Richard Wortman, “The Redefinition of the Sacred: Eighteenth-Century Russian Coronations,” in Alain Boureau, Claudio Sergio Ingerflom, eds., La royauté sacrée dans le monde chrétien. Colloque de Royaumont, mars 1989 (P.: Éd. de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1992), 149-156; and especially his Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy, 2 vols. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995-2000). Wortman’s work echoes that of Alain Boureau, who has offered a pointed critique of the approach adopted by E.H. Kantorowicz and his school. See Alain Boureau, Le simple corps du roi: l’impossible sacralité des souverains français, xve-xviiie siècles (P.: Éditions de Paris, 1988); and idem, Kantorowicz: Stories of a Historian, translated by Stephen G. Nichols and Gabrielle M. Spiegel; foreword by Martin Jay (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).
For recent examples, see Russell E. Martin, “Choreographing the ‘Tsar’s Happy Occasion’: Tradition, Change, and Dynastic Legitimacy in the Weddings of Tsar Mikhail Romanov,” Slavic Review 63, 4 (Winter 2004): 794-817; O.G. Ageeva, Evropeizatsiia russkogo dvora, 1700-1796 gg. (M.: In-t rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2006), esp. 125-130; 147-149; 158-161; and, for a somewhat later period, Mikhail Dolbilov, “The Political Mythology of Autocracy: Scenarios of Power and the Role of the Autocrat,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 2, 4 (Fall 2001), 773-795; and idem, “Rozhdenie imperatorskikh reshenii: monarch, sovetnik, i ‘vysochaishaia volia’ v Rossii XIX v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski 9 (2006): 5-48.
On the Russian honors system, see A.L. Khazin, Stanovlenie nagradnoi sistemy Rossii v kontse XVII -XVIII vv. Avtoreferat dis. kand. ist. nauk (M., 2008); and V.A. Durov, Russkie nagrady: -nachala XX v. (M.: Prosveshchenie, 1997). On the Order of St. Catherine, see Gary Marker, “Peter the Great’s Female Knights of Liberation: The Order of St. Catherine of Alexandria,” in Roger Bartlett, Lindsey Hughes, eds., Russian Society and Culture and the Long Eighteenth Century: Essays in Honour of Anthony G. Cross (Münster: Lit, 2004), 35-47; idem, Imperial Saint: the Cult of St. Catherine and the Dawn of Female Rule in Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007), esp. 126-131.
James Cracraft, The Petrine Revolution in Russian Culture (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2004); E.V. Anisimov, The Reforms of Peter the Great: Progress Through Coercion (Armonk, NY: М.Е. Sharpe, 1993).
M.M. Krom, ed., Novaia politicheskaia istoriia: sbornik nauchnykh rabot (SPb.: Evropeiskii universitet v Sankt-Peterburge, 2004); O.V. Bol’shakova, “Novaia politicheskaia istoriia Rossii: sovremennaia zarubezhnaia istoriografiia,” Istoriia Rossii. Seriia analiticheskikh obzorov i sbornikov, 1 (2006): 1-98; and her “Puteshestvie vo vremeni: kul’tura imperatorskoi Rossii v sovremennoi angloiazychnoi istoriografii (obzor),” Istoriia Rossii. Seriia analiticheskikh obzorov i sbornikov 2 (2010): 115-137.
Marker, Imperial Saint; Lindsey Hughes, “Catherine I of Russia, Consort to Peter the Great,” in Clarissa Campbell Orr, ed., Queenship in Europe, 1660-1815: The Role of the Consort (Cambridge, 2004), 131-154; Iu.M. Popov, “Naimenovaniia korablei russkogo flota, sviazannye s obrazom Ekateriny I,” in G.V. Vilinbakhov, et. al., eds., Petrovskoe vremia v litsakh: kratkoe soderzhanie dokladov nauchnoi konferentsii (SPb., 2000), 46-50; and A. Nemshilova, “Venchanie na tsarstvo Ekateriny I: o vozniknovenii i evoliutsii russkikh koronatsionnykh izdanii,” Biblioteka 10 (2002): 90-92. For the text of the coronation manifesto, see N.A. Voskresenskii, Zakonodatel’nye akty Petra I (M.-L.: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1945), I, p. 180.
On the “affair of the tsarevich, 1715-1717,” see Paul Bushkovitch, Peter the Great: The Struggle for Power, 1671-1725 (Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), ch. 9.
Marker, Imperial Saint, 133.
As we know, of all the decrees and laws issued during Peter’s reign, no less than half were either written by the tsar personally, or shaped decisively by his resolutions. For example, Peter’s “Military Regulation” (Ustav voinskii) contains two hundred corrections and additions in the tsar’s own hand. Anisimov, The Reforms of Peter the Great, 149, 165; Voskresenskii, Zakonodatel’nye akty Petra I, 294-308, 415-510. For Peter’s personal participation in drafting of the Table of Ranks, see S.M. Troitskii, Russkii absol’utizm i dvoriantstvo v XVIII veke: Formirovanie burokratii (M., 1974), 48-104.
In addition to the abovementioned works, see L. Hughes, “A Note on the Children of Peter the Great,” Study Group on Eighteenth Century Russia Newsletter, 21 (1993): 10-16; V.I. Buganov, “Ekaterina I: [Istoricheskii portret imperatritsy, 1684-1727],” Voprosy istorii 11 (1994): 39-49; A. Kizevetter, “Ekaterina I: Biograficheskii ocherk,” in his Istoricheskie siluety (Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks, 1997), 45-61; Astrid Blome, “Schön und weise, klug und löblich. Katharina I. – eine Dienstmagd auf dem Zarenthron,” in Karsten Brüggemann, Thomas M. Bohn, Konrad Maier, eds., Kollektivität und Individualität. Der Mensch im östlichen Europa. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Norbert Angermann zum 65. Geburtstag [= Studien zur Geschichtsforschung der Neuzeit, Band 23] (Hamburg, 2001), 184-211; Igor’ Kurukin, “Prevratnosti Fortuny, ili Kartiny iz zhizni Ekateriny I,” Znanie-Sila 4 (2002): 112-120; N.I. Pavlenko, Ekaterina I [Zhizn’ zamechatel’nykh liudei; vyp. 1104 = 904] (M., 2004); and E.V. Anisimov, “The Cinderella from Livland,” in Five Empresses: Court Life in Eighteenth-Century Russia (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 1-54.
