Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:46:30.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opening Public Space: The Peace Arbitrator and Rural Politicization, 1861-1864

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Roxanne Easley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The peace arbitrator was created in 1861 to be the main administrative autiiority in the countryside during die implementation of emancipation. In this article Roxanne Easley examines the institution of peace arbitrator and its role in mediating interests and fostering communication between landlord and peasant and as a potential generative agent of civil society in the postemancipation countryside. After the initial shock of confrontation between landowners and peasants, coercion, arbitrariness, and custom began to share public space with dialogue, process, and law in the solution of public disputes. The peace arbitrator, as die point of intersection for each group’s ideology(ies) and as instructor in formal communication, was at the heart of this change. But a permanent, fully institutionalized vehicle for mediating public interests did not fit with the autocracy’s vision of orderly social change nor with its habitual compartmentalization of die social estates. In response to this threat, the state first neutralized the unusual public principles that underlay the institution of peace arbitrator and then eliminated it in 1874. Easley explores the unintended growth of public politicization in rural Russia as a consequence of emancipation and the boundaries of autocratic reformism.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , Winter 2002 , pp. 707 - 731
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Research for this study was conducted on a long-term grant provided by the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) with funds provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the United States Department of State, which administers the Title VIII Program, and the IREX Scholar Support Fund. Additional funds were provided by the Sasakawa Foundation. None of these organizations are responsible for the views expressed. I am grateful to Alan Kimball, Thomas Wellock, Diane Koenker, and die anonymous referees for Slavic Review for their invaluable comments and criticism on earlier versions of this project.

1 Obshchestvennaia deiatel'nost’ L. N. Tolstogo v Tul’skom krae: Sbornik dokumentov (Tula, 1980), 9. See also N. N. Gusev, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoi: Materialy dlia biografii (Moscow, 1957), 2:478.

2 Gusev, Tolstoi, 2:255.

3 Quoted in Fedorov, V. A., “Lozungi krest'ianskoi bor'by v 1861–1863 gg.,” in Nechkina, M. V., ed., Revoliutsionnaia situatsiia v Rossii v 1859–1861 gg. (Moscow, 1963), 256.Google Scholar

4 Bezvestnyi Druzhinin], [A. V., “Iz dnevnika mirovogo posrednika 1861–1862 gg.,“ Russkii vestnik, 1863, no. 8:811–12.Google Scholar

5 For the researcher interested in the institution of peace arbitrator as a component of official policy, there is no better starting place than Larissa Zakharova’s ground breaking Samoderzhavie i otmena krepostnogo prava v Rossii (Moscow, 1984). Zakharova challenged the Leninist formula of the emancipation as a reformulation of feudal political principles and emphasized die novelty of the peace arbitrator as a component of bourgeois bureaucratic norms. N. F. Ust'iantseva expanded this concept in her doctoral dissertation and in the two published articles drawn from it. Based on the extensive use of archival data, Ust'iantseva elucidated the principles underlying the institution, its position among other reform legislation, its statistical composition, and its evaluation in the periodical press. N. F. Ust'iantseva, “Institut mirovykh posrednikov v sisteme gosudarstvennogo stroia Rossii” (kandidat diss., Moscow State University, 1984); Ust'iantseva, , “Institut mirovykh posrednikov v otsenke sovremennikov (po materialam gazety Mirovoi posrednik),” Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universileta, series 8, no. 1 (1984): 64–75;Google Scholar Ust'iantseva, , “Accountable Only to God and the Senate: Peace Mediators and the Great Reforms,” trans. Eklof, Ben, in Eklof, Ben, Bushnell, John, and Zakharova, Larissa, eds., Russia’s Great Reforms, 1855–1881 (Bloomington, 1994), 161–80.Google Scholar Research on the activities of the peace arbitrator in the field began with Zaionchkovskii, P. A., Provedenie v zhizn’ krest'ianskoi reformy 1861 g. (Moscow, 1958),Google Scholar followed by Litvak, B. G., Russkaia derevnia v reforme 1861 goda (Moscow, 1972).Google Scholar Both works contain the statistical results of massive local research on the emancipation setdement, but with an eye toward the documentation of Leninist feudal exploitation. Few historians have set out to explore die process of arbitration and the local responses it evoked. A notable exception that explores the dynamics of negotiation in Saratov is Wildman, Allan K., “The Defining Moment: Land Charters and the Post- Emancipation Agrarian Settlement in Russia, 1861–1863,” The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies, no. 1205 (Pittsburgh, 1996).Google Scholar

