Russian estates of the 19th century. Estates in Russia Estates in the Russian Empire in the 19th century

Until the 18th century, there was no class system in Russia. Society was divided many times and the composition of social groups changed depending on different situations. Peter I and his followers adjusted Russian society to medieval Western European models and by the 19th century formed a class system in the country. The situation was enshrined in Volume IX of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. In the 4th article, all “natural inhabitants of Russia” were divided into four main classes:

1. Nobility- the highest privileged ruling class.
2. Christian clergy- a privileged class of church ministers.
3. Urban population included privileged Honorary Citizens, merchants of the 1st and partly of the 2nd guild, as well as tax-paying merchants of the 3rd guild and townspeople.
4. Rural population consisted of peasants of various forms of dependence and privileged Cossacks.

From these classes and foreign groups, by the end of the century, several categories were formed, which conditionally made up the class structure of Russian society.

Estates in the 19th century: their rights, privileges and responsibilities

Class name	Intraclass groups	Rights and privileges	Responsibilities
Nobility	Hereditary and personal.	ownership of inhabited lands; tax exemption; zemstvo duties (until the second half of the 19th century); exemption from compulsory service and corporal punishment; estate self-government; entry into the civil service and education in privileged educational institutions. Personal nobles could not pass on their dignity by inheritance.	Russian legislation did not provide for special responsibilities for the nobility.
Clergy	White (parish) and black (monasticism).	White and Black clergy were freed from conscription and corporal punishment. Church ministers had the right to receive a good education.	Representatives of the Black clergy were obliged to devote their lives to the church, renouncing family relationships and any connections with the outside world. Representatives of the White clergy were obliged to preach the word of God.
Honorary citizens	Hereditary and personal.	They enjoyed freedom from conscription, poll tax and corporal punishment. They had the right to participate in elections for public positions, in addition to the right to enter the civil service.	The title of honorary citizen did not come with any special responsibilities.
Merchants	First, second and third guilds	Merchants of the 1st guild had large internal and external trade turnover. They were exempt from many taxes, conscription and corporal punishment. Merchants of the 2nd guild were engaged in conducting large-scale domestic trade. Merchants of the 3rd guild conducted city and county trade. The merchants had the rights of class self-government and had access to decent education.	Merchants of the 2nd and 3rd guilds were required to bear recruitment, zemstvo and tax duties.
Cossacks	—	Cossacks had the right to own land and were exempt from paying taxes.	Cossacks were required to perform military service (command and reserve) with their own equipment.
Philistinism	Craftsmen, craftsmen and small traders.	The townspeople were engaged in city crafts and county trade. They had the rights of class self-government and limited access to education.	The townspeople paid all the taxes that existed at that time, carried out conscription duties, and were the basis for the military army. In addition, the townspeople did not own land, had limited rights and broad responsibilities.
Peasantry	State and serfs before 1861 (landowners, possessions and appanages) 1861 .	State peasants had the right to communal land ownership and class self-government. Serfs had no rights at all. After 1861, the peasant class was unified, receiving a minimum of civil and property rights.	Serfs had to work corvée, pay quitrents and bear other duties in favor of the owners. The entire peasantry, before 1861 and after, bore conscription duties and most of the taxes in favor of the state.
Foreigners	Orientals and Jews.	Foreigners had a number of fishing and administrative rights in the territories allocated to them, as well as state guarantees against private oppression.	The responsibilities of foreigners varied depending on the rank. Taxes were paid in a wide range, from yasak to generally accepted taxes.

By the 19th century, most European countries abandoned the clear division of classes, but in the Russian Empire this tradition continued to exist until the middle of the century. The abolition of serfdom improved the situation of the peasants, but did not weaken inter-class contradictions. The peasantry, crushed by redemption payments, could not, for the most part, escape from severe poverty. The privileged classes retained their dominant position in Russian society for a long time.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

FEDERAL EDUCATION AGENCY

TYUMEN STATE UNIVERSITY

Semester report

Power and society in the Russian Empire XVIII - XIX centuries:

Nobility

Completed:

Checked:

Tyumen 200_

Introduction

1.1 Nobility under Peter I

2.1 1762-1785

3.1 1796-1861

3.2 Nobility under Paul I

3.3 Nobility under Nicholas I

4.1 1861-1904

Conclusion

Introduction

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, with a significant lag behind the West, the class system was finally formed in Russia. The formation of the domestic class structure is characteristic of the era of “enlightened absolutism,” which aimed to preserve the order in which each class fulfills its purpose and function.

An estate is a social group of pre-capitalist societies that has rights and obligations enshrined in custom or law and inherited. The class organization is characterized by a hierarchy of several classes, expressed in the inequality of their position and privileges. Very often the concepts of “estate” and “class” are used as synonyms, but this is not true, since they mean different things. Thus, estates are large social groups that differ from others in their legal status, which is inherited. As for classes, these are also large social groups, but they differ from each other according to other, not legal, but socio-economic criteria, namely: in their attitude to property, place in social production, and others.

The social structure of society, the type of stratification and the relationship between classes and power has a very serious impact on the history of the state and its political development. In this regard, it was indicated topic report: power and society in the Russian Empire in the 18th-19th centuries. From the era of Peter I, the nobility began to play a vital role in the life of the state, becoming the most influential and privileged part of the population. Therefore, I decided to devote my work to this particular class. Main purpose of work: to study and draw a conclusion about the relationship between power and the nobility in the Russian Empire from the 18th century until the abolition of serfdom. To achieve the goal, the following were set tasks :

select and study literature on this topic;

consider the history of the Russian nobility in the 18th-19th centuries;

study the relationship between power and the nobility;

draw a conclusion based on the data obtained;

The plan for my work was the division of the history of the Russian nobility by the American historian R. Jones into 3 periods, which are based on changes in the policy of the autocracy towards the nobility.

1. Russian nobility in the first half of the 18th century

This chapter covers the reign of Emperor Peter I and the era of palace coups, which lasted from the death of Emperor Peter the Great until 1762.

1.1 Nobility under Peter I

The reign of Peter - 1682-1725. - can be defined as the period of transformation of the nobility into a full-fledged class, occurring simultaneously with its enslavement and increasing dependence on the state. The process of the formation of the nobility as a single class consists of the gradual acquisition of class rights and privileges.

One of the first events in this area was the adoption of the Decree on Single Inheritance. In March 1714, a decree “On the procedure of inheritance in movable and immovable property” appeared, better known as the “Decree on Single Inheritance”. This decree was an important milestone in the history of the Russian nobility. He legislated the equality of patrimony and estate as forms of real estate, i.e. there was a merger of these two forms of feudal land ownership. From that moment on, land holdings were not subject to division among all the heirs of the deceased, but went to one of the sons at the choice of the testator. It is quite obvious that the rest, according to the legislator, having lost their source of income, should have rushed to the government service. In this regard, most researchers believe that attracting nobles to service or some other activity useful to the state was the main purpose of this decree. Others believe that Peter I wanted to convert part of the nobility into the third estate. Still others - that the emperor cared about preserving the nobility itself and even sought to transform it into a semblance of the Western European aristocracy. Still others, on the contrary, are convinced of the anti-noble orientation of this decree. This decree, which had many progressive features, caused discontent among the upper class. Moreover, like many regulations of the Peter I era, it was not well developed. The vagueness of the wording created difficulty in implementing the decree. Here is what Klyuchevsky notes about this: “It is poorly processed, does not foresee many cases, gives unclear definitions that allow for contradictory interpretations: in the 1st paragraph it decisively prohibits the alienation of real estate, and in the 12th it provides for and normalizes their sale according to need; establishing a sharp difference in the order of inheritance of movable and immovable property, it does not indicate what is meant by both, and this gave rise to misunderstandings and abuses.” These shortcomings caused repeated clarifications in Peter's subsequent decrees. By 1725, the decree had undergone significant revision, allowing significant deviations from the original edition. But still, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky: “The law of 1714, without achieving its intended goals, only introduced confusion of relations and economic disorder into the landowning environment.”

