Which countries had serfdom? The peasant reform is called “flawed” and they see this as one of the prerequisites for the revolution

For some reason, we associate serfdom with history Russian Empire. However, Russia was far from the first and not the only country in Europe where an order arose to “attach” the peasant to the land. We decided to find out where corvee still existed and what form it took.

Serfdom: reasons for its occurrence

By serfdom we mean the system legal norms who forbade peasants to leave land plots, to which they were "attached". The essence of serfdom was that the peasant could not alienate or change this plot of land, and was completely subordinate to the feudal lord (in Russia - the landowner), who was allowed to sell, exchange and punish serfs.

What was the reason for the emergence of serfdom? During the feudal system, agriculture began to develop intensively, which, along with trophies obtained in military campaigns, became the source of livelihood for the nobility. The area of ​​arable land expanded, but someone needed to cultivate it. And here a problem arose: the peasants were constantly looking for better land plots and working conditions, and therefore often moved from place to place.

The owner of the land - the feudal lord - risked at any moment being left without workers or with a dozen peasant families, which were not enough to cultivate large lands. Therefore, the nobility, supported by the monarchs, forbade the peasants to change their place of residence, assigning them to certain plots of land and obliging them to cultivate them for the benefit of the feudal owner.

Initially, serfdom appeared not in Russia, with which it is strongly associated, but in European countries: Great Britain, Germany and France. Next we will tell you how serfdom “strode” across Europe, covering country after country and becoming similar to ordinary slavery. However, even international law of that time did not question the legality of serfdom, accepting it as a norm of life.

Serfdom in Europe

The formation of serfdom in Europe began in the 9th-10th centuries. One of the first countries where the nobility decided to “attach” peasants to the land was England. This was facilitated by the extreme impoverishment of the peasantry, who were forced to sell their plots and agree to any conditions of the feudal lords in order to earn at least some means of subsistence.

Rights of serfs, called villans, were severely limited. Villan was obliged to work for his master (seigneur) all year round, serving the duty with the whole family from 2 to 5 days a week. It is impossible to name a specific year for the abolition of serfdom in England: the softening of its individual elements took place gradually, starting with the rebellion of Wat Tyler, which occurred in the 14th century.

The final disappearance of signs of serfdom in the economy of the British crown occurred in the 16th century, when sheep farming replaced agriculture and the feudal system was replaced by a capitalist one.

But in the central and Western Europe Serfdom lasted much longer - until the 18th century. It was especially harsh in the Czech Republic, Poland and East Germany. In Sweden and Norway, where, due to the severity of the climate and the lack fertile soils The share of agriculture in the state economy is very small; there was no serfdom at all.

Later than anything abolition of serfdom occurred in the Russian Empire, about which we'll talk Further.

Serfdom in Russia: origin and development

The first signs of serfdom in Russia appeared at the end of the 15th century. In those days, all lands were considered princes, and the peasants who cultivated them and bore duties to the appanage princes were still free at that time and formally had the right to leave the plot, moving to another. When settling in a new plot, a peasant:

• had to pay rent - rent for the use of land. Most often it was introduced as a share of the harvest and, as a rule, amounted to a fourth of it;

• was obliged to bear duties, that is, to perform a certain amount of work for the temple or the local prince. This could be weeding, harvesting, putting things in order in the church yard, etc.;

• received a loan and assistance - funds for the purchase of agricultural equipment and livestock. The peasant had to return this money when moving to another place of residence, but due to the need to pay quitrent, only a few managed to collect the required amount. The rest fell into bondage, forced to remain on same place and involuntarily “attaching” to the ground.

Realizing how profitable it was to tie peasants to the land, officials consolidated serfdom in the legal codes of 1497 and 1550. The enslavement took place gradually. First, St. George's Day was introduced - two weeks in the second half of November, when peasants were allowed to move from one landowner to another, having first paid the quitrent and repaid the loan. On other days, changing your place of residence was prohibited.

Then the landowners were allowed to search for and punish runaway peasants. At first deadline The search period was 5 years, but gradually it grew, and then the restrictions were completely lifted. In practice, this meant: even if after 20 years the boyar discovered his escaped serf, he could return him and punish him at his discretion. The peak of serfdom was the ban on St. George's Day - from 1649, peasants found themselves in lifelong bondage to the landowners.

Russian serfs were forbidden to file complaints against their masters, but they could completely control their fate: send them to serve in the army, send them to Siberia and do hard labor, give them as gifts and sell them to other landowners.

The only thing that was vetoed was the murder of serfs. There is a known case with the landowner Saltychikha (Daria Ivanovna Saltykova), who killed several dozen of her peasants and was punished for it. She was deprived of the title of a pillar noblewoman and sent to serve life imprisonment in the monastery prison, where she died.

Serfdom in Russia: abolition

The abolition of serfdom in Russia was inevitable. The Russian sovereigns understood: serfdom is not much different from slavery and is pulling the country back. However, they could not change the system that had developed over centuries with one stroke of the pen.

Serfdom reforms began under Alexander I, who approved Count Arakcheev’s bill on the gradual ransom of peasants using funds state treasury. From 1816 to 1819, serfdom was abolished in the Baltic provinces of the Russian Empire. However, things didn’t go any further for Alexander I.

A radical reform of the abolition of serfdom took place in 1861 under Alexander II. The tsar was pushed to sign a manifesto that gave freedom to the peasants by the popular unrest that began during Crimean War. The authorities, in order to recruit recruits from the villagers, promised them liberation from landowner bondage, but they did not keep their word. This provoked a wave of uprisings that swept across Russia, as a result of which serfdom was abolished.

