Фигура недоверия: князь А.С. Меншиков в Морском ведомстве периода реформ 1826–1828 гг.

Kseniya V Donik

doi:10.23859/2587-8344-2020-4-3-1

Abstract

The article considers the role of Prince A. Menshikov as a specific type of agent of supreme authority in the process of reforming the maritime administration. The problem context of reforms resulted from the involvement of the naval generals and officials in abuses, which was a consequence of nepotism and unrest in the navy. The involvement of sailors in the Decembrist revolt significantly affected the attitude of the tsar to the general situation in the naval environment. Distrustful of the existing naval administration, Nicholas I needed an intermediary who would implement his idea of the arrangement of the navy on the one hand, and provide him with an objective “impartial” account of maritime problems, on the other hand. As a result of that, Adjutant General Prince A. Menshikov, who had had nothing to do with the naval service earlier, joined the navy to become the monarch’s agent in charge of the naval issues in the bodies of autocratic authority. The objective of the article is to identify the functions of such an agent based on the example of the Maritime Department. The sources of the article include official records and personal documents, some of which are introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. The principal methodological approach to the problem under study is an attempt to bring the appointment of Menshikov beyond the scope of narrow departmental history which was based on the unmotivated decision of the emperor and to propose an interpretation of the events in the context of tsarist government via agents, which has already been described in historiography. The author makes a conclusion about the interconnection between the crisis in the naval department, the attitude of the supreme authority towards it, and the appearance of the monarch’s agent with a number of his own functional characteristics.

Highlights

Administrative transformations in the Naval Ministry in 1826–28 at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I have never been the subject of a separate study
Distrustful of the existing naval administration, Nicholas I needed an intermediary who would implement his idea of the arrangement of the navy on the one hand, and provide him with an objective “impartial” account of maritime problems, on the other hand
The principal methodological approach to the problem under study is an attempt to bring the appointment of Menshikov beyond the scope of narrow departmental history which was based on the unmotivated decision of the emperor and to propose an interpretation of the events in the context of tsarist government via agents, which has already been described in historiography

Summary

Introduction

Administrative transformations in the Naval Ministry in 1826–28 at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I have never been the subject of a separate study. The appearance of a person who would conduct the transformations – Prince Alexander Menshikov, Adjutant General, the head of the navy later on (1828–55) 2 – remains the point which is most difficult to interpret in the entire history of maritime administrative reforms of the time. The literature describes examples of the increasing level of bureaucratization when an organization changes its head “due to the fact that the head who is unfamiliar with informal practice is forced to rely on official methods of carrying out his orders.” In a situation of distrust of the source of power (the emperor) of the whole administrative structure, the principle of appointing a manager who had not previously had any relation to the sphere in question can be interpreted as a completely effective technique for achieving the result required by the supreme power. In his diary entries for December 1826, the prince noted the days when different naval officials visited him. already at the beginning of 1827, Menshikov became the main figure in the navy, whose position was determined by the monarch’s trust and mission

Conclusion

Список литературы