6 For all the volumes and conference papers devoted to defining civil society, the simplest definition seems the most workable. Civil society is an intermediate, autonomous sphere of social interaction and organized communication that lies between die private and governmental spheres. Because individuals are not free to pursue their group and individual interests, or even to communicate without state interference, such a public sphere cannot exist when a society is segmented into isolated and hierarchical legal estates. For a more sophisticated theoretical analysis of civil society, see Cohen, Jean L. and Arato, Andrew, Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, Mass., 1992).Google Scholar

7 Scholarly literature on the emancipation of 1861 is extraordinarily rich. The best starting point for inquiry remains Zaionchkovskii’s, P. A. influential Otmena krepostnogo prava v Rossii, 3d ed. (Moscow, 1968).Google Scholar His work is supplemented by the core research his students, Russian and American, have produced over die last thirty years, including Rieber, Alfred, Politics of Autocracy (Paris, 1966)Google Scholar, Emmons, Terence, The Russian Landed Gentry and the Peasant Emancipation of 1861 (Cambridge, Eng., 1968)Google Scholar, Field, Daniel, TheEnd of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855-1861 (Cambridge, Mass., 1976),Google Scholar Zakharova, Samoderzhavie i otmena krepostnogo prava v Rossii, and Lincoln, W. Bruce, In the Vanguard of Reform: Russia’s Enlightened Bureaucrats, 1826-1881 (DeKalb, 1982).Google Scholar Most recendy, David Moon draws on his expertise in peasant history to weave an impressively balanced view of the causes, course, and consequences of emancipation. Moon, , The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia, 1762–1907 (London, 2001).Google Scholar

8 “Polozhenie o gubernskikh po krest'ianskim delam uchrezhdeniiakh,” Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, collection 2, vol. 36, no. 36660 (St. Petersburg, 1830- 1916).

9 Noble assemblies were directed to draw up lists of candidates who possessed the following qualifications: hereditary nobility, at least 21 years of age, with conduct “above reproach,” and possessing landholdings of at least 500 desiatinas (one desiatina equaled 2.7 acres). The noble assemblies could not eliminate any qualified candidate. Once compiled, the assemblies forwarded the lists to the provincial governor, who then passed the lists on to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. From the lists forwarded by the governors, the Ministry of Internal Affairs suggested candidates “with the most active and sincere sympathy toward the improvement of peasant life” (i.e., with ideas most agreeable to die state’s plan for emancipation). The ministry’s “suggestions” sometimes overrode the governors' decisions. Shornik pravitel’stvennykh rasporiazhenii, po ustroistvu byta krest'ian, vyshedshchikh iz krepostnoi zavisimosti (St. Petersburg, 1861–1876), vol. 2, pt. 1, 254–62.

10 Ibid., vol. 2, pt. 1,111–15.

11 The subject was hotly debated in die Main Committee on Peasant Affairs, without consensus. As a result, the issue was shelved in the final legislation, which read simply, “Means of electing the arbitrators after three years will be determined by special rules. “ “Polozhenie o gubernskikh po krest'ianskim delam uchrezhdeniiakh,” art. 15.

12 Ibid., art. 21.

13 Sbornik pravitel’stvennykh rasporiazhenii, vol. 2, pt. 1, 111–15.

14 Demert, N. A., “Novaia volia (iz zapisok sluzhebnykh kogda-to po krest'ianskomu delu),” Otechestvennyezapiski 187, no. 11 (1869): 229–35.Google Scholar

15 Voroponov, F. F., “Sorok let tomu nazad,” VestnikEvropy, 1904, no. 7:16–17.Google Scholar

16 Obninskii, P. N., “V A. Artsimovich v Kaluge v 1861-1863 godakh,” in Koni, A. N., ViktorAntonovich Artsimovich: Vospominaniia, kharakteristiki (St. Petersburg, 1904), 112.Google Scholar