On Kurakin, see V.I. Semevskii’s introduction in M.I. Semevskii, ed., Arkhiv kn. F.A. Kurakina [hereafter Arkhiv], 10 vols. (SPb.: Tip. V.S. Balasheva, 1890-1902), I, p. xx-xxviii; N. Ch[echulin], “Kurakin, Boris Ivanovich,” in Russkii biograficheskii slovar’ (SPb.: Tip. Glav. Uprav. Udelov, 1903), 9, p. 572-579; S.I. Kedrov, “Rus’ Petra Velikogo za granitseiu: kniaz’ Boris Ivanovich Kurakin (Na osnovanii izdannykh knig “Arkhiva kn. F.A. Kurakina”),” Russkii arkhiv 2, 5-6 (1903): 23-50; ibid. 3, 11-12 (1903): 353-391; ibid., 2, 5-6 (1904): 174-199; ibid., 1, 3 (1905): 377-424; ibid., 4 (1906): 497-592; ibid., 7 (1907): 289-313; ibid., 2, 5 (1912): 5-29; Iu.V. Trifankova, B.I. Kurakin: lichnost’ i diplomaticheskaia deiatel’nost’: diss. kand. ist. nauk (Riazan’, 2007); and Ernest A. Zitser, “The Vita of Prince Boris Ivanovich ‘Korybut’-Kurakin: Personal Life-Writing and Aristocratic Self-Fashioning at the Court of Peter the Great,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 59, 2 (2011): 163-194. Prince Kurakin and the tsar had both been married to the Lopukhin sisters; until, that is, the end of the seventeenth-century, when Kurakin buried Ksen’ia (1678-1699) in the Chudov Monastery in Moscow and Peter confined Evdokiia (1669-1731) in a convent in distant Suzdal’, effectively divorcing her and withdrawing his favor from those members of the Muscovite elite, like Kurakin, who had belonged to the court clique that had arranged his first marriage and had put him on the throne.
OPI GIM (Otdel pis’mennykh istochnikov Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia – Manuscript Division of the State Historical Museum), f. 3 (Kurakiny), opis’ S[taraia], d. 67.
For more on Arkhiv kn. F.A. Kurakina, and the reasons why it remains incomplete and difficult to use, see Kedrov, “Rus’ Petra Velikogo za granitseiu…,” Russkii arkhiv 2, 5-6 (1903): 25-50, here 26-7n.; and P.A. Druzhinin, “Sud’ba arkhiva kniazia A.B. Kurakina,” in P.A. Druzhinin, ed., Neizvestnye pis’ma russkiskh pisatelei kniaziu Aleksandru Borisovichu Kurakinu (1752-1818) (M.: “Truten’”, 2002), 77-91, here 78.
The first draft has a countermark right under the coat of arms, while the other has it on separate pages (i.e. the coat of arms and the Latin letters are on alternating pages). For an example of a similar watermark, see W.A. Churchill, Watermarks in Paper in Holland, England, France, etc. in the XVII and XVIII Centuries and Their Interconnection (Amsterdam, 1967), 68, Plate XXXVIIII (no. 59) and Plate XXVII (No. 41).
OPI GIM, f. 3, op. S, d. 67, l. 229-235 ob.
Ibid., l. 236-242 ob.
Ibid., l. 174-179 ob.
The two chancellery employees were most likely Kurakin’s secretary, Fedor Pavlovich Veselovskii (1690-1754), and the clerk (pod’iachii) and “letter-writer” (pis’movoditel’) Petr Rogov, both of whom had earlier accompanied the diplomat on his missions abroad and were responsible for providing accurate, literal translations from French and German. Russkii arkhiv 1, 3 (1905): 383, 407, 420; ibid., 4 (1906): 533. One of F.P. Veselovskii’s brothers, Avraam (1685-1782/83), had also worked as a translator for Kurakin, before moving on to a position in Menshikov’s Izhorsk Chancellery. Another brother, Iaakov (d. 1719), served as a translator and secretary to Menshikov. See D.O. Serov, Stroiteli Imperii: ocherki gosudarstvennoi i kriminal’noi deiatel’nosti spodvizhnikov Petra I (Novosibirsk: Izd-vo Novosibirskogo universiteta, 1996).
For a description of Catherine’s sixteen-point “manifesto,” see T.A. Bykova et. al., ed., Opisanie izdanii, napechatannykh pri Petre Pervom. Svodnyi catalog. Dopolneniia i prilozheniia (L.: Izd. Otdel BAN SSSR, 1972), 17-18 (no.14).
The 1714 Statutes were first republished in N.N. Bantysh-Kamenskii’s (1737-1814) pioneering survey of Russian imperial orders of chivalry, Istoricheskoe sobranie spiskov kavaleram chetyrekh rossiiskikh imperatorskikh ordenov (M., 1814), which as P.A. Druzhinin has demonstrated, is still incorrectly attributed to D.N. Bantysh-Kamenskii (1778-1850), the son of the long-time archivist of the Moscow Archive of Foreign Affairs. See P.A. Druzhinin, “Istoriia napisaniia i izdaniia knigi ‘Istoricheskoe sobranie spiskov kavaleram chetyrekh rossiiskikh ordenov,’” in P.A. Druzhinin, ed., N.N. Bantysh-Kamenskii, Spiski kavaleram Rossiiskikh imperatorskikh ordenov Sv. Andreia Pervozvannogo, Sv. Ekateriny, Sv. Aleksandra Nevskogo i Sv. Anny s ikh uchrezhdeniia do ustanovleniia v 1797 godu ordenskogo kapitula (M.: Izd-vo “Truten’”; Izd-vo “Drevlekhranilishche,” 2006), 5-55. The introduction to Bantysh-Kamenskii’s publication of the Statutes cited a contemporary description of the 1714 ceremony from “the protokol’naia kniga of Prince Kurakin, the former Russian ambassador to the United Provinces.” See Istoricheskoe sobranie>, 133 n.1. In another publication, Bantysh-Kamenskii noted that the “inauguration” (uchrezhdenie) of the Order of St. Catherine/Deliverance was mentioned in Kurakin’s protokol’naia kniga under both 1712 and 1713. N.N. Bantysh-Kamenskii, Obzor vneshnikh snoshenii Rossii, po 1800 god. Chast’ pervaia: Avstriia, Angliia, Vengriia, Gollandiia, Daniia, Ispaniia (M., 1894), 195 n.1. However, what he called the “1712 book” was in fact a book that covered the period from October 1712 to October 1713, and that included information for August 1713, when the statute was sent to Catherine. The first of the protocol books cited by Bantysh-Kamenskii contains a copy of the statute itself (on the day it was dispatched to Catherine); the second, her letter thanking Kurakin and promising him the blue ribbon of St. Andrew. For the two protocol books in question, see Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (hereafter, RGADA), f. 50 (Snosheniia Rossii s Gollandiei), op. 1, 1712, no. 13 (Kniga, soderzhashchaia v sebe protokoly…); 1713, no. 7 (Kniga, soderzhashchaia v sebe protokoly…). We have not been able to locate the book containing the description of the inauguration of the order. Chronologically, it should have been entered in the 1713 book, which covers the period from October 18, 1713 to May 13, 1715. Yet, in November 1714 Kurakin goes on a mission to London, and his book becomes very sketchy in its coverage.
Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii 5, (1830), 129-133 (no. 2860). In addition to the Statutes themselves, the editors of PSZ reprinted the contemporary description of the ceremony cited by Bantysh-Kamenskii, in the process removing the archivist’s original reference to the fact that it came from the protokol’naia kniga kept during Kurakin’s term as envoy to The Hague. They also noted that “it is not clear from other [legislative] acts when this Statute was confirmed,” thereby erroneously assuming that it had indeed been confirmed during Peter’s reign. Ibid., 133n.
RGADA, f. 50, op. 1, 1712, №13.
Kurakin to Count G.I. Golokvin (25 August 1713), Arkhiv, 9: 93-99, here 98.
Golovkin to Kurkain (30 Sept. 1713), Arkhiv, 9: 156-158, here 158.
Prince B.I. Kurakin to Tsaritsa Ekaterina I (21 August 1713), Arkhiv, 9: 89-90.
D’Arcy Jonathan Dacre Boulton, The Knights of the Crown: The Monarchical Orders of Knighthood in Later Medieval Europe, 1325-1520 (Woodbridge, Rochester, NY: Boydell, 2000); and Antti Matikkala, The Orders of Knighthood and the Formation of the British Honours System, 1660-1760 (Woodbridge, Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2008).
According to Boulton there were, indeed, at least two historically-documented orders devoted to St. Catherine. The first was the “honorific pseudo-order” of the “knights of St. Catherine of Mount Sinai,” which “consisted of nothing more than a badge or title borne by those who received them, and served merely to honour their recipient.” The second was the “princely confraternal” Order of St. Catherine, which was “founded in the Dauphiné of Viennois at some time between 1330 and 1340” and, like other orders of this type, was intimately “associated with the court or dynasty” of its founder. Boulton, The Knights of the Crown, xix, xix n. 31; and xvi, 45, 177, 27.
For example, see the entry accompanying plate XXI: “Eques S. Catherinae/Cavaliere di S. Caterina” in Filippo Buonanni, Catalogo degli ordini equestri, e militari: esposto in imagini, e con breve racconto, offerto alla santita’ di n.s. Clemente XI (In Roma: Nella stamperia di Georgio Placco, CDCCXI [i.e. 1711]); and Voyages en Anglois et en François D’A De La Motraye … (La Haye: Imprime Pour L’Auteur, MDCCXXXII [i.e. 1732]), 72.
This quote is from a historical survey of knightly orders in Elias Ashmole, The History of the Most Noble Order of the Garter… (London, 1715 ), 28.
Adriaan Schoonebeeck, Histoire de tous les ordres militaires ou de chevalerie de l’un & de l’autre sexe; ou l’on voit le temps de leur fondation, la vie en abregé, de leurs fondateurs, & les figures de leurs habits, gravez par Adrien Schoonebeek, divisée en deux tomes (Amsterdam : Chez Adrien Schoonebeek, [ca. 1688]). The second volume of this work was entitled Courte description des ordres des femmes & filles religieuses. Contenant une petite relation de leur origine, de leur progrés, & de leur confirmation. Avec les figures de leurs habits…. The 1699 edition of Schoonebeeck’s Histoire, which we consulted, was dedicated to the Russian tsar: «Au Tres-Illustre, Tres-Puissant et Tres-Invincible Empereur Pierre Alexewits, Par la Grace de Dieu Grand Prince <…> Se present ouvrage des Ordres Militaires de la Chretienté est présenté avec toute sorte de respect et de soumission à Sa Mageste par Son Très-Humble, Très obeïssant & Très-dévoüé Serviteur Adrien Schoonebek.»
James Cracraft, The Petrine Revolution in Russian Imagery (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 120, 165-167.
Istoriia o ordinakh ili chinakh voinskikh pache zhe kavalerskikh obderzhashchaia Ustavleniia povedeniia i praktiku, printsipal’nykh deistv, i velikomagisterskikh, so oruzhiem, i ikh figurami. … napechatana poveleniem tsarskogo velichestva v tipografii moskovskoi leta Gospodnia 1710-go v mesiat Avgust (M.: Moskovskaia tipografiia, 1710), which constitutes a translation of only the first part of 1699 French original, i.e. it completely omits Schoonebeek’s discussion of female orders. On Schoonebeek and the anonymous Russian translation, see P.P. Pekarskii, Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre Velikom, 2 vols. (SPb.: «Obshchestvennaia pol’za», 1862), 2, 244-247.
Schoonebeck devotes only one page to a discussion of “Les Chevaliers de Ste. Caterine du Mont-Sinai et du Jerusalem,” see ibid. 158.
Schoonebeck, ibid., noted that «On ne trouve point que cet Ordre ait été confirmé par aucun Pape; mais on sait qu’il a été entiérement anéanti par la retraite quels Princes Chrétiens ons été obligez de faire de la Terre Sainte devant les Forces des Turcs.» This may have been the technicality that allowed Kurakin to claim that the Russian monarch was merely “reviving this order in Europe.”
Boulton, The Knights of the Crown, 500; for an in-depth treatment of the “restoration and revival” of the Order of the Garter, see Matikkala, The Orders of Knighthood, 62-88.
Boulton, The Knights of the Crown, 499-500, 500n.10: St. Louis, France, 1693; The Elephant, Denmark (1457), statutes 1693; The Dannebrog, Denmark (1671), statutes 1693; St. Michael, Bavaria, 1693; St. Andrew, Russia, 1698; The Black Eagle, Prussia, 1701; The Hunt, Wurtemberg, 1702; The Thistle, Scotland (revived again) 1703; Sincerity (or the Red Eagle), Prussia, 1705, 1712; St. Hubert, Bavaria, (revived) 1708; The White Eagle, Poland, 1713; Fidelity, Baden, 1715.
