The peasant question under Catherine the Great. The policy of Catherine II towards the serf peasantry The position of the serfs under Catherine II

2. Catherine II’s policy towards the serfs.

Under Catherine II, the process of turning serfs into slaves begins (as she herself called them: “If a serf cannot be recognized as a person, therefore, he is not a person; then, if you please, recognize him as a beast, which will be attributed to us from the whole world to considerable glory and philanthropy.” ). The darkest side of serfdom was the unlimited arbitrariness of landowners in disposing of the personality and labor of serfs; a number of statesmen of the 18th century spoke about the need to regulate the relations of peasants to landowners. It is known that even under Anna, the legislative normalization of serfdom was proposed by the Chief Prosecutor of the Senate Maslov (in 1734), and Catherine herself spoke out against slavery, recommending “to prescribe by law to landowners that they dispose of their exactions with great consideration,” but all these projects remained only good wishes. Catherine, who ascended the throne at the request of the noble guard and ruled through the noble administration, could not break her ties with the ruling class. In 1765, official permission followed for the sale of such peasants without land (which proves the predominance at this stage of attachment not to the land, but to the landowner) and even with the separation of families. Their property belonged to the landowner; they could carry out civil transactions only with his permission. They were subject to the landowner's patrimonial justice and corporal punishment, which depended on the will of the landowner and was not limited by anything. On August 22, 1767, the Empress issued a decree “On keeping landowners and peasants in obedience and obedience to their landowners, and on not submitting petitions into Her Majesty’s own hands,” in which peasants and other people of the non-noble class were forbidden to submit petitions to Her Majesty, “a. ..if...the peasants do not remain in the obedience due to the landowners, and, contrary...to their landowners, they dare to submit petitions...to the Imperial Majesty,” then it is ordered to flog them with a whip and send them to hard labor, counting them as recruits, so as not to cause damage to the landowner. Catherine's legislation on the scope of landowner power over serfs is characterized by the same uncertainty and incompleteness as the legislation of her predecessors. In general, it was directed in favor of landowners. We saw that Elizabeth, in the interests of settling Siberia, by the law of 1760, granted landowners the right “for impudent acts” to exile healthy serfs to Siberia for settlement without the right of return; Catherine by law of 1765 turned this limited right of exile to a settlement into the right to exile serfs to hard labor without any restrictions for any time with the return of the exiled person at will to the previous owner. With this law, the state actually refused to protect the peasants from the arbitrariness of the landowners, which naturally led to its strengthening. True, in Russia the nobles were never given the right to take the lives of serfs, and if the case of the murder of serfs came to trial, the perpetrators faced serious punishment, but not all cases reached the court and we can only guess how difficult the life of the peasants was, after all, the landowners had the official right to corporal punishment and imprisonment at their discretion, as well as the right to sell peasants. The peasants paid a poll tax, carried state duties and feudal land rent to the landowners in the form of corvee or quitrent, in kind or in cash. Since the economy was extensive, the landowners saw the possibility of increasing income only in increasing corvee or quitrent; by the end of the 18th century, corvee began to reach 5-6 days a week. Sometimes landowners generally established a seven-day corvee with the issuance of a monthly food ration (“mesyachina”). This in turn led to the liquidation of the peasant economy and the degradation of feudalism to a slave system. From the second half of the 18th century, a new category of peasants appeared - “possessional”. The lack of a labor market forced the government to provide labor to industry by attaching entire villages (peasant communities) to factories. They worked their corvee for several months a year in factories, i.e. were serving a session, which is where their name came from - sessional.

Thus, in the first half of the 18th century, and especially after the death of Peter I, the widespread use of forced labor of serfs or assigned state peasants became characteristic of the Russian economy. Entrepreneurs (including non-nobles) did not have to rely on the free labor market, which, with the intensification of the state’s struggle against runaways, freemen and “walkers” - the main contingent of free working people - had significantly narrowed. A more reliable and cheaper way to provide factories with labor was to purchase or add entire villages to enterprises. The policy of protectionism pursued by Peter I and his successors provided for the registration and sale of peasants and entire villages to the owners of manufactories, and above all those that supplied the treasury with products necessary for the army and navy (iron, cloth, saltpeter, hemp, etc.) . By decree of 1736, all working people (including civilians) were recognized as serfs of factory owners.

By decree of 1744 Elizabeth confirmed the decree of January 18, 1721, which allowed owners of private manufactories to buy villages for factories. Therefore, in Elizabeth's time, entire industries were based on forced labor. So, in the second quarter of the 18th century. Most of the factories of the Stroganovs and Demidovs used exclusively the labor of serfs and assigned peasants, and the enterprises of the cloth industry did not know hired labor at all - the state, interested in the supply of cloth for the army, generously distributed state peasants to the factory workers. The same picture was observed at state enterprises. Census of working people at Ural state factories in 1744-1745. showed that only 1.7% of them were civilian employees, and the remaining 98.3% were forced to work.

Starting from the era of Catherine II, theoretical research was carried out (“solving the problem” in the Free Economic Society about “what is more useful for society for the peasant to own land, or only movable property and how far his rights to one or another property should extend” ), projects for the liberation of peasants A.A. Arakcheeva, M.M. Speransky, D.A. Guryeva, E.F. Kankrin and other public figures) and practical experiments (for example, the decree of Alexander I of 1801 on permission to buy and sell uninhabited lands to merchants, petty bourgeois, state-owned peasants, landowners, released into freedom, the decree on free cultivators, which allowed the landowners themselves, in addition to the state, change their relations with the peasants, the decree on obligated peasants, the reform of state peasants by Count P.D. Kiselev), aimed at finding specific ways to ensure minimal costs for the introduction of new institutions and reforms in the Russian Empire as a whole).

The enslavement of the peasants hampered the development of industry, deprived it of free labor; the impoverished peasantry did not have the means to purchase industrial products. In other words, the preservation and deepening of feudal-serf relations did not create a sales market for industry, which, coupled with the absence of a free labor market, was a serious brake on the development of the economy and caused a crisis in the serfdom system. In historiography, the end of the 18th century is characterized as the culmination of serfdom, as the period of flourishing of serfdom, but inevitably the culmination is followed by a denouement, the period of flourishing is followed by a period of decomposition, and this is what happened with serfdom.

State and noble land ownership had one common feature associated with the emergence of a new form of land use: all land convenient for field farming, which was owned by the state, was given to the peasants for use. At the same time, the landowners usually gave a certain part of the estate for use to their peasants for rent or corvee: from 45% to 80% of the total land, the peasants used for themselves. Thus, feudal rent took place in Russia, while throughout Europe the norms of classical rent were spreading with the involvement of commodity-money relations, with the participation of subjects of rent relations in trade turnover and market relations.

Exiled. Despite all the persecution, Moscow University and its progressive figures continued to influence the development of culture, education, school and pedagogical thought in Russia. Pedagogical activity of I. I. Betsky. In the second half of the 18th century, the cruel exploitation of serfs by landowners was taken to extreme limits. The class struggle between peasants and...

...", since "innocently from the impudence of another, the one who suffered a blow tries with all his might to repay it with an even defeat to his enemy." This principle, says Desnitsky, “is strictly observed in almost all enlightened powers.” In Russian literature in the second half of the 18th century, there were often calls to increase the punishment for theft, and they came from both representatives of the nobility and...

With the enthronement of Catherine II, the time of “Palace coups” ended. The domestic policy of Catherine II boiled down to strengthening absolutism and supporting the nobility - the social support of power.

The reign of Catherine II can be divided into two periods:

1. Before the peasant war E.I. Pugacheva.

2. After the peasant war E.I. Pugacheva.

The first period is characterized by the policy of “enlightened absolutism”:

– concern for the welfare of subjects;

– governing the country according to the laws of a fair monarch in accordance with the ideals of the European Enlightenment;

– strengthening of centralized autocratic power;

– encouragement of industrial and commercial activities.

The beginning of the reforms of Catherine II

In 1763, according to the project of N.I. Panin's Senate was divided into 6 departments, each of which had a specific area of ​​activity. Thus, the power of the Senate was reduced and its work was normalized.

