For some reason, we associate serfdom with the history of the Russian Empire. However, Russia was far from the first and not the only country in Europe where the order arose to "attach" the peasant to the land. We decided to find out where corvee still existed, and what form it took.
Serfdom: causes
By serfdom, we mean a system of legal norms that forbade peasants to leave the land plots to which they were "attached". The essence of serfdom consisted in the fact that the peasant could not alienate or change this land plot, and was completely subordinate to the feudal lord (in Russia - the landowner), who was allowed to sell, exchange and punish serfs.
What is the cause of serfdom? During the feudal system, agriculture began to develop intensively, which, along with the trophies obtained in military campaigns, became the source of the nobility's livelihood. The areas of arable land were expanding, but they had to be cultivated by someone. And here a problem arose: the peasants were constantly looking for the best land plots and working conditions, and therefore often moved from place to place.
The owner of the land - the feudal lord - risked at any moment being left without workers or with a dozen peasant families, who were not enough to cultivate large lands. Therefore, the nobility, supported by the monarchs, forbade the peasants to change their place of residence, securing them to certain plots of land and obliging them to cultivate them in favor of the feudal lord.
Initially, serfdom appeared not in Russia, with which it is strongly associated, but in European countries: Great Britain, Germany and France. Next, we will tell how serfdom "walked" across Europe, covering country after country and becoming like ordinary slavery. However, even the international law of that time did not question the legitimacy of serfdom, accepting it as the norm of life.
Serfdom in Europe
The formation of serfdom in Europe began in the 9th-10th centuries. One of the first countries where the nobility decided to "attach" the peasants to the land was England. This was facilitated by the extreme impoverishment of the peasantry, forced to sell their allotments and agree to any conditions of the feudal lords in order to earn at least some livelihood.
The rights of serfs, called villans, were severely limited. Villan was obliged to work for his master (senior) all year round, serving the whole family from 2 to 5 days a week. It is impossible to name a specific year for the abolition of serfdom in England: the softening of its individual elements took place gradually, starting with the Wat Tyler uprising in the 14th century.
The final disappearance of signs of serfdom in the economy of the British crown falls on the 16th century, when sheep breeding replaced agriculture, and the feudal system was replaced by a capitalist one.
But in central and western Europe, serfdom lasted much longer - until the 18th century. It was especially tough in the Czech Republic, Poland and East Germany. In Sweden and Norway, where, due to the severity of the climate and the lack of fertile soils, the share of agriculture in the state economy is very small, there was no serfdom at all.
Latest abolition of serfdom occurred in the Russian Empire, which will be discussed later.
Serfdom in Russia: origin and development
The first signs of serfdom in Russia appeared at the end of the 15th century. In those days, all lands were considered princely, and the peasants who cultivated them and carried duties to the specific princes were still free at that time and formally had the right to leave the allotment, moving to another. Settling on a new site, the peasant:
- had to pay quitrent - the rent for the use of land. Most often, it was brought in as a share of the crop and, as a rule, made up a fourth of it;
- was obliged to bear duties, that is, to perform a certain amount of work for the temple or the local prince. It could be weeding, harvesting, putting things in order in the churchyard, etc.;
- received a loan and help - funds for the purchase of agricultural equipment and livestock. When moving to another place of residence, the peasant had to return this money, but due to the need to pay dues, only a few managed to collect the necessary amount. The rest fell into bondage, forced to remain in the same place and involuntarily "attached" to the ground.
Having understood how profitable it was to tie the villagers to the land, the officials enshrined serfdom in the judicial records of 1497 and 1550. The consolidation took place gradually. At first, St. George's Day was introduced - two weeks in the second half of November, when peasants were allowed to move from one landowner to another, after paying dues and returning the loan. On other days, change of residence was prohibited.
Then the landowners were allowed to search for and punish fugitive peasants. At first, the deadline for the search was 5 years, but gradually it grew, and then the restrictions were completely lifted. In practice, this meant: even if after 20 years the boyar discovered his runaway serf, he could return him and punish him at his discretion. The peak of serfdom was the ban on St. George's Day - since 1649, the peasants found themselves in lifelong bondage to the landowners.
Russian serfs were forbidden to file complaints against their masters, but they could fully control their fate: send them to serve in the army, exile in Siberia and hard labor, give and sell to other landlords.
