Text of a Public Lecture at the Portland Art Museum (Oregon),

Alan Kimball,
University of Oregon

Table of Contents =

Introduction Political Power and Wealth, and the People Between These Two
The Stroganov Family= Phase One, on the Frontier
Phase Two= Petrine Grandeur (early 1700s)
Phase Three= Catherine's Greater Grandeur (late 1700s)
Phase Four= Statist Reaction (1800s)

-- Hypertext links below are to SAC --

What a magnificent exhibit assembled here from such a variety of Saint-Petersburg cultural institutions=  The Hermitage Museum, the Russian Historical Museum, the State Historical Archives, and other sources.

We have before us these days [2000] in the media so many images of Russian squalor, it is refreshing to be reminded that Russia has been a great empire, that artistic patronage and acquisition reached some of their highest peaks of grandeur there, that luxurious private and public edifices of stunning world quality were designed and built there, and that these traditions are still alive and are fluxing in yet another time of troubles.

I am reminded of an old Soviet-era political joke. A student comes home from school confused about the difference between Communism and Capitalism.

“Well”, said the Soviet-era mother, “under capitalism man viciously exploits his fellow man. Under Communism, it’s just the other way around”.

In the updated version of this story, the student’s question is about the difference between the old Soviet economy and the new market economy.

“Well”, says the New Age mother, “under the Soviet Union the government was criminal and the entrepreneurial energies of the people were neutralized. Now, it’s just the other way around”.


Political Power and Wealth,
and the People Between These Two

The joke is bitter, but in the old and new forms it addresses an ancient reality in Russian history= Political power and wealth have nearly always been indistinguishable. Over no long period of time in Russian history have power and wealth occupied independent or at least distinguishable realms. The state and the economy tend toward inseparability.

Consider this too= The state and the economy have been inseparable in the life of a population that has known nearly no public sphere. Here I am juggling three of the big spheres of standard historical experience= Government, the public and the economy.  In Russian historical experience, nothing like a social buffer has ever formed between the hard realities of political power and economic power. And that is so largely because there has seldom been any space at all between political and economic power. There’s been no space for an independent public to grow.

In other words, there have been few times where Russia could sport anything like what is called “civil society”, a social interface between state and economy, between ruling institutions and the structures of production and distribution. [Here's a paragraph to define "civil society"]  PAM is a beautiful example of an institution in the public realm. It’s not government, and it is not a business enterprise, even though it might show some features of each and is thoroughly integrated with both.

This gathering is another less formal example. We are a public gathering, narrowed only by the fact of invitation, and that generously offered. We are not here to make law or to produce widgets. No one in the audience is here out of institutional or economic necessity. This is what I would call an instance of high socialization. It can fairly be thought of as important in its own realm, as is government or economic productivity, and it should not be conflated with them. Civil society requires that issues like "democracy" and "market economies" not be conflated. Socialization is the essence of civil society= unfettered voluntary association. Such voluntary association is especially significant when it has some form of solid institutional foundation, like this magnificent museum. Public schools are traditionally great institutional expressions of civil society.

The wildly various histories of civil societies interest me quite a bit, and this exhibit provides us all an opportunity to think in a focused and specific way about these big questions of government and economy, to discover something about the Russian experience and through this perhaps to rediscover something about the American experience.

Here’s my big contention about the Stroganovs= They were rich, they were powerful on occasion, and various leading members of that great family helped gather one of the most stunning collections of art and craft ever. But the family failed to contribute to the growth of a civil society in Russia.

Last December, I was invited by a consortium of German universities to make a presentation in Berlin to a seminar on civil society in Europe. These German professors seek to include Russia in Europe. In itself, this seemed to me a worthy departure from the degraded atmosphere of the Cold War, so I was willing to suffer a quick jet-lagging trip to participate in the two-day event.

I was pleased that they wanted me to talk about civil society and rural taverns in Russia. Some are surprised that I would talk about Russian peasants and civil society in the same breath.

I mention the Berlin seminar in order to accent a particular meaning for me of our event tonight. In a matter of three months, I will have pulled the sparse realities of Russian peasant culture in the village together with the gorgeous and lush realities of the Russian aristocratic elite culture in the palaces of the Imperial capital.

