The decree abolished serfdom. Opinions on serfdom

The era of Alexander II's reign is called the era of Great Reforms or the era of Liberation. The abolition of serfdom in Russia is closely associated with the name of Alexander.

Society before the reform of 1861

Defeat in Crimean War showed backwardness Russian Empire from Western countries in almost all aspects of the economy and socio-political structure of the state. Progressive people of that time could not help but notice the shortcomings in the thoroughly rotten system of autocratic rule. Russian society by the middle of the 19th century was heterogeneous.

• The nobility was divided into rich, middle and poor. Their attitude to the reform could not be unambiguous. About 93% of nobles did not have serfs. As a rule, these nobles held government positions and were dependent on the state. The nobles who had large plots of land and many serfs were opposed to the Peasant Reform of 1861.
• The life of serfs was the life of slaves, because civil rights this social class did not have. Serfs were also not a homogeneous mass. In central Russia there were mainly quitrent peasants. They did not lose touch with the rural community and continued to pay taxes to the landowner, hiring in factories in the city. The second group of peasants was corvée and was in the southern part of the Russian Empire. They worked on the landowner's land and paid corvee.

The peasants continued to believe in the “good father of the king,” who wants to free them from the yoke of slavery and allocate a plot of land. After the reform of 1861, this belief only intensified. Despite the deception of the landowners during the reform of 1861, the peasants sincerely believed that the tsar did not know about their troubles. The influence of the Narodnaya Volya on the consciousness of the peasants was minimal.

Rice. 1. Alexander II speaks before the Assembly of Nobility.

Prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom

By the middle of the 19th century, two processes were taking place in the Russian Empire: the prosperity of serfdom and the emergence of a capitalist system. There was constant conflict between these incompatible processes.

All the prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom arose:

• As industry grew, production became more complex. The use of serf labor in this case became completely impossible, since the serfs deliberately broke the machines.
• The factories needed permanent workers with highly qualified. Under the serf system this was impossible.
• The Crimean War revealed acute contradictions in the Russian autocracy. It showed the medieval backwardness of the state from the countries of Western Europe.

Under these circumstances, Alexander II did not want to take the decision to carry out the Peasant Reform only upon himself, because in the largest Western countries reforms were always developed in committees specially created by parliament. The Russian emperor decided to follow the same path.

TOP 5 articleswho are reading along with this

Preparation and beginning of the reform of 1861

First preparation peasant reform was carried out secretly from the Russian population. All leadership for designing the reform was concentrated in the Secret or Secret Committee, formed in 1857. However, things in this organization did not go beyond the discussion of the reform program, and the summoned nobles ignored the tsar’s call.

• On November 20, 1857, a republic was drawn up and approved by the tsar. In it, elected committees of nobles were elected from each province, who were obliged to appear at court for meetings and agreement on the reform project. The reform project began to be prepared openly, and Secret committee became the Main Committee.
• The main issue of the Peasant Reform was the discussion of how to free the peasant from serfdom - with land or not. The liberals, who consisted of industrialists and landless nobles, wanted to free the peasants and allocate them plots of land. A group of serf owners, consisting of wealthy landowners, was against the allocation of land plots to the peasants. In the end, a compromise was found. Liberals and serf owners found a compromise between themselves and decided to free the peasants with minimal plots of land for a large ransom. This “liberation” suited the industrialists, since it provided them with permanent labor. The Peasant Reform supplied the serf owners with both capital and labor.

Speaking briefly about the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861, it should be noted three basic conditions which Alexander II planned to carry out:

• the complete abolition of serfdom and the liberation of the peasants;
• each peasant was allocated a plot of land, and the amount of the ransom was determined for him;
• the peasant could leave his place of residence only with the permission of the newly formed rural society instead of the rural community;

To resolve pressing issues and fulfill obligations to fulfill duties and pay ransom, peasants on landowners' estates united into rural societies. To control the relationship between the landowner and rural communities, the Senate appointed peace mediators. The nuance was that peace mediators were appointed from local nobles, who naturally sided with the landowner when resolving controversial issues.

