Encyclopedia of Russian History

by James Millar

  ENLIGHTENMENT, IMPACT OF

  his family. He survived Marx by twelve years, during an important period in the growth of the socialist movement when Engels served as the most respected spokesman for Marxist theory.

  In recent decades there has been a lively debate over the degree of divergence between Marx’s thought and that of Engels, and therefore over whether the general scheme of interpretation known as “historical materialism” or “dialectical materialism” was primarily constructed by Engels or accorded with the main thrust of Marx’s intellectual efforts. George Lichtheim and Shlomo Avineri, distinguished scholars who have written about Marx, see Engels as having given a rigid cast to Marxist theory in order to make it seem more scientific, thus implicitly denying the creative role of human imagination and labor that had been emphasized by Marx. On the other hand, some works, such as those by J. D. Hunley and Manfred Steger, emphasize the fundamental points of agreement between Marx and Engels. The controversy remains unresolved and facts point to both convergence and divergence: Marx and Engels coauthored some major essays, including The Communist Manifesto, and Engels made an explicit effort to give Marxism the character of a set of scientific laws of purportedly general validity. The well-known laws of the dialectic, which became the touchstones of philosophical orthodoxy in Soviet Marxism-Leninism, were drawn directly from Engels’s writings. See also: DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM; MARXISM

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Carver, Terrell. (1989). Friedrich Engels: His Life and Thought. London: Macmillan. Hunley, J. D. (1991). The Life and Thought of Friedrich En-gels: A Reinterpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Steger, Manfred B., and Carver, Terrell, eds. (1999). En-gels after Marx. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

  ALFRED B. EVANS JR.

  ENLIGHTENMENT, IMPACT OF

  The Enlightenment is traditionally defined as an intellectual movement characterized by religious skepticism, secularism, and liberal values, rooted in a belief in the power of human reason liberated from the constraints of blind faith and arbitrary authority, and opposed by the retrograde anti-Enlightenment. Originated with the French philosophes, especially Charles de Secondant Montesquieu (1689-1755), Denis Diderot (1713-1784), Fran?ois Marie Arouet de Voltaire (1684-1778), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), the Enlightenment quickly spread through Europe and the American colonies. It reached Russia in the mid-eighteenth century, peaking during the reign of Catherine II (1762-1796) and becoming one of the most important components of the country’s Westernization and modernization.

  The impact of the Enlightenment in Russia is generally described in terms of its reception and accommodation of the ideas of the philosophes. These ideas spurred new scientific and secular approaches to culture and government that laid the foundation of Russia’s modern intellectual and political culture. In addition to greater intellectual exchange with Europe, the Enlightenment brought Russia institutions of science and scholarship, arts and theater, the print revolution, and new forms of sociability, such as learned and charitable societies, clubs, and Masonic lodges. The Enlightenment created a new generation of Russian scientists, scholars, and men of letters (i.e., Mikhail Lomonosov, Nikolai Novikov, Alexander Radishchev, and Nikolai Karamzin). The Enlightenment also brought about an intense secularization that significantly diminished the role of religion and theology and transformed the monarchy into an enlightened absolutism.

  The actual impact of the Enlightenment in Russia was limited and inconsistent, however. While the writings of the philosophes were widely translated and read, Russian audiences were more interested in their novels than in their philosophical or political treatises. Policy makers preferred German cameralism and political science. Catherine’s self-proclaimed adherence to the principles of the philosophes was rather patchy, which prompted widespread accusations that she had created the image of philosopher on the throne to dupe the European public. The progress of science, education, and literature as well as the formation of the public sphere owed more to government tutelage than independent initiative. Most Russian champions of Enlightenment were profoundly religious. Thus, criticism of the Orthodox Church was virtually nonexistent; anticlerical statements were directed primarily against Catholicism, the old foe of Russian Orthodoxy. Some of the new forms of sociability, such as Masonic lodges, served as venues not only for liberal discussion, but also for the exerENSERFMENT cises in occultism, alchemy, and criticism of the philosophes. The Enlightenment in Russia was preoccupied with superficial cultural forms rather than content.

  The traditional picture outlined above needs to be revised in light of new studies of the European Enlightenment since the 1970s. Enlightenment is no longer identified as a uniform school of thought dominated by the philosophes. Instead it is understood as a complex phenomenon, a series of debates at the core of which lay the process of discovery and proactive and critical involvement of the individual in both private and public life. This concept softens the binary divides between the secular and the religious, the realms of private initiative and established public authority, and, in many cases, the conventional antithesis between Enlightenment and anti-Enlightenment.

