A. T. Urushadze. The Caucasus Governance Reform of 1844–1845 in Government Discussions
and the Public Sphere // Petersburg Historical Journal, no. 4, 2025, pp. 148–161.

DOI: 10.51255/2311–603X_2025_4_148

Abstract:

The article is devoted to the reform of the administration of the Caucasus in 1844–1845. This
transformation was connected with the appointment of M. S. Vorontsov to the post of the Caucasian governor with broad administrative rights and privileges. The article offers a new approach to the analysis of this historical event. Firstly, it is emphasized that the expansion of the rights of the head of the regional administration occurred as early as 1842. Secondly, it is argued that after deciding to appoint Mikhail Vorontsov to the Caucasus, Emperor Nicholas I was forced to formulate special conditions for this appointment. This came as a surprise to State Secretary M. P. Posen, who supervised the transformation of the regional administration. The administrative rights and prerogatives of the Caucasian governor were determined as a result of a discussion about the contents of the supreme rescript to the Caucasian governor. The article is based on both published and archived historical evidence.

Key words: Russian Empire, Caucasian Viceroy, State Administration.

Author:

Urushadze, Amiran Tarielovich — PhD in History, Senior Researcher at the Institute of History
and Archeology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctorant at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Ekaterinburg — St. Petersburg, Russia).
E-mail: urushadze85@mail.ru
ORCID: 0000-0003-4624-007X

References:

Andreeva, T. V. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie Rossii v nachale tsarstvovaniya Nikolaya I: k probleme preemstvennosti i razlichiya v pravitel’stvennoi preobrazovatel’noi politike [State Administration of Russia at the Beginning of the Reign of Nicholas I: on the problem of Continuity and Differences in Government transformative Policy. In Russ.]. In Peterburgskii istoricheskii zhurnal. 2017. No. 2, pp. 30–54.

Bibikov, G. N. Zhandarmskii nadzor v sisteme gosudarstvennogo upravleniya Rossiiskoi imperii (1826–1856) [Gendarmerie Supervision in the System of Public Administration of the Russian Empire (1826–1856). In Russ.]. Moscow, Kvadriga publ., 2023. 356 p.

Degoev, V. V. Imam Shamil’: prorok, vlastitel’, voin [Imam Shamil: Prophet, Ruler, Warrior. In Russ.]. Moscow, Russkaya panorama publ., 2001. 448 p.

Elias, N. Pridvornoe obshchestvo: issledovaniya po sotsiologii korolya i pridvornoi aristokratii [Court Society: studies on the sociology of the King and the court aristocracy. In Russ.]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury publ., 2002. 366 p.

Eroshkin, N. P. Istoriya gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii dorevolyutsionnoi Rossii [The History of State Institutions in Pre-Revolutionary Russia. In Russ.]. Moscow, Vysshaya shkola publ., 1983. 352 p.

Habermas, J. Strukturnoe izmenenie publichnoi sfery. Issledovaniya otnositel’no kategorii burzhuaznogo obshchestva [Structural Change in the Public Sphere. Research on the Category of Bourgeois Society. In Russ.]. Moscow, Ves’ mir publ., 2016. 344 p.

Lazaryan, S. S. Kavkaz pod upravleniem knyazya M. S. Vorontsova (1844–1854 gg.) [The Caucasus under the Rule of Prince M. S. Vorontsov (1844–1854). In Russ.]. Moscow, Prospekt publ., 2022. 768 p.

Mamonov, A. V. Nesostoyavshiisya ideolog “ottepeli” M. P. Pozen [The Failed Ideologist of the “Ottepel” M. P. Posen. In Russ.]. In Rossiiskaya istoriya. 2022. No. 4, pp. 81–95.

Menning, B. A. I. Chernyshev: russkii Likurg [A. I. Chernyshev: the Russian Lycurgus. In Russ.]. In Russkii sbornik. T. 7: Voennaya politika imperatora Nikolaya I. Moscow, 2009. P. 80–102.

Mil’man, A. Sh. Politicheskii stroi Azerbaidzhana v XIX — nachale XX vekov [The Political System of Azerbaijan in the 19th — early 20th Centuries. In Russ.]. Baku, Azerneshr publ., 1966. 318 p.

Mustonen, P. Sobstvennaya ego imperatorskogo velichestva kantselyariya v mekhanizme vlastvovaniya instituta samoderzhtsa, 1812–1858: K tipologii osnov imperskogo upravleniya [His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery in the Mechanism of the Autocrat’s Institution, 1812–1858: Towards a Typology of the Foundations of Imperial Governance. In Russ.]. Helsinki, Aleksanteri inst., Cop., 1998. 357 p.

Osterkhammel’, YU. Preobrazhenie mira. Istoriya XIX stoletiya [The Transformation of the World. The History of the 19th Century. In Russ.]. Vol. II. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie publ., 2024. 576 p.