According to some historians, the Decree on Single Inheritance was created with the aim of attracting nobles to the service. But despite this, Peter was constantly faced with reluctance to serve. This is explained by the fact that service under this emperor was not only mandatory, but also indefinite, for life. Every now and then Peter received news of dozens and hundreds of nobles hiding from service or study on their estates. In the fight against this phenomenon, Peter was merciless. Thus, the decree to the Senate said: “Whoever hides from service will be announced among the people; whoever finds or announces such a person, give him all the villages of the one who hid himself.” Peter fought not only with punishments, but also by legislatively creating a new service system. Peter I considered the professional training of a nobleman and his education to be the most important sign of suitability for service. In January 1714, a ban followed on the marriage of noble offspring who did not have at least a primary education. A nobleman without education was deprived of the opportunity to occupy command positions in the army and leadership positions in civil administration. Peter was convinced that noble origin could not be the basis for a successful career, so in February 1712 it was ordered not to promote noblemen who had not served as soldiers, that is, who had not received the necessary training, as officers. Peter's attitude to the problem of relationships between various social groups between themselves and the state was fully manifested during the Tax Reform that began in 1718. Almost from the very beginning, the nobility was exempted from taxation, which legally secured one of its most important privileges. But even here problems arose, since it was not so easy to distinguish a nobleman from a non-nobleman. In the pre-Petrine era there was no practice of granting nobility with the accompanying legal and documentary registration. Thus, in practice, the main sign of belonging to the nobility during the tax reform was real official position, i.e. service in the army as an officer or in the civil service at a fairly high position, as well as the presence of an estate with serfs.

Another important event of Peter I was the adoption of the “Table of Ranks” on January 24, 1722. Peter personally took part in editing this decree, which was based on borrowings from the “schedules of ranks” of the French, Prussian, Swedish and Danish kingdoms. All ranks of the “Table of Ranks” were divided into three types: military, state (civilian) and courtiers and were divided into fourteen classes. Each class was assigned its own rank. Rank is an official and public position established during civil and military service. Although some historians considered the rank as a position. Petrovskaya “Table”, defining a place in the hierarchy of the civil service, to some extent provided an opportunity for talented people from the lower classes to advance. All those who have received the first 8 ranks in the civil or court department are counted among the hereditary nobility, “even if they were of low breed,” i.e. regardless of your own origin. In military service, this title was given to the rank of the lowest XIV class. In this way, Peter I expressed his preference for military service over civil service. Moreover, the title of nobility applies only to children born after the father received this rank; If, after receiving the rank, he has no children, he can ask for the grant of nobility to one of his previously born children. With the introduction of the table of ranks, the ancient Russian ranks - boyars, okolnichy and others - were not formally abolished, but the awarding of these ranks ceased. The publication of the report card had a significant impact on both the official routine and the historical destinies of the noble class. Personal length of service became the only regulator of service; “fatherly honor”, ​​the breed, has lost all meaning in this regard. Military service was separated from civil and court service. The acquisition of nobility was legitimized by the length of service of a certain rank and the award of the monarch, which influenced the democratization of the noble class, the consolidation of the service character of the nobility and the stratification of the noble mass into new groups - hereditary and personal nobility.

1.2 Nobility in the era of palace coups

The era of palace coups is usually called the period from 1725 to 1762, when in the Russian Empire supreme power passed to another ruler mainly through coups carried out by noble groups with the support and direct participation of the guard. During these four decades, there were eight rulers on the throne.

Despite the frequent change of monarchs, the main line of government policy clearly emerges - further strengthening the position of the noble class. In one government decree, the nobility was called “the main member of the state.” The Russian nobility received benefit after benefit. Now the officer rank of noble children grew along with the children themselves: upon reaching adulthood, they automatically became officers. The term of service for nobles was limited to 25 years. Many of nobles received the right not to serve at all, vacations for nobles to manage their estates became more frequent. All restrictions on any transactions with noble estates were abolished. Those nobles who actively contributed to the establishment of a reigning person on the throne were granted free land grants from peasants and state-owned factories. received the exclusive right to distill alcohol. In the interests of the nobles, the collection of internal customs duties was abolished.

During the reign of Catherine I, the Supreme Privy Council was established (1726). He received great powers: the right to appoint senior officials, manage finances, and manage the activities of the Senate, Synod and collegiums. It included the most prominent representatives of old noble families, such as Menshikov, Tolstoy, Golovkin, Apraksin, Osterman and Golitsyn. After the death of Catherine I, it was this Council that decided to invite the Duchess of Courland Anna Ivanovna to the Russian throne. Its members sent her “conditions” (conditions) designed to limit the autocratic royal power. According to the “conditions,” the future empress was obliged not to appoint senior officials, not to resolve issues of war and peace, not to manage public finances, etc., without the consent of the Supreme Privy Council. Only after Anna signed them was she allowed to take the throne. However, no matter how hard the leaders tried to hide their plan to limit the tsarist power, this became known to wide layers of the nobility, who had already received so much from this power and hoped to receive even more. A broad opposition movement developed among the nobility. Conditions limited autocracy, but not in the interests of the nobility, but in favor of its aristocratic elite, who sat in the Supreme Privy Council. The sentiments of the ordinary nobility were well conveyed in one of the notes that passed from hand to hand: “God forbid that instead of one autocratic sovereign there be ten autocratic and strong families!” At a reception with the Empress on February 25, 1730, the opposition directly addressed Anna with a request to accept the throne as it was and to destroy the conditions sent by the Supreme Privy Council. After which the empress publicly tore the document and threw it on the floor. The Guard was on alert here too, expressing its full approval of the preservation of autocratic tsarist power. The reign of Empress Anna lasted 10 years (1730-1740). At this time, many German nobles came to Russia, and complete dominance of foreigners was established in the country. The Empress relied in everything on her favorite, Biron. This time was dubbed “Bironovism,” because Biron, a selfish and mediocre man, personified all the dark sides of the rulers of that time: unbridled tyranny, embezzlement, senseless cruelty. The problem of “Bironovism” has repeatedly attracted the attention of historians. There are still conflicting assessments of Anna Ivanovna’s government activities. Some historians say that it was during her reign that “the Germans poured into Russia like rubbish from a leaky bag,” others agree that foreigners appeared in Russia long before Anna’s reign, and their number was never daunting for the Russian people . Foreign specialists came to work in Russia even before Peter the Great. Many of Anna Ivanovna’s orders were not aimed at protecting the interests of foreigners, but, on the contrary, defended the honor of Russians. For example, it was under Anna that the difference in salaries was eliminated: foreigners no longer received twice as much as Russians. Thus, the “Bironovism” did not place foreigners in any special conditions. The Russian nobles were not worried about the “dominance of foreigners”, but about the strengthening under Anna Ioannovna of the uncontrolled power of both foreign and Russian “strong people”, and the oligarchic claims of part of the nobility. At the center of the struggle that took place within the noble class, there was, therefore, not a national, but a political question. Anna Ivanovna herself took an active part in governing the state. During her reign, the right to dispose of estates was returned to the nobility, which allowed them to divide their estates among all children upon inheritance. From now on, all estates were recognized as the full property of their owners. The collection of poll taxes from serfs was transferred to their owners. In 1731, Anna Ivanovna's government responded to numerous noble demands by establishing a Military Commission, which, with the Manifesto of 1736, limited service to 25 years. In addition, a nobleman who had several sons had the right to leave one of them to manage the estate, thereby freeing him from service.