On the order of St. Andrew, see G.V. Vilinbakhov, “K istorii uchrezhdeniia ordena Andreiia Pervozvannogo i evoliutsii ego znaka,” in Kul’tura i iskusstvo petrovskogo vremeni: publikatsii i issledovaniia (L., 1977), 144-158; A.L. Khazin, “Vysshaia nagrada otechestva: k voprosu o sozdanii statuta ordena Sviatogo apostola Andreia Pervozvannogo,” Voenno-istoricheskii arkhiv 12 (2008): 53-5. Matikkala, The Orders of Knighthood, 241-242, suggests that it, too, may have been instituted in order to raise the prestige of the saint to whom it was dedicated, since previous orders bearing the name of St. Andrew, including the Thistle, had “lapsed.” She also points out that Schoonebeek’s decision to begin his book on orders of chivalry with a discussion of the legendary order of St. Constantine bolsters Vilinbakhov’s argument about the “Constantinian” source of the Russian Order of St. Andrew.
According to evidence cited by Pekarskii, Nauka i literature v Rossii, I, 90-91, 106, around 1717 Peter charged Baron Heinrich von Huyssen with writing up a draft of the statutes (ustavil stat’i) for the Order of St. Andrew that included extensive commentary in the margins on other contemporary monarchical orders. This may be the very document published by D.G. Fedosov, “K trekhstoletiiu pervogo Rossiiskogo ordena,” Srednie veka 62 (2001): 247-274.
Buonanni’s Catalogo degli ordini equestri, e military, for example, included an “Appendix: Continens Foeminas ad Equestres Ordines Spectantes & Infideles.”
Buonanni, Catalogo degli ordini equestri, Plate CXXVII [i.e. 127], depicting “Moniales [i.e. nuns] B. Mariae de Mercede Redemptionis captivorum/Monache di S. Maria della Mercede della Redenzione delli Schiavi.”
For a discussion of the trope of “divining the monarch’s will” (ugadyvanie tsarskoi voli), and its use by state functionaries as a stratagem for influencing royal decision-making, see Dolbilov, “Rozhdenie imperatorskikh reshenii,” 9, 16-24.
Buonanni, Catalogo degli ordini equestri, Plate CXXXI [i.e. 131]: Ordo Foeminarum que Familae virtutis dieuntur/Ordine delle schiave della Virtu.” For the statutes of the order and a list of its members, see Johann David Köhler, “Das goldene Schaustück des von der verwittibten Röm. Kayserin Eleonora A. 1662 gestiffteten Damenordens der Sclavinnen der Tugend,” Historische Münzbelustigung, 21 (1749): 169-176.
Sabine Koloch, “Neue Befunde zu dem habsburgischen Damenorden ‘Sklavinnen der Tugend,’” Orden und Ehrenzeichen. Das Magazin für Sammler und Forscher (= BDOS-Jahrbuch 1999): 29-31; Katrin Keller, Hofdamen: Amtsträgerinnen im Wiener Hofstaat des 17. Jahrhunderts (Wien: Böhlau, 2005), 173; eadem, “Frauen und Politik in der höfischen Gesellschaft des Alten Reiches zwischen 1550 und 1750,” Zeitenblicke 8, Nr. 2, [30.06.2009]: 1-30, here 14-5. URL: http://www.zeitenblicke.de/2009/2/keller/index_html.
Koloch, “Neue Befunde zu dem habsburgischen Damenorden,” 30-31. See also Hermann Dikowitsch, “Die Österreichischen Damenorden,” in Johann Stolzer, Christian Steeb, eds., Österreichs Orden vom Mittelalter biz zur Gegenwart, ed. (Graz, 1996), 183-196, esp. 183-188.
Habsburg piety was centered around the veneration of the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, the Catholic saints, and the Cross of Christ (fiducia in crucem Christi). See Anna Coreth, Pietas Austriaca. Translated by William D. Bowman and Anna Maria Leitgeb [Central European studies series] (West Lafayette, IN : Purdue University Press, 2004).
Ibid., 40-42; and Charles W. Ingrao, Andrew L. Thomas, “Piety and Power: The Empresses-Consort of the High Baroque,” in Cambpell Orr, ed., Queenship in Europe, 1660-1815, 107-130, here 120.
Documents associated with the foundation of this order (including its statutes [Satzungen] and the letters of confirmation [Bestätigungsschreiben] from Emperor Leopold I and Philipp Friederich, Bishop of Vienna) were included into the prayer book of the order, which was written in Italian by a popular Jesuit preacher named Giovanni Battista Manni (1606-1682), and translated into both German and French. See Très noble et Pieuse assemblée de l’ordre de la Croix étoilée, instituée par l’impératrice Eléonore pour la dévotion du Saxe Noble and Hoch-Adeliche und Gottseelige Versammlung von Stern-Creutz genannt So von Ihro Kayserlichen Majestät Eleonora verwittibten römischen Kayserin auffgerichtet : und estlich zwar Ihro Königl : Majestät Eleonorae regierenden Königin in Pohlen. Ertz-Hertzogin von Oesterreich (Wienn: gedruckt bey Leopold Johann Kaliwoda …, 1697). We consulted an 1839 republication of the German text published in Vienna: Hochadelige und gottselige Versammlung vom Sternkreuze (Wien, 1839).
Gottseelige Versammlung von Stern-Creutz genannt, 160-164. See also Hermann Dikowitsch, “Die Österreichischen Damenorden,” in Stolzer, Steeb, eds., Österreichs Orden vom Mittelalter, 183-196, here 183-189.
Coreth, Pietas Austriaca, 41; Ingrao, Thomas, “Piety and Power,” in Cambpell Orr, ed., Queenship in Europe, 1660-1815, 107-130, here 120.
L.A. Markina, “Sofiia Sharlotta Braunshveigskaia—pervaia nemetskaia printsessa v Rossii,” in Nemtsy v Rossii: problemy kul’turnogo vzaimodeistviia, otv. red. L.V. Slavgorodskaia (SPb.: DB, 1998), 41-52; and S.R. Dolgova, “Brachnyi soiuz tsarevicha Alekseia i vol’fenbiutel’skoi printsessy Sharlotty,” in Nemtsy Sankt-Peterburga: nauka, kul’tura, obrazovanie, otv. red. Galina Smagina [Dialog dvukh kul’tur] (SPb.: Rostok, 2005), 55–66.