The result of the reform of 1861

The reform of 1861 revealed a whole a number of disadvantages :

• the landowner could move the site of his estate wherever he pleased;
• the landowner could exchange the peasants' plots for his own lands until they were fully redeemed;
• Before the redemption of his allotment, the peasant was not its sovereign owner;

The emergence of rural societies in the year of the abolition of serfdom gave rise to mutual responsibility. Rural communities held meetings or gatherings at which all peasants were assigned to fulfill duties to the landowner equally, each peasant being responsible for the other. At rural gatherings, issues about the misdeeds of peasants, problems of paying ransom, etc. were also resolved. The decisions of the meeting were valid if they were adopted by a majority of votes.

• The main part of the ransom was borne by the state. In 1861, the Main Redemption Institution was created.

The main part of the ransom was borne by the state. For the ransom of each peasant, 80% of the total amount, the remaining 20% ​​was paid by the peasant. This amount could be paid in a lump sum or in installments, but most often the peasant worked it off through labor service. On average, a peasant paid the state for about 50 years, paying 6% per annum. At the same time, the peasant paid a ransom for the land, the remaining 20%. On average, a peasant paid off the landowner within 20 years.

The main provisions of the reform of 1861 were not implemented immediately. This process lasted almost three decades.

Liberal reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century.

TO liberal reforms The Russian Empire approached with an unusually neglected local economy: roads between villages were washed away in spring and autumn, there was no basic hygiene in the villages, not to mention medical care, epidemics mowed down the peasants. Education was in its infancy. The government did not have money to revive villages, so a decision was made to reform local governments.

Rice. 2. First pancake. V. Pchelin.

• On January 1, 1864, it was held zemstvo reform. Zemstvo represented local authority authorities, who took charge of the construction of roads, the organization of schools, the construction of hospitals, churches, etc. An important point was the organization of assistance to the population that suffered from crop failure. To solve especially important tasks The zemstvo could impose a special tax on the population. The administrative bodies of the zemstvos were provincial and district assemblies, and the executive bodies were provincial and district councils. Elections to the zemstvos were held once every three years. Three congresses met for elections. The first congress consisted of landowners, the second congress was recruited from city property owners, the third congress included elected peasants from volost rural assemblies.

Rice. 3. The zemstvo is having lunch.

• The next date for the judicial reforms of Alexander II was the reform of 1864. The court in Russia became public, open and public. The main prosecutor was the prosecutor, the defendant had his own defense lawyer. However, the main innovation was the introduction of a jury of 12 people at the trial. After the judicial debate, they rendered their verdict - “guilty” or “not guilty.” The jurors were recruited from men of all classes. The justice of the peace dealt with minor cases.
• In 1874, a reform was carried out in the army. By decree of D. A. Milyutin, recruitment was abolished. Russian citizens who reached the age of 20 lei were subject to compulsory military service. The period of service in the infantry was 6 years, the period of service in the navy was 7 years.

The abolition of conscription contributed to the great popularity of Alexander II among the peasantry.

The significance of the reforms of Alexander II

Noting all the pros and cons of the reforms of Alexander II, it should be noted that they contributed to the growth of the country's productive forces, the development of moral consciousness among the population, improving the quality of life of peasants in villages and the spread of primary education among peasants. It is worth noting the growth of industrial growth and positive development Agriculture.

At the same time, the reforms did not affect the upper echelons of power at all; remnants of serfdom remained in local government; landowners enjoyed the support of noble intermediaries in disputes and openly deceived peasants when allocating plots. However, we should not forget that these were only the first steps towards a new capitalist stage of development.

What have we learned?

Liberal reforms studied in the history of Russia (grade 8) generally had positive results. Thanks to the abolition of serfdom, the remnants of feudal system, but before the final formation of the capitalist structure, like developed Western countries it was still very far away.

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 136.

For several centuries, the serf system ruled in Russia. History of enslavement peasant people dates back to 1597. At that time, Orthodox obedience represented a mandatory defense of state borders and interests, a precaution against enemy attack, even through self-sacrifice. The sacrificial service concerned both the peasant, the nobleman, and the Tsar.