  One may interpret the Enlightenment in Russia more comprehensively and less exclusively as a process of discovering contemporary European culture and adapting it to Russian realities that produced a uniquely Russian national Enlightenment. An analysis of enlightened despotism need not be preoccupied with the balance between Enlightenment and despotism and can focus instead on the reformer’s own understanding of the best interests of the nation. For example, it was political, demographic, and economic considerations rather than an anticlerical ideology that drove Catherine’s policy of secularization. There is no need to limit discussions of the public debate to evaluations of whether or not it conformed to the standards of religious skepticism. Contemporary discussions of the difference between true and false Enlightenment demonstrate that religious education and faith, along with patriotism, were viewed as the key elements of true Enlightenment, while religious toleration was touted as a traditional Orthodox value. Instead of emphasizing the dichotomy between adoption of cultural institutions and reception of ideas, twenty-first century scholarship looks at institutions as the infrastructure of Enlightenment that created economic, social, and political mechanisms crucial for the spread of ideas. See also: CATHERINE II; FREEMASONRY; ORTHODOXY

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  De Madariaga, Isabel. (1999). Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia: Collected Essays. New York: Longman. Dixon, Simon. (1999). The Modernisation of Russia, 1676-1825. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gross, Anthony Glenn, ed. (1983). Russia and the West in the Eighteenth Century. Newtonville, MA: Oriental Research Partners. Smith, Douglas. (1999). Working the Rough Stone: Freemasonry and Society in Eighteenth-Century Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. Wirtschafter, Elise Kimerling. (2003). The Play of Ideas in Russian Enlightenment Theater. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.

  OLGA TSAPINA

  ENSERFMENT

  Enserfment refers to the broad historical process that made the free Russian peasantry into serfs, abasing them further into near-slaves, then emancipating them from their slavelike status and finally freeing them so that they could move and conduct their lives with the same rights as other free men in the Russian Empire. This process took place over the course of nearly five hundred years, between the 1450s and 1906. Almost certainly en-serfment would not have occurred had not 10 percent of the population been slaves. Also, it could not have reached the depths of human abasement had not the service state been present to legislate and enforce it.

  The homeland of the Great Russians, the land between the Volga and the Oka (the so-called Volga-Oka mesopotamia), is a very poor place. There are almost no natural resources of any kind (gold, silver, copper, iron, building stone, coal), the three-inch-thick podzol soil is not hospitable to agriculture, as is the climate (excessive precipitation and a short growin
g season). Until the Slavs moved into the area in the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries, the indigenous Finns and Balts were sparsely settled and lived neolithic lives hunting and fishing. This area could not support a dense population, and any prolonged catastrophe reduced the population further, creating the perception of a labor shortage. The protracted civil war over the Moscow throne between 1425 and 1453 created a labor shortage perception.

  At the time the population was free (with the exception of the slaves), with everyone able to move about as they wished. Because population

  ENSERFMENT

  densities were so low and agriculture was extensive (peasants cleared land by the slash-and-burn process, farmed it for three years, exhausted its fertility, and moved on to another plot), land ownership was not prized. Government officials and military personnel made their livings by collecting taxes and fees (which can be levied from a semi-sedentary population) and looting in warfare, not by trying to collect rent from lands tilled by settled farmers. Monasteries were different: In about 1350 they had moved out of towns (because of the Black Death, inter alia) into the countryside and entered the land ownership business, raising and selling grain. They recruited peasants to work for them by offering lower tax rates than peasants could get by living on their own lands. The civil war disrupted this process, and some monasteries, which had granted some peasants small loans as part of the recruitment package, found that they had difficulty collecting those loans. Consequently a few individual monasteries petitioned the government to forbid indebted peasants from moving at any time other than around St. George’s Day (November 26). St. George’s Day was the time of the pre-Christian, pagan end of the agricultural year, akin to the U.S. holiday, Thanksgiving. The monasteries believed that they could collect the debts owed to them at that time before the peasants moved somewhere else.

  This small beginning-involving a handful of monasteries and only their indebted peasants-initiated the enserfment process. It is possible that the government rationalized its action because not paying a debt was a crime (a tort, in those times); thus, forbidding peasant debtors from moving was a crime-prevention measure. Also note that this was the normal time for peasants to move: The agricultural year was over, and the ground was probably frozen (the average temperature was -4 degrees Celsius), so that transportation was more convenient than at any other time of year, when there might be deep snow, floods, mud, drought, and so on.

  For unknown reasons this fundamentally trivial measure was extended to all peasants in the Law Code (Sudebnik) of 1497. Similar limitations on peasant mobility were present in neighboring political jurisdictions, and there may have been a contagion effect. It also may have been viewed as a general convenience, for that is when peasants tended to move anyway. As far as is known, there were no contemporary protests against the introduction of St. George’s Day, and in the nineteenth century the peasants had sayings stating that a reintroduction of St. George’s Day would be tantamount to emancipation. The 1497 language was repeated in the Sudebnik of 1550, with the addition of verbiage reflecting the introduction of the three-field system of agriculture: Peasants who had sown an autumn field and then moved on St. George’s Day had the right to return to harvest the grain when it was ripe.

