Lietuvos bajorų tarnybos kritiniai slenksčiai: modernusis Rusijos imperijos laikotarpis

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Bajorai; Rusijos imperija (Russian Empire); Gubernijos; Luomai; Žemėtvarka; Nobility; Rusian empire; Authorities; Guberniyas.

ENThe article focuses on opportunities of Lithuanian nobility to serve in state institutions of their country after the Insurrection of 1863–1864. It is based on conclusions drawn by Andreas Kappeler about the shift in the strategy of the Russian imperial power involving cooperation with the peripheral elites. Three thresholds in this strategy shift are distinguished. The cooperation strategy was discarded by Mikhail Muravyov who replaced the personnel of state institutions in Western Governorates (Guberniyas). Positions at administrative, law enforcement, public order, health care and education institutions as well as executive authorities of guberniyas were taken by officials relocated from central guberniyas, and a scarce group of local non-Catholics. Another critical moment was a peculiar experiment conducted by local administrators in the 1860s-1880s aimed at inclusion of landed nobility (titled owners of large land holdings) in the civil service system, and using them primarily where class representation was required. Finally, the last threshold was a partial lifting of the ban for Roman Catholic Poles to fill positions of civil servants in Western Guberniyas after 1905. Discrimination against nobility of the Western Guberniya evidenced by curbing of the right of legal personhood to a civil service lasted nearly half a century. During that period the authorities’ attitude towards the civil service itself and the principles of staffing gradually became more modern. The empire wanted educated, experienced and loyal personnel. That is why professional qualification and experience were valued more than the social status of members of society. Viewing the period objectively, similar transformations in thinking had to be undergone by the nobility as well, only for different reasons: they were forced to appreciate advantages of acquired education and occupational skills when needed to find an alternative for civil service in Western Guberniyas.The authorities revisited the cooperation strategy after 1905 when the local landed nobility were brought to the institutions associated with interests of the peasantry: they were appointed heads of the land (Russ. земский начальник) and members of land-use institutions. However, the field of activities of the major and middle noble landowners brought back to the civil service was narrower in comparison with the situation of the first half of the 19th century, and covered the traditional area of relations between the manor and villages. Shaping their relationship with the elite in peripheries in the second half of the 19th century, the authorities slightly modified the core assumption of this relationship. In the first half of the 19th century it was built based on tight links among the estate of nobles, the authorities and the state, whereas in the modern period, the authorities changed the balance in those links replacing the criterion of social setup by a national criterion. The authorities completely abandoned the idea to consider civil service the domain of nobility. In early 20th century, Roman Catholics from any social groups were eligible for lower positions of civil service in the Western Guberniyas. Yet the major and middle noble landowners were not granted an opportunity to gain access of state institutions, and fill higher positions in them. [From the publication]