In 1763–1764 A monastic reform was carried out - church lands were secularized (church land ownership was turned into state, secular property). This replenished the treasury and stopped the unrest of the monastic peasants, who had now become part of the state.

In 1764, the hetmanate in Ukraine was destroyed - Ukraine finally lost its autonomy.

In 1767 the Statutory Commission was created. Elections to the commission of representatives from the nobility, townspeople, service people, and state peasants.

The purpose of creating the commission:

– drawing up a new code of laws;

– finding out the mood in society.

For the deputies of the Legislative Commission, Catherine compiled “Instructions” - a compilation instruction from the works of French enlighteners. Catherine II intended to alleviate the situation of the peasants, but her intentions met resistance from the nobility.

The activities of the commission turned out to be ineffective; the deputies were mired in narrow-class demands and were not up to the task assigned to them. Under the pretext of the outbreak of war with Turkey in December 1768, the commission was dissolved.

Provincial reform

In 1775, Catherine II carried out provincial reform.

The purpose of the reform: strengthening local government power and strengthening the position of the nobility.

The essence of the reform:

– Russia is divided into provinces, the number of provinces increased from 23 to 50, the provinces are divided into districts;

– a division was made between administrative (governor and provincial government), financial (treasury chamber) and judicial matters, an estate court was introduced, and the Senate became the highest judicial body of the empire;

– the number of cities has increased significantly (all provincial and district centers), a system of local self-government is being formed, in which the priority of the noble class is consolidated;

- collegiums were abolished (with the exception of foreign, military and admiralty), their functions were transferred to local provincial bodies, an order of public charity was created (in charge of schools, shelters, hospitals and almshouses).

Serfdom in the era of Catherine II

Serfdom under Catherine reached its peak, and the crisis of the corvee-serf economy began:

- the situation of the peasants worsened, in a number of cases the peasants were transferred for a month (the peasant was deprived of his land allotment and worked all week on the landowner’s land in exchange for receiving a month’s supply of food from the master;

- a decree was issued allowing peasants to be sent to hard labor;

– peasants were not allowed to file complaints against landowners in the highest name;

– distribution of state peasants to landowners was widely practiced;

– there is a stratification of the village into rich and poor, the ruin of a mass of peasant farms;

– in 1775 the Zaporozhye Sich was liquidated, the Cossacks were deprived of their liberties, and in 1783 serfdom was introduced in Ukraine.

Charters granted to the nobility and cities - 1785

The rights and privileges of the nobility were finally enshrined in the “Charter of Grant to the Nobility”:

– freedom from corporal punishment, capitation tax, compulsory service;

- deprivation of nobility only by court of nobles for a limited range of crimes, and the estates of convicted nobles are not subject to confiscation;

– monopoly right to own serfs;

- the nobility received class self-government (provincial and district noble assemblies and elected leaders of the nobility).

Simultaneously with the “Charter of Grant to the Nobility,” the “Charter of Grant to the Cities” was promulgated:

– creation of a city society functionally similar to a noble assembly, election of a city duma and mayor;

- deprivation of property and the title of tradesman only by court for a limited range of crimes, exemption of eminent citizens and merchants of the first two guilds from poll tax, conscription, and corporal punishment;

– creation of a single “third estate” from various groups of urban inhabitants.

Along with the grants of letters to the nobility and cities, the project “Granted letters to the peasantry” was created - the creation of a full-fledged class of state peasants. But due to the opposition of the nobility to the peasantry, it was not made public.

Economic development of Russia

– Russia remained an agrarian country, in pursuit of profit, landowners increased corvée and quitrents, grain trade expanded, and the stratification of the peasantry intensified;

– small-scale production continues to actively develop, exchange between city and countryside has become wider;

– in 1765, the Free Economic Society was created to disseminate scientific knowledge, including in agronomy;

– the role of manufacturing increased, iron smelting increased, linen and cloth factories successfully developed, the use of civilian labor in industry increased (mainly due to peasant otkhodniks earning their dues);

– farming and monopolies were abolished;

– the specialization of regions increased, fairs gained momentum, the all-Russian market strengthened and expanded;

– foreign trade expanded; Agricultural raw materials (grain, flax, hemp) were exported; wool and cotton fabrics, metals, and luxury goods were imported;

- from 1769, paper money began to be printed in Russia - banknotes (by the end of Catherine’s reign, the ruble exchange rate for banknotes fell to 70 kopecks in silver);

– capitalist relations were emerging in Russia.

The Peasant War led by E. Pugachev (1773 - 1775).

The consistent strengthening of serfdom caused an intensification of the class struggle. Its highest expression was the peasant war led by Emelyan Pugachev (1773–1775).

Causes of the war

– further enslavement of peasants;

- deprivation of the Cossacks of their former liberties;

– deterioration of the situation of mining workers of the Urals, peoples of the Volga and Urals regions;

– strengthening of the absolutist-feudal state in Russia. The uprising began in the eastern regions of the country, where the contradictions were especially tense.

The composition of the movement was heterogeneous

– peasants;

– working people;

- Cossack poor;

– local non-Russian peoples.

The territory covered by the uprising was huge:

– West: Voronezh, Tambov;

– East: Tyumen;

– south: Caspian;

– north: Nizhny Novgorod, Perm.

Progress of the uprising

- in May 1773, Don Cossack E.I. Pugachev, a native of the village of Zimoveyskaya on the Don, escaped from the Kazan prison;

- Appearing near the Yaitsky town, he declared himself Emperor Peter III;

- in September, the rebels took the Tatishchev fortress and a number of other towns;

- Orenburg was besieged, but it was not possible to take it;

– the uprising spread over a vast territory;

– at the beginning of 1774, a turning point began in favor of government troops;

- in the battle for the Tatishchev fortress, the best part of Pugachev’s army was destroyed;

- the rebel army was defeated near Ufa;

- in the mining areas of the Urals, Pugachev creates a new army;

– in May 1774 the Magnetic Fortress was taken;

- having been defeated, Pugachev retreated to the Volga provinces;

– in the summer of 1774 the uprising reached its greatest extent;

– the rebels occupy the cities of Saransk, Penza, Saratov and others;

- near Tsaritsyn the rebels are defeated;

- Cossack elders hand over Pugachev to the tsarist troops;

Causes of defeat

– spontaneity;

– fragmentation of forces;

– disorganization;

– the strength of government forces;

– lack of military training;

– national hatred;

- monarchical illusions.

Features of the uprising

– covered vast territories;

– the anti-feudal movement echoed the national one;

– there were means of command and control;

– there was a program: the destruction of serfdom and the nobility;

- The peasant war did not bring relief to the peasants.

Foreign policy of Catherine II.

The greatest successes during the reign of Catherine II were achieved in foreign policy, which she pursued most energetically.

Main directions of foreign policy

In the second half of the 18th century. The Russian government was solving two of the most important problems for its foreign policy:

1. Secure the southern borders and reach the shores of the Black Sea.

2. Continue the reunification of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands. Count N.I. was at the origins of Catherine’s foreign policy. Panin. In an effort to counteract the hostile policies of France, he organized a union of Northern European states - the so-called. "Northern Accord": Russia, Prussia, Denmark, England with the assistance of Poland and Sweden.

Russo-Turkish War 1768–1774

In 1768, Türkiye, pushed by France, declared war on Russia.

Progress of hostilities:

- fighting took place on the Danube, in Crimea, in Transcaucasia;

- in the summer of 1770, the Russian army under the command of P.A. Rumyantseva defeated the Turks at Larga and Kagul;

– in 1770, Russian troops captured Crimea;

- in June 1770, the Russian fleet under the command of P.A. Spiridov in the Chesme Bay of the island of Chios destroyed the Turkish squadron;

- Russian corps under the command of A.V. Suvorov inflicted a number of defeats on the Turkish troops.

In 1774, the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi Peace Treaty was concluded with Turkey. Russia received the Black Sea coast between the Bug and the Dniester, part of the Kuban and Azov lands, Kabarda, the fortresses of Kerch and Yenikale. Crimean and Kuban Tatars became independent from Turkey.

