Is Science Enough?: The Limits of Scientific Agriculture in Nineteenth-Century Russia within a Global Market

In the middle of the 1830s, Nicholas I discussed with Count P.D. Kiselev various ways to improve the condition of peasants. Nicholas I was concerned that serfdom was, as he said in 1842, “clearly and obviously bad for everyone,” yet, at the same time he felt “to attack it at this point would be even more destructive” (Lincoln, 1978: 187). Between 1826 and 1847, Nicholas convened at least ten secret committees to discuss the peasant question. By 1835, however, he felt that committees alone would not provide an answer (ibid: 188, 191). Fearing a revolt of both the nobles and the peasants, Nicholas trod carefully.

As is well known, Nicholas backed the creation in 1837 of the Ministry of State Domains (MGI), headed by Kiselev. The ministry conducted a major administrative reform of state peasant life. What is much less known is that in 1836, MAS personnel became government employees (Maslov / Маслов, 1850: 67). This was in response to vice-president S.I. Gagarin's request that the MAS secretary, the director of the Society for Sheep Breeding, their assistants, and the senior and junior clerks become civil servants (Maslov / Маслов, 1850, 2nd collation: 73-75). These positions were administrative, not executive. The president, vice-president and Council seats all remained independent of the government. These more powerful positions were filled by wealthy nobles who did not require government compensation for these posts.

Thus, the government created almost a shadow ministry via the MAS to deal with landlord serfs, even as the MGI dealt with state peasants. The government provided a deeper pool of cash to the MAS than could have otherwise been possible. This allowed the reorganization of the farm and school, as will be discussed below. However, this did not mean that the society lost all initiative. As Maslov wrote, “the government stated its willingness to protect the Agricultural Societies, as the closest intermediaries between the landlords and the agriculturalists entrusted to their guardianship. Thus, this is the future direction of all Agricultural Societies acting separately” (Maslov / Маслов, 1850: 129). At the same time, Maslov added, the societies should all be willing to work together with the government for the common good.

In other words, Nicholas' well-known desire to avoid interfering with landlords' control of their serfs put a limit to the incorporation of the MAS into the bureaucratic system. This is also visible in Minister of State Domains Pavel Kiselev's 1838 letter to Golitsyn informing him of the new order. Kiselev noted that the establishment of the ministry included the right “to direct societies, serving for the dissemination of agricultural information” (Maslov / Маслов, 1850, 2nd collation: 77). The society was by no means taken over by the MGI. Kiselev asked only for annual published reports from the MAS, information on successful agricultural experiments, and “proposals the Society has for the future dissemination of useful innovations” (ibid: 78). The result was more a coordination of work than a control of it.

In 1836, Nicholas I allocated 210,000 rubles to MAS's farm and Agricultural School. The money provoked serious debates about the future of both institutions. In the same year, Maslov proposed that part of the money be used to move from the problematic model farm to the estate of Count Razumovskii in the village of Petrovskoe close to Moscow. The estate would allow for the farm and the agricultural school to be located together, considerably simplifying the integration of the two. In addition, the MAS affiliated Society of Sheep Breeding and the Gardening Society would be able to have space for a school and model flock of sheep while the latter society would have an extensive garden with an orangerie on the estate.

Maslov attacked the present farm for using hired labor, which, he said, did not provide “a model for the agriculture actually existing in Russia” (Maslov / Маслов, 1850: 103). The farm's extensive use of hired labor had been part of the earlier, more liberal, orientation of the society, which gave way to a more conservative outlook under Nicholas I. Pavlov, who was still the head of the farm and school, rejected the new location because it was too close to Moscow. He was particularly upset that the peasants were on quitrent (obrok), which, he wrote, led the peasants “to lose touch with their authentic way of life, work as traders, and become half-townspeople; also, their morals are very far from reliable” (ibid: 105). Pavlov insisted that the farm and school should be more than 25 versts from Moscow in order to avoid these problems. When the society decided for Petrovskoe, Pavlov reluctantly agreed as long as he retained control over both the farm and school. It seems that tensions between Pavlov and the society continued, for he was fired in 1838 (ibid: 109).

The Moscow Society was able to establish several important institutions, such as a model farm and a school, as part of their attempt to change agriculture, but they soon found that changing technical aspects of agriculture brought into question more fundamental aspects of the social order such as serfdom. The state subsidized the work of the society as part of a moment in the 1830s I have called elsewhere the era of small reforms (Smith-Peter, 2018: 60-134). Encouraging new branches of market agriculture was part of this impulse, which led to the formation of a considerable number of agricultural societies. But market agriculture had to deal with the market, which was not always hospitable, as we will see.

THE SOUTHERN RUSSIAN AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY (ODESSA)

Odessa is located on the Black Sea and long served as an entrepot for the trade and people of many nations. When Catherine the Great chose the site for the town in 1794, she was taken with its deep harbor and beautiful setting. The United States consul to Odessa, Timothy Smith, described the view from the sea as follows: “It stands upon a bluff or ridge of soft stone, of a yellow color, which rises almost abruptly about one hundred fifty feet from the shore, leaving a margin below available for storehouses, dock yards and heavy trade” (Herlihy, 1986: 9). Conversations in German, Greek, Yiddish, Bulgarian, Serbian, Armenian, Polish, Albanian, and Turkish could be heard on streets, intermingling with Russian and Ukrainian speech.

