D. V. Timofeev. Regulation of Inter-Verbal Interactions and the Serfdom Issue in Russia in the First Quarter of the 19th Century // Petersburg Historical Journal, no. 4, 2025, pp. 106–119.

DOI: 10.51255/2311–603X_2025_4_106

Abstract:

In Russia during the first quarter of the 19th century, the quest for solutions to the issue of
serfdom was inextricably intertwined with the government’s policy of regulating interactions between various estates and intra-estate groups within Russian society. The article, which is based on an analysis of archival materials, presents an analysis of the content and focus of discussions on measures to prevent the fraudulent sale of peasants and the development of ways to introduce a contractual model of relations between peasants and landowners. In this context, the article presents an analysis of the arguments of senators, members of the Department of Laws of the State Council and the Council of the Commission for the Drafting of Laws, expressed during the discussion of the draft submitted by the Minister of Internal Affairs O. P. Kozodavlev on allowing all free Russian subjects to acquire populated lands. Consequently, rhetorical techniques, semantic accents and ideological attitudes were employed to justify the rejection of the proposed measure, thereby demonstrating, firstly, the recognition of the importance of maintaining state control in the sphere of interclass relations and, secondly, the understanding of the need to transition from a model of precedent-based response to private abuses of power by landowners to a model of preventive resolution of potentially possible conflict situations through the introduction of the practice of contractual relations.

Key words: the serfdom issue in Russia in the 19th century, O. P. Kozodavlev, projects for the abolition of serfdom, legislation on peasants, prohibition of the sale of serfs, reforms of Alexander I.

Author:

Timofeev, Dmitrii Vladimirovich — Dr. Hab. (History), Professor, Ural Federal University
named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin (Ekaterinburg, Russia).
E-mail: dmitrtim@yandex.ru
ORCID: 0000-0002-6578-8762

References:

Andreeva, T. V. Na dal’nikh podstupakh k Velikoi reforme: krest’yanskii vopros v Rossii v tsarstvovanie Nikolaya I: issledovanie i dokumenty [On the Distant Approaches to the Great Reform: the Peasant Question in Russia during the Reign of Nicholas I: Research and Documents. In Russ.]. St. Petersburg, Istoricheskaya illyustratsiya publ., 2019. 726 p.

Dolgikh, A. N. “Uvizhu l’, o druz’ya, narod neugnetennyi…”: Rossiiskoe dvoryanstvo i krest’yanskii vopros v XVIII — pervoi chetverti XIX v.: Istoriograficheskie ocherki [“Will I see, oh Friends, an Unoppressed People…”: Russian Nobility and the Peasant Question in the 18th — First Quarter of the 19th Century: Historiographic Essays. In Russ.]: in 2 vols. Lipetsk, LGPU im. P. P. Semenova-Tyan-Shanskogo press, 2018. 352 + 358 p.

Ruzhitskaya, I. V. Zakonodatel’naya deyatel’nost’ v tsarstvovanie imperatora Nikolaya I [Legislative Activity during the Reign of Emperor Nicholas I. In Russ.]. Moscow; St. Petersburg, Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ publ., 2015. 357 p.

Timofeev, D. V. Krest’yanskie prosheniya v Rossii pervoi chetverti XIX veka: reaktsiya vlasti v poiskakh resheniya krepostnogo voprosa [Peasant Petitions in Russia in the First Quarter of the 19th Century: the Reaction of the Authorities in Search of a Solution to the Serfdom Issue. In Russ.] In Vestnik gumanitarnogo obrazovaniya. 2021. No. 3, pp. 9–15.

Timofeev, D. V. Perspektivy resheniya krepostnogo voprosa v Rossii pervoi chetverti XIX veka v otrazhenii nedvoryanskikh proektov i slukhov [Prospects for Solving the Serfdom Issue in Russia in the First Quarter of the 19th Century in Reflecting Non-Noble Projects and Rumors. In Russ.] In Magistra Vitae: elektronnyi zhurnalpo istoricheskim naukam i arkheologii. 2017. No. 2, pp. 9–26.

Timofeev, D. V. Praktika osvobozhdeniya krest’yan v vol’nye khlebopashtsy v tsarstvovanie Aleksandra I [The Practice of Liberating Peasants into Free Farmers during the Reign of Alexander I. In Russ.]. In Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Istoriya. 2019. Vol. 64, iss. 4, pp. 1177–1194.

