lecture vi-第2章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


exact。　These　two　causes　sufficiently　explain　why；　by　the　end　of
the　sixteenth　century；　the　removal　of　peasants　from　manor　to
manor　had　become　very　rare。
　　　　The　system　of　land　endowments　in　favour　of　the　higher　clergy
and　monasteries；　and　also　of　persons　belonging　to　the　knightly
class；　had　increased　to　such　an　extent　that；　according　to　modern
calculation；　two…thirds　of　the　cultivated　area　was　already　the
property　either　of　ecclesiastics　or　of　secular　grandees。　It　is
therefore　easy　to　understand　why；　during　the　sixteenth　century；
the　migratory　state　of　the　Russian　agricultural　population　came
to　be　considered　as　a　real　danger　to　the　State　by　the　higher
classes　of　Russian　society。　The　most　powerful　of　the　nobles　and
gentry　did　their　best　to　retain　the　peasants　on　their　lands。　Some
went　even　farther；　and；　by　alleviating　the　burdens　of
villein…service；　and　securing　a　more　efficient　protection　for
them　from　administrative　oppression；　induced　the　peasants　who
inhabited　the　lands　of　smaller　squires　to　leave　their　old　homes
and　settle　on　their　manors。　It　was　in　order　to　protect　the　small
landowners　from　this　sort　of　oppression　that　Boris　Goudonov；　the
all…powerful　ruler　of　Russia　in　the　reign　of　Theodor　Ivanovitch；
promulgated　a　law；　according　to　which　every　one　was　authorised　to
insist　on　the　return　of　a　peasant　who　left　his　abode；　and　that
during　the　five　years　next　following　his　departure。　This　law　was
promulgated　in　1597。　As　no　mention　is　made　in　it　of　the　right
previously　enjoyed　by　the　peasants　of　removing　from　one　manor　to
another　on　St。　George's　Day；　this　law　of　1597　has　been　considered
by　historians　as　the　direct　cause　of　the　introduction　of　the
so…called　〃bondage　to　the　soil〃　（krepostnoie　pravo）。　Such　was
certainly　not　its　object。　The　right　of　migration　on　the　Day　of
St。　George　was　openly　acknowledged　by　the　laws　of　1601　and　1602。
The　bondage　of　the　peasant　to　the　soil　became　an　established　fact
only　in　the　year　1648；　when　the　new　code　of　law；　the　so…called
Oulogienie　（chap。　xi）；　refused　to　any　one　the　right　to　receive　on
his　lands　the　peasant　who　should　run　away　from　a　manor；　and
abolished　that　limit　of　time　beyond　which　the　landlord　lost　the
right　to　reclaim　the　peasant　who　had　removed　from　his　ancient
dwelling。
　　　　The　number　of　serfs　rapidly　increased　during　the　second　half
of　the　seventeenth　and　the　eighteenth　centuries；　owing　to　the
prodigality　with　which　the　Czars　and　Emperors　endowed　the　members
of　the　official　class　with　lands；　in　disregard　often　of　their
previous　occupation　by　free　village　communities；　the　members　of
which　were　forced　to　become　the　serfs　of　the　persons　who　received
the　grant。　It　is　in　this　way　that　Catherine　II；　for　instance；
during　the　thirty…four　years　of　her　reign；　increased　the　number
of　serfs　by　800；000　new　ones；　and　that　Paul　I；　in　a　period　of
four　years；　added　600；000　to　the　number；　which　was　already
enormous。
　　　　Before　the　reign　of　Catherine；　serfdom　was　almost　unknown　in
Little　Russia；　where　it　had　been　abolished　by　Bogdan　Chmelnitzky；
soon　after　the　separation　of　Little　Russia　from　Poland；　and　in
the　Ukraine　（the　modern　Government　of　Kharkov）；　where　it　had
never　before　existed。　In　1788　she　revoked　the　right　hitherto
enjoyed　by　the　peasants　of　these　two　provinces　to　remove　from　one
manor　to　another。　The　same　right　of　free　removal　was　abolished　a
few　years　later　in　the　〃Land　of　the　Don　Kossacks〃　and　among　the
peasants　of　the　Southern　Governments；　called　New　Russia
（Novorossia）。
　　　　But　if　the　second　part　of　the　eighteenth　century　saw　the
territorial　extension　of　serfdom　over　almost　all　the　Empire；　it
was　also　the　period　in　which　first　began　the　movement　which　led