The only thing that was vetoed was the murder of serfs. There is a well-known case of the landowner Saltychikha (Daria Ivanovna Saltykova), who killed several dozen of her peasants and suffered punishment for this. She was stripped of her title of pillar noblewoman and sent to serve a life sentence in a monastery prison, where she died.
Serfdom in Russia: abolition
The abolition of serfdom in Russia was inevitable. Russian sovereigns understood that serfdom was not much different from slavery and was pulling the country back. However, they could not change the system that had been developing for centuries with one stroke of the pen.
Serfdom reforms began under Alexander I, who approved the bill of Count Arakcheev on the gradual redemption of peasants at the expense of the state treasury. From 1816 to 1819 serfdom was abolished in the Baltic provinces of the Russian Empire. However, things did not go further for Alexander I.
The cardinal reform of the abolition of serfdom took place in 1861 under Alexander II. To sign the manifesto, which gave the peasants freedom, the king was pushed by the popular unrest that began during the Crimean War. The authorities, in order to recruit recruits from the villagers, promised those liberation from the landlord bondage, but they did not keep their word. This provoked a wave of uprisings that swept through Russia, as a result of which serfdom was abolished.
The reform, by and large, did not satisfy either the landlords or the peasants. The first lost part of the land, since the state obliged to give the serf free, while giving a land plot of a certain area, for which the state was obliged to pay compensation. The latter seemed to get freedom, but they had to work for another 2 years for the landowner, and then pay the state a ransom for the received allotment.
But be that as it may, the reform took place and served as an impetus for the development of the capitalist system in Russia and, as a result, the class struggle.
How was the abolition of serfdom in Russia, see the video:
Take it, tell your friends!
Read also on our website:
show more
For several centuries, a serf system dominated Russia. The history of the enslavement of the peasant people dates back to 1597. At that time, Orthodox obedience was a mandatory defense of state borders and interests, a precaution against enemy attacks, even if by self-sacrifice. The sacrificial service concerned the peasant, the nobleman, and the Tsar.
In 1861, serfdom was abolished in Russia. At the behest of conscience, Alexander II decided to take such a responsible step. His reforming deeds were partly the merit of the teacher-mentor Vasily Zhukovsky, who sought to engender humanity, kindness and honor in the soul of the future emperor. When the emperor inherited the throne, the teacher was no longer around, but moralizing was firmly planted in the mind, and throughout his subsequent life, Alexander II followed the call of his heart. It is worth noting that the nobility did not encourage the intentions of the ruler, which made it difficult to adopt reforms. The wise and kind ruler had to constantly seek a balance between noble opposition and peasant disapproval. Weak hints of the abolition of serfdom were observed earlier. At the end of the 17th century, Emperor Paul I introduced a three-day corvee, which did not allow the exploitation of serfs for more than three days a week. But either the law was drawn up incorrectly, or the idea turned out to be ineffective - gradually the exploitation of involuntary labor returned home. When Count Razumovsky turned to the Tsar with a request for the release of 50,000 of his serfs, the ruler issued a decree that allowed the release of forced laborers if the parties agreed on mutual benefit. In almost 60 years, 112,000 peasants received their will, of which 50,000 were liberated by Count Razumovsky. Years later, it turned out that the nobility prefers to hatch plans for improving public life, without making any attempts to bring the idea to life. The innovative laws of Nicholas I allowed the release of serfs without giving them a land plot, which could be obtained by fulfilling the agreed duties. As a result, the obliged peasants increased by 27 thousand. During the reign of Nicholas I, he prepared reforms and collected materials to stabilize public law. Alexander II continued and realized the idea. The wise emperor acted slowly, gradually preparing high society and oppositionists for the need to eradicate the serf system. He let the nobles know that the first rebellions spread like a virus, and it is better to start eradication from above than to allow a split from within. When there was no favorable reaction, the ruler organized a committee where measures were discussed to improve the pace of life of the serfs. Members of the committee tried to warn the daredevil from making radical decisions. A number of effective solutions were developed that pushed the landowners to mutual actions in favor of the liberation of the peasants and the abolition of serfdom. There was still a lot of work ahead and the coordination of innovations in legislation with both the highest ranks and socially disadvantaged citizens.For a long time, the serf system was being cleared of laws that violated a person's right to freedom. On February 19, 1861, Alexander II managed to finally get rid of serfdom and gradually introduce a new system aimed at improving the life of the people without division into landlords and serfs.