Thus, we can conclude that, in general, the absolutist state pursued a pro-noble policy, making the nobility its social support.

Important transformations in the sphere of the noble class took place during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna - 1741 - 1761. After Peter, by the time of Elizabeth, the living conditions of the nobility were improved: duties to the state were eased, the restrictions that lay on their property rights were eliminated, and the nobility received greater power over the peasants than before. Under Elizabeth, the successes of the nobility continued both in the sphere of their property rights and in relation to the peasants. Only long-term compulsory service remained unchanged. In 1746, Elizabeth issued a decree prohibiting anyone other than nobles from buying peasants. Thus, one nobility could have peasants and real estate. This right, having been assigned to only one class, now turned into a class privilege, a sharp line separating the privileged nobleman from people of the lower classes. Having granted this privilege to the nobility, Elizabeth's government naturally began to take care that persons enjoyed a privileged position only by right and deservedly. Hence a number of government concerns about defining more clearly and confining the noble class. From the time of Peter, the nobility began to be divided into hereditary and personal. By Elizabeth's decrees the personal nobility, i.e. Those who achieved the title of nobility through their own merits were deprived of the right to buy people and land. This prevented the possibility for personal nobility to enjoy the benefits of the hereditary noble class. Nobles by birth became separate from nobles by service. But from among the nobility, who enjoyed all the rights and benefits, the government sought to remove all those people whose noble origin was questionable. Only those who could prove their nobility were considered a nobleman. By all these measures, Elizabeth transformed the nobility from a class whose distinguishing feature was state duties, began to turn into a class, the distinction of which was made by special exclusive rights: ownership of land and people. In other words, the nobility became a privileged class in the state, hereditary and closed. This was a very important step in the historical development of the Russian nobility. However, the time had not yet come for the nobles to be released from compulsory service. Until now, the desire to avoid service by any means has not diminished. This was the reason for Elizabeth’s refusal to reduce the service life and its cancellation. Because there was a threat of being left without employees. The establishment of the Noble Bank in 1754 should also be noted. This bank provided the nobility with an inexpensive loan (6% per year) in fairly large amounts (up to 10,000 rubles) secured by precious metals, stones, and estates. To simplify the procedure for assessing the property of a nobleman, it was customary to take into account not the size of the estate or the area of ​​arable land, but the number of serf souls. One male soul was valued at 10 rubles. Of course, the creation of the Noble Bank was seen as a way to stimulate trade and support the nobility. However, in fact, the establishment of this bank became a new milestone in the development of the institution of serfdom. The nobility acquired another form of control over the serfs, and the state legally established the monetary equivalent of the peasant soul. The next year, 1755, another important event occurred - the introduction of a noble monopoly on distillation. The implementation of this reform was due to the intensification of competition between the nobility and the merchants. The concentration of the most financially important sector of the economy in the hands of the nobility was the most serious concession to them on the part of the state.

After the death of Elizabeth Petrovna, the throne was occupied by Peter III on completely legal grounds. One of the most significant legislative acts of his short reign was the “Manifesto on the granting of liberty and freedom to the Russian nobility,” published on February 18, 1762. The appearance of this Manifesto meant a decisive victory for the nobility in the struggle with the state to gain their class rights. For the first time in Russia, a truly free social category appeared. The legal basis of the noble class was replenished with the most important act that formulated its class privileges. This was of paramount importance for the process of consolidation of the nobility as a class and the formation of its class identity. By issuing this document, the state recognized that it does not have full power over all its subjects, and for some of them it acts as a partner with whom contractual relations are possible. The immediate consequence of the appearance of this Manifesto is a massive exodus of nobles from military service. According to calculations by I.V. Faizova, during the first 10 years of this act, about 6 thousand nobles retired from the army. The publication of this legislative act, containing the rights and privileges of the noble class, sharply separated it from the rest of society. In addition, its introduction meant the destruction of the hierarchy of all social groups that had existed for centuries and the widening of the social gap between the higher and the lower. Thus, the Manifesto on the Freedom of the Nobility essentially carried out a kind of revolution, a revolution in the entire system of social relations of the Russian state.

2. Nobles in the second half of the 18th century

2.1 1762-1785

This chapter covers two thirds of the reign of Catherine II, Catherine the Great. This period of her reign is characterized by an active domestic policy, consisting in the implementation of a large number of important reforms. Among them are the Senate reform of 1763, the creation in 1765 of the Free Economic Society - the first public organization in Russia, and the Provincial reform of 1775. Based on the principles of the Enlightenment, Catherine the Great paid a lot of attention to the court and legal proceedings, and education. Codification of laws by the Statutory Commission of 1767-1768. - one of the most striking episodes not only of Catherine’s reign, but also of the entire history of Russia in the 18th century.

Speaking about the internal politics of this time, it should be noted that when carrying out reforms, the interests of the state, and not of any class, were primarily taken into account. Thus, many historians talk about the pro-noble nature of the Provincial Reform, citing the fact that Catherine took into account the desire of the nobility to take local control into their own hands. Indeed, a number of positions in local government - zemstvo judges, district police captains and others - were filled by elected representatives of local nobles. In addition, the position of district marshal of the nobility was legalized. All these actions, of course, were pro-noble in nature, but upon careful analysis one can notice that, while satisfying the wishes of the upper class, Catherine II, first of all, thought about the interests of the state. The noble class organization was integrated into the state apparatus and became part of it. As a result, the real independence of local governments was largely imaginary. The nobles elected to office became, in essence, government officials who carried out the policies of the center locally.

In parallel with the reforms of the 1780s in the field of management and education, important changes were carried out in the class sphere. On April 21, 1785, two most important legislative acts appeared

Catherine II - Charters granted to the nobility and cities. The main purpose of their creation is to formalize class legislation and formalize the class organization of society. The name “Charter of Grant” was not accidental, since it was really about the granting of rights and liberties by the highest authority. With their help, the empress established vassal-suzerain relations between the throne and the noble class. “Certificate of the rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility” is a document that united all the privileges of the nobility given to it by Catherine’s predecessors and which secured its dominant position in politics and economics. For the first time, the right to organize noble meetings in governorships, provinces and districts was granted. The main purpose of their activities was to consolidate and defend noble privileges at the local level, resolve emerging disputes, etc. Election to the governing structures of noble assemblies was limited for those elected by age (not younger than 25 years) and condition (income from villages could not be less than 100 rubles).

