Russia in the nineteenth century had to solve two important key issues. They have been on the agenda since the beginning of the century and concerned serfdom and autocracy.
Decisions of the Russian Tsar
He made a number of attempts to somehow resolve the peasant question that had become relevant. This, of course, concerned primarily the decrees of 1801 and 1803. The first made it possible, along with other estates, to buy land as property, thereby destroying the existing monopoly of the nobility on the ownership of this property. The second, which went down in history as the "Decree on Free Plowmen", was intended to determine the procedure for the emancipation or release of peasants along with the land. The latter, at the same time, were obliged to pay the ransom to the landlords in installments, thereby also receiving a land allotment as their property.
In fairness, it should be noted that only a few were able to use this decree. At the same time, this measure did not affect the current system of serfdom in any way.
Over the years, many options have been proposed to address this rather complex but urgent issue. Projects for the liberation of the peasants were proposed by Mordvinov and Arakcheev, Guryev and Kankrin.
Peasant question
Despite the fact that since 1801, the burghers, merchants and state peasants were allowed to buy or sell uninhabited lands, the current situation in Russia was quite explosive. She got worse every year. At the same time, serfdom became less and less effective. In addition, such a state of the peasants caused grumbling not only among themselves. Representatives of other classes were also dissatisfied. However, they still did not dare to cancel the tsarist government: the nobility, being a privileged estate, considered the main support of the emperor, categorically did not agree with such cardinal changes. Therefore, the king had to compromise, maneuvering between the desire of the elite and the needs of the economy.
Year 1803: "Decree on free cultivators"
It had a very important ideological significance for Russia. Indeed, for the first time in history, it approved the possibility of freeing the peasants along with the land in retaliation for the ransom. It was this provision that became the main component of the subsequent reform of 1861. Adopted on February 20, 1803, the "Decree on Free Plowmen" provided for the peasants the opportunity to be released both individually and in entire villages, and with an obligatory land allotment. For their will, they had to pay a ransom or perform duties. If the obligations were not fulfilled by the peasants, then they were returned to the landowner. The class that received the will in this way was called free. However, they went down in history as free cultivators. Since 1848 they began to be called And it was they who became the main driving force in the development of expanses and resources of Siberia.
Implementation of the decree
By the middle of the nineteenth century, almost one hundred and fifty thousand male peasants had been emancipated under this law. At the same time, historians believe that the results of the "Decree on Free Ploughmen", which had been in force in Russia for more than half a century, were very small.
Having passed into a special class, the “free cultivators” now received and could dispose of their own land. They could bear duties exclusively in favor of the Russian state. However, according to statistics, during the entire reign of Alexander, less than half a percent of the total number of serfs passed into their category.
For example, from 1804 to 1805, in the Ostsee region, though peasant householders were given personal freedom, they still had to bear duties for the allotments of landowners' land placed at their disposal: both corvée and dues. Moreover, free cultivators were not exempted from recruitment.
Prerequisites
In addition to the above reasons, another very specific event for the issuance of the "Decree on Free Ploughmen" was a very specific event. Count Sergei Rumyantsev, known for his radical views, expressed a desire to free some of his serfs along with the land. At the same time, he put forward a condition: the peasants had to pay for their own plots. It was with such a request that Count Rumyantsev turned to the emperor to allow him to legalize the deal.
This incident became a prerequisite for Alexander to issue the notorious decree, after which free cultivators appeared in Russia.
Decree clauses
Ten points were introduced into the law, according to which:
- The landowner could release his peasants along with the land. At the same time, he had to personally negotiate with his serf about the terms of the ransom and his alleged obligations.
- Obligations, around which the parties agreed, were inherited.
- If the peasant did not fulfill them, then he, with his family and land, had to return to dependence on the landowner.
- Freed serfs were to be called free.
- Free cultivators had the right to move to another class: to become artisans or merchants, etc.
- Both released and state peasants were obliged to pay taxes to the state. At the same time, they had to perform a recruiting duty.
- The plowman was to be judged in the same institution as the state peasant.
- Released serfs, who fulfilled their obligations to the landowners, could freely dispose of their land allotment. They could also move to live in other provinces, notifying the Treasury in advance.
- Free cultivators received state rights.
- If the land of the peasant or he himself were mortgaged, then at the request of the former owner, he himself took over this debt with the permission of the creditor.
I must say that the landowner could not use the right he received, so the decree was exclusively advisory in nature, and not mandatory.
How the farmers of Stavropol fought the "collective farm lobby"
A good friend of mine and a very strong farmer Alexei Chernigovsky put up two busts on the territory of his base. One - to Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, the other - to Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. When I saw such a strange neighborhood, then, of course, I asked Alexei Petrovich how sympathy for such opposite historical figures coexists in his mind.
As for Stolypin, everything is clear to me. Chernigovsky, a former music teacher, became a farmer in the early 1990s. He is the brightest representative of that class of owners, owners of the land, for whom Pyotr Arkadyevich stood up, which, according to his ideas, should have become the basis Russian society, its support and guarantee of the prosperity of the state. Stalin actually destroyed everything that was created by Stolypin. Collectivization is the exact opposite of Stolypin's reforms.
Alexei Petrovich explained his position in this way. Both figures are statesmen, unlike Gorbachev and Yeltsin, the state was not destroyed, but strengthened. That's why they stand side by side.
Crossing Parallels
It seemed to me that such a neighborhood is very indicative of the current state of rural society. Legacy of both historical figures alive in the Stavropol region to this day. The agrarian economy of the region, and of the entire South of Russia, is developing in two directions. The first is the former collective farms and state farms, which today have become agricultural cooperatives, LLCs, but have not changed their essence. Their members are owners of land shares, nominally owners of the land, who voluntarily signed lease agreements with the administration of enterprises, and receive a certain fee for the leased property. In fact, these people do not influence the policy of enterprises in any way, in fact they remain the same people without rights, like the former collective farmers. The new leaders of these cooperatives wield even more power than the Soviet-era chairmen.
Another direction is farming, which was formed in 1991. In terms of the number of farms, the Stavropol Territory occupies one of the first places in Russia, and the Association of Peasants and Farmers of the Territory (AKKOR) last year was recognized as the best in the country.
Farmers occupy 30 percent of all sown areas, producing a third of the gross agricultural product. Farmers are pure owners, that is, those owners for whom Stolypin advocated.