In 1861, serfdom was abolished in Russia. Alexander II decided to take such a responsible step at the behest of his conscience. His reformist actions were partly the merit of his teacher-mentor Vasily Zhukovsky, who sought to instill humanity, kindness and honor in the soul of the future emperor. When the emperor inherited the throne, the teacher was no longer around, but the moral teachings were firmly ingrained in his mind, and for the rest of his life, Alexander II followed the call of his heart. It is worth noting that the nobility did not encourage the ruler’s intentions, which made it difficult to accept reforms. The wise and good ruler had to constantly seek a balance between noble opposition and peasant disapproval. Weak hints of the abolition of serfdom were observed earlier. IN late XVII century, Emperor Paul I introduced a three-day corvee, which did not allow the exploitation of serfs more than three days a week. But either the law was drafted incorrectly, or the idea turned out to be ineffective - gradually the exploitation of involuntary labor returned. When Count Razumovsky approached the Tsar with a request for the release of 50,000 of his serf workers, the ruler issued a decree that allowed the release of forced labor if the parties agreed on mutual benefit. In almost 60 years, 112,000 peasants received their freedom, of which 50 thousand were freed by Count Razumovsky. Years later, it turned out that the nobility preferred to hatch plans for improvement public life, without making any attempt to bring the idea to life. The innovative laws of Nicholas I allowed the liberation of serfs without allocating them with a plot of land, which could be obtained by fulfilling specified duties. As a result, the number of obligated peasants increased by 27 thousand. During the reign of Nicholas I, he prepared reforms and collected materials to stabilize public law. Alexander II continued and implemented the idea. The wise emperor acted slowly, gradually preparing high society and oppositionists for the need to eradicate the serfdom system. He made it clear to the nobles that the first disobedience spread like a virus, and it was better to start eradication from above rather than allow a split from within. When there was no approving reaction, the ruler organized a committee where measures to improve the pace of life of the serfs were discussed. Committee members tried to warn the daredevil from making radical decisions. A number of effective solutions, which pushed the landowners to mutual actions in favor of the emancipation of the peasants and the abolition of serfdom. There was still a lot of work ahead and coordination of innovations in legislation both with senior officials, and socially disadvantaged citizens.

For a long time, the serf system was purged of laws that violated the human right to freedom. On February 19, 1861, Alexander II managed to finally get rid of serfdom and gradually introduce new system, aimed at improving the lives of the people without dividing them into landowners and serfs.

By the end of the 18th century, the discontent of the masses in the Russian Empire had increased to the limit. The tsarist government could no longer ignore the immorality of serfdom against the backdrop of freedom from slavery European society. So, the prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom in Russia appeared long before the accession to the royal throne of Alexander II, who signed the long-awaited manifesto for the peasants.

Gradual improvement of conditions for serfs: what were the main reasons for the abolition of serfdom

The socio-economic development of the Russian Empire invariably lagged behind European countries, the reason for which was the unproductive serf system. The lack of civilian labor hampered the development of capitalist industry. Poor peasants could not consume industrial products, which also negatively affected the development of the sector. In addition, the crisis of serfdom led to the ruin of the landowners.

Therefore, the main reasons regarding the need to abolish serfdom are clear:

• crisis of the imperial feudal-serf system:
• the backwardness of the Russian Empire in almost all spheres of life;
• growing unrest among the serfs and frequent peasant uprisings

At the beginning of the 19th century, the peasants of the Russian Empire began to feel some weakening of the serf system. According to the Decree on Free Plowmen, serfs, by agreement with the landowners, could receive freedom for ransom. The law turned out to be ineffective, but a start was made.

A compromise version of reforming serfdom was proposed by General A.A. Arakcheev. This statesman had great influence and was almost the second person after the king in the empire. Arakcheev’s project to abolish serfdom consisted in the emancipation of peasants on the basis of rent: the landowners received compensation from the treasury. This decision was mainly aimed at protecting the interests of the landowners, because the peasants would still be forced to rent land. And Arakcheev himself had many serfs, so it is obvious what views he was guided by. However, Arakcheev’s project, approved by Alexander I, never came to fruition.

Soon a law was passed prohibiting the sale of serfs at fairs, and in 1833, when selling peasants, it was forbidden to separate members of the same family. Tsar Nicholas I continued the course of liberating the peasants from the master's oppression, but he was committed to the gradual implementation of this reform. At first, the situation of state peasants, who received a number of privileges, was somewhat improved.

About understanding tsarist government The need for a step-by-step struggle against the system of serfdom is evidenced by the words spoken after Nicholas I’s accession to the throne. “There is no doubt that serfdom in its current situation is an evil, tangible and obvious to everyone; but to touch it now would be an evil, of course, even more disastrous,” said the sovereign. Serfdom It was also unprofitable from a productive point of view: the labor of the peasants did not generate income, and in lean years the landowners had to feed the peasants. The situation was aggravated by the economic crisis that the Russian Empire was experiencing after the war with the Napoleonic Armada.