I pull these actualities together under the umbrella of civil society. In Russia, people at all levels of power and wealth have been known to gather in various sorts of assembly, creating by their actions a Russian form of public sociability, social independence, self-actualization, and even assertion against the forces that have always threatened fledgling civil society. And they have regularly been crushed by state power and economic exploitation.

Society, living its life between the power of the state and the quotidian economic realities of production and consumption, has experienced unprecedented success in North America. Our North American ideas about this question are for that reason too relaxed. Civil society fails here and there, and it succeeds here and there, but it is always fragile and threatened.

When people ask me if Russians are ready for democracy, I always answer no, and I explain that my answer is no because no one is simply ready for democracy. It is a product of human action. Readiness for democracy and the achievement of democracy are really one package of human action, and that action has always tended to come out of what might be called civil society.

The Stroganovs gathered an astonishing art collection, and they fitted out some rooms in their personal palaces as museums of unprecedented splendor. And we can marvel at selection of that here tonight. But I would, with all respect, caution against confusing this with “building Russian culture” or contributing to the positive evolution of the whole nation.

This exhibit has yet another special personal meaning for me. In 1992, during the first post-Soviet summer, I was attached to the Hermitage Museum, the Russian Historical Museum and the Taurida Palace in St.Petersburg in a research/teaching program funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Russian Historical Archives have always been the most important point of original research for me during several sojourns in Russia since 1965.

During one of those early visits, in 1977, I was walking back from the center of the city with a visiting American Fulbright lecturer. We had just met at an American Consular function. We were already planning how we just might help one another in the weeks ahead. He had no Russian, yet he had endless opportunities through the local Russian specialists on America to go here and there. Without Russian he had to rely on translators supplied. I had Russian, but was fairly well confined to the archives, libraries and universities. Furthermore, my visa had just expired, and I did not intend to leave the Soviet Union until my work was done. I needed places to be where my Soviet hosts could not easily track me down.

I was in a good mood as we trudged through the fresh snow and crossed the Police Bridge. Looking ahead, I said jokingly to the Fulbright lecturer, “Look, there’s the great Stroganov Palace.” The lecturer was then and still is famous for his book on the various symbolic meanings of the Brooklyn Bridge in the evolution of American democratic culture. He was deeply interested in the stunning architecture of Leningrad (as St.Petersburg was called through most of the Soviet period), but he had no familiarity with the city around us.

In those days the cites of the Soviet Union grew dark at night, except for the mercury vapor street lights. One might have walked past the building without noticing it. “Stick with me”, I said, “I can get you into places like this”. As a theatrical exclamation point, I pushed on the main front doors. Lo and behold, they swung open. Someone had failed to lock them. This was my first visit to this haunted and fabled structure. There will never be another visit quite like it.

Last summer (1999) I was again in SPB. Walking on a warm night in the other direction, I passed the same doors, now wide open and offering entrance into the courtyard with its central fountain. All around the fountain were small tables with lanterns in the center. A buffet to one side served up tasty hors d’oeuvre with a selection of wines, beers, champagne, and other drinks. Young couples filled nearly every table. I heard laughter. Life is grim in Russia these past years, but not uniformly so. On January, 1991, just days after Gorbachev's official announcement that the USSR no longer existed, a headline in the Wichita Eagle stated, "Capitalism Already Making a Few Rich". I took this to be a premature assertion that capitalism had already reached full maturity in Russia. And here I was again at the Stroganov Palace. This sort of everyday and ordinary public sociability was impossible in Soviet times, just as it was in the Stroganov epochs. Sure, some of the young men were attired in that mafia style black shirt and white tie, but others were not of this sort. This was a public gathering. I was invited to sit down and have a drink. I cannot believe that would have happened if those ghostly Stroganovs still lived there. Nothing quite like that ever happened in my experience in the USSR. This building is now appropriately a national museum. It has become public, and it now truly can be said to help “build Russian culture”.

As I prepared my thoughts for tonight’s presentation, I was reminded many times of the famous line from F. Scott Fitzgerald= “The rich are different than us. They have more money.” Let me offer the following variation on this famous statement and make it the leit motif of my remarks on the Stroganov family=

“The Stroganovs are different than the rich. They have more money, and a lot more than money.”


