Jump to content

Talk:Serfdom in Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I started some work on serfdom in Russia in serf, but moved it here, since that article deals with no other particular cases. I listed this article as a COW; this is quite an important topic in explaining Russia's political and economic development, so I hope to see the article ready for FAC soon. 172 02:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Translated term

[edit]

krepostnoi krestyanin (крепостной крестьянин), is translated as serf

  • Could a Russian speaker offer a more precise translation? A quick check of an online dictionary suggests the terms are separately translated as bondsman and peasant, respectively. I'm not disputing this; I simply think the Russian compound should be broken out as an explanation. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The word крепостной comes from the word прикреплять, which means "to attach". The peasants were "attached" to their land and prohibited from abandoning it. KNewman 23:03, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this definition of the word. Certainly serf doesn't mean "peasant" in the English sense of the word. Serfs were much closer to slavery, tied to the land, forced to work not only for the landlord and pay taxes, but work the landlord's personal land. They could not legally own property, marry, inherit, move, sell, testify, bring charges, and lots of others, often, without their lord's approval. This goes beyond the idea of peasants as small farmers, owning their own small land, or renting someone else's. Even to medieval peasants it was a much more consentual relationship. Indeed, good proof of this difference is that after emancipation, the serfs are referred to as peasants, making the distinction.--Dmcdevit 23:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "The English sense of the word" does not go much beyond the "agricultural worker", "country person". Land ownership, degree of freedom, etc., vary from country to country and from epoch to epoch. Mikkalai 07:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dmcdevit: The Russian word "krestyanin" means someone who works on the land, but does not necessarily own it. "Krepostnoj krestyanin" then means "land-bound peasant", which has also been translated as "tenant", though I believe that last translation to be very vague.

Russian serfs had the legal status of property, although each peasant family was given a small plot of land, which they could till after completing their daily shift ("urok") on the lord's personal land. The lord kept all the harvests from his personal land and collected a 1/10 fee from the serfs' plots. Thus, even while working for the lord, the serfs were required to provide for themselves with the 9/10 of the harvest from "their" plots, and could even have some disposable income of their own in good years. Of course, serfs had virtually no access to courts, and in the 18th century, Catherine the Great went as far as to criminalize complaining against one's lord, so even the limited property rights that the serfs had were, as a practical matter, illusory. The lord could take anything and as much as he wanted, and there was nothing the serfs would be able to do about it.

Moreover, at the height of serfdom in Russia, not all serfs worked on the land at all. Wealthy landed aristocracy sat up elaborate households, fine art shops, even permanent theater troups and opera companies. Many serfs became full-time domestic servants, painters, sculptors, chefs, actors, singers, and even teachers to their masters' children. There were even factories (like the Demidov enterprise) staffed with serfs as full-time industrial workers. Needless to say, they were not given any land to till and had no income of their own, except what they received as largesse. For those people, serfdom was really Roman-style slavery.

So, I guess neither the word "peasant" nor "serf" are entirely accurate when applied to all "krepostnye" accross the board. However, we must use them for lack of better terms in English. This is, unfortunately, where vocabulary is limited by history.--Redisca 14:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A serf is the correct translation. The number of serfs who worked as domestic servants was negligible- 4- 7% of the serfs by the official data. A very important thing was omitted in the article. Owners never had the right to kill their serfs (legally,formally, at least). That is why "Saltychikha" went to prison for life and other cruel landlords were punished. I advise you to read the book by Richard Pipes "Russia under old regime" "Peasants"...He was a GREAT specialist. It is not an exaggeration. The book is available in English and in Russian. Besides, the Government tried to prohibit selling serfs without land several times- the edicts of 1771, 1808 and 1833. You can find this information in all the open sources. As for the pictures describing "selling house serfs", they were created many years later and do not have any scientific value, though they are inserted everywhere. For some "Soviet propaganda" reasons such pictures are associated with the "heavy fate" of the Russian peasants but the percent of such "house serfs" was small, almost negligible (4- 7%)...In the Centre of Russia the majority of serfs paid a quit-rent and corvee was not wide-spread (Richard Pipes) Though serfdom CANNOT and must not be justified..... If you read Richard Pipes "Russia under old regime" the difference between slaves and serfs will be apparent. Read Pipes and if you know Russian you can read В. Семевский "Крестьяне в царствование Екатерины 2", том 1 103.25.248.253 (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've reverted your edits since you removed several sources.
If two sources disagree, we need to mention both viewpoints, giving them due weight. Could you provide the page numbers so that I can review the two sources you've mentioned? Alaexis¿question? 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slave turned into Serf

[edit]

"Slavery remained a major institution in Russia until 1723, when Peter the Great converted the household slaves into house serfs." You mean it was that easy to trick people into thinking they were no longer slaves by changing their title to serf? Wow. Now slaves & serfs are "employees" & told they're not slaves, they're free. Stars4change (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close but incorrect. Slavery did exist as a separate institution, indeed more akin to Roman slavery. Serfs, unlike slaves, were entitled to use of land to which they were bonded; slaves were not. Later sources also used "slave" for those serfs who were house servants, grooms etc. and thus lost their connection to farmland that was defining of "true" serfs. In both cases the term applied to a fairly thin social class, although as the Petrine nobility grew in numbers, so did the number of servants. NVO (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slave = serf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.19.7 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name Change?