In accordance with this Charter, the nobility was provided with special benefits in comparison with other classes - freedom from compulsory service, the right to own serfs and subsoil within their domains. The nobles could organize manufactories, engage in industrial production and trade, and they were exempt from paying taxes. The first article of the granted Charter read: “The title of nobility is a consequence flowing from the qualities and virtues acquired by ancient men, from merits that turn the family into dignity and acquire the title of noble for their offspring.” It followed from this that a nobleman, when he marries a non-noblewoman, communicates his rank to her and his children. At the same time, the “Granted Certificate” recognizes that a noblewoman, having married a non-nobleman, does not lose her title, but does not pass it on to either her husband or children. A nobleman, while he is such, cannot be subjected to corporal punishment or deprivation of honor without a trial in which he must be judged by his peers. Catherine also approved for the nobles the right to serve and the opportunity to ask for resignation; they have the right to enter the service of friendly foreign sovereigns, but if the state needs it, every nobleman is obliged to return at the first request of the authorities. Then Catherine confirmed the right of the nobles to freely dispose of acquired estates and established that hereditary estates are not subject to confiscation, but are passed on by inheritance. Fulfilling the wishes of the nobles, the Charter confirmed their rights to the bowels of the earth. In addition, a number of restrictions were removed from the noble forests that were imposed on them by the decrees of Peter I, who prohibited cutting down oaks and pines of a certain size in order to preserve the mast forest. In addition, nobles, through deputies, have the right to submit complaints to the Senate and directly to the sovereign. The nobility of each province has the right to have its own house, archive, its own seal, its own secretary and, with its voluntary contributions, form a special treasury. Wanting to separate the nobility from other classes, Catherine allowed the nobles to have their own genealogical book in each district, which should be kept by an elected deputy. This deputy, together with the leader of the nobility, must take care of compiling and updating the noble genealogy book. It is necessary to register noblemen who have real estate in the county and can prove their right to the title of nobility. The genealogy book was supposed to consist of 6 parts. The first part includes actual nobles, that is, those who have been granted noble status thanks to a coat of arms, seal, and whose family has existed for more than 100 years. The second part includes those nobles and their descendants who were descendants of chief officers elevated to the title of nobility according to the “Table of Ranks” of Peter I. The third part consists of clans that were descendants of officials who were promoted to the nobility according to the “Table of Ranks” » Peter the Great. The fourth part included foreign noble families who moved to serve in Russia. The fifth part was made up of titled noble families - princes, counts, barons. The sixth part, the most honorable, included the ancient, most noble noble families, who traced their family tree back to the 17th and even 16th centuries. Thus, Catherine II satisfied the desire of the nobility to have a certain differentiation among them. Everyone included in the genealogical book received the right to attend noble meetings.

The “charter to the nobility” of 1785 was the culminating point that completed the consolidation and socio-political rise of the nobility. The nobility had now become a free social class, a privileged class that had a number of guarantees in relation to the supreme power and its representatives. In the history of civil development, the “Granted Charter” was the first step towards the emancipation of individuals enslaved by the state, the recognition of human rights, the right of self-determination, regardless of the orders and discretion of state authorities. From this point of view, the meaning of the “Certificate Granted to the Nobility” is much broader than its direct purpose. It was an indicator of a new direction in the Russian public, awakening the hope that after the granting of rights to one class, rights would be given to other classes of Russian society.

3. Russian nobility in the end. XVIII century - first floor XIX century

3.1 1796-1861

This chapter reflects the reign of three Russian emperors: Paul I, Alexander I and Nicholas I. Three dissimilar reigns: Paul's counter-reforms, Alexander's cautious policy, Nicholas' reign, which began with the Uprising on Senate Square.

3.2 Nobility under Paul I

In 1796, after the death of Catherine the Great, the throne was taken by Paul I. In the very first months, a counter-reformist tendency appeared, directed against the transformations of his predecessor. Because of the conflict with his mother, he considered all her reforms harmful and worthy of destruction.

Almost with the very first decrees, Paul tried to destroy the system of power created by Catherine. He restored the collegiums that had been abolished during the provincial reform, and they were to have the same status as before 1775, but taking into account what was included in the charters of 1785. The decrees of 1798 - 1799 essentially abolished class self-government in cities and provinces and limited the rights of county noble assemblies. The charters granted to the nobility and cities in 1785 were cancelled. Considering the nobility as a class whose main business is service to the monarch, Paul limited class privileges for non-serving nobles. The nobility even lost their freedom from corporal punishment.

The contradictory nature of the policy towards the peasantry also appeared at the very beginning of the reign. “We command that all peasants belonging to landowners, quietly remaining in their former rank, should be obedient to their landowners in taxes, work and, in a word, all kinds of peasant duties,” wrote Paul in the Manifesto of 1797. He was convinced that landowners take better care of their peasants than the state. Therefore, there was a massive distribution of peasants into private hands. According to some sources, about 600 thousand peasants were transferred during his reign. However, at the same time, Paul I realized the danger of excessively strengthening the serfdom regime. In addition, for him, serfs were not just the property of the landowners, but also subjects. This also explains the fact that for the first time in the Russian Empire, serfs took an oath to the new emperor along with freemen. This emphasized that they were, first of all, subjects not of the landowner, but of the tsar. In addition, Paul could not help but understand that the limitlessness and uncontrollability of the landowners’ power over the serfs led to increased independence and independence of the nobility from the royal power, which was contrary to his beliefs. Already in February 1797, Paul signed a decree banning the sale of peasants at auction without land. This year is also known for the appearance of the Manifesto on the three-day corvee. This decree caused a lot of controversy and disagreement among historians. Thus, Semevsky viewed it primarily from the point of view of the movement towards the elimination of serfdom and therefore believed that “this was the first attempt to limit the duties of serfs.” Indeed, the Manifesto represented direct government intervention in the relationship between landowners and serfs and an attempt to regulate them. However, the Manifesto itself speaks of limiting corvee to three days as a desirable, more rational distribution of working time. Klochkov considered the Manifesto as a non-binding wish.

The nature of Paul's policy towards the nobility is assessed by historians differently. Thus, Okun was inclined to consider the infringement of noble rights to be insignificant and not of fundamental importance. Eidelman, on the contrary, considered such a policy to be the reason for the overthrow of Paul. But objectively, the policy of Paul I really infringed on the nobility, limiting its rights that it had won in a difficult struggle with the state. Essentially, she encroached on the status of the nobility, trying to return it to the state of the time of Peter the Great.

3.3 Nobility under Alexander I

Even before ascending the throne, Alexander repeatedly spoke about his reluctance to reign. He was indignant at serfdom and dreamed of abandoning autocratic rule and creating a popular representation in Russia. However, having come to power, Alexander was forced, first of all, to justify the hopes of those Catherine’s nobles who overthrew Paul. Alexander declared an amnesty for political prisoners, restored the charters of the nobility and cities, abolished by Paul, thus reviving class self-government. Now again the nobles are allowed to gather every three years in provincial cities for the election of provincial leaders of the nobility. Now it is necessary to restore the compilation of noble genealogical books in each province. The loss of a nobleman's title could only occur through a court case. In 1819, it was ordered that nobles convicted of theft be deprived of their nobility, and those found guilty of lewdness, drunkenness and gambling at cards should be brought to trial to deal with them for such actions on the basis of the laws. Since 1820, the emperor ordered nobles who had been demoted to soldiers and were deprived of their nobility not to be promoted to officers; Thus, a nobleman, deprived of his nobility by court for a crime, could be restored to noble dignity only with the forgiveness of the emperor. At the end of 1801, a decree was issued allowing non-nobles to buy land without peasants. This meant that land ownership ceased to be a noble privilege. But still it was a half-measure that did not in any way affect the situation of the peasants. In addition, there were few uninhabited lands in European Russia. This decree mainly affected merchants who bought land for the construction of commercial and industrial establishments. Only in 1803 was an important step taken in the peasant question: the Decree on free cultivators appeared. Landowners received the right to set their peasants free, providing them with land for a ransom. Each such transaction was subject to approval by the emperor. The freed peasants formed a new class - free cultivators. The implementation of this decree should not have caused discontent among the nobles, since the initiative on the issue of peasant liberation remained with them. At the same time, by adopting such a decree, the authorities made it clear to the nobility that they had a positive attitude towards the emancipation of the serfs. However, this decree did not have any great practical consequences: during the entire reign of Alexander I, only 47 thousand serf souls were freed, i.e. less than 0.5% of their total. A new stage in the preparation of reforms began in 1809, when M.M. was involved in the development of reforms. Speransky. He was a supporter of constitutional monarchy and separation of powers. A project was developed according to which the entire population of Russia was supposed to be divided into three classes: the nobility, the middle class (merchants, petty bourgeois, state peasants) and the working people (serfs and employees: workers, servants). Only the first two estates were to receive voting rights, and on the basis of property qualifications. However, civil rights were granted to all subjects of the empire, including serfs. In an effort to ease the discontent of the nobility, Speransky did not include demands for the liberation of the peasants in the project, but the very nature of the proposed changes made the abolition of serfdom inevitable. Speransky said: “Serfdom contradicts common sense to such an extent that it can only be looked at as a temporary evil that must inevitably have its end.” The extreme discontent of the aristocracy was caused by Speransky's intention to abolish the assignment of ranks to persons with court ranks. Everyone who was formally at court, but did not serve, had to choose service or lose their ranks. A high position at court no longer allowed him to occupy important government positions. Officials were even more outraged by Speransky’s intention to introduce an educational qualification in the civil service. All officials of rank VIII and above were required to pass examinations or submit a certificate of completion of a university course. Moreover, in the aristocratic environment, Speransky was considered an outsider, an upstart. His projects seemed dangerous, too radical, they were seen as a threat to the abolition of serfdom. Speransky was accused of revolutionary plans and espionage. Under the threat of a noble rebellion, Alexander I sacrificed Speransky. In March 1812, Speransky was dismissed and exiled to Nizhny Novgorod. The most significant attempt in Russian history to transition from autocracy to a constitutional monarchy failed.

