 389. 97–8 privileges associated with. role in nobility in Bohemia. 276. 364 Duma. in the Reich. 92. 361. 343 Four Year Sejm. 135. 328 dvoryanstvo. 33 Elbe. Elector of Brandenburg. 19–20. 141. 61 Hungary. 349. and Russian nobility. 45. 75. 363 Sweden. 134. 152 . 141. 138. 181. 87. 135–6. 75 Sweden. 314. ‘the Great Elector’ (1640–88). 394 Austro-Bohemia. 103. 109. 320. 314. 1. 348–9 Sweden. by service. 13 First Estate. 52–3 Russia. in Sweden. 149. 219. Empress of Russia (1741–62). 185–6. 351. 131. 347. 138–9 education of the nobility Austro-Bohemia. 142. 394 fief holding. 218. river. 140. 380. 99–100 fideicommissum. 274. xiii familiaris. 314. 172. 301 the Reich. 228. imperial. 392. role of nobility in. xiii. 334. 121 Eszterházy family. 172. 7 electors. lack of. 363. 355 dumnyy dvoryanin. 357. in Austria and Bohemia. 185–6 Brandenburg. 333. 146 Denmark. 239. German. 139. 5. 291–2 the Reich. 18. 154 Denmark. 147. 134–5 outlook of nobles. King of Prussia. 250 East Prussia. 278. 322. 82–4. 33. 144 Frederick William. 148. 272. see dyarchy duels. 221. 391. 197 dualism. in Hungary. 269. 139. 225–6 family. in Austrian Habsburg nobility. 119–23. xiii. 172 selling titles. 335. 104. 196–8. Treaty of (1659). 179–81. 150–5 the Reich. 213 income of. 148. 323–5 Sweden. 189 German nobility. see hajdú Herald Master. 134–5 growth of Prussia. 363 Freiherren (‘Barons’). 227 culture. and challenge to nobility. 171 Hadiach. 45. 385–6 privileges. reduced influence. 111. 183 noble loans to. 387 revival of rank after 1795. 199. 80. 40–1 Gutsherrschaft. 364. 79. 51. 108 ennoblement. Russia. 274 hajdú. 172–3. 389–90 Bourbon restoration. 267 Prussia. 195 Denmark. 383 abolition of noble status. 290. 183 loans from Austro-Bohemian aristocracy. 77. 31 Grand Prince of Moscow. 20. 172 French nobility after 1789 abolition of feudalism. 77. 177 hetman.Index Frederik III. 319–20. 19. 19. see Reich honour. Reich Germanization of Bohemia. 101–4. 68 Hungary. 381 . xiii–xiv. 79. 34–5 House of Lords. Hungarian. 395 status. impact of. 122. 65. 294. 18. 148. end of. 387 declining size of. 28. Arvid. 56 free knights. 299 Hochadel. 386 French Revolution. 383–7 influence on Russian nobility. 93. 174–5 gosti. King of Denmark (1648–70). 385 superiority of. 226–8. 4. Britain. 254 Poland–Lithuania. 334. 52–3. 163 Habsburg nobility. 98–9. 22 425 Gustav III. 286. Reich. 6–10 Austrian lands. 381 Gustav II Adolf. 384. 86. 1808. Russia. 350 gentry. 384 land holdings of. in Russia. 77–9. 55. 92–3 expansion of rule. 324. 84–9 freemasonry. 251 Hat government of nobles in Sweden. Wolf Helmhard von (1612–88). 96. nobility’s role in Austro-Bohemia. 188 Bohemia and Moravia. 74. 335. 367 Gemeinde. 81. 186–8 Brandenburg–Prussia. change of. 349 government. 385 public life. 21. 340 Herrenstand. 85. Brandenburg–Prussia. 174. 221–2 Georgica Curiosa (1682). 120–1. 93 growth of absolutism. 194 hayducks. 123–5 Holy Roman Empire. 363 Horn. 155–6. 23. 89 Hohberg. 83. 293. 35–8 Haugwitz reforms (1749). 357. myth of. 102 Russia. see Junkers. 54–6. 171 and ennoblement. 289. Hungarian nobility Habsburgs (Austrian). 318. 193–4 Hungary. see Austro-Bohemian nobility. 383–4 army. 389 imperial nobility established. 363 Great War (1914–18). King of Sweden (1771–92). King of Sweden (1611–32). 181–3 effect of Thirty Years War. 29. 179–81. and the loss of noble hegemony. 345. 189 Hohenzollern. 314 Grand Tour. 121. 387. 234 relations with Protestant Estates. Russian concepts of. 355 generalitet. 126. 