Пожалуйста, введите доступный Вам адрес электронной почты. По окончании процесса покупки Вам будет выслано письмо со ссылкой на книгу.

Выберите способ оплаты
Некоторые из выбранных Вами книг были заказаны ранее. Вы уверены, что хотите купить их повторно?
Некоторые из выбранных Вами книг были заказаны ранее. Вы можете просмотреть ваш предыдущий заказ после авторизации на сайте или оформить новый заказ.
В Вашу корзину были добавлены книги, не предназначенные для продажи или уже купленные Вами. Эти книги были удалены из заказа. Вы можете просмотреть отредактированный заказ или продолжить покупку.

Список удаленных книг:

В Вашу корзину были добавлены книги, не предназначенные для продажи или уже купленные Вами. Эти книги были удалены из заказа. Вы можете авторизоваться на сайте и просмотреть список доступных книг или продолжить покупку

Список удаленных книг:

Купить Редактировать корзину Логин
Расширенный поиск Простой поиск
«+» - книги обязательно содержат данное слово (например, +Пушкин - все книги о Пушкине).
«-» - исключает книги, содержащие данное слово (например, -Лермонтов - в книгах нет упоминания Лермонтова).
«&&» - книги обязательно содержат оба слова (например, Пушкин && Лермонтов - в каждой книге упоминается и Пушкин, и Лермонтов).
«OR» - любое из слов (или оба) должны присутствовать в книге (например, Пушкин OR Лермонтов - в книгах упоминается либо Пушкин, либо Лермонтов, либо оба).
«*» - поиск по части слова (например, Пушк* - показаны все книги, в которых есть слова, начинающиеся на «пушк»).
«""» - определяет точный порядок слов в результатах поиска (например, "Александр Пушкин" - показаны все книги с таким словосочетанием).
«~6» - число слов между словами запроса в результатах поиска не превышает указанного (например, "Пушкин Лермонтов"~6 - в книгах не более 6 слов между словами Пушкин и Лермонтов)

Страница недоступна для просмотра

OK Cancel
Rural Unrest during the First Russian Revolution Kursk Province, 1905-1906 Burton Richard Miller Rural Unrest during the First Russian Revolution Historical Studies in Eastern Europe and Eurasia Volume I Series editors: Alexei Miller, Alfred Rieber, Marsha Siefert Rural Unrest during the First Russian Revolution Kursk Province, 1905–1906 Burton Richard Miller Central European University Press Budapest–New York © 2013 by Published in 2013 by Central European University Press An imprint of the Central European University Limited Liability Company Nádor utca 11, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary Tel: +36-1-327-3138 or 327-3000 Fax: +36-1-327-3183 E-mail: ceupress@ceu.hu Website: www.ceupress.com 400 West 59th Street, New York NY 10019, USA Tel: +1-212-547-6932 Fax: +1-646-557-2416 E-mail: martin.greenwald@opensocietyfoundations.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the permission of the Publisher. ISBN 978-615-5225-17-8 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Miller, Burton Richard. Rural unrest during the first Russian Revolution : Kursk Province, 1905-1906 / Burton Richard Miller. pages cm. -- (Historical studies in Eastern Europe and Eurasia ; volume 1) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-6155225178 (hardbound) 1. Russia--History--Revolution, 1905-1907--Social aspects--Russia (Federation)-Kurskaia oblast’. 2. Peasants--Russia (Federation)--Kurskaia oblast’--History-20th century. 3. Villages--Russia (Federation)--Kurskaia oblast’--History--20th century. 4. Social conflict--Russia (Federation)--Kurskaia oblast’--History--20th century. 5. Government, Resistance to--Russia (Federation)--Kurskaia oblast’-History--20th century. 6. Social change--Russia (Federation)--Kurskaia oblast’-History--20th century. 7. Kurskaia oblast’ (Russia)--History--20th century. 8. Kurskaia oblast’ (Russia)--Rural conditions. I. Title. DK264.2.K78M55 2013 947'.35--dc23 2012047916 Printed in Hungary by Prime Rate Kft., Budapest Dedicated to the memory of IRINA ANATOL’EVNA MILLER 1954–2001 Contents List of Maps, Tables and Figures ix Acknowledgments xi Introduction 1 I Kursk Province on the Eve of the Revolution 53 II 1905 in the Rural Districts of Kursk Province 137 III Rural Disorders in Spring–Summer 1906 187 IV Typology, Chronology and Geographical Distributions of Rural Disorders, 1905–1906 225 V The Villages That Revolted 289 Conclusion 339 Appendix A: Correlation Tables: Parishes and Villages 355 Appendix B: Villages Listing 365 Abbreviations 385 Glossary 387 Sources and Literature 389 Index 429 List of Maps, Tables and Figures Map 1 Central Districts, May–June, 1906 xv Table 1.1 Distribution of the Peasant Population in Kursk Province in the Mid-1880s, by District and Juridical Standing 60 Table 1.2 Rural Population and Its Density per Square Versta, by District, Kursk Province, 1862–1897 68 Table 1.3 Percentage Change in Average Area of Allotment per Household in Kursk Province between 1877 and 1905 71 Figure 1.1 Crude Demographic Indices, Kursk Province, 1868–1910 75 Table 1.4 Grain Production in Kursk Province, 1885–1913 77 Figure 1.2 Average Net Yields on Allotments, Kursk Province, 1885–1913 (by District) 79 Figure 1.3 Distribution (by Year) of Criminal Cases Docketed in the Kursk Regional Court, 1876–1913 130 Map 2 Kursk Province 146 Map 3 Dmitriev District, 6–22 February, 1905 164 Map 4 Oskol’ River Valley, 1–5 November, 1905 168 Map 5 Central Districts, 3–7 November, 1905 184 Map 6 Putivl’ District, December, 1905 208 Figure 4.1 Rural Disorders, Kursk Province, 1905–1906 227 Acknowledgments At one point in its life cycle in the second half of the twentieth century, a part of my generation of Americans was closely concerned with the question of social and political change, the transitional processes by which the mythologies and traditions that define a known societal present move into an unknown future. The manuscript that is presented in the following pages is a legacy of that brief era of intellectual ferment, an expression of my abiding interest in the character and pre-history of the “revolutionary situation”—that most extreme expression of these tectonic movements— that develops within the vast, dense and infinitely intricate architecture of customs, interrelationships, transactions, interests, expectations and perceptions, all shaped by the past, that identify a social order, render it cohesive, serve as the matrix within which individual members orient their lives, and invest its arrangements of power, authority and obedience with the vital measure of legitimacy. In the course of the extended research and writing that is presented to the reader in this volume, the author has come to the view that the keystone in this complex architecture is and remains the essential aspiration of individuals or groups of individuals toward that sense of justice that resides in the moral, material and institutional recognition by the larger society of their right to subsistence and survival, however true it is that the material requirements of “subsistence” and “survival” come to be defined very differently in different epochs and different societies. That the history of the Russian Empire during its twilight decades provided an appropriate framework for this inquiry was a conviction that derived from my earliest work with Professors Richard G. Robbins and Byron T. Lindsey during the waning years of a long undergraduate so- xii Acknowledgments journ at the University of New Mexico. To these I am obliged not only for this grand initial impetus, but also for imparting to me for the first time a profound sense of this history as a matter to be approached strictly on its own terms, shorn of the overarching preconceptions and expectations engendered by my specifically American heritage and prejudices. The monograph that follows, however, is principally the product of an extended professional preparation at Columbia University under the direction of the late Professor Leopold Henri Haimson (1927–2010). This collaboration incorporated my participation in Professor Haimson’s justly celebrated cycle of colloquia in which the asynchronous historical movement of the constituent elements of Imperial Russian society toward the shattering events of the early twentieth century were reconstructed against the backdrop of those transformative social, economic and cultural forces that gradually crystallized into a spectrum of unprecedented challenges to the existing order toward the end of the nineteenth century. It was in the course of this intensive exercise that my interest in the themes that I present in the following pages emerged and evolved. My apprenticeship also included a three-year internship