Stroganov Family= Phase One, on the Frontier

Stroganovs first appear on the historical scene as rough and tumble peasant merchants on the Russian/Novgorodian frontier of the great northern European trading corporation called “The Hanseatic League”. Stroganovs might have evolved in a different direction if the League had not begun to decline, and if Novgorod had not been defeated by the Grand Prince and Tsar of Moscow. Stroganovs were practical people. They accepted the new authority of Moscow. A painting of their ancestral home on the banks of the woodsy Northern Dvina River, just south of the White Sea and many, many miles North of Moscow, is on display here tonight [CAT# ??]. It looks more like corporate headquarters than like a private home, and that’s because it was corporate headquarters.

Stroganov wealth and independence disturbed Tsar Ivan IV, “the Terrible”. The whole structure of the Hanseatic market economy, stretching from London to the Urals, seemed a threat to his mercantilist control over production and distribution. He pressured the Stroganovs into accepting certain obligations to him in exchange for his “licensing” them to carry on their fishing, salt mining, lumbering, trapping, and other typical frontier enterprises. Now they had to bring their wares to Moscow and trade through the market controlled by Tsar Ivan. [CAT#117]

Stroganov wealth was now bolted to Muscovite political power.

Ivan authorized them, in his name, to build cities and fortresses and to maintain their own army. It was their Cossack army that marched over the Ural mountains into Siberia in 1581, but only with the permission of Tsar Ivan. Native peoples were defeated by black powder weaponry and scattered much as they were on the US Western frontier. Here the pioneers were also the functional equivalent of the cavalry. They were one and the same, and they acted under the authority of the Tsar.

The frontier phase was winding down when the Russian tsarist state fell apart in the years after Ivan’s death. These were, by the way, the years of earliest colonization of the eastern seaboard of the New World, just to give you some perspective on time.

The Stroganovs had become so wealthy by this time, that they were able now to repay the Tsars for the earlier license. In 1612, Maksim Yakovlevich Stroganov granted 842,000 rubles to the Russian state to bail them out, and it worked. Russia recovered from successful Polish invasion. It is not surprising then that, two years later, the new tsar Mikhail issued another charter to the Stroganovs, including many more privileges and obligations. Stroganovs had become the Tsar's NE corporation for economic development [CAT#118].  [Consider, in contrast, the Astor family in USA 200 years later.] At this time the common-born clan of peasant businessmen was dubbed “eminent people”, something less honorific than nobility in the medieval social structure of Russia, but a whole lot more impressive than peasant.

These were wondrous years for Stroganovs. Two examples= Maksim’s cousin Nikita not only supported one of the great icon painting workshops, creating a national style called “Stroganov school”, but Nikita himself was a talented icon painter. This is noteworthy. Stroganovs sponsored great cultural creativity, but only Nikita among them was himself artistically or culturally a creative person.

Stroganov wealth, however, was fragmenting. Russian tradition did not honor first sons at time of inheritance. Everything was divided up, contested, scattered, weakened.


Phase Two= Petrine Grandeur

The next phase in the life of this family saw Grigorii Dmitrievich gather all family power and wealth into his hands and set the family on single inheritance [primogeniture] so as to preserve it in a re-concentrated and united form. He was helped by Emperor Peter I “the Great”. In turn, Stroganov helped the young and vulnerable Tsar. He received in return yet another charter from the throne [CAT#119]. He took possession of vast salt works in the Oka and Volga River drainages [g], earlier leased from the state by the Shustov and Filatev families. In their gigantic enterprises, Shustovs employed wage laborers, not serfs. These and other Shustov policies displeased Peter the Great. He eventually confiscated Shustov possessions.

Grigorii Dmitrievich continued to prosper in close alliance with his tsar. Lands with 14,000 male serfs were granted as heritable property [votchina]. In return, Grigorii reached in his pocket to pay for construction of two frigates in Peter's growing navy. Back again in his direction, Grigorii was allowed to create giant iron smelters and weapons-grade bronze casting mills. Peter included Grigorii Dmitrievich on his list of 300 wealthiest merchant and manufacturing families who must build palaces in his newly created capital, St.Petersburg. In 1722 Peter declared the commoners Stroganov to be aristocratic, bearing the title "Baron".

By now we must think of Stroganovs as an economic and statist elite in an emerging great world empire, by 1741 stretching to within a few miles of Oregon Territory in the New World.