3.3 Nobility under Nicholas I

The beginning of the reign of Nicholas I was marked by an important event in the social and political life of Russia - the Decembrist uprising on Senate Square on December 14, 1825.

The main reason for this speech was that the feudal-serf system in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century was a brake on the development of productive forces and the historical progress of the country. Within the old system, a new, more progressive, capitalist system was maturing. The best people of Russia, representatives of the upper class, understood that the preservation of serfdom and autocracy was disastrous for the future fate of the country. Another reason is the strengthening of government reaction, as the last means of the autocratic serfdom regime to support and preserve the decaying feudal system. The third reason was the general deterioration of the situation of the masses. Many provinces were ruined. Returning to their estates, the nobles increased their oppression, trying to improve their own financial situation at the expense of the peasantry. This caused famine and impoverishment of the village. The situation was difficult not only for privately owned peasants, but also for state peasants. The abuses of officials grew every year. Increased exploitation led to growing discontent among working people in many provinces and factories. Unrest among peasants and working people was often suppressed using military force. However, the events of the 1920s showed the government that it could not always count on the loyalty of its troops. The brutal regime led to the fact that discontent began to grow among the troops and even in the guard, the most reliable part of the army, composed of representatives of the nobility. One of the biggest unrest was the performance of the Semenovsky Guards Regiment in 1820. Driven to despair by the arbitrariness of the command, the regiment abandoned obedience. The uprising was suppressed and the regiment was reorganized. All this indicated that government policy did not find support either among advanced educated people or among the broad masses of the people: peasants, working people and soldiers. Class struggle was another reason for the emergence of anti-serfdom ideology and the revolutionary movement.

Objectively, the movement of noble revolutionaries had an anti-feudal, bourgeois character. Their main demands - the abolition of serfdom and autocracy - were the slogans of the bourgeois revolution. Their victory would create all the conditions for the development of capitalist relations. The peculiarity of this movement in Russia was that the idea of ​​bourgeois development was expressed not by the bourgeoisie, but by representatives of the nobility who switched to revolutionary positions and broke with their class. However, fear of popular scale forced the nobility to act in small associations, which represented the greatest drawback of the anti-feudal movement.

After the death of Alexander I, a situation of interregnum arose in Russia, caused by the refusal of the heir to accept the throne. The leaders of Northern society decided to take advantage of this to carry out a coup. In a difficult political situation, they demonstrated true revolutionary spirit, a willingness to sacrifice everything to implement the plan for the state structure of Russia. On December 13, 1825, the last meeting of members of this society took place at Ryleev’s apartment. They decided to withdraw the troops of the St. Petersburg garrison to Senate Square and force them not to swear allegiance to Nicholas, but to accept the “Manifesto to the Russian People.” “Manifesto” is the most important final program document of the Decembrists. It proclaimed the destruction of autocracy, serfdom, estates, conscription and military settlements, and the introduction of broad democratic freedoms. However, by the time the rebels appeared on the square, it turned out that early in the morning the Senate had already sworn allegiance to Nicholas, after which the senators dispersed. A situation arose in which there was simply no one to present the Manifesto to. Trubetskoy, having learned about this, did not join the rebels, and the uprising was left without leadership for a while. These circumstances gave rise to hesitation in the ranks of the Decembrists and doomed them to the senseless tactics of waiting. This confusion actually led to the brutal suppression of this speech.

Despite the defeat, the Decembrist movement had enormous historical significance. It was the first open revolutionary action in Russia against autocracy and serfdom.

The activities of noble revolutionaries were of great importance for the development of Russian advanced socio-political thought. Their anti-autocratic, anti-serfdom ideas and slogans were supported by their successors. The demands of the noble revolutionaries - to abolish serfdom, eliminate the autocracy, and provide the people with broad democratic freedoms - reflected the urgent needs of the economic and socio-political transformation of Russia.

3.4 Noble society on the eve of the abolition of serfdom

The Russian nobility was not homogeneous in its composition and social status. In 1858 - 1859 in Russia there were about one million representatives of the noble class. About 35% of them belonged to the personal nobility, which was prohibited from owning serfs without special permission. The largest number of landowners - more than 75% - consisted of the small landed nobility, more than 20% - from the middle landed nobility, and only 3% of the landowners constituted the category of large landed nobility. Small-scale nobles had less than 20 male souls. According to Senator Ya.A. Solovyov, “there were enough such families; they and their peasants form one family, eat at the same table and live in the same hut.” It is clear that these nobles set different goals than the owners of thousands of peasants. They could not achieve any government positions, and the laws were against them. After all, in order to qualify for a place in the state hierarchy, it was necessary to have at least 100 souls. It can be assumed that, exploiting their small peasants even to the maximum extent, the nobility did not have enough to live on. The possibility of a comfortable existence was ensured only by the civil service, on which the majority of the nobles depended. Such a strong heterogeneity of the nobility is associated, first of all, with the fragmentation of land plots during inheritance, which led to landlessness and the inability to purchase both land and peasants. Of course, for the rich heirs of a rich father such a problem did not exist. Figures show that 98% of the nobles either did not have serfs at all, or had so few of them that peasant labor and quitrents did not provide them with a comfortable standard of living. These people, unless they were supported by relatives or patrons, had to rely on the generosity of the state. If the poor, landless nobles expected positions from the monarchy, then the wealthy owners of estates expected from it the preservation of serfdom.

Several projects were developed with the aim of abolishing serfdom. Among the proposed projects, serfdom prevailed, i.e. submitted by that part of the nobility that did not want significant changes in the village, and if it was still impossible to do without them, then, in their opinion, they should limit themselves to minor ones. This approach was simply like delaying the liberation of the peasants. Thus, the nobles of the capital St. Petersburg province proposed to free the peasants without land, which would remain the property of the landowner. But such a decision clearly gave rise to many economic problems. The peasants would be left without a livelihood. Peasants without land, in addition, would not pay the poll tax. And it is unknown what social explosions the landlessness of the peasants could lead to, because, according to their traditional ideas, the land on which they worked was not the landowners’, but their own - the peasants’.

The Tver nobility presented more realistic proposals. They offered to give the peasants land, but for a ransom. Cash receipts, to a certain extent, could compensate landowners for lost land and human resources. In order to alleviate the tension between landowners and peasants in the sphere of financial relations, state assistance was provided, which was supposed to provide credit to the peasants. A similar project on the transformation of peasants from private owners into small landowners while maintaining large landownership was drawn up by the director of the economic department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs N.A. Milyutin, but in 1856 these proposals were rejected. However, two years later, the development of the reform took precisely this path. Many landowners were simply perplexed, looking at the events taking place. If there is any order in the country, then with the abolition of serfdom it will completely collapse, they believed. Most of the dissatisfied landowners were on the corvee lands of the south of Russia, and fewer were on the quitrent lands of the Russian North. However, hostility to the government's intentions gradually gave way to constructiveness as the Russian nobles realized the irrevocability of the undertaking.