The need for reform and its preparation: reasons for the abolition of serfdom under Alexander II

In 1855, Alexander II took the royal throne. New king made it clear that the abolition of serfdom by the authorities is a necessity dictated by the realities of the time. To prevent the possibility peasant uprising, it was impossible to delay the implementation of reforms. Your attitude towards this issue Alexander II expressed it as follows: “It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it begins to be destroyed by itself from below.” It was Alexander II who is listed in history as the one who signed the manifesto on the abolition of serfdom.

At first, the preparation of reforms to eliminate the serfdom system was completely classified. But such an initiative, fateful for the Russian Empire, could not for a long time be the property of only a narrow circle of nobles close to the Tsar, and soon the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs was created.

The fundamental idea of ​​the future reform was to leave the land in the hands of the peasants. The agrarian economy of the empire was to be divided in the future into large landowners and small peasant land plots. The established editorial commissions actively took up the provisions for the abolition of serfdom.

The impending changes met with misunderstanding and resistance from the nobles: the landowners did not want to give the land to the peasants. In addition, after the reform, the management of the peasants was to be concentrated in the hands of the government, which was not part of the plans of the nobles. In turn, the government understood the need to take into account the interests of all parties in the reform project. Therefore, the project for the abolition of serfdom was based on the following provisions:

• individual approach to certain territories that have their own characteristics;
• the need for a transition period to transfer farms to market relations;
• ransom guarantee for landowners upon liberation of peasants

After the drafting commissions prepared provisions on the abolition of serfdom, the draft reform was submitted for consideration and approval by government officials included in the Main Committee.

Manifesto of 1861: the pros and cons of the abolition of serfdom

At a meeting of the State Council on peasant business the king demanded approval of the project proposed by the drafters. February 19, 1861 is the official date of the abolition of serfdom in Russia: it was on this memorable day that Alexander II signed the fateful manifesto. Russian serfdom was ended forever, and the peasants were declared free. The land, however, remained the property of the landowners, and peasants had to either pay money or work for using the plots.

Peasants could gain complete independence from the landowners after the complete redemption of their land plots. Before this, they were considered temporary peasants. The ransom was paid to the landowners by the treasury, and the peasants were given 49 years to repay their debt to the state.

Peasant societies were also created, uniting the lands of former serfs. Internal issues were entrusted to the village assembly, which was headed by the village headman. Peasants who did not engage in agriculture were released without a plot of land. Subsequently they could join any society.

The agreement between landowners and former serfs was regulated by a charter, which also stipulated the size of the land allotment. In case of disagreement during the preparation of such charters, the dispute had to be resolved by peace mediators - local nobles who approved the statutory charters.

The reaction to such a long-awaited event was mixed. The peasants, who dreamed of complete freedom, were not satisfied with the transition period. Peasant unrest took place in some places, and by the end of 1861 the empire became more active. revolutionary movement. It should be noted that Russia’s internal economic relations were not ready for such a reform.

And yet, the historical significance of the abolition of serfdom is difficult to overestimate. After more than two centuries of being owned by landowners, the peasants finally received their long-awaited freedom.

The reform opened up prospects for the development of productive forces in the empire, and the abolition of the serfdom system gave impetus to the implementation of reforms in other areas.

When serfdom was abolished in Rus', conditions were created everywhere for the growth of the economy of the Russian Empire, because now labor could be turned into goods. The epochal manifesto of 1861 opened a new capitalist page in the history of Russia and introduced the huge country into the era of capitalist development of agriculture. In response to the question “in what century was serfdom abolished?” we can safely say: peasant reform became almost the main event Russian history 19th century.

Brief answers to questions

Date of abolition of serfdom in Russia? In what century was serfdom abolished?

Who abolished serfdom in 1861 (signed the manifesto)?

Tsar Alexander II

What were the main reasons for the abolition of serfdom under Alexander 2?

Avoiding a Peasant Revolt

Prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom?

Serfdom became a brake on the development of industry and trade, which hampered the growth of capital and placed Russia in the category of secondary states;

The decline of the landowner economy due to the extremely ineffective labor of serfs, which was expressed in the obviously poor performance of the corvee.

What is the historical significance of the abolition of serfdom?