Odessa's history as an important urban center begins not with Catherine the Great, but with Armand-Emmanuel de Vignerot du Plessis, Duc de Richelieu, a French йmigrй Alexander I appointed as city chief in 1803. He oversaw a major building project, including the famous Odessa steps. De Richelieu was able to implement his vision of a symmetrical, neo-classical city with broad, tree-lined boulevards, impressive municipal buildings, and many gardens (ibid: 35-37). Odessa was known for its toleration and acceptance of difference; this left an especially deep imprint in the memory of many Jews, such as those later immortalized in Isaac Babel's “Tales of Odessa.”

The second general-governor, Mikhail Semyonovich Vorontsov, was a graduate of Cambridge University and a dedicated Anglophile. He was a great believer in developing the economic potential of the region by building roads, improving the harbor, requesting a railroad link, and scouting for natural resources. During his term as governor between 1823 and 1845, he encouraged the development of many voluntary associations. As Patricia Herlihy states, “No doubt Vorontsov applied to Odessa some of the examples of benevolent societies he had come to know in England” (ibid: 121). These included many charitable associations, and, most relevant to this discussion, the Southern Russian Agricultural Society. The market orientation of the agricultural societies would have been especially congenial to Vorontsov, who had an entrepreneurial bent.

The close link between governors and civil society in this case should not be a cause for concern. In the eighteenth century, this was true for Iaroslavl' and Tobol'sk, which were the sites of provincial journals under the aegis of their governors. In nearly all cases where print culture developed in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century provinces, there was a cultured and active governor serving as a central force (Smith-Peter, 2015: 7-29).

The only exception was Kazan, because Kazan University was founded there in 1804. The university was large enough and commanded sufficient institutional resources to take over what was the role of the governor in less-favored regions. Those provincial towns without universities (that is to say, nearly all of them) required an active and sympathetic governor to pull together the resources of his own office, other government organs, and educated society to create a favorable environment for associational life and publications. During Vorontsov's time, Odessa became an important center for publishing, including of periodicals (Herlihy, 1986: 121).

In 1817, during a series of highly profitable years, the government stated that Odessa would become a free port. This meant that Russian goods could be sold in Odessa without taxes or tariffs, and foreign goods could be brought in tax-free. In 1819, after the government had built a wall around Odessa to discourage smuggling, the city was declared a free port (ibid: 98). Odessa's own products were legally foreign goods in Russia past the city limits. Thus, the free port status opened the foreign market while it partly closed the domestic market to Odessamade goods. However, this was mainly a problem for factory owners operating within Odessa. For the large landlords in the south of Ukraine, the situation was far more favorable. Smuggling foreign goods out of Odessa was extremely widespread, driving down their cost (ibid: 112-113). Factories on estates outside of Odessa producing cash crops such as tobacco, silk and sugar from sugar beets would benefit from having a nearby outlet to the world market as well as access to the Russian market.

Odessa was closely linked to the European market, which in the early nineteenth century was developing into a worldwide market, particularly in grain. In 1815 and 1816, Odessa's export of grain from its fertile Ukrainian hinterland was so large and profitable that the Austrian representative at St. Petersburg became concerned that Russia's income from exports might give it an edge over other countries (ibid: 97). However, periodical harvest failures, the rise of grain speculators, and weak European demand later depressed grain prices (ibid: 97-98).

By 1828, many of the large landowners who were members of the Southern Russian Agricultural Society (henceforth called the Odessa Society) would have felt the need to diversify beyond grain production or go bankrupt. In addition, the Ottoman Empire could cut off trade to Odessa by closing the Straits, dealing a devastating blow to the basis of the city's trade. War between Russia and the Ottomans led to the closing of the Straits in 1828 and 1829 (ibid: 99). As a result, by 1828, when the Odessa Society was founded, landlords would have desperately needed to develop new cash crops that could be sold in Russia as well as abroad. That was indeed the focus of the new society.

Most landlords in southern Ukraine (known at the time as New Russia) were relatively small proprietors, in contrast to the huge serf-owning estates in central Ukraine (ibid: 78). These small proprietors had to compete for hired labor with “rich Cossacks, state peasants, foreign colonists, and personally free renters of landlords' property” (Borovoi, Kotsievskii / Боровой, Коциевский, 1978: 165). This complex social structure meant that the landowners were not the dominant force in the countryside, unlike in European Russia.

Thus, while the MAS, especially in its early days, spoke approvingly of hired labor and its productivity without widely implementing it, the Odessa Society had to deal with the reality of hired labor, which was not always to their taste. In 1827, Vorontsov proposed that peasants in south Ukraine presently on landlord estates should be tied to the land and perform such labor duties as agreed by the landlord or move to state land. Since there was little available state land, most would have to stay. The landlords would not be required to give any land to the peasants. Nicholas I approved the proposal, which became law in 1829 (Kotsievskii / Коциевский, 1962: 243). As Herlihy writes, “the booming demand of the foreign market initially at least had this paradoxical effect: the reemphasis, in one of the most commercially oriented agricultural regions of the Russian Empire, on that obligation most characteristic of traditional serfdom and the manorial system -- labor services” (Herlihy, 1986: 81) However, this was a stopgap measure to give the nobles an edge in the labor market, for they continued to hire seasonal labor. Indeed, some, such as MAS member and Slavophile A.I. Koshelev, argued that serfs on an estate decreased its value by lowering its productivity (ibid: 81-82).

The main focus of the Odessa Society was on the introduction of profitable sheep, particularly merinos, into the area. As the New Russia region around Odessa was a steppe, grazing was a profitable use of the environment. Before the introduction of merinos, the woolen industry was one of the most backward in Russia. Since Peter the Great established the woolen industry, it depended largely on possessional (serf) labor and mainly produced wool for the armed forces. The quality of the wool was low, the factories were dirty and used antiquated technology, and the government provided an assured market, which meant there was little reason to improve (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1970: 58-61).