17 When we consider the arbitrators’ family connections, the list is even more illustrious. For example: Nikolai Bakunin (Tver’), brother of the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin; M. S. Lanskoi (Simbirsk), son of Minister of Internal Affairs Lanskoi; Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Valuev’s son-in-law, Ivan Mechnikov (Khar'kov), whose death was the subject of Lev Tolstoi’s “Death of Ivan Il'ich“; G. N. Ge, brodier of the painter N. N. Ge (Podol’sk); the brother of the writer P. I. Iakushkin, E. I ; the brother of the botanist A. N. Beketov, Aleksandr (Penza); Andrei Sechenov (Simbirsk), brother of the physiologist N. M. Sechenov; the brother of the biologist K. A. Timiriazev, Aleksandr (Orel); the brother of the liberal publicist and imperial tutor K. D. Ravelin, Pavel (Tula); the brother of writer-publicist M. E. Saltykov, Il'ia (Tver’); Andrei Ostrogradskii (Poltava), brother of the mathematician M. V Ostrogradskii; the nephew and biographer of A. S. Griboedov, D. A. Smirnov (Vladimir); the father of the Paris Commune participants S. V. Kovalevskaia and A. V. Zhaklara, V. V Korvin-Krukovskii (Vitebsk); and Aksill Davydov (Moscow), son of the hero of the Napoleonic Wars Denis Davydov. According to the memoirs of A. P. Beliaev, the great noble families rushed to send one representative to serve as peace arbitrator, as a mark of the family’s honor. “Very happily,” notes Beliaev, “the first arbitrators were chosen from people standing at the height of their calling. All the best in Russia by wealth and education were ushered in by public vote according to their moral qualities, all, who were the most well-born and liberal were called forth at the summons of the sovereign and stood in the ranks of activists as to a holy calling.” The sense of honor attached to the post as described by Beliaev is given additional weight by the fact that civil servants often exchanged very high positions to serve as arbitrators. Beliaev, A. P., “Vospominaniia,“ Russkaia starina 11 (1886): 302.Google Scholar

18 Several other contemporary novels contain arbitrators as central characters, such as Aleksei Pisemskii’s Vzbalamuchennoe more (1863) and Aleksandr Druzhinin’s Proshloe leto v derevne (1862). For a full analysis of the depiction of the peace arbitrator in fiction, see my doctoral dissertation: “‘The Friends of Our Enemies’: The Institution of Mirovoi Posrednik in the Russian Emancipation of 1861” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oregon, 1997), 272–93.

19 On average, the arbitrators were 37 years of age and over half had higher education. Three-quarters possessed estates between 500 and 3,000 desiatinas in size; 5 percent were titled, and 79 percent possessed chin (66 percent of this figure between the ranks of IX and XTV). Ust'iantseva, “Institut mirovykh posrednikov v sisteme,” 91–119.

20 Valk, S. N., ed., Otmena krepostnogo prava: Doklady ministrov vnutrennikh del o provedenii krest'ianskoi reformy (1861–1862) (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), 52.Google Scholar

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid., 46.

23 Fedorov, “Lozungi,” 257.

24 Obninskii, “V. A. Artsimovich,” 136.

25 N. K. Ponomarev, “Vospominaniia mirovogo posrednika pervogo prizyva, 1861–1863 gg.,” Russkaia starina 69, no. 2 (1891): 304.

26 There are numerous excellent sources for studying peasant perceptions of authority and their opposition strategies. See, for example, Moon, David, The Russian Peasantry, 1600–1930 (New York, 1999)Google Scholar, and Field, Daniel, Rebels in the Name of the Tsar (Boston, 1976).Google Scholar

27 Lutskii, V. K., “Iz zapisok,” Russkaia starina 117, no. 2 (1904): 304.Google Scholar

28 Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARF), f. 109, 4th exp., op. 201 (1861), d. 231,1. 76.

29 Budaev, D. I., Krest'ianskaia reforma 1861 g. v Smolenskoi gubernii (Smolensk, 1967), 117.Google Scholar

30 For examples of the arbitrators’ activities in mediating disturbances, see N. M. Druzhinin, ed., Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie vRossii v XlX-nachale XXveka, vols. 3 and 4 (Moscow, 1963), 4:docs. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 27, 28, and 29.

31 GARF, f. 109, 4th exp., op. 201 (1861), d. 238,1. 88.

32 Quoted in Samarin, Iu. F., “Izvlechenie iz otcheta o khode krest'ianskogo dela v Samarskoi gubernii v 1861 g.,” in Sochineniia (Moscow, 1911), 4:428.Google Scholar

33 Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA), f. 1291 (Zemskogo otdela Ministerstva vnutrennikh del), op. 36 (1862), d. 149,1. 12.