This step opened a new capitalist page in the history of Russia and introduced the huge country into the era of capitalist development of agriculture.

1842

Nicholas I in 1842 issued the Decree “On Obligated Peasants,” according to which peasants were allowed to be freed without land, providing it for the performance of certain duties. As a result, 27 thousand people became obligated peasants. During the reign of Nicholas I, preparations for peasant reform were already underway: the basic approaches and principles for its implementation were developed, and the necessary material was accumulated.

But Alexander II abolished serfdom. He understood that he had to act carefully, gradually preparing society for reforms. In the first years of his reign, at a meeting with a delegation of Moscow nobles, he said: “There are rumors that I want to give freedom to the peasants; it's unfair and you can say it to everyone left and right. But, unfortunately, a feeling of hostility between peasants and landowners exists, and as a result there have already been several cases of disobedience to the landowners. I am convinced that sooner or later we must come to this. I think that you are of the same opinion as me. It is better to begin the destruction of serfdom from above, rather than wait for the time when it begins to be destroyed of its own accord from below.” The Emperor asked the nobles to think and submit their thoughts on peasant question. But I never received any offers.

1857

On January 3, the Secret Committee on the Peasant Question was created under the leadership of the then Chairman of the State Council, Prince A.F. Orlov, who said that “he would rather have his hand cut off than sign the liberation of the peasants with the land.” All projects presented up to this time for the abolition of serfdom in Russia had general direction- desire to preserve landownership.. The committee included statesmen, which delayed the consideration of peasant reform. Particularly ardent opponents of the reform were the Minister of Justice, Count V.N. Panin, Minister of State Property M.N. Muravyov, chief of gendarmes Prince V.A. Dolgorukov, member State Council Prince P.P. Gagarin. And only the Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lanskoy made positive proposals, approved by Alexander II: the liberation of the peasants, their purchase of estates within 10-15 years, the preservation of peasant plots for service.

The position of the government and the committee fluctuated between progressives and reactionaries.

1858

The committee was inclined towards the landless emancipation of peasants, but the peasant unrest of 1858 in Estonia showed that the emancipation of landless peasants did not solve the problem. Soon the emperor's brother entered the Secret Committee Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, and Alexander II himself demanded from the Committee certain decisions. In 1858, the Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs, and during that year 45 provincial committees were opened in the country.

1859

On next year, in February 1859, Editorial Commissions were formed, the chairman of which was a member of the Main Committee, General Yakov Ivanovich Rostovtsev, a close friend of the tsar, who proposed a draft of a new government program: the redemption of estate and allotment land by peasants, the establishment of peasant self-government and the abolition of patrimonial power of landowners . This is how the main positions of the future reform were formulated.

Imperial Manifesto from February 19, 1861

“On the most merciful granting of the rights of free rural inhabitants to serfs” and “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom.”

According to these documents, serfs received personal freedom and the right to an allotment of land. At the same time, they still paid the poll tax and carried out conscription duties. The community and communal land tenure were preserved, peasant plots turned out to be 20% less than those they used before. The amount of peasant land redemption was 1.5 times higher than the market value of the land. 80% of the redemption amount was paid to the landowners by the state, and the peasants then paid it back for 49 years.

1. According to the Manifesto, the peasant immediately received personal freedom. “Regulations” regulated the issues of allocating land to peasants.

2. From now on, former serfs received personal freedom and independence from the landowners. They could not be sold, bought, donated, relocated, or mortgaged. The peasants were now called free rural inhabitants; they received civil liberties - they could independently make transactions, acquire and dispose of property, engage in trade, get hired, enter the educational establishments, move to other classes, marry independently. But the peasants received incomplete civil rights: they continued to pay the poll tax, carried out conscription duties, and were punished corporally.

3. Elected peasant self-government was introduced. Peasants of one estate united into a rural society, and rural gatherings resolved economic issues. A village elder was elected (for 3 years). Several rural communities comprised a volost headed by a volost foreman. Village and volost assemblies themselves distributed the land allocated to the allotment, laid out duties, determined the order of serving conscription duties, resolved issues of leaving the community and admission to it, etc. The relationship between peasants and landowners was regulated by “statutory charters” and controlled by amicable intermediaries from among the landowners . They were appointed by the Senate, did not obey the ministers, but only the law.