Foreign policy between the Turkish wars

After the Russian-Turkish War of 1768–1774. and the events that took place in Poland, there is a cooling of Russia’s relations with England and Prussia due to the excessive, in their opinion, strengthening of Russia. Russia rejected England’s request to provide troops to wage war against the North American colonies; moreover, in 1780 it published the Declaration of Armed Neutrality (the right of neutral countries to import their goods into warring countries and defend this right with weapons), which supported the North American colonies fighting for independence and which was an unfriendly act towards England fighting in North America.

In 1780, Catherine II met with the Austrian Emperor Joseph, and a defensive alliance was concluded.

Instead of N.I. Panin, A.A. becomes head of the foreign policy department. Bezborodko, Catherine’s favorite G.A. is beginning to play a major role in foreign policy. Potemkin. The so-called "Greek project": restoration of the Greek (Byzantine) empire with the grandson of Catherine II Konstantin Pavlovich on the throne.

In 1783, the Treaty of Georgievsk was concluded with Georgia (a protectorate of Russia) and Crimea was annexed to Russia. In 1787, the famous journey of Catherine II to New Russia and Crimea took place. All this led to a new Russian-Turkish war.

Russo-Turkish War 1787–1791

In 1787, Turkey demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia, leaving Crimea and stopping interference in the affairs of Moldova. Russia rejected the Turkish ultimatum and a new Russian-Turkish war began.

Progress of hostilities:

– in 1788, Russian troops captured the Turkish fortress of Ochakov;

- in 1789 troops under the command of A.V. Suvorov defeated the Turks at Focsani and Rymnik;

- in 1790, Suvorov’s troops took the strongest fortress of Izmail;

- Black Sea Fleet under the command of F.F. Ushakova inflicted several crushing defeats on the Turkish fleet (Fidonisi, Tenor, Kalikria).

In 1791, a peace treaty was concluded in Iasi: Russia received the Black Sea coast from the Southern Bug to the Dniester, Turkey recognized the annexation of Crimea to Russia and Russian protectorate over Georgia.

Partitions of Poland

In 1763, the Polish king Augustus III died, and the protege of Russia and Prussia, Stanislav Poniatowski, was elevated to the throne.

In 1772, trying to destroy the Austro-Turkish alliance, Russia went for a partial division of Polish lands (1 partition): Austria received Galicia, Prussia received Pomerania and part of Greater Poland, Russia received Eastern Belarus and the Polish part of Livonia.

In 1791, a new constitution was adopted in Poland. In response, Russian and Prussian troops were sent to Poland, the constitution, which strengthened Polish independence, was abolished and in 1793 the 2nd division of Poland took place: Prussia received Gdansk, Torun and the rest of Greater Poland with Poznan, Russia received Central Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine.

The second partition of Poland led to an uprising led by Tadeusz Kościuszko. The defeat of the uprising led to the 3rd partition of Poland, which occurred in 1795: Austria received Lesser Poland with Lublin, Russia received Lithuania, Western Belarus and the Volyn lands, as well as Courland, the remaining Polish lands with Warsaw went to Prussia. Stanislaw Poniatowski renounced the Polish crown and left for Russia. The Polish state ceased to exist.

Relations with revolutionary France

Catherine II greeted the beginning of the revolution in France calmly, even with some gloating. But as events unfolded, the empress's attitude began to change. After the execution of Louis XVI, Russia broke off all relations with revolutionary France, but did not enter into anti-French coalitions during the life of Catherine II.

During the reign of Catherine II, Russia achieved significant foreign policy successes: it gained access to the Black Sea and significantly expanded its territory, but it was during this period that Russian foreign policy finally acquired an imperial character.

The policy of Catherine II in the last years of her reign

In the last years of her reign, Catherine, under the influence of the events of the French Revolution, refused to carry out reforms and toughened her attitude towards freethinkers: the publisher and educator N.I. would be subject to repression. Novikov and the author of the book “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” A.N. Radishchev. The creation of a civil society in Russia in accordance with the ideals of enlightenment was postponed.

Results of the reign of Catherine II

– imperial events in foreign and domestic policy;

– strengthening absolutism by reforming government institutions and the new administrative structure of the state, protecting the monarchy from any attacks;

– socio-economic measures for the further “Europeanization” of the country and the final formation and strengthening of the nobility;

– liberal enlightenment initiatives, care for education, literature and the arts;

– the unpreparedness of Russian society not only for the abolition of serfdom, but even for more moderate reforms.

Domestic and foreign policy of Paul I.

Domestic policy of Paul I

In 1796, Catherine II died, and her son Paul, who hated his mother for so long (34 years) did not allow him to reign, ascended the throne. As a result of the conflict with his mother and the events of the Great French Revolution, Paul became completely disillusioned with the ideals of the Enlightenment. Having gained power, he began to inculcate the ideals of the knightly era, considered it the duty of his subjects to unquestioningly obey the monarch and attached special importance to issues of knightly honor and ethics. "Counter-reforms" of Paul I:

- in 1797, Paul issued the “Institution on the Imperial Family,” according to which the decree on succession to the throne was canceled. The decree approved the continuity of power in the ruling dynasty through the male descendant line. This position determined the rejection of the previous practice of imperial councils and the tsar’s desire for maximum centralization of power;

- The collegial system of organizing the central apparatus was replaced by a ministerial system based on unity of command and control from above. This meant the loss of the Senate's role. Paul developed a plan for the establishment of seven ministries - justice, finance, military, maritime, foreign affairs, commerce and the state treasury, but it was fully implemented after his death;

- provincial reform was carried out. The 40 provinces that existed under Catherine were transformed into 41, and the region of the Don Army appeared. At the same time, the administration of 11 outlying provinces was built taking into account national traditions and local characteristics;

- the restructuring of the state system, combined with the bureaucratization of management, entailed the infringement of noble self-government. Administrative and police functions were removed from the jurisdiction of noble assemblies, and in 1799 provincial noble assemblies were abolished altogether;

– in 1798 the upper zemstvo courts were abolished. The decree of August 23, 1800 annulled the right of noble societies to elect assessors to judicial bodies - the participation of elected representatives of the nobility in legal proceedings was limited to the lower zemstvo court;

– Paul’s social policy testified to his ability to flexible maneuver and adapt to the needs of the time, without affecting the very foundations of the feudal-absolutist state. It combined attempts to partially loosen the fetters that were crushing the peasantry and efforts to keep the peasant masses in obedience, ensuring the greatest return from them to landowners and the state. Thus, on April 5, 1797, the Manifesto on the three-day corvee was promulgated, which ordered landowners to use the corvée labor of peasants no more than three times a week. However, the wishes were of a recommendatory nature, and in practice, rarely did any of the landowners comply with the tsar’s “recommendation”;

- the relationship between landowners and peasants was regulated: a ban on selling servants and peasants without land, a ban on selling people at auction in 1798, a ban on splitting up peasant families when selling, replacing the invoice grain tax levied on peasants with a moderate monetary tax, the order to take an oath on allegiance to the sovereign from the owning peasants;

- contradictory trends were emerging - the unprecedented distribution of 600 thousand souls of state peasants into private ownership in less than five years (Catherine II distributed 800 thousand peasants in 34 years), the harsh suppression of peasant complaints against the masters. This was essentially a logical continuation of the serfdom policy of Catherine II;

- fighting the influence of the French Revolution, Paul introduced severe censorship and banned all private printing houses;

– in relation to the nobility, Paul’s policies also faced contradictory trends. On the one hand, the tsar’s concern for strengthening the economic position of the nobility, which was expressed in material power through the credit and banking system, and the creation of a regime of maximum favorability for the nobility in the service (decrees of 1797 and 1798). Another tendency manifested itself in the limitation of class self-government and its absorption by the bureaucratic apparatus;

– the most unacceptable for the nobility were the transformations of Paul I in the army. An ardent admirer of the Prussian military doctrine of Frederick II, three weeks after his accession he issued new infantry and equestrian regulations, restored corporal punishment for officers in the army, and the basic principles of strategy and tactics of Russian military art were forgotten. But at the same time: the end of the “golden age” of robber quartermasters, the equalization of soldiers and officers in service duties and punishments, the establishment of a military orphanage and soldiers’ schools, upon completion of service the soldier receives a plot of land and money.