[edit]

Because this could incorporate serfdom among Ukrainians and other non-Russian peoples in the Russia, would anyone object to a more accurate name such as "Serfdom in Russia"?Faustian (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "Ukrainians and other non-Russian peoples",because in those times,Malorus (not Ukraine) was still part of Russian nation,as well as Belarus.This "national awakening" happened later in history,during early XX century.After all,Kievan Rus' is a place where Russian nation started its growth,isn't it?Having that in mind title "Serfdom in Russia" is correct,but there's no need for national divisions,since all were loyal subjects as one,Russian people - of Russian Tsardom/Empire at the time. 109.111.231.92 (talk)

So loyal, in fact, that they all, collectively of course, tossed the buggers out. LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Muzhik

[edit]

Actually in the Muzhik which should be merged with this article.

"I understand the mean of having a article just for this word. But really is just a trasliteration of the russia word. We have to see that the only reason to having a whole article for this word is because it apear a lot in the translations of the russian literature of the XIX century.

I belive it should be merged with serfdom in russia, because it was a kind of rude mean for commoner, peasant, serf etc. at that time. So if a person is looking for this name, he really want to now what is to what it was related in that moment. This person, was a peasant, and all the peasants were a kind of "serfs" in the XIX century russia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faladh (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement on the meaning of muzhik in the article is mysterious ("The term muzhik . . . was used to mean the most common rural dweller (a peasant) but that was only a narrow contextual meaning of the word." So what was the broader, truer meaning of muzhik? Alexandrow's A Complete Russian-English Dictionary(London and St. Petersburg, 1904) defines muzhik as "peasant, countryman; fig.' boor, clown, clod-hopper" (p. 277, available at https://openlibrary.org/books/OL13507727M/A_complete_Russian-English_dictionary). Linguistatlunch (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be a separate English wiki article "Muzhik", based on the ru:Мужик. That is because in modern Russian "muzhik" means "a male" in general, with the same connotations as "macho".109.252.201.217 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Serfdom in Russia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The paragraph about some 'Alibek' is utter noncence and looks like a prank; it needs to be corrected.

Last edited at 01:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 05:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Serfdom in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete edits

[edit]

Explain why my edits were deleted. What is so untrue there? Serfdom and slavery are two different things? Yes. Serfdom changed in essence under different rulers? Yes. In Russia, serfdom was canceled (1861) only 13 years later than Austria (1848)? Yes. So what are your complaints?--Александр Ашкаров (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting so that we can discuss this. Serfdom and slavery are two different things -- I agree, Yes. This is why, if you look at your original edit (here), I did not revert the entire thing. The category and infobox relating to slavery were not re-added after you removed them; it is inaccurate to conflate the two things.
The problems with the paragraph added at the end of the lead:
  • Most difficult under Catherine the Great (This may be true, but needs to be cited. The article never says this, so where is the information coming from? Moreover, when I referred to a "contradiction" it was because in the article it mentions (with a cited source) certain reforms passed under Catherine the Great (section: 18th and 19th centuries), but it does not mention that conditions were "most difficult." Surely, things could have been "most difficult" despite her reforms, but, again, it would need reliable cited source, just like every claim added to Wikipedia (See WP:V).
  • "There are several things to keep in mind" is not a good tone for Wikipedia. Avoid "Consider that..." "Remember that..." "It's important to realize..." etc. These things either address the reader directly or give Wikipedia an editorial voice above and beyond the sources it relies on, which we should not do. These phrases can be included if they're directly quoting a source, but not otherwise in the normal prose of an article.
  • The parts about serf's rights to ownership, etc., are good, and I have no doubt that they are true ... but they need sources if they are not already supported by sources in the rest of the article. Feel free to re-add those if you can cite them!
  • If you look at the section called "slaves and serfs" in the article, notice that the claims that serfs and slaves has similar rights is supported by Kolchin, a historian, and a WP:RS. This is another reason that the material you added was removed. It's possible that the wording in the article was too strong ("no different from chattel slaves"), so I have changed it. Still, the material you add would need to be supported by a source.
  • Please review my last three edits carefully; I have done more than just remove your content.
I very much appreciate your contributions as this page has not seen much activity recently. To summarize, though, sources are absolutely necessary for changing the info in the article, even the comparison to slavery, which I happen to agree may be over-emphasized in the article's current state. We shouldn't (and can't) argue with experts, so expert sources are needed in order to make the changes you are attempting.--MattMauler (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the serfdom specifically in Russia was very much a slavery, as sources tell. This is because the serfs were very literally owned, sold, physically punished or tortured and had no rights whatsoever. Hence the stable expression "krepostnye raby" in Russian language, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

[edit]

@Serge Vasilef:, what is your source for the numbers you keep changing in the article? Alaexis¿question? 21:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serfdom_in_Russia&oldid=1240157683"