V. A. Shkerin. A Dispute Between Two Generals about Serfdom // Petersburg Historical Journal,
no. 4, 2025, рр. 56–65.

DOI: 10.51255/2311–603X_2025_4_56

Abstract:

Those who participated in the Decembrist movement from its inception and disassociated themselves from it no later than the dissolution of the Union of Welfare (1821) were, in general, not subjected to retribution. Those who were released during the investigation (frequently even without personal participation in it) or emerged from the trial completely cleared of suspicion accounted for half of all the defendants (290 people). It is evident that a considerable proportion of individuals belonging to the secret society who evaded retribution and were subsequently punished indicates that one of the primary outcomes of the Decembrist movement was the edification of liberal-oriented figures during the second quarter and the middle of the 19th century. The article examines the attitudes of two generals and major administrators of the Nicholas I era towards the problem of exploitation of the labour of serfs. One such individual is V. A. Glinka, the chief head of the Ural mining plants, who, during his youth, was a member of the Decembrist Union of Prosperity society. The second is the director of the Imperial Military Academy and proprietor of metallurgical enterprises in the Urals, I. O. Sukhozanet, who is most
renowned for personally directing the artillery bombardment of the Decembrist rebels on 14 December 1825. Sukhozanet advanced the argument that the manufacturer’s right to “baptised property” should be defended, proposing that for enlightened nobles, the management of serfs constituted a form of public service, an obligation to “direct the masses of uneducated people to strict subordination”. Glinka, however, was diametrically opposed to this. Without delving into the broader discourse on the prospects of serfdom, he advocated for stringent legislative
oversight of the duties and rights of factory workers, thereby curtailing the prerogatives of the breeders.

Key words: Decembrists movement, Union of Prosperity, peasant question, serfdom, V. A. Glinka,
I. O. Sukhozanet, history of Russia in the first half of the 19th century.

Author:

Shkerin, Vladimir Anatol’evich — Dr. of Sciences in History, Institute of History and Archaeology,
Ural branch of the RAS (Ekaterinburg, Russia).
E-mail: shkerin_uit@mail.ru
ORCID: 0000-0003-3925-2873

References:

Gudkov, G. F., Gudkova, Z. I. Iz istorii yuzhnoural’skikh zavodov XVIII–XIX vekov: Istoriko-kraevedcheskie ocherki [From the History of the South Ural Factories of the 18th and 19th Centuries: Historical and Local Studies. In Russ.]. Part 1. Ufa, Bashkirskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo press, 1985. 454 p.

Il’in, P. V. Novoe o dekabristakh: Proshchennye, opravdannye i neobnaruzhennye uchastniki tainykh obshchestv i voennykh vystuplenii 1825–1826 gg. [New about the Decembrists: Forgiven, Acquitted, and Undiscovered Members of Secret Societies and Military Uprisings in 1825–1826. In Russ.]. St. Petersburg, Nestor-Istoriya publ., 2004. 664 p.

Kiyanskaya, O. I. Ocherki iz istorii obshchestvennogo dvizheniya v Rossii v pravlenie Aleksandra I [Essays on the History of the Social Movement in Russia during the Reign of Alexander I. In Russ.]. St. Petersburg, Nestor-Istoriya publ., 2008. 301 p.

Konopka, N., Shkerin, V. Tri versii istorii masons’koi lozhі “Lyubov do Іstini na skhіd Poltavi” [Three
Versions of the Story of the Masonic Lodge “Love for Truth in the East of Poltava”. In Ukr.]. In Naukovі zapiski Nacіonal’nogo unіversitetu “Ostroz’ka akademіya”: Іstorichnі nauki. 2011. Iss. 17, pp. 318–336.

Mukomolov, A. F. Na yuzhnoural’skikh zavodakh [At the South Ural Plants. In Russ.]. Part III. Moscow, Territoriya publ., 2004. 472 p.

Neklyudov, E. G. Ural’skie zavodchiki v pervoi polovine XIX veka: vladel’tsy i vladeniya [Ural Factory Owners in the First Half of the 19th Century: Owners and Estates. In Russ.]. Nizhnii Tagil, 2004. 596 p.