The reform, by and large, did not satisfy either the landowners or the peasants. The former lost part of their lands, since the state obliged to give the serf manumission, while allocating land plot certain area, for which the state was obliged to pay compensation. The latter seemed to receive freedom, but had to work for another 2 years for the landowner, and then pay the state a ransom for the received plot.

But, be that as it may, the reform took place and served as an impetus for the development of the capitalist system in Russia and, as a consequence, the class struggle.

How the abolition of serfdom in Russia took place, watch in the video:

Take it for yourself and tell your friends!

Read also on our website:

show more

In early Rus', the overwhelming majority of peasants were free. More precisely, the majority of the population, since with increasing central government All classes are gradually becoming enslaved. We are talking about North-Eastern Rus', Vladimir-Moscow, which became Russia. The attachment of peasants, restricting freedom of movement, has been known since the 14th century. It is noteworthy that nobles were mentioned for the first time.

A nobleman (for now, more likely the son of a boyar) received a limited amount of land for his service. And perhaps not too fertile. Man, as they say, is looking for something better. In frequent years of famine, peasants could easily move to best lands, for example, to a larger landowner. In addition, in very hungry years, a rich landowner could support the peasants thanks to serious reserves. More and better land means higher harvest. More land can be purchased best quality. You can get the best agricultural implements and seed material.

Large landowners deliberately lured peasants away, and seemingly simply captured them and took them to their place. And of course, the peasants themselves migrated as usual. In addition, large landowners often, partially or completely, exempted newly resettled people from taxes.

In general, it is more profitable to live in a large estate or on “black” lands. But the serving nobles need to feed. And basically enslavement was in their interests.

Traditionally, the peasant and the landowner entered into a lease agreement. It seems that at first the tenant could leave at any time, then payment and departure were timed to coincide with certain days. Traditionally - the end of the agricultural year, autumn: Intercession, St. George's Day. In the 15th–16th centuries. The government, meeting the nobles halfway, limited the peasant movement to the week before and the week after St. George's Day.

The forced strengthening of the “fortress” occurred during the reign of Godunov (during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich and Boris Godunov himself). A series of crop failures and widespread famine. Peasants are fleeing in search of basic food. They flee primarily from poor landowners.

But in order.

1497 - the establishment of St. George's Day as single term transition of peasants.

1581 - Decree on Reserved years, specific years in which there is no transition even on St. George’s Day.

The beginning of the 1590s - the widespread abolition of St. George's Day. A temporary measure due to the difficult situation.

1597 - lesson summer, 5-year search for fugitive peasants. If a peasant lives in a new place for more than 5 years, they leave him. Apparently, it has settled down, it is no longer advisable to touch it...

Then the Troubles, ruin - and again the need to provide the serving nobles with land and workers.

The support of the nobles is more than needed! Firstly, this is still the main military force. Secondly, the Romanovs were elected to the kingdom under active participation nobility. Thirdly, it was the nobility that showed itself in the Troubles, in general, as an independent force. Fourthly, in the 17th century Zemsky Sobors still met.

Finally, the normal process of the formation of autocracy begins again. The nobles become the main support of the throne. And as the importance of the nobility grows, the laws regarding the attachment of peasants are increasingly tightened.

1649 - Council Code. A set of laws that remained relevant, as it later turned out, for... 200 years (the Decembrists were tried in accordance with Council Code!). Cancellation of 5-year investigation; the found peasant is returned to the landowner, regardless of the time that has passed since his departure. Serfdom becomes hereditary...

The transition from local militia to regular troops does not eliminate the need for estates. A standing army is expensive! In fact, this is also one of the main reasons for the slow transition to standing armies in Europe. Maintain an army Peaceful time expensive! Either hired or recruited.

The nobles are actively going to civil service, especially since the administrative apparatus is growing.

It is beneficial for the government if officers and officials feed from the estates. Yes, the salary is paid, but it is unstable. Already under Catherine II, feeding and bribes were almost officially allowed. Not out of kindness or naivety, but because of budget deficits. So an estate is the most convenient way for the state to provide for the nobles.

Under Peter I, serfs were prohibited from voluntarily recruiting for military service, which freed them from serfdom.

Under Anna Ioannovna, there was a ban on going to the fields and entering into farming and contracts without the permission of the landowner.

Under Elizabeth, peasants were excluded from the oath to the sovereign.

The time of Catherine II was the apogee of enslavement. It is also the “golden age” of the nobility. Everything is interconnected! Nobles are exempt from compulsory service and steel privileged class. So they don’t receive a salary!

During Catherine's reign, lands and about 800 thousand serf souls were distributed to the nobles. These are men's souls! Let's multiply by 4. How much is it? That's it, and she ruled for more than 30 years... It is no coincidence that the largest uprising in Rus', the Pugachev uprising, took place during her reign. By the way, it was never peasant - but the serfs actively participated in it.

1765 - the right of the nobles to exile serfs to hard labor. No trial.

All emperors after Catherine II tried to alleviate the situation of the peasants! And the fact that “serfdom” was abolished only in 1862 - it’s just that earlier it could have provoked a powerful social explosion. But the abolition was prepared by Nicholas I. In fact, his entire reign was spent working on preparations, searching for opportunities, etc.