Culturally, sheep raising also suffered from low prestige. Traditionally, serfs were often forced to care for the landlord's livestock, including sheep, as a punishment. A 1770 instruction from P.I. Rychkov sounded what would become a common plaint for the need to improve care of livestock. “For the care... of horned livestock and poultry it has long been usual for us. to use the worst and least intelligent people, sometimes in the place of a fine” (Kozlov / Козлов, 2002: 322). Rychkov called instead for the use of “the very best and most reliable people” (ibid). Matters had not appreciably improved by 1833, when Count S.S. Uvarov exclaimed, “There is nothing more pitiful that a Russian livestock yard! A few, skinny livestock... insufficient feed, nasty swill, a combination of all possible illnesses and ailments, extraordinary sloppiness, manure to the knees...” (ibid: 107). Native Russian sheep and other livestock breeds were marked by endurance and the ability to survive these harsh conditions. The stable itself had negative connotations in Russian, as “in the stables” was a euphemism for a whipping.

There were also structural problems, such as the limited space for grazing available in the three-field system, as noted above. Compounding the problem was the shrinking amount of pastureland. In the Black Earth Region to the south of Moscow and the traditional agricultural center of Russia, the amount of grazing land decreased by 68.1 percent between the late eighteenth century and the 1850s (Koval'chenko / Ковальченко, 1960: 196).

One of the main obstacles to improvement of sheep raising was the need for active oversight by the landlord or an educated steward. Iaroslavl' landlord V. Gavrilov successfully introduced the Romanov breed of sheep and found it to be profitable (Kozlov / Козлов, 2002: 107). However, most landlords were absentee and intensive oversight was alien to most of them. In discussions about the profitability of free labor, Iaroslavl' landlords, including Gavrilov, argued that it could be profitable, but only in conditions marked by small estates, superior livestock, and intensive oversight -- all of which were not common in Russia (ibid: 311). Mennonite sheep farmer Jacob Epp noted that a sheep herder illegally sold a sheep. If this occurred in the intense mutual oversight in a Mennonite settlement, it must have been even more widespread in the case of absentee landlords and large flocks (Epp, 1991: 168-169).

Sheep raising for the market was widespread in the steppe region of southern Russia, the Don River region and the lower Volga (Rozhkova / Рожкова, 1959: 11). One of the places that seemed to be most suited to sheep was New Russia, or the southern part of Ukraine, which was mainly steppe. In this area, there was an average of 661.5 acres of pasture per 100 people in the 1850s -- six times more than in the Black Earth region (Koval'chenko / Ковальченко, 1960: 191).

In the steppe region, the government was active in encouraging the spread of merinos, whose wool could be used for finer, thinner fabrics than the thick worsted used for soldiers' uniforms made from Russian breeds. In 1804, the government gave away treasury land in south Russia to foreigners and landlords who were willing to introduce merinos (Rozhkova / Рожкова, 1959: 16-17; Blum, 1961: 341). Foreigners and other marginal groups were central to the development of merinos in Russia. Mary Holdemess, in an account of a trip through New Russia, noted large flocks kept by French, Swiss, English and Tatar owners (Holderness, 1823: 81-82). In New Russia and later in the South Caucasus, religious dissidents were active sheep breeders able to provide the intense oversight necessary to produce decent wool for the world market (Breyfogle, 2005: 113-118). While other sheep breeds declined 4.1 percent over the course of the 1840s and 1850s due to lack of land and poor treatment, the number of merinos increased by 12.4 percent (Koval'chenko / Ковальченко, 1960: 187). In 1812, there were up to 150,000 merinos, while by 1853 there were roughly nine million (Rozhkova / Рожкова, 1959: 17). Both government incentives and the work of the MAS helped to encourage the spread of merinos.

One main focus of the Odessa Society was on the introduction of profitable sheep, particularly merinos, into the area. The society published a handbook on sheep raising as well as many articles in its journal, which from 1830 to 1837 was published both in Russian and in French, and after 1841 German was added, showing the cosmopolitan nature of New Russia (Tikhonov / Тихонов, 1961: 100101).The society did much to strengthen the social network of sheep breeders, sponsoring exhibitions and congresses, as well as a special committee to study the quality of Russian wool (ibid: 111). During the 1840s, the price of thick wool rose while thinner wools, mainly from merinos, dropped. As a result, there was an increasing interest in the improvement of native breeds (ibid).

During the 1840s, the merino industry in New Russia underwent a major downturn as foreign buyers increasingly refused to pay high prices for Russian wool. The reasons were many: the rise of the Australian sheep industry to world standing by the 1840s, the poor treatment of Russian sheep, even of profitable merinos, and the mixing of Russian breeds and merinos in one flock, compounded by poor washing and sorting of the wool. One contemporary described the washing of wool “where wool good and bad -- fleeces of tups, ewes and dead beasts -- is mixed together and washed in hot water...” (Tegoborski, 1856: 7). Although there were landlords with model farms using the newest methods, by one count, they composed only five percent of the total number of producers (ibid).