34 One district elder lost his tooth by such means; another peasant lost his eye. RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1862), d. 6,11. 149 and 72.

35 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1862), d. 61,1. 29.

36 Demert, “Novaia volia,” 249–51.

37 Only in the case of death did the authorities automatically investigate. Such was the case with Podol’sk arbitrator Zapol’skii, who struck a 70-year-old peasant. The old man suffered from consumption and “could not recover from this blow.” The governor regretted “this tragic occurrence, which befell one of the most excellent peace arbitrators” but asked Zapol’skii to temporarily resign. Within the year, Zapol’skii was cleared of suspicion and had resumed his post. RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1862), d. 41. This was the single officially recorded case of murder, accidental or otherwise, by an arbitrator. In June 1862 the Ministry of Internal Affairs recognized that the personal use of violence by arbitrators was unlikely to be reported and thus ordered that all such incidents be investigated, whether the injured party complained or not. Mirovoi posrednik, no. 12 (1862): 224.

38 Quoted in Budaev, Krest'ianskaia reforma, 116.

39 See Druzhinin, ed., Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii, 3:736 and 4:798–800.

40 For examples of these proceedings, see Kulomzin, A. N., “Vospominaniia mirovogo posrednika,” Zapiski OR GBL, vol. 10 (1941): 13–14;Google Scholar Rozen, A. E., Zapiski dekabrisla (St. Petersburg, 1907), 380,Google Scholar and Polovtsev, A. A., “Dnevnik mirovogo posrednika,” Russkaia starina 157, no. 1 (1914): 98.Google Scholar

41 Quoted in Fridman, M. B., Otmena krepostnogoprava vBelorussii (Minsk, 1958), 136.Google Scholar

42 Nosovich, S. I., “Krest'ianskaia reforma v Novgorodskoi gubernii,” Istoricheskoe obozrenie, 1898, no. 10:21.Google Scholar

43 One peasant candidate compared accepting office to “replacing Christ on the cross.” N. A. Krylov, “Vospominaniia mirovogo posrednika pervogo prizyva o wedenii v deistve Polozhenii 19 fevralia 1861 g.,” Russkaia starina 74, no. 6 (1892): 633.

44 Demert, “Novaia volia,” 216.

45 Filippov, K., Zametki mirovogoposrednika (St. Petersburg, 1867), 5.Google Scholar

46 GARF, f. 109 (III Otdeleniia sobstvennoi Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva Kantseliarii), Istexp., op. 36 (1861), d. 3, ch. 19,1. 14.

47 “Podlinnye vospominaniia byvshego krepostnogo,” Russkoe bogatstvo, 1883, no. 6: 366–67.

48 Quoted in G. S. Koistinen, “Provedenie reformy 1861 g. v Peterburgskoi gubernii“ (kandidat diss., Leningrad State University, 1953), 221.

49 Volk-Karachevskii, , “Sorok let nazad,” Kievskaia starina 73, no. 4 (1901): 30.Google Scholar

50 Sbornik statei, nedozvolmnykh tsenzuroi v 1862 g. (St. Petersburg, 1862), 1:349.

51 Konovalov, F. P., “Materialy iz arkhiva mirovykh posrednikov Atarskogo uezda,” in Materialy po krepostnomupravu: Saratovskaiaguberniia (Saratov, 1911), 38.Google Scholar

52 Ibid.

53 Morokhovets, E. A., ed., Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie 1827–1869 gg. (Moscow, 1939), 2:44.Google Scholar One might equally well consider the insignificance of diis percentage. Peasant officials, in this light, exhibited a negligible commitment to the new self-administrative institutions.

54 Budaev, Krest'ianskaia reforma, 118.

55 Valk, ed., Otmena krepostnogo prava, 56.

56 Otchet po Glavnomu homitetu ob ustroistve sel’skogo sostoianiia za deviatiletie, s 19fevralia 1861 po 19fevralia 1870 (St. Petersburg, 1870), 56.