Over the past ten years, the third component of the agrarian economy has appeared in the region - agricultural holdings. These are large agricultural enterprises created with capital that does not have an agricultural origin. As a rule, they are owned by the Moscow rich, who do not even show their eyes to their estates, having hired managers, often from among the very chairmen of the former collective farms who went bankrupt and were bought up by the new masters of life. By and large, holdings are not much different from collective agricultural enterprises. Only here is the alienation of the owners of land shares from the levers of control even greater. The holdings also mostly lease land, but they are not averse to buying it into their ownership, giving much more money for land shares than farmers can afford. Such visiting owners in the region are called investors, but also temporary workers.
If all these three directions existed in parallel, peacefully competing with each other, then there would be no problems. But the fact is that the representatives of the old collective farm elite and the new one, those same investors, do not want to follow a parallel course. New business sharks, having swallowed tidbits of the Stavropol black soil, tasted the taste of the earth and want it more and more. The old structures resist and want to keep their place in the sun. Fighting with each other, they look longingly at the 30 percent of the land that farmers cultivate. Historically, since the 90s, farmers have been the unloved brainchild of the Stavropol authorities, which adhered to the traditional collective farm orientation. And although now the attitude towards farmers has improved, since one cannot fail to see their achievements, the collective farm lobby is still the most influential in the region. It was it that tried to knock out advantages for itself from the authorities in the fight against holdings, and at the same time reined in the farmers, as the weaker link in this triad.
Draconian norm
Last year, the Agrarian Committee of the Stavropol Territory Duma came up with the idea to raise the minimum norm for a land plot when leaving the general array when renegotiating lease agreements or selling shares from 30 hectares to 2.5 thousand (!). There is no such draconian norm in any region of Russia. Usually there are no restrictions, or at all, or no more than 100-200 hectares, and this is only in two or three regions.
The regional legislators decided to introduce such a norm for the sake of fighting those very investors in the face of Moscow and even more so foreign companies that supposedly sleep and see how to seize the Stavropol lands. The problem, no doubt, exists. There are examples of this in the region. And it has become especially aggravated this year, when the terms of lease agreements with the majority of land owners have expired.
But a close examination of this document immediately shows in whose favor it was supposed to work. Of course, the old collective farm structures. With an impartial and competent reflection, it is immediately clear that the law would not hit the interests of those holdings very much.
Because for them that 2.5 thousand hectares to buy, that five, all the same, like an elephant's grain. But this law would undoubtedly hit the farmers and the owners of land shares themselves. He would actually put an end to the expansion of existing farms and the creation of new ones, since only a few farmers could manage the financial allocation of 2.5 thousand hectares - even for rent, even for ownership. Accordingly, the owners of the shares thus turned into serfs attached to the former collective farm structures.
It was then that the usually amorphous farming community, realizing the danger looming over it, sharply intensified. Rallies, meetings, congresses began. Farmers finally felt like a single community with their own economic and social interests.
It all ended with the fact that at the All-Russian Congress of ACCOR, Stavropol farmers clearly defined their position, finding the support of the entire farming community of the country. Supported free farmers and the Ministry Agriculture Russia. In particular, Minister Alexander Tkachev called the idea of the regional authorities harmful and stupid and promised to influence Governor Vladimir Vladimirov.
This scandal, which spilled over into the expanses of Russia, also affected the rating of Governor Vladimirov, who, according to media estimates, fell by twenty points.
In the end, the head of the region backed down and changed the already signed law. Now in the region the norm of the minimum plot is equal to the size of the land share that has developed in a particular area of Stavropol.
Reasonable and fair. The collective-farm lobby was defeated, the farmers won and again went into hibernation.
And why is it necessary to protect their interests, since they are not the leaders of the agricultural business in the region? Unfortunately, many of those in power in the region think so. But this is a short-sighted and harmful policy that can lead to the death of the Stavropol village, which is still viable, in contrast to the villages and villages of central Russia.
Approximately the same threats hung over the rural areas of the entire South. So, in the Stavropol Territory, future scenarios for the Russian village are being tested. I will try with some examples to prove the importance of farming for our country as the heritage of the great reformer Stolpin.
Why farmers need to be protected
I have a lot of observations about where a rural person lives freely and cheerfully. Do you know where? Where different forms of ownership coexist.
We take, for example, such large settlements in the Stavropol region as the village of Kazminskoye in the Kochubeevsky district and the village of Grigoropolisskaya in Novoaleksandrovsky. In both settlements there are strong, even the strongest agricultural enterprises that have maintained this status since Soviet times. Fine? Yes. But there is one hitch. There are practically no farms in these settlements.
And what do we see? Very average standard of living for the bulk of the population. Since these farms had the status of breeding farms, there was no division of land into shares. In addition, the highest authority of leaders, who can hardly be suspected of sympathy for farming, has done its job. And now, against the background of the well-groomed fields of Kazminsky, I see very gray residential houses of the villagers, as if from Soviet times. Yes, people in Kazminka do not beg, but they do not live richly either. The situation was explained to me like this: on the other hand, many people have a job, and if they cut it by half, then the salary would increase. And so the economy fulfills the social mission of preserving jobs. The same picture is in Grigoropolis.
Wouldn't it be better to give people the right to choose? Whoever wants, let him work as a hired hand, and whoever feels the strength in himself, would go to the farmers. And let him get richer if he can rise above the average level of efficiency and dedication. But no.
And here is the village of Rasshevatskaya, Novoaleksandrovsky district. It's historically different here. There are about fifty farms here. different levels, there is a strong collective farm "Motherland". I have not seen such a number of foreign cars in any other rural settlement edges, and strong mansions grow here like mushrooms. The casket just opens. The farmers themselves live well, because they work for themselves and achieve very good results. Their children live well, who 90 percent have become the successors of their fathers. The hired workers of farmers also live well, because they are, as a rule, high-class specialists, all loafers and drunkards have long been filtered out by the law of competition. Who is bad for this?
The head of Rodina, the Hero of Labor of the Stavropol Territory, Viktor Dubina, is a good business executive. I have nothing against his business qualities. But I know that he strongly dislikes farmers, constantly conflicts with them. He is annoyed by their independence, and the eternal competition with free farmers also complicates his life. If it were his will, he would have pressed them long ago. But, thank God, it is no longer in his power.
I will not forget how the farmer Alexei Chernigovsky mentioned above showed me the most wonderful picture in the Turkmen region. On one side of the road, there is the wretched housing of the villagers, as if from the time of 30 years ago. On the other hand, the strongest mansions, and massively. It turns out that where there is poverty, those who remain on the collective farm live, and it drags out a miserable existence. Mansions belong to those who were not afraid to break the umbilical cord, and began to manage independently, mainly in the field of cattle breeding. And this despite the fact that pasture land is sorely lacking. Isn't that an eloquent argument in favor of small business?
