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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACCORDING TO THE "SHOWER REVISION" OF 1858

Landlord serfs - 20,173,000

Specific peasants - 2,019,000

State peasants -18,308,000

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

State peasants assigned to private factories - 518,000

Peasants released after military service - 1,093,000

HISTORIAN S.M. SOLOVIEV

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

A.I. HERZEN

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

K.S. AKSAKOV

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

"MUCH BETTER THAT HAPPENED FROM ABOVE"

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

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

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

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

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

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

MANIFESTO FEBRUARY 19, 1861

GOD'S MERCY

WE, ALEXANDER II,

EMPEROR AND AUTOGRAPHER

ALL-RUSSIAN

Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland

and other, and other, and other

We announce to all our loyal subjects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For several centuries, a serf system dominated Russia. The history of the enslavement of the peasant people dates back to 1597. At that time, Orthodox obedience was a mandatory defense of state borders and interests, a precaution against enemy attacks, even if by self-sacrifice. The sacrificial service concerned the peasant, the nobleman, and the Tsar.

The advent of serfdom corresponds to a certain stage in the development of socio-political relations. But since the development of different regions of Europe proceeded at different speeds (depending on climate, population, convenience of trade routes, external threats), then if serfdom in some European countries- this is only an attribute of medieval history, in others it has survived almost to modern times.

In many large European countries, serfdom appears in the 9th-10th centuries (England, France, Western Germany), in some it appears much later, in XVI-XVII centuries(northeastern Germany, Denmark, eastern regions of Austria). Serfdom disappears either entirely and to a large extent as early as the Middle Ages (western Germany, England, France), or is retained to a greater or lesser extent until the 19th century (Germany, Poland, Austria-Hungary). In some countries, the process of freeing the peasants from personal dependence goes in parallel with the process of either complete (England) or partial and slow dispossession of land (northeastern Germany, Denmark); in others, liberation not only is not accompanied by dispossession of land, but, on the contrary, causes the growth and development of small peasant property (France, partly Western Germany).

England

The process of feudalization, which began back in the Anglo-Saxon period, gradually turned a significant number of previously free communal peasants (curls), who owned both communal land and private plots (folkland and bockland), into serfs dependent on the arbitrariness of the owner (English hlaford) in regarding the amount of their duties and payments.

The process was slow, but already in the 7th-8th centuries, traces of a decrease in the number of free people became noticeable. This was facilitated by the increasing indebtedness of the small peasants, the growing need to seek protection from strong people. During the 10th and 11th centuries, a significant part of the Curls moved into the category of dependent people sitting on foreign lands. The owner's patronage became mandatory; the owner turned into an almost complete master of the subject population. His judicial rights expanded over the peasants; he was also entrusted with police responsibility for the protection of public peace in the area subordinate to him.

The very word "curl" was increasingly replaced by the expression villan (serf). During the compilation of the Domesday Book, there were a number of gradations among the peasantry. The lowest rung was occupied by the villans of the manors (English villein); almost complete dependence on the lord, the uncertainty of payments and duties, the absence, with a few exceptions, of protection in the general courts of the kingdom - this is what characterizes the position of this class. The fleeing serf lord, before the expiration of a year and one day, had the right to return back. The serfs were obliged to work for the lord all year round, 2-5 days a week, to go out into the field during working hours with the whole family or with hired people.

Most of the peasants, who sat mostly on crown lands, also held land on the Villanian right (English in villenage) and served corvée and other duties. However, the development of commodity-money relations contributed to the gradual emancipation of the Villans from serfdom.

The revolt of Wat Tyler had a serious blow to serfdom. In the 15th century, almost everywhere in England, peasants were liberated from personal serfdom and replaced with landed ones. Corvee was replaced by cash rent, the volume of duties was fixed, and the Villanian holding was replaced by a copyhold, which gives a much larger amount of guarantees to the peasant.

In parallel with the process of emancipating the serfs, the process of depriving the English peasants of their allotments developed. Already in the first half of the 15th century, the transition from agriculture to pasture farming turned out to be so profitable that capital began to be directed to raising sheep and expanding pastures at the expense of arable land. Large landowners forced out small holders-peasants. The rights of village residents to use communal lands that fell into the hands of large landowners are limited or simply cancelled. In the 16th century, fencing of pastures assumed wide proportions and received support from the courts and the state administration. So, from the legislative acts of 1488 it is clear that where 200 peasants used to live, 2-4 shepherds remained there.