Raskin, D. I. Edinonachalie i kollegial’nost’ kak administrativnyi printsip v zakonotvorcheskoi deyatel’nosti M. M. Speranskogo [Unity of Command and Collegiality as an Administrative Principle in M. M. Speransky’s Legislative Activity. In Russ.]. In Peterburgskii istoricheskii zhurnal. 2023. No. 2, pp. 102–111.

Rhinelander, A. L. H. Prince Michael Vorontsov. Viceroy to the Tsar. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1990. 304 p.

Rhinelander, A. L. H. The Creation of The Caucasian Vicegerency. In The Slavonic and East European Review. 1981. Vol. 59, no. 1 (Jan.), pp. 15–40.

Shepelev, L. E. Chinovnyi mir Rossii, XVII — nachalo XX v. [The Official World of Russia, 17th — early 20th Century. In Russ.]. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo-SPb publ., 1999. 477 p.

Vyskochkov, L. V. Imperator Nikolai I. Zhizneopisanie [Emperor Nicholas I. Biography. In Russ.].
St. Petersburg, Nauka, 2022. 422 p.

Weber, M. Patriarkhal’noe i patrimonial’noe gospodstvo [Patriarchal and Patrimonial Domination.
In Russ.]. In Oikumena: Al’manakh sravnitel’nykh issledovanii politicheskikh institutov, sotsial’no-ekonomicheskikh sistem i tsivilizatsii. Iss. 9. Khar’kov, 2012. P. 183–248.

Zakharova, O. Yu. Svetleishii knyaz’ M. S. Vorontsov [Prince M. S. Vorontsov. In Russ.]. Simferopol’,
Biznes-Inform publ., 2004. 308 p.

Similar Posts

| |

PHJ № 3 (47) 2025 — K. V. Godunov. DEBATES ON CIVIL WAR DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR

This article examines how the debates that took place during the First World War influenced the dissemination of the concept of “civil war” and the impact this had on the political situation of the time. Particular attention is paid to discussions within the radical socialist milieu. It is demonstrated that the proponents of the slogan advocating the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war — first and foremost, V. I. Lenin and his supporters — acted within a specific historical and ideological context. They took into account the earlier discursive articulations of civil war as well as the experiences of socialists in other countries, particularly the rhetoric of Karl Liebknecht. Drawing on the views of prominent Bolsheviks such as A. G. Shlyapnikov, A. M. Kollontai, and N. I. Bukharin, the study shows that not all members of the party unequivocally supported Lenin’s call for civil war. Even among Lenin’s prominent allies, interpretations of the slogan varied, with differing views expressed regarding its meaning and practical implementation. Debates about the means of ending the global conflict and about the prospects for revolution and civil war were significant in several respects. During the First World War, the Bolsheviks acquired the reputation of being the “party of civil war”. This image played a major role in various anti-Bolshevik propaganda campaigns in 1917, even though in reality, not all members of the party fully endorsed Lenin’s position. Disputes surrounding the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war contributed to the cultural preparation for internal conflict. The notion of “civil war” gained renewed momentum and expanded its reach; its articulation during the crises of the First World War contributed to the radicalisation of the political situation. These debates among socialists led party activists at various levels — regardless of their agreement or disagreement with the necessity of civil war — to engage with the idea and to participate in the development of a political language centred around violence.

|

PHJ №1 (45) 2025 — D. A. Barinov, E. A. Rostovtsev. GRADUATES OF THE FACULTY OF HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY OF ST. PETERSBURG UNIVERSITY AT THE TURN OF THE 19TH–20TH CENTURIES: COLLECTIVE PORTRAIT AND CAREER PROSPECTS

Throughout the imperial period, St. Petersburg University functioned not only as the largest scientific and educational center in the country, but also as a training ground for the political and cultural elite, thus serving as the most significant source for the formation of the domestic intelligentsia. This study examines the role of the historical and philological faculty of the capital’s university in the formation of the national elite. The primary research method employed by the authors involved the compilation of a collective biography of бfaculty graduates, encompassing an analysis of their career trajectories, social compositions, and other relevant factors. A sample of issues from the turn of the 19th–20th centuries (1895–1904) was taken for analysis. The analysis revealed that the further professional paths of graduates developed in three main ways: a bureaucratic career, a career as a teacher in gymnasiums and colleges, and a scientific career, usually associated with work in higher education or the Academy of Sciences. Concurrently, the proportion of teachers and scientists among the graduate population increased, while the proportion of bureaucrats decreased. However, many individuals who opted for careers in the government apparatus did not forsake scientific studies, continuing to publish works, compilations, or organise expeditions. The article also provides comparisons with analogous indicators for other faculties, including law, physics, mathematics, and oriental languages. One of the objectives assigned to the article was to identify the connections that students established during their studies and that influenced the trajectory of their future careers. A thorough analysis of biographies revealed that these connections played a pivotal role in the development of academic and political careers, where the ties of student friendship could prove to be a significant asset.

|

PHJ №1 (45) 2025 — V. V. Shishkin. UNKNOWN LETTER OF HENRY III OF MARCH 10, 1585: ON THE EVE OF THE THE WAR OF THREE HENRYS

The letter of Henry III (1574–1589), the last of Valois, addressed to the French ambassador in Rome at the papal court, seigneur de Saint-Goart (Gouart). The document was submitted to the Archive of the Saint Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences as a gift on April 14, 2024. This is an order to the ambassador to ask Pope Gregory XIII to approve the royal decision regarding the appointment of a new prior of the Augustinian priory in Perigord, Saint-Etienne Du Peyrat, a certain Elis Patrice. In preparation for a new civil war in France, which remained in history under the name The War of Three Henrys (1585–1589), the king placed in secular and church posts, at court and in the field, the persons who were certainly devoted to him. Henry III removed from the post of prior a supporter of the Dukes of Guise, political opponents of the king, Bishop of Amiens. The reconstruction of events, according to the dorsal notes on the back of the letter, allows to understand the dramatic history of the approval of the royal decision, which eventually took place in 1586. This was due to the expulsion of Saint-Goart from Rome on the orders of the new Pope Sixtus V, and his triumphant return a few months after the restoration of relations between Henry III and the Holy See, under a new name and in a new status, Marquis de Pisany.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — V. A. Shkerin. A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO GENERALS ABOUT SERFDOM

Those who participated in the Decembrist movement from its inception and disassociated themselves from it no later than the dissolution of the Union of Welfare (1821) were, in general, not subjected to retribution. Those who were released during the investigation (frequently even without personal participation in it) or emerged from the trial completely cleared of suspicion accounted for half of all the defendants (290 people). It is evident that a considerable proportion of individuals belonging to the secret society who evaded retribution and were subsequently punished indicates that one of the primary outcomes of the Decembrist movement was the edification of liberal-oriented figures during the second quarter and the middle of the 19th century. The article examines the attitudes of two generals and major administrators of the Nicholas I era towards the problem of exploitation of the labour of serfs. One such individual is V. A. Glinka, the chief head of the Ural mining plants, who, during his youth, was a member of the Decembrist Union of Prosperity society. The second is the director of the Imperial Military Academy and proprietor of metallurgical enterprises in the Urals, I. O. Sukhozanet, who is most renowned for personally directing the artillery bombardment of the Decembrist rebels on 14 December 1825. Sukhozanet advanced the argument that the manufacturer’s right to “baptised property” should be defended, proposing that for enlightened nobles, the management of serfs constituted a form of public service, an obligation to “direct the masses of uneducated people to strict subordination”. Glinka, however, was diametrically opposed to this. Without delving into the broader discourse on the prospects of serfdom, he advocated for stringent legislative oversight of the duties and rights of factory workers, thereby curtailing the prerogatives of the breeders.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — S. S. Kurochkin. D. A. MILYUTIN’S VIEWS ON THE BALKAN POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN 1861–1877

This article provides an examination of the political standpoint adopted by Dmitry Milyutin, Minister of War of the Russian Empire, with regard to the policy of the Russian Empire in the Balkan region during the period 1861–1877. The analysis of official data and personal sources from the minister’s personal archival fund has revealed a divergence of views between him and the Foreign Minister, Alexander Gorchakov, on the issues of international relations related to the ‘Eastern question’. This research has enabled the investigation of the search for solutions to international crises arising from the internal instability of the Ottoman Empire. The present study draws upon a range of historical sources to provide a detailed examination of the military cooperation that was established between the Russian Empire and the Principality of Serbia during the 1860s. The present study has sought to analyse the personal sources related to the period of the Great Eastern Crisis (1875–1877) to investigate the participation of Dmitry Milyutin in the decision-making process that led to the declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — E. V. Koren. DECEMBRISM IN THE ASPECT OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE CIVIC CONSCIOUSNESS OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY

The article demonstrates that the mentality of the Decembrists, representing the noble intelligentsia, evolved in conjunction with the development of the political culture of society, the establishment of civil concepts of the fatherland, state and law, service, honour and duty. The Decembrist movement emerged in the context of the patriotic upsurge caused by the Patriotic War of 1812, contributing to the development of feelings of belonging to the people and the fatherland among educated military youth. The phenomenon of Decembrism was indicative of the transition of Russian society from the consciousness of subjects to that of citizens. The fundamental purpose of secret societies was to eliminate absolutism and serfdom, establish a constitution, and ensure the equality of citizens. The Decembrists demonstrated their revolutionary inclinations during the crisis of the interregnum of 1825. Conclusions were drawn: 1) the phenomenon of Decembrism is indicative of the advancement of Russian civic consciousness in the early 19th century, to the extent that it was able to challenge the prevailing power structure; 2) the Decembrists were unambiguous in their articulation of a civic position, representing an alternative to the prevailing autocratic-serf ideology; 3) the actions of the noble revolutionaries demonstrated an understanding of patriotism and service to the fatherland, with a focus on national interests; 4) Decembrism represented the first large-scale movement of the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia were those who defended civil law values and assumed historical responsibility for the fate of the country and the people. The findings of this study have the potential to inform future research on Decembrism, the mentality of the intelligentsia, and the civic development of Russian society.