Now the farmers of the first wave are being replaced by their children and even grandchildren. I know many young people who linked their fate with the earth. As a rule, they are not inferior to their parents, but most often they are ahead of them both in knowledge, and in general outlook, and in business qualities. This is fine. That's the way it should be.
Here, for example, the brothers Sergei (on the picture) and Dmitry Kolesnikov from Rasshevatskaya. They convinced father Alexander Petrovich to take up, in addition to crop production, animal husbandry. Hereford bulls are fed, having received a large state grant for this business. They were not afraid, because they are literate, Sergey, for example, has a candidate of economic sciences. The brothers are planning to engage in tribal business, which requires great knowledge and thoroughness in work.
Or Roman Ponomarev from the village of Krasnoye, Grachevsky District. He and his father Alexander Nikolaevich began to grow magnificent organic watermelons. Roman studied the watermelon business thoroughly, for which he studied a bunch of literature, shoveled the Internet. He came up with an interesting marketing ploy, building a fabulous town from straw bales along the road, where travelers passing by wrap up. They will take pictures, and at the same time they will buy watermelons.
And I know a lot of these young guys.
I talked with young people, and simply with workers in large farms of those same collective farms and holdings. Of course, there are thinking hardworking people there too. But for some reason there is not that spark in the eyes that is inherent in people who work for themselves? I think it's because their growth opportunities are limited. There is little chance of becoming a leading specialist in the economy, because there are not enough such places, and the laws of nepotism guard the interests of that very elite. Here is a clear illustration of stagnation. The roles have already been assigned. One - eternal hiring, the other - the removal of income from someone else's land.
Tell me, those in power, who is dearer to you? Thinking, civilly active young people, ready to feed their families, relying only on themselves, or eternally whining faceless hard workers, looking enviously at your well-being?
It is not necessary to spread rot on farming, but to encourage it in every possible way, to protect it. This is the most active and strong part of rural society, which has already become the core around which it is possible to form a healthy socio-economic environment in rural areas. Farming is of particular importance precisely for the Stavropol Territory, where there is a problem of the eastern regions, from which the local, mainly Russian population. No programs will save these territories until the power rests on farmers who need every possible help to get back on their feet. Not to deprive them of the opportunity to expand, but, on the contrary, to allocate land, stipulating certain conditions of ownership. Having their own business, these people will never abandon the land that will feed them and their descendants.
There are examples of this. This is the Stepnovsky district, where there are many Cossack farmers who hold this territory, and they will not give an inch of their own, and therefore, the edge land to strangers.
It is no coincidence that the outflow of the Russian population there has decreased, as well as the influx of migrants from neighboring republics. Only those visitors who accept the way of life of local people, respect their traditions, take root. Who is against such migration? From it, probably, only benefit.
Thank God that they were smart enough to repeal the notorious law. The relative equality of all forms of ownership, which has returned to the Stavropol Territory, is the only guarantee for the preservation of rural areas. Let collective farms, holdings and farmers compete fairly with each other. This is for the benefit of themselves and the region as a whole. But a certain amount of farming must be preserved in every locality. Because the logic of the life of farmers is peasant. It means to love your small homeland, wish her and her countrymen well, because without this there will be no good for you and your descendants. Only these people will protect this land to the last, not skimping on its arrangement and development. We will lose farming, we will lose villages and villages. We will lose Russia.
Stavropol region
Especially for "Century"
The article was published as part of the socially significant project “Russia and the Revolution. 1917 - 2017" with the use of state support funds allocated as a grant in accordance with the order of the President Russian Federation dated 08.12.2016 No. 96/68-3 and on the basis of a competition held by the All-Russian public organization"Russian Union of Rectors".
FREE GROWERS FREE GROWERS - in Russia, peasants freed from serfdom with land by Decree 1803, on the basis of a voluntary agreement with the landowners. K ser. 19th century 151 thousand male souls were released.
Big Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2000 .
See what "Free Plowmen" is in other dictionaries:
Law Dictionary
Peasants freed from serfdom with the land by Decree 1803, on the basis of a voluntary agreement with the landowners. By the middle of the 19th century. 151 thousand male souls were released. Source: Encyclopedia Fatherland ... Russian history
In Russia, peasants freed from serfdom with land by Decree 1803, on the basis of a voluntary agreement with the landlords. By the middle of the XIX century. 151 thousand male souls were released. * * * FREE GROWERS FREE GROWERS in… … encyclopedic Dictionary
- (or Free cultivators) category of the peasantry in Russia in the 19th century. History Free cultivators in official documents were called former privately owned peasants, freed from serfdom on the basis of a decree of 20 ... Wikipedia
See Free Growers... Soviet historical encyclopedia
free cultivators- in Russia, peasants freed (with land) from serfdom under the Decree of 1803 on the basis of a voluntary agreement with the landowners ... Big Law Dictionary
FREE GROWERS- in Russia, peasants freed from serfdom with land under the Decree of 1803 on the basis of a voluntary agreement with the landowners. The landowners were given the right to release the peasants into the wild with allotment of land to them. The decree did not have much ... ...
Under serfdom, under serfdom, people from the military servicemen of a low rank were called, endowed as a reward for service not with an estate, but with a small plot of land, usually in one courtyard, without serfs. Personally, they were free, had ... ... Encyclopedia of Russian life of the XIX century
FREE PEOPLE- 1) people free personally and from the state tax; the state protected their personal safety, but did not recognize any rights for them; “in the monuments of the Muscovite state, the word “free” corresponded to the word “free” (13). 2) See ... ... Russian statehood in terms. IX - beginning of XX century
Free cultivators in official documents were called former privately owned peasants, freed from serfdom on the basis of a decree of February 20, 1803.
According to the provisions of this decree, the landlords received the right to free the peasants both individually and in villages, with the obligatory allocation of land to them. The peasants had to pay a huge ransom for their will or were obliged to fulfill their obligations. In case of non-fulfillment of obligations, the peasants were returned to the landowner. The decree practically did not affect the position of the bulk of the peasantry. During the reign of Alexander I, 161 transactions were concluded and 47,153 males were released, or less than 0.5% of the entire peasant population. The category of "free cultivators" also included courtyards and peasants who were released personally to freedom if they acquired land plots. From the year "free cultivators" began to be called state peasants.
see also
Write a review on the article "Free Plowmen"
Literature
- Semevsky V.I. « Peasant question in Russia in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries”, v.1, St. Petersburg 1888
- Biryukovich V."The device of life of free cultivators", in Sat. "Archive of the history of labor in Russia", 1921.
