Emancipation and Pomeshchiki
In understanding
the abolition of serfdom in Russia, one of the main sources of distinction among
the historians is the Soviet historians’ tendency and insistency to evaluate
the emancipation and the events leading to the emancipation from an ideological
perspective. The language they use, frequent quotations from Lenin and Stalin,
their search for revolutionary items in the emancipation are the basic
indicators of their ideological perspective. With this perspective,
Zaionchkovsky describes the period as a transition from autocracy towards
bourgeois monarchy, at the same time as the clash of capitalism, which had
already started to grow in Russia, with the old feudalist system. However,
without a socialist ideological view, the general tendency is to assess the
emancipation of serfdom with the principles of ‘continuity’ and ‘change’, a
need to change the social and political structure of the state, as a result of
various developments in time. These various developments, causes of the
emancipation, are also a matter of discussion among the historians.
Causes of
Emancipation
The defeat in the
Crimean War and the fear from another Pugashchevshina are the apparent
reasons on which there is no discussion. However, mainly because of lack of
information, there is a discussion among the historians in evaluating the
effect of economics on the abolishment of serfdom.
Lyashchenko
supports the idea that during the six decades of the 19th century
before the emancipation, the Russian agriculture did not develop. He adds the
negative effect of several famines throughout the country in the same period.
On the other hand, Zaionchkovsky opposes the argument that agricultural
production was worsening before the abolishment of serfdom. Although the two
Soviet historians seem to support opposing arguments, they have a common
understanding of the Russian economy in the mentioned period: The capitalist
economy had already started to develop in the Russian city in the beginning of
the century. This brought the clash of feudalism with capitalism. The
relationship between the village and the town forced the pomeshchiki for
producing excessive grain, which meant more and harsher exploitation of the
serf. That is how the serfdom as a system came into a crisis.
While Lyashchenko
takes the forced production of excessive grain as a cause of the stagnation in
the agricultural productivity, Zaionchkovsky explains the economic development
in the same period despite the negative effect of serfdom, with the development
of capitalism. Besides, Field has a slightly different approach. Accepting the
problem in the serf economy, he explains the decline in agricultural
productivity by the backwardness of Russian agricultural techniques. He argues,
“the servile economy was in crisis, but not a crisis of attitudes”. His
argument is that the economy maintained itself, the problems in agricultural
productivity were overcome, but the pomeshchik was not satisfied. He had
to find additional means of financial support to continue his life on a certain
level of prosperity. However, this dissatisfaction dragged the pomeshchiki
in a situation, which Robinson describes as ‘desperate’.
Leaving aside the
general economic indicators in Russia, some simple evidence points out how
economy effected the abolishment of serfdom. The pomeshchik was under
the heavy burden of credit debts. As a result of heavy debts, pomeshchik’s
main way to recover was to force his serfs for excessive production.
At this point it
is necessary to emphasize the strong authority of the pomeshchik in the
village. It is possible to observe the extension of his authority in his
interference even in the age for serf marriage. Keeping in mind that
complaining the landowner to an upper authority was forbidden, the serf had
nothing to do but obey the orders of his landlord. Pomeshchik’s
enforcement of the peasantry did not help him pay the loans. So, in the period
just before the reform, pomeshchiki were suffering.
Lyashchenko, as an
evidence for his argument that the feudal agriculture was in a problematic
situation, mentions the severe crop failures and famine, which at least 5 times
struck the country. Under such conditions, it is hard to think that peasantry
was prosperous. Considering the increasing pressure of the landowner, it is
obvious that the economic difficulties had an impact in the crisis of the
serfdom.
Pomeshchiki
Position on Emancipation
Another point of discussion among the
historians is the serfowners’ position as to the emancipation. Blum’s argument
is that the attitude of the serfowners barred the reform, until when the defeat
in the Crimean War made it inevitable and irresistible. Field, also, takes the
same idea that serfholders, defining themselves with their serfs, wanted to
preserve the old system. However, Emmons makes a long emphasis on the
‘abolitionist sentiment’ among the pomeshchiki. He argues that, just
before the Crimean War, abolition of serfdom rapidly spread among the pomeshchiki,
who increasingly believed in that serfdom, rather than being a necessary
condition for existence, barred their wealth. Counting the reasons for
‘abolitionist sentiment’, Emmons first mentions the fear of a peasant revolt.
The increasing
number of peasant disturbances between 1826-1829, indicated by Ignatovich (in
his article “Peasant Disturbances”) and Lyashchenko’s map of the peasant
outbreaks between 1827-1860 give an idea on the contemporary atmosphere of the pomeshchik-serf
relations. Zaionchkovsky, trying to stress the revolutionary character of these
peasant movements, mentions that according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
“139 provincial lords and estate managers were killed and seventy attempted
murders, between 1836 and 1851”. Although it is hard to conclude as
Zaionchkovsky that the peasant movement would likely to become a threat against
the existence of the autocratic state, the numbers mentioned would help pomeshchiki
understand Alexander II, when he said: “It were better that the emancipation
came from above, than from below.”
Another point,
which Emmons proposes to be a factor in abolitionist sentiment among the pomeshchiki,
is the mortgage payments. Although Chichikov tries to buy ‘dead souls’ to
benefit by mortgaging them (‘dead souls’ also refers to the landowners selling
their ‘dead souls’), it becomes burdensome when the souls are alive. Just
before the reform, two-thirds of all the serfs had been mortgaged to the state
institutions. Although Stuve argues that these mortgage loans were invested in
agricultural technology, Field and Robinson oppose him, claiming that the loans
simply evaporated as luxurious expenditures. At least it turned out to be that
the loans were not expended in a way that would bring it back. At the same
time, Field says that the indebtedness of the pomeshchiki is not
necessarily connected with the emancipation. However, Emmons supports his
argument with several landowner and peasant proposals, which reached the
government, referring to the indebtedness of the pomeshchiki as an
incentive for emancipation.
Beyond getting rid
of their debts, the idea of employing hired labor appealed more to some
landowners. Besides, for some of them, receiving a considerable amount of money
made emancipation more appealing to them. Robinson also mentions the existence
of such landowners, willing emancipation in order to profit from it.
Emmons talks about
the role of enlightenment in the spread of the abolitionist sentiment. The
educated members of the society, affected from the liberal ideology,
increasingly supported emancipation, spreading their ideas. This group is also
mentioned by the other historians as intellectuals (Blum) or intelligentsia
(Zaionchkovsky).
Considering the pomeshchiki
attitude toward emancipation, another issue, which has been discussed by the
historians, is the effect of geographical location on provincial committees’
choices on how much land should be given to the peasants. Examining the
proposals of the committees on the size of peasant holdings and on redemption
payments, Blum argues that, too much emphasis was made on geographical
considerations of the committees. He accuses Kornilov and his “dogmatic
followers” for overlooking many exceptions in which committees gave their
decisions considering some other factors.
He seems to be right as Emmons and Lyashchenko make the generalization
that in northern and central non-black soil regions, where obrok was
preferred to land, the committees tended to leave relatively more land to the
peasants than the committees in the fertile but low-populated regions. Although
Lyashchenko makes the generalization roughly and does not go into detail,
Emmons is more careful in reflecting the details and quotes Kornilov when he
also mentions the exceptions. While Emmons’s special emphasis on the ‘liberal
committees’ partly saves himself from Blum’s accusation, Lyashchenko, though is
not a Kornilov follower, cannot avoid it.