Pavel was characterized by minute regulation of the duties and private lives of his subjects; police surveillance, censorship of letters, and a ban on the import of foreign books into Russia were introduced. The emperor's policies were contradictory and inconsistent. No one could be sure of the future.

Foreign policy of Paul I

In 1798, Russia joined the anti-French coalition along with England, Austria, Turkey and the Kingdom of Naples. The goal of the coalition was to expel the French from Italy.

Course of events

- in the fall of 1798, a Russian-Turkish squadron under the command of F.F. Ushakova headed to the Mediterranean Sea and in 1799 expelled the French from the Ionian Islands;

– in the spring and summer of 1799, the Russian-Austrian army under the command of A.V. Suvorova defeated the French at Adda, on the Trebbia River and at Novi - all of Northern Italy was cleared of French troops;

- Suvorov’s troops were sent to Switzerland to join the corps of A.M. Rimsky-Korsakov, in September 1799, Russian troops crossed the Alps (Swiss campaign) and, finding themselves surrounded, without help from the Austrians, won a number of more victories, Suvorov was awarded the title of generalissimo;

– Paul I regarded the behavior of the English and Austrian allies as betrayal, recalled Suvorov’s army to Russia and broke the alliance with England and Austria;

- a Russian-French alliance was concluded, preparations began for a joint campaign in India.

The alliance with Napoleonic France and the severance of relations with England were extremely unpopular in Russia: the nobility saw Napoleon as the successor of the French Revolution, and England was the main trading partner and buyer of Russian grain. A sharp turn in foreign policy was one of the reasons for organizing the conspiracy and overthrow of Paul I.

Conspiracy and murder of Paul I

The beginning of the conspiracy is the creation and dissemination of myths about Paul’s madness, undermining the authority of the emperor. The organizer of the conspiracy is St. Petersburg Governor General P.A. Palen, the passive complicity of the heir to the Emperor, Grand Duke Alexander Pavlovich.

The reason for organizing the conspiracy was the dissatisfaction of the nobility with Paul’s domestic and foreign policies. The successful experience of palace coups in the 18th century played a role.

On the night of March 11-12, 1801, the conspirators (Count P.A. Palen, General L.L. Benningsen, the last favorite of Catherine II P.A. Zubov and his brothers, guards officers) broke into the emperor’s chambers in the Mikhailovsky Castle, where and killed Paul I. The reign of Alexander I began.

The reign of Catherine II for Russia was a turning point and full of contradictions. On the one hand, these are famous victories at sea and on land, important reforms in the field of local and central government, great successes achieved in the field of culture and economic development. The other (negative) side of her reign is characterized by the horrors of serfdom that flourished at that time, the pressure of the state apparatus and its punitive bodies, and the increased pressure of the feudal lords on the lower social classes. In the “era of enlightened absolutism” with all its achievements, the rampant tyranny of serfdom reached unprecedented heights.

Thanks to the enlightened nobility, a lot was done for Russia. The names of Rumyantsev, Shuvalov, Potemkin, Orlov, Radishchev, Karamzin and other great people are forever inscribed in the history of our country. But the nobility was the dominant layer of the population, a serf-owning class that zealously defended its privileges. This significantly hampered the further development of the country. Progressive labor methods were not welcomed at that time, since personal enrichment came at the expense of the duties of serfs. The nobility tenaciously clung to serfdom, which transformed in the second half of the 18th century. into real slavery.

The state and feudal nobles were legally the owners of the land and its subsoil, as well as the peasantry and estates. The then flourishing craving for pleasure led to the fact that in their desire to outdo each other with the splendor of their own palace houses, the number of outfits and jewelry, and the high cost of carriages, it cost a lot of money. There is a known fact when Prince Potemkin appeared at one of the holidays in a hat that was so heavy from the abundance of diamonds and other precious stones that adorned it that it was very difficult to wear it on his head for some time. Therefore, he gave it to the adjutant accompanying him, who carried it with Potemkin all evening. And this is just one example. And how many of them could be brought. This is how Moscow and St. Petersburg lived, and provincial cities gradually began to emulate them. Life on display with its endless balls, fireworks and crazy spending required continuous replenishment of the wallet. Peasants, primarily serfs, suffered from backbreaking labor in the master's house or in field work. For their work they often received beatings and stabbings. And from the third quarter of the 18th century. The feudal serf owner could already send the peasant to hard labor.

As a result, the serf peasantry becomes completely powerless. The feudal landowner ceases to consider the peasant as a person, but treats him as cattle or even worse. Serfs are sold and exchanged (they could be exchanged for livestock, purebred dogs and horses, etc.), lost at cards, and given as gifts. It is known that Empress Catherine II, from the time of her accession to the royal throne, gave away over 66 thousand souls only to males (not counting their families) over 10 years. As a result of a transaction (sale, exchange, gift), a serf could be alienated either alone or together with relatives. Extravagance, drunkenness and debauchery were held in high esteem among landowners. The master could have a serf harem for his own pleasure (this was not considered shameful). In some estates, lordly cruelty and tyranny took on the most truly savage forms. The names of such landowner-executioners are known: the notorious Saltychikha (who tortured up to 140 serfs, mostly young girls), Princess Kozlovskaya, landowner Shenshin, and others. On June 11, 1767, the Senate decided to prohibit peasants from complaining about landowners. The oppressed state and complete lack of rights of the serfs, their complete poverty and dependence on their feudal lord, crop failures, hunger and high mortality (especially among children) led to the fact that peasant riots and uprisings began to break out everywhere. Only in the third quarter of the 18th century. 120 open uprisings were recorded. During the reign of Catherine II, serfdom was also introduced in Ukraine, whose peasantry had remained free until that time.

In the second half of the 18th century. peasants made up 96% of the country's total population, i.e. the overwhelming majority. The peasants' tools were poor. When cultivating the land at that time, wooden tools were used (plow, harrow, roe deer, and occasionally a plow was used). The horses available on the farms were weak, and there weren’t enough of them for everyone. The fields were poorly manured due to the lack of livestock, as well as as a result of their frequent death. All this affected the yield, which remained at a very low level. In hungry, lean, dry years there was a high mortality rate among peasants (a third of all years of the 18th century were lean). The plight of the Russian peasantry at that time is recorded in many documents of the Senate, provincial and provincial offices.

The peasantry was divided into several categories. The serf peasantry made up the largest part of the population of the European part of Russia. On the territory of the Russian North, serfdom did not receive much development, and in some parts of it it was completely absent. Monastic and serf peasants were subordinate to their masters - monasteries and landowners.

More than half of all serfs worked as corvee labor, that is, they cultivated the landowner's arable land and carried out duties on their master's estate. The peasant was obliged to work 3–4 days a week on his master’s arable land, but in reality his labor was used for 5–6 days. Others were forced to work entirely for the landowner. As a reward, the peasant received the maintenance of the entire family (month) for his backbreaking work, but he did not have his own allotment. This method of using serf labor was very common in the southern black soil zone (especially in the Volga region). With the increase in corvée labor, the area under cultivation increased, the harvest from which was then sold by the landowner.

In the non-black earth and northern provinces, almost half of the peasantry was on cash rent. This is due to the fact that farming here was unprofitable due to poor land, and as a result, low landowner income from crops. Only a fifth of the master's land was plowed. The quitrent peasantry enjoyed greater freedom than the corvée peasantry. True, increased payments in the 70-90s. XVIII century led to a worsening of their situation. In addition to their main duties, they also performed other work: draining swamps, digging ditches, performing construction work, weaving, procuring food, etc. In this part of Russia, peasant entrepreneurship and crafts are developing, since field work does not take much time and effort. On quitrent estates, a process of stratification of the peasantry is taking place (for example, Count Sheremetyev had serfs who had their own serfs). Serfs for their own enrichment, but sometimes entire villages were acquired in the name of the landowner. The master encouraged this approach, because in return he received an increased monetary rent from such a rich peasant.

