The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Concept of the serfdom of V.O. Klyuchevsky



KONTSEPTION KREPOSTNOGO PRAVA V.O. KLYUCHEVSKY

Work is presented by department of modern and contemporary history of the Penza state pedagogical university of V.G. Belinsky. The research supervisor - the doctor of historical sciences, professor A.S. Popov

In article the history of the serfdom in Russia is considered. The author investigates V.O. Klyuchevsky's theory about "bezukazny" enslaving of peasants. At analysis of the reasons of enslavement of the peasantry the main attention is paid to the private-law relations, first of all the economic debt of peasants to the land owners.

The history of the serfdom in Russia is brought up in the article. The author investigates the theory of V. Klyuchevsky about the "undecreed" enslaving of peasants. In the analysis of the reasons of peasantry enslavement the main attention is paid to private law relations, first of all, economic debts of peasants to their landowners.

Scientific activity of one of the most outstanding and brightest Russian historians, V.O. Klyuchevsky is the share of the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century. During this post-reform period the special sharpness for science was gained by questions of origin of the serfdom and its role in the fate of the people. Certainly, the outstanding historian in the researches could not but divide this interest.

In the concept of formation of the serfdom V.O. Klyuchevsky overcame views of the predecessors of B.N. Chicherin, S.M. Solovyov which considered that all history of social development in Russia consisted in implementation

state of policy "enslavings and liberations of estates". If they supported "the decree theory" of origin of the serfdom and claimed that the peasantry was deprived of freedom of travel at the initiative of the state which issued the decree on prohibition of an exit of peasants on the St. George's day, then Klyuchevsky, on the contrary, was a supporter of the "bezukazny" theory. He believed that the state did not possess any important role in the course of attachment of peasants to the earth. The government, according to him, did not create the serfdom but only it legally issued (in the form of the act) the order of things which developed in life.

V.O. Klyuchevsky allocated "three phases of development" of the serfdom: to the Code of 1649, the Code period, the Manifesto

about liberties of the nobility on February 18, 1762. "the personal contractual obligation of the peasant under the agreement with the land owner" was the basis for the first phase. During effect of the Code of 1649 there was "a transformation of the obligation into a hereditary state duty of peasants on the privately owned earth for

maintenance of the office validity voyenno-2. sluzhily class". Manifesto on February 18

1762 forever released noblemen from obligatory service and toughened serf bondage even more, "the state act-3
became a source of fortress of peasants

audit".

Development of the serfdom the historian, just as representatives of public school, carried to the end of the 16th century, but explained it a little differently, namely considered it process of merge of peasants and lackeys in one category of the population, transferring on peasants of norms of the holopy right. But this process, Klyuchevsky noticed, was not one-sided, during enslaving of peasants the servility also lost the peculiar features and merged with the enslaved peasantry. Having arisen many years prior to serf bondage of peasants, servility was primary form of bondage in Russia, its essential legal line, "otlichavsheyu it from other, not serf types of private dependence, was its neprekrashchayemost at will holo-

4 ^ ~

pas". A lackey was the netyagly person,

which worked at the domonical yard and

"could leave bondage only at will the-5

go the sovereign", unlike the peasant, the tyagly and working at the earth misters.

From the second half of the 16th century, the historian specifies, in Russia the land owners who are extremely interested in working hands develop agricultural farms of the enslaving lackeys and strongly attract on the earth free shody. The moving from place to place peasants more often had to address new to the earth -

to the owner behind a loan to get economy. "The loan of scotomas and other stock or money for its acquisition was appointed to housekeeping and was registered for the peasant as the debt which was subject to payment at its leaving the owner". Besides the peasant when leaving was obliged to pay for use of the lordly yard, to pay "elderly" for all lived years. Thus, Klyuchevsky considered, transitions from one land owner to another were exceptional cases, and "were made by those few peasants who could pay off land owners or who for the first time sat down on a country tyaglo from manumissions "7

people".