An excerpt characterizing the Free Plowmen
- Oh, don't talk! Last winter she rubbed herself in here and said such nasty things, such nasty things to the count about all of us, especially Sophie - I can’t repeat it - that the count became ill and did not want to see us for two weeks. At this time, I know that he wrote this nasty, vile paper; but I thought this paper meant nothing.– Nous y voila, [That's the point.] Why didn't you tell me before?
“In the mosaic briefcase he keeps under his pillow. Now I know,” said the princess, without answering. “Yes, if there is a sin for me, a big sin, then it is hatred for this bastard,” the princess almost shouted, completely changed. “And why is she rubbing herself here?” But I will tell her everything, everything. The time will come!
While such conversations were taking place in the reception room and in the princess's rooms, the carriage with Pierre (who was sent for) and Anna Mikhailovna (who found it necessary to go with him) drove into the courtyard of Count Bezukhoy. When the wheels of the carriage sounded softly on the straw laid under the windows, Anna Mikhailovna, turning to her companion with comforting words, convinced herself that he was sleeping in the corner of the carriage, and woke him up. Waking up, Pierre got out of the carriage after Anna Mikhailovna, and then only thought of that meeting with his dying father that awaited him. He noticed that they did not drive up to the front, but to the back entrance. While he was getting off the footboard, two men in bourgeois clothes hurriedly ran away from the entrance into the shadow of the wall. Pausing, Pierre saw in the shadow of the house on both sides several more of the same people. But neither Anna Mikhailovna, nor the footman, nor the coachman, who could not but see these people, paid no attention to them. Therefore, this is so necessary, Pierre decided with himself, and followed Anna Mikhailovna. Anna Mikhailovna walked with hasty steps up the dimly lit narrow stone stairs, calling to Pierre, who was lagging behind her, who, although he did not understand why he had to go to the count at all, and still less why he had to go up the back stairs, but, judging by the confidence and haste of Anna Mikhailovna, he decided to himself that this was necessary. Halfway down the stairs they were almost knocked down by some people with buckets, who, clattering with their boots, ran towards them. These people pressed against the wall to let Pierre and Anna Mikhailovna through, and did not show the slightest surprise at the sight of them.
Under serfdom, under serfdom, people from the military servicemen of a low rank were called, endowed as a reward for service not with an estate, but with a small plot of land, usually in one courtyard, without serfs. Personally, they were free, they even had the right to acquire peasants, but on a par with serfs they paid a tax - a CAPACITY TIT. Most often they cultivated their land themselves. " Generally speaking, it is still difficult for us to distinguish a single-palace from a peasant,- Turgenev writes in the story "Ovsyanikov's Odnodvorets", - his farm is almost worse than that of a peasant, calves do not come out of buckwheat, horses are barely alive, rope harness". Described in Ovsyanikov's story " was an exception to general rule, though not reputed to be a rich man ».
The father of the hero of another story by Turgenev - Nedopyuskin " came out of the same palaces and only forty years of service achieved the nobility ».
Free from serfdom, as well as single-palace dwellers, there were also small landowners - FREE, or FREE, GROWERS. By decree of 1803, a serf could redeem himself and acquire a small piece of land. Occasionally, in the form of a special favor, the landowner himself released him, endowing him with land.
In the "History of the village of Goryukhin" by Pushkin, the Sivka river separates the landowner Goryukhino from the possessions of the Karachevsky, free cultivators - " restless neighbors, known for the violent cruelty of morals". In "War and Peace" by Tolstoy with Andrei Bolkonsky " one of his estates of three hundred souls of peasants was listed and free cultivators (this was one of the first examples in Russia) ».
Free cultivators under serfdom did not get rid of recruitment duty. In Nekrasov's poem "The Forgotten Village", the serf girl Natasha fell in love with a free plowman, but the chief steward prevents marriage, they are waiting for the master. Meanwhile " a free farmer ended up as a soldier. / And Natasha herself is no longer delirious about the wedding ...» Another tragedy of the era of serfdom…
The serf peasant, released by the landowner to freedom, was called the FREEDOMPER. In Turgenev's story "Lgov", the hunter Vladimir, a former lord's valet, released by the master to freedom, is bred. He lived " penniless, without constant employment, ate just not manna from heaven ».
Main character another story by Turgenev "Raspberry Water" - Fog, " freedman of the earl ».
With the abolition of serfdom, the concepts of "odnodvorets" and "free plowman", as well as "freedman", are forever gone.
Guardianship and bail
In a number of cases, the government could transfer the noble estate to the guardianship.
The estates escheated, that is, left after the death of the owner and due to the lack of heirs without an owner, as well as ruined estates, brought to ruin by the owners, were transferred to guardianship. In Fonvizin's "Undergrowth" for the inhuman treatment of the peasants"Prostakova's estate goes under guardianship - an extremely rare and uncharacteristic case.
Repetilov in "Woe from Wit" repents to Chatsky that he is in " guardianship taken by decree"- this means that his ruined estate is taken under state supervision.
Guardianship was appointed in the case when the owners of the estate were minors, incapacitated, etc. Local nobles were appointed guardians, who in this case received 5% of the income from property as a fee.
When Gogol's old-world landowners died, their heir brought the estate to the point where it was taken into custody. " Wise guardianship (from one former assessor and some staff captain in a faded uniform) transferred all the chickens and all the eggs in a short time.
The task of guardianship under serfdom was the all-round support of noble land ownership; ruined estates often passed into the treasury, were sold at auction, but never became the property of the serfs who lived in them.
Widespread among landlords in early XIX century received a pledge of estates - along with serfs. What was it, it is very useful to understand.
The owners could receive a cash loan from various kinds of credit institutions on the security of their estates or part of them. The case seemed tempting: at first, without losing anything, the landowner received a sum of money that he could use for his own needs and even for commercial operations. However, for the loan each year, before the expiration of its term, the credit institution had to pay a considerable percentage.
If the interest was not paid and the loan was not repaid after the expiration of the term, the estate was appropriated by a credit institution and sold to them at an auction (that is, a public auction). The amount contributed by the buyer replenished the budget of the credit institution, while the landowner, who lost his estate, remained ruined. Such a fate, as you know, befell Ranevskaya in Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard.
The right to give interest-bearing loans secured by real estate was also granted to the Boards of Trustees. There were two of them - at the St. Petersburg and Moscow educational houses. Although these houses were called imperial, that is, under the protection of the state, the treasury did not release money to them. The orphanages, containing hundreds of orphans, existed at the expense of private charity, deductions from lotteries and theatrical performances, the sale of playing cards, and so on. But the main source of income for orphanages was loan operations.
The squandered landowner Muromsky in Pushkin's "The Young Lady-Peasant Woman" was considered a man not stupid, because the first of the landowners of his province guessed to mortgage the estate to the Board of Trustees: a turn that seemed at that time extremely complex and bold ».
Gradually, this kind of pledge became common among landowners. Pierre Bezukhov ("War and Peace" by L. Tolstoy) paid about 80 thousand interest on mortgages to the Council (guardianship) on all estates. We read about the pledge of landlord estates to pawnshops and trustee councils in many works of Russian classics: in Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, Gogol's Carriage, L. Tolstoy's Youth, in a number of Ostrovsky's comedies.
Things are bad with the Kirsanovs (“Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev), and here “ the board of trustees threatens and demands immediate and non-arrears payment of interest ».
TO REPLACE the estate meant to mortgage it anew, before the expiration of the first pledge, when the estate had to be redeemed, that is, the amount received on pledge should be deposited with all interest - this was quite a hefty amount of money. With the second pledge, credit institutions significantly, usually doubled, increased the annual percentage of the installment, that is, they put the mortgager in extremely unfavorable conditions. But the landowner had no choice: he no longer had the funds to buy the estate or other mortgaged property. It goes without saying that the weight of the second pledge fell with all its might on the serfs, who were exploited beyond measure.
On the right to mortgage their own peasants, that is, to receive a loan secured by serf souls, the whole Chichikov scam with the purchase of dead souls is built.
If valuables (movable property) were pawned in a pawnshop until redemption in kind, then, of course, lands and peasants were pawned according to officially issued documents confirmed by local authorities, indicating that the pledged really exists.
From time to time, the state undertook REVISIONS - censuses of the country's serf population, primarily in order to establish the number of males suitable for recruits. Therefore, not all serfs were called "REVISIONAL SOUL", but only male peasants.
From 1719 to 1850, ten revisions were made. Information about serfs was recorded on special sheets - REVISION TALES. Until the new revision, the revision souls were legally considered to exist; it was unthinkable to organize a daily record of the serf population. Thus, the dead or fugitive peasants were officially considered available, for them the landowners were obliged to pay a tax - a POLISH TIT.
Chichikov took advantage of these circumstances, buying from the landowners dead Souls as if they were alive in order to mortgage the estate with imaginary peasants to the Board of Trustees and receive a tidy sum of money. The deal was also beneficial for the landowner: having received Chichikov at least a small amount for a non-existent peasant, he got rid of the need to pay a soul tax for him to the treasury. Of course, Chichikov sought to buy a dead soul cheaper, and the landowner to sell it at a higher price - hence the stubborn bargaining for souls.
With the legal purchase and mortgage of living souls, the pawnbroker received an amount based on the real price of living peasants, and was obliged, up to the redemption date, to pay annually the prescribed percentage for each pledged soul.
Chichikov was not going to do it. Having pawned the dead souls as if they were alive, he wanted to get a loan for them and hide with a capital made up of the difference between the value of the revision soul and the amount paid for it to the landowner. He did not even think about any interest, and even more so a ransom.
There was only one difficulty: Chichikov did not have land, and a nobleman could buy peasants without land only “TO OUTPUT”, that is, with relocation to new places. Yes, and it was possible to lay the peasants only with land. Therefore, Chichikov planned to buy land in one of the uninhabited, steppe provinces - Kherson or Taurida (Crimea). It was quite real: it was known that the government, interested in settling the desert lands in southern Russia, was selling them to any nobleman who wanted them for next to nothing. No one was embarrassed that Chichikov was supposedly going to transfer only men to new places, without their families. Such a deal could take place only until 1833, when a law appeared prohibiting the sale of peasants "with separation from the family."
The immorality of Chichikov's scam also consisted in the fact that he intended to pledge fictitious peasants not just anywhere, but to the Board of Trustees, which was in charge of guardianship of widows and orphans. It was for their maintenance that the money received from mortgage operations went. Thus, Chichikov counted on cashing in on the grief and tears of the destitute, already half-starved and poorly dressed.
Noble self-government
Nobles of counties and provinces united in NOBLE SOCIETIES, which used SELF-GOVERNMENT. Every three years, the nobles of the county and the entire province gathered for county and provincial elections, at which they elected leaders of the nobility, judges, police officers and other elected officials. Judge Lyapkin-Tyapkin in The Government Inspector introduces himself to Khlestakov: From the eight hundred and sixteenth he was elected for a three-year term at the behest of the nobility ... »
The most authoritative and wealthy landowners were elected LEADERS OF THE NOBILITY. This position was quite troublesome, but prestigious. The leader was obliged, without bringing the case to court, to settle conflicts between local nobles, to appease the restless. The provincial leader was the closest adviser and support of the governor, although sometimes there were quarrels between them, as in Turgenev's Fathers and Sons.
The position of leader required certain expenses for travel and receptions. Count Ilya Rostov left the leaders of the county nobility, since this post was associated with " spending too much". In Turgenev's story "Two Landowners", General Khvalynsky plays " the role is quite significant, but he refuses the honorary title, out of avarice ».
At the same time, other landowners yearned to become leaders. Such is the hero of Gogol's "Carriage" Chertokutsky: " In the last elections, he gave the nobility a wonderful dinner, at which he announced that if only he was elected leader, he would put the nobles on the best foot. ».
In Turgenev's play Breakfast at the Leader's, Balagalaev, the marshal of the nobility, is depicted as a gentle and indecisive man. He unsuccessfully tries to reconcile the nobles - brother and sister, who quarreled over the division of the inherited estate: “ ... I agreed to be an intermediary between them, - he says, - because this, you understand, is my duty ... »
The beginning of L. Tolstoy's story "After the Ball" takes place "at a ball at the provincial leader, a good-natured old man, a rich hospitable man and a chamberlain."
The nobleman Alupkin in one of Turgenev's stories slavishly says to the marshal of the nobility: “ You are, so to speak, our second father ».
The leader of the nobility was obliged to worry about the imaginary dignity of the nobility. In this capacity, the leader is mentioned in Chekhov's story "My Life": he turns to the governor for help in order to force the nobleman Poloznev, who has embarked on a simple path labor activity, « change your behavior ».
ELECTIONS OF THE NOBILITY became an event in the dull life of district and provincial landlords, the subject of their unrest and discussion. In the poem "Winter. What should we do in the village? I meet ... "Pushkin calls one of the topics of conversations in the living room" talk about upcoming elections ».
The election of the provincial marshal of the nobility is described in L. Tolstoy's story "Two Hussars" and especially in detail and colorfully in the sixth part of "Anna Karenina".
The satirical figure of the district marshal of the nobility is given by Lermontov in the poem "The Tambov Treasurer":
And here is the county leader,
All hidden in a tie, tailcoat to toe,
Treble, mustache and bleary eyes.