The palace peasants, belonging to the family ruling the country, were on the so-called private property right. In addition to making various payments, their duties included performing duties (field work, delivering food supplies to the yard, etc.). The palace peasants had a simpler life than the serfs.

The best economic position was occupied by state peasants. These primarily include black-sown peasants, who made up up to 40% of the total rural population of Russia, as well as odnodvortsy (descendants of “serving people according to the device” of the 16th–17th centuries), peasants assigned to factories, economic peasants (former monastic peasants, transferred to the College of Economics after the seizure of church property in favor of the state in 1764). The yasak peasants, consisting of non-Russian peoples - Tatars, Kalmyks, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, etc., also belonged to this category. The yasak peasants lived mostly in the Volga region, Siberia, Kazakhstan, and the Urals. They paid a tax - yasak - to the state treasury. State peasants lived in great fear of their possible transfer to serfdom. With the growth of production in the country, a need for labor resources arose, so this category of peasants was under the threat of being attached to factories and factories, where working and living conditions were extremely difficult. The payment for labor was very small, and part of it had to be given to the landowner if he let the peasant go to work.

The reign of Catherine the Great is called the period of Enlightened absolutism, because. at this time, Russia as a whole continued to develop along the paths laid by Peter the Great.

However, complete freedom of economic life could not exist as long as serfdom remained. Now it is easy to understand what task faced Catherine’s legislation in establishing relations between landowners and the serfs: this task was to fill the gaps allowed in the legislation on land relations of both sides. Catherine had to proclaim the general principles that were to form the basis of their land relations, and, in accordance with these principles, indicate the exact boundaries to which the power of the landowner over the peasants extended and from which the power of the state began. The determination of these boundaries apparently occupied the empress at the beginning of her reign. In the commission of 1767, bold claims were heard from some sides for serfdom of peasant labor: classes that did not have it, for example, merchants, Cossacks, even clergy, demanded the expansion of serfdom, to their shame. These slaveholding claims irritated the empress, and this irritation was expressed in one short note that has come down to us from that time. This note reads: “If a serf cannot be recognized as a person, therefore, he is not a person; then, if you please, recognize him as a beast, which will be attributed to us from the whole world to considerable glory and philanthropy.” But this irritation remained a fleeting pathological flash of a humane ruler. People close and influential, familiar with the state of affairs, also advised her to intervene in the relations of the peasants with the landowners. It can be assumed that liberation, the complete abolition of serfdom was not yet within the power of the government, but it was possible to introduce into the minds and legislation the idea of ​​​​mutually harmless norms of relations and, without abolishing rights, to restrain arbitrariness.

To resolve this issue, as well as for the purpose of rational organization of agricultural production, the Free Economic Society was created (1765). One of the oldest in the world and the first economic society in Russia (free - formally independent from government departments) was established in St. Petersburg by large landowners who, in the conditions of the growth of the market and commercial agriculture, sought to rationalize agriculture and increase the productivity of serf labor. The founding of the VEO was one of the manifestations of the policy of enlightened absolutism. VEO began its activities by announcing competitive tasks, publishing “Proceedings of VEO” (1766-1915, more than 280 volumes) and appendices to them. The first competition was announced on the initiative of the Empress herself in 1766: “What is the property of a farmer (peasant), whether it is his land that he cultivates or movable property, and what right should he have to both for the benefit of the whole people?” Of the 160 responses from Russian and foreign authors, the most progressive was the essay by legal scholar A.Ya. Polenov, who criticized serfdom. The answer displeased the VEO competition committee and was not published. Until 1861, 243 competitive problems of a socio-economic and scientific-economic nature were announced. Socio-economic issues concerned three problems: 1) land ownership and serfdom, 2) the comparative profitability of corvee and quitrent, 3) the use of hired labor in agriculture.

The activities of VEO contributed to the introduction of new agricultural crops, new types of agriculture, and the development of economic relations. Catherine II also thought about the liberation of peasants from serfdom. But the abolition of serfdom did not take place. The “Nakaz” talks about how landowners should treat peasants: not burden them with taxes, levy taxes that do not force peasants to leave their homes, and so on. At the same time, she spread the idea that for the good of the state, peasants should be given freedom.

The internal contradictions of Catherine's reign were fully reflected in the policy of Catherine II on the peasant issue. On the one hand, in 1766, she anonymously set before the Free Economic Society a competitive task on the advisability of providing landowner peasants with the right to movable and landed property and even awarded the first prize to the Frenchman Lebey, who argued: “The power of the state is based on the freedom and welfare of the peasants, but the endowment their land should follow liberation from serfdom."

But on the other hand, it was under Catherine II that the nobility achieved almost unlimited powers over the peasants belonging to them. In 1763, it was established that serfs who decided “to engage in many willfulness and insolence” must “beyond the punishment due to their guilt” pay all the costs associated with sending military teams to pacify them.

In general, Catherine’s legislation on the scope of landowner power over serfs is characterized by the same uncertainty and incompleteness as the legislation of her predecessors. In general, it was directed in favor of landowners. In the interests of settling Siberia, by the law of 1760, Elizabeth granted landowners the right “for insolent acts” to exile healthy serfs to Siberia for settlement without the right of return; By the law of 1765, Catherine turned this limited right of exile to a settlement into the right to exile serfs to hard labor without any restrictions for any time with the return of the exiled person at will to the previous owner. Further, in the 17th century. the government accepted petitions against landowners for their cruel treatment, carried out investigations on these complaints and punished the perpetrators. During the reign of Peter, a number of decrees were issued prohibiting people of all conditions from making requests to the highest name outside of government agencies; these decrees were confirmed by Peter's successors. However, the government continued to accept peasant complaints against landowners from rural communities. These complaints greatly embarrass the Senate; at the beginning of Catherine's reign, he proposed measures to Catherine to completely stop peasant complaints against the landowners. Once Catherine, at a meeting of the Senate in 1767, complained that while traveling to Kazan, she received up to 600 petitions - “mostly everything, including a few weekly ones, from the landowner peasants in large fees from the landowners.” Prince Vyazemsky, the Prosecutor General of the Senate, expressed concern in a special note: lest the “displeasure” of the peasants against the landowners “multiply and produce harmful consequences.” Soon the Senate forbade peasants from complaining about the landowners in the future. Catherine approved this report and on August 22, 1767, at the same time that the deputies of the Commissions were listening to the articles of the “Nakaz” on freedom and equality, a decree was issued that said that if anyone “is not allowed to petition their landowners, especially to Her Majesty in their own dares to offer his hands,” then both the petitioners and the compilers of the petitions will be punished with a whip and exiled to Nerchinsk for eternal hard labor, with those exiled to the landowners counted as recruits. This decree was ordered to be read on Sundays and holidays in all rural churches for a month. That is, this decree declared any complaint by peasants against their landowners a state crime. Thus, the nobleman became a sovereign judge in his domains, and his actions in relation to the peasants were not controlled by state authorities, courts and administration.

Further, even under Catherine, the boundaries of patrimonial jurisdiction were not precisely defined. The decree of October 18, 1770 stated that the landowner could judge peasants only for those offenses that, according to the law, were not accompanied by the deprivation of all rights of the estate; but the amount of punishment that the landowner could punish for these crimes was not indicated. Taking advantage of this, landowners punished serfs for minor offenses with punishments that were reserved only for the most serious criminal offenses. In 1771, to stop indecent public trading by peasants, a law was passed that prohibited the sale of peasants without land for the debts of landowners at public auction, “under the hammer.” The law remained inactive, and the Senate did not insist on its implementation.