4. Nobility in post-reform Russia

4.1 1861-1904

The social nature of the Russian nobility in the post-reform forty years was determined by the complex processes of the country's socio-economic and political evolution, characteristic of the transition period of the formation of bourgeois society.

On the one hand, the nobility inherited from the feudal era a significant part of its material base, class privileges, and most importantly, it retained its dominant political positions, retaining power in its hands. This allowed him to occupy a special place in the socio-political structure of post-reform Russia. Even after the abolition of serfdom, the autocracy tried in every possible way to preserve the nobility in a form closest to the pre-reform one. As a result of the measures taken, the nobility, even if it was not able to fully restore partly lost positions, nevertheless formally and actually retained the status of the first class.

However, on the other hand, a number of circumstances caused by Russia's entry into the era of capitalism could not but leave their mark on the noble class. The abolition of serfdom entailed the elimination of the legal dependence of peasants on landowners and the modernization of the entire system of production and legal relations. The noble land fund, by the end of this period, decreased by more than 40%. Land, which was the basis for the well-being of the nobility, was provided for only 30-40% of the entire class. The source of income for most of the class is government service and entrepreneurship. All this increased the heterogeneity of the upper class. There was an increase in the separation of personal nobles from hereditary ones. Some nobles lost the opportunity to enjoy class advantages, since this depended on the material well-being of the nobleman.

The legal status of the Russian nobleman and the nature of the upper class have undergone significant evolution in the post-reform four decades. Formally, a number of the most important provisions of the old legislation, which determined the socio-economic and political status of the ruling class, passed into the capitalist era. Thus, confirming the political importance of the nobility, the law still classified it as “the first support of the throne”, as “one of the most reliable tools of the government.” As before, it paid great attention to the service rights of nobles. The very personality of a representative of the upper class was protected from administrative arbitrariness and various encroachments by providing certain guarantees. Thus, a nobleman was subject to criminal and civil prosecution only in court, and was exempt from corporal punishment. The sentence of deprivation of a noble title was considered personally by the emperor.

The abolition of serfdom and the associated exclusive privileges of landowners in land ownership and certain sectors of production led to the drawing of noble lands into the sphere of commodity circulation and the loss of a monopoly position by the class in various sectors.

Most of the “serving” nobles lose contact with land ownership, and salaries become the main source of livelihood. As a result, in socio-economic terms they are increasingly separated from the landed nobility. A special layer was represented by the “urban” nobles, who had finally broken with agriculture and found themselves drawn into various spheres of private enterprise.

However, it would be wrong on this basis to conclude that the nobility had lost its dominant class positions, which the liberals did, trying to downplay its role in the political and economic life of the country. The local nobility, remaining the core of the class, retained in their hands a huge land area, amounting to 60% of all private land ownership. The upper class retained commanding positions in the state apparatus, as well as an influential position in court departments and in palace circles, exerting a decisive influence on the appearance and nature of the activities of the Russian bureaucracy.

The number of the upper class increased significantly in the post-reform era. An analysis of noble genealogical books and lists shows that the majority of the class was made up of the so-called new nobles, who owed their class position entirely to the authorities. This circumstance had important consequences for the formation of noble psychology. The nobility became to an even greater extent, as historians and publicists put it, a “state-regulated estate.” The policy of the autocracy on this issue was quite contradictory. On the one hand, it feared an excessive influx of people from other classes into the nobility. On the other hand, the expansion of the state apparatus required new personnel, a certain part of which, in their position, merged with the nobility. However, during this confrontation, the second tendency invariably won.

Conclusion

In the 18th century, Russia made significant progress along the path of modernization and Europeanization of its political and social structures. The main direction of the social policy of all successive monarchs and their governments was the creation of a new ruling layer - the nobility, which absorbed the previous privileged layers, but differed from them in greater unification and the degree of connection with public service. The basis of this process was the further strengthening of noble land ownership. During the era of Peter the Great's reforms, noble land ownership continued to increase due to the distribution of land with the peasants. In 1714, with the publication of a decree on single inheritance, the legal distinctions between two types of property - estate and patrimony - were actually abolished. Instead of these ancient concepts, a new concept was introduced - immovable estate. In order to avoid fragmentation of land holdings, the decree allowed them to be inherited by only one son, and movable property was divided among the remaining heirs. Tradition in the system of noble land ownership was preserved in the form of an inextricable connection between land ownership and the noble rank and service. The state also retained the right to confiscate estates from nobles in case of their poor attitude towards service, for committing a crime, etc.

The autocratic government after Peter the Great attached special importance to the noble class in domestic politics, which transformed the nobility from a service class into the noble and most privileged part of the population. In 1730, in accordance with the interests of the nobility, Anna Ivanovna canceled the decree on single inheritance. In December 1736, a decree was issued limiting the period of compulsory service of nobles to 25 years. Anna Ivanovna's decrees had a beneficial effect on strengthening noble self-awareness and the formation of truly class-based ideas of the Russian nobility about their place in society. The “Golden Age” of the nobility occurred in the second half of the century - the Catherine era. On April 21, 1785, Catherine II signed the Charter of the Nobility. In this document, the structure of the noble class took on a completed form, and the rights and privileges of the nobility were finally determined. Nobles were exempt from compulsory service, corporal punishment, confiscations, and could not be deprived of titles and rights without a verdict from a noble court approved by the supreme imperial authority. In addition to the district noble assemblies, the Charter provided for the emergence of provincial noble assemblies, at which provincial leaders of the nobility should be elected. The strengthening of serfdom by the end of the century, which actually turned peasants on noble estates into slaves, created optimal conditions for administrative activities for representatives of the noble class.

This situation continued into the 19th century. The first estate in Russia was still the nobility. By the middle of the 19th century, the nobility increased in number, but a process of differentiation emerged - the large landowner nobility was strengthened, and the small landed nobility was ruined. The abolition of serfdom dealt a blow to noble land ownership. The autocratic government tried to support the landowners: various laws were adopted, the Noble Land Bank was established to provide financial assistance to the landowners in the new conditions of capitalist development. But, despite all the efforts of the government, economic power gradually melted away. Following the loss of economic power, the nobility also lost its monopoly on power. But this process was slow - the nobles still enjoyed enormous influence in local government bodies - provincial and district zemstvos, city councils, and were appointed heads of provinces and districts. They also retained corporate organizations - provincial and district noble assemblies.

List of used literature

1. Anisimov E.V. Russia in the middle of the 18th century. The struggle for the legacy of Peter I - M., 1986.

2. Kamensky A.B. From Peter I to Paul I - M.: Publishing House of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 2001.

3. Korelin A.P. Nobility in post-reform Russia 1861-1904: composition, numbers, corporate organization - M.: Nauka, 1979.

4. Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century - M., 1989.

5. Troitsky S.M. Russia in the 18th century - M.: Nauka, 1982.

The daily life of nobles at the beginning and first half of the 19th century was very different. Residents of cities and industrialized areas of the country could talk about serious and noticeable changes. Life in the remote province, in the village in particular, went on basically as before. Much depended on the class and property status of people, their place of residence, religion, habits and traditions.

In the first half of the 19th century, the theme of the wealth of the nobles turned out to be closely connected with the theme of their ruin. The debts of the capital's nobility reached astronomical figures. One of the reasons was the idea that had taken root since the time of Catherine II: true noble behavior presupposes a willingness to live beyond one’s means. The desire to “reduce income with expenses” became characteristic only in the mid-30s. But even then, many remembered with sadness about the fun times of the past.