On February 19, 1861, slavery ended in Russia: Alexander II signed a manifesto on the abolition of serfdom. Meduza asked the educational project InLiberty, which considers that day one of the seven key dates in the history of Russia, to answer embarrassing questions about serfdom.
Serfdom is slavery?
Yes, at least for many contemporaries of serfdom. In his famous Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow, Radishchev wrote: “Farmers and slaves among us to this day; we do not recognize fellow citizens equal to us in them, we have forgotten the person in them.
Was serfdom similar to American slavery? Not really. The law formally (but not always in practice) protected serfs from excessive extortion and violence of the owner. Serfs, unlike slaves, who were in the full personal ownership of the owner, supported themselves, giving part of their income - in money or products - to the owners of the land to which they were attached.
The word "slavery" is eventually replaced by "serfdom", and then - "peasant issue". However, this does not change the essence of the matter - if a person can be bought or lost at cards, there is no need to look for complex words to describe his status.
Serfdom was not based on any one law, it took shape gradually and, as a result, it became so deeply rooted in the consciousness and everyday life of people that it was very difficult for many to conceive of a different state of affairs. Including why it was so difficult to cancel. It can be said that serfdom was a consequence of the specific situation with property in Russia: all land belonged to the prince and was distributed as a reward for military or civil service. The peasants who lived and worked on this land were assigned (this is where the word “serf” comes from) to its owner. Serfdom finally took shape by the middle of the 17th century - according to the Council Code of 1649, land owners received the right to an indefinite search for fugitive peasants. So the peasants had masters.
The Code still does not fix the practice of selling peasants without land, but the state of that time had neither the need nor the desire to interfere with it. Already at the end of the 17th century, the sale, exchange or gift of people became commonplace.
How many people in Russia were serfs? Were only subjects of the Russian Empire serfs, or could you buy African slaves?
By 1861 there were 23 million serfs in Russia. There were others - "state", attached to the land, which belonged to the treasury, or "specific", owned by the imperial family. According to the revision of 1857, there were another 29 million people, and in total a little more than 60 million lived in the country. In some provinces there were almost 70% of serfs, as in Smolensk and Tula, in others there were almost none (in Siberia there were about 4 thousand serfs).
The law did not regulate the ownership of black slaves, although it is known that in aristocratic families in the 18th century it was fashionable to have black servants. However, since the institution of “slavery” did not legally exist in the empire, they were in the position of personally dependent household servants, that is, household servants. However, some immigrants from Africa also had the status of free people. Everyone knows about Pushkin's great-grandfather, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, Peter I's "Arap", who served the tsar as a secretary and valet, and then rose to one of the highest general ranks.
The serf could be beaten - and nothing would happen? How about separating families? What about rape?
Beating the serfs was rather in the order of things. The law formally prohibited the cruel treatment of serfs, but the government turned a blind eye to this.
From the time of Elizaveta Petrovna, the nobles had the right to punish serfs by exiling them to Siberia, and this was a common practice. In 1827-1846, the landowners exiled almost four thousand people to Siberia. The exiles were counted as recruits, that is, the landowner was free to "clear" his possessions from those he did not like, and also not to lose anything.
Corporal punishment of serfs (especially flogging) was a widespread practice. The code of laws of 1832–1845 softened the possible punishments of serfs - the following were left to the landlords: rods - up to 40 blows, sticks - up to 15 blows, imprisonment in a rural prison up to 2 months and in a strait house up to 3 months, return to prison companies for up to 6 months, as well as in recruits and permanent removal from the estate with the provision at the disposal of the local state administration.
The state punished landlords for abuse of power and peasants for disobedience on approximately the same scale - in 1834–1845, 0.13% of peasants and 0.13% of landowners were convicted throughout Russia of the total number of both in the country.
I don’t want to list the various ways of bullying - suffice it to say that among them are rape, domestic torture, domestic shooting range with the direct participation of serfs, dog-baiting, and so on. But particular atrocities and sadism were rather the exception. Here, the landowner Daria Saltykova achieved great "successes", having tortured several dozen serfs in various ways. Among the favorite means of punishment were flogging, dousing with boiling water, hot curling tongs, pulling out hair, and beating the offenders with logs.