In order…

Paul I established (rather recommended) a 3-day corvee; prohibited the sale of courtyards and landless peasants; prohibited the sale of peasants without land - that is, as slaves; forbade splitting up serf families; again allowed the serfs to complain against the landowners!

Alexander I issued a decree on “free cultivators,” allowing landowners to free peasants. Few people took advantage of it - but it was the very beginning! Under him, the development of measures for liberation from serfdom began. As usual, I did this. Which, as usual, was against it - but did a great job. It was envisaged, in particular, that the peasants would be redeemed by the treasury - with 2 acres of land. Not much - but at least something, for that time and the first project this is more than serious!

Nicholas I sees the main support of the raznochintsy, the bureaucracy. He seeks to get rid of noble influence on politics. And realizing that the liberation of the peasants would explode society, he actively prepared liberation for the future. Yes, and there were actual measures! Even if they are very careful.

The peasant issue has been discussed since the very beginning of the reign of Nicholas I. Although at the beginning it was officially stated that there would be no changes in the situation of the peasants. In reality - more than 100 decrees regarding peasants!

The landowners were recommended to treat the peasants legally and Christianly; ban on sending serfs to factories; exile to Siberia; split up families; lose to the peasants and pay their debts with them... and so on. Not to mention the development of liberation projects.

There is a massive impoverishment of the nobles (the ruin of about 1/6 of the landowner families!). The land is being sold and mortgaged. By the reign of Alexander II, a lot of lands with people passed to the state.

That’s why liberation was a success!

And one last thing. There was no “serfdom”. That is, the term itself appeared in the 19th century in scientific circles. There was no “right” as a kind of law, decree, article. Was whole line measures over the centuries that gradually attached peasants to the land. The land was transferred to the landowners, who very gradually gained power... There was no single law, “right” as such!

Nevertheless, serfdom was, in fact, at its apogee - on the verge of slavery. So it is much more correct to talk not about law, but about serfdom...

Serfdom and the whole complex of relations associated with it developed on the territory of the country for centuries. The formation of serfdom as a phenomenon was influenced by several dozen fundamental factors - territorial features lands, way of life and mentality, government structure etc.

Serfdom - the essence of terminology

Serfdom is (briefly) a form of dependence of peasants, in which they are attached to the land and are subordinate to the administrative and judicial power of the landowner (hereinafter referred to as KK - serf).

What is serfdom, an expanded definition - a set of legal norms characteristic of feudal states, in which the peasant class finds itself in complete and undeniable dependence, including following signs, corresponding to the concept serfdom:

1. KK is prohibited from leaving “his” allotment.
2. Violation of the first paragraph entails lifelong investigation.
3. Children, grandchildren, nephews and other descendants and relatives of the KK receive the same status according to the rules of succession.
4. Impossibility of purchasing real estate or allotment.
5. IN in rare cases feudal lords were allowed to acquire people without land.

When did serfdom begin in Rus'?

There is still no consensus among historians and researchers about when serfdom appeared in Rus'. Some believe that this system of legal relations began to emerge from the formation of the ancient Russian state (11th century), others argue that the beginning of serfdom in Rus' was laid only after the rise of Moscow, which occurred in the 15th century.

Stages of the formation of serfdom

The first few centuries of the existence of Rus' can indeed be called the period when the prerequisites for the development of serfdom were laid. Firstly, there was a shortage of workers across the vast territory - men died in wars, entire villages died out from infections, and hunger and poverty became only additional factors leading to the devastation of the lands.

Secondly, the upper classes had to give part of their income to the treasury; if there were not enough workers, then incomes would fall. All this required attracting new residents, but there were none.

Many peasants fled to free lands, for example, to the South or to Siberia, reducing the number of workers, who were already few in number. Gradually, tying the common people to a particular territory became a paramount task, because a slave tied to a piece of land could not leave it, bringing profit until his death.

So, the background looks briefly.

Let us analyze the stages of the formation of serfdom in Russia in more detail.

Documentation took place in several stages:

• Princely Code of Law of 1497. According to this document, St. George's Day was introduced in Russia - November 26th. If the CC wishes to leave the landowner and move to another, this can only be done once a year. The same document stipulated the amount of tax that the KK was obliged to pay to the master, the elderly - a kind of “farm payment” when leaving the owner, and corvee (remuneration for working for the owner);
• 1581, the establishment of the “Reserved Years” or the Decree of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich on the abolition of the right of exit. This stage of consolidating serfdom in Rus' causes the most a large number of disputes. Opponents claim that the text of the document was not found, and by this time the KK themselves had already turned practically into slaves. Supporters of the opposite theory are more loyal, believing that before the abolition of the right of transition there was a certain turnover among the common people, which can be tracked by entries in the monastic books. Once the Decree was introduced, no more transitions were observed;
• November 24, 1597. Each gentleman received the right to search for his KKs for five years after the last escaped;
• March 9, 1607. A mandatory fifteen-year investigation by the CC is established;
• Cathedral Code of 1649. The closest answer to the truth is: who introduced serfdom? - can be considered - Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. It was he who approved the document, according to which the KK completely lost the right to leave their owner, were attached to the land, and belonging to one or another landowner was inherited.

How is serfdom different from slavery?

Despite the fact that the CCs practically lost any rights, their role in the life of the state was very significant (111 chapters of the Council Code of 1649 were dedicated specifically to peasants).

The landowners had to answer for their KK in all cases, except for the commission of robberies, murders and other atrocities by their subordinates. In these cases, they were tried in accordance with current legislation.

