All Along the Watchtower: Military Landholders and Serfdom Consolidation in Early Modern Russia
中文摘要
本文以近代早期俄罗斯的农奴制为例,考察强制性劳动制度的形成。我们认为,农奴制是在拥有土地的军事精英的压力下巩固起来的,这些精英因与草原游牧民族的长期斗争而获得了政治影响力。为遏制游牧民族的袭扰,俄罗斯国家在南部边疆修建了防线,并将该地区的土地授予负责防务的士兵。士兵在服防务役期间无法耕种,也无法在农民劳动力市场上竞争,因为这些土地的选择依据是其防御价值而非农业价值。因此,该制度只有通过限制劳动力流动才能维持。面对土地持有者集体请愿的规模,俄罗斯国家逐步将农民束缚于土地,并将农奴制载入成文法、加以制度化。利用新近数字化的17世纪人口数据,我们发现,在防线沿线的县份,农奴和军事土地持有者的出现率更高。我们还发现,足以供养一名士兵及其家庭的小庄园(至多25户农奴)也更为普遍。安慰剂检验表明,这些模式并不适用于非农奴农民,也不适用于商人和工匠。为确保因果关系,我们开发了一种新颖的算法,利用地形数据重建游牧民族的最优入侵路线,并精确定位防线的最优位置。我们的结果凸显了政治经济因素相对于纯粹经济因素(如土地—劳动力比率或谷物贸易)在农奴制发展中的首要地位。这为理解近代早期东欧与西欧制度分化的可能机制提供了新的视角。
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the emergence of coercive labour institutions using the case of serfdom in early modern Russia. We argue that serfdom consolidated under the pressure of landholding military elites who gained political influence due to the prolonged struggle with steppe nomads. To contain nomadic raids, the Russian state erected defence lines on the southern frontier, and granted land in the area to soldiers in charge of its defence. The soldiers could not farm while on defence duty, nor could they compete in the market for peasant labour, as the land had been selected for its defensive rather than agricultural value. The system was therefore only sustainable by restricting labour mobility. In response to the volume of landholders’ collective petitions, the Russian state gradually tied peasants to the land and institutionalized serfdom in the written law. Using newly digitized population data from the 17th century, we show a higher prevalence of serfs and military landholders in districts on the defence line. We also find a higher prevalence of small estates—up to 25 serf households—sufficient to support a soldier and his family. Placebo tests show that these patterns do not hold for non-serf peasants, or for merchants and artisans. To ensure causality, we develop a novel algorithm that reconstructs the optimal invasion routes for nomads and pinpoints the optimal location of the defence line using topographic data. Our results highlight the primacy of political economy factors over purely economic ones, such as the land–labour ratio or the grain trade, in the development of serfdom. This sheds new light on the possible mechanisms of institutional divergence between Eastern and Western Europe in the early modern period.