Catherine II decided to make an example out of the investigation in the Saltykova case. The investigation was carried out in relation to 138 possible killed and maimed peasants, 38 deaths at the hands of Saltykova were considered to be precisely proven. The verdict was written by the empress herself - after a public punishment at the pillory, Saltykova was placed in a monastery, where she died after spending 33 years in captivity.
Could a serf be a rich man? How can you describe the standard of living of the average serf? Could he redeem himself and stop being a serf?
History knows examples of wealthy peasants. One of them was the serf Nikolai Shipov, who left memoirs behind him (this is a rarity). Shipov, apparently, possessed considerable entrepreneurial talent: together with other peasants from his settlement, Shipov transferred to quitrent and went to the Bashkir steppes to buy and drive herds of sheep from there. This brought him such an income that he - along with other peasants - offered the landowner to redeem himself from dependence. Barin refused. Shipov recalled:
“Once a landowner, and with his wife, came to our settlement. As usual, rich peasants, dressed in a festive way, came to him with a bow and various gifts; there were also women and girls, all dressed up and adorned with pearls. The lady examined everything with curiosity and then, turning to her husband, said: “Our peasants have such elegant dresses and jewelry; they must be very rich, and it costs them nothing to pay us dues. Without thinking twice, the landowner immediately increased the amount of dues. Then it got to the point that over 110 rubles fell on each audit soul along with worldly expenses. ass<игнациями>dues".
The settlement in which Shipov lived paid the landowner 105,000 rubles in banknotes a year. This is a huge amount - at the prices of the beginning of the 19th century, the time that Shipov talks about, a serf could be bought for 200-400 rubles in ruble banknotes (for 125 rubles Pushchin bought a cart at that time, and Pushkin received 12 thousand rubles for "Eugene Onegin" fee).
In the book Conversations about Russian Culture, Yuri Lotman cites an episode from the memoirs of Nikolai Shipov and writes:
“It is interesting, however, that the landowner seeks not so much to enrich himself as to ruin the peasants. Their wealth annoys him, and he is ready to take losses for the sake of his lust for power and tyranny. Later, when Shipov escapes and begins his "odyssey" of wandering all over Russia, after each flight with extraordinary energy and talent, he again finds ways to develop enterprises starting from scratch, organizing trade and crafts in Odessa or in the Caucasian army, buying and selling goods from Kalmyks, now in Constantinople, living either without a passport, or with a fake passport, the master will literally go bankrupt, sending agents in all directions and spending huge amounts of money from his increasingly scarce resources, just to catch and brutally deal with the rebellious fugitive.
With the signing in 1803 by Alexander I of the Decree on free cultivators, the peasants received the right to redeem from the landowners at once whole villages and together with the land. During the reign of Alexander I, 161 transactions were concluded and about 47 thousand males were released, or less than 0.5% of the entire peasant population. For 39 years, from 1816 to 1854, 957 thousand people received freedom. As the historian Boris Mironov writes, in just the first half of the 19th century, about 10% of the landlord peasants were freed collectively and individually from serfdom. In 1842-1846, during the period of new modest attempts to legally ease the life of serfs, the peasants received the right to redeem themselves at will both with the consent of the landowner and without his consent, though only if the landowner's estate was sold at auction.
Why did part of society believe that serfs were in the order of things? What arguments might this have? Have there been cases when peasants want to remain serfs?
In fact, the conversation that serfdom is immoral and inefficient starts quite early. Catherine II shared the opinion that a person cannot own a person, under Alexander I the discussion takes an even more obvious turn, and by the time of the reign of Alexander II, almost no one doubted the need to abolish serfdom, arguing mainly about conditions and terms. Another thing is that a hundred years of discussions about serfdom did not lead to tangible results. There were several arguments here: the notorious unpreparedness of people for freedom, and the economic complexity of the process (it was not clear where the peasants could get money for ransom), and the size of the empire.