Gottseelige Versammlung von Stern-Creutz genannt, 161; Dikowitsch, “Die Österreichischen Damenorden,” in Stolzer, Steeb, eds., Österreichs Orden vom Mittelalter, 187.
Kedrov, Russkii arkhiv 1, 3 (1905): 413-414, 419.
The fact that by means of this match Kurakin became related by marriage to both the Romanov and Habsburg dynasties did not appear to have erased the “affront” that he experienced as a result of the tsar’s decision to seat his former brother-in-law “in last place.” Kurakin may also have resented the fact that Prince V.V. Dolgorukov, the courtier whom he identified as his personal “enemy,” received the Order of St. Andrew, alongside Tsarevich Aleksei and the father-of-the-bride, while he (the Tsarevich’s own uncle) was passed over. “Zapiski kniazia Borisa Ivanovicha Kurakina o prebyvanii v Anglii, ot’’ezde v Rossiiu k armii, puteshestvie s tsarem Petrom Alekseevichem v Karlsbad i o naznachenii svoem na s’’ezd v Utrekht, 1710-1711-1712. Pisano v aprele 1712 g.,” in Arkhiv, 3: 310-11; and Kedrov, Russkii arkhiv, 7 (1907): 311-312. On Dolgorukii’s award, see Bantysh-Kamenskii, Spiski, 66.
Kurakin to Count G.I. Golokvin (25 August 1713), Arkhiv, 9: 93-99, here 98.
Durov, Russkie nagrady, 20.
Tsarista Ekaterina Alekseevna to Prince B.I. Kurakin (30 September 1713), Arkhiv, 2: 270.
We must remember that for much of the early modern period, official correspondence in general, and royal letter-writing in particular was not a private act. It was, rather a semi-public, performative moment, which provided yet another opportunity to project a particular scenario of power, and involved not only the addressee, but also the scribe to whom it was dictated and the one who might have first opened the letter upon receipt. An example of this is the note that Kurakin’s secretaries made about Catherine’s letter : “This [letter] from the sovereign tsaritsa to Prince Boris Ivanovich Kurakin, [to the effect] that the recently mailed order called Deliverance (ordin nazyvaemyi Svobozhdeniia) was received and that by a decree of His Tsarist Majesty it was announced (ukazom tsarskogo velichestva ob’’iavleno) that the abovementioned Prince was to be given a blue sash for his labors in this matter (za onyi trud), arrived in The Hague on 13 November 1713.” Arkhiv, 2: 270.
At the end of June 1709, just a few days before the battle of Poltava, the tsar had publicly berated Kurakin for “seeking the chance to become a foreign ambassador” instead of “serving in the military”; threatened him with the gallows, should he “not perform [his] duty during the occasion of the [much anticipated] battle with the enemy”; and then, after the conclusion of Russia’s decisive victory, deliberately passed him over for promotion, while generously handing out “ranks, medals, crosses, and chivalrous orders (kavalerii)” to all and sundry. This particular entry of the Prince’s autobiographical Vita was written sometime after 20 July 1710. Zitser, “The Vita of Prince Boris Ivanovich ‘Korybut’- Kurakin,” 178-179.
In 1712, for example, Kurakin made a special effort to record the Polish ambassador’s promise to award him the Order of the White Eagle. See Arkhiv, 5: 123 As early as 1711, Kurakin had posed for a three-quarter-length portrait by Sir Godfrey Kneller, the German-born, British painter who specialized in “Garter portraits,” i.e. Baroque parade portraits of Knights of the Order of the Garter. In 1717, Kneller’s portrait of Kurakin would be used by Pieter Stevens van Gunst as the basis for an engraved oval portrait that depicted the Russian ambassador with the sash and cross of the Order of St. Andrew. See Cracraft, The Petrine Revolution in Russian Imagery, 194-195, 340 n.92. ; and V.F. Vasilenko, “Neizvestnyi portret kniazia Borisa Ivanovicha Kurakina,” in Kurakinskie chteniia, ed. Dzh. B. Logashova (M.: GU MDN, 2006), 142-66. On Kneller and the “Garter portraits,” see Matikkala, The Orders of Knighthood, 232-230; it should be noted, however, that Kneller’s portrait of Kurakin is not listed in the artist’s catalog of paintings and drawings. See J. Douglas Stewart, Sir Godfrey Kneller and the English Baroque Portrait [Oxford studies in the history of art and architecture] (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1983).
Prince B.I. Kurakin to Tsaritsa Ekaterina I (27 November 1713), Arkhiv, 9: 218.
There is some confusion about the exact date of Kurakin’s induction into the Order. According to Bantysh-Kamenskii, Kurakin received the order of St. Andrew “personally from the hands of Peter the Great” on 28 March 1717 (18 March, according to the entry in Russikii biograficheskii slovar’), i.e. immediately upon Peter’s arrival in Holland, just prior to the Emperor’s trip to France. D.N. Bantysh-Kamenskii, “Biografiia kniazia Borisa Ivanovicha Kurakina,” in Deianiia znamenitykh polkovodtsev i ministrov Petra Velikago 2 vols. (M., 1813), 2: 37-54, reprinted in Arkhiv, 7: 415-421, here 419; RBS (1903), 9: 576. However, according to the inscription on Kurakin’s own tombstone, he received the Order after visiting France, in the “Prussian town of Cleves” (Prusskom gorode Kleve), which the tsar’s suite passed sometime between 13-22 July. It is, of course, possible that Kurakin was inducted in March 1717 but did not actually receive the badge until July of that year. T.D. Panova, Nekropoli Moskovskogo Kremlia, 2-e izd., ispr. i dop. (M.: 2003), 54-55, here 55. For the tsar’s itinerary on the way back from France, see PZh,1717, 29-30.
The award ceremony took place after the conclusion of the regular service, in the newly-built church named for St. Isaac of Dalmatia, the tsar’s birthday saint. Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoricheskoe sobranie spisok kavaleram, 135; PSZh 1714, 79.
While it is well known that Kurakin regularly carried out commissions and purchased items requested by Peter, little is known about the scope of his activity on behalf of the tsar’s official consort. Judging by the published correspondence, their working relationship began at the end of April 1711, in connection with Catherine’s request for a set of foreign-made, portrait miniatures of the tsar. See Baron P.P. Shafirov to Prince B.I. Kurakin (29 April 1711) in Arkhiv, 2: 355; B.V. Olad’in to Prince B.I. Kurakin (24 August/5 September 1711), ibid., 5: 167; B.V. Olad’in to Prince B.I. Kurakin (11/22 September 1711), ibid., 5: 167-169; and Count G.I. Golovkin to Prince B.I. Kurakin (29 November 1711), ibid., 5: 177-178. Afterwards, Catherine inaugurated a direct personal correspondence with Kurakin, primarily about the acquisition of luxury consumer items from abroad, both for herself and for her children with Peter. For example, see Prince B.I. Kurakin to Tsaritsa Ekaterina I (24 July 1713), Arkhiv, 9: 58-9.