In addition, with the highest permission of the owner, KK could have families, get married, and have children.
A distinctive feature of serfdom is the absence of legislative rights to life of the KK (this was often violated). In addition, if a landowner acquired a KK, he was obliged to provide him with a plot of land and items with which he could cultivate it.

Slaves legally belonged only to the person who bought them. For the owner, the slave was identical to the thing.
Another difference between serfdom and slavery is that in times of famine, the landowner had to feed his peasants so that they would not die, and killing peasants was strictly prohibited by law.

Serfdom as a historical phenomenon

Despite the fact that the phenomenon that affected millions of people had many historical background, most of experts are inclined to believe that landowners survived and grew rich on the slave labor of ordinary people, who had practically no rights. KK were killed, tried without investigation, forced to starve, beaten, etc. And most of such lawlessness remained unpunished.

More loyal to serfdom, as to historical phenomenon, scientists argue that such a way of life was the only possible one, and systematic enslavement took place in order to save not only the state, but also the peasants themselves, as a class.

To conclude, here are a few interesting facts about serfdom:

• a clear answer to the question: who introduced serfdom in Rus'? - does not exist;
• researchers, including foreign ones, claim that Russian peasant XVII-XVIII centuries lived much better and more prosperously than ordinary people in France, Germany, Poland and others European countries same period;
• despite the popular belief that all the country's peasants were serfs, this was far from the case. For example, in 1796 only 53% of the peasant class were serfs, and in 1857 only 23%;
• until 1767, the KK could complain about the landowner directly to the Tsar (due to the huge flow of letters, Catherine the Second abolished this right, entrusting the analysis of petitions to her nobles).

After the reform abolishing serfdom was carried out in 1861, each former KK received almost five dessiatines per male capita, or 14.4 dessiatines per household (one dessiatine was approximately 1.1 hectares). Let us clarify that living wage, allowing one family to survive, at that time was ten to eleven dessiatines.

Thus, serfdom, the beginning and end of which in Russia is documented in 1649 and 1861, respectively, existed as a phenomenon enshrined on paper for more than two centuries. The actual duration of the people's heavy burden was longer.

Today we will talk about how serfs lived in Rus'. Including so that many who complain about life in our time understand that the time now is not so bad...

Before we highlight the essence of serfdom, let's imagine the scale.

Before the abolition of serfdom (from 1857 to 1859), the 10th national census was carried out.

“If in Russia as a whole the share of serfs on the eve of the abolition of serfdom was 34.39%, then in individual provinces, for example in Smolensk and Tula, it was 69%. Thus, the population for this period was 67,081,167 people, of which 23,069,631 were serfs.

That is, more than half of Rus' was serfdom, and Russian people lived in this state for several centuries. Think about it - people belonged to other people as property rights! Today, even hamsters do not belong to their owner...

“Landowner peasants are serfs who belong to the noble landowners as property rights. They were the most numerous category of the peasantry of the Russian Empire among others - in 1859 - 23 million people of both sexes.

Serfdom in Russia is a system of legal relations that existed, starting from Kievan Rus of the 11th century, resulting from the dependence of the peasant farmer on the landowner, the owner of the land inhabited and cultivated by the peasant.

In Kievan Rus and the Novgorod Republic, unfree peasants were divided into categories: smerds, purchasers and serfs. IN Tsarist Russia serfdom spread widely XVI century, officially confirmed by the Council Code of 1649, canceled on February 19, 1861 (March 3, 1861) by the Tsar’s manifesto.”

History and historical concepts know many of us who did not skip school. I would like to consider precisely the vital aspect of the lives of people who belonged to more noble persons as property rights, and not the historical one.

In our world today, it is beyond understanding how it is even possible that one person can belong to another and be his slave.

However, serfdom, which existed in Rus' for almost 9 centuries, 2 centuries in active form, is a reality, from century to century it took root, wrapped its tenacious arms around Rus', but 150 years after the abolition of serfdom is still only the path to democratization, weak, fragile, where a person’s personality is either exalted, or reset below the plinth - by inertia, gravitating towards the historical roots of serfdom, or it will always be, humiliation and exaltation go hand in hand in all times and spaces.

The very essence of serfdom, when a living person can, on the basis of property rights, as if a soulless object (and this was actually the case) belong to a more noble owner, contradicts all today’s human rights conventions, constitutions and other international legal acts.It is unthinkable for a person to live at court like cattle and belong to the owner like a car or part of a house.

However, in the same Bible, the New Testament, there is the concept of “slave”, “master”, “serving masters”:

“But that servant who knew the will of his master, and was not ready, and did not do according to his will, will receive many stripes” (Luke 12:47)

“Slaves, obey in everything your masters according to the flesh, not serving them in appearance (only) as people-pleasers, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God” (Phil. 4:22).

“Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good, but also to the harsh” (1 Pet. 2:18).

“Slaves, obey your masters according to the flesh with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ” (Eph. 6:5).

Yes, and we are all slaves of God... according to Christianity. Moreover, a number of historians and researchers were inclined to believe that serfdom in its various manifestations in Rus' is a cost of the Russian character, it is the norm, it is in the blood of the Russian person, it has always been and will be so - some serve others, and the nobility should be engaged in education , the exercise of power, in general, to be “white-handed” and “arrogant”. And if this is not the case, society is looking for alternatives and is driven into a corner by the lack of a familiar system. That is, the usual system for our society (although it is difficult for us to accept it) is when there are servants and there are masters.