There were cases of quite bizarre logic. In 1803, Dmitry Buturlin, a diplomat and Voltairian, writes: “There is something so paternal and tender in the mutual relations of a master and a serf, while the relationship of a master and a hired servant seems to me purely selfish. The free market is an exchange of services for my money, and as soon as I have paid, I find that I am completely released from any obligations, since I have fulfilled everything that I promised. A fleeting transaction that passes without leaving the slightest trace. It does not bring to any of the parties either memories of the past or hope for the future. Our custom is to recognize for children the services rendered by their fathers - that's the past for you. To provide for the existence of old servants who no longer work due to their age - that's the future. All this is much more humane and kinder than a simple money market.”
By the middle of the 19th century, even the secret police joined the discussion of the imperial house and the liberal nobility. Since 1827, the political police created by Nicholas I has been preparing an annual report on the situation in the country for the emperor. If you read these reports in a row, you can clearly see how quickly the attitude towards the “peasant question” changed among the highest Russian bureaucracy:
- 1827. Several prophecies and predictions circulate among the peasants: they are waiting for their liberator, like the Jews for their Messiah, and gave him the name Metelkin. They say among themselves: "Pugachev scared the gentlemen, and Metelkin will sweep them away."
- 1839 The rumors are always the same: the tsar wants it, but the boyars resist. It is a dangerous business, and it would be a crime to conceal this danger. The common people are not the same as they were 25 years before.<…>In general, serfdom is a powder magazine under the state ...
- 1847. ... The main subject of discussion in all societies was an incomprehensible confidence that Your Majesty would certainly like to give complete freedom to serfs. This confidence instilled in all estates the fear that from a sudden change in the existing order of things there would be disobedience, confusion, and even violence among the peasants.
- 1857 The dispossessed nobles, writers and people of different classes ... all enthusiastically glorify the idea of the abolition of serfdom. They prove - and quite rightly - that the position of a serf is an unnatural state, contrary to reason and the Christian faith, that a man in slavery ceases to be a man and becomes a thing ...
The peasant reform is called "flawed" and they see it as one of the prerequisites for the revolution. What was wrong with her? Is this generally a good reform or a bad one?
The Manifesto and the “Regulations on the Peasants” granted the serfs personal freedom, but were compromise (and therefore half-hearted) results of almost four years of work on the bill of the provincial committees, the specially established Main Committee on Peasant Affairs and the so-called Editorial Commissions (it was assumed that there would be two commissions - a common and regional, but in fact the work was carried out in one commission, which from the original idea got the plural in the title).
The reform was considered almost flawless for tsarist Russia: more or less for the first time, completely different people with different ideological views were involved in the process - it was important for Alexander II that the reform initiative did not come from him, but from the nobles. And so it began: March 30, 1856, speaking to the district and provincial marshals of the Moscow nobility, Alexander for the first time tries to inspire them with this idea: “Rumors are circulating that I want to give freedom to the peasants; it's not fair, and you can say it to everyone right and left; but a feeling of hostility between the peasants and their landowners, unfortunately, exists, and as a result there have already been several cases of disobedience to the landowners. I am convinced that sooner or later we must come to this. I think that you are of the same opinion with me, therefore, it is much better for this to happen from above than from below.
This is how the reform begins - not completely from below, but as far as one can imagine: the role of the initiators of the reform is assumed by the Lithuanian nobles, partly inspired by the emperor himself through the Vilna governor-general Vladimir Nazimov. On November 20, 1857, in response to the petition of the nobles, the emperor sends a rescript to Nazimov, allowing the nobility to develop projects “on the organization and improvement of the life of the landlord peasants”, which involved the creation of special committees in the provinces headed by the noble marshal.
The laws of February 19, 1861 gave the peasants basic civil rights and freed them from the humiliating personal dependence on the landlords. But the reformers failed to find a simple solution to the land issue. It was assumed that the peasants could redeem the allotment of land from the landowner, having received a loan from the state for 49 years at 6% per annum. But before the transition to redemption, former serfs were considered “temporarily liable”, that is, in fact, they “rented” the land from the landowner and continued to pay for it in the form of corvée or dues. The transition to the redemption of land took a total of more than 20 years - since 1883, the remaining temporarily liable were mainly transferred to redemption by force.
An additional piquancy to the situation was given by the fact that, having freed themselves from the landowners according to the manifesto of 1861, the peasants remained “dependent” on the peasant community, which regulated their economic activities, often forbade them to move (due to mutual responsibility in paying taxes and redemption payments) and so Further.
The opportunity to receive land in real personal property and leave it as a legacy to their children had to wait a very long time - until the law of June 14, 1910.
