In what year was serfdom abolished. Who introduced serfdom? Why Alexander I and Nicholas I did not abolish serfdom

The prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom were formed at the end of the 18th century. All sectors of society considered the serfdom an immoral phenomenon that dishonored Russia. In order to stand on a par with the European countries free from slavery, the question of the abolition of serfdom was ripe for the Russian government.

The main reasons for the abolition of serfdom:

1. Serfdom became a brake on the development of industry and trade, which hindered the growth of capital and placed Russia in the category of secondary states;
2. The decline of the landlord economy due to the extremely inefficient labor of serfs, which was expressed in the deliberately poor performance of the corvee;
3. The growth of peasant revolts indicated that the serfdom was a "powder keg" under the state;
4. The defeat in the Crimean War (1853-1856) demonstrated the backwardness of the political system in the country.

Alexander I tried to take the first steps in resolving the issue of the abolition of serfdom, but his committee did not think of how to put this reform into practice. Emperor Alexander limited himself to the law of 1803 on free cultivators.

Nicholas I in 1842 adopted the law "On indebted peasants", according to which the landowner had the right to free the peasants, giving them a plot of land, and the peasants were obliged to bear the duty in favor of the landowner for the use of the land. However, this law did not take root, the landowners did not want to let the peasants go.

In 1857, official preparations began for the abolition of serfdom. Emperor Alexander II ordered the establishment of provincial committees, which were to develop projects to improve the life of serfs. On the basis of these drafts, drafting commissions drew up a bill, which was submitted to the Main Committee for consideration and establishment.

On February 19, 1861, Emperor Alexander II signed a manifesto on the abolition of serfdom and approved the "Regulations on peasants who have emerged from serfdom." Alexander remained in history with the name "Liberator".

Although emancipation from slavery gave the peasants some personal and civil freedoms, such as the right to marry, go to court, trade, enter the civil service, etc., but they were limited in freedom of movement, as well as in economic rights. In addition, the peasants remained the only class that carried recruiting duties and could be subjected to corporal punishment.

The land remained in the ownership of the landlords, and the peasants were allocated a settled place of residence and a field allotment, for which they had to serve their duties (in money or work), which almost did not differ from serfs. According to the law, the peasants had the right to redeem the allotment and the estate, then they received complete independence and became peasant owners. Until then, they were called "temporarily liable." The ransom amounted to the annual amount of dues, multiplied by 17!

To help the peasantry, the government arranged a special "buying operation." After the establishment of the land allotment, the state paid the landowner 80% of the value of the allotment, and 20% was attributed to the peasant as a government debt, which he had to repay in installments over 49 years.

Peasants united in rural communities, and those, in turn, united in volosts. The use of field land was communal, and for the implementation of "redemption payments" the peasants were bound by mutual responsibility.

Yard people who did not plow the land were temporarily liable for two years, and then they could register in a rural or urban society.

The agreement between the landowners and peasants was set forth in the "charter". And for the analysis of emerging disagreements, the post of conciliators was established. The overall leadership of the reform was entrusted to the "provincial presence for peasant affairs."

The peasant reform created conditions for the transformation of labor power into a commodity, market relations began to develop, which is typical for a capitalist country. The consequence of the abolition of serfdom was the gradual formation of new social strata of the population - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Changes in the social, economic and political life of Russia after the abolition of serfdom forced the government to undertake other important reforms, which contributed to the transformation of our country into a bourgeois monarchy.

Stumbling upon another tale of millions of raped German women Soviet soldiers, this time in front of the scenes of serfdom (the German women were changed to serfs, and the soldiers to landowners, but the melody of the song is still the same), I decided to share information that is more plausible.
Lots of letters.
It's worth getting to know.

Most modern Russians are still convinced that the serfdom of the peasants in Russia was nothing more than legally fixed slavery, private ownership of people. However, the Russian serfs not only were not slaves of the landlords, but did not feel like such.

"Respecting history as nature,
I am by no means defending serf reality.
I am only deeply disgusted with political speculation on the bones of ancestors,
the desire to inflate someone, annoy someone,
to boast of imaginary virtues in front of someone "

M.O. Menshikov

1. The liberal black myth of serfdom

The 150th anniversary of the abolition of serfdom, or, more correctly, the serfdom of peasants in Russia, is a good occasion to talk about this socio-economic institution of pre-revolutionary Russia calmly, without biased accusations and ideological labels. After all, it is difficult to find another such phenomenon of Russian civilization, the perception of which was so strongly ideologized and mythologized. At the mention of serfdom, a picture immediately arises before your eyes: a landowner selling his peasants or losing them at cards, forcing a serf - a young mother to feed puppies with her milk, slaughtering peasants and peasant women to death. Russian liberals - both pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary, Marxist - managed to introduce into the public consciousness the identification of the serfdom of the peasants and the slavery of the peasants, that is, their existence on the rights of private property of the landowners. A significant role in this was played by classical Russian literature, created by nobles - representatives of the highest Europeanized class of Russia, who repeatedly called serfs slaves in their poems, stories, pamphlets.

Of course, this was just a metaphor. As landlords managing serfs, they knew perfectly well what was the legal difference between Russian serfs and, say, American Negroes. But poets and writers generally tend to use words not in the exact sense, but in the figurative sense ... When the word used in this way migrates to a journalistic article of a certain political trend, and then, after the victory of this trend, to a history textbook, then we get dominance in the public consciousness of a wretched stereotype.

As a result, the majority of modern educated Russians, Western intellectuals, are still convinced that the serfdom of the peasants in Russia was nothing more than legally fixed slavery, private ownership of people, which the landowners by law (emphasis mine - R.V.) could do with peasants, anything - to torture them, exploit them mercilessly and even kill them, and that this was another evidence of the “backwardness” of our civilization compared to the “enlightened West”, where in the same era he was already building democracy ... This was also manifested in publications a wave that rushed to the anniversary of the abolition of serfdom; Whatever newspaper you take, even the officially liberal Rossiyskaya, even the moderately conservative Literaturnaya, everywhere is the same - discussions about Russian "slavery" ...

In fact, not everything is so simple with serfdom, and in historical reality it did not at all coincide with the black myth about it that the liberal intelligentsia created. Let's try to figure this out.

Serfdom was introduced in the 16th-17th centuries, when a specific Russian state, which was fundamentally different from the monarchies of the West and which is usually characterized as a service state. This means that all his estates had their duties, obligations to the sovereign, understood as a sacred figure - the anointed of God. Only depending on the fulfillment of these duties, they received certain rights, which were not hereditary inalienable privileges, but a means of fulfilling duties. Relations between the tsar and subjects were built in the Muscovite kingdom not on the basis of an agreement - like relations between feudal lords and the king in the West, but on the basis of "selfless", that is, non-contractual service [i], - like the relationship between sons and father in a family where children serve their parent and continue to serve even if he does not fulfill his duties to them. In the West, the non-fulfillment by the lord (even if the king) of the terms of the contract immediately freed the vassals from the need to fulfill their duties. In Russia, only serfs were deprived of duties to the sovereign, that is, people who are servants of service people and the sovereign, but they also served the sovereign, serving their masters. Actually, the serfs were the closest to the slaves, since they were deprived of personal freedom, completely belonged to their master, who was responsible for all their misdeeds.

State duties in the Moscow kingdom were divided into two types - service and tax, respectively, the estates were divided into service and draft. The servants, as the name implies, served the sovereign, that is, they were at his disposal as soldiers and officers of an army built in the manner of a militia or as state officials collecting taxes, keeping order, etc. Such were the boyars and nobles. The draft estates were exempted from the sovereign's service (primarily from military service), but they paid a tax - a tax in cash or in kind in favor of the state. These were merchants, artisans and peasants. Representatives of the draft estates were personally free people and in no way were they similar to serfs. As already mentioned, the obligation to pay tax did not apply to serfs.

Initially, the peasant tax did not involve the assignment of peasants to rural communities and landlords. Peasants in the Moscow kingdom were personally free. Until the 17th century, they rented land either from its owner (individual or rural society), while they took a loan from the owner - grain, implements, draft animals, outbuildings, etc. In order to pay the loan, they paid the owner a special additional tax in kind (corvée), but having worked out or returned the loan in money, they again received complete freedom and could go anywhere (and even during the period of working off the peasants remained personally free, nothing but money or the owner could not demand a tax in kind from them). The transitions of peasants to other classes were not prohibited either, for example, a peasant who had no debts could move to the city and engage in crafts or trade there.