The process of changing peasant land relations was completed, in essential terms, in the 16th century: the connection between the peasants and the land was broken. Previously, the peasants cultivated their own land, which they held on feudal rights; now they were for the most part driven from their allotments and deprived of their rights to communal land. Most of them were forced to turn into rural workers, farm laborers. At the same time, there was a process of strengthening the free peasant economy, transferred to the capitalist framework, which led to the formation of a significant layer of prosperous peasant tenants (yeomen).

Spain

In Spain, the distribution of serfdom was heterogeneous. In Asturias, Leon and Castile, servitage was never universal: by the 10th century, the majority of the population in the lands of Leon and Castile belonged to the class of partially free farmers - conditional holders of allotments, who, unlike the serfs, had personal rights. However, the legal status of this stratum (hunyores, or solaregos) was distinguished by a certain uncertainty, which required the Castilian kings to confirm their rights in order to protect them from seigneurial oppression: for example, Alfonso X in the 13th century in his decree announced the right of the solarigo to leave his allotment at any time , although without the right to alienate it in their favor; Alfonso XI the Just in the next century forbade landowners from any seizure of land from the holders and their descendants, subject to fixed payments in favor of the feudal lord. The final personal emancipation of peasants in the lands of the Castilian crown is attributed to the first half of the 14th century, although in some areas this process could take a little longer, and episodic (but already illegal) seigneurial abuses could occur later.

In Aragon and Catalonia, serfdom was much more severe, comparable to French, which is seen as Frankish influence. The result of a powerful popular uprising in Catalonia at the end of the 15th century was the signing by King Ferdinand of the Guadalupe maxim in 1486, which finally abolished all forms of personal dependence of the peasant on the feudal lord throughout Spain on the terms of a monetary ransom.

Serfdom in Central Europe

Having arisen in the early Middle Ages, serfdom in Central and Eastern Europe for a long time becomes the most important element of social relations in agriculture. The undivided political domination of the nobility, interested in ensuring the unrestrained exploitation of the peasants, led to the spread of the so-called. "the second edition of serfdom" in East Germany, the Baltic States, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary.

In East (Saelbe) Germany, serfdom was especially fully developed after the Thirty Years' War of 1618-1648, and it took on the most severe forms in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and East Prussia.

"Nothing belongs to you, the soul belongs to God, and your bodies, property and everything you have is mine." - From the landowner's charter, which determines the duties of the peasants, Schleswig-Holstein, 1740.

From the middle of the 17th century, serfdom spread in the Czech Republic. In Hungary, it was enshrined in the Code (Tripartitum), published after the suppression of the uprising of György Dozsa in 1514. In Poland, the norms of serfdom, which began to take shape already in the middle of the 14th century, were included in the Piotrkowski statute of 1496. Serfdom extended in these countries to the bulk of the peasants. It involved a multi-day (up to 6 days a week) corvee, depriving the peasants of most of their property, civil and personal rights, was accompanied by a reduction in peasant plowing or even the dispossession of some of the peasants and turning them into disenfranchised serfs or temporary owners of land.

In the Habsburg Empire, the peasant reform of 1848 declared the “rustic lands” the private property of the peasants by the laws of Ferdinand I of April 17, 1848 (the law of the Kaiser government of Austria-Hungary), according to which peasant duties in the kingdom of Galicia were liquidated from May 15, 1848, and the law of September 7, 1848, which abolished serf relations in Austria-Hungary.

Serfdom in Northern Europe

In Sweden and Norway, serfdom as such did not take shape.

The position of the peasants in medieval Denmark was closer to the German model.

As early as the end of the 15th century, about 20% of all land was in the hands of peasant proprietors. The strengthening of the nobility and clergy marked the beginning complete change in the position of the peasants. Their payments and duties began to multiply, although until the 16th century they were still certain; the forcible conversion of peasant owners into temporary tenants began.

As the benefits from agriculture increase, as a result of the great demand for grain and livestock, the noble landlords strive more and more stubbornly to expand the landowners' plowing by intensifying the demolition of peasant households. Corvee, which in the XIV-XV centuries did not exceed 8 days a year, grows and becomes dependent on the discretion of the landowner; Peasants are allowed to move only with the consent of the landowner. In the 16th century, part of the peasants turned into real serfs.

