Origins The origins of
serfdom in
Russia may be traced to the 12th century, when the exploitation of the so-called
zakups on
arable lands (, ) and
corvée smerds (Russian term for corvée is , ) was the closest to what is now known as serfdom. According to the
Russkaya Pravda, a
princely smerd had limited
property and personal rights and his
escheat was given to the prince.
From the 13th century to the 15th century From the 13th century to the 15th century,
feudal dependency applied to a significant number of
peasants, but serfdom as we know it was still not a widespread phenomenon. In the mid-15th century the right of certain categories of peasants in some
votchinas to leave their master was limited to a period of one week before and after
Yuri's Day (November 26). The
Sudebnik of 1497 officially confirmed this time limit as universal for everybody and also established the amount of the "break-away" fee called (). The legal code of
Ivan III of Russia,
Sudebnik (1497), strengthened the dependency of peasants, statewide, and
restricted their mobility. The
Russians persistently battled against the successor states of the
Golden Horde, chiefly the
Khanate of Crimea. Annually the Russian population of the borderland suffered from
Tatar invasions and
slave raids and tens of thousands of noblemen protected the southern borderland (a heavy burden for the state), which slowed its social and economic development and expanded the taxation of peasantry.
Transition to full serfdom The
Sudebnik of 1550 increased the amount of pozhiloye and introduced an additional
tax called (, or transportation fee), in case a peasant refused to bring the
harvest from the fields to his master. A temporary (, or
forbidden years) and later an open-ended prohibition for peasants to leave their masters was introduced by the decrees of 1597 under the reign of
Boris Godunov, which took away the peasants' right to free movement around Yuri's Day, binding the vast majority of the Russian peasantry in full serfdom. These also defined the so-called
fixed years (, ), or the 5-year time frame for search of the runaway peasants. In 1607, a new ukase defined
sanctions for hiding and keeping runaways: the fine had to be paid to the state and pozhiloye – to the previous owner of the peasant. The
Sobornoye Ulozhenie (, "Code of Law") of 1649 gave serfs to estates, and in 1658, flight was made a criminal offense. Russian landowners eventually gained almost unlimited ownership over Russian serfs. The landowner could transfer the serf without land to another landowner while keeping the serf's personal property and family; however, the landowner had no right to kill the serf. About four-fifths of Russian peasants were serfs according to the censuses of 1678 and 1719; free peasants remained only in the north and north-east of the country. Most of the
dvoryane (nobles) were content with the long time frame for search of the runaway peasants. The major
landowners of the country, however, together with the dvoryane of the south, were interested in a short-term
persecution due to the fact that many runaways would usually flee to the southern parts of Russia. During the first half of the 17th century the dvoryane sent their collective
petitions (, ) to the authorities, asking for the extension of the "fixed years". In 1642, the Russian government established a 10-year limit for search of the runaways and 15-year limit for search for peasants taken away by their new owners. punishing one of her serfs The
Sobornoye Ulozhenie introduced an open-ended search for those on the run, meaning that all of the peasants who had fled from their masters after the census of 1626 or 1646–1647 had to be returned. The government would still introduce new time frames and grounds for search of the runaways after 1649, which applied to the peasants who had fled to the outlying districts of the country, such as regions along the border
abatises called () (ukases of 1653 and 1656),
Siberia (ukases of 1671, 1683 and 1700),
Don (1698) etc. The dvoryane constantly demanded that the search for the runaways be sponsored by the government. The
legislation of the second half of the 17th century paid much attention to the means of punishment of the runaways. Serfdom was hardly efficient; serfs and nobles had little incentive to improve the land. However, it was politically effective. Nobles rarely challenged the tsar for fear of provoking a peasant uprising. Serfs were often given lifelong tenancy on their plots, so they tended to be conservative as well. The serfs took little part in uprisings against the empire as a whole; it was the Cossacks and nomads who rebelled initially and recruited serfs into rebel armies. But many landowners died during serf uprisings against them. The revolutions of 1905 and 1917 happened after serfdom's abolition.
Rebellions There were numerous rebellions against this bondage, most often in conjunction with
Cossack uprisings, such as the uprisings of
Ivan Bolotnikov (1606–1607),
Stenka Razin (1667–1671),
Kondraty Bulavin (1707–1709) and
Yemelyan Pugachev (1773–1775). While the
Cossack uprisings benefited from disturbances among the peasants, and they in turn received an impetus from Cossack rebellion, none of the Cossack movements were directed against the institution of serfdom itself. Instead, peasants in Cossack-dominated areas became Cossacks during uprisings, thus escaping from the peasantry rather than directly organizing peasants against the institution. Rich Cossacks owned serfs themselves. Between the end of
Pugachev's Rebellion and the beginning of the 19th century, there were hundreds of outbreaks across Russia, and there was never a time when the peasantry was completely quiescent.