However, already in the middle of the 17th century, the state issued a series of decrees that attached peasants to a certain piece of land (estate) and its owner (not as a person, but as a replaceable representative of the state), as well as to a cash estate (that is, they forbade the transfer of peasants to other classes). In fact, this was the enslavement of the peasants. At the same time, for many peasants, enslavement was not a turning into slaves, but, on the contrary, a salvation from the prospect of turning into a slave. As V.O. Klyuchevsky noted, before the introduction of serfdom, peasants who were unable to repay the loan turned into bonded serfs, that is, debt slaves of landowners, but now they were forbidden to be transferred to the class of serfs. Of course, the state was guided not by humanistic principles, but by economic benefits, serfs, according to the law, did not pay taxes to the state, and an increase in their number was undesirable.

Finally, the serfdom of the peasants was approved by the conciliar code of 1649 under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The situation of the peasants began to be characterized as peasant eternal hopelessness, that is, the inability to leave their estate. The peasants were obliged to stay on the land of a certain landowner for life and give him part of the results of their labor. The same applied to their family members - wives and children.

However, it would be wrong to say that with the establishment of serfdom of the peasants, they turned into serfs of their landowner, that is, into slaves belonging to him. As already mentioned, the peasants were not and could not even be considered landlord serfs, if only because they had to pay tax (from which serfs were exempted). The serfs did not belong to the landowner as a certain person, but to the state, and were attached not to him personally, but to the land that he disposed of. The landowner could use only a part of the results of their labor, and then not because he was their owner, but because he was a representative of the state.

Here we must make an explanation regarding the local system that prevailed in the Muscovite kingdom. During the Soviet period in Russian history the vulgar-Marxist approach dominated, which declared the Muscovy a feudal state and, thus, denied the essential difference between the Western feudal lord and the landowner in pre-Petrine Russia. However, the western feudal lord was a private owner of the land and, as such, disposed of it independently, not even depending on the king. He also disposed of his serfs, who in the medieval West, indeed, were almost slaves. Whereas the landowner in Muscovite Russia was only the manager of state property on the terms of service to the sovereign. Moreover, as V.O. Klyuchevsky, the estate, that is public land with peasants attached to it - this is not even so much a gift for service (otherwise it would be the property of the landowner, as in the West) as a means to carry out this service. The landowner could receive part of the results of the work of the peasants of the estate allocated to him, but it was a kind of payment for military service to the sovereign and for fulfilling the duties of a representative of the state to the peasants. It was the responsibility of the landowner to monitor the payment of taxes by his peasants, for their, as we would now say, labor discipline, for order in rural society, and also to protect them from raids by robbers, etc. Moreover, the ownership of land and peasants was temporary, usually for life. After the death of the landowner, the estate was returned to the treasury and again distributed among the service people and it did not necessarily go to the relatives of the landowner (although the farther, the more often it was, and in the end, landownership became little different from private ownership of land, but this happened only in the 18th century).

The real owners of the land with the peasants were only the estates - the boyars, who received the estates by inheritance - and it was they who were similar to the western feudal lords. But, starting from the 16th century, their rights to land also begin to be curtailed by the king. So, a number of decrees made it difficult for them to sell their lands, created legal grounds for giving the patrimony to the treasury after the death of a childless patrimony and already distributing it according to the local principle. Servant Moscow state did everything to suppress the beginnings of feudalism as a system based on private ownership of land. Yes, and the ownership of land by the patrimonials did not extend to their serfs.

So, the serfs in pre-Petrine Russia did not belong at all to a nobleman-landowner or patrimony, but to the state. Klyuchevsky calls the serfs just that - "eternally obligated state taxpayers." The main task of the peasants was not to work for the landowner, but to work for the state, to fulfill the state tax. The landowner could dispose of the peasants only to the extent that this helped them to fulfill the state tax. If, on the contrary, it interfered, he had no rights to them. Thus, the power of the landowner over the peasants was limited by law, and according to the law, he was charged with obligations to his serfs. For example, the landowners were obliged to supply the peasants of their estate with implements, grain for sowing, and feed them in case of crop shortages and famine. The concern for feeding the poorest peasants fell on the landowner even in good years, so that economically the landowner was not interested in the poverty of the peasants entrusted to him. The law clearly opposed the willfulness of the landlord in relation to the peasants: the landowner did not have the right to turn the peasants into serfs, that is, into personal servants, slaves, to kill and maim the peasants (although he had the right to punish them for laziness and mismanagement). Moreover, for the murder of peasants, the landowner was also punished by death. The point, of course, was not at all in the "humanism" of the state. The landowner, who turned the peasants into serfs, stole income from the state, because the serf was not taxed; the landowner who killed the peasants destroyed state property. The landowner did not have the right to punish the peasants for criminal offenses, he was obliged in this case to provide them to the court, an attempt at lynching was punished by deprivation of the estate. The peasants could complain about their landowner - about the cruel treatment of them, about their willfulness, and the landowner could be deprived of the estate by the court and transferred to another.

Even more prosperous was the situation of the state peasants, who belonged directly to the state and were not attached to a particular landowner (they were called black-sleepers). They were also considered serfs, because they did not have the right to move from their place of permanent residence, they were attached to the land (although they could temporarily leave their permanent place of residence, going to work) and to the rural community living on this land and could not move to other estates. But at the same time, they were personally free, possessed property, themselves acted as witnesses in courts (their landowner acted for the possessing serfs in court) and even elected representatives to estate government bodies (for example, to the Zemsky Sobor). All their duties were reduced to the payment of taxes in favor of the state.

But what about the serf trade, about which there is so much talk? Indeed, back in the 17th century, it became customary for landowners to first exchange peasants, then transfer these contracts to a monetary basis, and finally, sell serfs without land (although this was contrary to the laws of that time and the authorities fought such abuses, however, not very diligently) . But to a large extent, this did not concern serfs, but serfs, who were the personal property of landowners. By the way, even later, in the 19th century, when actual slavery took the place of serfdom, and serfdom turned into a lack of rights for serfs, they still traded mainly people from the household - maids, maids, cooks, coachmen, etc. The serfs, as well as the land, were not the property of the landlords and could not be the subject of bargaining (after all, trading is an equivalent exchange of objects that are privately owned, if someone sells something that does not belong to him, but to the state, and is only at his disposal , then this is an illegal transaction). The situation was somewhat different with the estate owners: they had the right of hereditary possession of land and could sell and buy it. In the event of the sale of land, the serfs living on it went with it to another owner (and sometimes, bypassing the law, this happened even without selling the land). But it still was not a sale of serfs, because neither the old nor the new owner had the right to own them, he only had the right to use part of the results of their labor (and the obligation to perform the functions of charity, police and tax supervision in relation to them). And the serfs of the new owner had the same rights as the previous one, since they were guaranteed to him by state law (the owner could not kill and maim the serf, forbid him to acquire property, file complaints with the court, etc.). After all, it was not a person that was being sold, but only obligations. The Russian conservative publicist of the early 20th century M. Menshikov spoke expressively about this, arguing with the liberal A.A. Stolypin: A. A. Stolypin emphasizes the fact that serfs were sold as a sign of slavery. But it was a sale of a very special kind. They did not sell a person, but his duty to serve the owner. And now, when you sell a bill of exchange, you are not selling the debtor, but only his obligation to pay the bill. “Selling serfs” is just a sloppy word…”.

And in fact, they were selling not a peasant, but a “soul”. In the words of the historian Klyuchevsky, the "soul" was considered, according to the historian Klyuchevsky, "the totality of duties that fell under the law on a serf, both in relation to the master, and in relation to the state under the responsibility of the master ...". The word "soul" itself was also used here in a different sense, which gave rise to ambiguities and misunderstandings.

In addition, it was possible to sell “souls” only into the hands of Russian nobles, the law forbade selling the “souls” of peasants abroad (whereas in the West, in the era of serfdom, the feudal lord could sell his serfs anywhere, even to Turkey, and not only labor duties of the peasants, but also the personalities of the peasants themselves).

Such was the real, and not the mythical, serfdom of the Russian peasants. As you can see, it had nothing to do with slavery. As Ivan Solonevich wrote about this: “Our historians, consciously or unconsciously, allow a very significant terminological overexposure, because the“ serf ”,“ serfdom ”and“ nobleman ”in Muscovite Russia were not at all what they became in Petrovsky. The Moscow peasant was not anyone's personal property. He was not a slave... The Council Code of 1649, which enslaved the peasants, attached the peasants to the land and the landowner who disposed of it, or, if it was a question of state peasants, to a rural society, as well as to the peasant estate, but nothing more. In all other respects the peasant was free. According to the historian Shmurlo: "The law recognized his right to property, the right to engage in trade, conclude contracts, dispose of his property according to wills."