Timofeev, D. V. Varianty resheniya krepostnogo voprosa v Rossii pervoi chetverti XIX veka: opyt
sravnitel’nogo analiza “nedozvolennykh rechei”, proshenii i dvoryanskikh proektov [Options for Solving the Serfdom Issue in Russia in the First Quarter of the 19th Century: Experience in Comparative Analysis of “Unauthorized Speeches”, Petitions and Noble Projects. In Russ.] In Peterburgskii istoricheskii zhurnal. 2015. No. 4, pp. 35–46.

Similar Posts

PHJ № 2 (46) 2025 — A. A. Vovin. ROMAN LAW AND THE PSKOV JUDICIAL CHARTER

The article continues a series of two articles co-authored by Alexei Vovin and Natalya Sredinskaya and focuses on the Roman law reception (in its Latin version) in the North-West of Rus’. There is a core text which is at the center of all forementioned publications. The 89 th article of the Pskov Judicial Charter is very close in textual and semantic terms to the corresponding places in the codes of Theodosius and Justinian. This article develops and substantiates the previously expressed idea that the norm of Justinian’s codification could not penetrate into the Pskov Judicial Charter through later Byzantine law codes, whose translations into Church Slavonic were spread in Old Rus’. Accordingly, the 89 th article source, as well as a number of new notions appearing in Pskov Judicial Charter, were produced as a result of borrowing from an unknown Latin-language source that reflected the realities of the code of Justinian or the earlier code of Theodosius. The article also examines another article of the Pskov Judicial Charter (the 91th), whose origin could be probably found in Theodosian Code as well. The final conclusions lead us to a new glance at the origins of the law of the North-West of Rus’ and the extent to which the Old Russian culture experienced the Roman law reception.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — Yu. S. Nikiforov. “NOW WE’LL LIVE! BREZHNEV AND KOSYGIN ARE NOT KHRUSHCHEV”: THE DYNAMICS OF REGIONAL POWER IN THE UPPER VOLGA REGIONS ON THE EVE OF AND IN THE FIRST YEARS AFTER THE RESIGNATION OF KHRUSHCHEV