And total democratization, when, excuse me, the cook is given power, and all she can do is over-salt the borscht, turning it into a revolution of the uneducated strata, will only bring evil. But the people, not accustomed to power, like Adam and Eve in Eden, are greedy for flattering calls and promises to be equal to God, having tasted the forbidden fruit, believing that they too can rule the world and be free on an equal basis with their masters. Someone even compared the abolition of serfdom with the coming of Christ and the proclamation of the New Testament after the Old, when mere mortals were given the opportunity of salvation (freedom).

But today there is such a caste as “ service staff, working class, governesses, nannies, janitors, au pairs, nurses and others. That is, having received freedom, not everyone became noblemen, not everyone took up intellectual work or education. But what's the difference? Those who wash floors, according to current laws, have a personality and no one has the right to take this away from a person. It is punishable for the murder of any person criminal penalty, not a fine, and no one can make another a slave, and own a person as property.

In fact, on the issue of serfdom, not everything is so simple; it cannot be said unequivocally that serfdom is evil. The evil of the past was arbitrariness and arrogance, the cynicism of landowners, nobles who mocked the forced, murder and cruel treatment with the latter, the devaluation of the life of a servant and the right of ownership of this life, and serfdom itself as the work of some, less educated people and more hardworking, on others, wealthy and smart - not evil.

After all, in this way some had jobs, while others kept their estates in good condition, were engaged in education and government. But human nature, prone to irrepressible power, to permissiveness due to impunity, could not give the landowners the opportunity to treat their servants as people, with respect. Serfs, and serfdom in Rus' flourished especially actively in the 16-17-18 centuries, it became possible over time not only to sell, buy, punish, beat with whips, but also to kill, rape...

In 1765, landowners received the right to exile peasants to hard labor, and in 1767, a complaint from a serf against a landowner became a criminal offense; now, according to the law, the owner could not only kill the serf, everything else was possible. By the end of the century, nobles (1% of the total population) owned 59% of all peasants. The educated and noble family considered the peasants almost animals and not people at all, irrational creatures.

The lifestyle recommendations for peasants in 1942 were as follows: get up at 4 a.m., work all day until 8-9 p.m., bathhouse on Saturdays, church on Sundays, avoid laziness as it leads to robbery and theft. (information from documentary)

The most severe punishment for the murder of a serf there is a fine (about 5 hryvnia), before the abolition of the Communist Code it amounted to several rubles, and punishment with whips was a reality, everyday, everyday, flogged, beaten for poorly washed floors, misconduct and just like that.

Considering that the life of a peasant was essentially zero, the landowners were not afraid to kill their servants, and even if they killed, it was a deterrent and preventive measure for the rest.

Let's remember what the terror of Saltychikha cost - Daria Nikolaevna Saltykova, a landowner, a lady in the 18th century who became “famous” for her abuse of peasants, even if it is overly embellished, but there were actually many such Saltychikhs, not all of them became known for their evil deeds...

Raping and killing peasants was the norm.

Only a few dared to speak the truth about the lawlessness of the landowners and the oppression of the serfs. And queens and kings often, in order to avoid a popular revolt, preferred to give what they asked for to the noble people, therefore a tougher attitude towards the peasants is a natural result of the “indulgences” of the palace for the nobility. Telling the truth contrary to the will of the palace was punishable. Therefore, everyone who even enjoyed authority and tried to illuminate the reality of serfdom was devalued in one way or another.

An example of this is Radishchev with “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.” The great book, which boldly described the serf morals and cruelty of the landowners of those times (1790), was assessed as follows according to the instructions of the empress: “The pictures of the distress of the peasants described by Radishchev in “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” are a consequence of the darkening of the author’s mind, distorting the perception of social reality.” .

Radishchev was sentenced to death penalty, despite the fact that he enjoyed authority and was himself of noble family, however, at the last moment the sentence was replaced with a 10-year exile in Siberia, and his literary creations were recognized as devoid of common sense and an attack on the honor of the sovereign.

The peasant is better off with the landowner! And nowhere will our Russian forced person have such a “sweet” life as with a landowner! And our Russian serfs have not life, but paradise. These are the mottos and slogans of the empress and her entire circle of those times.

It was hammered into the heads of the peasants that better life they won’t find it anywhere, and the unfortunate people didn’t have the opportunity to look for it, where is it: getting up at 4 in the morning, working until 9 in the evening, if something sinful came to mind or there was a murmur against the landowner - that means. there was not enough work, you had to work harder, if the owner beat you up, get to work, you had to work better.

If a merchant went bankrupt, his servants could be sold at auction; often the whole family was separated and they could not see each other, which was a great tragedy for them. Young girls were often raped by their masters, but it was impossible to complain about this, since it was believed that even through violence, the girl fulfilled the will of her master.

On the website Meduza.ru, in the article “Is this slavery? Could the peasants be beaten? Shameful questions about serfdom" - there is a calculator for the cost of potential serfs "how much would you have been worth before 1861." (from 1799 to 1802)

For example, a serf at the beginning of the 19th century could be bought for 200-400 rubles in ruble banknotes.

Mostly the peasants were poor; cases of normal, average by material standards, life of serfs were extremely rare. However, history speaks of such a peasant as Nikolai Shipov, who became rich by driving flocks of sheep and wrote literary memoirs in the lap of tranquility.

By the way. 1861 was not the end of the ordeals of the serfs. The peasants still remained dependent on the peasant community, which “regulated them economic activity, often forbade moving (due to mutual responsibility in the payment of taxes and redemption payments) and so on.

