Serfdom in Russia

Serfs in the middle ages

In Europe, early evidence of serfdom can be found from the 11th century onwards but then declined in Western Europe around the time of the Renaissance in the 14th century. However, in Russia serfdom started and ended much later. Serfdom had existed in Russia since 1649, when a legal code granted landowners complete authority over the peasants who lived on their land. This meant that landowners had full control over these people's lives and work, including their right to move elsewhere.

Emancipation of the serfs in Russia

A significant motivation for emancipation was Russia’s failure in the Crimean War. However many other factors also contributed.

Humiliation in the Crimean War

Failure in Crimean War demonstrated Russia's underdevelopment in comparison to the other European powers. The Russian intelligentsia put pressure on Alexander to modernise. For example, Dmitry Milyutin argued only a free population could provide the labour needed to improve the army.

Influence from tutors and nobles

Alexander’s tutor was a progressive, pro-European Romantic poet named Vasily Zhukovsky.

The tsar’s court included a group of nobles called the 'Party of St Petersburg Progress', a political circle of progressive nobles and officials. Alexander was also influenced by his brother the Grand Duke Konstantin and his aunt the Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna. The Party was often seen at Elena's salons or with the Grand Duke.

Fig. 1 - Vasily Zhukovsky

Other 'enlightened bureaucrats' at court were committed to abolition. Nikolai Milyutin (of the Ministry for Internal Affairs) favoured Slavophile reform, while his brother Dmitry was a scholar who argued for military reform. Other members of the intelligentsia shared their view that serfdom was both immoral and inhibiting Russia's development.

Increase in peasant uprisings since 1840

There were around 60 outbreaks of disorder per year by 1960. Peasants resented conscription in the Crimean War and the demands of their landowners, who could charge unaffordable rents. While serf uprisings did not threaten the autocracy, they were a sign of general discontent.

The Tsar's reliance on the nobility

Many younger nobles were in debt and critical of Russia's economic system. Alexander relied on the nobility to rule, and so could be influenced by them.

Social reasons for emancipation

Emancipation would reduce conflict between the serfs and nobles, potentially preventing future unrest.

Economic reasons for emancipation

Not only were there political and social reasons for emancipating the serfs, there were also economic reasons.

Reducing state debts

By the time Alexander II was Tsar, state debts had reached 54 million roubles, and serfs were too poor to pay their taxes. Emancipation would incentivise serfs to work. This would produce a grain surplus which could be exported to increase state revenue. Peasants could also move to towns and become wage-earners, increasing revenue via taxation.

Fig. 2 - Diagram showing the economic implications of serfdom, StudySmarter

Fig. 3 - Diagram showing the economic implications of emancipation, StudySmarter

Encourage economic migration to towns

Emancipation would create a pool of available labour for urban industry, as peasants would be able to leave their owner's property. Urbanisation and industrialisation would make Russia a richer country.

Encourage agricultural development

Land management techniques on the mir were outdated and difficult to change. Village elders ran the mir (the village community) and resisted attempts at modernisation. Emancipation would weaken the mir, and so encourage agricultural innovation.

Ideological reasons for emancipation

Ideological reasons also informed the decision to emancipate the peasants.

Pressure from the West

Western liberals were putting pressure on Russia to emancipate the serfs, believing it was immoral.

Russian Westernisers argued that Russia should abandon its Slavic traditions and embrace Western values, including economic, military and social reforms like establishing a representative assembly.

Russian realist literature, such as Ivan Turgenev’s “Sportsman’s Sketches”, depicted the struggles of peasants. Alexander II had read and was influenced by Turgenev’s work.

Preserving Russia's status as a 'Great Power'

Many of the intelligentsia argued that serfdom threatened Russia's international status. With the spread of Western liberalism, relying on a serf-based economy reflected poorly on Russia's moral values.

Pressure from the Slavophiles

Slavophiles believed Russia's cultural heritage, based on peasant society and the Orthodox Church, should be preserved as Russia modernised.

Opposition from nihilists and anarchists

Nihilism and anarchism were popular with the younger generations of the intelligentsia. The Nihilists criticised the government and called for radical change or even revolution.

How did Alexander progress towards Emancipation?

Alexander began his reign with a series of liberalising gestures. In March 1856, he asked a group of nobles for suggestions for an emancipation measure. He toured Russia from 1858-59 to win emancipation support from the nobles. His Emancipation Edict came into force in March 1861. As a result of his Edict, he became known as the ‘Tsar Liberator’.

Fig. 4 - Translation: Release of serfs in Russia

The 1861 Emancipation edict

The edict applied to privately owned serfs immediately, and to state-owned serfs from 1866.

• Serfs were granted their freedom and a land allotment

• Open fields were granted to the mirs, with landowners keeping woodland, meadows, pasture, and a personal holding

• Landowners were given government bonds as compensation

• Freed serfs had to pay 'redemption payments' to the government over a 49-year period

• Freed serfs could not leave the mir until the redemption payments were paid in full

• The mir were responsible for distributing serfs' land allotments, controlling farming, and collecting and paying the peasants' taxes

• Volosts were established to supervise the mirs. A volost was an administrative area made up of 200-3000 peasants. Volosts were run by representatives from their mirs.

• From 1863, volosts ran their own courts under management from government officials and a noble 'peace officer'. This replaced the landlords' jurisdiction over serfs.

Positive and negative consequences of the emancipation

Historical interpretations of the Emancipation of the Serfs

There are two main interpretations of the Emancipation:

1) As a product of Alexander's liberal ideas

The Emancipation was a humanitarian project led by Alexander out of benevolence. He challenged convention and set Russia on the path to reform.

2) As an attempt to improve social and political stability

The Emancipation was a state-directed attempt to maintain tsarist authority, which ultimately backfired. Alexander's reforms produced short and long-term political and social problems. The Emancipation led many to believe that reform was impossible inside an autocratic system.

Historical interpretations of the economic and social impact of the Emancipation

Social and economic developments are further discussed in the articles ‘Social developments 1861-95’ and ‘Economic developments 1860-95’. Historians have different interpretations of the impact of emancipation.

1) Emancipation was a turning point for Russia

In ‘The Industrialisation of Russia 1700-1914’, the historian Malcolm Falkus argues that emancipation ‘removed a considerable barrier to industrial growth’. He suggests that serfdom restricted the domestic market, prevented labour mobility, stifled agricultural innovation, and most significantly encouraged attitudes that were harmful towards modernisation. On Falkus’ account, emancipation led peasants to market more crops and supply industrial labour.

2) Russian society and economy were not significantly changed by the emancipation

The historian Christopher Read offers a different view in his book ‘From Tsar to Soviets’, arguing that the attitudes and institutions of serfdom survived emancipation. He claims that Russia ‘remained essentially a serf owners’ state’, with peasants inefficient and hostile towards their masters, and a continuing reliance on the police and army to govern peasants.