British traveler Laurence Oliphant, in his account of an 1852 trip to the south of Russia, noted that “some years ago large quantities of merinos were introduced upon the steppes, and at first it was hoped that they would thrive, despite the inclemency of the climate. Perhaps had they been properly cared for, they would have succeeded; but Russian energy and perseverance have proved insufficient in obviating the effects of the severe snow-storms of winter and the droughts of summer... In 1849 a vast mortality prevailed; and through utter want of management on the part of the proprietors, and careless indolence on the part of the shepherds, thousands of these valuable animals were sacrificed” (Oliphant, 1998: 148). Oliphant also noted the problem of mixed flocks, stating, “the whole object being to increase the quantity of sheep, not the quality of the wool; and thus it goes on deteriorating in proportion as the flock multiples. To add to which, the wool, being badly cleaned, and worse packed, does not realize much more than half the price of German wool in the London market, while it is being altogether superseded by that from Australia” (ibid).

The response of the Odessa Society to the crisis consisted of calling for more use of native sheep and for government assistance in improving the quality of the wool. In answer to an 1843 Ministry of State Domains request for proposal to ameliorate the crisis, the Odessa Society stated that in New Russia, more attention should be paid to “the improvement of indigenous breeds of livestock, which have superior qualities for steppe agriculture” (Borovskii / Боровский, 1878: 152). For steppe conditions, they argued, sheep should be strong, small, fast, and tough -- in short, more like native breeds than merinos. This suggests that sheep breeders were reluctant to provide the level of care merinos required. The society also asked the government to import high quality animals for stud service and to establish a government sorting system to assure the consistent quality of Russian wool (ibid: 153, 170). The Ministry put off enacting these recommendations until a new crisis in the early 1860s led to a fall in the price of Russian wool on the world market for many of the same reasons as two decades before. From 1850 to 1900, “the pasture acreage in the south fell sharply, as farmers began to specialize in wheat and barley” (Gatrell, 1986: 134). Between 1880 and 1900, the number of sheep in New Russia fell by a third (ibid). Mennonite Jacob Epp, along with his coreligionist and Jewish neighbors, sold his flock in 1871 (Epp, 1991: 42).

The successes of Russian wool in the global market were transient. Unable to compete with Australian wool or to fundamentally change the care of sheep on the steppe, New Russian producers shifted away from sheep raising in the late nineteenth century. Raising sheep was difficult to mechanize. The end of serfdom did not solve these problems, nor did the combined assistance of the government and the agricultural societies. Despite the combined efforts of the state and two major agricultural societies, the conditions of production in the Russian Empire, combined with unfavorable global market factors, meant that improved sheep breeding in Russia was ultimately unsuccessful.

The Moscow Agricultural Society and the Southern Russian Agricultural Society did much to spread scientific agriculture. They created institutions such as model farms and schools, published journals and encouraged the creation of provincial agricultural societies. At first, it was hoped that simply spreading this knowledge would be sufficient for agriculture to becoming profitable. Later, enlightened nobles hoped that ending serfdom would lead to the same end. And yet, despite the availability of the information and the end of serfdom, in the end Russian wool production could not compete on the world market. Science was not enough to win for Russia a lasting place in the global wool market.



REFERENCES

agricultural serfdom nobility

1. Arkhiv grafov Mordvinovykh (1903): in 10 vols. / foreword and notes by V. A. Bil'basov. St. Petersburg, Tipografiia N. I. Skorokhodova [N.I. Skorokho- dov's Printing House]. Vol. 8. XIV, 724 p. (In Russ.).

2. Borovoi, S. Ia. and Kotsievskii, A. S. (1978) Osobennosti genezisa kapitalizma v sel'skom khoziaistve iuzhnoi Ukrainy v doreformennoi period (itogi i zadachi izucheniia). In: Sovetskaia istoriografiia agrarnoi istorii SSSR (do 1917 g.) / ed. by V. L. Ianin. Kishinev, Shtiintsa Publ. 262 p. Pp. 161-168. (In Russ.).

3. Borovskii, M. P. (1878) Istoricheskii obzor 50-letnei deiatel'nosti imperatskogo Obshchestva sel'skogo khoziaistva iuzhnoi Rossii s 1828 po 1878 god. Odessa, Tipografiia P. Frantsova [P. Frantsov's Printing House]. X, 275, 76 p. (In Russ.).

4. Chaianov, A. V. (1920) Osnovnye linii razvitiia russkoi sel'sko- khoziaistvennoi mysli za dva veka. S.l. 40 p. (In Russ.).

5. Elina, O. Yu. (2011) Sel'skokhoziaistvennye obshchestva Rossii, 1765- 1920-e gody: vklad v razvitie agronomii. Rossiiskaia istoriia, no. 2, pp. 27-45. (In Russ.).

6. Frolova, M. M. (2010) Moskovskoe obshchestvo sel'skogo khoziaistva i sveklosakharnye zavody A. D. Chertkova. Voprosy istorii, no. 11, pp. 94-109. (In Russ.).

7. Gernet, M. N. (1960) Istoriia tsarskoi tiurmy: in 5 vols. 3rd edn. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo iuridicheskoi literatury [State Publishing House of Legal Literature]. Vol. 1. 384 p. (In Russ.).

8. Gorbunov, N. P. (1871) Kratkii obzor piatidesiatiletnei deiatel'nosti Imperatorskago Moskovskago obshchestva sel'skogo khoziaistva s 1820 po 1870 god. Moscow, Tipografiia Gracheva i Ko [Grachev and Co Printing House]. 23 p. (In Russ.).

9. Kotsievskii, A. S. (1962) Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v iuzhnoi Ukraine v kontse XVIII -- pervoi chetverti XIX v. In: Materialy po istorii sel 'skogo khoziaistva i krest 'ianstva SSSR/ ed. by A. A. Novosel'skii et al. No. 5. Moscow, Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR [Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR]. 500 p. Pp. 224-257. (In Russ.).