4. The second part of the reform regulated land relations. The law recognized the landowner's right to private ownership of all land on the estate, including peasant allotment land. The peasants were freed with land, otherwise this would have led to a revolt of the people and would have undermined government revenues (the peasants were the main tax payers). Is it true, large groups the peasants did not receive land: courtyard workers, possession workers, and peasants of the small landed gentry.

5. According to the reform, peasants received a set land allotment (for a ransom). The peasant had no right to refuse his allotment. The size of the allotment was determined by mutual agreement of the landowner and peasant. If there was no agreement, then the “Regulations” established the norm of allotment - from 3 to 12 dessiatinas, which was recorded in the charter.

6. The territory of Russia was divided into chernozem, non-chernozem and steppe. In the non-chernozem zone, the landowner had the right to retain 1/3 of the land, and in the chernozem zone - 1/2 of the land. If before the reform peasants used big amount land, as established by the “Regulations”, then part of the land was taken away from them in favor of the landowners - this was called cuttings. Peasants middle zone lost 20% in the sections, and 40% of the land in the black soil.

7. When allocating, the landowner provided the peasants with worst lands. Some of the plots were located among the landowners' lands - striped. A special fee was charged for passing or driving cattle through the landowner's fields. The forest and lands, as a rule, remained the property of the landowner. Land was provided only to the community. Land was given to men.

8. To become the owner of the land, the peasant had to buy his plot from the landowner. The ransom was equal to the annual quitrent amount, increased by an average of 17(!) times. The payment procedure was as follows: the state paid the landowner 80% of the amount, and 20% was paid by the peasants. Within 49 years, the peasants had to pay this amount with interest. Until 1906, peasants paid 3 billion rubles - with the cost of land being 500 million rubles. Before the land was redeemed, the peasants were considered temporarily obligated to the landowner; they had to bear the old duties - corvée or quitrent (abolished only in 1881). Following the Russian provinces, serfdom was abolished in Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Transcaucasia, etc.

9. The owner of the land was the community, from which the peasant could not leave until the ransom was paid. A mutual responsibility was introduced: payments and taxes were received from the entire society, and all members of the community were forced to pay for those who were absent.

10. After the publication of the Manifesto, peasant riots began in many provinces against the predatory provisions of the reform. The peasants were not happy that after the publication of the documents on the reform, they had to remain subordinate to the landowner for another 2 years - perform corvée, pay quitrent, that the plots provided to them were the landowner's property, which they had to redeem. Were especially strong mass unrest in the village of Bezdna, Kazan province and in the village of Kandeevka Penza province. During the suppression of the uprising in Bezdna, 91 peasants died, in Kandeevka - 19 peasants. In total, 1860 occurred in 1861 peasant unrest, to suppress more than half of them was used military force. But by the autumn of 1861 peasant movement began to decline.

11. The peasant reform was of great historical significance:

> conditions were created for the broad development of market relations, Russia embarked on the path of capitalism, over the next 40 years the country traveled the path that many states have traveled over the centuries;

>invaluable moral significance reforms that ended serfdom;

> the reform opened the way for transformations in the zemstvo, court, army, etc.

12. But the reform was built on compromises, took into account the interests of landowners in much to a greater extent than the interests of the peasants. It did not completely eradicate serfdom, the remnants of which hampered the development of capitalism. It was obvious that the peasants' struggle for land and true freedom would continue.

Serfdom... what associations does this phrase evoke? What immediately comes to mind are the heartbreaking scenes of the unfortunate peasants being sold, torturing them to death for the smallest offenses, and losing them at cards to the master. Many things come to mind when mentioning this phenomenon of Russian civilization. Classical Russian literature, created by representatives of the highest Europeanized class of Russia - the nobles, clearly strengthened in our minds the stereotype, according to which we clearly associate serfdom with nothing more than legally enshrined slavery, comparable to the status of American blacks. The right of ownership of people allowed the landowners, on completely legal grounds, to do whatever they wanted with the peasants - torture them, mercilessly exploit them, and even kill them. The recently celebrated 155th anniversary of the abolition of serfdom (1861 is the year of the abolition of serfdom in Russia) gives us a reason to reflect on whether the years of serfdom in Russia were slavery, and at what stages it (serfdom) became such.

IN XVI-XVII centuries When serfdom was introduced, the structure of Muscovite Rus' as a state was significantly different from Western monarchies, where relations between the king and feudal lords were based on contractual relations, and the failure of the king to fulfill his obligations released the vassals from their duties.