Under Frederick I, serfs are often sold without land, like cattle - mainly in Zeeland. After the revolution of 1660, carried out by the townspeople, the situation of the peasants worsened even more. What had hitherto been an abuse was now entered into the code of laws issued by Christian V. The landlords became government agents for the collection of taxes and the supply of recruits. Their police-disciplinary power was correspondingly strengthened by mutual responsibility. If the peasants burdened with taxes fled, the requisitions that lay on them were distributed among those who remained in place. The peasants were exhausted under the burden of excessive work and payments; the whole country was ruined. Only by the laws of 1791, 1793, 1795 and 1799 corvee was limited; then a procedure was established for the redemption of corvee and its transfer to money. In Zealand, corvee lasted until 1848. The law of 1850 gave the peasants the right to redeem the corvee, which led to its complete destruction.

Serfdom in Eastern Europe

In the Old Russian state and the Novgorod Republic, the unfree peasants were divided into smerds, purchasers, and serfs. According to Russkaya Pravda, smerds were dependent peasants who were judged by the prince. They owned land allotments, which they could inherit from their sons (if there were no sons, then the allotment went to the prince). The penalty for killing a smerd was equal to the penalty for killing a slave. In the Novgorod Republic, most smerds were state peasants (cultivating state land), although princely, episcopal and monastic smerds are also mentioned. They were not allowed to leave the land. Purchases remained dependent on the feudal lord until they paid off their debt to him (“purchase”), after which they became personally free. Kholops were slaves.

In the Russian state at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, a local system took shape. The Grand Duke transferred the estate to a servant, who was obliged for this by military service. The local noble army was used in continuous wars waged by the state against Lithuania, the Commonwealth and Sweden, and in the defense of the border regions from the Crimean and Nogai raids: tens of thousands of nobles were called up every year for the “coastal” (along the Oka and Ugra) and border service.

The peasant was personally free and kept the land under an agreement with the owner of the estate. He had the right to withdraw or refuse; that is, the right to leave the landowner. The landowner could not drive the peasant off the land before the harvest, the peasant could not leave his plot without paying off the owner at the end of the harvest. The Sudebnik of Ivan III established a uniform period for the peasant exit, when both parties could settle accounts with each other. This is the week before St. George's Day (November 26) and the week following this day.

A free man became a peasant from the moment he “instructed the plow” on a taxable plot (that is, he began to fulfill the state duty to cultivate the land) and ceased to be a peasant as soon as he gave up farming and took up another occupation.

Even the Decree on the five-year search for peasants of November 24, 1597 did not cancel the peasant "exit" (that is, the opportunity to leave the landowner) and did not attach the peasants to the land. This act only determined the need for the return of the runaway peasant to the former landowner, if the departure took place within a five-year period before September 1, 1597. The decree speaks only of those peasants who left their landowners "not on time and without refusal" (that is, not on St. George's day and without paying the "old").

And only under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the Council Code of 1649 establishes an indefinite attachment to the land (that is, the impossibility of a peasant exit) and a fortress to the owner (that is, the owner’s power over a peasant who is on his land).

However, according to the Council Code, the owner of the estate does not have the right to encroach on the life of the peasant and deprive him land plot. It is allowed to transfer a peasant from one owner to another, however, in this case, the peasant must again be “planted” on the land and endowed with the necessary personal property (“bellies”).

Since 1741, the landowning peasants were removed from the oath, there was a monopolization of ownership of serfs in the hands of the nobility, and serfdom extended to all categories of the possessing peasantry; The 2nd half of the 18th century is the final stage in the development of state legislation aimed at strengthening serfdom in Russia.

However, in a significant part of the country's territory, in the Hetmanate (where the bulk of the rural population was Commonwealth), in the Russian North, in most of the Ural region, in Siberia (where the bulk of the rural population was made up of black-sown, then state peasants), in the southern Cossack regions, serfdom the right has not been extended.

Chronology of the enslavement of peasants in Russia

Briefly, the chronology of the enslavement of peasants in Russia can be presented as follows:

1497 - maintaining a restriction on the right to transfer from one landowner to another - St. George's Day.

1581 - the abolition of the peasant output in certain years - "reserved years".

1597 - the right of the landowner to search for a runaway peasant for 5 years and to return him to the owner - "lesson summers".

1637 - the term of detecting fugitive peasants was increased to 9 years.

1641 - the term of detecting fugitive peasants was increased to 10 years, and those forcibly taken out by other landowners - up to 15 years.

