Author: Andreanna Stefl

Leading up to the emancipation of serfs the economic state of Russia was extremely uneasy at best.  The poor economic state heavily affected the decision to emancipate the serfs due to several reasons.  Primarily, the growth of the manufacturing state of Russia which meant that nobles needed available funds to participate within the economic sphere.  This largely led to the gentry being divided into those who were investing in the market and or had excessive wealth or those who did not invest and had limited funds available.  This largely led to a vast amount of cash broke nobles. Who would either not be able to maintain their noble lives and would go into a deep debt or would attempt to squeeze the money out of their serfs.  As most serfs communes did not have the money to pay off their landowners debts this led to a lot of unrest and uprisings. Prior to emancipation of serfs there was over 1,467 serf uprisings within the nineteenth century.  Additionally, as the serfs became buried underneath the weight of their landowners debts with no hope of an income of their own they became lethargic and had little desire to improve themselves or work harder. This led to Russia struggling as a manufacturing state as it largely relied on the labor of serfs who did not want to work hard due to their circumstances.

The issue of serfdom was finally addressed in 1861 by Alexander II with the Emancipation Manifesto.  Within this document Alexander outlines how the emancipation will take place. He states that the full emancipation will occur within two years and will result in the land that the serfs live on and that the landowners own being split into two.  The serfs being required to pay off the cost of the land will then be free of all obligations to the land owner. However, what is most interesting about this document is Alexander’s desire to to show how this was the desire of the nobles. Throughout the piece Alexander makes several references as to how the nobles are willing giving the serfs their freedom saying, “Russia will not forget that the nobility, motivated by its respect for the dignity of man and its Christian love of its neighbor, has voluntarily renounced serfdom, and has laid the foundation of a new economic future for the peasants.”  This clearly shows Alexander’s desire to distance himself from the decision to emancipate the serfs. Alexander continues this dialogue by stating that, “the nobility voluntarily renounced its right to own serfs.” It becomes increasingly clear that he must be using this language as an attempt to not upset the nobility as this will already be a hard blow for them.

However, within the documents from the Supplication to Revolution we see clearly that this is not a simple transition.  Within this piece we see several documents written by the peasants to those in power begging for assistance in the distribution of land.  We see how the landowners used this as an opportunity to grab better land for themselves. We see several examples of also landowners taking what is not theirs.  An example would be how Mrs. Naryshkina stole the mill from the serfs who constructed it as well as paid for it. This was in addition to taking the better portions of the land and taking land that was not her property.  It also becomes clear throughout these documents that the serfs were then punished for complaining about their stolen land.

  Contrary to the “Emancipation Manifesto”, in “Picturing Russia”, the Lubki strongly represented the importance of the Tsar and his initiative to free the serfs. This form of public art was a mode of communication with the mostly illiterate serfs. The deeply grateful peasants present beneath Alexander II relate their harsh lives through their expressive appearance, while the Tsar takes on a stern, impassive profile, which can underline his obligation to the state, also as well as the peasants who are seen in these frames. The Lubki of Emancipation convey new found hope for freedom the peasants may one day possess. 

Questions:

1.  The third paragraph in the “Emancipation Manifesto” on page 307, given Alexander II’s reasoning for emancipating the serfs (because the nobles neglected their moral duty as the protector of the peasants), do you think this would be accurate considering on pg. 172 of the “Supplication to Revolution” document the writer details the change in the attitude of his landlords. What does this say about the priorities of the nobles? 
2. Considering the priorities of both the serfs and the landlords, do you think the conflicts which arose after declaring emancipation were inevitable considering the nature of serfdom or that the Tsar didn’t implement enough restrictions on the nobles to prohibit duress of the serfs. Even if the Tsar would have put greater restrictions on the landlords, would it have assisted the serfs. Look at the bottom of page 178 and top of 179 in “From Supplication to Revolution”. 
3. How does Alexander II give credit to the past Tsars for implementing serfdom reforms. Look at the top of page 308 on emancipation of serfdom.
4. When serfdom was established, the idea was to have the gentry be the peasants’ patriarch in order to help them survive, as Alexander II states in the “Emancipation Manifesto” document. He says the theory of serfdom was well-intended, but the landlords lost their moral sense of duty to the peasants. Does this help establish that the Tsar is the savior and patriarch to the peasants, and how is this exemplified in the lubki (illustrations of Russian culture, sovereignty, tradition, etc. made for public viewing). 
5. How does both Lubok images express what it means to be a Tsar and the role of peasants in society. 
6. In “From Supplication to Revolution”  pg 175 the first paragraph, what effect does the writer achieve telling Alexander II “permit us to be called state peasants”.
7. Looking at the Emancipation Manifesto why does Alexander choose to claim that this was done through the will of the nobles?  Why does he not choose to use this moment to make himself into a hero who frees the serfs?
8. Contrast the Lubok images with the Emancipation Manifesto.  How do they portray two conflicting ideas? The Lubok images demonstrating the serfs parsing the Tsar for their emancipation and the Emancipation Manifesto where Alexander downplays his role in the reforms.
9. The Emancipation Manifesto makes it seem that there were several intercepting issues that resulted in the emancipation of serfs with an emphasis given to morality issues.  However, is it possible that this decision was purely made for economic reasons?
10. In the piece within From Supplication to Revolution we see several examples of the serfs suffering due to the dividing of the land.  As well as them paying for the land which they have worked on and paid rent for for years. Should not the state have just divided the land and given it to them as they had technically paid for it?
11. As we see from the piece within From Supplication to Revolution the serfs are still clearly regarded as second class citizens.  This is very apparent on page 177 when the peasants are tortured for complaining. Is it possible that this did not socially benefit the serfs? 

Don’t be deceived by the title’s simplicity, the “Domostroi” literally translated to “domestic order” is an extensive manual used to guide a Russian household to the author’s conveyed full potential. Whether or not households actually followed these exact rules is not certain, however, it displays the important aspects of Russian culture. 
The Domostroi is an excellent insight into not only the guidelines of 16th Century Rus society, but it also displays what grew to be important to the Rus in the centuries we have covered in class. While loyalty to the nobility and the Tsar were of utmost importance, the Domostroi makes clear in the beginning of the preface what absolutely matters most in this society, Orthodox Christianity. The text opens “This is an admonition and instruction of father-confessors to all Orthodox Christians. It tells you how you must believe in the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Mother of God, Christ’s Cross, and all other heavenly powers…”  The Domostroi gives guidelines on how to properly be an Orthodox Christian, including how to commune with Bishops as well as day-to-day practices such as hosting gatherings. 
The Boyars and Tsars also have immense influence in this state. The Domostroi reinforces loyalty to the Tsar above all other people.  This is particularly important because the Domostroi, which is heavenly focused on Orthodox Christianity also reinforces the Tsar and nobility as authorities that orchestrate God’s Will. 
The authorship of the Domostroi is one that is debated. Although we lack a defined individual, it is clear the author was heavily involved with the Boyars. However, the importance of Orthodox Christianity, which looms over the text, would lead one to believe that this piece was possibly authored by a clergyman. As for the audience of the Domostroi, this seems like a guide that would necessarily apply more to the middle class or nobility, as it stresses loyalty to the Tsar and Boyars, but the literacy rates of the peasantry would indicate that few of them could read this guide. 
Overall the Domostroi is an excellent insight into what the Rus themselves thought was important  in their lives and society.

Questions

• Since the Domostroi was written during Ivan the Terrible’s reign what does this reflect about the society under his rule?
• According to the Domostroi, did women at this time period hold greater power in society or were they simply pawns in a male dominated culture? What powers did women possess and also what were their restrictions?
• What ideal of a man does this text present.
• How does the Domostroi show the relationship between the master and his servants? Refer to 35 and 36 of the Domostroi. 
• When the master was absent, he would appoint his most trusted servant to take on specifically his duty of running the household. Since this was regarded to be such an important role in the Domostroi, does this imply that in Moscow all people were viewed to be inherently equal in theory. 
• How does the Domostroi show the relationship between the tsar and the church? Refer to number 7 of the Domostroi. 
• What were the Russians’ beliefs about God and his involvement in their lives and society? 
• Why do you think abstinence (in all aspects of life) was so greatly emphasized in this text? There are countless passages illustrating the importance of abstinence, such as 13,26,27, and 28. However, look particularly at this section retrieved from towards the end of number 24, “If the master or any member of his household commit any of these improper deeds – lechery, unchastity, foul speech, oath-breaking, irrational fury, bearing grudges- and those in charge neither prevent the deeds nor punish them strictly , all will go to Hell together and will be damned in this world as well”.  What does this quote add to the significance of abstinence?
• The topic of identifying the original writer is highly debated, who do you think he was; or at least what kind of life do you think he lived? And do you think because it was edited multiple times it made the text more persuasive to the public based on your perception of the original text?
• What was the true purpose of the Domostroi. It is not actually certain whether Russian families actually followed these rules. Was the Domostroi’s purpose more to display to the rest of Europe that Russia was a westernized nation, an actually guide used by the boyars, or perhaps it could’ve been a wealthier writer caught up in some of his fanciful ideas visualizing a perfect Russian society?