188–9 General Land Survey. 16–18. 356. 130–41 differentiated from peasants. 255–6 size of. see Diet. 23 restoration of power. 34 Hungarian nobility. 290. 250–1 election of officials. 1500–1620. 107 imperial nobility. 93. 315. xiv. 211–12. 217. 257 privileges. 90. 32 reduction of privileges. 5. 97 imperial knights. 120 Russia. 92. 75. 256. 214. 251 élite. 185–6 Brandenburg. 75. 239–40 Poland. 273 Johanniter. Holy Roman Emperor (1765–90) and sole ruler of the Habsburg Monarchy (1780–90). 216. 111 imperial cities. Hungarian lifestyle. 249 commerce. 291–2. 86–7. 224. 251 taxation. 241. 110–11 cathedral and Abbey chapters. 253 further reading. 142 changes in and the decline of nobility. 240–2 magnates. 280. 321. 224 higher nobles. 222. 78. 88 John Casimir. 256 Hungary county administration. 382 inheritance. 145. 103 imperial diet. 107. 118–70 army careers. 391–3 Denmark. 243–8 rights and liberties. 215–20 inheritance. 123 impossessionati. 2. see Estates. the Terrible. 96. 77. involvement in. 313. 61 imperial church. 366 Sweden.426 Index House of Nobility. 210–14 distribution of. 123–30 crisis in. 269. Hungarian opposition to Austria. 223. Brandenburg–Prussia. 23 ennoblement. 84. 238 Estate. King of Poland (1648–68). 83. 236–7. 317. comparisons with. 256 patriotism. 142–4. 225–32. 38 dispute with the Council. 291. 213. patrilinear. in Denmark. 214–15. 239 Hungarian noble bodyguard. 210–65 after 1790. 77. 199. 82. 250. 320. imperial imperial fiefs. 212 foreigners in. 270. 252 service nobility. 75. 255. 254 politics and geography. 110 imperial princes. 252 religion. 279 Industrial Revolution. 314. imperial imperial estates. 345 Jagiellonian dynasty. 250 royal household. see magnates. Sweden. 29. 50 Hungary. 77–9. 237–8 definition of. 9. 323. 195. 76. Russian Tsar (1533–84). 131–2. 298 Joseph II. 294 the Reich. 258. 211–12. see lesser nobles. 105–7. 61 inheritance. 239–40 lesser nobles. 272. 83. 198. 85–90. 96. 289. 194. 185. 224–32 growth of lesser nobles. 74. 125 economic weakness of. 408–11 groups with noble or noble-like privileges. 148–51. 97. 104. 216. cost of. 254 county courts. 82. 90. 250 impartible entailment. 86–7 decline of autonomy. 325. 146. 209. 259 Junkers. 4 Turkish occupation in. 212 estate management. 274. 218–20 titles in. 79. 257–61 Britain. 224 wealth of. 150–1 ascendancy in Brandenburg. 100–1. 251. 222 dualism between king and nobles. 271–2. and noble office holders. 98. 221–4. 19–20. 98. 267. 319. 213–14. partible. 1620–1700. 87 imperial law. impact of. 17 Ivan IV. xiv inheritance practice Austro-Bohemia. 133–4 . 322. 282–3. 152 lifestyle of. 318. King of Sweden (1660–97). in Sweden. English style of. 291 Kaunitz. 23. 254 Lublin. 345. 136. 271–4 structure prior to 1569. 122 titles. in Prussia. 186. 78. and reduction in noble power. Hungarian. 183 Landmarschall. 147–51 new nobles. 177 Denmark. 24–8 Karl XII. 55 Karl XI. 26 land ownership. 273–4 see also Polish nobility (szlachta) local administration in Hungary. 223 diversity within. 155–9 growth of absolutism. 139. 122–3. 143–5. King of Sweden (1697–1718). 141–7 resilience of. changing relations with. 379 Lipsius. 118–19 Prussian government. 127–8. 24. 224 increasing separation from magnates. 319 land grants. 141. 189. 220–1 religion. 173. Reich. 183 Landesregierung. 125–7. Russia. 253 local administration. 25–6. 181. 237 427 Poland. Poland–Lithuania.Index education of. 252. 1700–25. loss of. 221–2. 121 peasants. in Russia. 22. 257 bocskoros. 316 Land Law. 31 land tax. 191. 