The debts of the nobility grew for another reason. It had a strong need for free money. The income of the landowners consisted mainly of the products of peasant labor. Capital life demanded a loud coins. Landowners for the most part did not know how to sell agricultural products, and were often simply ashamed to do so. It was much easier to go to a bank or lender to borrow or mortgage an estate. It was assumed that for the money received the nobleman would acquire new estates or increase the profitability of old ones. However, as a rule, the money was spent on building houses, balls, and expensive outfits. Owning private property, representatives of this class, the “leisure class,” could afford leisure worthy of their condition, and with a demonstration of their high position in the social hierarchy and “demonstrative behavior.” For a nobleman, almost all the time free from official affairs turned into leisure. Having such unlimited leisure, the first estate had the most favorable conditions for the transformation and revision of not only all its previous forms, but also a radical change in the relationship between public and private life in favor of the latter. Since the 18th century, leisure has acquired a status that it had never had before. This process went in parallel with the affirmation of the secular nature of the entire culture and the gradual displacement (but not destruction) of sacred values ​​by secular ones. Leisure acquired increasing obvious value for the nobleman as secular culture established itself. The main forms of this leisure time were initially borrowed in the 18th century, and then in the 19th century they were translated into the language of their own national culture. The borrowing of Western European forms of leisure initially occurred under the pressure of government decrees and in opposition to national traditions. The nobleman was a conductor of this culture and an actor, a performer of this theater. He played out his leisure time, be it a holiday, a ball, an appearance in the theater or a card match, as an actor on stage, in full view of the whole society. It is no coincidence that in the 18th century, interest in theater was enormous; theatrical art dominated over all others, included them and even subjugated them. But the main thing was the theatricalization of the nobleman’s entire life. It manifested itself in private life for show, in the publicity of leisure, in which costume, manners, behavior, important skills and abilities were deliberately demonstrated. This entire demonstration was of a spectacular nature, as in the theater, which became the leader of leisure and a model for the theatrical behavior of a nobleman, for his acting in real life. This study identified factors for the great popularity of social leisure in Moscow. Thanks to the preservation of not only Orthodox, but also pagan roots in the consciousness of the Moscow nobility, the perception of Western forms of leisure took place here much faster. This process was also facilitated by the well-known “everyday freedom” of the Moscow nobility.

The Peter the Great era was marked by new traditions of spectacles. The most important innovation was fireworks, which had a publicpolitical in nature. Masquerades were held either in the form of costumed processions or in the form of a display of carnival costumes in a public place. Theatrical performances glorified the tsar and his victories, therefore they became part of official life and made it possible to introduce translated plays and Western European performing arts to a select audience. Under Elizaveta Petrovna, fireworks were extended to the palaces of nobles, masquerades were turned into a costume ball, in which some timid trends were outlined in its evolution towards an entertainment culture. In the first place in the theatrical tastes of the highest aristocracy was the spectacular and musical art of opera. During the reign of Catherine II, state official celebrations with fireworks and masquerades were replaced by private illuminations in noble estates. The flourishing of city and estate theaters during the reign of Catherine II was due to the artistic aesthetics of the Enlightenment and the growing self-awareness of the Russian nobility. With all the variety of genres, comedy remained supreme. In the first half of the 19th century, fireworks became a spectacle of “small forms”, the property of noble estates.

Fireworks, theatrical performances, and ballroom dancing bore the stamp of those artistic styles that existed during this period of development of everyday culture. From colorful baroque fireworks, spectacular pantomimetheatrical productions, from slow and monotonous dances in magnificent outfits gradually moved to strict architectural forms of fireworks, to classical ballets with naturaldances, ancient drama, fast flying waltzes. But in the first half, the ancient classics turned out to be exhausted and gave way first to romanticism, and then to the national style in everyday culture and attitude. This was reflected in the development of music, theater, dance and entertainment culture.

Along with public masquerades that preserved classpartitions, private ones blossomed in full bloom, where all the participants were well acquainted, and incognito intrigue was a thing of the past. The War of 1812 played a great role in the theatrical life of the Moscow nobility. The nobles welcomed popular divertissements, vaudeville and the development of national opera. Ballet art became the fashion of the highest aristocracy, but interest in Russian dramatic art gradually won out in the tastes of the viewer.

The beginnings of home appearedmusic-making and song art, which existed mainly in the form of lyrical cant and everyday “book songs”. The “Kingdom of Women” on the Russian throne strengthened the role of women in dance culture, and they gradually became the hostesses of the ball. The flourishing of Italian opera and the growth of dance culture contributed to the development of vocal and song art in the noble houses of the Moscow nobility. The reign of Catherine II saw the heyday of private balls and public balls in the Assembly of the Nobility, which became an important part of the self-identification of the Moscow nobility. The salon and ceremony was gradually replaced by the naturalness and relaxedness of the dance culture. Moscow society embraced the musical hobby of playing the piano and vocals. The achievements of this period were serfs, unique horn orchestras, active concert activity, and the spread of song culture. The era of Alexander I and Nicholas I was characterized by the introduction of an entertainment element into ballroom culture. The new dances carried a powerful gender element, a liberated atmosphere and a general emancipation of ballroom culture. The most important factors in the development of performing culture were the flourishing of salons and the distribution of music albums. The nobility became the main contingent among concert listeners. Among the Moscow nobles there appeared real connoisseurs, music experts and even composers. Music became a way of life for the Moscow nobleman.

In the first half of the century, noble children received home education. Usually it consisted of studying two or three foreign languages ​​and the initial mastery of basic sciences. Teachers most often hired foreigners, who in their homeland served as coachmen, drummers, actors, and hairdressers.

Private boarding schools and state schools contrasted home education. Most Russian nobles traditionally prepared their children for the military field. From the age of 7-8, children were enrolled in military schools, and upon completion they entered the higher cadet corps in St. Petersburg. The government considered evasion of service reprehensible. In addition, service was a component of noble honor and was associated with the concept of patriotism.

The home of the average nobleman in the city was decorated at the beginning of the 19th century with Persian carpets, paintings, mirrors in gilded frames, and expensive mahogany furniture. In the summer, the nobles who retained their estates left the stuffy cities. Village manor houses were of the same type and consisted of a wooden building with three or four columns at the front porch andtriangle of pediment above them. In winter, usually before Christmas, the landowners returned to the city. Convoys of 15-20 carts were sent to the cities in advance and carried supplies: geese, chickens, pork hams, dried fish, corned beef, flour, cereals, butter.

The first half of the 19th century - the time of searching for “European” alternativesgrandfather's morals. They were not always successful. The interweaving of “Europeanism” and traditional ideas gavenoble life features features of bright originality and attractiveness.

In the 19th century, the development of men's fashion began to determine the cultural and aesthetic phenomenon of dandyism. Its basis was a tailcoat with good cloth, skillful cut and impeccable tailoring, which was complemented by snow-white linen, a vest, a scarf, a frock coat, trousers, a top hat and gloves. Russian dandies emphasized material wealth, were fond of fashionable accessories, and could not wean themselves from their addiction to diamonds and furs. Women's fashion at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries was marked by the rise of ancient fashion. Dressed in light tunics and flowing shawls, the “ancient goddess” of that time with her costume sharply outlined the role of women in life and society. The airy and fragile appearance of the romantic noblewoman of Pushkin's time was replaced by a socialite, whose costume was characterized by a wide crinoline, smooth, muted forms, emphasizing the earthly beauty of the woman.

In Russia, by the beginning of the 20th century, estates and classes coexisted, since at that time Russia was in the stage of transition from a feudal system, which was characterized by class division, to a capitalist system, which was characterized by a class division of society.