Was the reform "bad" or "good"? Probably, one can imagine some more correct process with a more accurate result, but one thing is clear: after February 19, people can no longer be sold and bought - and this is its main result. They say that the peasants were finally liberated in 1974, when they were first given passports, they say that the reform and its inferiority were the prerequisites for the revolution of 1917 - this is all true, but somewhere there must be a beginning, and this beginning is February 19, when Slavery was finally abolished in Russia.
Meduza and InLiberty would like to thank Igor Khristoforov, Professor at the Higher School of Economics and Senior Researcher at Princeton University, and Elena Korchmina, Senior Research Fellow at the Higher School of Economics, for advice.
From this article you will find out when serfdom was abolished in Russia, who abolished it and why.
Feudal lords and peasants existed in Russia for many centuries. Some enslaved others and forced them to work on the land. But soon the common people were liberated and serfdom was abolished. Who did it and when? Find answers to this question in this article.
When, in what century was serfdom abolished in Russia?
Serfdom first appeared in 11th century in Kievan Rus and lasted until 19th century. When, in what century was serfdom abolished in Russia? The emancipation of the population took place in several stages:
- The first step was the Manifesto on the three-day corvee. He was signed April 5(new style) 1797 on the day of the coronation Paul I. According to this document, the peasants had to work for the landowner three days a week, and Sunday was declared a day off.
- The emperor took the second step Alexander I. He February 20, 1803 issued a decree on free cultivators. This order spoke of the possibility of obtaining his allotment of land and freedom for the serf, if he was able to redeem himself. also in 1808 banned the sale of serfs at fairs, and with 1833 separate family members.
- FROM 1816 on 1819 years serfdom was gradually abolished in the Baltic territory of the Russian Empire.
- The final point in serfdom was put by the Manifesto Alexander II from February 19, 1861.
True, the abolition was mostly on paper, since most of the peasants were in a strong financial dependence on the landowner and did not always have their own housing and could provide for themselves.
Who abolished serfdom in 1861: which king, emperor, which Alexander?
For many years, serfdom was mandatory for many peasant families. No one dared to go against the established rules, everyone obeyed and followed the laws. The peasants were forced to work for the benefit of their owners, who enjoyed the fruits of other people's labors with pleasure.
As mentioned above, everything changed when the king came to power Alexander II who revised the law on serfdom and On February 19, 1861, he signed the Manifesto. Thanks to the abolition of serfdom, the peasants can be free and not depend on people placed above them. The ruler took such measures because he was afraid of a revolt among the peasant people. If the emperor had not made such a decision, perhaps soon, the peasants would have liberated themselves by organizing a general strike.
It's important to know: After the adoption of the new law, a turning point in the history of Russia came. Thanks to Alexander II, every inhabitant in Russia became independent and could manage his life as he wanted. Who knows how modern society would have lived if not for the abolition of serfdom in 1861, perhaps the state would have developed quite differently.
Serfdom in Russia can be called a form of slavery, which extended only to poor rural residents. After in 1856, the Crimean battle was lost, it was clear to the naked eye that Russia was lagging behind in development from other countries. Over the next few years, Alexander II he made every effort to develop his state and improve the lives of his subjects, including ordinary peasants.
Why was serfdom abolished?
Serfdom is a heavy burden for the peasants, who were completely dependent on the landlords and did not have their own livelihood. Therefore, the emperor decided to abolish this system. But there are other reasons why serfdom was abolished. Here are the main ones:
- Serfdom hindered the development of industry. Russia could not properly accumulate capital and could become an underdeveloped country.
- At this time, there was a rapid ruin of the peasants.. The landlords made the corvee unbearably large. Peasants went to work in factories. The feudal economy did not develop, since the labor of the peasants was forced and inefficient.
- The crisis in serfdom led to the defeat in the Crimean War. After this war, it became clear that Russia is a backward country in terms of military-technical equipment. The financial system also began to "limp", the peasants suffered ruin due to large extortions and an increase in duties. They began to run away en masse from the landowners.
- The peasants were already so tortured by serfdom that at any moment they could rise up and the top authorities and the emperor himself began to fear this.
- The uprisings of the peasants could turn into scattered performances, which could lead to the emergence of a new "Pugachevism".