57 For example, arbitrator I. Charnysh verified a charter for the village of Vasil'evka, Poltava province, in mid-1862. On the estate of die landlord, Mariia Ivanovna Gogol'-Iakovskaia, 206 male souls were entided to land allotments. Prior to emancipation, the peasants used 207 desiatinas of land; Charnysh increased the allotment to 283 desiatinas, in accordance with the legal minimum for the region. The land was combined into one piece. The peasants retained a cattle crossing and access to a watering pond, but no pasturage or access to firewood. In exchange for the land, die peasants were required to pay set amounts of quitrent. Charnysh noted, however, that die peasants had no cash capital, suggesting that obrok payments could be difficult to gather. Thus labor dues could supplement or replace the quitrent payments. In die end, Gogol'-Iakovskaia declined to verify the distribution of land to the peasants and authorized the arbitrator to do so. RGIA, f. 577, op. 30 (1862), d. 1355,11. 263–65.

58 Quoted in Fedorov, “Lozungi,” 248.

59 Otchetpo Glavnomu komitetu, 21.

60 Quoted in Zaionchkovskii, Otmena, 194.

61 Quoted in Fedorov, “Lozungi,” 251.

62 Minkh, A. N., “Iz zapisok mirovogo posrednika A. N. Minkha,” in Materialy po krepostnomu pravu (Saratov, 1911), 13.Google Scholar

63 It is impossible to establish die degree to which beliefs in a second emancipation were genviine as opposed to justifications for passive resistance. We do know that peasant dissatisfaction with the emancipation occasionally spilled over into criticism of the tsar as well. “Why monetary obligations?” charged a peasant in Vologda. “The land was created by God for everyone, and therefore the tsar and the landowner have no exclusive right to the ownership of it. So I don't consider myself obliged to pay for the land.” Peasants in Orenburg went a bit farther: “We don't recognize the legislation of 19 February, because the tsar promised us freedom. Now he requires us to pay or work for the land, and freedom without land is nothing.” Druzhinin, ed., Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii, 4:docs. 5, 41, 67, 204. These instances may be indicative of the slipping of a common facade or the beliefs of a faithless few. In either case, the rumor of a second emancipation could go beyond passive disobedience to a call for action: the “tsarist myth” could work bodi ways. See Daniel Field’s remarkable case studies of the “tsarist myth” in Rebels in the Name of the Tsar. Similarly, Field argues that rumors of a second emancipation reflected both utopianism and a more pragmatic sense of peasant justice. See Field, “The Year of Jubilee,” in Eklof, Bushnell, and Zakharova, eds., Russia’s Great Reforms, 40–57.

64 Samarin, “Izvlechenie,” 429.

65 Bezvestnyi, “Iz dnevnika,” 797.

66 P. N. Obninskii, “Kaluzhskoe gubernskoe po krest'ianskim delam prisutstvie pri V. A. Arstimoviche (1861–1863),” Russkaia mysl', 1896, no. 4:64.

67 “Otchet deistvii mirovogo posrednika Khar'kovskoi gubernii Iziumskogo uezda 2 uchastka barona A. E. Rozena,” Russkaia mysl', 1885, no. 9:158.

68 D. D. Obolenskii, “Vospominaniia,“Russkii arkhiv, 1894, no. 10:260–61.

69 Obzordeistvii Ministerstva vnutrennikh delpo krest'ianskomu delu s ianvaria 1861 po 19 fevralia 1864g. (St. Petersburg, 1864), 12.

70 Quoted in Fedorov, “Lozungi,” 252.

71 On the basis of arbitrators'journals, Soviet scholar L. R. Gorlanov categorized the reasons peasants refused to sign die land charters in Kostroma province. In descending order of their frequency, they are: loss of haying land; poor land for arable; loss of land purchased under serfdom; onerous obrok; loss of pasturage; smaller allotments; unclear land measurement; loss of customary land; loss of arable; inaccurate land measurement; loss of forests; onerous prereform obligations; unsatisfactory payment schedule for obrok; inclusion of peasants not entitied to land; allotments too distant from the village; desire for an independent charter; unsatisfactory additions to the allotment; desire to rent land; hopes for a new emancipation; insufficient raw materials for cottage industry; neighbors’ refusals to sign; divided allotments; loss of cattle crossings; demands to become “free farmers. “ L. R. Gorlanov, “Otmena krepostnogo prava v Kostromskoi gubernii” (kandidat diss., Moscow State University, 1972), chart following 273.