RGADA, f. 9 (Peter I’s Cabinet), Otdelenie II, kniga 20, l. 577.
Arkhiv, 6: 42-43.
Arkhiv, 6: 42-43.
Linda Frey, Marsha Frey, eds., The Treaties of the War of the Spanish Succession: An Historical and Critical Dictionary, (Westport, CT., 1995), 139. The only extended biographical study remains Georg Friedrich de Martens, “Recherches sur la vie et escrits de Jean Dumont, Baron de Carlscroon, redacteur du Corps universel diplomatique du droit des gens,” in Supplément au Recueil de principaux traités d’alliance, de paix, de trêve … : précédé de Traités du XVIIIème siècle antérieurs a cette époque et qui ne se trouvent pas dans le Corps Universel Diplomatique de mrs. Dumont et Rousset …, 4 vols. (Gottinguen: Dieterich, 1802-1807), I: LXXIV-XCIV, esp. LXXVI (on the prefered spelling of his name).
Jean Dumont, ed., Corps universel diplomatique du droit des gens; contenant un recueil des traitez d’alliance, de paix… de toutes les conventions… & autres contrats, qui ont été faits en Europe, depuis le regne de l’empereur Charlemagne jusques à présent; avec les capitulations imperiales et royales… & en général de tous les titres… qui peuvent servir à fonder, établir, ou justifier les droits et les interets des princes et etats de l’Europe…, 8 vols. (Amsterdam: Chez P. Brunel, R et G. Wetstein, les Janssons Waesberge, et L’Honoré et Chatelain; La Haye: Chez P. Husson et Charles Levier, 1726-1731).
Ibid., vol. 8, Part 1: 275-276. The draft in question was the heavily-revised version intended for distribution abroad; it was personally edited by Peter and “given to the Dutch government” by none other than “the Russian ambassador” (most likely A.A. Matveev, Kurakin’s predecessor on the job). For a discussion of the different redactions of the Pruth peace treaty, see Ia.E. Vodarskii, Zagadki Prutskogo pokhoda Petra I I (M.: Nauka, 2004), 162-167, here 166-167, 202 n.48.
This interpretation is bolstered by the fact that Du Mont’s erstwhile collaborator and continuator of the Corps universel was none other than Jean Rousset de Missy (1686-1762), a.k.a. “Ivan Nestesuranoi,” who authored the histories of Peter I and, later, of Catherine I, both of which were highly favorable towards these Russian monarchs. According to N.A. Kopanev, Kurakin played a key role in commissioning the book on Peter and might have even written the introduction. Iwan Iwanowitz Nestesuranoi [Jean Rousset de Missy], Memoires du regne de Pierre le Grand, empereur de Russie, Père de la patrie, &c.&c.&c (La Haye: Chez R.C. Alberts; Amsterdam: Chez Her. Uytwerf, 1725-1726); idem, Memoires du regne de Catherine imperatrice & souveraine de toute la Russie. &c. &c. &c. (La Haye: Chez Alberts & Vander Kloot, 1728); and N.A. Kopanev, “Kniaz’ B.I. Kurakin i russkaia istoriografiia,” in Russkoe prosvetitel’stvo kontsa XVII -XVIII vekov v kontekste evropeiskoi kul’tury: tezisy dokladov nauchnoi konferentsii (SPb.: Gos. Ermitazh, 1997), 25-29, esp. 27-28. On de Missy, see also S.A. Mezin, “Petr I vo frantsuzskoi istoriografii XVIII veka,” Rossiia i Frantsiia XVIII -XX veka, 3 (2000), 14-36, here 14-21 ; and G. Shatokhina, “Gollandskii publitsist Zhan Russe de Missi i ego sviazi s Rossiei,” in Emmanuel Waegemans, ed., Russia and the Low Countries in the Eighteenth Century [Baltic Studies, 5], (Groningen, 1998), 111-123.
For an analysis of this discourse, see Elena Pogosian and Mariia Smorzhevskikh-Smirnova, “Tsar’ Petr Alekseevich i Gosudarynia Ekaterina Alekseevna na ikone Tallinskogo Nikol’skogo khrama,” in I. Belobrovtseva, ed., Russkie v Pribaltike: sbornik statei (M.: Nauka, 2010), 21-47; and “‘Iako az na rany gotov’: Petr I na ikone Tallinskogo Nikol’skogo khrama,” in Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii. Literaturovedenie. VII (Novaia seria) (Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 2009), 11-37. We are grateful to these scholars for sharing their their work-in-progress before its publication.
On the different semantic fields associated with the term for “nobility,” see Marc Raeff, “La noblesse et le discours politique sous le règne de Pierre le Grand,” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 34, 1-2 (1993): 33-46 ; as well as M.A. Kiselev, “‘Famil’nye’ vs. ‘shliakhetstvo’: problema samosoznaniia ‘dvorianskogo sosloviia’ v 1730 g.” and N.N. Petrukhintsev, “Konsolidatsiia dvorianskogo sosloviia i problemy formirovaniia oformliaiushchei ego terminologii,” papers delivered at the conference on “Praviashchie elity i dvorianstvo Rossii vo vremia i posle petrovskikh reform (1683-1750),” which was held at the German Historical Institute in Moscow, 9-11 June 2011. We are grateful to the organizers of the conference and its participants for sharing these stimulating and soon-to-be published articles. On Kurakin’s Polonophilia see Zitser, “The Vita of Prince Boris Ivanovich ‘Korybut’-Kurakin,” 169-172.
T.A. Bazarova, “Vozvrashchenie Karla XII v Shvetsiiu posle Poltavy v russkoi diplomaticheskoi perepiske: po materialam pokhodnoi kantseliarii P.P. Shafirova,” in O.G. Ageeva, et al., eds., Poltava: k 300-letiiu Poltavskogo srazheniia: sbornik statei (M.: Kuchkovo pole, 2009), 219-228.
OPI GIM, f. 3 (Kurakiny), op. S[taraia], d. 69 (Zapiski del kniazia Borisa Ivanovicha Kurakina, 1712-1713), l. 167 ob.