10. Koval'chenko, I. D. (1960) K istorii skotovodstva v evropeiskoi Rossii v pervoi polovine XIX veka. In: Materialy po istorii sel'skogo khoziaistva i krest'ianstva SSSR/ ed. by K. V. Sivkov et al. No. 4. Moscow, Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR [Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR]. 522 p. Pp. 173-204. (In Russ.).

11. Kozlov, S. A. (1996) 175 let Moskovskomu obshchestvu sel'skogo khoziaistva: traditsii i novatsii. Nauchnye trudy Mezhdunarodnogo souiza ekonomistov i Vol'nogo ekonomicheskogo obshchestva Rossii, no. 3, pp. 232-240. (In Russ.).

12. Kozlov, S. A. (2002) Agrarnye traditsii i novatsii v doreformennoi Rossii (tsentral'no-nechernozemnye gubernii). Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ. 557, [2] p. (In Russ.).

13. Kurenyshev, A. A. (2012) Sel'skokhoziaistvennaia stolitsa Rossii: Ocherki istorii Moskovskogo obshchestva sel'skogo khoziaistva (1818-1929 gg.). Moscow, AIRO-XXI Publ. 403 p. (In Russ.).

14. Maslov, S. A. (1850) Istoricheskoe obozrenie deistvii i trudov impera- torskogo Moskovskogo obshchestva sel'skogo khoziaizstva so vremeni ego osno- vanii do 1846 goda.Moscow, V universitetskoi tipografii [At University Printing House]. 526 p. (In Russ.).

15. Murav'ev (Nikolai Nikolaevich). (1897) In: Entsiklopedicheskii slovar': in 35 vols. St. Petersburg, F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron Publ. Vol. 20: Moskovskii universitet -- Nakazaniia ispravitel'nyia. 480, [4] p. Pp. 192-193. (In Russ.).

16. Nokhrina, V. A. (1988) Iz istorii sel'skokhoziaistvennoi pechati Rossii XIX -- nachala XX vekov (Obzor periodicheskikh izdanii Moskovskogo obshchestva sel'skogo khoziaistva). Vestnik sel'skokhoziaistvennoi nauki, no. 9, pp. 169-172. (In Russ.).

17. Nokhrina, V. A. (1995) Moskovskoe obshchestvo sel'skogo khoziaistva (180 let so dnia osnovaniia). Moskovskii zhurnal, no. 5, pp. 21-26. (In Russ.).

18. Platonov, I. V. (1838) O merakh k pooshchreniiu i usovershenstvovaniiu sel'skogo khoziaistva v Rossii voobshche: Rech ', govorennaia v torzhestvennom sobranii Imperatorskogo Khar'kovskogo universiteta ekstraordinarnym professo- rom, doktorom prav Ivanom Platonovym 1838 goda, avgusta 30. Kharkov, V universitetskoi tipografii. [At University Printing House]. 136 p. (In Russ.).

19. Rozhkova, M. K. (1959) Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i polozhenie krest'ianstva. In: Ocherki ekonomicheskoi istorii Rossii pervoi poloviny XIX veka/ ed. by M. K. Rozhkova. Moscow, Izdatel'stvo sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi literatury [Publishing House of Social and Economic Literature]. 402 p. Pp. 5-61. (In Russ.).

20. Semevskii, V. I. (1888) Krest'ianskii vopros v Rossii v XVIII i pervoi polovine XIX v.: in 2 vols. St. Petersburg, Tipografiia tovarishchestva “Ob- shchestvennaia pol'za” [Printing House of Partnership “Obshchestvennaia pol'za”]. Vol. 1. [6], LIV, 517, [7] p. (In Russ.).

21. Sreznevskii, V. (1897) Karazin, Vasilii Nazar'evich. In: Russkii biografich- eskii slovar': in 25 vols. St. Petersburg, Izdanie Imperatorskogo Russkogo is- toricheskogo obshchestva [Publ. of the Imperial Russian Historical Society]. Vol. 8: Ibak -- Kliucharev. [2], 756 p. Pp. 486-499. (In Russ.).

22. Stepanskii, A. D. (1987) Istoriia nauchnykh uchrezhdenii i organizatsii dorevoliutionnoi Rossii. Moscow, Moskovskii gosudarstvennyi istoriko-arkhivnyi institut [Moscow State Historical and Archival Institute]. 86 p. (In Russ.).

23. Struve, P. B. (1913) Krepostnoe khoziaistvo: Issledovanie po ekonomicheskoi istorii Rossiiv XVIII i XIX vv. St. Petersburg, Izdanie M. i S. Sabashnikovykh [M. and S. Sabashnikovykh's Publ.]. X, 340 p. (In Russ.).

24. Tikhonov, B. V. (1961) Obzor `zapisok' mestnykh sel'skokhoziaistvennykh obshchestv 30-50-kh gg. XIX v. Problemy istochnikovedeniia, no. 9, pp. 92-162. (In Russ.).

25. Trusova, N. S. and Bliumfel'd, O. A. (1959) Iz istorii vozniknoveniia i na- chal'noi deiatel'nosti Moskovskogo obshchestva sel'skogo khoziaistva (1820-1830 gg.). In: Materialy po istorii sel'skogo khoziaistva i krest'ianstva SSSR/ ed. by K. V. Sivkov et al. No. 3. Moscow, Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR [Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR]. 495 p. Pp. 280-324. (In Russ.).