under Leo’s stewardship in the international Project of Labor History and its processing and analysis of primary statistical materials drawn from sources on industrial structures and labor unrest generated by various instances of the Imperial bureaucracy; the reader will have occasion to observe that this experience has exerted a powerful influence, for better or for worse, on the present work. The manuscript itself has been resurrected out of the author’s dissertation, written during his tenure as a Whiting Fellow (1990–1991) and as a fellow at the Harriman Institute for the Advanced Study of the Soviet Union (1991–1992, 1992–1993), and submitted in partial fulfillment of the doctoral requirements at Columbia University at the end of 1992. The thesis was directly inspired by the fertile and profound sense of historical development that Professor Haimson propounded and under his close supervision. Even after those eleven years of direct collaboration came to a close, Leo nevertheless kept a close watch over his former student and spared no opportunity to militate for a return to a revision of that initial and rather chaotic composition, first in the form of a short summary précis, written in Paris during 2002–2004, and then in a reworking of the entire manuscript upon my return to New York. These writings were reviewed with pleasure by my former boss, until such time as the state of his health no longer permitted him to take on such tasks. In the truest of senses, this work is as much Leo’s as it is mine, though any lapses in the analysis and failings of the ultimate conclusions are strictly those of the author. It is my 40 Introduction unrest was still largely absent. This framing resulted in depictions of the actors that drove events in Russia’s rural districts in 1905–1907 as a homogeneous mass of “peasants,” as ideological stereotypes in close accordance with a master narrative (kulak-seredniak-bedniak) or as “middle peasants.” Non-actors—those that took no part in acts of protest, whatever their sympathies—remain entirely invisible. Lastly, the panoramic perspective tended to promote a picture of the great scale of rural protest during 1905–1906, despite the real absence of any consistent analyses of local events. It was this convention in the literature on rural collective actions in Russia during 1905–1906 that prompted the author to design the research of those events around a single province in the agricultural center of 100 European Russia. The device of the “case study” is chosen in order to offer a scale of observation somewhat narrower than the “all-Russian” frame of reference that typifies historical literature on the peasant disorders of 1905–1906, in both Russia and the West. To be sure, the principal resources have been in scholarly circulation for almost a century— fragments of official reporting on the events themselves since the 1920s and the vast corpus of materials (both statistical and descriptive) treating multiple facets of rural life in the provinces of the Empire (gathered both by state agents and by local specialists in the employ of the zemstvo) from the 1870s onwards. The study thus seeks to replicate some of the advan101 of micro-history as Jacques Revel has described them. The selection, employment and interaction of these source materials in a closely limited geographical focus, it was hoped, would magnify their explanatory power not only for describing the context of revolutionary unrest in the rural districts in a concrete fashion, but also for teasing out the immediate background both for specific acts of protest and, just as importantly, for non-participation in such acts. In this circumscribed geographical setting, the analysis will demonstrate that “context” was not at all uniform, but multiple: differences in access to material resources, survival of social interactions between lord and peasant on the ground and contending elements of socio-historical memory among diverse peasant cohorts will be 100 To my knowledge, the only relatively recent efforts to take an entirely local view of the causes of revolutionary unrest in the countryside during and after 1905, based on the close study of a single province, are Wilbur, “The Peasant Economy,” Ph.D dissertation, University of Michigan, 1977, and Mixter, “Peasant Collective Action,” in Wade and Seregny, eds., Politics and Society, 191–232. 101 Jacques Revel, “Microanalysis,” in Revel and Hunt, eds., Histories, 492–502. 41 Introduction shown in unexpected relief, not only between communities of former state peasants and those of ex-serfs, but also between rural dwellers in big settlements and those of the many small villages and hamlets that dominated the provincial landscape. From this more local perspective, I will attempt to close in on tentative answers to several questions that have long stood at issue in the literature on rural unrest in 1905–1906 and animated the disputes that we reviewed in the foregoing sections. What was the general character and scale of revolutionary processes at work in the outbreak of peasant unrest in the localities themselves? How can we more closely identify the milieux from which unrest first emerged? Were there identifiable actors who played key roles, who served as initiators or catalysts for larger events, whether from within, from outside or from somewhere astride criteria usual to definitions of “peasantries?” Is it possible, on a level of aggregation closer to events themselves, to approximate more precisely specific local factors that distinguished villages involved in peasant unrest—by the nature of their interaction with nearby landowners or of their particular occupational orientations? One best approaches answers to such questions by close analysis of peasant unrest in the narrow confines of the localities in which they occur, and by an effort to acquaint oneself, as far as the sources permit, with the character of the villages identified with incidents of disorder. Such an approach, it seemed to me, could shed further light on the nature and scale of the peasant movement during 1905–1906, on its intensity and typological and chronological “architecture,” but already in local contexts. Using a large sample of villages associated by documentary sources with incidents of unrest, one may then erect a socio-economic profile of the “milieu” from which the key actors of the movement emerged and with which those detachments of the peasantry that took part in these events were associated. The selection of the provincial setting for the case study, however, was admittedly driven by the author’s own initial expectations that a study of peasant unrest during the First Russian Revolution could be conducted within the context of a “traditional” rural order, still remote from those economic, social and cultural influences that had transformed the face not only of Russia’s urban and industrial centers, but also of the provinces that lay within their orbit. Within the central region of European Russia during the Imperial period, Kursk Province was bounded by Orel and Chernigov Provinces to the north and west (respectively), by Khar’kov and part of Poltava guberniia along its southern border and by Voronezh guberniia to the east, and formed part of a group of provinces known con- 125 Kursk Province on the Eve of the Revolution adjudicate criminal matters according to the Rural Judicial Code, parish courts had broader latitude in civil cases, their decisions and fines based on local customs, folk perceptions of justice and the reputations of litigants. If the peasant milieu had slowly grown familiar with both rural codes and regulations and concepts from the general legislation, parish venues applied these unevenly or inconsistently. State officials, armed with broad review power, could interfere at any point and abrogate any decision. Appeals were problematic, for here, peasant appellants found themselves in another judicial world entirely. In this context, real dissonances ensued, since provincial instances—randomly endowed with personnel with training or knowledge of jurisprudence—tried all the same to square up appeals of decisions rooted in customary law to the framework of Imperial codes. This collision of cultures was made even more onerous by the cost of all ventures into the judicial thicket beyond parish venues. Widespread corruption, blatant conflicts of interest, the arbitrary nature of decisions at all levels, the ubiquitous influence of the local estate owners 165 and the clash of customary and written law were endemic. Rural police forces in each county, partly