As a result Klyuchevsky so drew sotsi-alnsh a portrait of the peasant of the 16th century: "In the majority the land-poor and restless plowman, very owed in which economy everything, both the yard, and stock, and the site, was hired or loan which was built up also worked with the help of someone else's capital, paying for it in a personal labor and which under oppression of duties was inclined to reduce, but not to expand

8

the expensively paid plowing".

With emergence of enslaving servility among land owners, according to Klyuchevsky, gradually there is a thought that "the country product pro help creates just the same personal serfdom from the owner in what domestic service 9 put the enslaving lackey and

for growth". On the country debt relations the main condition of personal servitude laid down. The historian found a set of cases, obligations of peasants not to abandon the owner at all in contracts of the 17th century between peasants and landowners. And as soon as this obligation of peasants turned into an indispensable condition of all loan country records, possessory peasants turned into serf. So, "the hopelessness became the general final condition of loan records: it was also the country fortress, or eternity country as spoke in

XVII century. This condition for the first time reported to country loan record value of the serf act approving personal dependence without the right of a dependent face stop!!, it", - was specified by Klyuchevsky.

The law of 1597 establishing five-year limitation periods for claims for runaway peasants if they abandoned the land owners was the first state decree limiting the right of transition of peasants to other land owner without having paid off and not on the St. George's day. But this measure, according to the historian, had purely police character and "had no anything about -

shchy with the serfdom".

So if till 17th century "the peasant was the free and perekhozhy tenant of others earth" (monarchic, church or sluzhily), "freedom of which was provided

the right of an exit and the right of a row, the contract with

12 "land owner", the scientist noticed,

the general census of 1646 cancelled a limitation period of investigation of peasants and assigned them to those land owners for whom found their census, besides it fixed also his relatives living in his house. Loan record which was the main way of strengthening of peasants in 1646 was replaced with record according to census books which connected in one legal condition of all serf people, different "fortress".

After the Code of 1649, according to Klyuchevsky, the serfdom becomes a legislation component: "The peasant lost freedom of travel, hereditarily and potomstvenno was strong to the person, physical or legal behind which hundred were written down by the book, pistsovy or uniform with it; he to this person was strong on the ground, on the site in that Manor, in the estate or the ancestral lands where it was found by a census; at last, it was strong to a state, a country tyagl which it bore

13

on the land plot".

The 18th century V.O. Klyuchevsky connected first of all with expansion and deepening of the serf relations. At osve-

shcheniya of events of Petrovsky reign the historian agreed not with Solovyov who considered Peter I's actions the beginning of release of estates, considering decrees on right of primogeniture, a subear tax as measures to "simplification" of the peasantry. Vasily Osipovich, on the contrary, believed that throughout the 18th century there was a process of "unilateral liberation" of the nobility, expansions of its patrimonial rights at paralchelny destruction even of those weak guarantees of providing the personality and work of the serf which were provided by the Code of 1649

Recognition for the landowner of podatny responsibility for the peasants, according to the historian, became the final moment in legal execution of the serfdom: "How soon country work was sent to the order of the owner, passed a duty to support his tyaglosposobnost and to answer to the last

14 "

for its podatny serviceability". With introduction of general recruitment and establishment of a subear tax both for serfs, and for lackeys, V.O. Klyuchevsky emphasized, the difference between them was erased, it led to emergence of new "condition" of serf people who hereditarily belonged to the owners and had to bear state tyaglo. "Servility as the special legal state free from the state duties disappeared, having merged with the serf peasantry in one class of serf people which misters were provided to operate economically at discretion", - Vasshgy Osipovich noted.

The same course of strengthening of the serfdom, according to the scientist, was continued also at Peter I's successors. The decree of 1760 it was authorized to land owners to banish the peasants for offenses to Siberia, also peasants lost the right to complain of the landowners, and to landowners the right was granted to establish the amount of punishment for the peasants. On February 18, 1762 Peter III granted to all Russian Far Eastern Military District -

to a ryapstvo "liberties and freedoms". "Upon the demand of historical logic or public justice, the next day, on February 19, the abolition of serfdom would have to follow; it also followed the next day, only 99 years later", - with caustic irony Vasily Osipovich noticed.