It is noteworthy that the Russian serfs not only were not slaves of the landlords, but did not feel like such. Their sense of self is well conveyed by the Russian peasant saying: "The soul is God's, the body is royal, and the back is master's." From the fact that the back is also a part of the body, it is clear that the peasant was ready to obey the master only because he also serves the king in his own way and represents the king on the land given to him. The peasant felt himself and was the same royal servant as the nobleman, only he served in a different way - with his own labor. No wonder Pushkin ridiculed Radishchev's words about the slavery of Russian peasants and wrote that the Russian serf is much more intelligent, talented and free than the English peasants. In support of his opinion, he cited the words of an Englishman he knew: “In general, duties in Russia are not very burdensome for the people: head taxes are paid in peace, quitrent is not ruinous (except in the vicinity of Moscow and St. Petersburg, where the variety of revolutions of the industrialist multiplies the greed of the owners). Throughout Russia, the landowner, having imposed quitrent, leaves it to the will of his peasant to get it, how and where he wants. The peasant does what he pleases and sometimes travels 2,000 miles to earn money for himself. And you call this slavery? I do not know of a people in all of Europe who would have been given more room to act. ... Your peasant goes to the bathhouse every Saturday; he washes his face every morning, moreover, he washes his hands several times a day. There is nothing to say about his intelligence: travelers travel from region to region across Russia, not knowing a single word of your language, and everywhere they are understood, fulfill their requirements, conclude conditions; I never met between them what the neighbors call "bado"; I never noticed in them either rude surprise or ignorant contempt for someone else's. Everyone knows their receptivity; agility and dexterity are amazing... Look at him: what could be freer than his treatment of you? Is there even a shadow of slavish humiliation in his steps and speech? Have you been to England? … That's it! You have not seen the shades of meanness that distinguishes one class from another among us ... ". These words of Pushkin's companion, sympathetically cited by the great Russian poet, should be read and memorized by anyone who rants about the Russians as a nation of slaves, what serfdom allegedly made them into.

Moreover, the Englishman knew what he was talking about when he pointed out the slavish state of the common people of the West. Indeed, in the West in the same era, slavery officially existed and flourished (in Great Britain slavery was abolished only in 1807, and in North America in 1863). During the reign of Tsar Ivan the Terrible in Russia, in Great Britain, peasants who were driven from their lands during the fences easily turned into slaves in workhouses and even in galleys. Their situation was much more difficult than that of their contemporaries - Russian peasants, who, by law, could count on help during a famine and were protected by law from the willfulness of the landowner (not to mention the position of state or church serfs). In the era of the formation of capitalism in England, the poor and their children were locked up in workhouses for poverty, and the workers in the manufactories were in such a state that even the slaves would not envy them.

By the way, the position of serfs in Muscovite Russia from their subjective point of view was even easier because the nobles were also in a kind of not even serf, but personal dependence. Being feudal lords in relation to the peasants, the nobles were in the "fortress" of the king. At the same time, their service to the state was much more difficult and dangerous than the peasant one: the nobles had to participate in wars, risk their lives and health, they often died in public service or became disabled. Conscription did not extend to the peasants, they were charged only with physical labor for the maintenance of the service class. The life of a peasant was protected by law (the landowner could neither kill him nor even let him die of starvation, as he was obliged to feed him and his family in famine years, supply grain, wood for building a house, etc.). Moreover, the serf even had the opportunity to get rich - and some became rich and became the owners of their own serfs and even serfs (such serfs of serfs were called "zahrebetniks" in Russia). As for the fact that under a bad landowner who violated the laws, the peasants suffered humiliation and suffering from him, then the nobleman was not protected by anything from the willfulness of the tsar and the tsar's dignitaries.

3. The transformation of serfs into slaves in the Petersburg Empire

With the reforms of Peter the Great, military service fell on the peasants, they became obliged to supply the state with recruits from a certain number of households (which had never happened before, in Moscow Russia military service was only the duty of the nobles). Kholopov were obliged to pay state poll taxes, like serfs, thereby destroying the distinction between serfs and serfs. Moreover, it would be wrong to say that Peter made serfs serfs, rather, on the contrary, he made serfs serfs, extending to them both the duties of serfs (payment of tax) and rights (for example, the right to life or to go to court). Thus, having enslaved the serfs, Peter freed them from slavery.

Further, most of the state and church peasants under Peter were transferred to the landlords and thereby deprived of personal freedom. The so-called “walking people” were assigned to the class of serfs - wandering merchants, people who trade in some kind of craft, just vagabonds who used to be personally free (passportization and the Petrine analogue of the propiska system played a big role in the enslavement of all classes). Serf workers were created, the so-called possessive peasants, assigned to manufactories and factories.

But neither the serf landlords nor the serf factory owners under Peter turned into full-fledged owners of peasants and workers. On the contrary, their power over the peasants and workers was further limited. According to the laws of Peter the Great, the landowners who ruined and oppressed the peasants (now including the courtyards, former serfs) were punished by returning their estates with the peasants to the treasury, and transferring them to another owner, as a rule, a reasonable, well-behaved relative of the embezzler. By decree of 1724, the intervention of the landowner in marriages between peasants was prohibited (before that, the landowner was considered as a kind of second father of the peasants, without whose blessing marriage between them was impossible). Serf factory owners did not have the right to sell their workers, except perhaps together with the factory. This, by the way, gave rise to an interesting phenomenon: if in England a breeder in need of skilled workers fired the existing ones and hired others who were more highly qualified, then in Russia the breeder had to send workers to study at his own expense, for example, the serf Cherepanovs studied in England at the expense of the Demidovs . Peter consistently fought against the trade in serfs. The abolition of the institution of votchinniki played an important role in this, all representatives of the service class under Peter became landowners who were in the service of the sovereign, as well as the destruction of the differences between serfs and serfs (dvorny). Now the landowner, who wished to sell even a serf (for example, a cook or a maid), was forced to sell a piece of land along with them (which made such a trade unprofitable for him). Peter's decree of April 15, 1727 also prohibited the sale of serfs apart, that is, with the separation of the family.

Again, subjectively, the strengthening of the serfdom of the peasants in the Petrine era was facilitated by the fact that the peasants saw that the nobles began to depend not less, but to an even greater extent on the sovereign. If in the pre-Petrine era, Russian nobles performed military service from time to time, at the call of the tsar, then under Peter they began to serve regularly. The nobility was subject to heavy lifelong military or civil service. From the age of fifteen, every nobleman was obliged to either go to serve in the army and navy, and, moreover, starting with the lower ranks, from privates and sailors, or go to the civil service, where he also had to start from the lowest rank, non-commissioned schreiber (with the exception of those noblemen sons, who were appointed by the fathers as administrators of estates after the death of a parent). He served almost non-stop, for years and even decades without seeing his home and his family, who remained on the estate. And even the resulting disability often did not exempt him from lifelong service. In addition, noble children were obliged to receive an education at their own expense before joining the service, without which they were forbidden to marry (hence the statement of Fonvizin Mitrofanushka: “I don’t want to study, I want to get married”).

The peasant, seeing that the nobleman serves the sovereign for life, risking his life and health, having been separated from his wife and children for years, could consider it fair that he, for his part, should “serve” - with labor. Moreover, the serf peasant in the Petrine era still had a little more personal freedom than the nobleman and his position was easier than that of the nobility: the peasant could start a family whenever he wanted and without the permission of the landowner, live with his family, complain about the landowner in case of offense ...

As you can see, Peter was still not quite a European. He used the primordial Russian institutions of the service state to modernize the country and even toughened them up. At the same time, Peter also laid the foundation for their destruction in the near future. Under him, the local system began to be replaced by a system of awards, when, for services to the sovereign, the nobles and their descendants were granted lands and serfs with the right to inherit, buy, sell, donate, which the landowners had previously been deprived of by law [v]. Under the successors of Peter, this led to the fact that gradually the serfs turned from state taxpayers into real slaves. There were two reasons for this evolution: the arrival of the Western system of estates in place of the rules of the Russian service state, where the rights of the upper class - the aristocracy do not depend on the service, and the arrival of private land ownership in Russia - the place of landownership. Both reasons fit into the trend of spreading Western influence in Russia, initiated by Peter's reforms.