appointed and salaried (the county police chief and his assistant, four precinct captains and between 10 and 18 constables), and partly elected by peasants as hundredsmen and tensmen (sotskie, desiatskie) for three-year terms, were likewise held in very low esteem. Up until 1903, the former never numbered more than 273 officers to patrol an area of 17,937 square miles with a rural popula166 (“counties minus the towns”) of 2.5 million. The latter—there were 165 Trudy mestnykh komitetov: 160–161 (“Zapiska krest’ianina Alekseia Kirillovicha Kozakova v iuridichesko-pravovuiu kommissiiu Dmitrievskago Uyezdnago Komiteta o nuzhdakh sel’skokhoziaistvennoi promyshlennosti”); 329–330 (“Doklad Troitskago volostnogo starshiny V. E. Besedina ob izmenenii poriadka naznacheniia i zhalovan’ia sel’skim i volostnym dolzhnostnym litsam i o zamene vyborov ikh naznacheniem”); 650 (“Zapiska krest’ianina N. T. Volkova o reorganizatsii krest’ianskago opekunskago dela i v sviazi s etim o reorganizatsii voobshche krest’ianskikh upravlenii”); 685–688 (“Zapiska krest’ianina F. S. Koroleva o neobkhodimosti korennogo izmenenii krest’ianskoi iustitsii i ob organizatsii iuridicheskoi pomoshchi krest’ianskomu naseleniiu”); 707–708 (“Doklad krest’ianina T. Saburova o krest’ianskom sude”). The work of parish courts is reviewed in Leont’ev, Volostnoi sud and recently, Czap, “PeasantClass Courts,” JSH, 1: 2 (1967), 149–178; Lewin, “Customary Law and Russian Rural Society in the Post-Reform Era,” RR, 44: 2 (1985), 1–19 (and following); Frank, Crime; Shatkovskaia, Pravovaia mental’nost’. 166 Each county had a chief officer (ispravnik), his assistant and a small bureau quartered in the county seat. All fifteen counties were divided into four precincts (stan’) directed by a precinct captain (stanovoi pristav) assisted by two to four constables (uriadniki). 126 Rural Unrest during the First Russian Revolution 1,996 hundredsmen and 8,430 tensmen according to a Ministry of Internal Affairs survey of 1888—were in their vast majority unpaid and illiter167 and since all self-respecting peasant householders did (or paid) all they could to avoid such onerous offices—which demanded in practice the interruption of the household economy—and the community often used the winter elections to rid themselves of troublemakers, chronic tax delinquents, drunkards or those incapable of running their household conscientiously, the quality of these rural officers, as a rule, never inspired respect 168 among fellow villagers. Indeed, the verdict of peasant rapporteurs at local committees on the needs of the local economy in 1902 was unambiguous: assiduous in collecting taxes and dues or rounding up recruits, the rural police force appeared helpless or lethargic in the struggle against crime that increasingly plagued rural society, not to speak of more mundane matters, such as ensuring observance of fire codes, monitoring weights and measures, or differentiating toxic from non-toxic goods at 169 bazaars. Lack of zeal, rampant corruption and favoritism toward inBefore the reform of 1903, these latter numbered 180 for the province as a whole. From S. N. Glavinskaia, “Organizatsionno-pravovaia sistema,” in G. A. Saltyk et al., Politsiia Kurskoi gubernii, 143. Similarly, Stephen P. Frank calculates that for Riazan District in 1888, a force of four captains and eleven constables patrolled 3,719 square kilometers with 174,790 inhabitants; in Kazimov District, three captains and ten constables served 150,908 inhabitants within an area of 4,743 square kilometers. Frank, Crime, 30–36. 167 Of 1,996 hundredsmen in Kursk Province recorded by the survey in 1888, 1,419 (71.1%) served without any compensation at all; fully 1,745 (87.4%) were illiterate. Among tensmen—8,430 in that year—this situation was even worse: 8,009 served without pay. Of their number, only 580 (6.8%) were registered as literate. To be sure, in many cases (roughly a third of hundredsmen and perhaps half of the corpus of tensmen), these officers gained some exemption from communal obligations for roadwork, convoy and/or guard duty or from parish and/or communal taxes. VTsSK, Vyp. 9 (1889): Svedeniia o chisle sotskikh i desiatskikh v 1888 godu. Under the legislation introducing the units of police patrolmen in 1903 (PSZ, III, t. 23, otd. I, at No. 22906, 5 May 1903, 477–481: “Ob uchrezhdenii v 46-ti guberniiakh Evropeiskoi Rossii politseiskoi strazhi”), the sotskie were abolished and the tensmen placed in the service of the parish and communal administrative organs (VII: 1). 168 N. I. Gorlova, “Osnovy organizatsii i deiatel’nost’,” in G. A. Saltyk et al., Politsiia Kurskoi gubernii, 27–31. Gorlova notes that the resort of communal officials in weaker communities to imposing a rotation of the duties among all householders, and in stronger ones to hiring outsiders using public funds, was not uncommon. The latter practice was eventually adopted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (ibid., No. 22906, VII: 2). 169 On the truly vast responsibilities laid upon the police structures in Kursk Province, see Gorlova, “Osnovy organizatsii,” 82–119. Beyond the immediate struggle with crime, members of the rural police were tasked with facilitating the collection of taxes and labor obligations, monitoring Kursk Province’s religious dissident communities, control- 176 Rural Unrest during the First Russian Revolution Nikolaevna Iusupova at Rakitnaia began toward the end of October. Extensive timbering of her vast forests and the wooded tracts on the adjacent holdings of Pavel Ivanovich Kharitonenko, despite continuous sorties of Cossack units billeted on the estate, lasted into November and inflicted 97 losses to the sum of 50,000 rubles. Sloboda Rakitnaia, near which the estate of Princess Z. N. Iusupova, Countess Sumarokova-El’ston, is located, has a population of up to 10,000 and important significance for the surrounding localities. Already in the spring of this year, an agitated mood stemming from agrarian causes was observed among the peasants of Rakitnaia, but the dispatch of a squadron of dragoons, which remained until the beginning of September, prevented the emergence of unrest. Upon the removal of the dragoons from the estate and the posting of a hundred of Kuban Cossacks—this was never at full strength because of its sorties to other localities—tensions resurfaced, but now in the form of mass timbering. The importance of maintaining order at Rakitnaia—in order to forestall the spread of disorders to a considerable area—makes it necessary to recall the squadron of dragoons from Sumy, located 44 miles from Rakitnaia and connected with 98 it by rail. In August, the central installations of the huge estate of Count Aleksandr Dmitrievich Sheremet’ev at sloboda Borisovka (Borisovskaia Parish) had already been assaulted by peasant crowds (see above). On 15 November, however, massive timbering began in the estate’s forest preserves. The Land Captain of the Fifth Precinct reported as follows: At the same time that I was at Kustovo (14–17 November) for suppression of the peasant movement there, massive timbering of the forests of Count Sheremet’ev broke out on all sides [of the estate]: peasants of all five communes of Borisovskaia Parish, the Striguny commune and Porubezhnoe I and II [Strigunovskaia Parish—BRM] began to timber. On the 15th and 16th, some 500 peasants from each side participated (in this action), equipped with axes and saws. They carried the timbered lumber home on their shoulders in long lines with no concern at all, in broad daylight. After the 16th, crowds of 2,000 and more began to appear daily and the lumber began to be carted away. The measures and harangues of the administration accomplished nothing. Local police sought to aid matters, sending patrolmen into the woods with Count Sheremet’ev’s forest guard, but the peasants put up resistance, chasing after the patrols, the forest for Iusupova. Dates for these timbering incidents were verifiable elsewhere in the documents. The listing also referenced damage on the estate of the heirs of Prince Golitsyn “near the village of Orlovka” of 1,000 rubles, but no dating appears. Komissiia pri Kurskom gubispolkome po organizatsii prazdnovaniia 20-letiia revoliutsii 1905 goda, op. cit., 63–65. 97 GARF, f. 102, DP OO, op. 233 (II), 1905 g., d. 2550, ch. 44, l. 199. 