72 Minkh, “Iz zapisok,” 19.

73 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 52 (1863), d. 72,11. 6–7.

74 N. A. Krylov, “Mirovye posredniki pervogo prizyva,” Istoricheskii vestnik 97, no. 7 (1904): 94–95.

75 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 52 (1861), d. 38,11.168–71.

76 Krylov, “Mirovye posredniki,” 92.

77 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1862), d. 19,1. 10.

78 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1862), d. 46.

79 Mirovoi posrednik, no. 3 (1862): 58.

80 Mirovoi posrednik, no. 4 (1862): 68–70.

81 Valk, ed., Otmena krepostnogo prava, 95.

82 Sbornik pravitel’stvennykh rasporiazhenii, vol. 3, pt. 1, 6–9.

83 Valk, ed., Otmena krepostnogo prava, 193 and 285. By die beginning of 1864, all but a fraction of the peasants were under charter.

84 Ibid., 287.

85 The geographic distribution of peasant signers and non-signers suggests no clear correlation. The lowest percentages of signers were located in the northwestern provinces of Minsk, Grodno, and Kovno. The common factor here appears to be ethnic differences between former masters and serfs. The mixed responses between and within the other provinces suggest that traditional relationships and local peculiarities had much to do with willingness to sign the charters. Among these variables the abilities of the local peace arbitrator must have been significant. Ibid. See also Zaionchkovskii, Otmenq, 200-201.

86 Kavelin, K. D., Dvorianstvo i osvobozhdenie krest'ian (Berlin, 1862), 48–50.Google Scholar

87 Institut russkoi literatury i isskustva (Pushkinskii Dom) RAN (IRLI), f. 119, op. 1, no. 30,11. 5–8. Alan Kimball, University of Oregon, generously provided references for the Kavelin story.

88 Panteleev, L. F., Vospominaniia (Leningrad, 1958), 166–67.Google Scholar

89 Gusev, Tolstoi, 2:447.

90 Obninskii, “Kaluzhskoe,” 66.

91 Polovtsev, “Dnevnik,” 102.

92 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1862), d. 61,1. 55.

93 Rozen, Zapiski, 381.

94 Demert, “Novaia volia,” 237–38.

95 Minkh, “Iz zapisok,” 19.

96 “Iz pamiatnykh zametok starogo gvardeitsa,” Russkii arkhiv, 1892, no. 1:141.

97 Russkii listok, 17 February 1863, 129.

98 “Sovremennaia letopis',” Russkii vestnik, 1862, no. 3:29.

99 GARF, f. 109, 1st exp., op. 36 (1861), d. 3, ch. 19,1. 15.

100 Morokhovets, ed., Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie, 2:22-23 and 27–28.

101 Konovalov, “Materialy,” 9.

102 Obninskii, P. N., “Iz vospominanii iurista,” Russkii arkhiv, 1892, no. 1:132–33.Google Scholar

103 Gusev, Tolstoi, 2:477.

104 Kornilov, A. A., “Deiatel'nost’ mirovykh posrednikov,” in Dzhivelegov, A. K., Mel'gunov, S. P., and Pichet, V. I., eds., Velikaia reforma: Russkoe obshchestvo i krest'ianskii vopros v proshlom i nastoiashchem (Moscow, 1911), 5:244.Google Scholar

105 Minkh, “Iz zapisok,” 18.

106 These appellations were collected in the course of archival research. For a representative example, see RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1862), d. 60,1. 31.

107 Mirovoiposrednik, no. 4 (1862): 78.

108 Kornilov, “Deiatel'nost',” 240.

109 Voroponov, “Sorok let,” 19.

110 GARF, f. 109, 4th exp., op. 202 (1862), d. 183,11. 2–3.

111 Mirovoi posrednik, no. 5 (1862): 88–90.

112 Ibid., 89.

113 Bronevskii, “Iz zapisok,” 560. N. K. Ponomarev received a complaint for refusing to whip fifteen women who insulted a local landlord’s housekeeper. “Not having any way to reproach us for some kind of illegal activity, they called us ‘reds.’ … I pose the question like this: who is closer to a red, he who asks that fifteen women be birched … or he who impartially investigates the matter and makes a certain decision?” Ponomarev, “Vospominaniia,“ 319.