It became possible to receive land as real personal property and leave it as an inheritance to your children only after the law of June 14, 1910.”

About 150 years after the abolition of serfdom, when people were given freedom, the past is perceived by the modern generation as historical atrocities about which films can be made, or as implausible events, unnecessarily embellished. And our life today, its level - often seems to us a dead end, they say, lawlessness is everywhere, corruption. Powerful of the world this is why they oppress the weak, etc., salaries are small, prospects are deplorable...

As for tragedies, wars that claim lives, this is always scary, regardless of the time in which people live. But the way of life, the level of prospects during serfdom, the opportunity to be a person and not a bug today and then are incomparable.

150 years ago February 19, 1861, serfdom was abolished in Russia. A century and a half later, we remember this date - and not by chance. After all, many of the problems of our time originate in serfdom, in the psychology of the masses generated by it. But there is another aspect of the topic that is important for an Orthodox magazine. Many people ask: why didn’t the Church raise its voice against the horrors of serfdom? Moreover, sometimes the Church is directly accused of ideological support of serfdom. What was it really like? Answered by Candidate of Historical Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Center for the History of Religion and the Church of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexey Lvovich Beglov.

The largest feudal lord

- It is well known that in the Middle Ages the Russian Church itself was the largest feudal lord and owned serfs. Is this really true?

It seems to me that this topic requires a detailed answer. I'll start with the fact that we need to distinguish between two things - firstly, church land ownership, and, secondly, ownership of serfs.
The problem is that our school idea of ​​the Middle Ages as an era of serfdom is quite far from reality. “Full-fledged” serfdom, that is, the complete attachment of peasants to the land and, moreover, actual transfer them into the private or corporate ownership of landowners arose quite late. In Rus' this happened only in the 17th century. XVIII centuries, and the heyday of serfdom, which we associate with all sorts of horrors and cruelties, is the second half of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries.

Until the 16th century, most farmers were personally free people. They - individually or as a community - owned the land they cultivated and could move fairly freely. Yes, indeed, since the times of Kievan Rus there were various categories unfree farmers - purchases, serfs, but their number was relatively small.

Therefore, when we say that monasteries and episcopal sees owned villages, we must understand that they owned lands inhabited by free community members. These community members paid the owner of the land, that is, the Church, a certain tax, and in a sense they can be called tenants. If they had no debts, then they could leave this land anywhere. They were not serfs.

But this was the case until the 16th century. But then very difficult things began historical processes, when, on the one hand, emancipation took place in Western European countries, that is, the liberation of peasant communities from feudal dependence, and on the other hand, in Eastern Europe On the contrary, the enslavement of the peasants intensified. You can even draw a conditional border - east of the Elbe. The process of this “new enslavement” covered the northeastern lands of Germany, Poland and, a little later, Muscovite Rus'. The reason is primarily economic: the east coast Baltic Sea at that moment it became the grain granary of Europe, and there was a lot of land suitable for farming, and work force- few. That is why they tried to firmly attach the peasants to the land. In Germany and Poland this was the initiative of the landowners, and in Russia - the state. Hence the consistent restriction of the rights of peasants to leave the land (the introduction of so-called “reserved years”), and ultimately the complete abolition of St. George’s Day at the end of the 16th century.

At the same time, we must understand that the entire 17th century was a time of active enslavement of peasants by the state. The state proceeded from fiscal needs: if people are firmly attached to the land, then it is easier to collect taxes from them. Accordingly, the peasants on those lands that belonged to the Church also become attached to the land. Private serfdom is already the 18th century, the era of the growth of the nobility, the growth of its self-awareness and autonomy from other classes.

Barn floor. Alexey Venetsianov.1821

Was there any reflection on serfdom in the church consciousness? That is, did the Church consider it normal for itself to own serfs?

There was no special reflection. Or rather, reflection, and a powerful one, was on a different question: can the Church even own land? In other words, this is a polemic between the non-possessors and the Josephites, which took place in the 15th–16th centuries and ended in the victory of the Josephites*. And since then this issue was resolved positively - that is, that the Church could own lands, then within the framework of this concept the Church continued to look at things. In the 17th and 18th centuries there was no heated controversy over the ownership of serfs. Moreover, ownership of lands and villages was seen as the last guarantee of church independence in the face of an absolutist state that was increasingly encroaching on the rights of the Church.

But the enslavement of the peasants was, from the point of view of the Church, a question economic policy states. The Church did not consider it necessary to interfere in this area, since this is a process external to it. But the question of church land ownership was fundamentally different - after all, it touched on the question of the internal monastic structure.

Here, perhaps, it is necessary to explain where the Church’s lands came from in the first place. Most often, these lands were donated by will to monasteries by boyars and princes, with the condition of eternal remembrance of the soul. Should I have agreed? Was it worth taking these bequeathed lands? Was it worth remembering the deceased for such contributions? Therefore, controversy was in full swing here, questions arose about internal structure The Church, and its relationship with the royal authorities.

Bargain. Nikolay Nevrev. 1866

Who lives worse in Rus'?

Be that as it may, in the 17th century and in the first half of the 18th century, the monasteries no longer just owned lands, but also the peasants attached to these lands. Is it possible to compare the situation of these peasants with the situation of serfs belonging to the landowners? Who had it worse?