26. Adam Smith across nations: Translations and receptions of “The Wealth of Nations” (2000) / ed. by Cheng-chung Lai. Oxford, Oxford University Press. xxxiii, 446 p.

27. Blum, J. (1961) Lord and peasant in Russia from the ninth to the nineteenth century. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. x, 656 p.

28. Bradley, J. (2009) Voluntary associations in Tsarist Russia: Science, patriotism and civil society. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. xiv, 366 p.

29. Breyfogle, N. B. (2005) Heretics and colonizers: Forging Russia's empire in the south Caucasus. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press. xvii, 347 p.

30. Dovring, F. (1965) The transformation of European agriculture. In: The Cambridge economic history of Europe: in 8 vols. / ed. by H. J. Habakkuk and M. Postan. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Vol. 6 (2). Pp. 603-672.

31. Drescher, S. (2002) The mighty experiment: Free labor versus slavery in British emancipation. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press. vi, 307 p.

32. Epp, J. (1991) A Mennonite in Russia: The diaries of Jacob D. Epp, 18511880/ transl. and ed. by H. L. Dyck. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. x, 456 p.

33. Flynn, J. (1988) The university reform of Tsar Alexander I, 1802-1835. Washington, D.C., Catholic University of America Press. xiii, 283 p.

34. Gatrell, P. (1986) The Tsarist economy, 1850-1917. London, B. T. Batsford. xvi, 288 p.

35. Herlihy, P. (1986) Odessa: A history, 1794-1914. Cambridge, MA, Distributed by Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. xiv, 411 p.

36. Hoffman, P. (1996) Growth in a traditional society: The French countryside, 1450-1815. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. xiv, 361 p.

37. Holderness, M. (1823) New Russia. Journey from Riga to the Crimea, by way of Kiev; with some account of the colonization and the manners and customs of the colonists of new Russia. To which are added, notes relating to the Crim Tatars. London, Printed for Sherwood, Jones and Co. viii, 316 p.

38. Kerans, D. (2001) Mind and labor on the farm in black-earth Russia, 18611914. Budapest, Central European University Press. xiii, 491 p.

39. Kingston-Mann, E. (1999) In search of the true West: Culture, economics, and problems of Russian development. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. xiii, 301 p.

40. Komarova, I. I. (2000) A guide to Russian learned societies. New York, Norman Ross Publishing. xviii, 883 p.

41. Leckey, C. (2011) Patrons of Enlightenment: The free economic society in eighteenth-century Russia. Newark, DE, University of Delaware Press. x, 213 p.

42. Lehning, J. R. (2001) Agriculture. In: Encyclopedia of European social history: From 1350 to 2000: in 5 vols. / editor-in-chief: P. N. Stearns. Detroit; New York; San Francisco; London; Boston; Woodbridge, CT, Charles Scribner's Sons. Vol. 2. xvii, 553 p. P. 343-356.

43. Lincoln, W. (1978) Nicholas I: Emperor and autocrat of all the Russians. London, Allen Lane; Penguin Books. 424 p.

44. Martin, A. (1997) Romantics, reformers, reactionaries: Russian conservative thought and politics in the reign of Alexander I. DeKalb, IL, Northern Illinois University Press. x, 294 p.

45. Matossian, M. (1968) The peasant way of life. In: The peasant in nineteenth- century Russia/ ed. by W. S. Vucinich. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press. xx, 314 p. Pp. 1-40.

46. Moon, D. (1999) The Russian peasantry, 1600-1930: The world the peasants made. London; New York, Longman. xii, 396 p.

47. Moon, D. (2013) The plough that broke the steppes: Agriculture and environment on Russia 's grasslands, 1700-1914. Oxford, Oxford University Press. xvii, 319 p.

48. Oliphant, L. (1998) The Russian shores of the Black Sea and A journey to Katmandu. Kцln, Kцnemann. 465 p.

49. Raeff, M. (1966) Origins of the Russian intelligentsia: The eighteenth- century nobility. New York, Harcourt, Brace & World. 248 p.

50. Smith, A. (1811) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations: in 2 vols. Hartford, CT, Printed for Oliver D. Cooke. Vol. 1. xxviii, 355 p.

51. Smith, A. (2002) The theory of moral sentiments. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. xxxi, 411 p.

52. Smith-Peter, S. (2015) Making empty provinces: Eighteenth-century Enlightenment regionalism in Russian provincial journals. Region: Regional Studies of Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 7-29.

53. Smith-Peter, S. (2016) Sweet development: The sugar beet industry, Agricultural societies and agrarian transformations in the Russian empire, 1818-1913. Cahiers du Monde Russe, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 101-124.

54. Smith-Peter, S. (2018) Imagining Russian regions: Subnational identity and civil society in nineteenth-century Russia. Leiden, Brill. xiv, 328 p.

55. Stanziani, A. (2014) Bondage: Labor and rights in Eurasia from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries. New York; Oxford, Berghahn. vii, 258 p.

56. Tegoborski [Tengoborskii], M. L. de (1856) Commentaries on the productive forces of Russia: in 3 vols. London, Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. Vol. 2. iv, 484, 24 p.

57. Tugan-Baranovsky, M. (1970) The Russian factory in the 19th century/ transl. by A. Levin, C. Levin, and G. Grossman. Homewood, IL, R. D. Irwin; Georgetown, ON, Irwin-Dorsey. xvii, 474 p.

58. Walicki, A. (1979) A history of Russian thought: From the Enlightenment to Marxism. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press. xvii, 456 p.



СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ

1. Архив графов Мордвиновых (1903): в 10 т. / предисл. и прим. В. А. Бильбасова. СПб.: Тип. Н. И. Скороходова. Т. 8. XIV, 724 с.

2. Боровой, С. Я., Коциевский, А. С. (1978) Особенности генезиса капитализма в сельском хозяйстве южной Украины в дореформенной период (итоги и задачи изучения) // Советская историография аграрной истории СССР (до 1917 г.) / под ред. В. Л. Янина. Кишинев: Штиинца. 262 с. С. 161-168.

3. Боровский, М. П. (1878) Исторический обзор 50-летней деятельности Императорского общества сельского хозяйства южной России с 1828 по 1878 год. Одесса: Тип. П. Францова. X, 275, 76 с.

4. Гернет, М. Н. (1960) История царской тюрьмы: в 5 т. 3-е изд. М.: Гос. изд-во юрид. лит. Т. 1. 384 с.

5. Горбунов, Н. П. (1871) Краткий обзор пятидесятилетней деятельности Императорского Московского общества сельского хозяйства с 1820 по 1870 год. М.: Тип. Грачева и К°. 23 с.

6. Елина, О. Ю. (2011) Сельскохозяйственные общества России, 17651920-е годы: вклад в развитие агрономии // Российская история. № 2. С. 2745.

7. Ковальченко, И. Д. (1960) К истории скотоводства в европейской России в первой половине XIX века // Материалы по истории сельского хозяйства и крестьянства СССР / под ред. К. В. Сивкова и др. Сб. 4. М.: Изд- во Академии наук СССР. 522 с. С. 173-204.

8. Козлов, С. А. (1996) 175 лет Московскому обществу сельского хозяйства: традиции и новации // Научные труды Международного союза экономистов и Вольного экономического общества России. № 3. С. 232-240.

9. Козлов, С. А. (2002) Аграрные традиции и новации в дореформенной России (центрально-нечерноземные губернии). М.: РОССПЭН. 557, [2] с.

10. Коциевский, А. С. (1962) Крестьянское движение в южной Украине в конце XVIII -- первой четверти XIX в. // Материалы по истории сельского хозяйства и крестьянства СССР / под ред. А. А. Новосельского и др. Сб. 5. М.: Изд-во Академии наук СССР. 500 с. С. 224-257.

11. Куренышев, А. А. (2012) Сельскохозяйственная столица России: Очерки истории Московского общества сельского хозяйства (1818-1929 гг.). М.: АИРО-XXI. 403 с.

12. Маслов, С. А. (1850) Историческое обозрение действий и трудов императорского Московского общества сельского хозяйства со времени его основания до 1846 года. 2-е изд. с доп. М.: В университеской типографии. 526 с.

13. Муравьев (Николай Николаевич). (1897) // Энциклопедический словарь: в 35 т. / начатый проф. И. Е. Андреевским, продолжается под ред. К. К. Арсеньева и заслуж. проф. Ф. Ф. Петрушевского. СПб.: Изд. Ф. А. Брокгауза и И. А. Ефрона. Т. 20: Московский университет -- Наказания исправительные. 480, [4] с. С. 192-193.

14. Нохрина, В. А. (1988) Из истории сельскохозяйственной печати России XIX-- начала XXвеков (Обзор периодических изданий Московского общества сельского хозяйства) // Вестник сельскохозяйственной науки. № 9. С.169-172.

15. Нохрина, В. А. (1995) Московское общество сельского хозяйства (180 лет со дня основания) // Московский журнал. № 5. С. 21-26.

16. Платонов, И. В. (1838) О мерах к поощрению и усовершенствованию сельского хозяйства в России вообще: Речь, говоренная в торжественном собрании Императорского Харьковского университета экстраординарным профессором, доктором прав Иваном Платоновым 1838 года, августа 30. Харьков: В университетской типографии. 136 с.

17. Рожкова, М. К. (1959) Сельское хозяйство и положение крестьянства // Очерки экономической истории России первой половины XIX века / под ред. М. К. Рожкова. М.: Изд-во социально-экономической литературы. 403 с. С. 5-61.

18. Семевский, В. И. (1888) Крестьянский вопрос в России в XVIII и первой половине XIX в.: в 2 т. СПб.: Тип. т-ва «Общественная польза». Т. 1. [6], LIV, 517, [7] с.

19. Срезневский, В. (1897) Каразин, Василий Назарьевич // Русский биографический словарь: в 25 т. СПб.: Изд. Императорского Русского исторического общества. Т. 8: Ибак -- Ключарев. [2], 756 с. С. 486-499.

20. Степанский, А. Д. (1987) История научных учреждений и организаций дореволюционной России. М.: Московский гос. историко-архивный институт. 86 с.

21. Струве, П. Б. (1913) Крепостное хозяйство: Исследование по экономической истории России в XVIIIи XIXвв. СПб.: Изд. М. и С. Сабашниковых. X, 340 с.

22. Тихонов, Б. В. (1961) Обзор «записок» местных сельскохозяйственных обществ 30-50-х гг. XIX в. // Проблемы источниковедения. № 9. С. 92-162.

23. Трусова, Н. С., Блюмфельд, О. А. (1959) Из истории возникновения и начальной деятельности Московского общества сельского хозяйства (18201830 гг.) // Материалы по истории сельского хозяйства и крестьянства СССР / под ред. К. В. Сивкова и др. Сб. 3. М.: Изд-во Академии наук СССР. 495 с. С. 280-324.

24. Фролова, М. М. (2010) Московское общество сельского хозяйства и свеклосахарные заводы А. Д. Черткова // Вопросы истории. № 11. С. 94-109.