In Russia, a “service state” emerged, where each class had its own responsibilities to the state, the embodiment of which was the sacred figure of God’s anointed. The fulfillment of these duties gave representatives of all classes certain rights. Only slaves were deprived of duties to the state, but they also served the sovereign, being servants service people. At that time, the definition of slaves was most suitable for serfs deprived of personal freedom - they belonged entirely to their masters, who were responsible for them.

The performance of duties to the state was divided into two types: service and tax. The service class fulfilled its duty to the state by serving in the army or working in bureaucratic positions. The service class included boyars and nobles. The tax class was exempt from military service. This class paid a tax - a tax in favor of the state. It could be either in cash or in kind. This class included peasants, merchants and artisans. Representatives of this class were personally free people, in contrast to slaves, to whom the tax did not apply.

At the first stage (until the 17th century), peasants were not assigned to rural societies and landowners. They rented land, taking a loan from the owner - grain, equipment, draft animals, and outbuildings. To pay for this loan, they paid the owner of the land a rent in kind - corvée. At the same time, they remained personally free people. At this stage, peasants (who had no debts) had the right to move to another class. The situation changed in the middle of the 17th century, when peasants were assigned to certain plots of land and the owners of these plots - serfdom was approved by cathedral code 1649 under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. At the same time, the owners of the plots acted as representatives of the state and, in fact, the serfs did not belong to the landowner, but to the state, and were attached not to him personally, but to the land that he disposed of. The peasants were obliged to give the landowner part of their labor. This period can be called the beginning final enslavement peasants The transition of peasants to other classes was prohibited. However, for peasants who were unable to repay their loans, the ban on transferring to other classes was a real salvation, since it saved them from the prospect of being transferred to the category of indentured servants, or, simply, slaves. This was also beneficial for the state, which did not benefit from producing slaves who did not pay taxes.

After the death of the landowner, the estate, together with the attached peasants, returned to the treasury and was again distributed among the service people. Moreover, it is far from a fact that the estate went to the relatives of the deceased landowner. Local land ownership was actually transformed into private property to earth only in the 18th century.

However, full-fledged owners of the land still existed at that time - these were the boyars who had the right to pass on their estates by inheritance. They were most similar to Western feudal lords. But, starting from the 16th century, their rights to land were significantly limited royal power- it was difficult for them to sell land; after the death of a childless patrimonial owner, the land was transferred to the treasury and distributed according to the local principle. In addition, land ownership among patrimonial owners did not extend to serfs.

Overall in pre-Petrine Rus' A system developed in which the serf peasant actually belonged not to the service landowner, but to the state. The main function of the peasants was to pay the state tax. The landowner was obliged to assist his peasants in every possible way in fulfilling this function. The landowner's power over the peasants was strictly limited by law. In addition to this power, the landowner had certain responsibilities to the peasants - he was obliged to supply the peasants with implements, grain for sowing, and save them from starvation in the event of a crop failure. The landowner did not have the right to turn peasants into slaves or to commit lynching if a peasant committed a criminal crime. The landowner could punish the peasants, but he was punished for killing a peasant death penalty as for destruction state property. The peasant had the right to complain about cruel treatment, lynching and self-will of the landowner - as a result, he could lose his estate.

Serf peasants not attached to a specific landowner ( state peasants) were in a more privileged position. They were attached to the land (although they could temporarily engage in fishing), could not move to another class, but at the same time they were personally free, owned property, and had the right to participate in elections in Zemsky Sobor. Their only responsibility was to pay taxes to the state.

Peter's reforms significantly increased the serfdom of peasants. The peasants were entrusted conscription(previously, service was the responsibility of only nobles) - they were required to provide recruits from a certain number of households. Almost all of the state serfs were handed over to the landowners, deprived of their personal freedom. Numerous free people - itinerant traders, free artisans, and simply vagabonds - were converted into serfs. Universal passportization and the introduction of an analogue of registration came in very handy here. Serf workers appeared, assigned to factories and factories. Serfs were forced to pay state taxes, making them equal to serfs. True, this innovation rather speaks in favor of Peter, since having enslaved the slaves, he also gave them certain rights, freeing them from slavery.

