by Riazanovsky
and other epidemics caused even more deaths than did the actual fighting. It was in the Crimean War that Florence Nightingale established a new type of war hospital and worked toward the modernization of nursing, as did French and Russian women.
The Russian forces finally abandoned Sevastopol on September 11, 1855, sinking their remaining ships - others had been sunk earlier to block the harbor - and blowing up fortifications. Nicholas I had died in March, and both his successor, Alexander II, and the allies effectively supported by Austrian diplomacy, were ready early in 1856 to make peace. An impressive international congress met in Paris for a month, from late February until late March. Its work resulted in the Treaty of Paris, signed on the thirtieth of March. By the provisions of the Treaty, Russia ceded to Turkey the mouth of the Danube and a part of Bessarabia and accepted the neutralization of the Black Sea - that is, agreed not to maintain a navy or coastal fortifications there. Further, Russia gave up its claims to a protectorate over the Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire. The Danubian principalities were placed under the joint guarantee of the signatory powers, and an international commission was established to assure safe navigation of the Danube. The Treaty of Paris marked a striking decline of the Russian position in southeastern Europe and the Near East, and indeed in the world at large.
Concluding Remarks
With the major exception of the Marxist scholars, most historians of the reign of Nicholas I - whether they concentrated, like Schilder, on court and government, like Schiemann on foreign policy, like Polievktov on internal developments, or like Lemke on political police and censorship - have noted the importance of the emperor and his firm beliefs for the course of Russian history. Nicholas I, to be sure, gave no new direction to the development of his country. Rather he clung with a desperate determination to the old system and the old ways. The creator of the doctrine of Official Nationality, Count Uvarov, once remarked that he would die with a sense of duty fulfilled if he could succeed in "pushing Russia back some fifty years from what is being prepared for her by the theories." In a sense, Nicholas I and his associates accomplished just that: they froze Russia as best they could for thirty - although not fifty - years, while the rest of Europe was changing. The catastrophe of the Crimean War underlined the pressing need for fundamental reforms in Russia as well as the fact that the hour was late.
However, before we turn to Alexander II and the "great reforms" we shall consider the development of Russian economy, society, and culture in the first half of the nineteenth century. In those fields, as we shall see, by contrast with Nicholas's politics, movement prevailed over stagnation.
XXVII
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
The development of an exchange or money economy, much more rapid and widespread than formerly, must certainly be recognized as the main feature of the economic history of Russia in the first half of the nineteenth century or - more precisely - until the abolition of serfdom. A money economy began perceptibly to develop in Russia as early as the middle of" the sixteenth century, but at first this process went on very slowly and encompassed relatively small groups of the population. Only in the nineteenth century did the money economy begin to evolve into its second stage of development, when a majority of the people becomes engulfed in the trade cycle, works for the market, and to satisfy its own needs buys products of someone else's labor, also brought to the market as merchandise.
ROZHKOV
The second half of the eighteenth century marked the zenith of manorial economy and serf agriculture in Russia, but the first decades of the nineteenth witnessed significant changes in the economic picture. Russian estates sent more and more produce to the market, at home and even abroad, as southern Russia began to export grain via the Black Sea. New opportunities for marketing, together with a continuing growth of population, led to a strong and steady rise in land prices. Yet while possibilities beckoned, Russian agriculture could evolve in the capitalistic direction only to a limited extent and at great human and economic cost, for it was restricted by the social structure and the institutions of the country.
Most landlords, entirely unprepared for the task by their education and outlook, failed to adjust effectively to competition and to establish efficient production on their estates. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the proportion of non-gentry landownership grew, despite the fact that only members of the gentry could own serfs. In addition, the indebtedness of the gentry to the state increased rapidly, acquiring tremendous proportions by the middle of the century. It has been estimated that on the eve of the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 the state held in mortgage two-thirds of all the serfs. Small estates were especially hard hit. While substantial landlords on the whole adjusted more or less effectively to the new conditions, their poorer brethren, lacking capital or other sufficient assets, lost out in the competition. The first half of the century thus saw a concentration of
gentry landholding, and a decline, often pauperization, of small gentry landowners.
Serfdom, of course, lay at the heart of pre-reform Russian agriculture. Considerable evidence indicates that the landlords first responded to the new market opportunities and the generally rising tempo of economic life by trying to obtain a greater yield from their own fields. Barshchina, therefore, increased in scope and became more intensive, a process culminating in the 1840's. But serf labor offered no solution to the problem of achieving efficient, improved production: illiterate, unskilled, and uninterested, the serfs were plainly poor producers. Above all, they lacked incentive and initiative. As a result, in the 1840's and especially in the 1850's obrok increased at the expense of barshchina. Its monetary value rose very markedly; an individual peasant had to pay his master perhaps ten times as much in 1860 as in 1800, while he was encouraged to work hard by the fact that he could retain what remained after the payment. Serfs received additional land in return for obrok, and more of them earned their - and, indeed, their masters' - keep in factories, in transportation, and in other occupations, including agricultural work away from their home. Significantly, more and more free labor came to be hired in agriculture, especially in the Volga region and the Black Sea provinces. Agricultural wages generally rose, although both the amount of rise and the wages themselves remain very difficult to calculate. The increase of free labor in agriculture - even though, of course, that labor frequently represented the work of someone else's serfs hired temporarily - acquires added importance when considered in conjunction with the growth of free labor in industry and, indeed, in virtually all aspects of Russian economy.
