Talk:Serfdom in Russia

Untitled

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

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)

Slave turned into Serf

"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)

• 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)

Article Name Change?

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)

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.

Merge with Muzhik

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)

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)

Assessment comment

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)