Despite the strengthening of serfdom, neither the landowners nor the serf factory owners became full owners of peasants and workers. Moreover, their power over the enslaved was limited by the state. In case of oppression of peasants, including former slaves, the estate, together with the peasants, was returned to the state and transferred to another owner. The intervention of the landowner in marriages between peasants was prohibited. It was forbidden to sell serfs separately, separating families. The institution of patrimonial landowners was abolished.

There was a targeted public policy fight against the trade in serfs. A serf, even a slave, could not be sold without a plot of land, which made such bargaining unprofitable. Serf workers could only be sold (and bought) together with the factory, which forced factory owners to improve the skills (including abroad) of the available workers.

Paradoxically, Peter, who blindly worshiped everything European, when reforming the country, retained the Russian institutions of the service state and even tightened them as much as possible, rather than using the Western model of relations between the king and the feudal landowners (where aristocrats did not depend on service).

Responsibilities to the state assigned to all classes were tightened not only in relation to peasants - the reform affected the service class no less. The nobles were obliged to perform official duties not occasionally, as before, but on an ongoing basis. From the age of fifteen, a nobleman was obliged to perform lifelong military or civil service, having previously received an education. The service began from the very lower ranks and lasted for years and decades, often in isolation from the family.

However, the nobles did not “suffer” for long. Already under the first successors of Peter, there was a desire of the aristocracy to lay down heavy state duties, retaining all the privileges. In 1736, under Anna Ioannovna, lifelong service for nobles was replaced by 25 years. Compulsory service from the age of 15, starting with the junior rank, turned into a profanation - children of the nobility were enrolled in the service from birth and by the age of 15 they “rose” to the rank of officer.

Under Elizabeth Petrovna, landless nobles were allowed to have serfs. Landowners received the right to exile serfs to Siberia instead of handing them over as conscripts.

Finally, the institution of the service state, which has no analogues in the world, was destroyed in Russia under Catherine II. German by origin, she did not know the ancient Russian customs and did not understand the differences between serfs and slaves.

The Manifesto of February 18, 1762, issued by Peter the Third, but implemented by Catherine the Second, freed the nobles from compulsory service to the state - service became voluntary. In fact, the system of Western aristocracy was introduced: the nobles received land and serfs into private ownership, without any conditions, only by right of belonging to the class. The peasants were obliged to serve the landowner, who was exempt from serving the state.

Under Catherine II, serfs were turned into full-fledged slaves. For “insolent behavior” they could, without any limitation in number, be exiled to Siberia. The peasants were deprived of the right to complain and go to court against the landowner. The landowners were granted the privilege of judging the peasants independently. Serfs could be sold for the landlord's debts at public auction.

The size of the corvee was increased to 4-6 days a week. This led to the fact that in some provinces peasants could only work for themselves at night.

Since 1785, according to the charter, peasants were no longer considered subjects of the crown and were actually equated with the landowner's agricultural equipment. In such a pitiful state, the peasantry (more than a third of the country's population) was doomed to exist until mid-19th century.

The serfs received a significant relief in their position with the coming to power (in 1825) of Nicholas the First, known to us from national history as a “reactionary and serf owner.” Under Nikolai Pavlovich, a number of decrees were issued that softened the fate of the peasants and assigned certain responsibilities to the nobles.

It was forbidden to sell people separately from their families, it was forbidden for landless nobles to buy serfs, and landowners were forbidden to send peasants to hard labor. The practice of distributing serfs to nobles for merit was stopped. All state serfs were given plots of land and areas of forest. Peasants were allowed to buy out of the estates being sold. Landowners were persecuted for cruel treatment of serfs, and this was not a fiction - during the reign of Nicholas I, several hundred landowners lost their estates. Under Nicholas the First, peasants again became subjects of the state, ceasing to be the property of the landowner.

Slavery in Russia, established by the liberal and pro-Western rulers of Russia, was finally abolished in 1861, during the reign of Alexander II. True, the liberation was not entirely complete - they were freed only from dependence on the landowner, but not from dependence on peasant community, from which the peasants were freed during the peasant reform in Russia, which was carried out by Stolypin at the beginning of the 20th century.

However, the abolition of slavery by no means eradicated from Russian realities the elements of serfdom that regularly arise in the history of the country. Most shining example from the 20th century - a fortress imposed on collective farmers in the form of a postscript to a certain locality, a specific collective farm and plant and a number of clearly defined duties, the fulfillment of which granted certain rights that were practiced during Stalin’s modernization.