With such a breadth of landowner power, during the reign of Catherine, the trade of serf souls with and without land developed even more than before; prices for them were established - decree, or state, and free, or noble. At the beginning of Catherine’s reign, when entire villages purchased a peasant soul with land, it was usually valued at 30 rubles; with the establishment of a loan bank in 1786, the price of a soul rose to 80 rubles. rubles, although the bank accepted noble estates as collateral only for 40 rubles. for the soul. At the end of Catherine’s reign, it was generally difficult to buy an estate for less than 100 rubles. for the soul. In retail sales, a healthy worker purchased as a recruit was valued at 120 rubles. at the beginning of the reign and 400 rubles. - at the end of it.

Finally, in the charter granted to the nobility in 1785, while listing the personal and property rights of the class, she also did not single out peasants from the total composition of real estate of the nobility, i.e., she tacitly recognized them as an integral part of the landowner's agricultural equipment. Thus, landowner power, having lost its previous political justification, acquired wider legal boundaries under Catherine.

What ways of determining the relations of the serf population were possible during the reign of Catherine? We saw that the serfs were attached to the face of the landowner as eternally obligated state cultivators. The law determined their strength in person, but did not determine their relationship to the land, the work on which paid for the state duties of the peasants. It was possible to develop the relationship of serfs to landowners in three ways: firstly, they could be detached from the face of the landowner, but not attached to the land, therefore, this would be the landless emancipation of the peasants. The liberal nobles of Catherine's time dreamed of such liberation, but such liberation was hardly possible; at least, it would have brought complete chaos into economic relations and, perhaps, would have led to a terrible political catastrophe.

It was possible, on the other hand, by detaching the serfs from the landowner, attaching them to the land, that is, making them independent of the masters, tying them to the land purchased by the treasury. This would have placed the peasants in a position very close to that which was initially created for them on February 19, 1861: it would have turned the peasants into strong state payers of the land. In the 18th century It was hardly possible to accomplish such a liberation coupled with the complex financial transaction of purchasing the land.

Finally, it was possible, without detaching the peasants from the landowners, to attach them to the land, that is, to maintain a certain power of the landowner over the peasants, who were placed in the position of state cultivators attached to the land. This would create a temporary relationship between peasants and landowners; legislation in this case had to determine exactly the land and personal relations of both parties. This method of sorting out relations was the most convenient, and it was precisely this that Polenov and practical people close to Catherine who knew well the state of affairs in the village, such as Pyotr Panin or Sivers, insisted on. Catherine did not choose any of these methods; she simply consolidated the rule of the owners over the peasants as it had developed in the middle of the 18th century, and in some respects even expanded that power.

Thanks to this, serfdom under Catherine II entered the third phase of its development and took on a third form. The first form of this right was the personal dependence of serfs on landowners by contract - until the decree of 1646; Serfdom had this form until the half of the 17th century. According to the Code and legislation of Peter, this right turned into the hereditary dependence of serfs on landowners by law, conditioned by the compulsory service of landowners. Under Catherine, serfdom received a third form: it turned into the complete dependence of the serfs, who became the private property of landowners, not conditioned by the latter’s compulsory service, which was removed from the nobility. That is why Catherine can be called the culprit of serfdom not in the sense that she created it, but in the fact that under her this right from a fluctuating fact, justified by the temporary needs of the state, turned into a right recognized by law, not justified by anything.

Under the cover of serfdom in the landowner villages, they developed in the second half of the 18th century. peculiar relationships and orders. Until the 18th century In the landed estates, a mixed, quitrent-corvee system of land exploitation and serf labor dominated. For the plot of land given to them for use, the peasants partly cultivated the land for the landowner, and partly paid him a quitrent.

Thanks to the vague definition of serfdom by law, during the reign of Catherine, the demands of landowners in relation to serf labor expanded; this exactingness was expressed in the gradual increase in rent. Due to differences in local conditions, quitrents were extremely diverse. The following quitrents can be considered the most normal: 2 rubles. - in the 60s, 3 rubles. - in the 70s, 4 r. - in the 80s and 5 r. - in the 90s from every revision soul. The most common land allotment at the end of Catherine's reign was 6 acres of arable land in three fields for taxation; a tax was an adult worker with a wife and young children who could not yet live on a separate household.

As for corvée, according to information collected at the beginning of the reign of Catherine II, it turned out that in many provinces peasants gave half of their working time to the landowners; However, in good weather, the peasants were forced to work for the landowner all week long, so that the peasants were able to work for themselves only after the end of the lord's harvest season. In many places, landowners demanded four or even five days of work from peasants. Observers generally found work in Russian serf villages for a landowner more difficult compared to peasant work in neighboring countries of Western Europe. Pyotr Panin, a liberal man to a very moderate extent, wrote that “the lord’s exactions and corvée labor in Russia not only surpass the examples of the closest foreign residents, but often come out of human tolerability.” This means, taking advantage of the absence of a precise law that would determine the extent of compulsory peasant labor for the landowner, some landowners completely dispossessed their peasants and turned their villages into slave-holding plantations, which are difficult to distinguish from North American plantations before the emancipation of blacks.

Serfdom had a bad impact on the national economy in general. Here it delayed the natural geographical distribution of agricultural labor. Due to the circumstances of our external history, the agricultural population has long been concentrated with particular force in the central regions, on less fertile soil, driven by external enemies from the southern Russian black soil. Thus, the national economy for centuries suffered from a discrepancy between the density of the agricultural population and the quality of the soil. Since the southern Russian black soil regions were acquired, two or three generations would have been enough to eliminate this discrepancy if peasant labor had been allowed free movement. But serfdom delayed this natural distribution of peasant labor across the plain. According to the audit of 1858 - 1859, in the non-chernozem Kaluga province, serfs made up 62% of its total population; in even less fertile. Smolenskaya - 69, and in the black earth Kharkov province - only 30, in the same black earth Voronezh province - only 27%. Such were the obstacles encountered in serfdom by agricultural labor during its placement.

Further, serfdom delayed the growth of the Russian city and the success of urban crafts and industry. The urban population developed very slowly after Peter; it constituted less than 3% of the total tax-paying population of the state; at the beginning of Catherine’s reign, according to the III revision, it was only 3%, therefore, its growth over almost half a century is barely noticeable. Catherine worked a lot about the development of what was then called the “middle class of people” - the urban, craft and trading class. According to her economic textbooks, this middle class was the main conductor of people's welfare and enlightenment. Not noticing the ready-made elements of this class that existed in the country, Catherine came up with all sorts of new elements from which this class could be built; It was also planned to include the entire population of educational homes. The main reason for this slow growth of the urban population was serfdom. It affected urban crafts and industry in two ways.

Every wealthy landowner tried to acquire yard craftsmen in the village, starting with a blacksmith and ending with a musician, painter and even an actor. Thus, serf courtyard artisans acted as dangerous competitors to urban artisans and industrialists. The landowner tried to satisfy his basic needs with home remedies, and with more refined needs he turned to foreign stores. Thus, native urban artisans and traders lost their most profitable consumers and customers in the person of landowners. On the other hand, the ever-increasing power of the landowner over the property of the serfs increasingly constrained the latter in disposing of their earnings; peasants bought and ordered less and less in the cities. This deprived city labor of cheap but numerous customers and consumers. Contemporaries saw serfdom as the main reason for the slow development of Russian urban industry. The Russian ambassador in Paris, Prince Dmitry Golitsyn, wrote in 1766 that internal trade in Russia will not achieve prosperity “if we do not introduce the right of ownership of peasants to their movable property.”

Finally, serfdom had an overwhelming effect on the state economy. This can be seen from the published financial statements of Catherine’s reign; they reveal interesting facts. The poll tax under Catherine was slower than the quitrent, because it also fell on the landowner peasants, and they could not be burdened with government taxes in the same way as the state peasants, because the surplus of their earnings, which could be used to pay for the elevated poll tax, went to the benefit of the landowners, the savings of the serf the peasant was taken over from the state by the landowner. How much the treasury lost from this can be judged by the fact that under Catherine the serf population made up almost half of the entire population of the empire and more than half of the entire tax-paying population.

Thus, serfdom, having dried up the sources of income that the treasury received through direct taxes, forced the treasury to turn to such indirect means that either weakened the country’s productive forces or placed a heavy burden on future generations.