Although they had been married for two years, Charlotte only moved to Russia in April 1713; Aleksei joined her several months later. Dolgova, “Brachnyi soiuz tsarevicha Alekseia,” 63-64; Markina, “Sofiia Sharlotta Braunshveigskaia,” 45-46.
See P.A. Krotov, Gangutskaia bataliia 1714 goda (SPb.: Liki Rossii, 1996), 16-48, esp. 28-29.
For an earlier usage, see K. Schaller, “‘Emendatio omnium’ – A pedagogic or a political programme?” in R.R. Bolgar, ed., Classical Influences on Western Thought A.D. 1650-1870, ed. (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 77-92, here 90, 92. On Du Mont’s religious affiliation, see de Martens, “Recherches sur la vie et escrits de Jean Dumont,” I: LXXXVIII.
For a discussion of the concept of “fatherland” in Russian and Ukrainian political cultures of the time, see Frank E. Sysyn, “Fatherland in Early Eighteenth-Century Ukrainian Political Culture” and Serhi Plokhy, “The Two Russias of Teofan Prokopovyc,” both in Giovanna Siedina, ed., Mazepa e il suo tempo: storia, cultura, società = Mazepa and his time: history, culture, and society (Alessandria: Ed. Dell’Orso, 2004), 39-53 and 333-366, respectively. Paul Bushkovitch, “Fatherland in Russian Culture (Fifteenth-Seventeenth Centuries),” Journal of Ukrainian Studies (2008-2009): 93-103, has noted that the idea of “fatherland” had appeared in Russian writings even before it was famously invoked by Feofan Prokopovych. Kurakin, for one, had used the term patria to boast about the “honor and glory” that his 1707 mission to Italy had brought both to “the Russian realm” (gosudarstvo rossiiskoe) and to “the fatherland for which my house (i patrii imeni svoego domu), the Caributoff Karakinigh, hereditary Lithuanian princes (kniazei nasledstvennykh litovskikh)” was named. See Zitser, The Vita of Prince Boris Ivanovich ‘Koribut’-Kurakin, 172.
The order is mentioned in G.V. Esipov, “Zhizneopisanie kniazia A.D. Menshikova po novootkrytym bumagam,” Russkii arkhiv 3, 9 (1875): 47-74, here 74n.65. Although all subsequent biographies of Peter’s favorite refer to Esipov’s groundbreaking work, as far as we know, none has picked up his discussion of this particular episode. See N.I. Pavlenko, N.I. Pavlenko, Poluderzhavnyi vlastelin: istoricheskaia khronika o zhizni spodvizhnika Petra Pervogo A.D. Menshikova (M., 1991); N.V. Kaliazina and E.A. Kaliazin, Aleksandr Menshikov–stroitel’ Rossii, 2 vols. (SPb., 2005-2006); Iu.N. Bespiatykh, Aleksandr Danilovich Menshikov: mify i real’nost’ [Biblioteka Fonda pamiati svetleishego kniazia A.D. Menshikova] (SPb., 2008). It is not clear, however, whether in this phrase Menshikov acknowleged the receipt of an object (a star), or just of the drawings discussed below.
RGADA, f. 198 (Menshikov), op. 1, d. 1170 (Letters of A.D. Menshikov to Daria Menshikova), l. 154. This undated and unsigned drawing is included between the letters from 31 May and 1 June 1709 (neither of which refers to the order, however).
The three sketches of the order are in ibid., l. 133-135. The ones on l. 133 and 135 are identical to each other; the one on l. 134 includes the addition of four letters (К, О, Ш, and S), which were probably supposed to be read in the same order as when crossing oneself and which represented the initials of a phrase we have not been able to decipher.
Bushkovitch, “Fatherland in Russian Culture,” 100-101, has noted that in the seventeenth century the idea of “fatherland” was used in Russian royal “charter[s] granting estates as a reward for service” (zhalovannye gramoty), thereby allowing “the recipient’s descendents to remember their ancestors’ service to Orthodoxy, the tsar, and the fatherland.” Since Menshikov’s awards after the battle of Poltava also included extensive land grants, it is possible that the order’s creators were invoking the “documentary formulas of land grants” when they formulated its motto, in effect complementing and acknowledging the royal gift.
On the relationship between Catherine and the Menshikovs, see Kaliazina, Aleksandr Menshikov–stroitel’ Rossii, I: 203-8; II : 424-35.
RGADA, f. 198 (Menshikov), op. 1, d. 1170 (Letters of A.D. Menshikov to Daria Menshikov), l. 91 ob, 116, 117, 150.
Pavlenko, Ekaterina, 184: no. 45: Peter to Catherine (2 Dec. 1712): “the time has come for you to pray, and for us to work (vremia prishlo vam molitsa, a nam truditsa).”
RGADA, f. 198 (Menshikov), op. 1, d. 1170 (Letters of A.D. Menshikov to Daria Menshikov), l. 126, 130.
Like the icon that Menshikov commissioned in 1711, which has been expertly decoded by Pogosian and Smorzhevskikh-Smirnova, “‘Kak i slovom obiazalsia ia’”.
Arkhiv, I: 283-5. Kurakin blamed this temporary fall from grace on the intrigues of his “enemies” at court, particularly Prince V.V. Dolgorukii, “who sought to have my head [purely] out of envy, because he saw that Prince Menshikov showed me favor and loved me” (lo quale cercava sine adesso la mia testa per invidia, perche vedendo favori del P. Menscikoff, come mi amato). This was the very same individual who was personally entrusted to spearhead a criminal investigation into Menshikov’s financial irregularities. Coincidentally, the first arrests made in connection with this case took place on 25 November 1714, the day after Catherine’s public induction into the Order. See Bushkovitch, “Peter the Great: The Struggle for Power,” 320-325.
Kurakin was one of the Russian military men who appended his signature to the collective congratulatory letter addressed to Daria, soon after she had given birth to the Menshikovs first son. RGADA, f. 198, d. 1170, l. 500, cited in Kaliazina, Aleksandr Menshikov–stroitel’ Rossii, 2, 442.
At this point we can only speculate on the reasons for Peter’s reticence about recognizing the project pushed through by Catherine and her supporters. It may very well be the case that the tsar did not want his hand forced by his advisors, particularly when it came to such a delicate topic as precedence within the royal family and the issue of succession to the throne. For examples of similar sentiments among later royals, see Dolbilov, “Rozhdenie imperatorskikh reshenii,” 17, 20.
