.26 The Warrior Tsar, 1689-1725
imited-less than has hitherto been assumed by historians misled by the
tpparently radical character of Peter's decrees. It was less extensive than in
)weden, where the same process was under way.^40
Article 15 of the Table stated (in typically convoluted language) that 'as con-
:erns holders of military rank who are not from the nobility [and) serve up to
;ubaltem rank: when someone receives that aforementioned rank he is
t nobleman.' It went on to specify that hereditary nobility was meant: any
nale children born to such an officer once he had been commissioned were
ikewise ennobled, and if he had any sons .born before his commission he could
Jetition for one of them to be included as well. Commoners in the civil service
iid not have this right: they were granted only 'personal' nobility, as it came to
Je called, which was not transmissible to their offspring unless they reached
Jrade VIII, that of 'college assessor' (equivalent to major in the army).^41 In
.his way those from underprivileged backgrounds who became military and
1aval officers won an important social advantage over mcm who rose up
:hrough the civil bureaucracy.
However, they were also subject to adverse discrimination, in two ways.
First, the outwardly democratic procedure of holding a ballot among all
)fficers of a regiment whenever a vacancy occurred, introduced in 1714, worked
igainst the admission of those of humble birth, although this was not the in-
:ention behind the measure.^42 Paradoxically, the fact that the election was held
.n secret, and was decided by a majority vote (the casting of white raJher than
::ilack balls for a favourable decision) probably strengthened the infTuence of
:he conservative-minded. Secondly, not every officer of underprivileged social
Jrigin could expect to be automatically awarded the coat of arms which served
as an external sign that he had 'arrived' among the nobility. Article 16
prescribed that these were to be awarded 'according to merit' (smotrya po
wslugam), but many commoners will only have been able to demonstrate
vyslugi. Coats of arms were, however, awarded to civilians whose forefathers
had served for at least a century, and such persons were likely to be the pro-
geny of former metropolitan nobles.
This provision may be regarded as a sop to the well-born. They were inclined
to look on the Table of Ranks as a potential threat to their position, and some
of them may have looked back nostalgically to the days of mestnichestvo,
when a man's place in society was determined by rules which everyone, the tsar
included, had respected. In the discussions behind the scenes they seem to
have exerted some informal pressure in this direction, but the personalities
involved cannot be identified and their 'lobby' was clearly much weaker than
that of the military servitors. The latter's spokesman was Menshikov. The
flamboyant Prince of Ingria was Peter's principal favourite and-until 1724,
.11J Nordmann, Grandeur et liberte, p. 190.
•I PSZ vi. 3890 (24 Jan. 1722), § 11.-^2 Stein, Geschichte, p. 72; Petrov, Russkaya voyennaya silo, ii. 62; Rozengeym, Ocherki, p.
190; Troitsky, Absolyutivn, p. 124.