Slaves and serfs As a whole, serfdom both came and remained in Russia much later than in other European countries.
Slavery remained a legally recognized institution in
Russia until 1723, when
Peter the Great abolished slavery and converted the slaves into serfs. This was relevant more to
household slaves because Russian agricultural slaves were formally converted into serfs earlier in 1679. There was a separate class of peasants who could be sold without land, these were
dvorovie lyudi, however, unlike slaves in the classical view, their movable property, religious rights and inviolability were officially protected by law, such serfs could, like others, file a complaint with the local administration against their landowner and in the case of success gained almost complete freedom. Some scholars present the institution of serfdom in the eighteenth century as almost analogous to American slavery, pointing out that the landlords had full power. This is a controversial position, since all legal norms regarding peasants, regardless of their status, point to the protection of their movable property, honor, and religion, while retaining the opportunity for them to personally represent their interests in court. However, landlords could actually personally punish their peasants and some abused this. Unlike serfs, state peasants and peasants under tsar's patronage were considered personally free, nobody had the right to sell them, to interfere in their family life, by law they were considered as 'free agricultural inhabitants' (Russ 'свободные сельские обыватели') One particular source of indignation in Europe was
Kolokol published in London, England (1857–65) and Geneva (1865–67). It collected many cases of horrendous physical, emotional and sexual abuse of the serfs by the landowners.
Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Edicts of 1718, 1734, 1750, 1761, and 1767 obliged landlords to feed their peasants in times of crop failure and famine and to prevent their impoverishment. Since 1722 landlords were responsible for the correct payment of the per capita tax by their peasants (the tax was collected from the peasants and paid to the treasury by the landlord himself or his clerk). It was forbidden to put peasants on torture for their master's debts. In order to suppress fraudulent practices of landlords, who during audits recorded persons who did not belong to serfs, allegedly with their consent, decrees of 1775, 1781 and 1783 prohibited voluntary registration of serfs. The legislation stipulated conditions that allowed peasants to leave the serf state. Edicts of 1737, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1770, and 1773 declared free those who returned from captivity, as well as foreigners who accepted
Eastern Orthodoxy. The children of foster homes and those who had graduated from the
St. Petersburg Academy of Arts could not be enserfed. Freedom was granted to retired soldiers who were serfs. In 1775 measures were taken by
Catherine II to prosecute estate owners for the cruel treatment of serfs. These measures were strengthened in 1817 and the late 1820s. There were even laws that required estate owners to help serfs in time of famine, which included grain to be kept in reserve. These policies failed to aid famines in the early nineteenth century due to estate owner negligence. (Sale of a serf girl) As the ideas of
Enlightenment and humanism spread among the
Russian nobility at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, a conviction developed that the system of serfdom was flawed and hindered economic development and urban growth. With a larger military Russia achieved victory in the
Napoleonic Wars and
Russo-Persian Wars; this did not change the disparity between Russia and Western Europe, who were experiencing agricultural and industrial revolutions. Compared to Western Europe it was clear that Russia was at an economic disadvantage. European philosophers during the
Age of Enlightenment criticized serfdom and compared it to medieval labor practices which were almost non-existent in the rest of the continent. Most Russian nobles were not interested in change toward western labor practices that Catherine the Great proposed. Instead they preferred to mortgage serfs for profit. In 1820, 20% of all serfs were mortgaged to state credit institutions by their owners. This was increased to 66% in 1859. Although Napoleon had abolished serfdom in other conquered territories, he did not do so in Russia. Dutch general in French service stated on this matter, namely, that Napoleon's lack of desire to abolish serfdom stemmed from his "loss of pro-populace views." Dedem emphasized that Napoleon was "no longer General Bonaparte; strengthening
monarchism in France was too important to him, and it was difficult for him to preach revolution in Russia." The French General
Comte de Ségur wrote similar: "Napoleon's nature drew him more to the interests of kings than to the people." Napoleon even helped the
Vitebsk Russian landowners (in occupied
White Ruthenia) suppress the civil unrest and provided them with his soldiers for protection, in order to prevent
civil war.