157 Knights of St John of Jerusalem. 221. 75. 8. 177. 162 English gentry. 63. 28. 159 estates of. 122 taxation. 212. Prince Wenzel Anton (1711–94). 174. 151–5 recovery. 44–5. comparison with. 380 service under foreign princes. 135 number of. 222–3 loss of influence. 159–63 marriage. election of. 161 see also Brandenburg–Prussia. 97–100 Russia. 154. 223–4 growth of. 134 Landrat. 184 Landrat. 152–3 landscape gardening in Brandenburg. 79 Landeshauptmann. Andreas Joachim von (1679–1738). Hugo (1750–1812). 301–2. 109 . 295–6 Prussia. threat from. 86. 244–6 Liber chamorum. 155–9 the Reich. 355–6 Lehndorff. nobility of juridical privileges. 46. see county administration lord lieutenant. 152–3 land values. 271–3 union with Poland (1569). 267. 130 portrayal of. 381 Landadel. 223–4 curialistae. 137 Lithuanian nobility origins of. 220. Ahasverus (1637–88). 140 wealth of. 222. 223 bene possessionati. 152–3 köznemesek. 88–9 knights. 140 military élite. 346. 220 krugovaya poruka. in Hungary. 88. 160–1 Landschaft. 16–17. 303 Kontribution. 277 Liechtenstein family. 25. 296 legal tradition in Russia. 158–9 political power. 51–2. 198 Kleist. 193. 139 lesser nobles. impact of. 183. Justus (1543–1606). Union of (1569). 29. King of Sweden (1654–60). 153–4 latifundia. 57–8. 366 Legislative Commission. 221–2 assistant lord lieutenant. 391 Karl X Gustav. 5–6 Austro-Bohemia. 178 Kołłataj. 354–5 Sweden. 105. 149. 66 Hungary. 241 armalistae. 240–1. 13–16. Austro-Bohemian. 31. 124 status. 195–7. 278–80. 21. 47. 273 Lutheranism. 362. 335. 314 Partition Settlement (1772). 346. 199. imperial. 386. 360. 332. 255 partible inheritance. and the nobility. 240–1. 258. 9. 390–6 convergence across Europe. 331. 303 mercantilism. 269. xiv. 111 majorat. and the Reich. 384–5 nation. 336 Old Belief. 87 Orders of Chivalry. 342 manor house style in Brandenburg. 330. 160 manorial farms. concept of. Axel. 327. 122 Russia. 195. 280. 327. 394 mestnichestvo. 194. 362 Sweden. 259 marriage. 391–2 Manifesto of 1762. Swedish Chancellor (1583–1654). 314. 198. 334. abolition of. 336. electors of. 222. 343. 255. 11 noble behaviour in Russia. 279. Brandenburg–Prussia. electors of. 20. office of. in Russia. 124. 179 ‘Netherlands movement’. 224. 3 decline of. in Prussia. 31 mayorazgo. 139. 313–14 Moscow University. 155. 137 New Mark. 218. 318. 62 Order of the Holy Cross with Red Star. 330. 394 Austro-Bohemia. nobles of. 364 noblewomen Poland. 235 Catholicism. 362. 340–1. 163 nobiles unius sessionis. 251. princes of. 44 mésalliance. 21. 357. 280–1. 377–82 declining numbers within. 353. 349. 184. 256. xiv patronage Habsburg. 392 Mazovia. 105. 218–19 separation from lesser nobles. 324. 97 palatine. 217 office holders. 174. 217 legal distinction from other nobles. 270. 50 Poland. 244 creation of. 24 . 89 magnates. 317. 389 noble peasants. 240–1 Mainz. 363 Sweden. 334 oprichniki. 325. 342 Moritz von Nassau–Siegen. 140 Order of the Dannebrog. 136. 296–7. 314. 294 the Reich. 147. 87. 318–20. 364 Sweden. in Sweden. 137. 110 Neo-Stoicism. 192 mercenary armies and the decline of noble warriors. 252 nobility changing nature of after 1800. 345. 241. 80. 318. 181 Brandenburg–Prussia. Count Johann (d. 350 Moscow. 221 number of. 280. and Habsburg Court. the. 240. Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1740–80). 107–8. 343 noble demography. 276. in Russia. 366 Moscow. 140. 154. 362 music. 355 obrok. 235 admission to.428 Index magistrates. 14 noblesse oblige. 176. 10 service versus lineage. 