1649 - the Council Code of 1649 abolished the fixed summer, thus securing an indefinite search for fugitive peasants. At the same time, the obligation of the landlord-concealer to pay for the illegal use of the labor of another's serf was also established.

1718-1724 - tax reform, finally attaching the peasants to the land.

1747 - the landowner was granted the right to sell his serfs as recruits to any person.

1760 - the landowner received the right to exile peasants to Siberia.

1765 - the landowner received the right to exile the peasants not only to Siberia, but also to hard labor.

1767 - peasants were strictly forbidden to file petitions (complaints) against their landowners personally to the empress or emperor.

1783 - the spread of serfdom to the Left-Bank Ukraine.

Official dates for the abolition of serfdom by country

The official end of serfdom does not always mean its real abolition and, moreover, the improvement of the living conditions of the peasants.

Wallachia: 1746
Principality of Moldavia: 1749
Free State of Saxony: 12/19/1771
Holy Roman Empire: 11/1/1781 (stage 1); 1848 (2nd stage)
Czech ( historical area): 1.11.1781 (stage 1); 1848 (2nd stage)
Baden: 23.7.1783
Denmark: 20.6.1788
France: 11/3/1789
Switzerland: 4.5.1798
Schleswig-Holstein: 12/19/1804
Pomerania (as part of Flag of Sweden.svg Sweden): 4.7.1806
Duchy of Warsaw (Poland): 22.7.1807
Prussia: 10/9/1807 (in practice 1811-1823)
Mecklenburg: September 1807 (in practice 1820)
Bavaria: 31.8.1808
Nassau (Duchy): 1.9.1812
Württemberg: 11/18/1817
Hanover: 1831
Saxony: 17.3.1832
Serbia: 1835
Hungary: 11/4/1848 (first time), 2/3/1853 (second time)
Croatia 8.5.1848
Cisleithania: 7.9.1848
Bulgaria: 1858 (de jure part of the Ottoman Empire; de facto: 1880)
Russian Empire: 19.2.1861
Courland (Russian Empire): 25.8.1817
Estonia (Russian Empire): 23.3.1816
Livonia (Russian Empire): 26.3.1819
Ukraine (Russian Empire): 17.3.1861
Georgia (Russian Empire): 1864-1871
Kalmykia (Russian Empire): 1892
Tonga: 1862
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 1918
Afghanistan: 1923
Bhutan: 1956

The abolition of serfdom in Russia

The moment when serfdom was abolished is rightfully considered a turning point in the history of Russia. Despite the gradualness of the ongoing reforms, they became a significant impetus in the development of the state. Serfdom existed in Russia for two and a half centuries, from 1597 to 1861, in two different types. How many denunciations are published in the West about this! Mostly with references to Russian literature, which has always preferred moral demands on power and its criticism with exaggeration, but not embellishment. However, it must be taken into account that the enslavement of Russian peasants took place at the very end of the 16th century in the form of their attachment to the land (in 1597 their right to change their employer was canceled) and this was then perceived as part of the Orthodox obedience necessary for all: Russia, defending itself from many enemies, went out to their vital geopolitical boundaries, and then everyone was obliged to sacrificially serve the state, each in his place - both peasants and nobles (they are for military service received estates without the right to transfer them by inheritance), and the Tsar himself.

Most of all, the “great Europeanizers” Peter I and especially Catherine II contributed to the tightening of our serfdom. The estates became hereditary, besides, the meaning of serfdom was completely changed, when in 1762 by the decree of Peter III, and then by Catherine's letter of commendation to the nobility (1785), the nobles were freed from the duty of serving, having received the peasants in personal property - this violated the former concept of justice. This happened precisely as a result of the Europeanization of Russia by our Western monarchs, since serfdom in the same unjust form was introduced long before Russia for reasons of exploitation in many European countries and lasted there on the whole much longer - especially in Germany, from where it was adopted into Russia in new form. (In the German lands, the abolition of serfdom took place in the 1810–1820s and was completed only by 1848. In “progressive” England, even after the abolition of serfdom, inhuman treatment of peasants was observed everywhere, for example, in the 1820s, peasant families were expelled by the thousands from the ground.)

It is indicative that the Russian expression "serfdom" originally meant precisely attachment to the land; while, for example, the corresponding German term Leibeigenschaft has a very different meaning: "property of the body." (Unfortunately, in translation dictionaries these different concepts are given as equivalent.)