Let us summarize the situation of the peasants during the reign of Catherine II. Despite the desire to give the serfs freedom in the first stages of her reign, the empress was forced to follow the lead of the landowners, and serfdom only became stricter.

The landowners bought and sold their peasants, transferred them from one estate to another, exchanged them for greyhound puppies and horses, gave them as gifts, and lost at cards. They forcibly married and gave away peasants, broke up the families of peasants, separating parents and children, wives and husbands. The infamous Saltychikha, who tortured more than 100 of her serfs, the Shenshins and others became known throughout the country.

The landowners, by hook or by crook, increased their income from the peasants. For the 18th century peasants' duties in their favor increased 12 times, while in favor of the treasury - only one and a half times.

All this could not but affect the mood of the masses and naturally led to the peasant war led by Emelyan Pugachev.

November 10, 2000.
Live on the radio station “Echo of Moscow” program “Not So”
Our guest is Alexander Kamensky, historian.
The broadcast is hosted by Sergey Buntman.

S.BUNTMAN: So, serfdom under Catherine II.
A. KAMENSKY: There is a well-founded conviction, opinion, idea that it was in the second half of the 18th century in Russia, that is, precisely during the reign of Catherine, that serfdom, serfdom as a phenomenon, as an institution of Russian life in its development reached a kind of apogee and acquired the most cruel, the most, I would say, disgusting forms. This is indeed so, and the actual problem that we will talk about today is the question of to what extent Catherine herself was involved in this. And in order, first of all, to try to understand this problem, you need to imagine that, as I have already said, serfdom was an important socio-political institution that arose quite a long time ago, developed gradually, and acquired its final form by the middle of the 17th century, when it was secured by the Council Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and then received, I would say, reinforcement during Peter’s reforms, in particular, during the tax reform of 1718-24. In other words, by the time Catherine came to power in 1772, this institution had existed for a long time and was firmly rooted. And among other things, literally on the eve of Catherine’s coming to power, another important event occurred, which largely determined the policy of Catherine herself. The fact is that literally a few months before she came to power, Peter III, her husband, issued the well-known manifesto “On the Freedom of the Nobility.” This happened on February 18, 1762, and it was an extremely important legislative act that played a huge role in Russian history in general. It had numerous consequences, and one of these consequences was directly related to serfdom. The fact is that from now on it turned out that the landowner peasants were truly subject exclusively and only to the landowners. Because before this, although this had never been written down anywhere in any law, it was tacitly understood that the landowner owned his serfs for a reason, not just on the basis of some God-given right, but because he was a nobleman and is obliged to serve the state from early youth and as long as he drags his feet.
S. BUNTMAN: Some kind of compensation was obtained.
A. KAMENSKY: Absolutely right, compensation. Moreover, the state tacitly implied that in fact all the land in this country, accordingly, everyone living on it belongs to it, the state. And these estates with peasants were only transferred to the landowner for temporary use in the form of compensation for the fact that they, the nobles, serve this state.
S.BUNTMAN: It turned out like a state dacha, only with people.
A. KAMENSKY: Yes, something like that. But now, when, according to the manifesto of Peter III, the nobles were no longer obliged to serve, a completely different situation was created. And it must be said that the peasants understood this very well; it is no coincidence that immediately after the appearance of the manifesto “On the Freedom of the Nobility,” mass peasant uprisings began, since rumors were spreading that now the peasants would also be freed, this goes without saying. But this did not happen. But why was this important to Catherine? Because she actually came to power when a completely new situation was created in the country, I would say, even more: a new political reality was emerging, and she had to reckon with this political reality. We will see further that Catherine’s own attitude towards serfdom was quite critical. But it is clear that she was not able to simply abolish serfdom overnight. Firstly, this would be such a radical step, which was generally completely unusual for Catherine as an extremely cautious politician, a politician who carefully thought through and prepared all her steps. She understood perfectly well that such a step would cause sharp rejection, first of all, from the social stratum on which she was supposed to rely, from the nobility. Since she herself came to power as a result of a coup, she did not at all want to be thrown off the throne as a result of a similar coup. But on a more global level, it can be said here that we would hardly consider Catherine such a wise politician if she suddenly tried to do something like that. Because it was truly an institution that took shape over centuries, that existed for centuries, it was an integral part of Russian life. Perhaps this is not a completely correct comparison, but it is still as if Catherine decided to abolish Orthodoxy and replace it with Lutheranism. That is, it would be an absolutely unreasonable step. Nevertheless, indeed, Catherine’s attitude towards serfdom from the very beginning was certainly critical. It was critical for two reasons. Firstly, because Catherine was, as you know, a faithful student of the Enlightenment. Simply being a person brought up on the ideas of the Enlightenment, she saw serfdom as an inhumane institution, contrary to the principles of freedom of the human person, etc. This, I think, is understandable; there is no need to develop it here. The second, perhaps even more significant, was that Catherine saw serfdom as a brake on the socio-political and, very importantly, economic development of the country. And it must be said that Catherine expressed her attitude towards serfdom in writing, expressed it on paper. And there are many notes and statements by Catherine regarding serfdom, which are very sharp and completely unambiguous. I would even say, much harsher than the statements, for example, of Radishchev in his famous “Journey,” although we consider Radishchev to be the most revolutionary figure of this era.
S.BUNTMAN: And, in general, the first and most important anti-serfdom
A. KAMENSKY: Meanwhile, I will allow myself to quote one of the many quotes where Catherine wrote: “A predisposition to despotism is instilled from a very early age in children who see the cruelty with which their parents treat their servants. After all, there is no house in which there would not be iron collars, chains and various other instruments for torture at the slightest offense of those whom nature has placed in this unfortunate class, which cannot break their chains without committing a crime.” The ending of this quote also seems extremely important to me. It indicates a truly deep understanding by the empress of the essence of this phenomenon.
S. BUNTMAN: The fact is that in addition to emotions, I would really like to understand the laconic. Catherine was based on some, as we would say now, data that serfdom is now hindering progress not only politically, but also economically. What material basis did she have for this?
A. KAMENSKY: I think we should talk here not about the material basis, but about the basis, again, of an ideological nature. It was expressed by Catherine very briefly in her instructions in one formula, which, I think, is still not outdated. When Catherine wrote: “Freedom and property are the engine of agriculture.” And this is a basic postulate, I would say. But again, you are absolutely right, these are emotions and words, but what actually happened and what was the real policy? Let's start with the fact that in 1764, as is known, Catherine carried out a very important reform related to the secularization of church lands. Like all major reforms that were carried out in Russia in the 18th century, this reform had such a side effect. It is clear that the reform was generally connected with the relationship between the state and the church, that Catherine was going to improve the financial affairs of the state in this way, but as a result of this reform, about a million Russian peasants were freed from serfdom. And as historians rightly write, it must be said that even Soviet historians recognized this - this secularization reform made a hole in serfdom. In 1765, a competition was announced in Russia on the initiative of Catherine for scientific work on the problems of peasant property. For the first time, they are starting to openly discuss the peasant question in essence, that is, Catherine brings it up for public discussion, not just brings it out, but in this way it is generally declared that the peasant question exists, that such a problem exists in Russia, it needs and can be discussed. This is extremely important. At the same time, Catherine founded an orphanage, an institution for orphans. And it is announced that the pupils of this institution, regardless of their origin, that is, even if they are serfs by origin, must be free and no one has the right to enslave them. This is also extremely important, because in this way it is announced that, firstly, serfdom is not a lifelong yoke, from which a person, in principle, can never and under any circumstances free himself. Secondly, the state generally announces that some category of free people is emerging. And it must be said that the responses of contemporaries show that in Russian society there were not so many people who generally understood what a free person was.
S. BUNTMAN: That is, not only was a former serf or a disadvantaged child recognized, but also people from other classes in general - they were freer than many others, at least in rank.