351. 363 manners. 333. after 1800. 137 Moscow. Hungarian. 299 patrilinear inheritance. 385. 106. 321. 339–40 Oxenstierna. 334 okol’nichi. 389–90 diversification. 2. 141 Maria Theresa. 182–3 Napoleon Bonaparte. of Russian nobility. 360. 389. 253 lords lieutenant. 294 Russia. 218. 162 Denmark. 291. 1. 319 Order of the Black Eagle. 172–3 Russia. 19. 79 ‘Mirror of Honour for Youth’. 20 non-noble service class. 363 Ministeriales. creation of Russian.1679). 281. 22–3 Palatine. 361. 323. 360. 47 Peter I. 269–71 political control. 324. 391 Austro-Bohemia. 267 senate membership. 350 Peter III. 299 titles in. 50. 291–2. 177–8. 294 Russian influence. 266–9 Poland–Lithuania. 99–100. 296–7 marriage in. 302–3 reform of. 338 primogeniture. 364 peasant households in Austria. 284. 187–8 peasantry. 269. 359–60. 266–7. 190–1 poll tax. 186–8. 108 Russia. 107. 4. 359 Pomerania. 366. 94–7. 300–3 religious persuasion. 324–5 prikazy. 279 precedence. 109 Russia. 65–6. 357. Emperor of Russia (1727–30). 326. 2. 346. basis of nobility Denmark. 18. 274–5 end of. 377–8 further reading. 318. 303 extinction of nobility. 4 police ordinances. 355 Poniatowski. 294 office and status. 56–7. 298–9. rise of. emancipation of. 109 Russia. 267. ‘the Great’ (1689–1725). 68 peasants. 6–10 Austro-Bohemia. 285–6. 328. 329 pomest’ya. theory of. 224. 411–15 influence on Russian nobility. 323. 190. 350. 312–13. 358. 314–15 privileges. 288 size of. 119–23. 316. 273–4 lesser nobles. 225–32. 279–85 élite. 8. 317. 378 possessores. 291 monarch’s appointments to high office. 322. 389. 14 Protestant nobles Austro-Bohemia. 303 election of monarch. 320. 276 diversity of. after 1660.Index Paul I. 69 Hungary. 266–7 property requirements. 324. Russian. 189. 22. 274. 369 Peter II. 105–6. 211–12. 351 Pietism. 351. 289–91 noble supremacy in. 179. 281 definition of. 38 Portugal. 2. 48. 302–3 royal land in. 335 magnate oligarchy. 316. 44. 199 Denmark. 275 rights. 48. 301 private armies. 294 429 integration of Lithuanian nobility. 334–5. 266–310 admission to. 138–9 pomeshchik. 269–70 economic diversity of. 300–2 distribution of. 368. 314. 184–5. 287–8 inheritance in. 329. 347. 268. Commonwealth of. 109 Poland Constitution of 3 May 1791. lack of. 67. 65–6. in Sweden. 301 populism. 266–7. 171. Emperor of Russia (1762). 317. 61 the Reich. 298–303 Catholicism of ruling élite. 282. 274 Cossacks. 267–8. 344. 275–6 status within. 335–46. 391 Sweden. 276–9 commerce. 178–9. 352. 269. 252 Poland–Lithuania. 47. 358 Sweden. 288–9 origins of. 181 erosion of position under Habsburgs. 266–7 the Reich. Stanisław Augustus. use by nobility. Emperor of Russia (1796–1801). 191. 345. decline of nobility after 1800. 287 reform of. 67 Prussia. 267. 286–7 Polizeiordnungen. 343. 292–3 privileges of. 156–9 the Reich. 366 princes. xiv. 280–1. 318–20. 172–3 . in Russian nobility. involvement in. King of Poland (1764–95). 185–6 Denmark. 190 Polish nobility (szlachta). Tsar of Russia. 13–16. 322. 280. 122 Romanov Dynasty. Brandenburg–Prussia Prussian Junker. 359 further reading. 105. Brandenburg–Prussia Reichsadel. 104–5 survival strategies. 94. 137. 94–7. 76–84 further reading. 311–76 commerce. 187. 340 . 74 Robot. 110–11. 121. 81 Reichstag. 333. 84–9. 95. 227. 348. 76–7 Reichsritter. 119 territorial nobilities. 88–9 origins of. 122 Reichskammergericht. 119 Prussian nobility. 332. 83. 289. 78–9 territorial states. 85–90 Reichsstände. 109. 74–6. 347. 104. Junkers. 274.430 Index Protestantism. Duma. 350 estates of. 354. Brandenburg–Prussia Quitzow family. 