25. Чаянов, А. В. (1920) Основные линии развития русской сельскохозяйственной мысли за два века. Б.м. 40 с.

26. Adam Smith across nations: Translations and receptions of “The Wealth of Nations” (2000) / ed. by Cheng-chung Lai. Oxford: Oxford University Press. xxxiii, 446 p.

27. Blum, J. (1961) Lord and peasant in Russia from the ninth to the nineteenth century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. x, 656 p.

28. Bradley, J. (2009) Voluntary associations in Tsarist Russia: Science, patriotism and civil society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. xiv, 366 p.

29. Breyfogle, N. B. (2005) Heretics and colonizers: Forging Russia's empire in the south Caucasus. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. xvii, 347 p.

30. Dovring, F. (1965) The transformation of European agriculture // The Cambridge economic history of Europe: in 8 vols. / ed. by H. J. Habakkuk and M. Postan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vol. 6 (2). Pp. 603-672.

31. Drescher, S. (2002) The mighty experiment: Free labor versus slavery in British emancipation. Oxford; N. Y.: Oxford University Press. vi, 307 p.

32. Epp, J. (1991) A Mennonite in Russia: The diaries of Jacob D. Epp, 18511880 / transl. and ed. by H. L. Dyck. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. x, 456 p.

33. Flynn, J. (1988) The university reform of Tsar Alexander I, 1802-1835. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. xiii, 283 p.

34. Gatrell, P. (1986) The Tsarist economy, 1850-1917. L.: B. T. Batsford. xvi, 288 p.

35. Herlihy, P. (1986) Odessa: A history, 1794-1914. Cambridge, MA: Distributed by Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. xiv, 411 p.

36. Hoffman, P. (1996) Growth in a traditional society: The French countryside, 1450-1815. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. xiv, 361 p.

37. Holderness, M. (1823) New Russia. Journey from Riga to the Crimea, by way of Kiev; with some account of the colonization and the manners and customs of the colonists of new Russia. To which are added, notes relating to the Crim Tatars. L.: Printed for Sherwood, Jones and Co. viii, 316 p.

38. Kerans, D. (2001) Mind and labor on the farm in black-earth Russia, 18611914. Budapest: Central European University Press. xiii, 491 p.

39. Kingston-Mann, E. (1999) In search of the true West: Culture, economics, and problems of Russian development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. xiii, 301 p.

40. Komarova, I. I. (2000) A guide to Russian learned societies. N. Y.: Norman Ross Publishing. xviii, 883 p.

41. Leckey, C. (2011) Patrons of Enlightenment: The free economic society in eighteenth-century Russia. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press. x, 213 p.

42. Lehning, J. R. (2001) Agriculture // Encyclopedia of European social history: From 1350 to 2000: in 5 vols. / editor-in-chief: P. N. Stearns. Detroit; N. Y.; San Francisco; L.; Boston; Woodbridge, CT: Charles Scribner's Sons. Vol. 2. xvii, 553 p. P. 343-356.

43. Lincoln, W. (1978) Nicholas I: Emperor and autocrat of all the Russians. L.: Allen Lane; Penguin Books. 424 p.

44. Martin, A. (1997) Romantics, reformers, reactionaries: Russian conservative thought and politics in the reign of Alexander I. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press. x, 294 p.

45. Matossian, M. (1968) The peasant way of life. In: The peasant in nineteenth- century Russia / ed. by W. S. Vucinich. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. xx, 314 p. Pp. 1-40.

46. Moon, D. (1999) The Russian peasantry, 1600-1930: The world the peasants made. L.; N. Y.: Longman. xii, 396 p.

47. Moon, D. (2013) The plough that broke the steppes: Agriculture and environment on Russia's grasslands, 1700-1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press. xvii, 319 p.

48. Oliphant, L. (1998) The Russian shores of the Black Sea and A journey to Katmandu. Kцln: Kцnemann. 465 p.

49. Raeff, M. (1966) Origins of the Russian intelligentsia: The eighteenth- century nobility. N. Y.: Harcourt, Brace & World. 248 p.

50. Smith, A. (1811) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations: in 2 vols. Hartford, CT: Printed for Oliver D. Cooke. Vol. 1. xxviii, 355 p.

51. Smith, A. (2002) The theory of moral sentiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xxxi, 411 p.

52. Smith-Peter, S. (2015) Making empty provinces: Eighteenth-century Enlightenment regionalism in Russian provincial journals // Region: Regional Studies of Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 7-29.

53. Smith-Peter, S. (2016) Sweet development: The sugar beet industry, Agricultural societies and agrarian transformations in the Russian empire, 1818-1913 // Cahiers du Monde Russe. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 101-124.

54. Smith-Peter, S. (2018) Imagining Russian regions: Subnational identity and civil society in nineteenth-century Russia. Leiden: Brill. xiv, 328 p.

55. Stanziani, A. (2014) Bondage: Labor and rights in Eurasia from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries. N. Y.; Oxford: Berghahn. vii, 258 p.

56. Tegoborski [Tengoborskii], M. L. de (1856) Commentaries on the productive forces of Russia: in 3 vols. L.: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. Vol. 2. iv, 484, 24 p.

57. Tugan-Baranovsky, M. (1970) The Russian factory in the 19th century / transl. by A. Levin, C. Levin, and G. Grossman. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin; Georgetown, ON: Irwin-Dorsey. xvii, 474 p.

58. Walicki, A. (1979) A history of Russian thought: From the Enlightenment to Marxism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. xvii, 456 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...