In "Anna Karenina" Sviyazhsky " was an exemplary leader of the nobility and always wore a cap with a cockade and a red band on the road". Irony is also noticeable here: Tolstoy notes the weakness of the noblemen's chosen ones to external attributes his power.
Peasant reform
In Russian classical literature, almost exclusively LANDED PEASANTS, which were discussed above, are bred. But there were other categories of peasants, sometimes mentioned in passing by the classics. To complete the picture, you should get to know them.
STATE, or STATE, peasants. They were considered personally free, lived on state lands, and carried duties in favor of the state. They were led by special managers appointed by the government.
INDIVIDUAL PEASANTS. Belonged royal family, paid dues, carried state duties.
ECONOMIC PEASANTS until 1764 belonged to monasteries and churches, then these lands were allocated to special economies, transferred to the state, to which the peasants bore duties, remaining relatively free. Subsequently, they merged with the state peasants.
POSESSIONAL PEASANTS were owned by private industrial enterprises and were used as factory workers.
The abolition of serfdom in 1861 to one degree or another affected all categories of peasants, but we will only talk about how it affected the landlord peasants, who constituted the most numerous category (23 million) described in detail in Russian classical literature.
In general, the abolition of serfdom on February 19, 1861, took into account, first of all, the interests of large landowners. Although the peasant became personally free and could no longer be bought or sold, he was obliged to redeem his land allotment from the landowner. At the same time, he received not the allotment that he cultivated, but greatly reduced in favor of the landowner and at a price that significantly exceeded its actual value. When allotments were allocated, the landowner left the poorest, most infertile land to the peasants.
For the preparation of charters, that is, documents regulating relations between landowners and peasants after the reform of 1861, WORLD MEDIATORS were appointed from among the local nobles. Much in the fate of the peasants depended on the personal qualities of these mediators, their objectivity and benevolence. Among the world mediators, there were also liberal people inclined to a fair decision. Such were Konstantin Levin in Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina and Versilov in Dostoyevsky's A Teenager, and the good-natured Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov in Turgenev's Fathers and Sons apparently possessed these qualities as well.
In the interests of the landlords, the peasants had to pay them a lump sum of 20-25% of the value of the field plot. The rest was initially paid by the treasury, so that the peasant repaid this loan within 49 years, in installments, at 6% annually.
The peasant, who did not contribute 20-25% to the landowner, was considered TEMPORARY and continued to work out the former owner of the share-cropping, as corvée, or dues, has now become known. Temporarily liable are seven men - the heroes of Nekrasov's poem "Who should live well in Rus'." In 1883, the category of temporarily liable was canceled: by this time, the peasants had to pay the ransom to the landowner in full or lose their allotment.
On average, according to the reform, 3.3 acres of land, that is, three and a half hectares, were allocated per peasant family, which was barely enough to feed themselves. In some places, the peasant was given 0.9 acres - a completely beggarly allotment.
In Russian literature, the peasant reform of 1861 and its consequences for the landowners and peasants were widely reflected. Such a dialogue in Ostrovsky's play "The Savage Woman" between the landowners Ashmetyev and Anna Stepanovna regarding the reform is indicative. Ashmetiev says: Well, it seems we can't really complain, we haven't lost much". Anna Stepanovna says: So this is an exception, this is a special happiness ... Kirill Maksimych was then a conciliator and drew up charters for us with the peasants. He cut them so that they have nowhere to kick out the chicken. Thanks to him, I got a good job: the peasants work for me just as much and as much as the serfs - no difference ».
In the novel “Mother” by Gorky, the peasant Yefim, to the question: “ You yourself - have put on?"- replies:" We? We have! We are three brothers, and put on - four tithes. Sand - copper is good for them to clean, but land is incapable of bread! .. And continues: I freed myself from the earth - what is it? He does not feed, but knits his hands. For the fourth year I go to the laborers ».
Millions of peasants went bankrupt, went to the laborers to the same landlords or kulaks, left for the cities, replenishing the ranks of the proletariat, which was rapidly growing in the post-reform years.
The fate of the yard peasants was especially difficult: they did not have a land allotment, and therefore the landowner was not obliged to provide them with land. Few continued to serve the impoverished landlords into old age, like Firs in Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard. The majority was released without land and money for all four sides. If the landowner left his estate, they remained, starving, in the estate, he was no longer obliged to pay them a month or a salary. Nekrasov wrote about such unfortunates in the poem “Who in Rus' should live well”:
... In the estate of that loitered
Hungry courtyards,
Abandoned by the master
By chance.
All old, all sick
And, as in a gypsy camp,
Saltykov-Shchedrin colorfully described the bitter fate of a courtyard man after the reform in the story “The Tailor Grishka”.
Shortly before the reform, having heard about it, many landowners, despite the ban, transferred almost all of their peasants to the household in order to deprive them of the right to allotment.
Nekrasov wrote:
"The great chain is broken,
Torn - jumped:
One end on the master,
Others for a man!
Yes, the master, especially the poor one, got it too: the money received for the ransom was quickly spent, and there was nothing to live on. Ransom certificates were sold or pledged for a pittance - financial documents issued to landowners confirming their right to receive redemption money. It remained to sell the hereditary land, which was quickly seized by resourceful merchants and kulaks. But even this money did not last long.
Earlier than others, small-scale landowners went bankrupt and disappeared, followed by medium-sized landlords. Pictures of the ruin of the "noble nests", the impoverishment of the nobles are vividly drawn in the works of Bunin and A.N. Tolstoy.
Influenced by the events of the first Russian revolution in 1905, the government abolished the collection of ransom payments from peasants in 1906, that is, four years ahead of schedule.
In L. Tolstoy's comedy Fruits of Enlightenment, peasants driven to the extreme come to the landowner in the city to buy land from him. " Without land, our habitation must weaken and fall into decay.', one man explains. And another adds: ... the land is small, not like cattle, - a hen, say, and there is nowhere to release it". However, the swaggering landowner demands payment in full, without the promised installment plan, and the peasants have no money. Only the cunning of the maid Tanya, who uses the superstition of the masters, helps the peasant walkers achieve their goal.
In Gorky's novel "The Life of Klim Samgin" one of the characters characterizes the situation of the peasants in this way. late XIX century: " The men live as conquered, as in captivity, by God. Younger ones - leave, who goes where " .
Such were the consequences of the reform of 1861.
CHAPTER TEN
OTHER STATES PEOPLE
Philistinism and merchant class
Starting with the decree of Catherine II of 1775, the division of society into ESTATES was quite clearly established in Russia. They were divided into TABLE - those who were obliged to pay taxes to the state, that is, taxes, and EXCLUDED - exempted from this duty.