The situation of the monastery peasants was significantly better. Especially in the 18th century, when the nobles had virtually unlimited power over their serfs. The possibility of private landowner arbitrariness was much higher than that of corporate owners- monasteries, episcopal sees or the state. There is evidence in historical literature that among peasants the second half of the XVIII centuries, church peasants were considered the most privileged category of residents. The landowner peasants envied them.

There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the atrocities of landowners were excluded in the monastery estates - the monks did not encroach on the honor of serf women, the monks did not torture the courtyard people (who, by the way, they did not have at all), did not organize dog hunts, did not drink the peasants and did not lose them in cards. Moreover, the peasants were parishioners of monastic churches, and the monasteries were engaged in their spiritual care, fighting against drunkenness and debauchery.

Secondly, church institutions were more concerned with the productivity of their lands, and maximum productivity cannot be achieved through brutal exploitation. Brutal exploitation can only be beneficial in a very short term, but the monastic leadership looked far ahead, thought strategically, and therefore did not strive to squeeze all the juice out of the peasants.

In general, the worst position was for the peasants who belonged to the landowners; in second place were the state peasants (the state treated its peasants more formally than the monastic authorities, and formal attitude sometimes it turned into cruelty), and, finally, it was best for the church peasants.

How did this relative idyll end?

It ended with Catherine’s decree of 1764 on the secularization of church lands. Almost all the land belonging to the monasteries (and, accordingly, the peasants who inhabited it) became the property of the state, and in return the monasteries were allocated monetary support from the treasury - extremely meager.** Of course, this process did not happen instantly - in the south of Russia, in Little Russia, in Belarus , on Western Ukraine it lasted for several decades. But to end of the XVIII centuries, the Church did not have any serfs left. The fate of these former monastic peasants (they began to be called “economic” because they were ruled by the board of economy) was sad, since these peasants began to be actively distributed into private hands by Catherine’s eagles.

Advertisements for the sale of serfs. Newspaper "Moskovskie Vedomosti", 1797

A Christian cannot be a slave owner

Let's move from the 18th century to the 19th century. How did the Slavophiles feel about serfdom? After all, the majority of them took Orthodox positions?

Slavophiles are that direction of Russian thought that can be called a Christian-oriented body of intellectual liberalism. Therefore, they rejected serfdom in principle. In addition, they considered it a phenomenon alien to Russian life, introduced by Peter’s reforms.*** Moreover, many Slavophiles, for example, Yuri Fedorovich Samarin, were active developers of the project for the liberation of the peasants. Being noble landowners themselves, even before 1861 they freed their serfs, and, I especially note this, with land. They did this for Christian reasons. “A Christian can be a slave,” wrote Alexey Khomyakov, “but he cannot be a slave owner.”

But here I have to make an important caveat. When we talk about serfdom, we usually mean the power of landowners over peasants. But there was another dependence of the peasants, which is remembered much less often. I mean dependence on the peasant community. Most Russian peasants (except for Siberia and the northern European part) lived in communities. It was the community that owned the land, which was divided among peasants as a result of regular redistributions. And since it was the community that acted as a collective taxpayer, there was a fairly serious dependence of the peasants on the community itself. It was the gathering, the peasant world, that decided how to divide the land, whether to send the peasant on a pilgrimage or to a monastery (for example, the community prevented St. Basilisk of Siberia from devoting his life to monasticism, because it was afraid of losing the taxpayer). After 1861, the dependence of the peasant on the community not only remained, but also intensified. The danger of this “communal serfdom” was underestimated during the era of the liberation of the peasants. And it was the Slavophiles who underestimated this danger most of all. They considered the peasant community an ideal social structure. There is generally a paradox here: being ardent opponents of landlordism and state serfdom, they sought to preserve communal serfdom - not realizing that this was a time bomb.

Did the Church speak out in defense of peasants who were abused by landowners? Were there such examples?

There were such examples, but, unfortunately, this did not become a general church policy. Every time it was a feat specific persons- monks or parish priests. The most famous example is when Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov), being at that time still an archimandrite, fought against the tyranny of the landowner Strakhov, who abused serf girls and persecuted the parish priest who had exposed him. There were other examples, perhaps not so striking. But there was still no mass protest from the clergy.

Here, too, some clarifications need to be made. Many of our contemporaries do not understand at all what the position of rural priests was in the 19th century. They were entirely dependent on the goodwill of local landowners, who most often maintained the churches, and on the local authorities. Landlord arbitrariness sometimes affected not only peasants, but also rural priests. It happened that priests were poisoned by dogs (as, by the way, monks who lived as hermits in the forests were poisoned by dogs - local landowners did not like such a neighborhood). In Leskov’s story “The Old Years of the Village of Plodomasov” there is an episode when a landowner (as we would say today, a “lawless man”), who stole a daughter from a neighboring landowner and forced her into marriage, forces the parish priest to marry them. He forces him simply: he puts a noose around his neck. If you don't get married, I'll hang you. There were apparently many similar stories, although they are poorly documented.

Is it true that the draft manifesto of 1861 on the liberation of the peasants was written by Moscow Saint Philaret (Drozdov)?

He actually took part in the development of this document, at the request of the chairman of the editorial committee, Count Panin. The saint took as a basis the project of Yu.F. Samarina and reworked it efficiently. Later, St. Philaret’s version, with minor changes, became the text of the Manifesto of February 19, 1861.