The article employs an analytical approach to examine the personnel changes that occurred in the corps of first secretaries of the regional committees of the Upper Volga regions on the eve of and in the initial years following Khrushchev’s resignation. It is important to note that the division of the regional apparatus of power in 1962 according to the production principle and the appearance of two first secretaries of the regional committee (industrial and rural) significantly affected the dynamics of regional power. It is noteworthy that the primary responsibility for communication with the center was assigned to the “senior secretary”. The material pertaining to the party power of the Upper Volga region discloses the practices of replacing key nomenclature The article employs an analytical approach to examine the personnel changes that occurred in the corps of first secretaries of the regional committees of the Upper Volga regions on the eve of and in the initial years following Khrushchev’s resignation. It is important to note that the division of the regional apparatus of power in 1962 according to the production principle and the appearance of two first secretaries of the regional committee (industrial and rural) significantly affected the dynamics of regional power. It is noteworthy that the primary responsibility for communication with the center was assigned to the “senior secretary”. The material pertaining to the party power of the Upper Volga region discloses the practices of replacing key nomenclature
posts in the regional government during the 1950s and 1960s. These include the transfer of experienced management personnel from region to region, the appointment of an ethnic Russian as a second secretary in the national (union) republics, and the consideration of the region’s production specialisation when appointing a regional leader. The publication presents a study of the personal characteristics of individual party leaders in the Upper Volga regions during the 1950s and 1960s. This study draws conclusions about two possible scenarios that may have occurred in the careers of the first secretaries of the Upper Volga regional committees in the period following Khrushchev’s resignation. The first scenario is the stabilisation of the power status in the region, and the second is the transfer of the first secretaries to Moscow to a higher post in the nomenclature hierarchy. The first option pertained to the case of Ponomarev and Loshchenkov, the respective party leaders of the Vladimir and Yaroslavl regions. The second variant was realised in the careers of the first secretaries of the Ivanovo and Kostroma regional committees — Kapitonov and Florentyev, respectively — who went to the capital for promotion. As was subsequently demonstrated, by the close of the 1960s, an emergent pattern of “regional political longevity” among the first secretaries of the regional committee had come to the fore, The article employs an analytical approach to examine the personnel changes that occurred in the corps of first secretaries of the regional committees of the Upper Volga regions on the eve of and in the initial years following Khrushchev’s resignation. It is important to note that the division of the regional apparatus of power in 1962 according to the production principle and the appearance of two first secretaries of the regional committee (industrial and rural) significantly affected the dynamics of regional power. It is noteworthy that the primary responsibility for communication with the center was assigned to the “senior secretary”. The material pertaining to the party power of the Upper Volga region discloses the practices of replacing key nomenclature posts in the regional government during the 1950s and 1960s. These include the transfer of experienced management personnel from region to region, the appointment of an ethnic Russian as a second secretary in the national (union) republics, and the consideration of the region’s production specialisation when appointing a regional leader. The publication presents a study of the personal characteristics of individual party leaders in the Upper Volga regions during the 1950s and 1960s. This study draws conclusions about two possible scenarios that may have occurred in the careers of the first secretaries of the Upper Volga regional committees in the period following Khrushchev’s resignation. The first scenario is the stabilisation of the power status in the region, and the second is the transfer of the first secretaries to Moscow to a higher post in the nomenclature hierarchy. The first option pertained to the case of Ponomarev and Loshchenkov, the respective party leaders of the Vladimir and Yaroslavl regions. The second variant was realised in the careers of the first secretaries of the Ivanovo and Kostroma regional committees — Kapitonov and Florentyev, respectively — who went to the capital for promotion. As was subsequently demonstrated, by the close of the 1960s, an emergent pattern of “regional political longevity” among the first secretaries of the regional committee had come to the fore, The article employs an analytical approach to examine the personnel changes that occurred in the corps of first secretaries of the regional committees of the Upper Volga regions on the eve of and in the initial years following Khrushchev’s resignation. It is important to note that the division of the regional apparatus of power in 1962 according to the production principle and the appearance of two first secretaries of the regional committee (industrial and rural) significantly affected the dynamics of regional power. It is noteworthy that the primary responsibility for communication with the center was assigned to the “senior secretary”. The material pertaining to the party power of the Upper Volga region discloses the practices of replacing key nomenclature posts in the regional government during the 1950s and 1960s. These include the transfer of experienced management personnel from region to region, the appointment of an ethnic Russian as a second secretary in the national (union) republics, and the consideration of the region’s production specialisation when appointing a regional leader. The publication presents a study of the personal characteristics of individual party leaders in the Upper Volga regions during the 1950s and 1960s. This study draws conclusions about two possible scenarios that may have occurred in the careers of the first secretaries of the Upper Volga regional committees in the period following Khrushchev’s resignation. The first scenario is the stabilisation of the power status in the region, and the second is the transfer of the first secretaries to Moscow to a higher post in the nomenclature hierarchy. The first option pertained to the case of Ponomarev and Loshchenkov, the respective party leaders of the Vladimir and Yaroslavl regions. The second variant was realised in the careers of the first secretaries of the Ivanovo and Kostroma regional committees — Kapitonov and Florentyev, respectively — who went to the capital for promotion. As was subsequently demonstrated, by the close of the 1960s, an emergent pattern of “regional political longevity” among the first secretaries of the regional committee had come to the fore, a phenomenon that can be attributed to the policy of “trust in personnel” espoused by Brezhnev. Following Khrushchev’s resignation, the center permitted the replacement of the post of first secretary of the regional committee with a representative of the local party organisation. This trend was manifestly evident in the Ivanovo region. a phenomenon that can be attributed to the policy of “trust in personnel” espoused by Brezhnev. Following Khrushchev’s resignation, the center permitted the replacement of the post of first secretary of the regional committee with a representative of the local party organisation. This trend was manifestly evident in the Ivanovo region. a phenomenon that can be attributed to the policy of “trust in personnel” espoused by Brezhnev. Following Khrushchev’s resignation, the center permitted the replacement of the post of first secretary of the regional committee with a representative of the local party organisation. This trend was manifestly evident in the Ivanovo region. posts in the regional government during the 1950s and 1960s. These include the transfer of experienced management personnel from region to region, the appointment of an ethnic Russian as a second secretary in the national (union) republics, and the consideration of the region’s production specialisation when appointing a regional leader. The publication presents a study of the personal characteristics of individual party leaders in the Upper Volga regions during the 1950s and 1960s. This study draws conclusions about two possible scenarios that may have occurred in the careers of the first secretaries of the Upper Volga regional committees in the period following Khrushchev’s resignation. The first scenario is the stabilisation of the power status in the region, and the second is the transfer of the first secretaries to Moscow to a higher post in the nomenclature hierarchy. The first option pertained to the case of Ponomarev and Loshchenkov, the respective party leaders of the Vladimir and Yaroslavl regions. The second variant was realised in the careers of the first secretaries of the Ivanovo and Kostroma regional committees — Kapitonov and Florentyev, respectively — who went to the capital for promotion. As was subsequently demonstrated, by the close of the 1960s, an emergent pattern of “regional political longevity” among the first secretaries of the regional committee had come to the fore, a phenomenon that can be attributed to the policy of “trust in personnel” espoused by Brezhnev. Following Khrushchev’s resignation, the center permitted the replacement of the post of first secretary of the regional committee with a representative of the local party organisation. This trend was manifestly evident in the Ivanovo region.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — P. V. Sedov. OLD BELIEVERS IN THE VVEDENSKY TIKHVIN MONASTERY IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 17TH CENTURY