98. Estates. 90–2 privileges of. 283 Roman Catholic Church Austro-Bohemia. 86. 75 Reichsfürsten. nobility of. imperial. 362 Prussia. 88. 121 imperial nobility. 322 Russia. 284. 90. 147 see also Brandenburg–Prussia. 243–8. 96–7. Sejm. 253. 360. 252. 119–23 army officer corps. 105–11 taxation. 2 education. 75 territorial sovereignty. 243–8. 98. 111 complexity of. 298. 76. 1–2. 96. 105–7. 171. involvement in. 335 corporate rights. 104 militarization of. 74–117 ‘ancient nobility’. 301 Reformation. 362–3 élite. 100–5 see also Junkers. 109–10 definition of. lack of salaries. 394–5 provincialism. 96. 75 feudal systems. 195 Hungary. 104–5. 91–2. 45 Hungarian nobility. 252. 119–20 see also Junkers. 84 relationship to emperor. 403–6 higher nobility. involvement in. 75. 198–9. 110–11 commerce. 253 provincial administration in Russia. 349 compulsory service. 286. 105 Ritterstand. 177 robber baron. 75 Reich. 335–8. 162 regional corporations. 96. 121 marriage in. 76. Reichstag. 250 Reich. 2 distinctions between social groups. 299. 7 early history. 5–6 resilience of nobility until 1917. 275 the Reich. 171–2 Hungary. 96 size of. misleading term. 311–20 lack of large estates. 126–7 Radziwiłł family. 77 representative institutions. 222. 79. 75 inheritance. 122 military orders. 92–4 finances of. 99. 86 Reichskirche. 89–90 criticism of. 86. 79–80 state employment. 80–4 ennoblement. 75. 81. 110–11 distinctiveness. 122 territorial nobility. 120 lesser nobility. 87. 107–8. 219–20. 380 Russian nobility. 75 religion. 343. 415–18 Herald Master. 290. 212 regnum. 258 Poland. 292–3. 355 provincial society in Russia. 110 formation of. 77 Reichsgrafen. 227–8. 92 Reichsunmittelbarkeit. see Diets. 356–8 development of a European-style nobility. 350. 76–7. Zemsky Sobor (Assembly of the Land) Rittergüter. 156 emergence of. 123 Danish nobility. 97. 351 consolidation of. 357 definitions of. 349–58. 183 Ständestaaten. 344. 30. 379 second serfdom. 343. 356. 217. 366 precedence. 244 in Poland–Lithuania. monopoly of. 338–9. 296. 360 smotr. 365 shaving. 358–64 marriage. 339. 351. 34. 318. 278. 276. 186–93. 10–11 further reading. 10 Statthalter. see starostwa starostwa. 68 the Reich. 214–15. 382–3 State. 315–16.Index hereditary nobility. 299 derogation. 314. 350. 36. 221–4. 57. 364. 344. of nobilities Austro-Bohemia. 293 in Russia. 29 State. 232. 285. 301 entails. 318. 353. 9–10 Denmark. 388 Sweden. 256 St. 316–17. 312. 65. 39 seigneurial absolutism. 46–7. 315. 336–8 security of status. 302 militarization of. 349 serfdom. 353. use of foreign administrators. 353. 284. 346. 120. 315. 359. 274 Sacred Crown. 273. 336–8 privileges of. 388 structure of. 318. 365. 347–8 service to the State. 251 in nineteenth century. 61. 227–31. 334–5. 322. 361. 213. 334. 311. 2. 199 Sejm. 255 . 293. 357–8 provincial nobility. 121 Denmark. 19. 348. 267. 342. 271. 326. 314. Matthias von (c. 270. 282–3. 343. 363. 18 Smolnyy Institute. 59. 238. 338. 365 Peter the Great and power over. 319 land with serfs. 51. 366 Ivan the Terrible. 283. owners. Russian. 367 Ruthenia. 316. 175. in east central Europe. 366 inheritance. 30 sköldebrev. 334. 345 lifestyle. 341 Silesia. 119–23 size. 327 ranks of. 266–7.1505–75). 63 Hungary. 328. 388–90 Poland. Petersburg. 79–80 Russia. see peasants service nobility. Hungary. 18. 360. 320. lack of. 318. 325. 233. 100–5 Sweden. 331. 333. and the nobility. 336–43. 316 emergence of. 351 Sobraniye. 365 military service. 365. 38. 247–8. 319. 