In addition, serfdom, as a form of slavery, was condemned by all sections of society of that time.
The abolition of serfdom: what does the “Right of Russia” say about this?
Of course, all Russians support the abolition of serfdom. After all, modern people imagine how hard it was for ordinary peasants, who had to exist in bondage and work for the master.
"Right of Russia" This is evidenced by the fact that serfdom was an unbearable burden for every peasant of that time. But this is the patriotism and wisdom of the people who needed to go through this in order to become better and more powerful.
Interesting: Many historians and lawyers are sure that serfdom is the best and brightest thing that Russia had at that time.
The boyars provided the means of subsistence for the peasants, who, in turn, worked on their land.
"It is better to abolish serfdom from above": an explanation of the quote, what did the emperor mean?
The ruling circles of that time realized that serfdom was a "powder keg" in the state. From the majority of the upper classes - landlords, scientists, relatives of the king, proposals began to come in on projects for reforming land relations. Later, Alexander II, speaking to the nobles, said: “It is better to abolish serfdom from above, otherwise the peasants will free themselves from below”. What did the emperor mean? Here is an explanation of the quote:
- The peasants were already tired of serfdom and were ready for uprisings.
- If serfdom is not abolished, then the common people will rise up and liberate themselves.
- But this will lead to the undermining of the financial system and the Russian economy.
Therefore, it was decided to abolish serfdom by decree of the emperor.
Why didn't Catherine abolish serfdom?
Catherine was a great ruler. Often, those who study history, the question arises, why did Catherine not abolish serfdom? Here is the answer:
- The empress actively prescribed legal norms and issued decrees. She wanted to develop new codes of laws.
- The newly issued decree was a kind of instruction for clarifying the people's needs and wishes.
- Thanks to this instruction, it was planned to create completely new laws for the country.
- But in the commission, only a few of its members spoke in favor of easing the lot of the peasants. They proposed to reduce peasant duties and were even ready to introduce innovations into the law, which would allow the peasants to be transferred at the disposal of a special commission that would deal with the assignment of the amount of duty in favor of the masters.
- At the same time, most of the landowners were against such an innovation, and they began to zealously defend serfdom and their privileges.
- The empress could not argue with them, as she was afraid of losing power and the throne.
After the commission was dissolved, and the decree was canceled as unnecessary. Everything concerning serfdom remained in the same places, and the common people continued to bear their burden of serfdom.
Why didn't Alexander I and Nicholas I abolish serfdom?
Alexander I and Nicholas I did not abolish serfdom Alexander I tried in vain to abolish serfdom, since during his reign serfdom was still very strong. The tsar had no support among the landlords, and the emperor had no choice but to fulfill their will. The social forces that opposed serfdom at that time, and the king had no one to rely on.
Nicholas I was worried that the abolition of serfdom would bring even more problems. He knew that serfdom was evil, but the emperor was afraid that social unrest would occur. He was afraid to innovate towards the abolition of serfdom, lest it get worse.
Video: Abolition of Serfdom
Stereotypical misconceptions about serfdom are of two kinds. Some tend to identify it with the most cruel form of slavery, while others, on the contrary, exalt it as almost paternal care of the landlords for their peasants.
Slavery is a patriarchal idyll
Serfdom differed from ancient slavery, first of all, in that the law recognized in the serf a person, and not a thing. The legal capacity of the serf was severely limited. Nevertheless, the law punished the landowner for the murder of his peasant, and the ancient slave owner was not accountable to anyone for the life of his slave. There were exceptions to the rule, but there is no such country and no such time that the law is always respected. In addition, the marriage of a serf was consecrated by the church, which means that it was also legally recognized, in contrast to “marriages” between slaves.
Of course, there were no harmonic relationships. The serfs were not satisfied with their position, as evidenced by the mighty nationwide uprisings led by Bolotnikov, Razin, Pugachev, thousands of small riots at different times. It is true, however, that the serfs valued the land-breadwinner much more than personal freedom.
Many cases are known during the abolition of serfdom, when the peasants did not want to accept the "freedom" they received on the terms of the redemption of the land allotment, which they had always used before, without thinking that this land, by law, was the property of the landowner. “Let's do it the old way,” the peasants said to the master, “we are yours, and our land.” The point is not that the peasants allegedly liked serfdom, but the choice of the lesser of two evils.