During Catherine II's reign, the scientist considered, "at the same time the increasing number of persons became in serfdom, and borders of the power of the owner over serfs more and more extended

17 ^

souls". It "a rasprostraneniyekrepost-ny state", according to Yupochevsky, occurred in three ways: "addition" to bondage of those people who did not manage to adjoin "the main classes", "grant" of state lands with serfs in the full hereditary property and the legislative termination of free transition of peasants "Little Russian pospoli-ty". Catherine II "fixed domination of owners over peasants in that look as it developed in half of the 18th century, and in some respects even expanded that power". At her the serfdom "turned into complete dependence of the serfs who became the private property of land owners which is not caused and obligatory service of the last, which

18

it was removed from the nobility". So, in the 18th century the serf, according to an apt remark of the scientist, was considered by the power as the full property of the owner.

The serfdom, the historian wrote, set "the wrong economic direction" to economy of landowner possession, "gratuitous country work took away hunting to save working capital from the nobleman... the serf was deprived of indications of technical knowledge which not

the landowner, as well as sufficient in-had

19

ventarya which was not saved by the landowner". It also delayed development by the peasantry of the southern fertile lands, interfered with growth of urban population, development of crafts and the industry and weakened -

lyalo financial condition of the state. At last, the important investigation of the serfdom, according to Klyuchevsky, was strengthening of discord between social components of radical Russian society — the nobility and the serf peasantry that brought to obosoblensho these estates and to the termination of cathedral representation (ceased to convoke territorial cathedrals). To the middle of the 19th century the number of peasants' revolts increased. There was no doubt left, the historian, "in close need to untie knot of the serf relations summed up if

did not want to subject the state strash - 1 20 ache to danger, accident".

So, in enslaving of peasants V.O. Klyuchevsky on the first place put economic factor, unlike S.M. Solovyov and other historians of public school who connected origin of the serfdom with a number of difficulties of climatic character, financial poverty and vulnerability of the state from external invasions. The peasant's fortress, the historian considered, it was caused not by his attachment to the earth as to means of production, and its personal obliged attitudes towards the land owner. Therefore, the serfdom, according to him, is "set of the serf relations based on the fortress, the known private act of possession or priobre-21

teniye".

The theory of origin of the serfdom without participation of the state created by the great historian had, certainly, positive value. Vasily Osipovich caught communication between enslaving servility and the serfdom, gave interesting characteristic of various categories of servility existing in Russia to

> century, the order of the developing relations between peasants and land owners also tried to reflect XVIII. In definition of the reasons of enslavement of the peasantry it assigned the main role to the private-law relations, seeing them first of all in economic debt, and loan zapi-

"t, t * tattchgvskiya on its own si considered as edanstvenny Л / ™ ™ l l * * a research

the documents defining loss nezavi- а™аМОМ6ТГОв in development krepo-

of a simost of peasants. And in spite of the fact that in and and eg °

gioy monographic works, posvya-stny prlol, ~ And

istorsh * the serfdom in Dews - the scheme occupied economic factor.

& Klyuchevsky V.O. Soch.: In 9 t. T. 4: Course of the Russian history. M.: Thought, 1989. Page 300. 2 In the same place. &

4 In the same place.

In the same place. T. 3: Course of the Russian history. M.: Thought, 1988. Page 154.

5 In the same place.

In the same place. T. 2: Course of the Russian history. Ch.2. M.: Thought, 1988. Page 283.

7 In the same place. Page 295. &
8 In the same place. Page 289.
9

In the same place. T. 6: Special courses. M.: Thought, 1989. Page 362.

10 In the same place. T. 3. M.: Thought, 1988. Page 162. &
11 In the same place. T. 2. Ch.2. M.: Thought, 1988. Page 297.
12

In the same place. Page 282.

13 In the same place. T. 3. Page 169.
14

In the same place. Page 174.

15 In the same place. T. 4. Page 92.
16 In the same place. Page 300. .
17 In the same place. T. 5. Page 119.
18
10 In the same place. Page 133.
19 In the same place. Page 141.
20 In the same place. Page 262.
21 In the same place. T. 8: Articles. Page 128.
Ipsen Jette
Other scientific works: