Directory of RSS feeds

RSS feeds in the directory: 374

Added today: 0

Added yesterday: 0

Company / Policy

"Landlord truth": the gentry of left-Bank Ukraine and the peasant question in the end of XVIII — first half of the NINETEENTH century

Full tape of POLIT.RU 04.10.2019 at 13:02

Full tape POLIT.RU

Publishing house "New literary review" has published a series Historia Rossica book Tatiana "true Landlord": the gentry of left-Bank Ukraine and the peasant question in the end of XVIII — first half of the NINETEENTH century."

In the historiography of social history of Eastern Europe of the late XVIII — mid-XIX century, the "peasant question" of great importance. In the monograph by Tatiana it is seen from an unusual perspective "landlord truth". This is not apologetics of the landed nobility, and the extension of the research of optics. The study focuses on the intellectual dimension of social history. The author tries to describe the collective ideas of the nobility of the ideals of social interaction in terms of the development of the elite groups of the region of new social roles. The author destroys the myth of social selfishness of the elites and the betrayal of its national interests of the Ukrainian people.

the book's Author Tatiana Litvinova —doctor of historical Sciences, Professor of the Department of history of Ukraine Dnieper national University named after Oles Gonchar. In 2012 he defended his thesis on the intellectual history of the noble community of left-Bank Ukraine in the second half of XVIII — first half XIX centuries research interests: social and intellectual history of Ukraine XVII — early XX centuries, elitology, mental geography, cultural history.

the Peasant-landlord social conflicts

With the name of S. M. Kochubey bound and one of the most famous in Ukrainian historiography of the episodes relating to the history of peasant-landlord confrontation of the first decades of the nineteenth century. In 1811, the landowner received 12 thousand acres of land in the Kherson province and in accordance with existing requirements, decided to settle in newly acquired land, moving people there from their estates Poltava, which was done in 1812[1]. It fits in the scope of landowners ' rights subject to obtaining the consent of the provincial court. I. F. Pavlovsky believes that the unrest Kochubey's farmers, which began in 1815, were caused "not by oppression, not abuse of landlord power, and selling them" Michael Kiryakova[2]. The latter was also one of the Poltava estates Kochubey. This became the impetus for the protests as Poltava, and Kherson farmers.

to extinguish the conflict which came to an armed confrontation with the "military command" and stop the resentment of the people, in 1817, Semyon Mikhailovich took the ransom both of the sold estates, returned for their money and paid compensation for the loss of $ 367 thousand rubles. However, the inability and then to reassure its citizens of Kherson and insisted on translating them into the category of state peasants, forced the owner to seek help from the state. The consequence of this was the eviction of 162 men and 172 women in Siberia, without providing the landowner compensation for lost subjects. Probably for the Kochubey this turn of events was unexpected and not too desirable. Although the landowners and had legalized the right to send their peasants to Siberia, but used them infrequently since, not to mention the loss of working hands, this would have to submit a petition to the provincial Board, and to ensure we send clothes and money for food during the journey. In any case, the best connoisseur of the Poltava archival collections, I. F. Pavlovsky, among the materials of the archive of the nobility and provincial Board has not identified a single case of expulsion of peasants, although he suggested that such examples could be in the Poltava province[3].

the resolution of the Committee of Ministers from may 1, 1828, which kochubeevskoe the case finally ended, it was noted that "this case is extraordinary"[4]. N. V. Storozhenko called him a typical[5], and A. S. Kozielski — the most striking example of the peasant movements that arose in connection with forced relocation in the Novorossiysk region[6]. But regardless of the position of the authors, this story is firmly entrenched in the historiography and served practically without variations in the different problem-meaningful contexts[7]. Because these events were in the literature, a textbook example of feudal tyranny, this is somewhat to stop.

In the early 1980-ies B. G. Litvak questioned the established in the historiography of ideas about the direct connection between the status of peasants and their protests in the first half of the nineteenth century. No denying that the deteriorating situation could push people to performances, the historian, however, believed that at a specified time "the greatest social interest is shown by those groups of peasants, whose legal status is still undecided, or if you have already decided, did not have time to harden. Where it is sustained and sanctified by tradition, the "hot spots" are detected, when situations arise that impair this status"[8].

unlike other scientists, who claimed that in the first years of the XIX century peasant movement made its way broad, General question about the abolition of serfdom, [9], Litvak of the peasants was associated with their struggle to keep their previous status[10], in particular this applies to areas of new enslavement. Legal motives, according to the scientist, in this case prevailed, even when could be the actual deterioration of the material situation of the peasants, which is not always possible to trace the documents, because these sources are primarily deposited in the collections of the punitive institutions and was formulated under the influence of specific interests of the founders.