The exempt, that is, the privileged estates, included the nobility and the clergy, the taxable - the peasantry, the bourgeoisie, the merchants. In addition to paying taxes, representatives of the taxable estates were subject to recruitment duties and were limited in their freedom of movement.
Neither the merchants, nor the townspeople, nor the clergy of the serfs had the right to keep - it was, with a few exceptions, the privilege of the nobility alone.
What is BELIEFING? In the last century, this concept has acquired a sharply negative meaning. A tradesman began to be called, regardless of social affiliation, a person with narrow, privately owned interests, with a limited spiritual outlook. In this sense, the word was widely used in his journalism by Maxim Gorky (“Notes on Philistinism” and other articles).
However, in its original meaning, the word "philistinism" did not contain anything reprehensible. Literally, "philistine" meant a city dweller - from the old word "place", that is, a city. Until now, we use the word "suburb" - a settlement outside the city limits. A tradesman was a person assigned to the petty-bourgeois class, usually a craftsman, small trader or householder. Most often it was yesterday's peasant - a freedman or redeemed from serfdom, who had served the term of service of a soldier, but never a nobleman, even very impoverished. Townspeople who had a capital of less than 500 rubles were recorded as petty bourgeois. The title was hereditary.
The father of Lopukhov, one of the characters in Chernyshevsky's novel What Is to Be Done?, was a Ryazan philistine, lived, according to a philistine title, enough, that is, his family had cabbage soup with meat on more than one Sunday and even drank tea every day. He somehow could support his son in the gymnasium ».
A wife, no matter what class she was, upon marriage passed into the class of her husband. In "Poshekhonskaya antiquity" by Saltykov-Shchedrin " the wife of a serf icon painter, who came from the middle class, decided to become serf by marrying him ».
Another such case is described in one of Leskov’s stories: a French woman fell in love with a Russian serf, and “ she was not versed in the laws of the Russian Empire and did not comprehend that through such a marriage with a Russian man of an involuntary position, she herself lost her freedom and her children became serfs ».
An attractive image of the tradesman-artisan Kuligin brought Ostrovsky in the drama "Thunderstorm". " In philistinism, sir, you will see nothing but rudeness and bare poverty. And we, sir, will never get out of this hole! Because honest labor will never earn us more daily bread”, - he says to Boris Grigoryevich, who arrived in the city. A talented self-taught mechanic dreams of serving people, but for this he has neither the rights nor the opportunity: “ Work must be given to the bourgeoisie. And then there are hands, but there is nothing to work ».
« My brothers in the middle class unsubscribed and in the city they are engaged in craftsmanship, and I am a peasant", - says the old man Kholodov in Chekhov's story "The Steppe". To the position of the philistines, one should add the fact that until 1863 they could be subjected to corporal punishment.
In "Oblomov" Goncharov " the mayor beats the townspeople in the teeth ».
The word "PEASANTS" is usually associated with the inhabitants countryside, we talked about peasant farmers in the chapter "Nobles and Peasants". But the concept of the peasantry as an estate was broader. In the old days, the city constantly lived a large number of peasants who, due to lack of capital or for some other reason, could not be registered as a petty bourgeois - even after the abolition of serfdom. In The Brothers Karamazov, the elder Zosima asks the pilgrims who came to him from the city: By petty bourgeoisie, do you have to be?"They answer him:" We are urban, father, urban, according to the peasantry, we are urban, we live in the city". These people, it turns out, are engaged in transportation, keep " and horses and carriages". In the same novel, we learn that the cattle-prigonyevsk philistines are almost the same peasants, they even plow ».
A special place in society was occupied by MERCHANTS - the commercial and industrial class. Citizens who had a capital of more than 500 rubles were recorded in the merchant class. Since 1775, merchants began to be divided into categories - GUILDS. Merchants of the third, that is, the lowest, guild had to have a capital of 500 to 1000 rubles, the second - from 1000 to 10,000, the first - from 10,000 or more. The merchants of the first two guilds were exempted from recruitment and corporal punishment. In 1863, the third guild was abolished, leaving only the first and second.
In Gogol's comedy "Marriage" the bride, Agafya Tikhonovna, " not a staff officer, but a third-guild merchant's daughter”, that is, the daughter of a poor merchant, although the deceitful matchmaker in every possible way paints the state of her father. Here the collision is as follows: Podkolesin wants to marry a girl with a rich dowry, while a girl of “merchant rank” is flattered to marry a noble official with a rank as high as possible; this is where the matchmaker plays. A similar situation is depicted in the famous painting by P. A. Fedotov “Major’s Matchmaking”.
Among the jurors at the trial in L. Tolstoy's novel "Resurrection" - in the case of the murder of the second guild of the merchant Smelkov - the same guild merchant Baklashov. The images of both - both the murdered and the judging murderers - are given by Tolstoy in an extremely plastic and psychologically convincing way.
In Chekhov's short story "In the Ravine" a carpenter talks about his dispute with a merchant: "You, I say, are a merchant of the first guild, and I am a carpenter, that's right. And Saint Joseph, I say, was a carpenter.” And continues: And then this, after the conversation, I think: who is older? First guild merchant or carpenter? So, a carpenter, children! »
We see representatives of capital in Gogol's The Government Inspector in the form of merchants who come to the mayor with requests, and in response hear insults and curses. In Ostrovsky's comedy "Hot Heart", the merchant-tyrant Khlynov is brought out - already the real owner of the county town, before whom the mayor Gradoboev fawns over. And finally, the "fathers of the city" - wealthy merchants in Gorky's novels "Foma Gordeev" and "The Artamonov Case" are full of confidence and dignity. Russian classical literature shows the rapid evolution of the merchant class, its rights and significance in society.
However, from the “boys” in the shops and small peddlers to the all-powerful millionaires and the “polished” merchant Lopakhin, who buys a noble estate (“ The Cherry Orchard"), lay a very difficult path. Ways of enrichment are well shown in Ostrovsky's plays.
Whatever nicknames the people did not reward their newly-minted exploiters: “cloth snout”, “savras”, “bloodsucker”, “world-eater”, “arshinnik” and many others.
Quick careers were sometimes made by OFFICERS - assistants to merchants, SIDELS, who traded by proxy given by the owner of the shop, they were replaced by "BOYS", who were engaged in the blackest, thankless work in the shops.
Enormous capitals were made by merchants-buyers - PRASOLs, GURTONS, LIGHTHOUSES, etc., who bought meat, fish and livestock for next to nothing and sold the goods at a great profit for themselves.
« Prasol - a peasant who sells everything, defining the type of trade for himself”, - Gogol noted in his notebook.