  Chaos with its inherent disruption of labor supplies caused the next major advance in the enserf-ment process: the introduction of the “forbidden years.” Ivan IV’s mad oprichnina (1565-1572) caused up to 85 percent depopulation of certain areas of old Muscovy. Recent state expansion and annexations encouraged peasants disconcerted by oprichnina chaos to flee for the first time to areas north of the Volga, to the newly annexed Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, and to areas south of the Oka in the steppe that the government was beginning to secure. In addition to the chaos caused by oprichnina military actions, Ivan had given lords control over their peasants, allowing them “to collect as much rent in one year as formerly they had collected in ten.” His statement ordering peasants “to obey their lords in everything” also began the abasement of the serfs by making them subject to landlord control. Yet other elements entered the picture. The service state had converted most of the land fund in the Volga-Oka mesopotamia and in the Novgorod region into service landholdings (po-mestie) to support its provincial cavalry, the middle service class. These servicemen could not render service without peasants on their pomestie lands to pay them regular rent. Finding their landholdings being depopulated, a handful of cavalrymen petitioned that the right of peasants to move on St. George’s Day be annulled. The government granted these few requests, and called the times when peasants could not move “forbidden years.” Like St. George’s Day, the forbidden years initially applied to only a few situations, but in 1592 (again for precisely unknown reasons) they were applied temporarily to all peasants.

  That should have completed the enserfment process. However, there were two reservations. First, it was explicitly stated that the forbidden years were temporary (although they did not actually end until 1906). Second, the government imposed a five-year statute of limitations on the enforcement of the forbidden years. Historians assume that this was done to benefit large, privileged landowners who could conceal peasants for five

  ENSERFMENT

  years on various estates so that their legal possessors (typically middle-service-class cavalrymen) could not find them and file suit for their return. Moreover, there was the issue of colonial expansion: The government wanted the areas north of the Volga, south of the Oka in the steppe, and along the Middle and South Volga eastward into the Urals and Siberia settled. It even had its own agents to recruit peasants into these areas, typically with the promise of half-taxation. Those running the expansion of the Muscovite state did not want their sparse frontier populations diminished by the forcible return of fugitive peasants to Volga-Oka mesopotamia. Thus they also supported the five-year statute of limitations on the filing of suits for the recovery of fugitive serfs.

  The Time of Troubles provided a breathing spell in the enserfment process. Events occurred relevant to enserfment, but they had no long-term impact- with the possible exception of Vasily Shuisky’s near-equation of serfs with slaves in 1607. After the country had recovered from the Troubles and from the Smolensk War (1632-1634), the middle-service class sensed that the new Romanov dynasty was weak and thus susceptible to pressure. In 1637 the cavalrymen began a remarkable petition campaign for the repeal of the statute of limitations on the filing of suits for the recovery of fugitive peasants. This in some respects was modeled after a campaign by townsmen to compel the binding of their fellows to their places of residence because of the collective nature of the tax system: When one family moved away, those remaining had to bear the burden imposed by the collective tax system until the next census was taken. For the townsmen the reference point typically was 1613, the end of the Time of Troubles. For the cavalrymen petitioners, the reference points were two: the statute of limitations and the documents (censuses, pomestie land allotments) proving where peasants lived. The middle-service-class petitioners pointed out that the powerful (i.e., contumacious) people were recruiting their peasants, concealing them for five years, and then using the fugitives to recruit others to flee. The petitioners, who had 5.6 peasant households apiece, alleged that the solution to their diminishing ability to render military service because of their ongoing losses of labor would be to repeal the statute of limitations. The government’s response was to extend the statute of limitations from five to nine years. Another petition in 1641 extended it from nine to fifteen years. A petition of 1645 elicited the promise that the statute of limitations would be repealed once a census was taken to show where the peasants were living.

  The census was taken in 1646 and 1647 but no action was taken. The government was being run by Boris Morozov, whose extensive estate records reveal that he was recruiting others lords’ peasants in these years. Morozov and his corrupt accomplices got their comeuppance after riots in Moscow, which spread to a dozen other towns, led to
their overthrow and to demands by the urban mob for a codification of the law. Tsar Alexis appointed the Odoyevsky Commission, which drafted the Law Code of 1649 (ulozhenie). It was debated and approved with significant amendments by the Assembly of the Land of 1648-1649. Part of the amendments involved the enserfment, especially the repeal of the forbidden years. Henceforth all peasants were subject to return to wherever they or their forbears were registered. This measure applied to all peasants, both those on the lands of private lords and the church (seignorial peasants) and those on lands belonging to the tsar, the state, and the peasants themselves (later known as state peasants). The land cadastre of 1626, the census of 1646-1647, and pomestie allotment documents were mentioned, but almost any other official documents would do as well. Aside from the issue of documentation, the other major enserfment issue was what to do with runaways, especially males and females who belonged to different lords and got married. The solutions were simple and logical: The Orthodox Church did not permit the breaking up of marriages, so the Law Code of 1649 decreed that the lord who had received a fugitive lost the couple to the lord from whom the fugitive had fled. If they wed as fugitives on “neutral ground,” then the lord-claimants cast lots; the winner got the couple and paid the loser for his lost serf.

  The Law Code did not resolve the issue of fugitives, because of the intense shortage of labor in Muscovy. After 1649 the government began to penalize recipients of fugitives by confiscating an additional serf in addition to the fugitive received. This had no impact, so it was raised to two. This in turn had no impact, so it was raised to four. At this point would-be recipients of fugitive serfs began to turn them away. Peter I took this one step further by proclaiming the death penalty for those who received the fugitive serfs, but it is not known whether anyone was actually executed.