98 Ibid., f. 102, 4-oe deloproizvodstvo, 1907 g., d. 34.1, ll. 49–49 ob. 177 1905 in the Rural Districts of Kursk Province guards, the village elders and the parish elder with axes, and there were several cases of severe beatings. In the end, it was impossible to enter the woods. The peasants transported the looted lumber home brazenly, in full view of all of their local offi99 units had reached Borisovka by the 28th of November and timbering temporarily ceased. In December, peasants from Vasil’evka (Rakitianskaia Parish) arrived in wagons on the estate of Sergei 100 Kirillovich Popov to carry off loads of oats and hemp. On 16 Decem101 timbering was once again to be resumed on Sheremet’ev’s estate. The November events again found a resonance in Dmitriev District. In the northwestern part of the district, on or about 11 November, the elders of Berezovskaia, Fateevskaia, Selinskaia, and Popovkinskaia Parishes declared a tax strike, in which prior consultations were evident. Land Captain of the Fifth Department Bulich noted, in addition, that in several villages (Fateevka, Zveniachka and others), peasants had presented acts of the commune, uniform in text and written by a single hand, declaring 102 abatement of all obligations for three years. Tax strikes in this district were probably more widespread: there are good indications that they extended, at this time, to Glamazdinskaia Parish and the “industrial” Mik103 Parish adjacent to the Fifth Land Department parishes. Troubles also emerged at sites associated with the February unrest. O. A. Shaufus wired the Governor from Petersburg on 9 November: “At Khomutovka, Glamazdinskaia Parish, disturbances have begun. I earnestly request protection”; on 11 November, Minister Durnovo sent on to Admiral Dubasov (in Chernigov) Baron Meiendorf’s urgent request for 99 RSKG, No. 149, p.126 (GAKO, f.1, op.15, d.13, ll. 132–132 ob.). The Land Captain’s presence at Kustovo was associated with looting and destruction by fire of the house and granaries on the estate of A. I. Shekun (damage was estimated at 6,000 rubles) at this site, which must have taken place sometime before November 14. 100 RGIA, f. 1405, op. 194, 1908 g., d.102, l. 24 (copy, report at No. 3472, 28 December 1905, Procurator of the Kursk Regional Court to the Procurator of Khar’kov Judicial Chamber). Disturbances took place on 14 December. 101 RSKG, No. 166, pp.134–135 (GAKO, f. 1, op. 15, d. 13, l. 216), telegram, superintendent of the Sheremet’ev estate to the Governor N. N. Gordeev, 17 December 1905. 102 Ibid., No. 129, p. 111 (GAKO, f. l, op. 15, d. 12, l. 31), report, Land Captain of the Fifth Department, Dmitrievskii District, to Governor N. N. Gordeev, 11 November 1905. 103 Operations to recover taxes in both parishes got under way—under cover of military detachments—in 1907, at Mikhailovka in February (ibid., No. 292, pp. 213–214 [GAKO, f. 1, op. 17, d. 69, ll. 11–12]) and at Vet’ in Glamazdinskaia Parish in March (No. 295, pp. 216–217 [GAKO, f. 1, op. 17, d. 4529, ll. 15–16]). 214 Rural Unrest during the First Russian Revolution was resisting, taking the option of just pouring sacks of grain into ra67 incidents of unrest in Graivoron District in June 1906 recall the more violent strains of the “troubles” of 1905, less intense disturbances in Shchigrov, Staryi Oskol’, Tim, Putivl’, and Belgorod Districts were almost entirely dominated, as elsewhere, by work stoppages collectively organized and enforced by the peasant communities that adjoined the targeted estates and directed toward depriving the owners of their work forces during the most intense period of the agricultural calendar. Such efforts to enforce a sort of labor boycott on the landowners, imposing such demands for the resumption of work that the aim of ruining the victim was evident, once again stands out in the documents. That this strategy had taken a step back from direct action in 1905 to the more familiar turf of the contractual relations between lord and peasant hardly diminishes the stubbornness with which peasant militancy in Kursk Province strove in the direction of its general goals. Among the reports preserved in the archival sources for this period, one finds very few incidents that recall the struggle of the peasantry to “smoke out” the landowners, yet, on occasion, peasant dissatisfaction continued to resort to such acts. Thus, in Nekliudovskaia Parish, Korocha District, in which acts of mass timbering of state forests involving several villages had been recorded from the end of December 1905 to mid-January 1906, peasants from the big villages of Nikol’skaia, Pentsovka and Koshliakova, on the night of 25 June, ransacked and burned the manor house and outbuildings of the estate of 68 Prince Iusupov after carting off the estate’s grain and other property. In another singular incident, which began on June 19 on the big estate of Nikolai Petrovich Dmitriev near Lukoianovka (Saltykovskaia Parish), Staryi Oskol’ District, the neighboring villagers importuned the owner to leave his estate, drove off all the estate’s laborers and proceeded to effect the outright seizure of the entire holding. For the next two weeks, the peasants of Lukoianovka, led by the village assembly, divided up the Dmitriev estate among themselves and took in the harvest, ceasing pay69 on leases: arrears mounted (Dmitriev’s estimate) to 16,000 rubles. On 21 July, a unit of policemen rode into Lukoianovka to begin making 67 GARF, f. 102, DP 00, op. 236 (II), 1906 g, d. 700, ch. 58, ll. 196, 201, 213, 226–226 ob. 68 RSKG, No. 265, p. 198 (GAKO, f. 5, op. 1, d. 1497, l. 42), telegram, unterofitser Romantsev, Kursk Provincial Gendarmerie, to Colonel Vel’k, Commandant, 30 June 1906. 69 Ibid., No. 272, p. 200 (GAKO, f. 1, op. 16, d. 6, ll. 47–52), telegram, landowner N. P. Dmitriev to Governor V. M. Borzenko, 4 July 1906. 215 Rural Disorders in Spring–Summer 1906 arrests, but they were immediately expelled from the settlement by force. Armed with chains, scythes, pitchforks, clubs and firearms, the peasants likewise attacked a unit of Cossacks hurriedly called to the scene. The crowd dispersed only after an exchange of gunfire in which one peasant was killed and six persons (including two Cossacks) were wounded. The atmosphere remained extremely tense; residents ignored outright an order 70 to summon the village assembly. It was only in his cable of 21 July, that the Governor was able to confirm that the hold of the local peasantry on the estate had been finally broken. Belgorod District had been almost without serious disorders in 1905, the result at least in part attributable to the united front forged by the very reactionary local gentry in its vigilance and its early and insistent campaign to secure, in addition to the garrison at Belgorod itself, a full squadron of dragoons on permanent station in the district. Unrest nevertheless emerged in June 1906 in the form of the expulsion of agricultural laborers on several estates. But on the estate of Nikolai Petrovich Volkov at Arkad’evka and Nelidovka (2,970 desiatiny), on 26 June, neighboring peasants, in a manner reminiscent of the 1905 unrest, burned down almost all structures, demolished the estate’s inventory and carted off grain and property not given up to the flames. Police units arrived on the scene at 71 the end of the incident and succeeded in seizing several ringleaders. Summarizing the situation at the end of June, Governor Borzenko reported the following: With the harvest time upon us, disturbances in the province have intensified and have spread to all districts of the guberniia. The peasants persistently raise demands; in several places there have been incidents of violence. On 26 June, at Nikol’skoe, Korocha District, the Iusupov estate was looted and burned down; in Belgorod District, on the 25th, the farmstead of Volkov was destroyed by arson. In both cases, the attacks were completely unexpected. The principal guilty parties have been arrested and incarcerated, the looted property returned to the owners. In Sudzha District, on the 16th at khutor Spasskaia, [the peasants] put up resistance to the troops, and the soldiers shot [at them]: seven peasants were wounded. On the 28th, at Bardakovka on the Sabashnikov estate in the same district, the peasants, making threats, demanded departure of 70 Ibid., No. 275, pp. 202–203 (GAKO, f. 1, op. 16, d. 6, ll. 83–85), telegram, Staryi Oskol’ District Police Commandant M. E. Pleshkov to Governor V. M. Borzenko, 22 July 1906. 71 GARF, f. 102, DP 00, op. 236 (II), 1906 g, d. 700, ch. 58, l. 167 (telegram, Provincial Marshal of the Nobility Count V. F. Dorrer, et al., to the Minister of Internal Affairs, 26 June 1906); RSKG, No. 261, p. 196 (GAKO, f. 1, op. 16, d. 11, l. 25), telegram, Belgorod District Police Commandant Loginov to Governor V. M. Borzenko, 27 June 1906. 