But here we also need to explain historical context. The fact is that by the middle of the 19th century, the Church again acquired lands - not villages with peasants, but forests, fishing grounds, commercial lands, and sometimes arable lands. This was given to them by the government. So, on the eve of 1861, rumors began to spread among the church community that the liberation of the peasants would be followed by a new secularization of church lands, that these lands would be distributed partly to peasants and partly to landowners. A paradoxical situation arose - the clergy awaited the emancipation of the peasants with caution: whether it would be followed by some kind of oppression of the Church.

So, Saint Philaret wrote a special review (which is in the collection of reviews on the draft manifesto) that it would be good not to do this, that the liberation of the peasants should not be linked to the seizure of church land.

Common sacrificial cauldron on the patronal feast. Illarion Pryanishnikov. 1888

Subjunctive mood

Both in the 19th and 20th centuries, and even today, there are people who have a negative attitude towards the 1861 manifesto, who believe that it was a very unsuccessful, ill-considered act, which ultimately led to the revolution of 1917. Was it possible, under those conditions, to carry out the liberation of the peasants somehow differently, better?

Here, of course, it is easy to answer that history does not know the subjunctive mood. But I remember Klyuchevsky’s wonderful phrase that, in fairness, the day after February 18, 1762 (when Peter III signed the “Manifesto on the granting of liberty and freedom to the Russian nobility”) a manifesto on the emancipation of the serfs should have been signed, which was done,” Klyuchevsky ironically , - February 19, but only after 99 years. If we talk without jokes, then, in my opinion, main problem the 1861 manifesto was underestimated pitfalls contained in communal serfdom. The community was perceived by the state as a guarantee of the political reliability of the peasants and as a convenient means of collecting taxes. However, no attention was paid to the strategic, “long-term” problems generated by the community. In fact, the real liberation of the peasants never happened; the 1861 manifesto was only the first step towards this.

Serfdom is sometimes considered to be the culprit Orthodox Church. They say that it was thanks to Orthodoxy, which cultivated obedience and humility in people, that serfdom lasted in Russia much longer than in Europe. Or they say that serfdom is evidence of the weakness of the Church, evidence that faith was purely formal and limited only to the ritual side. What do you say about this?

It seems to me that this view is largely far-fetched. First of all, because it is not the Church’s business to fight for or against any political or economic system. All this is external to her, but her main task, the spiritual nourishment of believers, she can carry out under any system.

It is better to pose the question differently - how could Orthodox people, landowners, create such outrages with their serfs? This really shows a flaw in Christian education, but this flaw is inherent in the entire educated society of that time, which was very far from the Church. Let me remind you that atrocity and lawlessness affected not only peasants, but also the lower clergy and monastics. Thus, the problem of the serf owners is moral problem Total Russian society that era.

It seems to me that this topic has not yet been sufficiently comprehended by the modern church consciousness - perhaps because it has somehow gotten lost against the background of more pressing and tragic problems of the 20th century, which are now being actively debated. I think that some time will pass - and the imperial period of our history will be subjected to the same comprehension. I haven't gotten around to it yet, or rather my head.

* See article “Josephites, non-possessors and INN” in the February 2008 issue of “Thomas” - Ed.
** See A. L. Beglov’s article “Unconquered Monasticism” in the October 2009 issue of Thomas. - Ed.
*** For more information about the Slavophiles, see the article “The Eternal Dispute: Westerners and Slavophiles” in the July 2009 issue of Thomas. - Ed.

Archpriest Maxim Khizhiy, inspector of the Holy Trinity Theological School in Gus-Khrustalny Vladimir region, Candidate of Philosophy

Protector of the serfs

Little-known pages of life Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov)

In 1852, the Holy Synod sent Archimandrite Ignatius (Brianchaninov) as a deputy from the clergy to The highest commission, which investigated the violence against the serfs of the Ustyug district in the Novgorod province.

The reason for initiating an investigation was the petition of the serfs of the landowner Strakhov, written from their words by the parish priest Ivanovsky. Almost all the girls, including minors, were subjected to violence by the master. The victims, driven to despair, committed suicide. The local authorities regarded the petition of the serfs as an attempt to revolt, and the priest was accused of incitement. Priest Ivanovsky was beaten by the police, removed from the parish, and put in prison. His family was deprived of their church home, their means of livelihood and doomed to poverty. The fate of the peasants was even worse: five walkers were arrested and died in captivity. A punitive team is sent to the estate to forcibly marry the raped girls and hide traces of the crime.

Archimandrite Ignatius’s consistent position on protecting innocent peasants and clergy caused extreme irritation among Strakhov’s patrons, who wrote denunciations against the archimandrite to the gendarmerie. The investigation lasted about two years. Archimandrite Ignatius conducted a thorough investigation and, with his strong, principled position, achieved a reinvestigation of the case. As a result of the investigation, the estate of the landowner Strakhov was placed under the rule and supervision of authorized representatives of the noble assembly of the province. Priests involved in the case as witnesses were protected from violence local authorities in the monastery while maintaining their salary. But what is much more important is that the great saint made important generalizations that go beyond the scope of the matter itself:

“Concealment of vile acts of immorality, distortion of the truth and disrespect for this, and even more so the humiliation of religion, combined, constitute that terrible poison that, little by little, over time completely dissolves the conscience of the people and plunges them into wickedness, causing all disasters... To disgrace religion in the face its representatives means to humiliate highest degree any power established by religion. Civil willfulness always begins its actions with an attack on religion and its representatives; but the policy of well-organized states strictly protects by force wise laws people's respect for faith the only condition love, obedience and patience, on which all legitimate power is established and rests.”