serfdom

2025. Vol.10. №3.

Pushkin as a landlord

Oct 22 2025

Belykh A. A. Pushkin as a landlord // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2025. V.10. №3. P. 80-102.

EDN: HLQTYC

Annotation

A. S. Pushkin wrote that “the spirit of literature” to some extent “depends on the financial status of writers”, which also applied to him. From an economic point of view, he played five roles: a civil servant, a writer and publisher, a card player, a landlord, and a family man. This article presents Pushkin as a landlord, although his upbringing and education did not prepare him for estate management; however, at that time, it was typical for most noblemen. The author identifies three periods in Pushkin’s activity as a landlord: 1830–1831 — landlord, 1834–1835 — manager, 1836 — heir. In 1830, Pushkin’s father gave him 200 peasants in the village Kistenevo, which was one of the factors of Pushkin’s marriage. Having pledged these peasants in the Safe Treasury for a loan of 40 thousand roubles, Pushkin was able to give a loan of 11 thousand roubles to Gonchrova’s mother, which was used as a dowry and, in addition, as a means of covering family expenses. In 1834, Pushkin realized that his family estate Boldino was in critical financial straits and decided to take over the estate management. He took another loan for the peasants already pledged by his father and changed the estate manager. However, Pushkin was not particularly successful, and in 1835 he refused to manage the Boldino estate. In 1836, his mother, the owner of Mikhailovskoye, died. Pushkin was one of the heirs and wanted to buy out the whole estate; however, financial and other circumstances did not allow him to do it. The article presents Pushkin’s income as a landlord — about 24 thousand roubles (before his landlord’s income was considered insignificant), i.e., 7.7% of his total income. Thus, Pushkin’s attempt to manage estate was a mistake, and the author shares Pushkin’s opinion that “the writer’s place is in his office”.

Keywords

Pushkin, landlord, serfdom, Boldino, Mikhailovskoye, estate management.

About the author

Andrei A. Belykh, DSc (Economics), Deputy Head of the Centre of Applied History, Institute of Social Sciences, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Prosp. Vernadskogo, 82, Moscow, 119571, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Full text

Additional Info

Submitted Wednesday, 04 June 2025
Reviewed Thursday, 10 July 2025
Copyright © Auhtors, 2025
Distribution Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

2023. Vol.8. №2.

How demographic shocks affected the production-factor income and the institutional path of the Russian pre-industrial economy

Aug 17 2023

Didenko D.V. How demographic shocks affected the production-factor income and the institutional path of the Russian pre-industrial economy // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №2. P. 6-20.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-2-6-20

Annotation

The author considers several Russian cases of population-loss shocks in the 14th — 17th centuries and their consequences for the production-factor markets, comparing them with those in England. The article aims at verifying theoretical ideas and at tracing the institutional path of mediaeval Russia’s development based on the empirical data represented in the research works, two chronicles and the legal act (Code of 1649). The author’s review of narratives and statistical data contributes to the historical comparative studies of economic systems and of the path dependence in the institutional economic history. The article contributes to the explanation of the causes of the ‘Little Divergence’ between (North)western and (South)eastern Europe in the 15th — 19th centuries, and of the roots of the ‘Great Divergence’ between Europe and Asia in the 18th — 20th centuries. The author argues that the empirical evidence from the Soviet Marxist economic historiography is consistent with the recent findings of the neo-Malthusian structural-demographic theory supported by the Cliodynamics school of quantitative history. After the shocks, wages rose in Russia just as in England. The dynamics of the skill premia highlights the background for formation of human capital ingredients in the bowels of the pre-industrial societies. Contrary to England, serfdom, one of the most extractive institutions, remained in Russia as a response of landlords to the pressure from the disadvantageous combination of production-factor incomes, which led to an increase in land rent to wage ratio and to reliance on land-saving (versus labour-saving) technologies in agriculture.

Keywords

Land rent, real wage, skill premia, Black Death, Time of Troubles, serfdom, Malthusian growth regime, structural-demographic theory.

About the author

Dmitry V. Didenko, DSc (Economics), PhD (History), Leading Researcher, Centre for Studies in Economic and Social History; Professor, Department of Social and Economic History, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Prosp. Vernadskogo, 82, Moscow, 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Full text