Philistinism

Philistinism - the middle strata of the urban population (petty employees, artisans, domestic servants, etc.) In Russia before 1917 - an estate, the lowest rank of urban inhabitants. The bourgeoisie belonged to the tax-paying classes, bore conscription and tax duties, and could be subject to corporal punishment.

Merchants

The merchant class is a trading class. It turned out to be the most adapted to the beginning of capitalist transformations. The merchant class became the basis for the formation of the Russian bourgeoisie. The merchant class was freed from the poll tax, corporal punishment, and its elite was freed from conscription. The class status of the merchant was determined by the property qualification. Since the end of the 18th century, the merchant class was divided into three guilds. Belonging to one of them was determined by the size of the capital, from which the merchant was obliged to pay an annual guild fee in the amount of 1% of his capital. This made it difficult for representatives of other segments of the population to gain access to the Merchants. For the period from the beginning of the 19th century to the revolution 1917 The merchant class grew from 125 thousand males to 230 thousand. However, 70-80% belonged to the third guild. By the beginning of the 20th century, the class boundaries of the merchant class had lost clarity; many rich representatives of the merchant class received titles of nobility and, conversely, part of the philistinism and peasantry joined its ranks.

Classes

Bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie is a class of exploiters that owns the instruments and means of production as private property and extracts surplus value through the exploitation of hired labor. The petty bourgeoisie is a class of small owners who own the means of production and use wage labor to a small extent or not at all. By the beginning of the 20th century, the bourgeoisie became the economic support of the autocracy, but was deprived of political rights. This leads to the fact that the Russian bourgeoisie was highly politicized.

Proletariat

The proletariat (German “Proletariat” from the Latin “proletarius” - the poor) is a social class deprived of ownership of the means of production, for which the main source of livelihood is the sale of its own labor power.
The proletariat in Russia was quite small (10%). It was characterized by a sharp stratification into the labor aristocracy and unskilled workers, whose standard of living was extremely low and whose working conditions were appalling. The poorest sections of the proletariat were extremely revolutionary.

Landowners

Landowner - nobleman - landowner owning an estate, patrimonial owner in Russia at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 20th centuries. Initially, service people, “placed”, i.e. received land (estate) for use for public service. Gradually the estates became hereditary, with 1714- property of P. October Revolution 1917 liquidated the P. estate and their land ownership.

Peasants

Peasants (from "Christians") are agricultural producers of family-individual labor, the main class of feudalism, when the majority of the peasantry was turned into serfs. Peasants emerged as a class in the 14th century. They were the property of the landowner, were personally dependent on the landowner, paid a poll tax, quitrent, worked corvée, monthly work, and used plots of communal land; The right of serfs to buy land and enter into transactions was limited. They were distinguished by the use of traditional tools, weakly changing production techniques, patriarchal orders, local isolation, and narrow interests.

At the beginning of the reign of Peter I there were approximately 90% of Russia's population and finally lost personal freedom. Already in the 17th century. the position of the peasants almost ceased to differ from the position of the slaves. With the development of the economy, they were involved in commodity-money relations, which led to stratification, the separation of farms, the numerical reduction of the peasantry, and the cooperation of labor. In the 19th century peasants accounted for approximately 75% of the country's population(about half of the peasants are poor).

The relationship between estates and classes

Intelligentsia (a special group characterized by a high level of education and independence of thinking and judgment)

Classes	Estates
landowners	nobility
peasants	peasantry
	merchants, nobility, philistinism, peasantry
proletariat

Estates in Russia in the 19th century is an interesting historical and scientific question that is still being studied to this day.

It is very fascinating to observe how the society of our country has changed over time, how it has transformed, acquired new features, and approached the state in which it is today.

Until the 19th century, there was no class society in the country; completely different ways of dividing people into different layers were in effect here. But Peter I, together with his court of nobles, tried in every possible way to make Russia part of Europe. And it was from there that during the first half of the 19th century the king borrowed various classes. Let's take a closer look at how it all looked.

Formation of classes

The class structure of society existed in Western Europe, but in our country there were not even concepts describing this phenomenon.

The first evidence of the division of people into classes appeared in Russia in the late 1780s, but, as many historians note, this system never managed to fully establish itself and receive the recognition that it had in the West.

A person fell into one class or another based on what kind of work he did, what kind of education he had, what level of material wealth he had, what kind of pedigree he had.

The scheme of belonging to one class or another was quite confusing and is controversial even now. This issue was regulated by a special set of laws, published in several weighty volumes.

Estates in Russia in the 19th century

As already mentioned, Russian society had not seen a class society before, so Peter I completely copied it from the West, but with some features and adaptation to our area.

Certain layers of society treated innovations differently, and some individuals did not accept these changes, and therefore only formally and forcedly participated in the reforms.

Generally, both classes of a kind of aristocracy and tax-paying estates appeared- the most humiliated categories of the population who were forced to serve in the army, pay tribute for each person in the family, and obey many additional laws.

In such conditions, it is not surprising that the beginning of revolts against the tsarist system and the late advent of Marxism found very fertile ground.

Privileged

Estates were divided into privileged and unprivileged. The first included such categories of citizens.

Nobility

A fairly old class that originated in the 17th century during the reign of princes. The nobles had broad powers; they formed part of the court of a major prince or boyar.

It was possible to receive the title of nobleman for special successes and merits in military service, at the will of the sovereign, depending on one’s pedigree.

Worth noting: the title of nobleman was also inherited, but only through the male line. If a woman of a noble family married a simple man, then the title of nobleman was not passed on to him and her children.

Clergy

A traditional caste of the population for an Orthodox country, which included various kinds of clergy, monks, elders and others.

The social composition of the clergy is quite diverse. This included people with very different levels of material wealth, since this was not a determining factor here.

The clergy was divided into two large categories: white and black. The first part included the parish part of the believers, the second – monasticism. These people were not subject to conscription into the army and corporal punishment.

Merchants 1st and 2nd guilds

The merchants of the first guild included those who had a large turnover of goods both within the country and abroad. The merchants of the 2nd guild were engaged exclusively in domestic trade.

The former had fairly expanded powers and freedom of action. As for the 2nd guild, its representatives had to pay additional taxes and were even called up for military service as recruits.

All people belonging to this class had the right to self-government, many freedoms and rights, they had the right to receive a quality education.

Unprivileged

This class of inhabitants of the Russian Empire was more extensive than privileged. Its class structure looked like this.

Peasantry

Peasants were state and serf, but later these names underwent changes. The position of the peasants was unenviable - the serfs had no rights and were completely unfree in all respects.

As for state peasants, they could have land owned by the community and had the right to self-government.

All types of peasants were obliged to serve in the army, work the so-called corvée, pay dues, and also had other types of duties to their owners and the state.

In short, the position of this class was unenviable.

Philistinism

This class included craftsmen of various profiles, artisans, as well as representatives of small urban trade.

The burghers had the right to their own self-government and to receive an education, although limited in comparison with what was given to the nobles.

No titles were in effect here, and the townspeople were forced to pay all the taxes that were in the country; they were subject to recruitment, forming the basis of the army of the Russian Empire.

These people had few rights, but enough responsibilities. They also did not have the opportunity to own land.

Cossacks

Anyone could join the Cossacks; legends were made about this category of the population in their time.

Freemen, land ownership, exemption from any taxes - all this was available to the Cossacks in full.

The only thing the Cossacks owed the state was to serve in the army, while having their own equipment.

Merchants 3 guilds

Some researchers include merchants of the 3rd guild as a separate class. These are the main traders who provided city and county trade in the country.

There are no special differences from other guilds here, it’s just that representatives of the 3rd guild also had to serve in the army.

Below is a table with a brief summary of this topic.

The estate system did not last long - the Decembrist uprising, the impending world war, the Bolsheviks and many other shocks quickly threw the country into a completely different reality.