to　emancipation。　From　France　came　the　first　appeals　for　the
liberation　of　the　serfs。　In　1766　the　Society　of　Political
Economists　founded　in　Petersburg　on　the　model　of　the　agricultural
societies　of　France　was　asked　by　the　impress　to　answer　the
question：　〃Whether　the　State　would　be　benefited　by　the　serf
becoming　the　free　owner　of　his　land？〃　Marmontel　and　Voltaire
considered　it　to　be　their　duty　to　express　opinions　in　favour　of　a
partial　abolition　of　serfdom。　Marmontel　thought　that　the　time　was
come　to　supersede　villein…service　by　a　sort　of　hereditary
copyhold。　Voltaire　went　a　step　farther；　inviting　the　impress　to
liberate　immediately　the　serfs　on　the　Church　lands。　As　to　the
rest；　free　contract　alone　ought　to　settle　the　question　of　their
emancipation。　Another　Frenchman　much　less　known；　the　legist
Bearde　de　l'Abaye；　gave　it　as　his　opinion　that　the　Government
should　maintain　a　strict　neutrality　towards　the　question　of
serfdom。　It　ought　to　be　abolished　only　by　free　contract　between
landlords　and　serfs；　the　former　endowing　the　latter　with　small
parcels　of　land。　In　this　way　the　serf　would　become　a　private
owner；　so　that　in　case　he　should　rent　any　land　from　the　squire；
the　squire　would　be　able　to　seize　the　peasant's　plot　in　case　of
non…payment　of　his　rent。　Diderot　was　the　only　Frenchman　who
acknowledged　the　necessity　of　an　immediate　abolition　of　personal
servitude；　but　in　his　letters　to　the　Empress　he　does　not　say　a
single　word　about　the　necessity　for　securing　to　the　liberated
serf　at　least　a　small　portion　of　the　manorial　land。
　　　　Although　Catherine　II　was　willing　to　be　advised　by　the
Encyclopedists　as　to　the　way　in　which　serfdom　might　be　abolished；
she　took　effectual　means　to　prevent　the　expression　of　Russian
public　opinion　on　the　same　subject。　A　memorial　presented　to　the
Petersburg　Society　of　Political　Economists　by　a　young　Russian
author　called　Pelenev　was　not　allowed　to　appear　in　print；　for　no
other　reason　than　that　it　contained　a　criticism　on　the　existing
system　of　serfdom。（1*）　The　author　of　the　memorial　did　not　demand
the　immediate　abolition　of　this　old　wrong；　he　only　wanted　to　see
it　replaced　by　a　sort　of　perpetual　copyhold。　The　Government　was
more　severe　towards　another　Russian　writer；　Radischev；　who　was
the　first　to　advocate　not　only　the　personal　liberty　of　the　serf；
but　also　his　endowment　with　land。　The　work　of　Radischev　（2*）
appeared　in　1789；　several　years　after　the　suppression　of　the
insurrectionary　movement　of　Pougachev；　but　it　was　regarded　as　a
sort　of　commentary　on　the　demand　for　〃liberty　and　land；〃　which
the　Russian　peasant　had　addressed　to　that　leader；　who　had
answered　it　by　a　solemn　promise　that　he　would　make　the　serf　free
and　prosperous。　Catherine　not　only　ordered　the　immediate
suppression　of　the　work　of　Radischev；　but　brought　the　author
before　the　Courts　of　Justice；　accusing　him　of　being　a　traitor　to
his　country。　Radischev　was　condemned　to　death；　but　this　penalty
was　commuted　to　perpetual　banishment　to　Siberia。
　　　　It　was　not　till　the　reign　of　Alexander　the　First　that　the
Russian　Government　began　to　take　effectual　measures　to　ameliorate
the　social　condition　of　the　serf。　According　to　the　account　given
by　those　immediately　around　him；　and　especially　by　Adam
Czartorysky；　Alexander　was　an　avowed　friend　of　peasant
emancipation。　He　gave　his　firm　support　to　the　proposed　law　giving
the　landlords　the　right　to　liberate　their　serfs；　and　even　to
endow　them　with　shares　in　the　open　fields　if　they　paid　for　them。
In　1803　this　law　was　passed；　and　47；000　serfs　were　soon　after
enfranchised；　and　became　a　separate　class　under　the　name　of　the
〃free　agriculturists。〃　Sixteen　years　later　（in　1819）　the
enfranchisement　of　the　serf　became　an　accomplished　fact　in　the
three　Baltic　provinces；　the　peasant　obtaining　the　free　disposal