While Russian agriculture in the first half of the nineteenth century reacted in a strained and pained manner to new conditions and demands, a certain advance and modernization were achieved. With the use of machinery and fertilizers and improved organization and technique, some estates became successful "capitalistic" producers. In general, too, productivity increased somewhat as Russian agriculture became more intensive. Also, the produce gradually became more diversified. Old staple crops, notably rye and wheat, continued to be grown on a large scale and in fact for the first time attained prominence among Russian exports. But certain new items rose to positions of some importance in the agriculture of the country. These included potatoes and sugar beets, and, in the south, wine, the successful production of which required considerable knowledge and skill. The production of potatoes quintupled in the 1840's, the production of wine tripled between the early 1830's and 1850, and the spread of sugar beets in Russia can be gauged by the number of sugar beet factories: 7 in 1825, 57 in 1836, 206 in 1844, 380 in the early 1850's. The culture of silk and certain vegetable dyes developed in Transcaucasia. Fine wool began
to be produced with the introduction into Russia of a new and superior breed of sheep in 1803. With government aid, the number of these sheep increased from 150,000 in 1812 to some 9 million in 1853.
Industry
Industry, no less than
agriculture, was affected by the growth of a market economy. Russian manufacturing establishments, counting only those that employed more than fifteen workers, increased in number from some 1,200 at the beginning of the century to 2,818 by 1860. The labor force expanded even faster: from between one and two hundred thousand in 1800 to between five and nine hundred thousand on the eve of the "great reforms." The striking discrepancy in the statistics compiled by various specialists results from both inadequate material and the problem of definition, including definition of the key concepts, "factory" and "worker." Soviet scholars, especially after Stalinization, on the whole emphasized and exaggerated the industrial development of Russia, but they also provided some valuable documentation to support certain of their claims.
The relatively new cotton industry grew most rapidly. Its output increased sixteen times over in the course of the half-century, and at the end of the period Russia possessed about one million cotton spindles. The cotton industry required capital, and, in contrast to older woolen and linen manufactures, it was run by free, not serf, labor. On the whole, free labor gained steadily over bonded labor, and "capitalist" factories over both possessional and manorial ones. According to one count, by 1825 "capitalist" factories constituted 54 per cent of all industrial establishments. Wages, although very low to be sure, kept going up.
At the same time, especially after the first quarter of the century, the use of machinery and steam power steadily increased in Russian manufacturing. The Russians imported machinery to the value of 42,500 silver rubles in 1825, 1,164,000 silver rubles in 1845, and 3,103,000 in 1860. Moreover, they began to build their own machines: the country possessed 19 machine-building factories with their annual output valued at 500,000 rubles in 1851, and 99 with an output worth 8,000,000 rubles in 1860. Russian industry, however, remained largely restricted to the Urals, the Moscow area, the rapidly growing St. Petersburg-Baltic region, and several other already well-established centers. In particular, none had as yet arisen in the vast Russian south.
Trade and Transportation
Trade also reflected the quickening tempo of economic life in Russia in the first half of the nineteenth century. Internal trade experienced
marked growth. The differentiation of the country into the grain-producing south and the grain-consuming center and north became more pronounced, providing an ever stronger basis for fundamental, large-scale exchange. Thus the north and the center sent the products of their industries and crafts south in return for grain, meat, and butter. Certain areas developed their own specialties. For example, the northwestern region produced flax for virtually all of Russia. A district in the distant Archangel province raised a special breed of northern cows. Several Ukrainian provinces became famous for their horses, while the best sheep were bred in southern Russia, between the Volga and the Don. Even such items as woolen stockings became objects of regional specialization. A number of scholars have noted how, in the first half of the nineteenth century, purchased clothing began gradually to displace the homespun variety among the peasants.
Merchant capital grew and fairs expanded. The famous fair near the Monastery of St. Macarius in the Nizhnii Novgorod province was transferred in 1817 to the town of Nizhnii Novgorod itself and there attained new heights. In 1825 goods worth 12,700,000 rubles were sold at that fair; in 1852 the sum rose to 57,500,000. A number of other fairs also did a very impressive business. The total turnover in Russian internal trade for 1825 has been estimated at the considerable sum of 900,000,000 rubles.
