Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
The law of 1762 has received much attention from historians. To many older
historians, such as the nineteenth-century historian Vasili Kliuchevsky, the law
undermined the idea of service as the basic structure of Russian society as it had
developed in the past centuries. If the serfs served the landlords to enable the
landlords to serve the state, then the abolition of gentry service should have
been followed by the abolition of serfdom. Yet, it would be another 99 years,
before this happened. Other historians have emphasized a different interpreta-
tion, arguing that the law of 1762 had positive results, it allowed the gaining of
independence from the state by at least one class of Russian society. This was
Russia's first crucial step on the road to liberalism. Moreover, they argue that
the freedom of the nobility contributed to the growth of a rich gentry culture
and, beyond that, to the emergence of the Russian intelligentsia.
The peasants of course saw things differently. While the status of the gentry
had been improving in the decades after Peter the Great, their own status dete-
riorated rapidly. On the other hand, the state granted all sorts of privileges to the
gentry (not compelled to serve, a special gentry bank with low-interest loans,
admission to cadet school and arise through the ranks without serving as sol-
diers, nearly complete financial and legal control over serfs). On the other hand,
it increasingly limited the peasant's few remaining freedoms (they could not
sign legal or financial documents, could be sold or sent to Siberia at will, could
not volunteer for the military, with the administration of virtually all justice in
the hands of an often corrupt provincial bureaucracy or their landlord). The
demand for freedom of the peasants to follow the freedom of the gentry was
voiced frequently in the peasant uprisings that soon followed, most notably the
great Pugachev Rebellion of 1773-74.
Despite the benefits that the law of 1762 brought to the nobility in general,
Peter III had made too many enemies in his brief reign. One was his wife, the
future Catherine II, whom he mistreated and neglected in favor of other
women. Another group of enemies came from the Imperial Guard, whom Peter
III had threatened to disband. Catherine, who arrived in Russia in 1745, proved
to be a far more savvy politician than her husband. In the midsummer of 1762,
she seized upon the growing dissatisfaction with Peter and led the palace guards
in yet another revolution. Peter was easily deposed and shortly thereafter killed,
perhaps as a result of an argument with one of the leaders of the insurrection,
Grigorii Orlov.
Catherine's coup also affected her son, Paul (born 1754). Rather than mak-
ing Paul the successor and ruling in his name, she became empress. At the time,
the coup of 1762 seemed like just one more of the many palace revolutions that
had marked the 18th century. It was not clear how long a foreign empress
would manage to hold on to the throne. As it turned out, this was just the
beginning of a long and celebrated reign.
Catherine II brought Russia a period of stability in the monarchy, spectacu-
lar success in foreign policy, and continuing Westernization. Reigning for over
30 years, Catherine ended the era of palace revolts and court favorites that had
prevailed since 1725. She directed policy herself and attained remarkable
results, notably in expanding Russian territory. Poland was thrice partitioned,
Search WWH ::




Custom Search