A. KAMENSKY: Yes. And this was also extremely important in terms of educating public opinion. These years of 64, 65 are also the time from which we have been left with a number of very interesting documents. A well-known diplomat of that time, later a scientist, Prince Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn, while abroad at that time, carried on a lively correspondence with his cousin, vice-chancellor, Prince Alexander Mikhailovich Golitsyn. And in this correspondence they discussed precisely the problems of serfdom and issues related to the allocation of property to peasants. At the same time, all the participants in this correspondence knew that in fact, only formally Golitsyn one corresponded with Golitsyn another, but in fact all these letters were read by Catherine and in fact she dictated answers to Prince Dmitry Alekseevich from St. Petersburg. Thus, this correspondence gives us an idea of ​​​​the opinion of certain representatives of society of that time, and most importantly, the opinion of the empress herself. Dmitry Alekseevich Golitsyn was an unconditional supporter of the abolition of serfdom and an unconditional supporter of giving property to peasants. He writes about this quite clearly. Moreover, he, seeing the response from Catherine, who did not object to this and certainly agreed with it (and Golitsyn wrote in particular about the harm that serfdom brings to the development of agriculture), invited the empress to set an example in the liberation of the peasants and invited her to free state-owned peasants, royal peasants, palace peasants, that is, those who belonged directly to the royal family, and thereby set an example. And it’s interesting that Catherine, in my opinion, quite reasonably answered that there was no hope that this example would force the Russian nobles to also free their peasants. And I think she was really right. We know what happened several decades later, when Alexander 1 issued a decree on free cultivators in 1803, allowing landowners to free their peasants. Very few followed the emperor's call.
—
S. BUNTMAN: So, Catherine refused to set an example, to free the state-owned peasants, this will not teach the landowners anything, no one will follow her. How did events develop further?
A. KAMENSKY: Here, of course, it is very important for us to look at what actually happened. And when we talk about this reality, we usually talk about two decrees of Catherine, which actually appeared in the 60s and which are usually considered and appear precisely as the most cruel towards the peasants. The first decree is the decree of January 17, 1765, according to which landowners received the right to exile their peasants to hard labor. And indeed, whatever one may say, it is clear that without trial or investigation, the landowner received the right to actually reprisal against his serfs. It is interesting to note that this decree was not personal, that is, that it did not come specifically on behalf of Catherine herself. This was a Senate decree, and according to the practice that developed during Catherine’s reign, which, it must be said, was observed very strictly, the Senate never introduced any new legislative norms, it only clarified or somehow reinforced already existing norms. And indeed, in fact, even in the time of Peter the Great, landowners were allowed, precisely in the course of that very tax reform, to send peasants, malicious defaulters of the poll tax, to hard labor. And this practice existed.
S.BUNTMAN: Why did you need to confirm it?
A. KAMENSKY: And this is why it was necessary to confirm. Actually, what is hard labor? These are galleys that were in the department of the Admiralty Board. To the Admiralty Board, these exiled peasants were extremely profitable. It turns out that the college spent 11 rubles a year on convicts, and when it hired freemen to work on the galleys, it spent more than 3 times more on them, 36 rubles. And therefore, in 1764, the Admiralty College appealed to the Senate with a request to allow the landowners to send to hard labor not only those who were guilty of paying taxes, but also those guilty of some other offenses, that is, peasants who did not please the landowner in any way. Moreover, the board proposed that the Senate and the landowner pay a ruble for each such exiled peasant to hard labor. The Senate considered the proposal of the Admiralty Collegium and decided that there was a reason; it was indeed beneficial for the state to allow the landowner to exile peasants for other offenses as well. But at the same time, he did not accept the board’s proposal to pay the landowner a ruble for each exile. Why? Because the Senate soberly judged that this would lead to abuse.
AUDIENCE: Of course. Because we have no money, we exile them.
A. KAMENSKY: It is absolutely true that landowners will simply use this as a means to make money. Therefore this was not accepted. And this nome was introduced. The second decree in question is the decree of August 22, 1967, according to which, as is written everywhere, in all textbooks, peasants were forbidden to complain about their landowners. Again, if we take the text of this decree in our hands (and it was a personal decree, unlike the first), we will see that it, like many other legislative acts of the 18th century, contained numerous references to the legislation of the previous time . And its main meaning is not to prohibit peasants from filing complaints against their landowners in general, but to prohibit them from filing complaints directly into the hands of the Empress, as written in the decree, bypassing governments established for that purpose, that is, institutions, and specifically designated for that purpose. persons, that is, officials. And indeed, in this sense, the decree repeated numerous decrees of the 17th century and the time of Peter the Great, when Peter in one of his decrees wrote that he was endlessly bothered by petitioners, of which there are a great many, while the sovereign is one person and he will be divided in two impossible. And this decree followed after Catherine’s trip along the Volga, when several hundred peasant petitions were handed to her and it is completely clear that the empress was simply physically unable to deal with them all. This was indeed the meaning of this decree. But at the same time, it must be admitted that this decree was not written very clearly, not very clearly, and therefore, as often happens to this day, this call from the authorities by local officials was often perceived precisely as a prohibition to complain about landowners in general, therefore this was indeed the practice. Not everywhere, not everywhere, not everywhere, not always, but, nevertheless, we know of such cases and there are quite a lot of them, just as we know of cases when representatives of other social groups and these people dared to submit petitions to the empress were also punished in accordance with the same decree. That is, it was still not just about landowner peasants.
S.BUNTMAN: That is, there are two myths.
A. KAMENSKY: To a certain extent, these are two myths. But at the same time, I would like to emphasize that we definitely need to separate two things here: the desire of Catherine herself, the ideas that stood behind these legislative acts, and real practice. These two things, as often happens in Russian history, sometimes diverged. Now further if we go. In 1775, after the end of the Russian-Turkish war in March, a very important manifesto was published, one of the most important legislative acts of Catherine’s time. And there were many different innovations in this manifesto, but among other things there was one concerning the problem that we are discussing today. Here again it was said that if a peasant is set free by his landowner, he cannot be re-fortified, that is, he is not subject to enslavement. In other words, so as not to go far back into the centuries, what happened 15-20 years earlier in Elizabethan times? There were cases when a landowner, before his death, signed a spiritual will, that is, a will, in which he ordered his peasants to be released after his death. Maybe not all peasants, maybe some individual ones. He was dying, they were really given their freedom. What happened next? They could not enroll in any other class; they simply did not have such an opportunity provided for by law. This means that they were forced to go to some other landowner or sometimes even, perhaps, to the heir of their deceased master and hire him, a new fortress was registered in their name, that is, they again found themselves in serfdom. And the state made sure that this was not in order to strengthen serfdom, but in order not to lose taxpayers, so that they were all registered, and the serf peasant was, of course, registered. Now it's different. The liberated person can enroll in the city, as part of the urban population. This, of course, is also a very half-hearted measure, to put it mildly, because the peasant has no land and no real estate. This means that he cannot remain a peasant, cultivate the land and live by this labor; he is forced to change his social status. Nevertheless, again, a certain social group of free people appears, and this is emphasized by law. And it is no coincidence that in the already mentioned decree of 1803 on free cultivators, Alexander I referred to this manifesto of March 1775. That is, he showed that this was, as it were, a continuation of what his grandmother had started.
S.BUNTMAN: To sum it up, the 90s and the notorious French revolution. After all, Catherine didn’t finish what she started?
A. KAMENSKY: It certainly didn’t.
S.BUNTMAN: Why?
A. KAMENSKY: For the reasons, first of all, that we talked about. But at the same time, we must keep in mind that Catherine did not have time to implement many of her legislative projects, which remained on paper. And speaking about them, we must say that Catherine, in one of the largest of these projects, planned to create a certain new body of a judicial nature, which was supposed to consist of elected representatives from 3 estates, including elected representatives from the peasants, which is extremely important and which, in my opinion, shows that she did not abandon plans to somehow resolve this issue. And some notes are found in her other documents and in her other papers.
S. BUNTMAN: I want to end my conversation with Alexander Kamensky with a rhetorical question that has no answer: how many years and a quiet life does a sovereign need in Russia in order to implement at least 2/3 of those projects and undertakings that at the beginning of his reign or reign he plans!
A. KAMENSKY: Catherine reigned for 34 years.
S.BUNTMAN: So do the math for yourself.