Transportation also developed, if rather slowly. Rivers and lakes continued to play an extremely important role in trade and travel. A number of canals, especially those constructed between 1804 and 1810, added to the usefulness of the water network, by linking, for instance, the Western Dvina to the Dnieper and St. Petersburg to the Volga, thus making it possible to send goods from the upper Volga to the Baltic Sea. The first steamship appeared in Russia in 1815, on the Neva. In 1820 regular steam navigation commenced on the Volga to be extended later to other important rivers and lakes. Following by several years the construction of a small private railroad to serve the needs of a factory, the first public Russian railroad, joining St. Petersburg and the suburban imperial residence of Tsarskoe Selo - present-day Pushkin - was opened to traffic in 1837. In 1851 the first major Russian railroad went into operation, linking St. Petersburg and Moscow on a remarkably straight line as desired by Nicholas I. The Russians even proceeded to establish a railroad industry and build their own locomotives and cars, a development in which Americans, including George Whistler, the father of the painter James McNeill Whistler, played a prominent part. But, considering the size of the country, the systems of transportation remained thoroughly inadequate. In particular, in 1850 Russia possessed only a little over three thousand miles of first-class roads. The Russian army in the Crimea proved to be more
isolated from its home bases than the allied forces, which were supplied by sea, from theirs.
Foreign trade - about which we have more precise data than we have concerning domestic commerce - grew swiftly in the first half of the nineteenth century. The annual value of Russian exports on the eve of the "great reforms" has been estimated at 230 million rubles, and of imports at 200 million, compared to only 75 and 52 million respectively at the beginning of the century. Russia continued to export raw materials, such as timber and timber products, hemp, flax, tallow, and increasing quantities of grain. The grain trade resulted from the development of agriculture, notably the raising of wheat, in southern Russia; from the organization of grain export, largely in Greek ships, via the Black Sea; and from the pressing demand for grain in industrializing western Europe. From bare beginnings at the turn of the century, the grain trade rose to 35 per cent of the total value of Russian exports in 1855. It led to the rapid rise of such ports as Odessa and Taganrog and made the Black Sea rival the Baltic as an avenue for commerce with Russia. Russian manufactures, by contrast, found no demand in the West, but - a foretaste of the future - they attracted some customers in Turkey, Central Asia, Mongolia, and China. The Russian imports consisted of tropical produce, such as fruits and coffee, and factory goods, including machinery, as has already been noted.
Social Composition
The population in Russia continued to increase rapidly throughout the period: from 36,000,000 in 1796 to 45,000,000 in 1815 and 67,000,000 in 1851. At the same time its social composition underwent certain changes. While the serfs multiplied in the eighteenth century to constitute, according to Blum, 49 per cent of the total population of Russia in 1796 and as much as 58 per cent in 1811, they failed to keep pace with other social groups after that date. In 1858 they composed 44.5 per cent of the total. Indeed, some scholars have argued that the serfs did not increase in number at all during the decades preceding the emancipation. Semevsky and other students of serfdom have shown what a tremendous and progressively heavier burden of obligations the serfs had to carry, and how hard their life frequently was. These crushing conditions of existence limited the expansion of serfdom and somewhat diminished its relative social weight in Russia in the first half of the nineteenth century.
By contrast, Russian urban population grew both absolutely and as a proportion of the total between 1800 and the "great reforms" - in this case continuing and accelerating an eighteenth-century trend. Townspeople
constituted about 4.1 per cent of the inhabitants of the empire at the turn of the century and 7.8 per cent in 1851.
To be sure, the upper class, the gentry, retained its dominant social and economic position and its leadership in most phases of Russian life. Yet, as our brief account of the economic evolution of the country indicated, its problems and difficulties increased. Most landlords failed to adjust effectively to the changing economic conditions, sank gradually deeper into debt, and often slid further toward poverty. The differentiation of the gentry, from successful landed magnates at one extreme to the numerous poor and even destitute gentry at the other, became incre
asingly prominent. If the reign of Catherine the Great represented the golden age of the Russian gentry, the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I witnessed the development of processes leading unmistakably to its decline.
Evaluations of the Russian Economy and Society
There are several ways of looking at Russian economy and society in the first half of the nineteenth century. To many foreign observers, some older Marxist historians, and certain other critics the main characteristics of Russian life in the period preceding the "great reforms" consisted of backwardness, stagnation, and oppression. As a reaction to this extreme view, many historians - ranging from Soviet specialists to such emigre scholars as Karpovich - have stressed the achievements of the Russians during those difficult decades. They have pointed to a wide variety of phenomena in support of their emphasis: the brilliant Russian literature and culture of the period - which we shall discuss in the next chapter - and Kiselev's reform of the condition of the state peasants; the early penetration of capitalism into the country and certain technological improvements made by the Russians; railroads and the cotton industry; the growing middle class and the expanding trade.