Already under the first successors of Peter - Catherine the First, Elizabeth Petrovna, Anna Ioannovna, there was a desire of the upper stratum Russian society resign from state duties, but at the same time retain the rights and privileges that were previously inextricably linked with these duties. Under Anna Ioannovna, in 1736, a decree was issued limiting the compulsory military and public service of the nobles, which under Peter the Great was life-long, 25 years. At the same time, the state began to turn a blind eye to the massive failure to comply with the Peter's law, which required that the nobles serve, starting with lower posts. Noble children from birth were recorded in the regiment and by the age of 15 they had already “served up” to the rank of officer. In the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, the nobles received the right to have serfs, even if the nobleman did not have land plot, the landowners also received the right to exile serfs to Siberia instead of sending them to recruits. But the apogee of course was the manifesto of February 18, 1762, issued by Peter the Third, but implemented by Catherine the Second, according to which the nobles received complete freedom and no longer had to serve the state in a military or civil field (the service became voluntary, although, of course, those nobles who did not have enough serfs and little land were forced to go to serve, since their estates could not feed them). This manifesto actually turned the nobles from service people into Western-style aristocrats who had both land and serfs in private ownership, that is, without any conditions, simply by right of belonging to the noble class. Thus, an irreparable blow was dealt to the system of the service state: the nobleman was free from service, and the peasant remained attached to him, not only as a representative of the state, but also as a private person. This state of affairs was quite expectedly perceived by the peasants as unfair, and the liberation of the nobles became one of the important factors for the peasant uprising, which was led by the Yaik Cossacks and their leader Emelyan Pugachev, who posed as the late Emperor Peter the Third. The historian Platonov describes the mentality of the serfs on the eve of the Pugachev uprising as follows: “The peasants were also worried: they clearly lived in the consciousness that they were obliged by the state to work for the landlords precisely because the landowners were obliged to serve the state; they lived in the consciousness that historically one duty was conditioned by another. Now the duty of nobility has been removed, and the peasant duty should also be removed.

The flip side of the liberation of the nobles was the transformation of peasants from serfs, that is, state-bound taxpayers who had broad rights (from the right to life to the right to defend themselves in court and independently engage in commercial activities) into real slaves, practically deprived of rights. This began under Peter's successors, but it reached its logical conclusion under Catherine II. If the decree of Elizabeth Petrovna allowed the landowners to exile peasants to Siberia for "presumptuous behavior", but at the same time limited them to the fact that each such peasant was equated with a recruit (which means that only a certain number could be exiled), then Catherine II allowed the landowners to exile peasants no limits. Moreover, under Catherine, by decree of 1767, serfs were deprived of the right to complain and go to court against a landowner who abused his power (it is interesting that such a ban followed immediately after the Saltychikha case, which Catherine was forced to put on trial based on complaints relatives of the killed Saltykova peasant women). The right to judge the peasants has now become the privilege of the landowner himself, which has freed the hands of the tyrant landowners. According to the charter of 1785, the peasants even ceased to be considered subjects of the crown and, according to Klyuchevsky, were equated with the agricultural implements of the landowner. In 1792, Catherine's decree allowed the sale of serfs for landlord debts at a public auction. Under Catherine, the size of the corvee was increased, it ranged from 4 to 6 days a week, in some areas (for example, in the Orenburg region), peasants could work for themselves only at night, on weekends and on holidays (in violation of church rules). Many monasteries were deprived of peasants, the latter were transferred to the landowners, which significantly worsened the situation of the serfs.

So, Catherine II has the dubious merit of the complete enslavement of the landlord serfs. The only thing that the landowner could not do with the peasant under Catherine was to sell him abroad, in all other respects his power over the peasants was absolute. Interestingly, Catherine II herself did not even understand the differences between serfs and slaves; Klyuchevsky is perplexed why in her “Instruction” she calls serfs slaves and why she believes that serfs have no property, if in Russia it has long been established that a slave, that is, a serf, unlike a serf, does not pay tax, and that serfs are not just they own property, but even until the second half of the 18th century, without the knowledge of the landowner, they could engage in commerce, take contracts, trade, etc. We think this is explained simply - Catherine was German, she did not know the ancient Russian customs, and proceeded from the position of serfs in her native West, where they really were the property of feudal lords, deprived of their own property. So it is in vain that our Western liberals assure us that serfdom is a consequence of the lack of principles of Western civilization among the Russians. In fact, everything is the other way around, while the Russians had an original service state that had no analogues in the West, there was no serfdom, because the serfs were not slaves, but state taxpayers with their rights protected by law. But when the elite of the Russian state began to imitate the West, the serfs turned into slaves. Slavery in Russia was simply adopted from the West, especially since it was widespread there in the time of Catherine. Let us recall at least the well-known story about how British diplomats asked Catherine II to sell serfs, whom they wanted to use as soldiers in the fight against rebellious colonies. North America. The British were surprised by Catherine's answer - that according to the laws Russian Empire serf souls cannot be sold abroad. Let's pay attention: the British were surprised not by the fact that in the Russian Empire people can be bought and sold, on the contrary, in England at that time it was an ordinary and common thing, but by the fact that nothing could be done with them. The British were surprised not by the existence of slavery in Russia, but by its limitations...

4. Freedom of nobles and freedom of peasants

By the way, there was a certain regularity between the degree of Westernization of this or that Russian emperor and the position of the serfs. Under emperors and empresses who were reputed to be admirers of the West and its ways (like Catherine, who even corresponded with Diderot), the serfs became real slaves - disenfranchised and downtrodden. Under the emperors, who were focused on preserving Russian identity in state affairs, on the contrary, the fate of the serfs improved, but certain duties fell on the nobles. So, Nicholas the First, whom we never got tired of stigmatizing as a reactionary and a serf-owner, issued a number of decrees that significantly softened the position of serfs: in 1833 it was forbidden to sell people separately from their families, in 1841 - to buy serfs without land to all who do not have populated estates, in 1843 - it is forbidden to buy peasants by landless nobles. Nicholas I forbade the landlords to exile the peasants to hard labor, allowed the peasants to redeem themselves from the estates being sold. He stopped the practice of distributing serf souls to the nobles for their services to the sovereign; for the first time in the history of Russia, serf landowners began to form a minority. Nikolai Pavlovich implemented the reform developed by Count Kiselev regarding state serfs: all state peasants were allocated their own plots of land and forest plots, and auxiliary cash desks and bread shops were established everywhere, which provided assistance to the peasants with cash loans and grain in case of crop failure. On the contrary, the landowners under Nicholas I again began to be prosecuted if they mistreated the serfs: by the end of Nicholas's reign, about 200 estates were arrested and taken from the landlords on the complaints of the peasants. Klyuchevsky wrote that under Nicholas I the peasants ceased to be the property of the landowner and again became subjects of the state. In other words, Nicholas again enslaved the peasants, which means, to a certain extent, freed them from the willfulness of the nobles.

To put it metaphorically, the freedom of the nobles and the freedom of the peasants were like water levels in two arms of communicating vessels: an increase in the freedom of the nobles led to the enslavement of the peasants, the subordination of the nobles to the law softened the fate of the peasants. The complete freedom of both was simply a utopia. The liberation of the peasants in the period from 1861 to 1906 (and after all, under the reform of Alexander the Second, the peasants freed themselves only from dependence on the landowner, but not from dependence on the peasant community, only the Stolypin reform freed them from the latter) led to the marginalization of both the nobility and the peasantry. The nobles, going bankrupt, began to dissolve in the philistine class, the peasants, having received the opportunity to free themselves from the power of the landowner and the community, became proletarianized. How it all ended is not necessary to remind.

The modern historian Boris Mironov makes, in our opinion, a fair assessment of serfdom. He writes: “The ability of serfdom to provide for the minimum needs of the population was an important condition for its long existence. This is not an apology for serfdom, but only a confirmation of the fact that all social institutions are based not so much on arbitrariness and violence, but on functional expediency ... serfdom was a reaction to economic backwardness, Russia's response to the challenge of the environment and difficult circumstances in which the life of the people passed. All interested parties - the state, the peasantry and the nobility - received certain benefits from this institution. The state used it as a tool for solving pressing problems (meaning defense, finance, keeping the population in places of permanent residence, maintaining public order), thanks to it it received funds for the maintenance of the army, the bureaucracy, as well as several tens of thousands of free policemen represented by landlords . The peasants received a modest but stable means of subsistence, protection and the opportunity to arrange their lives on the basis of folk and communal traditions. For the nobles, both those who had serfs and those who did not possess them, but lived in public service, serfdom was a source of material benefits for living according to European standards. Here is a calm, balanced, objective view of a true scientist, so pleasantly different from the hysterical hysterics of liberals. Serfdom in Russia is associated with a number of historical, economic, geopolitical circumstances. It still arises as soon as the state tries to rise up, start the necessary large-scale transformations, and organize the mobilization of the population. During Stalin's modernization, a fortress was also imposed on peasant collective farmers and factory workers in the form of a registry to a certain settlement, a certain collective farm and factory, and a number of clearly defined duties, the fulfillment of which granted certain rights (for example, workers had the right to receive additional rations in special distributors by coupons, collective farmers - to own their own garden and livestock and to sell the surplus).

And even now, after the liberal chaos of the 1990s, there are trends towards a certain, albeit very moderate, enslavement and the imposition of taxes on the population. In 1861, it was not serfdom that was abolished - as we see, such a thing occurs with regularity in the history of Russia - the slavery of the peasants, established by the liberal and Westernizing rulers of Russia, was abolished.

______________________________________

[i] the word "covenant" means a contract

The position of a serf in Muscovite Russia differed significantly from the position of a slave in the same period in the West. Among the serfs were, for example, report serfs, who were in charge of the economy of a nobleman, stood not only above other serfs, but also above the peasants. Some serfs had property, money, and even their own serfs (although, of course, most serfs were laborers and servants and were engaged in hard work). The fact that serfs were exempted from state duties, primarily the payment of taxes, made their position even attractive, at least the law of the 17th century forbids peasants and nobles to become serfs in order to avoid state duties (which means that there were still those who wanted to! ). A significant part of the slaves were temporary, who became slaves voluntarily, on certain conditions (for example, they sold themselves for a loan with interest) and for a strictly specified period (before they worked off the debt or returned the money).

And this is despite the fact that even in the early works of V.I. Lenin, the system of the Moscow kingdom was defined as an Asian mode of production, which is much closer to the truth, this system was more reminiscent of the structure of ancient Egypt or medieval Turkey than Western feudalism

By the way, that is why, and not at all because of male chauvinism, only men were recorded in the “souls”, a woman - the wife and daughter of a serf peasant herself was not clothed with a tax, because she was not engaged in agricultural labor (the tax was paid by this work and its results)

http://culturolog.ru/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=865&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=8

On this day in 1861, Alexander II abolished serfdom in Russia by issuing the Manifesto on the Emancipation of the Peasants, recalls RIA Novosti.

Even during the reign of Nicholas I, a large amount of preparatory material for the peasant reform was collected. Serfdom during the reign of Nicholas I remained unshakable, but significant experience was accumulated in solving the peasant issue, on which his son Alexander II, who ascended the throne on March 4, 1855, could later rely on. Alexander Nikolaevich was animated by the most sincere intention to do everything to eliminate the shortcomings of Russian life. He considered serfdom to be the main disadvantage. By this time, the idea of ​​abolishing serfdom had become widespread among the "top": the government, among officials, the nobility, and the intelligentsia. Meanwhile, this was one of the most difficult problems.

Serfdom was formed in Russia for centuries and was closely connected with various aspects of the life of the Russian peasant. The peasant depended on the feudal lord in personal, land, property, and legal relations. Now the peasant had to be freed from the guardianship of the landowner, to give him personal freedom. At the beginning of 1857, a Secret Committee was established to prepare the peasant reform. The government then decided to make the public aware of its intentions, and the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee. The nobility of all regions was to create provincial committees to develop a peasant reform. In early 1859, Editorial Commissions were set up to process the reform projects of the committees of the nobility. In September 1860, the developed reform project was discussed by the deputies sent by the committees of the nobility, and then transferred to the highest state bodies.

In mid-February 1861, the Regulations on the Emancipation of the Peasants were considered and approved by the State Council. On March 3, 1861, Alexander II signed a manifesto "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants." The concluding words of the historical Manifesto were: “Sign of the Cross over yourself, Orthodox people, and call with us God’s blessing on your free work, a guarantee of your domestic well-being and the public good.” The manifesto was announced in both capitals on the great religious holiday - Forgiveness Sunday - March 5, 1861, in other cities - in the next week.

The manifesto provided the peasants with personal freedom and general civil rights. From now on, the peasant could own movable and immovable property, conclude transactions, and act as a legal entity. He was freed from the guardianship of the landowner, could marry without permission, enter the service and educational establishments, change their place of residence, move into the class of philistines and merchants. For this reform, Alexander II began to be called the Tsar the Liberator. The peasant reform of Alexander II had a huge historical meaning. It brought freedom to 25 million peasants and opened the way for the development of bourgeois relations. The abolition of serfdom marked the beginning of other important transformations. The moral significance of the reform was that it put an end to serf slavery.

Serfdom turned into a brake on technological progress, which in Europe, after the industrial revolution, was actively developing. Crimean War clearly demonstrated this. There was a danger of Russia turning into a third-rate power. It was by the second half of the 19th century that it became clear that the preservation of Russia's power and political influence is impossible without strengthening finances, developing industry and railway construction, and transforming the entire political system. Under the dominance of serfdom, which itself could still exist for an indefinite time, despite the fact that the landed nobility itself was unable and not ready to modernize their own estates, it turned out to be practically impossible to do this. That is why the reign of Alexander II became a period of radical transformations of Russian society. The emperor, distinguished by his common sense and a certain political flexibility, managed to surround himself with professionally literate people who understood the need for Russia's forward movement. Among them stood out the brother of the king, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, brothers N.A. and D.A. Milyutin, Ya.I. Rostovtsev, P.A. Valuev and others.

By the second quarter of the 19th century, it had already become obvious that the economic possibilities of the landlord economy in meeting the increased demand for grain exports had been completely exhausted. It was increasingly drawn into commodity-money relations, gradually losing its natural character. Closely connected with this was a change in the forms of rent. If in the central provinces, where industrial production was developed, more than half of the peasants had already been transferred to quitrent, then in the agricultural central black earth and lower Volga provinces, where marketable bread was produced, corvée continued to expand. This was due to the natural growth in the production of bread for sale in the landowners' economy.

On the other hand, the productivity of corvée labor has fallen noticeably. The peasant sabotaged the corvee with all his might, was weary of it, which is explained by the growth of the peasant economy, its transformation into a small-scale producer. Corvee slowed down this process, and the peasant fought with all his might for favorable conditions for his management.

The landowners sought ways to increase the profitability of their estates within the framework of serfdom, for example, transferring peasants for a month: landless peasants, who were obliged to spend all their working time on corvée, were paid in kind in the form of a monthly food ration, as well as clothes, shoes, necessary household utensils , while the landowner's field was processed by the master's inventory. However, all these measures could not compensate for the ever-increasing losses from inefficient corvée labor.

Quit farms also experienced a serious crisis. Previously, peasant crafts, from which the dues were mainly paid, were profitable, giving the landowner a stable income. However, the development of crafts gave rise to competition, which led to a drop in peasant earnings. Since the 20s of the 19th century, arrears in the payment of dues began to grow rapidly. An indicator of the crisis of the landowners' economy was the growth of the debts of the estates. By 1861, about 65% of the landowners' estates were pledged in various credit institutions.

In an effort to increase the profitability of their estates, some landowners began to apply new farming methods: they ordered expensive equipment from abroad, invited foreign specialists, introduced multi-field crop rotation, and so on. But such expenses were only on the shoulders of wealthy landlords, and under serfdom, these innovations did not pay off, often ruining such landowners.

It should be especially emphasized that we are talking specifically about the crisis of the landlord economy, based on serf labor, and not the economy in general, which continued to develop on a completely different, capitalist basis. It is clear that serfdom held back its development, hindered the formation of a wage labor market, without which the capitalist development of the country is impossible.

Preparations for the abolition of serfdom began in January 1857 with the creation of the next Secret Committee. In November 1857, Alexander II sent a rescript throughout the country addressed to the Vilna governor-general Nazimov, which spoke of the beginning of the gradual emancipation of the peasants and ordered the creation of noble committees in three Lithuanian provinces (Vilna, Kovno and Grodno) to make proposals for the reform project. On February 21, 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. A broad discussion of the forthcoming reform began. The provincial noble committees drew up their drafts for the liberation of the peasants and sent them to the main committee, which, on their basis, began to develop a general reform project.

In order to process the submitted projects, editorial commissions were established in 1859, the work of which was led by Deputy Minister of the Interior Ya.I. Rostovtsev.

During the preparation of the reform among the landowners there were lively disputes about the mechanism of release. The landowners of the non-chernozem provinces, where the peasants were mainly on dues, offered to give the peasants land with complete exemption from the landowner's power, but with the payment of a large ransom for the land. Their opinion was most fully expressed in his project by the leader of the Tver nobility A.M. Unkovsky.

The landlords of the black earth regions, whose opinion was expressed in the project of the Poltava landowner M.P. Posen, offered to give the peasants only small plots for ransom, aiming to make the peasants economically dependent on the landowner - to force them to rent land on unfavorable terms or work as farm laborers.

By the beginning of October 1860, the editorial commissions completed their activities and the project was submitted for discussion to the Main Committee on Peasant Affairs, where it underwent additions and changes. On January 28, 1861, a meeting of the Council of State opened, ending on February 16, 1861. The signing of the manifesto on the liberation of the peasants was scheduled for February 19, 1861 - the 6th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Alexander II, when the emperor signed the manifesto "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants and on the organization of their life", as well as the "Regulations on peasants who emerged from serfdom”, which included 17 legislative acts. On the same day, the Main Committee "on the arrangement of the rural state" was established, chaired by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, replacing the Main Committee "on peasant affairs" and called upon to exercise supreme supervision over the implementation of the "Regulations" on February 19.

According to the manifesto, the peasants received personal freedom. From now on, the former serf was given the opportunity to freely dispose of his personality, he was granted some civil rights: the ability to transfer to other classes, conclude property and civil transactions on his own behalf, open trade and industrial enterprises.

