12. Nobility and peasantry in the eighteenth century

What characterised the Muscovite nobility before Peter the Great?

Privileges

• Freedom from taxes

• Right to own serfs

• Status defined by precedence system

Obligations

• Military service (campaign-based)

• Administrative and diplomatic service for the tsar

Political position

• Nobles called the “sovereign’s slaves”

• No corporate political institutions

Two main groups

1. Boyar elite (Moscow)

   • Close access to the Tsar and court

2. Provincial cavalry service nobility

   • Provided military service

➡ Nobility defined by service to the Tsar, not autonomous power.

How did Peter I reform the Russian nobility?

Service reforms

• Service became compulsory and lifelong

• Nobles served in army, navy, or civil administration

Table of Ranks (1722)

• Promotion based on merit and service

• Non-nobles could gain hereditary nobility through service

Law of Single Inheritance (1714)

• Estate passed to one heir only

• Aim: prevent fragmentation of noble estates

• Historian Sergey Chernikov: preserve profitability of estates

Cultural change

• Western dress and education

• Nobles moved to St Petersburg

• Created “two Russias”:

  • Westernised elite

The Nobility After Peter I (1730–1762)

Succession crisis (1730)

• Nobles rejected attempts to limit monarchy → supported absolutism

Key concessions to nobles

1731 – repeal of Law of Single Inheritance

1736 – noble service reduced to 25 years

1746 – only nobles allowed to own serfs

1754 – nobles given monopoly on vodka production

1758–60 – harder for non-nobles to gain nobility through service

➡ Nobility increasingly gained privileges and economic advantages.

What was the Manifesto on the Freedom of the Nobility (1762)?

Issued by Peter III

Key change:

• Nobles freed from compulsory state service

Service became voluntary.

However:

• Still expected to serve during war

• Many nobles continued serving for:

  • salary

  • honours

  • court influence

Historians Schönle and Zorin

• Nobility gained limited independence but were expected to develop moral loyalty to the state.

How did Catherine II reshape the relationship between the monarchy and nobility?

Catherine aimed for a partnership between crown and nobles.

Legislative Commission (1767)

• Nobles demanded:

  • protection of land rights

  • protection of serf ownership

  • local representation

Provincial reform (1775)

• Nobles given important roles in local administration

Charter to the Nobility (1785)

• Confirmed noble privileges:

  • protection from corporal punishment

  • property rights

  • right to own serfs

  • corporate noble assemblies

Historian Isabel de Madariaga
→ “First step towards civil rights”.

were the Nobles the ruling class in 18th century

Soviet Marxist interpretation

• Nobility controlled means of production (land + serfs).

Functionalist view – John Le Donne

• Nobles controlled:

  • political offices

  • land ownership

  • serf labour

  • vodka production (after 1754)

But nobility was very unequal

Distribution of serfs (1762):

• 51% owned <20 serfs

• 31% owned 21–100

• 15% owned 101–500

• 1% owned 1000+

➡ Small elite dominated wealth and power.

What characterised the Russian peasantry and serfdom?

Peasants = ~90% of population

Two main groups:

Serfs

• ~50% of peasants

• Bound to land and landlord

• Masters could:

  • sell

  • exile

  • recruit into army

Labour obligations:

• Barshchina – labour for landlord

• Obrok – money payments

State peasants

• Paid taxes to the state

• Some local autonomy

• Performed state labour (construction, transport, military).

Village life organised through peasant commune (mir):

• distributed land

• collected taxes

• selected army recruits

Catherine II and serfdom

Catherine privately criticised serfdom, fearing revolt.

She wrote:

• cruel treatment might cause peasants to “throw off an unbearable yoke”.

Effects of Enlightenment debate:

• Nobles began questioning morality of serfdom.

However reforms were limited.

1765 law:

• Landowners could send rebellious serfs to forced labour

After Pugachev rebellion reforms were abandoned.

➡ Catherine recognised the problem but protected noble interests.

Pugachev revolt 1773-75

Leader: Emelian Pugachev, a Don Cossack.

Claimed to be Tsar Peter III.

Causes

• Heavy taxation and conscription

• Russo-Turkish War

• Cossack grievances

• Plague and economic hardship

Support base

• Cossacks

• Tatars

• non-Russian groups

Not primarily a serf revolt.

Outcome

• Thousands of nobles killed

• Rebellion suppressed

Consequences:

• Increased state control of Cossacks

• Catherine abandoned further reform.

did the revolt threaten the monarchy

How serious was the Pugachev revolt for the Russian state?

A:

Violent uprising:

• 4–5% of Russian nobles killed.

But limited impact because:

• confined to peripheral regions

• failed to capture major cities

• lacked coordination

Historically similar to earlier rebellions like Stenka Razin.

➡ Demonstrated danger of rural unrest, but monarchy survived.

David Moon (2001) – Reassessing Russian Serfdom

Argument:

• Russian serfdom endured for centuries because it created a functional balance between the state, nobility, and peasantry, supporting Russia’s military power and political stability.

Key Points:

• Serfdom developed late 16th c. and consolidated in 17th c., lasting until 1861, showing institutional stability.

• The state relied on nobles to control peasants, since it lacked the administrative capacity to govern the countryside directly.

• Nobles benefited from control over peasant labour and income, which supported their service to the state.

• Peasants were exploited but gained guaranteed access to land and basic survival, helping maintain rural stability.

• Serfdom helped finance and supply the Russian army through taxes, recruits, and industrial labour.

• Major revolts were frontier uprisings led by Cossacks, not organised attempts by serfs to abolish serfdom.

• Therefore serfdom persisted because it served the interests of multiple groups, not just state coercion.

Tracy Dennison (2011) – Did Serfdom Matter? Russian Rural Society, 1750–1860

Argument:

• Serfdom did not completely prevent economic activity or mobility, but its key impact was legal vulnerability and lack of rights, not economic stagnation alone.

Key Points:

• Evidence from Voshchazhnikovo estate shows serfs were economically active: trading, running businesses, migrating for work.

• Serf society was highly stratified, resembling a market economy rather than a simple peasant commune.

• Serfs could own property, lend money, and participate in markets, despite their legal status.

• However, serfdom still mattered because serfs lacked legal protection from the state.

• Estate rules were informal and could be changed by landlords, leaving peasants dependent on their goodwill.

• Wealthy serfs could sometimes use networks and money to influence outcomes, while poorer serfs had far fewer protections.

• Thus the real limitation of serfdom was legal dependency rather than economic immobility.

Isabel de Madariaga (1981) – Catherine II and the Serfs

Argument:

• Catherine II’s reign strengthened and institutionalised serfdom, even while she presented herself as an Enlightened ruler.

Key Points:

• Catherine expanded noble privileges over serfs, reinforcing aristocratic control of rural society.

• Her policies strengthened the state–nobility alliance, which depended on serf labour and taxation.

• Serfdom became more entrenched through administrative and legal consolidation, especially after rebellions such as Pugachev’s revolt.

• Despite Enlightenment rhetoric, Catherine prioritised political stability and noble support over reform.