278 Rural Unrest during the First Russian Revolution of plowland, it ran 8-, 9-, 10-, and 11-field rotations with sugar-beet, winter wheat, oats, clover, timothy, and other grains and fodders in rotation. Heavy manuring of fallow (2,000–3,500 poods per desiatina) meant that up to 300 desiatiny were fully treated each year. In 1895, the estate’s fund of buildings (including the Barons’ two homes, sugar refinery, brick works and flourmill) made up 120 structures valued at 212,152 rubles. Inventory (56,974 rubles) included all of the latest Sack, Ekkert, Edelheim and Ransom technology and two steam-powered threshing machines. In the same year, the Prilepy operations maintained 330 horses (154 work horses), 485 large horned cattle (143 pairs of work oxen), 3,229 sheep (2,511 Merino) and 53 pigs, in all 4,097 head of livestock (64,881 rubles). One hundred agricultural and husbandry workers were employed for the whole year, together with 36 technical personnel, but during the April– November period these were joined by a like number of male workers and some 300 female workers (the latter hired every year from villages in Novgorod-Seversk District, Chernigov Province). At the height of the harvest, the Meiendorf administration availed itself of the labor of “masses” of day workers from adjacent villages and from the western part of Sevsk District, Orel Province. According to the long memorandum of its administrator compiled in 1896 (preserved in the Library of Congress), the estate had entirely ceased the practice of leasing land to peasants in the 101 neighboring villages. A. I. Cherepov’s operation at Cherepovka, Nikolaevskaia Parish, Putivl’ District, was begun in 1872 on a holding of 460 desiatiny of deep chernozem with plans for growing wheat. The grain price depression and the estate’s own lack of meadowlands, however, forced the owner to turn to multiple rotations with half of the sown area in timothy, clover and esparto. The latter, it turned out, could be sold locally at big profits, given the general absence of meadowland in peasant allotments in the immedi101 For 1900 in Kratkiia, 17–19 (Prilepy), 21–22 (Dobroe Pole); Spisok, II: 178. Until 1886, the estate of Egor Fedorovich comprised 6,400 desiatiny in Dmitriev District, Kursk Province, and in Sevsk District, Orel Province. In 1886, a partition between heirs was effected, with Bogdan (Theofil) Egorovich obtaining the lands at Dobroe Pole (1,100 desiatiny) and the Pogrebov farmstead (1,015 desiatiny) in Sevsk District. Kondrat and Aleksandr Egorovich gained the balance (4,253 desiatiny), which was held jointly. An estate administrator left a detailed account of the business model of the Meiendorf operation centered on the village of Prilepy, Prilepovskaia Parish, Dmitriev District, for the years 1890–1894, analyzing expenditure and income, agricultural regimes, methods and sources of hire, schedule of payments, fines for days missed, and bonuses for conscientious work. Meier, Opisanie imeniia “Prilepskaia ekonomiia.” 279 Typology, Chronology and Geographical Distributions of Rural Disorders, 1905–1906 ate environs of the estate. The new orientation allowed Cherepov to expand his own livestock herds and intensify the manuring of an area still sown with grain: very high yields of winter wheat (140–145 poods) and 102 spring oats (130 poods) per desiatina were cited for 1894–95. The Moscow publishers Sergei Vasilievich and Mikhail Vasil’evich Sabashnikov had bought several small estates in Kostornianskaia Parish, 103 Sudzha District (1,907 desiatiny), and in 1890 completed construction of a sugar refinery (729 workers) at Liubimovka that boasted annual out104 of 866,142 rubles in 1908. The effects of the spread of sugar-beet refining in the area were seen by local observers as particularly profound. Indeed, though our information on estates in the immediate region of the Sabashnikov installation is fragmentary, the inspection tour undertaken by N. A. Chuikov in Kursk Province in 1892 suggested that several of the larger estates had converted to multiple crop rotations mainly in connection with the requirements imposed by the cultivation of sugar-beets. Of particular note were the estate of Sergei lvanovich Zhekulin at Belyi Kolodez’ (1,323 desiatiny) and its farmsteads (Sergei Ivanovich leased additional acreage from the Tolmachevy as well), the estate of A. A. Mal’tsev at Sula (422 desiatiny) and the holdings of the Evreinovy at Borshchen’ (District Marshal of the Nobility Aleksei Vladimirovich Evreinov, 2,230 desiatiny; his wife, Antonina Vasil’evna Evreinova, née Sabashnikova, 105 693 desiatiny). A 1900 description of Evreinov’s Borshchen’ estate cites the proximity of the Sabashnikov plant as the prime motivation for 106 cultivation of sugar-beets on a full third of the estate’s plowlands. The Zhekulin heirs also owned estates near Sula (Vladimir Ivanovich) and at Maslovka (Aleksandra Ivanovna). The personal petition of Aleksandra Ivanovna Zhekulina in the police archive for June 1905 regarding recurring incidents of arson on her estate 102 Opisanie, 82–84. 103 Spisok, II: 178. Aleksei Vladimirovich Evreinov, brother-in-law of the Sabashnikov brothers, had begun construction of the refinery. Evreinov’s in-laws rescued the project from bankruptcy. 104 Estate size from Kratkiia, 59. The Sabashnikovy fail to appear in listings of landowners in SSSKG, Vyp. IV, Statisticheskiia svedeniia po Sudzhanskomu uyezdu at 262–309. The refinery was built in 1890 (Fabrichno-zavodskaia, No. 7748D). On the Sabashnikovs’ capital activities, Anfimov, Krupnoe, 269, 281. 105 Chuikov recorded his observations on the Zhekulin, Mal’tseva and Evreinov estates from his 1893 inspection tour of Kursk Province for the Moscow Agricultural Society in terms that clearly characterize them as model economies. Chuikov, Kurskaia guberniia, passim. 106 Kratkiia, 56–57. 329 The Villages That Revolted At Kon’shino, the situation had reached absurd proportions by the mid1880s, and a detailed review of the situation is instructive. Among its six communes (128 households of odnodvortsy, 122 households of ex-serfs totaling 1,411 inhabitants in 1884; 1,589 in 1897), dispersion of tracts and physical overlapping of allotments was such that villagers had hundreds of lots between half a desiatina and 7 desiatiny in size scattered through the Kon’shino Tracts up to 4.5 miles from their houses and interspersed with lands of estate owners. The 128 households of state peasants (odnodvortsy) at Kon’shino (Kon’shino I) held what looked on paper to be a rather imposing acreage—1,989 desiatiny in arable land or 15.5 desiatiny per household. Yet these lands were scattered in numerous small bits and pieces (from a quarter of a desiatina to seven desiatiny in size) throughout the Kon’shino Tracts, a third of a mile to four and a half miles from the village. These parcels were the rest of a larger massif of 3,212 desiatiny that their ancestors had held, the remainder of which villagers considered to have been illegally seized by neighboring landowners. Local officials had impounded all the old documents and surveys in the 1830s, so an effort to raise a claim in the courts had long been considered futile. However, the inextricable mixing of their plots with lands of nearby estates— and the dues and fines extracted over rights of way—had exhausted their patience by 1884: “The villagers ardently desire a survey,” we read, “but the adjoining owner, materially interested in this interspersing, obstructs the matter by withholding his agreement. As a result, the peasants have 90 lodged a suit against him.” Fifty desiatiny of forest, formally ascribed to Kon’shino I, remained under state “management”: every year, the commune had to pay to have five desiatiny opened for its use. On the main portion of their plowland (1,200 desiatiny), the peasants had abandoned crop rotation in favor of continuous sowings without short fallow, as had their neighbors of Kon’shino III and Kon’shino IV. Ex-serfs of these latter (7.3 desiatiny per household) had been entirely stripped of meadow land 91 and forest upon transfer onto the redemption regime in 1882–1883. 90 The reluctance of peasant communities to appeal to the Imperial courts had solid foundations. Such cases commonly took 5–10 years and great expense to resolve, and judges appear to have been reluctant to rule against landowners. “Dokladnaia zapiska krest’ianina A. Ia. Vydrina o cherespolositsa,” Trudy mestnykh komitetov, 656–659. Vydrin regaled the Sudzha District Committee with the account of a suit brought by the villagers of Skorodnoe in 1839 against a nearby landowner, which had yet to be settled in 1902. 