If serfdom was abolished immediately, then the settlement of economic relations between the peasant and the landowner dragged on for several decades. The specific economic conditions for the liberation of the peasants were fixed in the Charters, which were concluded between the landowner and the peasant with the participation of world mediators. However, according to the law, the peasants were obliged to serve practically the same duties for another two years as under serfdom. This state of the peasant was called temporarily liable. In fact, this situation dragged on for twenty years, and only by the law of 1881 were the last temporarily liable peasants transferred to ransom.

An important place was given to the allocation of land to the peasant. The law proceeded from the recognition of the right of the landowner of all the land in his estate, including peasant allotments. The peasants received the allotment not as property, but only for use. To become the owner of the land, the peasant had to buy it from the landowner. This task was undertaken by the state. The ransom was based not on the market value of the land, but on the amount of duties. The treasury immediately paid the landowners 80% of the redemption amount, and the remaining 20% ​​were to be paid to the landowner by the peasants by mutual agreement (immediately or in installments, in cash or by working off). The redemption amount paid by the state was regarded as a loan granted to the peasants, which was then collected from them annually, for 49 years, in the form of "redemption payments" in the amount of 6% of this loan. It is easy to determine that in this way the peasant had to pay for the land several times more than not only its real market value, but also the amount of duties that he bore in favor of the landowner. That is why the "temporarily liable state" lasted more than 20 years.

When determining the norms of peasant allotments, the peculiarities of local natural and economic conditions were taken into account. The entire territory of the Russian Empire was divided into three parts: non-chernozem, black earth and steppe. In the chernozem and non-chernozem parts, two norms of allotments were established: the highest and the lowest, and in the steppe one - the “decree” norm. The law provided for the reduction of the peasant allotment in favor of the landowner if its pre-reform size exceeded the “higher” or “indicative” norm, and the cutting if the allotment did not reach the “higher” norm. In practice, this led to the fact that cutting off the land became the rule, and cutting the exception. The severity of the "cuts" for the peasants consisted not only in their size. The best lands often fell into this category, without which normal farming became impossible. Thus, the "cuts" turned into an effective means of economic enslavement of the peasants by the landowner.

The land was provided not to a separate peasant household, but to the community. This form of land tenure ruled out the possibility of the peasant selling his allotment, and leasing it out was limited to the boundaries of the community. But, despite all its shortcomings, the abolition of serfdom was an important historical event. She not only created the conditions for further economic development Russia, but also led to a change social structure Russian society, caused the need for further reform of the political system of the state, forced to adapt to new economic conditions. After 1861, a number of important political reforms were carried out: zemstvo, judicial, city, military reforms, which radically changed Russian reality. It is no coincidence that Russian historians consider this event a turning point, a line between feudal Russia and modern Russia.

ACCORDING TO THE "SHOWER REVISION" OF 1858

Landlord serfs - 20,173,000

Specific peasants - 2,019,000

State peasants -18,308,000

Workers of factories and mines equated to state peasants - 616,000

State peasants assigned to private factories - 518,000

Peasants released after military service - 1,093,000

HISTORIAN S.M. SOLOVIEV

“Liberal speeches have begun; but it would be strange if the first, main content of these speeches did not become the emancipation of the peasants. What other liberation could one think of without remembering that in Russia a huge number of people are the property of other people, and slaves of the same origin as the masters, and sometimes of a higher origin: peasants Slavic origin, and gentlemen of the Tatar, Cheremis, Mordovian, not to mention the Germans? What kind of liberal speech could be made without remembering this stain, the shame that lay on Russia, excluding it from the society of European civilized peoples.

A.I. HERZEN

“Many more years will pass before Europe understands the course of development of Russian serfdom. Its origin and development is a phenomenon so exceptional and unlike anything else that it is difficult to believe in it. How, indeed, is it to be believed that half of the population of one and the same nationality, endowed with rare physical and mental abilities, is enslaved not by war, not by conquest, not by a coup, but only by a series of decrees, immoral concessions, vile pretensions?

K.S. AKSAKOV

“The yoke of the state was formed over the earth, and the Russian land became, as it were, conquered ... The Russian monarch received the value of a despot, and the people - the value of a slave-slave in their land” ...

"MUCH BETTER THAT HAPPENED FROM ABOVE"

When Emperor Alexander II arrived in Moscow for the coronation, the Moscow Governor-General Count Zakrevsky asked him to calm the local nobility, agitated by rumors about the upcoming liberation of the peasants. The tsar, receiving the Moscow provincial leader of the nobility, Prince Shcherbatov, with district representatives, told them: “Rumors are circulating that I want to announce the liberation of serfdom. This is unfair, and from this there were several cases of disobedience of the peasants to the landowners. I won't tell you that I'm totally against it; we live in such an age that in time this must happen. I think that you, too, are of the same opinion as me: therefore, it is much better for this to happen from above than from below.”

The case of the liberation of the peasants, which was submitted for consideration by the State Council, due to its importance, I consider it a vital issue for Russia, on which the development of its strength and power will depend. I am sure that all of you, gentlemen, are just as convinced as I am of the usefulness and necessity of this measure. I also have another conviction, namely, that this matter cannot be postponed, why I demand from the Council of State that it be completed by it in the first half of February and that it could be announced by the beginning of field work; I place this on the direct duty of the chairman of the Council of State. I repeat, and it is my indispensable will that this matter be ended immediately. (…)

You know the origin of serfdom. It did not exist with us before: this right was established by the autocratic power, and only the autocratic power can destroy it, and this is my direct will.

My predecessors felt all the evil of serfdom and constantly strove, if not for its direct abolition, then for the gradual limitation of the arbitrariness of the landowners' power. (…)

Following the rescript given to the Governor-General Nazimov, requests began to arrive from the nobility of other provinces, which were answered by rescripts addressed to the governors-general and governors of a similar content with the first. These rescripts contained the same main principles and foundations, and it was allowed to proceed to business on the same principles I have indicated. As a result, provincial committees were established, which were given a special program to facilitate their work. When, after the period given for that time, the work of the committees began to arrive here, I allowed the formation of special Editorial Commissions, which were to consider the drafts of the provincial committees and do the general work in a systematic manner. The chairman of these commissions was at first Adjutant General Rostovtsev, and after his death, Count Panin. The editorial commissions worked for a year and seven months, and despite the criticisms, perhaps partly just, to which the commissions were subjected, they completed their work in good faith and submitted it to the Main Committee. The main committee, under the chairmanship of my brother, labored with tireless activity and diligence. I consider it my duty to thank all the members of the committee, and my brother in particular, for their conscientious labors in this matter.

Views on the presented work may be different. Therefore, I listen to all different opinions willingly; but I have the right to demand from you one thing, that you, putting aside all personal interests, act as state dignitaries, invested with my confidence. Coming to it important business, I did not hide from myself all the difficulties that awaited us, and I do not hide them now, but, firmly trusting in the mercy of God, I hope that God will not leave us and bless us to finish it for the future prosperity of our dear Fatherland. Now with God's help let's get down to business.

MANIFESTO FEBRUARY 19, 1861

GOD'S MERCY

WE, ALEXANDER II,

EMPEROR AND AUTOGRAPHER

ALL-RUSSIAN

Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland

and other, and other, and other

We announce to all our loyal subjects.

By God's providence and the sacred law of succession to the throne, having been called to the ancestral All-Russian throne, in accordance with this calling, we have made a vow in our hearts to embrace with our royal love and care all our loyal subjects of every rank and status, from those who nobly wield a sword to defend the Fatherland to modestly work as an artisan tool, from passing the highest state service to making a furrow in the field with a plow or a plow.

Delving into the position of ranks and states in the composition of the state, we saw that state legislation, actively improving the upper and middle classes, defining their duties, rights and advantages, did not achieve uniform activity in relation to serfs, so named because they are partly old. laws, partly custom, hereditarily strengthened under the rule of the landowners, who at the same time have the duty to arrange their well-being. The rights of the landowners were until now extensive and not precisely defined by law, the place of which was replaced by tradition, custom and the goodwill of the landowner. In the best cases, this resulted in good patriarchal relations of sincere, truthful guardianship and charity of the landowner and good-natured obedience of the peasants. But with a decrease in the simplicity of morals, with an increase in the diversity of relations, with a decrease in the direct paternal relations of landowners to peasants, with landlord rights sometimes falling into the hands of people seeking only their own benefit, good relations weakened and the path opened up to arbitrariness, burdensome for the peasants and unfavorable for them. well-being, which in the peasants was answered by immobility for improvements in their own way of life.