of　his　person　on　condition　of　abandoning　to　his　landlord　the
parcels　of　ground　previously　in　his　possession。　This　reform　was
accomplished　in　the　same　manner　as　that　carried　out　in　1812　by
Napoleon　in　the　Kingdom　of　Poland。　In　the　thoroughly　Russian
provinces　no　direct　measures　were　at　this　time　taken　to　abolish
the　legal　servitude　of　the　peasant；　but　the　question　was　more
than　once　debated　in　private　circles　and　by　learned　bodies。　In
the　year　1812；　for　instance；　the　Petersburg　Society　of　Political
Economists　declared　that　it　would　give　2000　roubles　to　the　author
of　the　best　treatise　on　the　question　of　the　relative　advantages
of　free　and　servile　labour　in　agriculture。　This　question　by
itself　shows　the　influence　which　Adam　Smith's　〃Wealth　of
Nations；〃　which　had　been　translated　into　Russian　in　1803；　was
beginning　to　exercise　on　Russian　thought。　Nine　treatises　were
forwarded　to　the　Society；　of　which　three　only　were　in　favour　of
the　further　maintenance　of　servile　labour。　But　the　greater　number
expressed　the　opinion　that　the　enfranchisement　of　the　serf；
provided　that　he　was　allowed　to　keep　the　land　he　occupied；　would
be　of　great　advantage　to　the　landlord　himself。　This　idea；　in
conformity　to　which　serfdom　had　been　abolished　in　the　Baltic
provinces；　was　the　expression　of　a　fact　quite　familiar　to　the
student　of　economic　history。　The　work　of　an　enslaved　labourer　is
never　so　productive　as　that　of　a　free　labourer。　So　long　as　rent
is　low；　as　certainly　was　the　case　in　Russia　in　past　centuries；
the　work　of　the　serf　is　by　no　means　fairly　recompensed　by　the
land　he　owns。　But　in　the　first　quarter　of　the　nineteenth　century；
when　Russia　began　to　be　considered　as　the　granary　of　Europe；　on
account　of　the　vast　exports　of　wheat　from　her　ports；　rent　rapidly
rose；　and　this　rise　produced　a　complete　change　in　the　relative
value　of　servile　work　and　the　land　which　was　in　the　possession　of
the　peasant。
　　　　The　question　put　by　the　Society　of　Political　Economists　could
not；　therefore；　possibly　have　received　any　other　answer　than　that
given　to　it　by　the　majority　of　the　authors　who　sent　in　papers　to
the　Society。　Serfdom　was　rapidly　becoming　a　burden　on　the
manorial　lords　themselves；　as　many　of　them　began　to　be　conscious。
The　barons　of　the　Baltic　shore　were　the　first　to　understand　the
advantage　which　the　liberation　of　the　serf；　followed　by　a
resumption　of　the　ground　he　owned；　would　have　on　their　class
interests。　The　nobility　of　Toula　and　Riasan；　as　well　as　that　of
Dinabourg；　Petersburg；　and　Czarskoie　Selo；　seemed　also　to　become
conscious　of　this　fact；　for　they　petitioned　the　Emperor　Nicholas
to　establish　local　committees　who　might　prepare　the　outlines　of　a
new　emancipation　act。　Among　the　nobles　immediately　surrounding
the　Czar；　Prince　Mentchikov　expressed　his　opinion　of　the
desirability　and　advantage　of　freeing　the　peasant　and　at　the　same
time　of　enriching　the　landlord　by　leaving　in　his　hands　all　those
shares　in　the　common　ground　which　had　been　held　by　the　peasants。
The　interests　of　the　nobility　certainly　required　the
establishment　of　a　class　similar　to　that　of　the　English
labourers；　but　the　peasants　were　naturally　averse　to　any　change
which　would　lessen　their　hold　on　the　soil。　In　1812　a　peasant
rising　took　place　in　the　Government　of　Pensa；　the　revolted　serfs
expressing　their　wants　by　the　old　motto　〃liberty　and　Land。〃　In
1826　again　the　same　motto　was　the　watchword　of　another　rising；
this　time　provoked　by　a　rumour　that　land　and　liberty　would
shortly　be　secured　to　the　serfs。
　　　　Under　the　influence　of　this　clear　expression　of　the　people's
wants；　the　Government　of　Nicholas　abandoned　all　idea　of
emancipation　which　was　not　to　be　followed　by　the　endowment　of　the
peasant　with　land。　Not　daring；　as　he　openl