114 Gusev, N. N., Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva L'va Nikolaevicha Tolstogo, 1828-1890 (Moscow, 1958), 1:256.Google Scholar

115 Krylov, “Mirovye posredniki,” 92.

116 Mirovoiposrednik, no. 7 (1863): 77–78.

117 The Smolensk assembly furdier demanded that it be allowed to elect “mediators“ to the arbitrator assemblies, who could moderate between landowners, on the one hand, and the arbitrators, who were obviously biased toward the peasant estate, on the other. When the governor rejected these demands, the Smolensk assembly sent a petition to Alexander II. RGIA, f. 1282 (Kantseliarii ministra vnutrennikh del), op. 2 (1861), d. 1092,1.166.

118 Chernukha, Valentina Grigor'evna, “Pravitel’stvennaia politika i institut mirovykh posrednikov,” in Chernukha, and Ganelin, R. Sh., eds., Vnulrenniaia politika tsarizma s serediny 50-kh do nachala 80-khgg. XIX v. (Leningrad, 1978), 211.Google Scholar

119 GARF, f. 109, 4th exp., op. 201 (1861), d. 234,1. 35.

120 Budaev, Krest'ianskaia reforma, 115.

121 Bronevskii, “Iz zapisok,” 561.

122 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1861), d. 157,1. 25.

123 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1861), d. 134,1. 1.

124 Den', 10 November 1862, 11-14.

125 Kulomzin, “Vospominaniia,” 19.

126 Zaionchkovskii, Otmena, 364–65.

127 “They have removed Lanskoi and me from the ministry without awaiting our initiative,“ wrote Deputy Minister Nikolai Miliutin. “We were informed that this was necessary for reconciliation with the gentry.” Quoted in Trubetskaia, O., Kniaz’ V. A. Cherkasskii i ego uchastie v razreshenii krest'ianskogo voprosa: Materialy dlia biografii (Moscow, 1904), vol. 1, bk. 2, 277.Google Scholar

128 Russkaia starina 4 (1905): 274.

129 Blagorodniia deistviia Tver’skogo dvorianstva (Berlin, 1862), 1–2. The signers were N. Bakunin (state member to the provincial office), A. Bakunin and S. Balkashin (district marshals of the nobility), P. Glazenap, N. Kharlamov, N. Poltavratskii, M. Lazarev, A. Likhachev, P. Kismenskii, A. Nevedomskii, V Kudriavtsev (peace arbitrators), and A. Shirobokov and A. Dem'ianov (candidate peace arbitrators). For a thoughtful study of the Tver’ incident in die context of the “gentry constitutionalist campaign” of 1861–62, see Emmons, The Russian Landed Gentry.

130 P. A. Valuev, Dnevnik, ed. P. A. Zaionchkovskii (Moscow, 1961), 1:177.

131 Gusev, Letopis’ zhizni, 1:256.

132 GARF, f. 109, op. 5 (1862), d. 123,1. 218.

133 See Beletskii, A., ed., Sbornik dokumentov muzeia grafa M. N. Murav'eva (Vil'na, 1906), 1:229–33Google Scholar, and Murav'ev, M. N., “Zapiski ob upravlenii severo-zapadnym kraem i ob usmirenii v nem miatezha,” Russkaia starina 36, no. 11 (1882): 409.Google Scholar

134 Quoted in Ust'iantseva, “Institut mirovykh posrednikov v sisteme,” 139.

135 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 36 (1863), d. 33,1. 1.

136 Ust'iantseva, “Institut mirovykh posrednikov v sisteme,” 141.

137 “Irremovability,” Valuev pointed out, “negates the right of administrative authority to replace one person with another at its discretion, but it does not negate the right of the legislative authority to close the position itself when its assignment is complete and there is no longer a real need for it.” Severnaiapochta, 27 November 1863, 1059–60.

138 Obninskii, “Iz vospominanii iurista,” 127.

139 As the governor of Samara remarked, “The office of the peace arbitrator weakens appreciably with every passing year. In it, with few exceptions, one does not find that energy and enthusiasm which distinguished it during the introduction of the legislation of 19 February.” RGIA, f. 1181 (Glavnogo komitet ob ustroistve sel’skogo sostoianiia), op. 15 (1864), d. 19,1.366.

140 Bezobrazov, V., “Mirovye uchrezhdenie,” Russkii vestnik 38, no. 4 (1862): 574.Google Scholar