Our ever-memorable predecessors also saw this and took measures to change to best position peasants; but these were measures, partly indecisive, proposed to the voluntary, freedom-loving action of the landlords, partly decisive only for certain localities, at the request of special circumstances or in the form of experience. So, Emperor Alexander I issued a decree on free cultivators, and in Bose, our deceased father Nicholas I - a decree on obligated peasants. In the western provinces, inventory rules define the allocation of land to peasants and their obligations. But the decrees on free cultivators and obligated peasants have been put into effect on a very small scale.

Thus, we were convinced that the matter of changing the position of serfs for the better is for us the testament of our predecessors and the lot, through the course of events, given to us by the hand of providence.

We began this work by an act of our trust in the Russian nobility, in the great experience of devotion to its throne and its readiness to donate for the benefit of the Fatherland. We left it to the nobility itself, at their own call, to make assumptions about a new arrangement for the life of the peasants, and the nobles were supposed to limit their rights to the peasants and raise the difficulties of transformation, not without reducing their benefits. And our trust was justified. In the provincial committees, in the person of their members, endowed with the confidence of the entire noble society of each province, the nobility voluntarily renounced the right to the identity of serfs. In these committees, after collecting the necessary information, assumptions were made about a new arrangement for the life of people in a serf state and about their relationship to the landowners.

These assumptions, which, as one might expect from the nature of the case, turned out to be diverse, were compared, agreed, brought together in the correct composition, corrected and supplemented in the Main Committee on this case; and the new provisions drawn up in this way on the landlord peasants and courtyard people were considered in the State Council.

Calling on God for help, we decided to give this matter an executive movement.

By virtue of the aforementioned new provisions, serfs will in due course receive the full rights of free rural inhabitants.

The landowners, while retaining the right of ownership to all the lands belonging to them, provide the peasants, for the established duties, with permanent use of their estate settlement and, moreover, to ensure their life and fulfill their duties to the government, the amount of field land and other lands determined in the regulations.

Using this land allotment, the peasants are obliged to perform in favor of the landowners the duties specified in the regulations. In this state, which is a transitional state, the peasants are called temporarily liable.

At the same time, they are given the right to redeem their estate settlement, and with the consent of the landowners, they can acquire ownership of field lands and other lands allocated to them for permanent use. With such an acquisition of ownership of a certain amount of land, the peasants will be freed from obligations to the landowners for the purchased land and will enter into a decisive state of free peasant owners.

A special provision on householders defines a transitional state for them, adapted to their occupations and needs; after the expiration of a period of two years from the date of issuance of this regulation, they will receive full exemption and urgent benefits.

On these main principles, the drafted provisions determine the future structure of the peasants and householders, establish the order of social peasant administration and indicate in detail the rights granted to peasants and householders and the duties assigned to them in relation to the government and landowners.

Although these provisions, general, local and special additional rules for certain special localities, for the estates of small landowners and for peasants working in landowner factories and factories, are adapted as far as possible to local economic needs and customs, however, in order to preserve the usual order there, where it represents mutual benefits, we leave the landowners to make voluntary agreements with the peasants and to conclude conditions on the size of the land allotment of the peasants and on the duties following it, in compliance with the rules established to protect the inviolability of such contracts.

As a new device, due to the inevitable complexity of the changes required by it, cannot be made suddenly, but it will take time for this, approximately at least two years, then during this time, in disgust of confusion and for the observance of public and private benefit, existing to this day in the landowners on the estates, order must be maintained until then, when, after proper preparations have been made, a new order will be opened.

In order to achieve this correctly, we recognized it as good to command:

1. To open in each province a provincial office for peasant affairs, which is entrusted with the highest management of the affairs of peasant societies established on landowners' lands.

2. In order to resolve local misunderstandings and disputes that may arise in the implementation of the new provisions, appoint conciliators in the counties and form them into county conciliation congresses.

3. Then to form secular administrations on landowner estates, for which, leaving rural communities in their current composition, open volost administrations in large villages, and unite small rural societies under one volost administration.

4. Draw up, verify and approve for each rural society or estate a charter charter, which will calculate, on the basis of the local situation, the amount of land provided to the peasants for permanent use, and the amount of duties due from them in favor of the landowner both for land and and for other benefits.

5. These statutory letters to be enforced as they are approved for each estate, and finally for all estates to be put into effect within two years from the date of publication of this manifesto.

6. Until the expiration of this period, the peasants and yard people remain in their former obedience to the landlords and unquestioningly fulfill their former duties.

Paying attention to the inevitable difficulties of an acceptable transformation, we first of all place our hope in the all-good providence of God, patronizing Russia.

Therefore, we rely on the valiant zeal of the noble nobility for the common good, to which we cannot but express deserved gratitude from us and from the entire Fatherland for their disinterested action towards the implementation of our plans. Russia will not forget that it voluntarily, motivated only by respect for human dignity and Christian love for neighbors, renounced serfdom, which is now abolished, and laid the foundation for a new economic future for the peasants. We undoubtedly expect that it will also nobly use further diligence to enforce the new provisions in good order, in the spirit of peace and goodwill, and that each owner will complete within the limits of his estate a great civil feat of the entire estate, arranging the life of the peasants settled on his land and his yards. people on favorable terms for both sides, and thus give the rural population a good example and encouragement to the exact and conscientious performance of state duties.

The examples we have in mind of the generous care of the owners for the welfare of the peasants and the gratitude of the peasants for the beneficent care of the owners confirm our hope that most of the difficulties that are inevitable in some cases of application will be resolved by mutual voluntary agreements. general rules to the various circumstances of individual estates, and that in this way the transition from the old order to the new will be facilitated and mutual trust, good agreement and unanimous striving for the common good will be strengthened in the future.

For the most convenient activation of those agreements between owners and peasants, according to which these will acquire ownership of farmlands and field lands, the government will provide benefits, on the basis of special rules, by issuing loans and transferring debts lying on the estates.

We rely on common sense our people. When the government's idea of ​​abolishing serfdom spread among the peasants who were not prepared for it, there were private misunderstandings. Some thought about freedom and forgot about duties. But the general common sense did not waver in the conviction that, according to natural reasoning, freely enjoying the benefits of society should mutually serve the good of society by fulfilling certain duties, and according to Christian law, every soul should obey the powers that be (Rom. XIII, 1), do justice to everyone, and especially to whom it is due, a lesson, a tribute, fear, honor; that the rights legally acquired by the landowners cannot be taken from them without a decent reward or a voluntary concession; that it would be contrary to any justice to use the land from the landlords and not bear the corresponding duty for this.

And now we expect with hope that the serfs, in the new future that opens up for them, will understand and gratefully accept the important donation made by the noble nobility to improve their life.

They will understand that, having received for themselves a firmer foundation of property and greater freedom to dispose of their economy, they become obliged to society and to themselves to supplement the beneficence of the new law by faithful, well-intentioned and diligent use of the rights granted to them. The most beneficent law cannot make people prosperous unless they take the trouble to arrange their own well-being under the protection of the law. Contentment is acquired and increased only by unremitting labor, prudent use of forces and means, strict frugality and, in general, an honest life in the fear of God.

The performers of the preparations for the new organization of peasant life and the very introduction to this organization will use vigilant care so that this is done with a correct, calm movement, observing the convenience of the time, so that the attention of the farmers is not diverted from their necessary agricultural activities. Let them carefully cultivate the land and gather its fruits, so that from a well-filled granary they will take seeds for sowing on the land of constant use or on land acquired in property.

Fall on yourself with the sign of the cross, Orthodox people, and call with us God's blessing on your free work, the guarantee of your domestic well-being and the public good. Given in St. Petersburg, on the nineteenth day of February, in the summer of the birth of Christ, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, our reign in the seventh.

Serfdom in Russia was formed gradually and there are many reasons for this, according to historians. Back in the 15th century, peasants could freely move to another landowner. The legal enslavement of the peasants took place in stages.

Sudebnik of 1497

Sudebnik of 1497 - the beginning of the legal registration of serfdom.

Ivan III adopted a code of laws of the unified Russian state - Sudebnik. Article 57 "On Christian refusal" stated that the transition from one landowner to another was limited to a single period for the whole country: a week before and a week after St. George's Day - November 26. The peasants could go to another landowner, but they had to pay elderly for the use of land and yard. Moreover, the more time the peasant lived with the landowner, the more he had to pay him: for example, for a stay of 4 years - 15 pounds of honey, a herd of domestic animals or 200 pounds of rye.

Land reform of 1550

Under Ivan IV, the Sudebnik of 1550 was adopted, he retained the right to transfer peasants on St. elderly and established an additional fee, in addition, the Sudebnik obliged the owner to answer for the crimes of his peasants, which increased their dependence. Since 1581, the so-called reserved years, in which the transition was prohibited even on St. George's Day. This was connected with the census: in which region the census took place - in that reserved year. In 1592 the census was completed, and with it the possibility of the transition of the peasants was completed. This provision was enshrined in a special Decree. Since then, there has been a saying: “Here you are, grandmother, and St. George's day ...

