The Table of Ranks and Dostoevsky
As part of a series of reforms, Peter the Great (1682-1725) introduced the “Table of Ranks” into the Russian civil service in 1722 (Hassell 283; Reyfman 98). This system represented a new hierarchical structure with specifically defined ranks, and changed the civil service in two fundamental ways (Hassell 283). First, it outlined the separation of the Russian civil and the military services (Hassell 283). Second, it aimed to create a meritocratic system of promotion; this provided the common people with the opportunity to earn nobility should they rise to a high enough rank (Hassell 283). The “Table of Ranks” was comprised of fourteen different levels with rank fourteen being the lowest (Hassell 283). Critically, the rank of collegiate assessor*, or rank eight, bestowed the status of nobility upon its holder (Hassell 283; Reyfman 99). Peter the Great and his reformers envisioned the creation of a noble class that was dedicated to the state and served in either the military, the civil service, or with the courts** (Reyfman 98).
Though a more meritocratic Russian civil service had been the goal, the reforms were largely unsuccessful (Hassell 286–89; 292–95). Later changes, made by other monarchs, ultimately excluded the majority of the population (e.g. servants, peasants and anyone subject to the poll tax) from employment in the civil service (Hassell 286–89; 292–95). Within Russian society, a higher rank was generally associated with greater social status, though other factors were also influential (Reyfman 100).
- The official title associated with a specific numeric rank may vary in accordance with the historical period observed, or the department in which an individual was employed e.g. collegiate assessor could be considered equivalent to collegiate senior commissar (Hassell 283–85).
- Service was compulsory for noblemen until 1762 (Reyfman 98).
The “Table of Ranks”
| Rank | Civil Service | Military Service | Form of Address |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chancellor | General-Field Marshal | Your High Excellency |
| 2 | Actual Privy Councilor | General | " " " |
| 3 | Privy Councilor | Lieutenant-General | Your Excellency |
| 4 | Actual State Councilor | Major General | " " " |
| 5 | State Councilor | (abolished in 1796) | Your High Ancestry |
| 6 | Collegiate Councilor | Colonel | Your High Honor |
| 7 | Aulic (or Court) Councilor | Lieutenant-Colonel | " " " |
| 8 | Collegiate Assessor | Major | " " " |
| 9 | Titular Councilor | Captain | Your Honor |
| 10 | Collegiate Secretary | Staff Captain | " " " |
| 11 | (abolished in 1796) | (abolished in 1796) | (abolished in 1796) |
| 12 | Gubernial Secretary | Lieutenant | " " " |
| 13 | Senate Registrar | Second Lieutenant | " " " |
| 14 | Collegiate Registrar | Warrant Officer | " " " |
- This table is found on page 99 of Dr. Irina Reyfman's book Dostoevsky in Context (2015).
Rank and Nobility in Dostoevsky’s Life
In Dostoevsky in Context (2015), Dr. Irina Reyfman suggests that Dostoevsky’s family may have been descended from minor nobility in the west of Imperial Russia (Reyfman 100). However, Dr. Reyfman notes that by the end of the eighteenth century Fyodor Dostoevsky’s part of the family had fallen into poverty, and had lost their nobility after members of the family joined the clergy (Reyfman 100). Nevertheless, Fyodor Dostoevsky’s father, Mikhail Dostoevsky, decided against a life in the clergy, succeeded as a physician in Moscow, attained the rank of collegiate assessor (rank eight), and thus regained hereditary nobility (Reyfman 100). Dostoevsky’s own name was recorded in Moscow’s registry of hereditary nobility on June 28, 1828 (Reyfman 100). However, Dr. Reyfman asserts that Dostoevsky himself “felt neither enthusiasm for state service nor any sense of obligation to serve,” unlike many of his fellow noblemen (Reyfman 100). Furthermore, although Dostoevsky was a nobleman, his social status was not equivalent to that of other nobles with deeper roots in the gentry class, or greater wealth, such as the authors Ivan Turgenev and Leo Tolstoy (Frank). Consequently, as Joseph Frank writes “Dostoevsky’s own position in the Russian hierarchy was… ambiguous” (Frank). Dostoevsky was a nobleman, yet he lacked the social prestige of many of his peers (Frank).
Rank and Dostoevsky's Civil Servants
_crop.jpg)
Dostoevsky was never employed in the civil service, yet many of his books feature civil servants (Reyfman 101). These characters include titular councilors (rank nine) Makar Devushkin (Poor Folk), Yakov Golyadkin (The Double) and Semyon Marmeladov (Crime and Punishment), as well the “Underground Man” (Notes from the Underground), a former collegiate assessor (rank eight) (Reyfman 101–04). Dr. Irina Reyfman argues that Dostoevsky’s civil servants expand upon a civil servant based character type originally developed by Nikolai Gogol (Reyfman 101–02). In his writings, Gogol’s titular councilors Aksenty Poprishchin and Akakievitch Bashmachkin are portrayed as “good-for-nothing servitor[s]” (Reyfman 101). This depiction of Russian civil servants was inherited by Dostoevsky and many other members of the Natural School (Reyfman 101). However, Dr. Reyfman argues that this portrayal is not necessarily accurate (Reyfman 101). In 1809, Alexander I mandated that any civil servants promoted to the rank of collegiate assessor (rank eight), or state councilor (rank five), must possess a university degree or pass an exam that certified equivalent knowledge (Reyfman 101). In turn, this effectively created a “glass ceiling” for uneducated civil servants, regardless their skill level or merit (Reyfman 101). Nevertheless, Dostoevsky builds upon Gogol’s portrayal of the civil servant but bestows his characters with deeper psychological characteristics (Reyfman 102). Examples of Dostoevsky’s complexified civil servants include: Golyadkin who possesses an “interiority that penetrates the narration” and creates discomfort; the “Underground Man” who is hostile, callous and “over-sincere”; and Marmeladov who is shaky morally but acutely self-aware (Reyfman 101–03).
Works Cited
- Frank, Joseph. “Dostoevsky.” The New York Times, 30 June 2002. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/30/books/chapters/dostoevsky.html.
- Hassell, James. “Implementation of the Russian Table of Ranks during the Eighteenth Century.” Slavic Review, vol. 29, no. 2, 1970, pp. 283–95. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2493380.
- Reyfman, Irina. “Service Ranks.” Dostoevsky in Context, edited by Deborah A. Martinsen and Olga Maiorova, Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 98–105. Crossref, doi:10.1017/CBO9781139236867.012.
Further Reading
- Reyfman , Irina. How Russia Learned to Write: Literature and the Imperial Table of Ranks. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2016. Project MUSE.
- Martinsen, Deborah A., and Olga Maiorova, editors. Dostoevsky in Context. Cambridge University Press, 2016.