91 Peasants of Kon’shino IV burned as their principal fuel manure mixed with rye straw that they got from a local landowner in exchange for labor obligations. This method of 330 Rural Unrest during the First Russian Revolution Their allotment lands had been dispersed (respectively) in 50 and 90 small pieces of between half a desiatina and 3 desiatiny in size throughout the Kon’shino Tracts, from a half of a mile to four and a half miles away from their houses. Even the ex-serfs on “beggar’s” allotments of Kon’shino V (1.6 desiatiny per household) had had their lands allotted to them in seven parcels of between half a desiatina and 3½ desiatiny in size, up to two and 92 a half miles from the village. Indications are that attempts to remedy the situation at Kon’shino were still under way twenty years later. At the District Conference of Land Captains in March 1905, it was said that a final survey of the 3rd General Kon’shinskaia Dacha in 1904 had greatly intensified the hostility of villagers toward adjoining landowners because of their sense of having been cheated in both the quantity and quality of 93 lands received. Among the villages in this region in our sample, this situation was unique only in its severity. Consequences of such disabilities of allotment size and location, however, were reflected differently in the great majority of smaller villages in the substantial role played by the leasing of nonallotment lands—and the unusually prominent signs of a shift away from agriculture toward “industrial” pursuits in many of the larger settlements. Even in the mid-1880s, twenty-two settlements recorded engagement of households in wage labor pursuits that was greater than the average for their districts. Over 40 percent of persons of working age (both sexes) were so engaged in fifteen; particularly high percentage shares are noted for Chernianka, Maslovka, Golubina, Troitskaia, Morkvina (55.7 percent to 46.9 percent) and even for some of the smaller hamlets in the zone of unrest: Elizavetenka, Larisovka, Nikol’skaia and Bol’shoi Khutor (54.3 percent to 47.5 percent). With regard to Chernianka, in which the events of November 1905 began, the canvassers noted with special clarity the manner in which the land settlement had directly forced changes in the occupational orientation of the populace: heating the huts was said to have been widespread in a largely deforested region of the province. 92 Ibid., Vyp. XI (Novyi Oskol’ District): Kon’shino (in 1905, Khalanskaia Parish, formerly of Kon’shinskaia, 82–97); see also Part I-B (“Opisanie volostei Novooskol’skago uyezda”), 28–31. Kon’shino VI was made up of former private serfs (of the Achkasovy, Bakeev, Vishniakov, Gutorova) sequestered by the state before 1861: the allotment (1884) averaged 2.4 desiatiny per household without meadow or forest. 93 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 30, 1905 g., d. 4-b, l. 185 (Zhurnal Novooskol’skago soveshchaniia zemskikh nachal’nikov 11-go marta 1905 g.). 345 Conclusion acreage in peasant leasehold was sharply reduced and could be had only at truly prohibitive rents. Even the access strips and farm roads to and from his own fields, for which he had long paid an annual fee in cash or labor dues, might now triple in price or be plowed under to make way for sugarbeet sowings. Such changes profoundly violated the old order of reciprocities that bound lord and peasant and accelerated the accumulation in these zones of incendiary resentments. The record thus strongly replicates the considerations that have led James C. Scott and others to situate a principal driver of peasant revolt in the sharp devaluation of those “patron-client” relationships that were crucial to village subsistence strategies. Peasant collective actions in Kursk Province during 1905–1906 would target, in the first instance, the holdings of owners who had not only altered estate operations in ways that directly infringed established patterns of reciprocity with nearby villages, but in doing so had also violated in essential ways the personal, customary and predictable character of those mutual interactions that predated the emancipation. Furthermore, peasant militants would attack those gentry networks of authority that dominated local administrative bodies and abetted such violations, not only in attacks on the forces of order, the police and the army, but also in concerted assaults on the holdings of serving and former Land Captains, Marshals of the Nobility and members of their clans. Yet the “peasantry” in Kursk Province hardly showed itself to be a unified social formation in its attitudes toward collective action. The Governor of Kursk Province in his report of January 1906 noted the predominance of communities of former private serfs among those associated in the sources with the disorders. This observation was borne out in our sample, in which such villages made up between seven and eight out of every ten villages so associated, depending on how one defined mixed settlements. This evident divergence between communities of former state peasants and those of ex-serfs and their descendants surely reflects measurable disparities in their respective material conditions, due ultimately to the land settlements of the 1860s, though we have also seen that this disparity had begun to drive regions dominated by the more poorly endowed ex-serf populations toward a new level of virtuosity in managing existing systems of cultivation. What weighed just as much on this divergence, however, was the quite different experience of these communities of the pre-reform epoch and the distinctive collective memories that they drew from this experience. More importantly, while conscious of the size of our sample, peasant collective actions, very destructive in concentrated locales, never drew in the majority of rural communities. 346 Rural Unrest during the First Russian Revolution Against the landowners—and against the local structures of authority that fronted for them in maintaining the peasantry in a subaltern position in rural society—acted those elements of the village populations of Kursk Province that found themselves, more than others, at a greater distance from the “traditional” bases (uklad) of rural life and its cycles of intravillage mobility. As such, these experienced more harshly the negative features of aspects of demographic and economic forces at work in the rural environment at the turn of the century. Posed especially sharply by the disorders of 1906 during the critical juncture of the agricultural calendar, the issues of local wage work, the exclusivity of local hire and rising rents—which affected the household economic strategies of small family households in particular—emerged and came to the fore. An important role—directly and indirectly—was played by the contingent of migrant workers, which brought back to their home villages that which Litvinov described as “all the negative aspects of factory and city life”—including all sorts of “red” political conceptions—and which, along with many who remained in the villages, militated for, facilitated and not infrequently played a leading role in the unfolding of disturbances. In terms of sites, this characterization pertains above all to populations of large, densely populated half-agricultural, half-industrial rural “towns” and of the mass of younger, nuclear family households that dominated them. These were locations at which disturbances in 1905 or 1906 began and which bulk large among “repeaters” in both 1905 and 1906. The survival strategies of our selection of village communities exhibited high degrees of dependence on land, wage labor and smallcommodity markets, even if the weights of one or the other of these strategies varied greatly from village to village and were in fact mutually accommodating. The household census of Kursk Province from the 1880s, however, showed that combinations of three interrelated elements distinguished big rural settlements that played central roles in agrarian unrest during 1905–1906. They exhibited especially prolific development of small-industrial employment, which appears alongside indicators either of real disabilities for cultivation or of a broader attenuation of ties to an agricultural economy as a whole. In circumstances such as these, the “peasant” character of large parts of the populations of such villages is questionable. Furthermore, a notably higher level of literacy was a distinguishing feature of the populations of the big rural towns, which almost invariably maintained the only schools in the area. Finally, the overall impression gained from these analyses was that small, nuclear family householders, quite numerous in absolute terms in the larger rural centers, A A PPENDIX Correlation Tables: Parishes and Villages Data from Kurskoe gubernskoe zemstvo, Statisticheskoe biuro, Sbornik statisticheskikh svedenii po Kurskoi gubernii. Vyp. 1 Kurskii uyezd (M., 1883); Vyp. II. Statisticheskie svedeniia po L’govskomu uezdu (Kursk, 1884); Vyp. III. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Dmitrievskomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1884); Vyp. IV. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Sudzhanskomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1884); Vyp. V. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Fatezhskomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1884); Vyp. VI. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Ryl’skomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1885); Vyp. VII. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Putivl’skomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1885); Vyp. VIII. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Shchigrovskomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1885); Vyp. IX. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Graivoronskomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1884); Vyp. X. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Belgorodskomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1885); Vyp. XI. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Novooskol’skomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1886); Vyp. XII. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Timskomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1886); Vyp. XIII. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Korochanskomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1886); Vyp. XIV. Statisticheskie svedeniia po Starooskol’skomu uyezdu (Kursk, 1886). Sbornik statisticheskikh svedenii po Oboianskomu uyezdu (Kurskoi gubernii), M., 1882–1883. Correlation matrix 1: Interaction of variables for household labor composition, household supply of work stock and degree of household autonomy in the conduct of cultivation (based on parish data from the zemstvo census of Kursk Province, 1882–1886). 1. Number of households 1,00 2. Households cultivating independently 0,92 1,00 3. Households cultivating by hiring labor 0,59 0,33 1,00 and/or inventory 4. Households leasing out their allotments 0,37 0,11 0,18 1,00 5. Households with no adult male worker 0,82 0,65 0,62 0,65 1,00 6. Households with 1 adult male worker 0,97 0,85 0,69 0,52 0,85 1,00 7. Households with 2-3 adult male 0,95 0,94 0,53 0,36 0,68 0,86 1,00 workers 8. Households with 4 or more adult male 0,58 0,67 0,17 0,13 0,31 0,39 0,75 1,00 workers 9. Households without horses 0,67 0,33 0,85 0,58 0,77 0,77 0,56 0,17 1,00 10. Households with 1 horse 0,80 0,75 0,56 0,18 0,67 0,78 0,45 0,56 1,00 0,81 11. Households with 2 horses 0,84 0,94 0,21 0,08 0,57 0,77 0,84 0,55 0,23 0,59 1,00 12. Households with 3 horses 0,71 0,84 0,05 0,10 0,43 0,61 0,78 0,68 0,08 0,31 0,86 1,00 13. Households with 4 or more horses 0,55 0,66 0,08 0,20 0,30 0,42 0,60 0,62 0,00 0,11 0,64 0,88 1,00 14. Households without large cattle 0,63 0,30 0,80 0,57 0,76 0,76 0,57 0,18 0,96 0,52 0,21 0,06 0,00 1,00 15. Average size of settlement 0,06 0,08 0,24 0,31 0,11 0,16 0,05 -0,08 0,30 0,04 -0,10 -0,12 -0,10 0,35 1,00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Data for Kursk and Oboian District partial. Italics signify coefficient P higher than .005 357 386 Abbreviations Works) PSZ – Polnoe Sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii (Complete Collection of the Laws of the Russian Empire). Published in three series: Series I (1649–1825); Series II (1825–1881); Series III (1881–1913) RGIA – Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (Russian State Historical Archive) RR – Russian Review RSKG – Revoliutsionnye sobytiia v Kurskoi gubernii v 1905– 1907 gg. Sbornik dokumentov i materialov (Revolutionary Events in Kursk Province, 1905–1907. Collected Documents and Materials), Kursk, Kurskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1955 SR – Slavic Review SRI – Statistika Rossiiskoi imperii SSSKG – Sbornik statisticheskikh svedeniia po Kurskoi gubernii SVRI – Statisticheskii vremennik Rossiiskoi imperii Trudy – Trudy Imperatorskago Vol’nago Ekonomicheskago IVEO Obshchestva (Proceedings of the Imperial Free Economic Society) VI – Voprosy istorii (Problems of History, journal) TS– Tekushchaia sel’sko-khoziaistvennaia statistika KurKhSKGZ skago Gubern-skago Zemstva VTsSK – Vremennik Tsentral’nago statisticheskago komiteta Ministerstva vnutrennikh del Glossary bol’shak – patriarch, head of the extended peasant household (bol’shukha). chernozem – literally “black earth”: the historically rich and fertile soils of central Russia. chetvertniki – also known as odnodvortsy. State peasants whose ancestors formed the corps of minor noble military servitors posted to the frontiers of the Muscovite State in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, losing their status after the pacification of the area and creation of a standing army in the Petrine era. They held land in hereditary household tenure by chet or chetvert (a unit of area). Distinct from “state souls” (gosudarstvennye dushevye), composed of descendants of the ordinary soldiery of the frontier era, former ecclesiastical peasants and ex-serfs sequestered by the state (mainly in cases of bankruptcy of their owners). State souls generally held their lands in communal tenure. darstvenniki – former private serfs who, under the Emancipation statutes of 1861, elected to accept “beggar’s allotments” (or “quarter allotments”) with no redemption payments. desiatina – old Russian measure of land area equal to 2.7 acres. guberniia – province. khoziain – a master, “boss,” independent farmer (khoziaika). 388 Glossary of Terms otkhodniki – persons leaving the province in search of earnings (otkhod: literally “going away” in reference to migration). – old word for a landowner (pomest’e: an estate held in service tenure). pood – Russian measure of weight, equal to 36.07 pounds or 16.4 kilograms. sloboda – settlement, usually larger. The term is also used for an urban suburb. uyezd – administrative subdivision within a province, translated as district. There were 15 districts in Kursk Province (guberniia) at the time of the revolution. ukaz – Imperial decree. versta – old Russian measure of distance equal to 3,500 feet. volost’ – administrative sub-division within the district, comprising a group of villages, rendered as “canton” or “parish.” Their numbers varied over time; in 1905, there were 195 parishes in Kursk Province. Sources and Literature Abramov, P. N. “Iz istorii krest’ianskogo dvizheniia 1905–1906 gg. v chernozemnykh guberniiakh” [From the history of the peasant movement of 1905–1906 in the Black Earth provinces]. In Istoricheskie zapiski no. 57 (1956): 293–311. Adamov, V.V., ed. Voprosy istorii kapitalisticheskoi Rossii. Problema mnogoukladnosti [Problems of the history of capitalist Russia: the issue of mnogoukladnost’]. Sverdlovsk: Ural’skii rabochii, 1972. Adas, Michael. “’Moral Economy’ or ‘Contest State?’ Elite Demands and the Origins of Peasant Protest in Southeast Asia.” Journal of Social History 13, no. 4 (Summer, 1980): 521–546. Afanas’ev, Iurii Nikolaevich, ed. Sovetskaia istoriografiia [Soviet Historiography]. Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, 1996. Agrarnaia dvizhenie v Rossii v 1905–1906 gg. [The agrarian movement in Russia in 1905– 1906]. Trudy Imperatorskago Vol'nago Ekonomicheskago Obshchestva no. 3 (1908, mai-iiun’), nos. 4–5 ( 1908, iiul’-oktiabr’). “Agrarnoe dvizhenie v 1905 g. po otchetam Dubasova i Panteleeva” [The peasant movement in 1905 according to the reports of Dubasov and Panteleev]. Krasnyi arkhiv 11– 12, no. 4–5 (1925): 182–192. Alavi, Hamza. “Peasants and Revolution.” In The Socialist Register, 1965, 241–277. Al’bom portretov chlenov Gosudarstvennoi Dumy [An album of portraits of Members of the State Duma]. Moscow: Vozrozhdenie, 1906. Aleksandrov, Vadim Aleksandrovich. Sel’skaia obshchina v Rossii XVII-nachalo XIX v. [The village commune in Russia from the seventeenth to the beginning of the nineteenth century], Moscow: Nauka, 1976. –––––. Obychnoe pravo krepostnoi derevni Rossii XVIII-nachalo XIX v. [Customary law in the servile countryside of Russia from the eighteenth to the beginning of the nineteenth century]. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. Anan’ich, Boris Vasilievich. Rossiia i mezhdunarodnyi kapital, 1897–1914. Ocherk istorii finansovykh otnoshenii [Russia and international capital, 1897–1914. An essay in the history of financial relationships]. Leningrad: Nauka, 1970. –––––, with Rafael Sholomovich Ganelin, Boris Borisovich Dubentsov, Valentin Semeovich Diakin and S.I. Potolov, Krizis samoderzhaviia v Rossii, 1894–1917 [Crisis of autocracy in Russia, 1894–1917]. Leningrad: Nauka, 1984. 390 Sources and Literature Anderson, Barbara A. Internal Migration during Modernization in Late Nineteenth Century Russia. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Anderson, Leslie Elin. From Quiescence to Rebellion: Peasant Political Activity in Costa Rica and Pre-Revolutionary Nicaragua. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1987. –––––. “Agrarian Politics and Revolution: Micro and State Perspectives on Structural Determinism.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 5:4 (1993): 495–522. –––––. The Political Ecology of the Modern Peasant: Calculation and Community. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. –––––. “Between Quiescence and Rebellion among the Peasantry: Integrating the Middle Ground.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9:4 (October, 1997): 503–532. Anfimov, Andrei Matveevich. “K voprosu o kharaktere agrarnogo stroia Evropeiskoi Rossii v nachale XX-go veka” [On the question of the character of agrarian relations in European Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century]. Istoricheskie zapiski no. 65 (1959): 119–162. –––––. “Karlovskoe imenie Meklenburg-Strelitskikh v kontse XIX-nachale XX XX v.” [The Karlovsk estate of the Mecklenburg-Strelitskie at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries]. In Materialy po istorii sel’skogo khoziaistva i krest’ianstva SSSR, sbornik V. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1962, 348– 376. –––––. “O melkom tovarnom proizvodstve v sel’skom khoziaistve poreformennoi Rossii” [On small-commodity production in agriculture in post-reform Russia]. Istoriia SSSR no.2 (1963, mart-aprel’): 141–159. –––––. Zemel’naia arenda v Rossii v nachale XX-go veka [Land rent in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1966. –––––. Krupnoe pomeshchich'e khoziaistvo Evropeiskoi Rossii [Large-scale landowner economy in European Russia], Moscow: Nauka, 1969. –––––. Krest’ianskoe khoziaistvo Evropeiskoi Rossii, 1880–1904 [The peasant economy of European Russia, 1880–1904]. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. –––––. Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie i klassovaia bor’ba krest’ian Evropeiskoi Rossii, 1880–1904 [The economic position and class struggle of the peasants of European Russia, 1880–1904]. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. –––––. “O metodike ucheta krest’ianskikh vystuplenii i kolichestva uchastnikov v nikh” [On a method for calculating peasant actions and the number of participants]. In S.L. Tikhvinskii, ed., Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoe razvitie Rossii. Sbornik statei k 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia Nikolaia Mikhailovicha Druzhinina. Moscow: Nauka, 1986, 131– 144. –––––. “Neokonchennye spory” [Unfinished disputes]. Voprosy istorii 1997, no. 5: 49–72; no. 6: 41–84; no. 7: 81–99; no. 9: 82–113. –––––, ed. Krest’ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii v 1900–1904 gg. Sbornik dokumentov [The peasant movement in Russia in 1900–1904. Collected documents]. Moscow: Nauka, 1998. –––––. P.A. Stolypin i rossiiskoe krest’ianstvo [P.A. Stolypin and the Russian peasantry]. Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2002. Anisimov, V.I. “Svedeniia o nekotorykh sel’skokhoziaistvennykh i remeslennykh shkolakh, nakhodivshikhsia v Kurskoi gubernii” [Information on several agricultural and Index 123rd Kozlovskii Regiment (infantry) 187 unrest, December, 1905 192 196th Zaslavsk Regiment (infantry) 187 203rd Graivoron Reserve Regiment 187 204th Oboian Reserve Regiment 187 28th Novgorodian Dragoon Regiment 141, 144, 177 29th Odessa Dragoon Regiment 187, 220n80 2nd Eiskii Cossack Regiment 170n1, 174, 187, 243 31st Riga Dragoon Regiment 187 32nd Don Cossack Regiment 174, 187 36th Akhtirsk Dragoon Regiment 175, 187, 190n9, 191n11 47th Ukrainian Regiment (infantry) 187 Alexander I Pavlovich (Emperor, 1801–1825) 171n86 Alexander II Nikolaevich (Emperor, 1855–1881) 339 Alexander III Aleksandrovich (Emperor, 1882–1894) 5, 25, 135 All-Russian Congress of Peasant Old Believers, Moscow, 1906 338n115 All-Russian Peasant Union 34n80, 35, 50, 152n31, 153–154, 154n35, 155–156, 156nn42, 45, 182–183, 183n122, 193–194, 196, 223, 233, 241, 242, 261 campaign to suppress 179–180, 189–190 chapters in Kursk Province 152n32, 155, 155n40, 156, 196, 223 July (“Constituent”) Congress, Moscow, 1905 152 November (“Delegate”) Congress, Moscow, 1905 239 and Socialist-Revolutionary Party 246–247, 246n35 Anfimov, Andrei Matveevich (1916–1995), Soviet historian 22, 22nn48–49, 23n52, 24n56, 31, 74, 76n46, 90, 94, 96n93, 104n115, 238n22, 243, 271n83, 273n88, 274n91, 279n104, 281. animal husbandry 11, 84–86, 240 fodder problem 54, 56, 62–63, 84–86, 158, 229, 237, 253 horse censuses, 1888, 1893, 1900 and 1912 85–86 livestock herds, measurement 86n68 Annina-Gusinovka, Bobrikovskaia Parish, L’gov District 171n86 430 Index anti-Jewish pogroms 259 Arkhangel’skoe (Naprasnoe), Muromskaia Parish, Belgorod District 236 Banishchi, Ivanovskaia Parish, L’gov District 181 Bariatinskie 233n11, 282, 308n38 Bariatinskii, Aleksandr Vladimirovich, Prince (1848–1910) estate operations 93, 274, 274n92 incidents of unrest, 1905–1906 149, 206–207, 220, 268, 272, 338n115 Bekhteevka, Prigorodniaia Parish, Korocha District 180 Belgorod District allotment, average size 61n14 capital intensive production on gentry estates 275 communal repartition 322–323, 323n73 conditions, 1905 158, 158n50, 159 decline of gentry landholdings, 1877–1905 93 District Conference, 9 March 1905 240–241, 253–254, 311 diversification of peasant sowings 79n50 emigration from 71n36, 72n37 grain yields, net (1885–1913) 79 (table) horse census of 1893 86n57 incidents reported, 1905–1906 (6) 159, 214, 215, 236, 267n77 labor migration in 1882–1884 112n139 in 1898–1905 113–114 land rents, 1898–1905 inflation of 95n89 labor dues for 63n17 multi-field rotations on private estates 89n73 non-agricultural enterprise family members in “industrial” occupations 109, 335 development 107–108 wages in 109n130 peasant tax arrears 98n100 recurring crop failure 80, 80n52 rural population and man-land rations, 1877–1905 71 (table) rural population density, 1862–1897 68 (table) state peasantry (66%) 60 (table) zemstvo census 82nn55–56, 296 Belgorod Line, 16th century defensive line 59 Belgorod, town peacetime garrison 187n1 population of, 1897 43n105 unrest among garrison soldiery, December, 1905 192–193 Belgorod-Sumy branch railroad (1901) 78n49, 276 Belyi Kolodez’, Kostornianskaia Parish, Sudzha District 170, 279 Berezovskaia Parish, Dmitriev District 146, 177, 235. Bochechki, Kazachanskaia Parish, Putivl’ District 182, 184–185, 234 What was the general character and scale of revolutionary processes at work in the outbreak of peasant unrest in the localities themselves? How can we more closely identify the milieux from which unrest first emerged? Were there identifiable actors who played key roles, who served as initiators or catalysts for larger events, whether from within, from outside or from somewhere astride criteria usual to definitions of “peasantries?” Is it possible, on a level of aggregation closer to events themselves, to approximate more precisely specific factors that distinguished villages involved in peasant local unrest—by the nature of their interaction with nearby landowners or of their particular occupational orientations? One best approaches answers to such questions by close analysis of peasant unrest in the narrow confines of the localities in which they occur, and by an effort to acquaint oneself, as far as the sources permit, with the character of the villages identified with incidents of disorder. Such an approach, it seemed to me, could shed further light on the nature and scale of the peasant movement during 1905–1906, on its intensity and typological and chronological “architecture,” but already in local contexts . —From the author's Introduction Central European University Press ISBN 978-615-5225-17-8 Budapest–New York Sales and information: ceupress@ceu.hu 9 786155 225178 9 0 0 0 0 Website: http://www.ceupress.com