Abstract
The economic significance of the landed class (pomeshchiki)1 had declined considerably by the First World War; but politically they still represented one of the major bulwarks of the autocratic state. The number of landowning families had changed little since the beginning of the century, yet the percentage of nobles belonging to landowning families had declined sharply (from 54–55 per cent in 1895 to 36–37 per cent in 1912) with many nobles now engaged in non-agricultural activities.2 Moreover, the dynamism of a society undergoing economic and social transformation was reflected in inter-class mobility, clearly apparent in the half century before the revolution when the social composition of the pomeshchiki had begun to change. As a result of economic pressures in the late nineteenth century some members of the landlord class had become impoverished or had moved into state service and the professions. The landlord class was simultaneously replenished by an influx of individuals engaged in the new commercial, industrial and financial spheres of society. Thus, with the upsurge of industrial development from the mid-1880s, a new kind of pomeshchik had emerged from the indigenous and foreign bourgeoisie. At the time of the February revolution, the landed class still dominated the Russian countryside politically, even though it was now of mixed social composition in terms of origin and estate (soslovie).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Data are taken from Seymour Becker, Nobility and Privilege in Late Imperial Russia (Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1985).
For a recent discussion see Hans Rogger, Russia in the Age of Modernisation and Revolution, 1881–1917 (London: Longman, 1983), pp. 67–8, 88–95
Theodore Taranovski, ‘Nobility in the Russian Empire: Some Problems of Definition and Interpretation’, Slavic Review, vol. 47, no. 2 (1988): 314–18
See for example the works by A. M. Anfimov: ‘Pomeshchich’e khozyaistvo Rossii v gody pervoi mirovoi voiny’, Istoricheskie zapiski, vol. 60 (1957): 124–75
A. P. Korelin, ‘Dvoryanstvo v poreformennoi Rossii 1861–1904 gg.’, Istoricheskie zapiski, vol. 87 (1970): 91–173
Chaadaeva claims that the Union emerged because landowners were frightened of the developing agrarian movement and created an organisation for the immediate defence of the interests of large landownership. See O. N. Chaadaeva, Introduction to material relating to the Plenum of the Main Council of the Union of Landowners, Krasnyi Arkhiv (1927) vol. 2, 21: 97–9.
This is neatly encapsulated in what Stites has called the revolutionaries’ struggle ‘for the dignity of the lower classes’. See, for example, the noblewoman who ‘became hysterical’ when a tram conductor referred to her as comrade: Richard Stites, ‘Utopias in the Air and On the Ground: Futuristic Dreams in the Russian Revolution’, Russian History/Histoire Russe, vol. 11, nos 2–3, Summer-Fall (1984): 252.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1992 School of Slavonic and East European Studies
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Channon, J. (1992). The Landowners. In: Service, R. (eds) Society and Politics in the Russian Revolution. Studies in Russia and East Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22017-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22017-5_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-46911-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-22017-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)