The peasants, having lost the opportunity to move to another owner, began to run away, settling for life in other regions or on "free" lands. The owners of runaway peasants had the right to detect and return fugitives: in 1597, Tsar Fedor issued a Decree, according to which the term for detecting runaway peasants was five years.

"Here comes the master, the master will judge us ..."

Serfdomin the 17th century

In the 17th century in Russia, on the one hand, commodity production and the market appeared, and on the other hand, feudal relations were consolidated, adapting to market ones. It was a time of strengthening autocracy, the appearance of prerequisites for the transition to absolute monarchy. The 17th century is the era of mass popular movements in Russia.

In the second half of the XVII century. peasants in Russia were united in two groups − serfs and chernososhnye.Serfs ran their households on patrimonial, local and church lands, carried various feudal duties in favor of landowners. Black-eared peasants were included in the category of "hard people" who paid taxes and were under the control of the authorities. Therefore, there was a mass exodus of black-eared peasants.

Government Vasily Shuisky tried to resolve the situation, to increase the period of investigation of fugitive peasants up to 15 years, but neither the peasants themselves nor the nobles supported Shuisky's unpopular peasant policy.

Into the reign Mikhail Romanov there was further enslavement of the peasants. Increasing cases of cession or sale of peasants without land.

Into the reign Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov a number of reforms were carried out: the procedure for collecting payments and incurring duties was changed. In 1646 - 1648. a household inventory of peasants and beans was carried out. And in 1648, an uprising called the “Salt Riot” took place in Moscow, the cause of which was an excessively high tax on salt. Following Moscow, other cities also rose. As a result of the current situation, it became clear that a revision of the laws was necessary. In 1649, the Zemsky Sobor was convened, at which the Council Code was adopted, according to which the peasants were finally attached to the land.

Its special chapter “The Court of the Peasants” canceled the “lesson years” for the search and return of fugitive peasants, the indefinite search and return of fugitives, established the heredity of serfdom and the right of the landowner to dispose of the property of a serf. If the owner of the peasants turned out to be insolvent, the property of peasants and serfs dependent on him was collected to compensate for his debt. Landowners received the right to a patrimonial court and police supervision over the peasants. Peasants did not have the right to speak independently in courts. Marriages, family divisions of peasants, inheritance of peasant property could only take place with the consent of the landowner. Peasants were forbidden to keep trading shops, they could trade only from wagons.

Harboring runaway peasants was punishable by a fine, whipping and imprisonment. For the murder of a foreign peasant, the landowner had to give his best peasant with his family. The owner had to pay for the runaway peasants. At the same time, serfs were also considered "state taxpayers", i.e. were in charge of the state. The owners of the peasants were obliged to provide them with land and equipment. It was forbidden to deprive the peasants of land by turning them into slaves or letting them go free, it was impossible to forcibly take away property from the peasants. The right of the peasants to complain about the masters was also preserved.

At the same time, serfdom extended to black-haired, palace peasants who served the needs of the royal court, who were forbidden to leave their communities.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 showed the way to strengthening Russian statehood. It legally formalized serfdom.

Serfdom inXVIII century

Peter I

In 1718 - 1724, under Peter I, a census of the peasantry was carried out, after which the household taxation was replaced by a poll tax in the country. In fact, the peasants supported the army, and the townspeople - the fleet. The amount of the tax was determined arithmetically. The amount of military expenses was divided by the number of souls and the amount of 74 kopecks was obtained. from the peasants and 1 rub. 20 kop. - from townspeople. Poll tax brought the treasury more income. In the reign of Peter I, a new category of peasants was formed, called state, they paid to the state treasury in addition to the poll tax, they also paid a quitrent of 40 kopecks. Under Peter I, the passport system was also introduced: now, if a peasant went to work more than thirty miles from home, he had to receive a note in his passport about the date of return.

Elizaveta Petrovna

Elizaveta Petrovna at the same time increased the dependence of the peasants and changed their situation: she eased the position of the peasants by forgiving them arrears for 17 years, reduced the size of the poll tax, changed recruitment (divided the country into 5 districts, which alternately supplied soldiers). But she also signed a decree according to which the serfs could not voluntarily enlist in the soldiers, allowed them to engage in crafts and trade. It put beginning of stratification peasants.

Ekaterina II

Catherine II set the course for further strengthening of absolutism and centralization: the nobles began to receive land and serfs as a reward.

Serfdom in19th century

Alexander I

Of course, serf relations hindered the development of industry and, in general, the development of the state, but, despite this, Agriculture adapted to new conditions and developed according to its capabilities: new agricultural machines were introduced, new crops began to be grown (sugar beet, potatoes, etc.), new lands were developed in Ukraine, the Don, in the Trans-Volga region. But at the same time, the contradictions between the landowners and the peasants are intensifying - corvée and dues are being brought to the limit by the landowners. Corvee, in addition to work on the master's arable land, included work in the serf factory, and the performance of various chores for the landowner throughout the year. Sometimes the corvee was 5-6 days a week, which did not allow the peasant to conduct an independent economy at all. The process of stratification within the peasantry began to intensify. The rural bourgeoisie, represented by peasant proprietors (more often state peasants), was able to acquire ownership of uninhabited land and lease land from the landowners.

The unspoken committee under Alexander I recognized the need for changes in peasant policy, but considered the foundations of absolutism and serfdom to be unshakable, although in the future it assumed the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of a constitution. In 1801, a decree was issued on the right to purchase land by merchants, philistines and peasants (state and appanage).

In 1803, a decree “On Free Plowmen” was issued, which provided for the release of serfs to freedom for redemption with land by whole villages or individual families by mutual consent of peasants and landowners. However, the practical results of this decree were negligible. The provision did not apply to landless peasant laborers.

Alexander I tries to solve the peasant question again in 1818. He even approved the project of A. Arakcheev and the Minister of Finance D. Guryev on the gradual elimination of serfdom by redeeming landlord peasants from their allotments with the treasury. But this project was not practically implemented (with the exception of granting personal freedom to the peasants of the Baltic states in 1816-1819, but without land).

By 1825, 375 thousand state peasants were in military settlements (1/3 of the Russian army), of which a Separate Corps was formed under the command of Arakcheev - the peasants served and worked at the same time, discipline was tough, punishments were numerous.

AlexanderII - the king-liberator

Alexander II, who ascended the throne on February 19, 1855, set the following goals as the basis for the peasant reform:

• liberation of peasants from personal dependence;
• turning them into petty proprietors while retaining a significant part of the landed estates.

On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, he changed the fate of 23 million serfs: they received personal freedom and civil rights.

Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom

But for the land allotments allotted to them (until they redeem them), they had to serve a labor service or pay money, i.e. became known as "temporarily liable". The sizes of peasant allotments were different: from 1 to 12 acres per male (an average of 3.3 acres). For allotments, the peasants had to pay the landowner an amount of money that, being deposited in a bank at 6%, would bring him an annual income equal to the pre-reform dues. According to the law, the peasants had to pay the landowner a lump sum for their allotment about a fifth of the stipulated amount (they could pay it not in money, but by working for the landowner). The rest was paid by the state. But the peasants had to return this amount (with interest) to him in annual payments for 49 years.

A. Mucha "Abolition of serfdom in Russia"

The peasant reform was a compromise solution in the abolition of serfdom (this path is called reformist), it proceeded from the real circumstances of life in Russia in the middle of the 19th century, the interests of both peasants and landowners. The disadvantage of this program was that, having received will and land, the peasant did not become the owner of his allotment and a full member of society: the peasants continued to be subjected to corporal punishment (until 1903), they actually could not participate in agrarian reforms.

Let's summarize

Like any historical event, the abolition of serfdom is not assessed unambiguously.

It is hardly worth considering serfdom as a terrible evil and only as a feature of Russia. It was in many countries of the world. And it wasn't canceled right away. Until now, there are countries in the world where slavery has not been legally abolished. For example, slavery was abolished in Mauritania only in 2009. The abolition of serfdom also did not automatically mean an improvement in the living conditions of the peasants. Historians, for example, note the deterioration of the living conditions of peasants in the Baltic states, where serfdom was abolished under Alexander I. Napoleon, having captured Poland, abolished serfdom there, but it was reintroduced in this country and was abolished only in 1863. In Denmark, serfdom was officially abolished in 1788, but the peasants had to work out the corvée on the landlords' lands, which was finally abolished only in 1880.

Some historians even believe that serfdom in Russia was a necessary form of society's existence in conditions of constant political tension. It is possible that if Russia did not have to constantly repel the onslaught from the southeast and west, it would not have arisen at all; serfdom is a system that ensured the national security and independence of the country.

Monument to Emperor Alexander II, Moscow