At the same time, in Russia, serfs had no more than 280 working days a year, could go to work for a long time, traded, owned factories, taverns, river boats, and often had serfs themselves. Of course, their position largely depended on the owner. The atrocities of Saltychikha are also known, but this was a pathological exception; the landowner was sentenced to prison.

And although already from the beginning of the 19th century serfdom in Russia was subject to weakening and partial abolitions, extending to only a third of the peasants by 1861, the conscience of the Russian nobles was increasingly burdened by it; talk of its abolition has been going on since the beginning of the nineteenth century. The peasants also considered their dependence to be temporary, endured it with Christian patience and dignity, - testified an Englishman traveling around Russia. When asked what struck him most about the Russian peasant, the Englishman replied: “His neatness, intelligence and freedom ... Look at him: what could be freer than his conversion! Is there even a shadow of slavish humiliation in his steps and speech? (Notes of a visit to the Russian Church by the late W. Palmer. London, 1882).

So, in 1812, Napoleon also hoped that the Russian serfs would greet him as a liberator, but he received a popular rebuff and suffered huge losses from partisan detachments spontaneously created by the peasants ...

In the 19th century, the situation of serfs began to improve: in 1803 they were partially emancipated on the basis of the law on “free cultivators”, from 1808 they were forbidden to sell them at fairs, from 1841 only owners of populated estates were allowed to have serfs, the possibility of self-redemption expanded. Great preparatory work for the abolition of serfdom was carried out by Emperor Nicholas

The use of the term "serfdom" by opponents of the collective farm policy in the USSR

Sometimes the terms "attaching peasants to the land" and "serfdom" (apparently, Bukharin, one of the leaders of the right-wing communists, was the first to do this in 1928) are also used in relation to the collective farm system during the reign of Stalin in Russia, meaning the introduced in the 30s of the 20th century, restrictions on the freedom of movement of peasants, as well as mandatory food supplies (a kind of "tire") from collective farms and work on state land (a kind of "corvée") in state farms.

The advent of serfdom corresponds to a certain stage in the development of socio-political relations. But since the development of different regions of Europe proceeded at different speeds (depending on climate, population, convenience of trade routes, external threats), then if serfdom in some European countries is only an attribute of medieval history, in others it has survived almost to modern times.

In many large European countries, serfdom appears in the 9th-10th centuries (England, France, western Germany), in some it appears much later, in the 16th-17th centuries (north-eastern Germany, Denmark, eastern regions of Austria). Serfdom disappears either entirely and to a large extent as early as the Middle Ages (western Germany, England, France), or is retained to a greater or lesser extent until the 19th century (Germany, Poland, Austria-Hungary). In some countries, the process of freeing the peasants from personal dependence goes in parallel with the process of either complete (England) or partial and slow dispossession of land (northeastern Germany, Denmark); in others, liberation not only is not accompanied by dispossession of land, but, on the contrary, causes the growth and development of small peasant property (France, partly Western Germany).

England

The process was slow, but already in the 7th-8th centuries, traces of a decrease in the number of free people became noticeable. This was facilitated by the increasing indebtedness of the small peasants, the growing need to seek protection from strong people. During the 10th and 11th centuries, a significant part of the Curls moved into the category of dependent people sitting on foreign lands. The owner's patronage became mandatory; the owner turned into an almost complete master of the subject population. His judicial rights over the peasants expanded; he was also entrusted with police responsibility for the protection of public peace in the area subordinate to him.

Spain

Serfdom in Central Europe

In East (Saelbe) Germany, serfdom was especially fully developed after the Thirty Years' War of 1618-1648, and it took on the most severe forms in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and East Prussia.

Serfdom in Northern Europe

In Sweden and Norway, serfdom as such did not take shape.

The position of the peasants in medieval Denmark was closer to the German model.

As early as the end of the 15th century, about 20% of all land was in the hands of peasant proprietors. The strengthening of the nobility and clergy marked the beginning of a complete change in the position of the peasants. Their payments and duties began to multiply, although until the 16th century they were still certain; the forcible conversion of peasant owners into temporary tenants began.

Serfdom in Eastern Europe

However, according to the Council Code, the owner of the estate does not have the right to encroach on the life of a peasant and deprive him of a land plot. It is allowed to transfer a peasant from one owner to another, however, in this case, the peasant must again be “planted” on the land and endowed with the necessary personal property (“bellies”).