Phase Three= Catherine's Greater Grandeur

The next phase is the grandest of all, the epoch of Empress Catherine II “the Great”. And the most resplendent and interesting Stroganov of them all= Aleksandr Grigorevich.

We can see here [CAT#120] that the Austrian Emperor granted Aleksandr Sergeevich Stroganov the title Count in 1761. The family did not get that title in Russia (the next notch up from Baron) for 37 more years. But in many ways, Aleksandr earned it all. At a large formal banquet, he was seated next to Catherine, the wife of the widely hated Emperor Peter III. Catherine and Peter were not a happy couple, and things were about to get very tense among a much wider group of concerned Russians. At the banquet, Peter leveled at Catherine another of many public insults. Aleksandr Grigorevich comforted the aggrieved wife. For that act of kindness, Peter III had him exiled to his estate. No surprise then when shortly Aleksandr Grigorevich joined conspirators who staged a coup d'état that overthrew Peter III, murdered him, and declared Catherine the new Empress. Soon he occupied key posts in the State Council and Senate, pushing Catherine's "enlightened" reforms. Still, as a member of Catherine's Legislative Commission, he took a strong position against granting too much favor to peasants. Catherine chided him as "a person very gentle and essentially very humane, the kindness of whose heart borders on weakness". His defense of serfdom on the Commission "ought to have betrayed the entire structure of his soul" [AC2:119; MC2:554].

Aleksandr Girgorevich became a model of that Russian Imperial type, the grandee [sanovnik, velmozh']. But his dimensions reached beyond those of the standard courtier. He joined actively in the affairs of Russia's first large voluntary (but state licensed) society, the Free Economic Society. He and others urged (without success) publication of a prize essay sponsored by the society and devoted to the virtues of free labor and vices of serfdom. He urged legal reforms and creation of public education for peasants. He built significantly on the expanding art collection of his father. He collected an immense library, and served as director for the fabulous St.Petersburg Public Library, the beloved Publichka.  He was a founder and president of the Academy of Arts. He headed up the special commission that saw to the construction of the great Kazan Cathedral on Nevskii Prospekt. His illegitimate son Andrei Voronikhin was architect.

In the maelstrom of the pan-European epoch jointly titled French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, the Stroganovs suffered personal tragedy that blighted a possible new development in the life of the family itself and Russia as a whole. Aleksandr Grigorevich's legitimate son and heir, Pavel Aleksandrovich, shared the enthusiasm felt among the Russian aristocratic elite for certain aspects of the French Revolution. As a student in Paris he even attended a meeting of the Jacobin Club. Back in Russia he became a major participant in a group of "young friends", including Novosil'tsev and Kochubei, who gathered around the reform-minded future Emperor Alexander. Alexander was Catherine the Great's choice to succeed her, and it finally happened. Pavel Aleksandrovich served with other young friends in the "Unofficial Committee" or "Committee of Public Safety" that advised Alexander I in those exciting first years of extensive reform. He kept minutes of Committee meetings. When the new Petersburg University was created, he became a Trustee [popechitel']. He held a diplomatic post in London.

The French Revolution was one thing, but the Napoleonic wars were another. The French invasion of Russia brought an end to the optimistic era of Alexandrine reform in Russia. Pavel Aleksandrovich shifted into military service and was at the Battle of Borodino. He later rode into liberated Paris with his Emperor. But in the meantime, his only son and heir to the Stroganov fortune, Aleksandr Pavlovich, was killed in battle. Grief-stricken, the illustrious father died in 1817. The many possibilities implied in the life of Pavel were reduced to a desperate state-supported marriage of convenience, engineered by one of the most resolute and intelligent of the Stroganovs (by marriage), successful, at least, in keeping the properties intact after Pavel's death.


Phase Four= Statist Reactionary

For the Stroganov family, the next century was one of flawed reform, elitist self defense, and reactionary resistance to change. These Stroganovs took a stand against the further evolution of "enlightened" thought and program, such that were welcomed in the time of Catherine II and Alexander I.

Pavel Aleksandrovich's son was killed in war, but Imperial authority allowed his daughter to inherit titles and land, and transfer them to her cousin/husband, Sergei Grigorevich Stroganov. What followed was two-thirds of a century of remarkable growth of family wealth and power (and a great collection of art), without a touch of the creative entrepreneurial energy of the family in its frontier days, or muscled power in the time of Peter the Great, or visionary reformism in the reigns of Catherine and Alexander. They now owned 154,956 male serfs and their families. These serfs lived in villages within the 10,000 square miles of Stroganov gentry estate lands. What orchestras, choirs and serf craftsmen they nurtured there! And then there was the great career of one of their serfs, Mikhail Pogodin, liberated in order to become a Professor of History at Moscow University. Sergei Grigorevich founded and funded a tuition-free school of technical drawing and eventually transferred ownership to the Finance Ministry. Russian arts and letters benefited from various Stroganov spin-offs, but did not grow in independent vitality. Quite the opposite=

Sergei Grigorevich was as a high state-servitor, a ministerial bureaucrat, under the barracks-tsar Nicholas I. He served on the Education Ministry committee on schooling in the years of Minister Sergei Uvarov, years of mounting reactionary policy in the realm of public education. He wrote the school charter which bound the early evolution of Russian public education to restrictive aristocratic principles. When academically impoverished new university statutes were imposed, he assumed posts as enforcer. In fairness, it must be said that he had a good eye for talent. While universities as institutions were nearly wrecked, certain faculties grew in strength under his tutelage. Future university professors, like the great historian S. M. Solov'ev, got their beginnings as family tutors in Stroganov palaces. And he did finally come into conflict with Uvarov and was forced to retire from the Education Ministry. He moved directly into the powerful State Council where he served through the Era of Great Reforms at the beginning of the reign of the tsar-liberator, Alexander II. He acquired a reputation as one of the great Russian reactionary or counter-reform grandees. He wrote a plan calling for extraordinary tightening of censorship control over all printed texts and printing establishments. Along the way he did play a role in two voluntary or social organizations, the Moscow University Society of History and Antiquities, and the Archeological Commission which he founded and chaired for years. He also was a core member of the insider statist economic enterprise, the Central National Railroad Society. But as the Great Reforms entered the troubled months after Serf Emancipation, he played a leading role in designing the Council of State's counter-reform against public initiatives and thus bears significant responsibility for blighting the early stirrings of a fledgling civil society in his homeland. Thus he too might claim to have aided and abetted the birth of the 20th-century Russian revolutionary tradition.



I have personal reason to be thankful to this family. The Stroganov Palace hangs like a portrait in the gallery of my own favorite memories. I experience a chill of pleasure every time I enter the Hermitage. The incredible job being done by a new generation of curators to protect these world-class museums deserves our sustained applause.

But I will always prefer a more sober assessment of the family itself, its acquiescence to statist elitism in the history of Russian Culture.

If you would allow me a metaphorical and colloquial conclusion, it would be this=

My hat’s off to the Stroganovs, but I’m glad I was not one who had to give them the shirt off his back.




What follows are data-file entries on the Stroganov family. These data are highly coded. Though they are not impossible to decipher, I do not recommend that readers continue into this "bone yard" of material intended to expand the text above.



<>Stroganov,Spiridon ?*|>StgSp|e{395

}m{NVG trder w/Hanse


WHOLE fmy: SIE,12:869-70 BrE



<>Stroganov,Luka Kuz’mich|>StgLK|a{


*1471:1st krx/kux of Stg line to go over frm NVG to MVA,bcm MVA gost’


<>Stroganov,Fedor Luk*|>StgFL|a{470s?


ssn=Anika}j{wlt Soli-Vyqegodskii krx/kux

*1780s:painting of Sol’vyqegodsk dms [PAM#177]


<>Stroganov,Anika Fdr*|>StgAF|a{497}e{570

}g{many chd~ Yakov(-577) GO Grg & Semen


*1515:Salt varennyi promysel: THINGS TOOK OFF—skz salt fishing trapping hunting mining

*1552:KZN battle put Stg~ “between TSR & XAN” [SAC]

*1558:I-4 granted CHARTER#1 to A & heirs; huge vladeniia Kama PRM.g Qusovoi [VSB,1:142] GO GrgAnik for CHARTER#2

*1564ja02:CHARTER#2 to ssn Grg [PAM#2]

*1566:A asked to be included in Opriqnina|A commanded his own drujina built grd~ fortresses~ (as granted in CHARTER#2 to ssn); pacified all lcl nsx~ ntn~ & drew ggr into RUS

*1568mr25:CHARTER#3 confirmed



<>Stroganov,Grigorii Anike*|>StgGAn|a{}e{578

}g{brt=Semen & Yakov


*1564ja02:CHARTER#2 to G [PAM#2]

*1572:e.g., Stg pokoryayut Qeremis & campaigned vs. Sibir TTR Kuchum in SBR

*1574:CHARTER#4 confirmed

*1578:CHARTER#1 expired

*1578:GA dth; bzn went to 3 Stg~: Semen(brt) Nikita(ssn) &Maksim (brt Yakov’s ssn) GO Semen


<>Stroganov,Semen Anike*|>StgSAn|e{609 [?581]

}g{brt~ GO StgAF


*1578:SA w/MaksimYkv(GO) & NikitaGrg(-620)~~kzk~ [Zhitkov,2:86-9]

*1581:Over Urals into SBR w/Yermak [portrait,PAM#176]

*1582:SA granted monopoly on all Salt in VLG.River territory

*1588:89; Fletcher noted great wlt & power, but also saw how I-4 chipped away at Stg ndp [R&BK:170-1]

*1609?:SA dth & leadership went to MaksimYkv

}n{fmy silver kovsh [PAM#209]


<>Stroganov,Maksim Ykv*|>StgMYa|a{}e{620s

}f{gftr=Anika ftr=Yakov


*1609?:Upon Semen’s dth, MYa assumed leading position

*1612:ToTroubles, MYa granted huge sums (842,000r) to RUS stt

*1614jy30:TSR MxlFdr granted title to inherited estate [PAM#3]

*1In this time, (1) fmy given zvanie imenityx lyudei (2)under only TSR lwx authority (3) build grd~ & forts (4) artillery foundaries cld cast cannon (5) maintain army (6) make wrx on SBR TTR (7) trd w/SBR w/o txx

*1616:Further heavy “gift” levies laid on fmy [Kliuchevskii,3:233]

*1620s:Stg fmy power & wlt fragmenting|But for many years, near anonymous “master Mikhail” & other srf krx icon painters had embellished name Stg [PAM#193-203] In these years, more toward the end of the century, one of the earlier SBR chronicles “Stg-aia letopis’” “O vzyatii SBR-oi zemli” pst; much re.Yermak [SIE,13:869]

*1648:Ulozhenie [94,10] devoted separate chapter to Stg fmy, fragmenting or not|GO StgGD,who pulled it back together



<>Stroganov,Grigorii Dmt*|>StgGD|a{656}e{715no21

}g{722:3 ssn~ Srg Axr Nxi bcm T3


*1685:+; GD reconcentrated fragmentary Stg fortune,gaining authority over eastern 1/3 of old NVG Velikii & beyond, down VLG.River and into SBR|”...okruglil svoi votqiny,sosredotoqiv v svoix rukax...putem obmana, podkupka i pryamogo nasiliya vse rodovye vladeniya.... [SIE] See wood & silver kvosh [PAM#210]

*1687:FRN & SPN ambassador Yakov Dolgorukii,powerful supporter of fmy faction behind P-1, stood up to FRN king L-14|This may explain sculpture of D tearing “TSR’s Decree”:Isn’t this L-14’s “gramota” [PAM#207] Dolgorukii probably an important supporter of Stg fmy

*1689:Nerchinsk trt w/CHN

*1692jy25:TSR~ I-5 & P-1 confirmed ownership rights and lgl, financial and trd privileges & defined territorial possessions [PAM#1]

*1695:97; Took possession of vast Lenvensk(?) salt works of Shustovs and Filatevs,finally getting lease frm stt|Shustovs emplyed wage laborers, not srf~ in their gigantic enterprises along Oka and VLG.R area|P-1 disfavor|704:P-1 confiscated Sh wlt [SIE,16:374]

*1701:Zyryanskie promysly owned by stt bcm Stg votqina|P-1 gifts gave Stg 14000 male srf~ and control over ca. 60% of RUS salt production (3million lbs/y) [SIE,13:868 cites Ustnogov,NV Solevarennaia promyshl. (1957)]

*1700:21; GN.wrx|Stg~ gave huge mny support to P-1 stt

*1701:Out of pocket,GD built 2 frigates for new RUS nvy|Stg bgn iron smelters and weapons-grade bronze casting zvd~

*1714:P-1’s list of 300 wltest & most successful kux & remeslenniki identified who wld build in SPB & live there|Stg~ had 77,800 srf~

GO ssn Srg



<>Stroganov,Sergei Grg*|>StgSG|a{707}e{756

}g{ssn=AxrGrg}j{Re-fragmentation of fmy cld have followed when 3 GD ssn~ bcm head of different branches [Kliuchevskii,4:] BUT SrgGrg seems to have taken main inheritance

}k{dvr 722:P-1 confered dvr & T3 titles on young SG & brt~ Axr & Nxi


*1717:Portrait of P-1 by Jean-Marc Nattier [PAM#127]

*1741:762; SG & ssn AS ~~Emp.Eliz

*1753:SPB Stg Palace built on Rastrelli design 865:Jules Mayblum watercolors portrait of palace etc [PAM#97-101] In this kitchen: Beef Stg, Velvet Mushroom Stg, Eggplant Caviar Stg|In the galleries, the beginning of the great Stg xdj collection|Views of Nevskii Prospekt & environs of Palace [PAM#140,204-6]


<>Stroganov,Aleksandr Srg*|>StgAS|a{733}e{811

}g{795:801; FRN xdj portrait of wfe & ssn (Pavel?) [PAM#137] Portrait of ssn as chd [PAM#189]

}k{dvr 798:T2


*1761je09:HRE Franz I granted title T2 [PAM#4] during time of AS’s ambassadorship in Vienna; 774:Seal of AS as “Count of Roman Empire” [PAM#157] NB! Paul granted Russian T2 37y later|NB! 796:97; Shchukin portrait of Paul [PAM#128]

*1762je09:AS sat next to C-2 at bnq hosted by P-3; comforted her after flagrant insult from P-3; P-3 gtx-AS to his estate for this act

*1762su:~~C-2 at coup|Cameo bust of C-2 [PAM#86] 782:C-2 portrait [PAM#182] Quickly joined in C-2 rfm~; eventually GoS and SNT

*1762:65; Palace Commode [PAM#81]

*1766:VEO weighty minority (including AS) voted in favor of pbc of contest-winning essay praising free labor & crt srfom [M.C-2:135]

*1766:Stg dms spc.kmm lwx.code;kmm novogo ulojeniya;AS urged schools for krx

*1768:But in Leg.kmm, took strong anti-krx position

*1768de:C-2 pst that even AS defended slvery,he “a person very gentle and essentiqally very humane, the kindness of whose heart borders on weakness”; his defense of srfom “ought to have betrayed the entire structure of his soul” [A.C-2:119; M.C-2:554]

*1780sp:trv w/C-2 to inspect results of her gbx rfm

*1795:kng w/depictions of MVA [PAM#35] AS expanded ftr’s xdj vst; collected immense bbt

*1790s:+; fnder & prx Akd.xdj|808:Tankard given in honor of prx [PAM#164] In these years also dtr SPB

*1801:11; SPB KZN.chx,conceived in time of Paul, built by A-1, via spc kmm headed up by StgAS (last act in his big life) with AS’s ilgl ssn Andrei Voronikhin (760:814) architect|See plan [PAM#172] 811:Voronikhin portrait of ftr [PAM#189] Other V work [PAM#5-15,173-5,219-27,230-34]

*1805:FRN xdj portrait of AS [PAM#186]

*1811:GRM xdj portraits of AS [PAM#141,187]


C-2 to A-1 sanovnik & velmoj|Ndnv ndx has good characterization




<>Stroganov,Grigorii Axr*|>StgGA|a{770}e{857

}f{gftr=NxiGrg ftr=AxrNxi (lesser fmy line)}g{

}k{dvr T3(!!) 826:N-1 made T2

}m{irx srv SWZ SPN TRK|In TRK took case for SRB ndp


*1793:FRN xdj portrait [PAM#138]}

<>Stroganov,Pavel Axr*|>StgPA|a{772je07}e{817je10

}g{ssn Axr dth-wrx in N.wrx}j{dth w/o ssn heir,so T2 gt-dgt who wdx csn SrgGrg

}l{787:90; SWZ & FRN edc Romme=tgt who took him to PRS mtg of Jacobin clb


*1796:rt-RUS & ~~krj “molodyx druzei” of future A-1 (w/Novosil’tsev & Kochubei) NB! Shchukin portrait of A-1 [PAM#183]

