A while back, as I recall, Jerry Friedman asked about whether or not
VN could be considered aristocratic. Accepting that his own word on
this is not necessarily accurate, I would still point to the following,
from SO (288): [Responding to an essay by George Steiner] "I never
belonged to the 'haute bourgeoisie' to which he grimly assigns me
(rather like that Marxist reviewer...who classified my father as a
'plutocrat' and 'man of affairs'!). The Nabokovs have been soldiers
and squires since (at least) the fifteenth century."

Matt Roth

Dear Matt,

 

While I don't know what the practice was in Russia, I wouldn't say that this makes the Nabokovs aristocrats, in the formal sense of the term. In Sweden, which was not so unlike Russia in pre-revolutionary times, there was only one way for a family to become aristocratic, and that was by formal introduction into the House of Nobility. Only family members of this institution were listed in the Adelskalender, the Almanac of Nobility, published yearly. Individuals from the non-nobility would be mentioned only by virtue of marriage. Nobility was inherited through the male lines. Certain non-noble families, by virtue of their sustained distinction and wealth, might well achieve an equivalent social status, but it still didn't make them "aristocrats". The Wallenberg dynasty, for instance, easily the most powerful now in Sweden, is not aristocratic. The last formally ennobled person in Sweden was Sven Hedin, the explorer (about 1905?).  "Soldiers and squires since the fifteenth century" does not suggest aristocracy to me; but I may be wrong when it comes to Russia --- although I doubt it. Comment by a genuine expert on Russian nobility is invited.

 

Charles