And there were all sorts of landowners. There were also cruel serf-owners, there were also caring bars. At the same time, they also understood care in different ways. So, the progressive landowner Nikolai Novikov tried to teach peasant children to read and write and to settle the peasants in apartment blocks of stone houses. “The master is blessed, he is mad with fat,” the peasants just shook their heads at this, involuntarily obeying the owner’s whims, which were inconvenient for them.
Serfdom has always been in Russia
In fact, serfdom began to be established in Russia only at the end of the 15th century and went through several stages, during which the very content of this institution changed greatly.
The Sudebnik of 1497 forbade peasants to leave their village for a new place without paying their debts to the owner of the land. Moreover, for calculation and care, he left only two weeks a year (November 19 - December 2; "the right of St. George's day"). At the end of the 16th century, the government began from time to time to prohibit leaving even on St. George's Day in a particular year. The Cathedral Code of 1649 finally forbade peasants to change their place of residence without permission. However, this applied not only to the landlord peasants, but also to all others, as well as to the townspeople's artisans.
In the 18th century, a legally unlegalized order gradually enters into practice, according to which the serf is not only “strong in the land”, but also personally belongs to the owner. This concept was facilitated by the fact that the landowner paid taxes to the state for the peasants, according to the number of "souls" of the male sex. The sale and purchase of serf "souls" is developing separately from the land, and sometimes even broken down by families. By the end of the 18th century, the landowners received the highest degree of judicial and police power over their peasants, acquiring the right to implicitly exile them to hard labor and give them to soldiers.
Almost immediately, the policy of easing serfdom began. Emperor Paul I in 1797 legally limited corvée to three days a week. Nicholas I in the 1840s consistently banned the sale of peasants separately from the land and the sale of householders, and also established the procedure for redeeming peasants at will during the confiscation of the landowner's estate for debts.
Serfdom, as in Russia, was also in Western Europe
This is only true in certain cases. Russian serfdom can be brought closer to the French servage, but it finally disappeared in the middle of the 14th century. In England, there was no analogue of serfdom at all. In the states of Germany and Austria, the feudal dependence of the peasants was abolished at the end of the 18th and the first half of the 19th centuries. But even there it never happened that the landowners could sell and buy peasants.
The misconception that analogues of Russian serfdom lasted in Western Europe until the era of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars is based on a misunderstanding that not all feudal dependence is serfdom. The latter is the extreme, most severe form of such dependence. It was inherent, except for Russia, only Poland and Hungary.
All Russian peasants were serfs
It's not like that at all. Even when during the reign of Catherine II there was a massive donation of populated state lands to nobles, even then the peasants belonging to private individuals made up only about half of the rural population of the Russian Empire (more accurate statistics on this matter are rather contradictory). At the end of the 18th century, the proportion of landlord peasants in Russia reached its peak, after which it began to decline.
The other half of the Russian peasants sat on state lands. State peasants enjoyed greater freedom and were themselves responsible for paying taxes. At the end of her reign, Catherine II even wanted to secure the rights of this estate in a special charter, similar to the one she had previously granted to nobles and townspeople.
The serfs were starving
Strange as it may seem to many, but it was precisely before the abolition of serfdom in 1861 that rural Russia in the 18-19 centuries. did not know such a massive famine caused by crop failures and other natural disasters, as at the end of the 19th century, when the peasants became free. The disaster of the first years of the 17th century, which led to the Time of Troubles, has long become the property of legends.
Of course, crop failures and famine sometimes occurred during the heyday of serfdom. But, nevertheless, Russia of that time did not experience anything like what happened in 1891-1892. And the first massive famine caused by a crop failure occurred already in 1873, just 12 years after the abolition of serfdom.
The connection between these two phenomena is direct. True, the famine intensified not so much because of the abolition of serfdom itself, but because of the conditions of this abolition. The redemption payments that fell on the former serf village forced the peasants to sell off most of the harvest, leaving nothing for themselves. At the same time, years with a rich harvest did not bring benefits to the peasants, since it was in these years that the price of bread fell. And in order to earn money for the redemption payments, the peasants had to clean their barns every time.
Of course, the fact that the landowners were not directly dependent on the well-being of the peasants and had no incentive to support them in difficult years also played a certain role.
Loading...