*1802:07; Neglasnaya cmm or “cmm obshchestv. bezopasnosti” w/Novosil’tsev & Kochubei [Shil’der,Imp. Axr Pervyi, v2 pbc of Stg’s notes on sessions of this tUt]

*1804ca:SPB UO.ppq

*1805:07; LND diplomatic post

*1807:814; As A-1 bcm cnx, PA shifted to mlt srv—Borodino, PRS|ssn dth in these wrx|otx as gnr-lieutenant

*1808:FRN xdj portrait of PA [PAM#185]





<>Stroganov,Sergei Grg*|>StgSG|a{794no08}e{882mr28

}k{dvr 817:T2 upon dth of StgPA


}j{w/ csn/wfe Natal’ya Pvl*(796-872)(StgPA’s dgt) fmy fxx=154,956 srf~ on ca.10,000 sq./m of lnd|One such srf=PgdMP



*1826:35; MNP srv|cmm on edc(rxn)

*1828:hlp- pst wkol’n.ustav,putting edc na uzko soslovnyx naqalax

*1828:29; TRK.wrx

*1835:47; MVA UO.ppq in aftermath of new unv ustav which liquidated unv. autonomy| Yet a brilliant epoch in MVA.unv [SlvSM,IzT:244f] Future unv prf~ Buslaev and SlvSM had srv- as tgt~ in his zpd dms| GO obx ist & drev. blw| Supported Zabelin,IG & ~~Granovskii & Kudriavtsev,PN| Struggle w/Uvarov led to SG’s otx


*1848:pst zapisku for extraordinary tightening of cnp control over pbc etc tpg—bcm mmb of tnx cmm of Buturlin,DP

*1853:56; C.wrx

*1856:+; GoS

*1857:+; prx SOV of GJD rrd

*1859fe:60; MVA GoG (replaced Zakrevskii)

*1860:65; In charge of edc for T0.NxiAxr

*1861sp:GoS rxn who hlp’d orx counter attack on pbl

*1861mr16:TO.KN expressed surprise when he learned SG not lbx [Vdnv,2:89]

*1861oc14:Supported strong ddd vs. unv.std [Vdnv,1:121] Remained rxn re.edc, supported TolD

*1862ja09:Vlv consulted [1:139]

*1862sp:sbx-to PavN sttist jrn

*1863:65; cmm re.rrd prx

}n{mlt & cvl(edc) srv combined|Great collection of icons & coins|846:kng re.hst of R.tpg [PAM#36]


*1840s:870s;rxn among high grandees


*1825:Paid for MVA free scl technical drawing “Stg.scl”

*1837:74; MVA obx istorii i drevnostei rossiiskix pri MVA.unv

*1842:tfr- free scl to Mstt.mny

*1859:fnd rxl.kmm & was prx till dth

*1860:Early RUS co-op on PRM lnd

}s{Ndnv Vdnv Zhitkov,i:101-2 SIE,13:869




<>Stroganov,Aleksandr Grg*|>StgAG|a{795}e{891!!

}g{}k{dvr T2 64:ODE otx & bcm @pqg@

}l{Mtpt mlt corpus


many mlt campaigns

*1839:41; MVD mnr


*1854:SPB gbx GoG

*1855:64; ODE. NROS & BES GoG

*1864:otx in ODE


<>Stroganov,Aleksandr Srg*|>StgAS|a{818}e{864


}n{Built on fmy xdj collection


co-fnd w/ftr & others Arkhol.obx


<>Stroganov,Grigorii Axr*|>StgGAxr|a{824}e{878

}g{wfe=T0a Mariia Nxi}k{dvr T2}

<>Stroganov,Pavel Srg*|>StgPS|a{



*1864:succeeded to Palace

*1865:Jules Mayblum watercolors [PAM#97-101]


<>Stroganov,Sergei Axr*|>StgSAxr|a{


*1897ap:Photo Album of vst at Palace [PAM#31]