Quartermaster of occupied White Ruthenia
Amédée-David de Pastoret wrote: "The country was in the most extreme disorder, spread by the uprising of peasants convinced that the freedom in question consisted precisely in unbridled arbitrariness." Ségur believed that Napoleon rejected proposals to abolish serfdom because "a
barbarian people has barbaric freedom, unbridled freedom, terrible licentiousness!" Probably, the experience of the
Peninsular War convinced Napoleon of the danger of a popular movement, when anti-feudal tasks were intertwined with
national liberation ones. Statements from the campaign's participants indicate that Napoleon was repelled by the idea of liberating the peasants precisely because of the "lawlessness of a peasant
revolt," which possessed only mindless destructive power (including mass robberies) and was incapable of anything constructive. Napoleon understood that any war must end in peace, but he would not have been able to make one with anyone if chaos and
anarchy reigned in Russia. He needed to negotiate with Russia to enforce the
Continental System again (Russia "began to forget" about the
Treaties of Tilsit), which Alexander I violated, which was the reason for the war. The system worked poorly overall and had a negative impact on Russia's economy and the economies of other member countries of the system. In indigenous Russia (starting from the
Smolensk Governorate and ending with
Central Russia), the peasants did not accept (mainly) the "
invader Napoleon" and supported their own Russian government. In
Lithuania,
White Ruthenia and
Courland lands, the population was rather neutral. On both sides, propaganda also played a role in the mood of the named regions, inclusive of indigenous Russia: on the Russian side, it was
religiousnational, on the French side, it was anti-feudal; French propaganda was carried out at a local provocative level, but not at the highest, political scale. The Russian peasantry was traditionally very religious and strongly devoted to the Russian
throne. Napoleon, while correctly assessing the "slavish" level of the peasantry, deprived of civilization, underestimated its spiritual and moral strength. Russia itself is a late civilization and was
oppressed by the Mongols for a very long time. It was not enough to free the peasants, they also needed to be educated; but peasants had to plow, so taking them away from their work any further was undesirable for the landowners. Having gained "
enlightenment", the peasants could become a source of unrest, demanding their freedom. At the same time, Napoleon's emancipation attempt of poorly educated peasants led to chaos. Such was the dilemma facing
Emperor of the French and
Emperors of Russia. And so
the 1861 reform was, in itself, cautious; it had no immediate effect. To discuss the peasant question,
Nicholas I successively created 9 secret committees, issued about 100 decrees aimed at mitigating serfdom, but did not affect its foundations. From 1833 it was not allowed to sell serfs at public auction "with the splitting of families", "to satisfy public and private debts", paying for them with serfs with their detachment from the land, as well as to transfer peasants into household serfs, taking away their plots. The right of landlords to exile peasants to Siberia at their discretion was restricted (1828). A decree on obliged peasants was issued (1842), according to which landlords could let their peasants go free, but peasants' plots were transferred not into ownership, but into the use of peasants, for which they had to perform duties in favour of the landlord. The landlords were given the right to let the peasants go free by mutual agreement with them (1844). The peasants of the landlord's estates sold at auction for the owner's debts were allowed to buy out at will (1847; in 1848–52 964 male peasants used the right). Bourgeois were allowed to own serfs 1721–62 and 1798–1816; this was to encourage industrialisation. In 1804, 48% of Russian factory workers were serfs, 52% in 1825. Landless serfs rose from 4.14% in 1835 to 6.79% in 1858. They received no land in the emancipation. Landlords deliberately increased the number of domestic serfs when they anticipated serfdom's demise. In 1798, Ukrainian landlords were banned from selling serfs apart from land. In 1841, landless nobles were banned also.
Poland–Lithuania According to certain Polish sources, increasingly in the 18th century Russian peasants were escaping from Russia to the
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (where
once harsh serfdom conditions were improving) in significant enough numbers to become a major concern for the Russian Government and sufficient to play a role in its decision to
partition the Commonwealth (one of the reasons
Catherine II gave for the
partition of Poland was that thousands of peasants escaped from Russia to Poland to seek a better fate). Jerzy Czajewski and Piotr Kimla wrote that until the partitions solved this problem, Russian armies raided territories of the Commonwealth, officially to recover the escapees, but in fact kidnapping many locals.
Abolition depicting Russian serfs listening to the proclamation of the Emancipation Manifesto in 1861 In 1816, 1817, and 1819, serfdom was abolished in
Estland,
Courland, and
Livonia respectively. However all the land stayed in noble hands and labor rent lasted until 1868. It was replaced with landless laborers and sharecropping (
halbkörner). Landless workers had to ask permission to leave an estate. The nobility was too weak to oppose the emancipation of the serfs. In 1820, a fifth of the serfs were mortgaged, half by 1842. By 1859, a third of noble's estates and two thirds of their serfs were mortgaged to noble banks or the state. The nobility was also weakened by the scattering of their estates, lack of
primogeniture, and the high turnover and mobility from estate to estate. The Tsar's aunt
Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna played a powerful role backstage in the years 1855 to 1861. Using her close relationship with her nephew Alexander II, she supported and guided his desire for emancipation, and helped mobilize the support of key advisors. In 1861, Alexander II freed all serfs (except in Georgia and Kalmykia Serfdom was abolished, but not always on favorable terms to the peasants. Even after emancipation, feudal agriculture practices continued. Most former serfs had to pay a land redemption fee (redemption payments were not abolished until 1907), and could only purchase less fertile, less profitable plots of land that weren't necessarily contiguous.
Impact A 2018 study in the
American Economic Review found "substantial increases in agricultural productivity, industrial output, and peasants' nutrition in Imperial Russia as a result of the abolition of serfdom in 1861". ==Serf society==