Ravdin, B. N., Roginsky, A. B. Zapiska dekabrista M. N. Novikova “O zemledelii i manufakturakh
v Rossii” (1816 g.) [Mikhail Novikov’s Note on Agriculture and Manufactories in Russia (1816). In Russ.]. In Osvoboditel’noe dvizhenie v Rossii. Saratov, 1975. Iss. 5., pp. 112–143.

Serkov, A. I. Istoriya russkogo masonstva XIX veka [The history of Russian Freemasonry of the 19th century. In Russ.]. St. Petersburg, Izdatel’stvo imeni N. I. Novikova, 2000. 390 p.

Shkerin V. A. “…Vidno, tainoe obshchestvo sostoyalo ne iz odnikh zloumyshlennykh i beznravstvennykh lyudey”: k voprosu o fenomene “dekabristov bez dekabrya” [“…It can be Seen, that the Secret Society Consisted not Only of Malicious and Immoral People”: To the Question of Phenomenon of “Decembrists without December”. In Russ.]. In Peterburgskii istoricheskii zhurnal. 2019. No. 2, pp. 168–178.

Similar Posts

| |

PHJ № 3 (47) 2025 — A. N. Chistikov. ORDERS OF THE FILM REPERTOIRE CONTROL DEPARTMENT AS A HISTORICAL SOURCE

The article is devoted to the analysis of the orders of the Department for the Control of film Repertoire of the Main Directorate of Cinematography and Film Distribution as a historical source. These materials have not yet been subjected to a source assessment. The orders for 1954–1955 are used for the study. In the history of the country, these were the first years of the activity of the new political leadership, which led to noticeable changes in the domestic and foreign policy of the state. In the history of cinema, the period of low-quality has come to an end. The orders included an assessment of the movies’ readiness for rental or for continued display. According to the results of such an examination, they were divided into four groups: 1) allow, 2) extend, 3) remove, and 4) make corrections. The analysis of the orders leads the author to the conclusion that their use by historians will contribute to a more in-depth study of the history of Soviet cinema and film distribution, as well as state policy in the field of leisure. In some cases, orders can be considered as one of the tools for recording changes in the domestic and foreign policy of the Soviet country in the mid‑1950s and forming a new public opinion of Soviet viewers.

| |

PHJ № 3 (47) 2025 — O. V. Tatarnikov. THE FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORENBURG TELEVISION STUDIO DURING THE “THAW” (1961–1964)

The article examines the period of formation and development of the Orenburg Television Studio in 1961–1964. The main focus is on studying the structure of the TV studio, its repertoire and the everyday moments of its work. The article also describes various difficulties that plagued Orenburg television Broadcasting in the early years of its operation. The author emphasizes the influence of the “thaw” era on the active development of central and regional television in the USSR. Due to the fact that television staff have a certain creative freedom during this period, the Orenburg Television Studio was able to come from chaotic broadcasting to regular production of programs and films of its own production on central television in the 4 years that fell during this era. The author concludes that Orenburg television of the “thaw” era simultaneously combined an educational, entertaining and ideological repertoire. This feature has allowed local television broadcasting to become one of the main ways for Orenburg residents to spend their leisure time. The article is based on an extensive source base consisting of office records, periodical materials and sources of personal origin.

| |

PHJ № 3 (47) 2025 — T. V. Sazonova. “SHE WAS DOING THE OPPOSITE TO THE HOLY CHURCH”: PRINCESS ANNA KHILKOVA IN THE GORITSKY MONASTERY