See Medals and Coins of the Age of Peter the Great from the Hermitage Collection, comp. and introd. by I.G. Spasskii, and E.S. Schukina (L.: Aurora Art Publishers, 1974), 36 (medal in honor of F.A. Golovin, extraordinary ambassador during the “Great Embassy,” c. 1698); 37 (medal in honor of Admiral F.M. Apraksin, 1708); 38 (reward medal to Captain Matvei Simontov, for building the harbor of Taganrog, 1709); and the discussion of named commemorative medals in Durov, Russkie nagrady, 36-37.
Such as the “Judas medal” (1709), commemorating Hetman I.S. Mazepa’s “contribution” to the successful outcome of the battle of Poltava. On the “Order of Judas,” see Ernest A. Zitser, The Transfigured Kingdom: Sacred Parody and Charismatic Authority at the Court of Peter the Great (Cornell: Cornell University Press, 2004), ch. 2; and Elena Ukhanova, “Medal’ dlia ‘Novogo Iudy,’” Rodina 11 (2007), available online at: http://www.istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=2410&n=120 (last accessed 12 January 2012).
See PSZh 1714, 79.
Especially since Catherine was not the only married woman to follow her husband on the Pruth campaign. As Vodarskii reminds us, the wives (and children) of foreign officers also went along with them. See Vodarskii, Zagadki Prutskogo pokhoda Petra I, 73. The only individuals to receive a medal for their participation in the unsuccessful campaign of summer 1711 were the Orthodox South Slavic vassals of the Ottoman Porte, who had attempted to organize an uprising to coincide with the Russian incursion into the Balkan peninsula. Durov, Russkie nagrady, 31-33.
Vodarskii, Zagadki Prutskogo pokhoda Petra I, 110-113, 177-180.
Significantly, this re-interpretation took place after Aleksei’s defection abroad. Marker, “Peter the Great’s Female Knights of Liberation,” 41, singles out two publications from 1717: Feofan Prokopovich’s name-day sermon on “St. Catherine the Great Martyr, the Namesake of the Good Sovereign Lady Catherine I, the All-Russian Tsaritsa”; and the “Greeting from the Saint Petersburg Typography to the Great Sovereign, All-Russian Tsaritsa, Most Noble Grand Princess Ekaterina Alekseevna,” which praised her “immeasurable manly bravery” (bezmernoe muzhestvo) at the Pruth. Praise for Catherine’s “manly rather than lady-like behavior” (muzheski, a ne zhenski postupala) reached its apogee in 1724, during Catherine’s coronation as empress.
The five enamel stars (kavalerii) that the tsaritsa commissioned from Kurakin in 1718 might serve as another indication of her sustained interest in the Order. If these really were intended as crosses of the Order of St. Catherine, then we have another piece of evidence of Catherine’s personal involvement in the creation of her order, even before Peter’s death. According to the “Register of the sovereign tsaritsa’s money” (“Vedomost’ den’gam gosudaryni tsaritsy”), these stars were not only manufactured on Catherine’s request and sent to her directly, but were also paid for from her private purse (at the cost of 120 guilders each). To put this order in the context of Catherine’s other concerns at the time, we should mention that simultaneously with getting the stars produced, Kurakin was overseeing the engraving of her portrait for printing (and, one might guess, subsequent distribution). RGADA, f. 9 (Peter I’s Cabinet), Otdelenie II, kniga 15, l. 492-495 (Letters of B.I. Kurakin to Catherine).
For a list of the Lady Knights of the Order of St. Catherine, see S.S. Levin, Orden sviatogo apostola Andreia Pervozvannogo (1699-1917), Orden sviatoi velikomuchenitsy Ekateriny (1714-1917): spiski kavalerov i kavalerstvennykh dam (M.: Blok, 2003), 52-108, here 52-53.
On the use of this trope, see V.Iu. Matveev, “K istorii vozniknoveniia i razvitiia siuzheta ‘Petr I – vysekaiushchii statuiu Rossii,” in Kul’tura i iskusstvo Rossii XVIII veka (L., 1981), 26-43.
See Cambpell Orr, ed., Queenship in Europe; Koloch, “Neue Befunde zu dem habsburgischen Damenorden”; and Anne Walthall, ed., Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History [The California world history library, 7] (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). For the Russian case, see the previously-cited works of L. Hughes and G. Marker; as well as Isolde Thyrêt, Between God and Tsar: Religious Symbolism and the Royal Women of Muscovite Russia (DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 2001); Anisimov, Five Empresses; and O.N. Mukhin, “Zhenshchiny tsarskoi sem’i v epokhu petrovskikh reform: roli i sud’by” in Mir Klio: Sbornik statei v chest’ Loriny Petrovny Repinoi (M., 2007), 396-412; idem, “Petr I i ‘zhenskii vopros’: vlast’ i gender v Rossii XVIII veka,” Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Seriia Gumanitarnye nauki 4, 41 (2004): 5-9.
Mikhail Krom, “Formen der Patronage im Russland des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts: Perspektiven der vergleichenden Forschung im europäischen Kontext,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 57, 3 (2009): 321-345
Zitser, “The Vita of Prince Boris Ivanovich ‘Korybut’-Kurakin,” 185.
RGADA, f. 198 (Menshikov), op. 1, d. 684 (Letters of B.I. and A.B. Kurakins to A.D. Menshikov), l. 135, 155, 181 ob.
OPI GIM, f. 3, op. S, d. 67, l. 236-242. As reproduced here, underlining is used in the original to indicate quotations and to highlight certain other passages.
OPI GIM, f. 3, op. S, d. 67, l. 174-179 ob. Italics indicate passages inserted on the margins or between the lines in Boris Kurakin’s hand. Angular brackets indicate passages crossed out in the original document.
Crossed out by Kurakin’s assistant.
Inserted on the margin and then crossed out by Kurakin’s assistant.
The version eventually dispatched to Catherine read “одну первенствующую персону, то есть госпожа ордину или по-немецки Gross Meisterin des Ordens” (OPI GIM, f. 3, op. S, d. 69 (Zapiski del kniazia Kurakina, 1712-1713), l. 167 ob.
“Conjugal” is inserted and then crossed out in Boris Kurakin’s hand.
No such drawings are found.
Paragraph 8 was skipped (apparently, unintentionally) by one of the translators and inserted on the margin by the other.
The original version of paragraph 13 was crossed out entirely and replaced by a significantly reworded version added at the end of the document (l. 179 ob), apparently, in Boris Kurakin’s hand.Haut de page