About prasol, Nekrasov says this:
Eremin, merchant brother,
Buying from peasants
Whatever, bast shoes,
Is it a calf, is it a lingonberry,
And most importantly - a master
watch out for the odds,
When taxes were collected
And the property of the Vakhlats
Launched with a hammer.
The people had a special dislike for the taxpayers, who acquired from the government the right to levy taxes, to use natural resources and trade in consumer goods. The wine OTCUP has taken on an unusual scale. Ordinary merchants, and sometimes nobles, paying a small percentage to the state, pocketed the rest of the income and became millionaires in a few years. Nekrasov writes about the marshal of the nobility, who took up wine farming:
Over time, he became an ace of ransom -
The exploiter of the people's drunkenness.
In Krylov's fable "The Farmer and the Shoemaker" it says:
The rich Farmer in the mansions of magnificent veins.
Ate sweetly, drank deliciously;
Every day he gave feasts, banquets,
He has no treasures.
The rich lady Polozova in Turgenev's "Spring Waters", boasting of her " low birth”, - the daughter of a simple peasant who became a farmer.
Visiting influential persons of the provincial city, the prudent Chichikov considers it necessary to pay a visit to the local farmer.
In the second, unfinished, volume of Dead Souls, Gogol brought out the idealized figure of the virtuous farmer Murazov; what kind of ransom Murazov kept is not said, however, Chichikov reasonably doubts that his million-dollar wealth " acquired by the most irreproachable way and by the most just means". This life inconsistency led to the fact that the image of Murazov turned out to be false, artificial.
In 1863, the farms were abolished and replaced by EXCISE - a kind of indirect tax on consumer goods, included in the retail price and going to the benefit of the treasury. But for a hundred (since 1763) years of the tax farming system, tax-farmers managed to amass crazy sums.
The class of capitalists, the majority of which was the merchant class, did not have the right to a number of noble titles and privileges, but received compensation in the form of some honorary titles: MANUFACTORY-ADVISERS (given to large entrepreneurs), COMMERCIAL ADVISERS (given to merchants and granted the rights of an official of the VIII class, that is, a collegiate assessor), and finally, PERSONAL and HEREDIC HONORARY G RAZHDAN, introduced in 1832. The last two titles were awarded not only to merchants, but also to other non-nobles, such as scientists, doctors, for special personal merits. Honorary citizens acquired a number of benefits and privileges similar to those of the nobility.
In the rank of a hereditary honorary citizen in Chekhov's story "The Mask" a notorious boor and tyrant, the manufacturer Pyatigorov, is brought out. In Gorky's novel The Life of Klim Samgin, Dunyasha tells of his conversation with Stratonov: My parent, he says, is the son of a peasant, a lapot worker, and he died as an adviser to commerce, he, he says, beat the workers with his hand, and they respected him ».
Not only the nobles, but also the merchants treated the poor philistines with contempt. In Ostrovsky's comedy "Our people - let's settle!" Lipochka, who robbed her father along with the clerk-husband, justifies herself in this way: “ ... we can’t stay with anything, because we are not some kind of philistines ».
The impoverished and ruined merchants were forced to move into the philistine class. In Ostrovsky's drama "Abysses" there is a document " About insolvency former merchant, and now the tradesman Puda Kuzmin son of Borovtsov ».
« Grandpa's sister, - we read in the "Poshekhonskaya antiquity" by Saltykov-Shchedrin, - was married to a merchant, who later fell into decline and rewritten in the middle class ».
Clergy
Having a direct relationship to many aspects of society, for example, to civil institutions, schools, etc., the church played a large role in pre-revolutionary Russia. At the head of the Holy Synod was a dignitary appointed by the tsar - the OBER-PROKUROR, a completely worldly person.
As now, the clergy were divided into WHITE (lower) and BLACK (higher, monastic). For the elevation to the highest rank - ARCHPRIEST, it was required to tonsure a priest as a monk and completely renounce everything worldly, that is, family, property, and former social ties. The clergy were called black because the monks wore black clothes. In Chekhov's story "Letter", the priest father Anastasy says to the dean father Fyodor: " Mind! Bright mind! If they hadn't married, Father Fyodor, they would have been bishops long ago, truly, they would have been!» A married man could not become a monk, but an ordinary priest was obliged to marry before being tonsured, but, having become a widow, he had no right to marry again.
Blessed - a priest who oversees the activities of several parishes of the same locality.
Much more often than black, in Russian literature, the WHITE CLERGY is shown: DEACONS and PROTODEACONS, who were required to complete the course at a lower educational institution - THE SPIRITUAL SCHOOL, and PRIESTS and ARCHPRIESTS - graduates of SPIRITUAL SEMINARIES. In spiritual educational establishments persons of all classes were accepted, even the children of serfs (at the same time they were freed from serfdom), but graduates could refuse priestly activity. Leskov’s novel “The Soboryane” tells that the son of the prosvirn Barnabas, after graduating from the seminary with the first category, refused to go to the priesthood, and entered the county school as a mathematics teacher, explaining that “ doesn't want to be a liar ».
The children of clergy, who studied or did not study at the seminaries, made up an impressive part of the raznochintsy - the Russian intelligentsia of the last century. The children of the priests were N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, N.G. Pomyalovsky, Gleb Uspensky and many other Russian writers and public figures.
The ministers of each temple made a PRICHT. In addition to the rector - the priest and his assistant - the deacon, the clergy also included lower clergymen who had not received a religious education and were not ordained to the dignity - DIACHKI (officially LESSONS) and SONOMARY. The deacon, due to the similarity of words, is often confused with a deacon, but the deacon belonged to the clergy, and the deacon was expelled from it in 1868 and became a worldly person, but at the same time he was necessarily literate, since he often had to read church books. The conditional author of Belkin's Tales admits that " received his initial education from our deacon". Evprakseyushka, mistress of Judas Golovlev, was a clergy girl"- the daughter of a deacon.
Having learned from the nieces of Judas that the actresses play different roles, the priest's wife remarks: “ Therefore, there too: who is a priest, who is a deacon, and who serves in deacons ».
The sexton was a senior minister in the church, one of his duties was to read prayers over the dead - hard, long and monotonous work. Hence the famous Famusov phrase: “... Read not like a sexton, / But with feeling, really, with arrangement” .
After the reforms of 1860-1876, that is, with the development of capitalist relations, the estates were legally preserved, but the legal differences between them were erased: military service extended to everyone (except the clergy), corporal punishment was abolished, formally everyone was equal before the court, they were obliged to pay taxes, etc. But the level of income and education began to play a big role. Philistinism gained wide access to public service, To military career as officers.