355. 322. 365 taxation. 269. 352 Spanish nobility. 275–6 the Reich. 275 reform of. 301 431 Protestants excluded from. 392 Sporck family. 318–20. 361 Saldern. 302–3 sejmiki. requirement to. 186–8 Secret Committee. 353–4 serfs. 328–30 origins of. declining size of. 54. 343–5. 366–7 political power. 326–8. 273. 317. 356. 6–10 in Hungary. 128–9 Sarmatian myth. 359. 316–18 superiority of. 20. abolition of. 267. 358–9 Petrine reforms. 182 Schwarzenberg. 365 Russian Orthodox Church. 267 Senate. 255 State. emergence of. 311–12. 291 noble creations by. 365 uniform for. 335. bureaucratic. 35. 18–19. Sweden. 269 Schloss Raudnitz. 347. 366 size of. 356 landholding. 400 ‘service people’. 121 starosties. introduction of. 272. 294–5 State Council (Habsburg). 324–5. 177 Brandenburg. loss of. 15–16 rentier landlords. 277–8 Tripartitum (1517). 251–3 Poland. 358 Sweden. 31 size of. 339. 28 stryapchiye. 24. Walerian (d. 141 Time of Troubles (1598–1613). 20. Herluf. 89–94 Russia. 280 szlachta człstkowa. 339. 34–42 privileges of. 11. 279 szlachta zagrodowa. 20–1. 259 territorial Estates. 16. 316–18. 19. 26–7 magnates and lesser nobles. 48. administration of. 365 Teleki. 228–32. in Austria and Bohemia. 4 szlachta. 28. 1–3. 19–20. 88–9. 24 relations with peasantry. 286 Prussia. Hungary. 60 functional. 184 territorial fiefs. 7–8 Swedish nobility. 316. 1 Hungary. 41–2 service nobility from 1650s. 43–4 Ukraine. see Székeley szlachta. 336–8. 395 Denmark. 21. 11. Russia. 32 finances of. 32–3 further reading. 25–6 definition of. 350 Table of Ranks. Sámuel (b. 18–24 magnates. power of. 28 stol’niki. disputed. 345 . 181. 215–32. new titles. 315 Sweden. 378–9 lack of serfdom. 338. 286–7 the Reich. 216. 285 szlachta osiadła. 16. 33 emergence of titles. 17–18 Székeley. 274–5 unigeniture. kingdom of. 3 Denmark. 24–9 self-preservation. 21–2 titled nobility. 13 decline of nobility after 1800. 18–26 marriage in. 44–5. 211–12. 1–2 hereditary.1739). 18. 210–11. 102–3 Teutonic Knights. 11 Denmark. 97 territorial government in Austro-Bohemia. 321–2 titles. 251 Szeklers. 31 official salaries. 30 statutory position. 21. 183–5 territorial states in the Reich. 356–7 Sweden. 16. 315.1640). 364 Sweden. 336 structure of nobility. 56. 253 Poland. Sweden. 59 Hungary. 279 szlachta czynszowa. 20–1 protection in the Land Law. 378–9 Sweden. 279 Table of Ranks (1722). 220. 400–2 growth of. 140 the Reich. 315–16. 17 Trepka. 28 hegemony. 74. how acquired. 20 political power after 1719. 18–19. 258. 16. 33 royal absolutism. 13–42 Crown estates dispersed. 336–9. 29–30. 39 ‘taxpaying people’. see Polish nobility (szlachta) szlachta brukowa. failure of. 3 exclusivity of. economic effect of. 32–3 partnership with Gustav Adolf. 279 the Reich. 18.432 Index status of nobility. 17 loss of property and rights. 336–8. 252 Trolle. 23. 316–17. 79 Russia. 16–17 rank. 34–42 inheritance. lack of. 336–8. 232–7 Poland–Lithuania. 14 promotions to nobility. 90 Russian. 122 Thirty Years War. 132. 59 Hungary. 22. power of. 18 education of. 19 taxation. 379–80 433 Zamoyski family. 315 wage labour. 225. 302 Zemsky Sobor (Assembly of the Land). 158–9 Waldeck. 289. 321. 285. 283–4. 192–3 wealth and aristocratisation. 210–12. 214. 86. 326–8 .Index Vienna. Count George von. Habsburg Court at. 323. Poland–Lithuania. 181–2 voyevody. 136 Wallenstein family. 252 Westphalia. 78. 291. 320. 183. Stephen (d. 248. 247. Peace of (1648). 395 Werb˝ oczy. 292. and Junkers estates. 174–5.1541). 178 Year of Revolutions (1848).