The article under scrutiny here focuses on the Old Believers of the Vvedensky Convent in Tikhvin in the latter half of the 17th century. The author conducted a detailed analysis of the adherence to the pre-Nikon rite in this convent, utilising newly obtained archival data as a foundation for their research. The authorities of the neighbouring Great Dormition Monastery utilised accusations of schism against the Vvedensky elders in a protracted land dispute, which subsequently served as the impetus for the eradication of the pre-Nikonian rite in that locale. For many years, the residents of the monastery maintained the traditional church rite. However, under pressure from the Nikonian authorities, they repented and did not openly resist. This tendency was prevalent among a significant proportion, perhaps even the majority, of Old Believers, a strategy that enabled them to endure adversity and maintain their spiritual beliefs in the face of oppression from the authorities.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — V. G. Vovina-Lebedeva. PEASANT ELECTIONS IN VERKHOVAZHYE AT THE TURN OF THE 17TH–18TH CENTURIES

The article under scrutiny herein undertakes a thorough analysis of the election documents of 1704 for the Pezhemskaya volost, which have been preserved in the Archives of the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. These materials serve to supplement extant information regarding Pezhma for a previously documented period, and have been incorporated into the scholarly discourse for some time. The analysis demonstrates that the peasants of the Pezhemskaya volost were compelled to hold elections in 1704 to fulfil certain obligations to the state on at least 17 occasions. Nevertheless, the notion of a total elective principle that became entrenched in the lives of northern peasants during the 17th century is not without its limitations. In the event of a clear and demonstrable connection between the world and state power through the elected, the internal life of the volost, which did not concern the collection of taxes or other duties to the authorities and was outside the electoral traditions, remained largely in the shadows.

|

PHJ № 1 (33) 2022 — I. V. Zimin, A. A. Zhuravlev. REVIEW OF THE BOOK: GRAND DUCAL RESIDENCES OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN 1826–1917: CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS. STUDY AND DOCUMENTS / COMP. A. A. EFIMOV. ST. PETERSBURG, ISTORICHESKAYA ILLUSTRATSIYA, 2020. 288 P.

Review of the collection of research and documents prepared by the group of authors consisting of A. A. Efimov, S. S. Kurochkin and O. A. Lyubeznikov under the leadership of A. A. Efimov. The publication examines and publishes documents reflecting certain aspects of the participation of the august customers in the administration and financing of palace construction. Its main advantage lies in the introduction of archival documents into scientific circulation, which significantly supplement the history of the creation of a number of palaces of the members of the House of Romanov both in St. Petersburg and in the regions of Russia.

PHJ № 2 (46) 2025 — R. A. Davydov. INSTRUCTION OF THE ARKHANGELSK MEDICAL BOARD OF 1837 ON THE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF SCURVY ON NOVAYA ZEMLYA AND SPITSBERGEN

This work is a publication of the document “Instruction for the prevention of mortality occurring on Novaya Zemlya and Spitsbergen from scurvy”. The document was prepared at the suggestion of the military governor of Arkhangelsk after a number of deaths from scurvy among Russians engaged in hunting on Spitsbergen in the mid-1830s. The text of the document was drafted at the Arkhangelsk Medical Board in 1837 and printed as a pamphlet at the provincial printing house in the same year. The pamphlets were sent to the local police departments of the province to supply shipowners involved in organizing hunting expeditions to the Arctic archipelagos of Novaya Zemlya and Spitsbergen. One of the copies of the pamphlet is currently kept in the State Archives of the Arkhangelsk region. This document is interesting because it describes the main symptoms and the course of the disease in a laconic form, in a language understandable to a non-specialist. In particular, to prevent scurvy, those who hunted in the Arctic archipelagoes were advised to use sour products, i. e. sauerkraut, horseradish, cloudberries, cranberries and lingonberries. These products were easily available to the provincial population and could be stored for long periods during hunting expeditions. For the treatment of scurvy, it was recommended to “drink with the juice of cranberries or cloudberries” and a decoction of conifers, more precisely a decoction of pine cones. Thus, in 1837 — almost a century before vitamin C was officially discovered, artificially synthesised and the dependence of scurvy on a deficiency of this vitamin in the body was proven — doctors in Arkhangelsk gave recommendations for the prevention and treatment of scurvy patients, focusing on providing people with foods rich in vitamin C.богатыми именно витамином C.