As argued Litvak, farmers subtly react to any changes in the landed patrimony. The occasion and the signal for the speeches could be a change of owner or state of samorodnostju estates, and novoukrain — the feeling of the illegality of their enslavement. Going up against a new owner or guardian, the peasants, as a rule, concealed the true reasons for protest, "his unwillingness to obey the new owner, believing that with the old owner disappeared the very serfdom on them"[11].

this is What happened with the peasants of S. M. Kochubey. In addition to this example, we can reduce the number of similar, though not with such dramatic endings. So, it's about the excitement of the peasants of the landowner krolevetsky uyezd, Chernigov province, G. P. Zabela, was associated with the transfer of this landowner in 1848, P. C. Capital lease, for a period of one year, a steam distillery, three mills, malt houses, taverns, pieces of land, fishing lakes, gardens and other things. The reason for the discontent of the serfs of the village 53 Savin and 67 — village of Sobolivka, as can be seen from the report of the Marshal of the nobility Osters'ke County Chernigov province leader (1848), was taking possession (after the death of his father) landlords Z. K. and M. K. Colonic that have significantly changed the mode of operation of the peasants. Under the old landowner of the estate of the governed, "nor to establish any improvements in the hold, why boon is serving without any order and people are more engaged in fisheries". Until 1844 the business was conducted by a clerk, "which has further weakened the management"[12].

This picture from time to time, apparently, was common. In particular, A. M. Markovich, A. M. Lazarevsky which considered not simply as a connoisseur of the folk life of the region, and the bearer of unique knowledge of domestic history, such as never was no D. N. Bantysh-Kamensky, no A. I. Martos[13], in the late 30-ies of the XIX century noticed that in the Ukraine from earlier times, i.e., prior to the decree of 1783, the yard took on the boon of one business, there was no proper distribution of work, nor even of giving land to the peasants, so that the poor could have 10 acres in each field. This situation persisted for a long time — "the estate remained unchanged"[14]. This is confirmed by other historians. So, describing the life of the little Russian nobility of the beginning of the XIX century by the example of Marshall County P. I. Bulubasa, A. M. Lazarevsky with regard to the subjects noted that the landowner "from the peasants live well, do not oppress them, probably remembering their recent enslavement". In one of the many drafts and sketches, obviously, to some great work on the history of the serfs, V. V. Tarnowski around the 40's — early 50-ies of the XIX century wrote: "When the Commonwealth and podsosenki thus there were serfs (talking about the decree of Catherine II. — T. L.), the owners acquired the opportunity to increase their demands. But moderation is the old owners were still there." The reasons for this, in his opinion, was "the simple life", "of limited use", "used almost exclusively homemade products, which are abundantly produced rich soil".

The landowners haven't had a large need for cash income, therefore, "the owner of a farmers plowed bread is almost three times less than now, mow hay for the maintenance of minor in possessions of herds of sheep, cattle and horses; then the remaining whole land was given to peasants who plowed myself as much as I could, and mowed many time".

[1] Storozhenko N. An episode from the history of little Russian peasants. P. 77.

[2] I. F. Pavlovsky To the history of the Poltava nobility. Vol. 2. C. 19.

[3] I. F. Pavlovsky To the history of the Poltava nobility. Vol. 2. C. 18.

[4] Storozhenko N. An episode from the history of little Russian peasants. P. 77.

[5] ibid. P. 78.

[6] Kozielski S. A. Peasant movement in the southern Ukraine in the end XVIII — first quarter of XIXth century // materials on the history of agriculture and peasantry of the USSR. Collection 5. S. 250.

[7] Gurzhiy I. O. Borotba Ukrainy , robtics peasants against the feudal krosnice who gnto. S. 96-97; E. I. Druzhinina South Ukraine in 1800-1825 gg. M., 1970. S. 91; I. I. Ignatovich the Peasant movement in Russia in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. M., 1963. P. 309-321; Kozielski S. A. Peasant movement in the southern Ukraine. S. 250-251; Pavlovsky, I. F. the history of the Poltava nobility. Vol. 2. C. 19-20; Seredenin S. M. Historical review of the activities of the Committee of Ministers (1802-1902): [7 t] SPb, 1902. Vol. 1. S. 339-343; Storozhenko N. An episode from the history of little Russian peasants.

[8] Litvak B. G. Estates-group features of the peasant movement during the crisis of feudalism // the Socio-economic problems of the Russian village in feudal and capitalist era: proceedings of the XVII session of the Symposium on problems of agrarian history. Rostov, 1980. P.138.

[9] See: Ignatovich I. the Peasant movement in Russia. P. 75.

[10] Modern professionals pay attention to it in the context of emiology. Speaking about the role of emotions in the formation of group social identity, American historian, Ronald Grigor SUNY argued that "the likelihood of outright hostility, aggression and conflict increases in situations where questioning the status quo or when the status relations are perceived as susceptible to change" (see SUNY R. G. the Affective community: the structure of the state and nation in Russian Empire / Russian Empire of the senses. P. 87).

[11] Litvak B. G. Estates-group features of the peasant movement. Pp. 140-145. These same provisions are in the collective work with the participation of B. G. Litvak (see: Kabatov PS, Kozlov V. A., Litvak B. G. the Russian peasantry: the stages of spiritual liberation. M., 1988. P.12).

[12] GACHO. F. 133. Op. 1. D. 388. 22 L.

[13] Lazarevski, A. M., One of the friends of Gogol (A. M. Markovic) // Read in the Historical society chronicler Nestor. 1902. KN. 16. Otd. 5. P. 39, 41.

[14] marković, A. M. Historical and statistical note on the noble class and noble assets of the Chernigov province. 43.