The article contains and analyzes all available materials regarding one of the famous residents of the Goritsky nunnery, Anna Pavlovna Khilkova. An analysis of the news regarding her family ties and land ownership is conducted, with the documents concerning her exile to the nunnery and subsequent escape from it being meticulously examined. It is evident that A. P. Khilkova is a staunch supporter of the Old Belief, according to the sources cited. The exile of the subject to the Goritsky nunnery had no effect on her beliefs, nor did it compel her to observe the Nikonian rites, at least in public. It became evident to her that she would not be left unaccompanied, and consequently she absconded from the nunnery, a manoeuvre which was facilitated by the perpetual “unrest” therein. It is hypothesised that her subsequent fate was connected with the Old Believer communities of Romanov and Poshekhonye.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — P. V. Ilyin. MEMOIRS OF THE “SURVIVING” PARTICIPANTS OF THE DECEMBRIST MOVEMENT: FEATURES OF A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW

This represents a novel approach in historiography, whereby the memoirs of participants in clandestine societies and rebellions of 1825 who evaded a court sentence are regarded as a distinct category of Decembrist memoir sources. The diaries and memoirs published by members of the movement who were subjected to extrajudicial repression, released from punishment, or not involved in the investigation (F. N. Glinka, P. Kh. Grabbe, F. P. Litke, S. P. Shipov, and others) contain various kinds of descriptions or references to the previous Decembrist experience of memoirists. The article, in its concise form, underscores the author’s perspective on the memoirs of the “survived” Decembrists. These memoirs make references or omit information regarding participation in clandestine organisations, as well as involvement in the investigation into the political movement during the era of Alexander I. The article provides commentary on the concealment of their affiliation with such organisations, along with other distortions and omissions that are characteristic of memoirists within this series. The article employs a chronological approach to grading the memoirs, meticulously categorising them based on the time of their creation. This systematic grading method ranges from notes that emerged during the events of 1825–1826 to subsequent autobiographical recollections. Following an initial analysis, conclusions are drawn about the attitude of the “surviving” members of the Decembrist movement to their political past. This ranges from denial or concealment to recognition of belonging to secret societies and the conspiracy of 1825.

PHJ № 2 (46) 2025 — M. A. Nosko, I. S. Ratkovsky. “I WAS 15 YEARS OLD WHEN, IN 1903, I WAS ACCEPTED AT THE SESTRORETSK FACTORY…”: ON THE BIOGRAPHY OF V. A. EMELYANOV

The article provides an analysis of significant aspects of the biography of Vasily Alexandrovich Emelyanov (1888–1978), a worker at the Sestroretsk Arms Factory and a member of a prominent family involved in concealing V. I. Lenin in Razliv in 1917. The authors undertake a thorough examination of his revolutionary activities, encompassing the transportation of weapons and illegal literature from Finland, participation in combat squads, and his subsequent arrests and exile. Of particular note are the events of December 1907, when V. A. Emelyanov was involved in armed clashes with the authorities. The study introduces hitherto unexplored and newly discovered sources into academic circulation, thereby facilitating a comprehensive reassessment of the social and socio-political history of Sestroretsk during the revolutionary transformations. The researchers identify contradictions in V. A. Emelyanov’s recollections of the 1917 events and compare them with archival materials. The authors emphasise the significance of an interdisciplinary approach, reflecting sociocultural changes in the local revolutionary movement. The article emphasises the necessity of further in-depth research into the biographies of labour movement participants to gain a more complete understanding of their role in the revolutionary events of the early 20th century.

PHJ № 2 (46) 2025 — A. Yu. Stefanenko. HARVESTING VEGETABLES IN BESIEGED LENINGRAD

After the end of the first winter of the blockade in 1941–1942, the Leningrad leadership was faced with the problem of finding new sources of food. One of the most important areas became the organisation of the harvest of agricultural products, especially vegetables and potatoes. The city’s leaders launched mass campaigns to create individual gardens and send Leningraders to plant, weed and harvest crops and vegetables on the subsidiary farms of enterprises and state farms in the Leningrad region. At the same time, the authorities had to solve a number of organisational and social problems. Throughout the blockade, there was an acute shortage of equipment and supplies. The irrational use of available human resources led to the loss of vegetables through spoilage and theft. Nevertheless, the mobilisation campaigns helped to supply Leningrad with food and to prevent a repetition of the tragedy of the “time of death”.