1. For a statement of the contrast between the West and East European rural experience and its implications for capitalist development, See Anderson, Perry, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London, 1974), esp. 195–235.Google Scholar

2. Amburger, Erik, Die Famile Marselis: Stusien Zur russischen Wirschaftsgenschichte (Published as Osteurpastudien der Hochsulen des Landes Hessen, Reihe 1) (1957), 104;Google ScholarPankratova, A. M., Formiriovanie proletariata v Rossio (Mosocow, 1963), 219–223;Google ScholarGrau, Conrad, “Russisch-sächsische Beziehungen auf dem Gebiet des Berg- and Hüttenwesen in der erstc Hälfte des 18. JH.,” in Jahrbuch für Geschichte der UDSSR und der volksdemokratischen Länder Europe 4 (1960): 302–30.Google Scholar

3. In addition to these obvious tasks, unskilled labor was needed to build and repair dams and factors, to defend the enterprises against outraged, and to guard caravans on route to market. For a discussion of the obligations of the ascribed peasants, see Semevskii, V. I., Krest'iane v tsaratvovanie Imperatritsy Ekateriny II vol. II (St. Petersburg, 1903), 306.Google Scholar

4. ‘Gramota ob otdache Tuleninu Nikite Demidovu zheleznkh zavodov v Verkhoturskon uezde na Nev'e reke: Prilozhenie”, in Spaasski, G. I., Zhizneopisanie Akinfiia Nikiticha Demidocva (St. Petersburg, 1833). 79–83.Google Scholar For a secondary account, see Hudson, Hugh D. Jr., “Free Enterprise and the State in Eighteenth-Century Russia: the Demisov Metallurgical Empire”, Canadian Slavonic Papers 26, nos. 2–3 (1984): 185–86.Google Scholar

5. Semevski, Krest'iane v tsaratvovainie Ekateriny II, vol. II, 304–5.Google Scholar

6. For examples of such decrees pertaining to various industries, see Polnose sobranie zakonov rossiikoi imperii s 1649 goda, 1st ser., 46 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1830–1839), vol. V no. 3.313., 669–70 (February 26, 1719); and vol. VI, no. 3.808, 410–11 (July 26, 1721), and no. 4.006, 476–77 (May 11, 1722) (hereinafter PSZ).Google Scholar

7. “Gramota ob otbache”, in Spaasskii, Zhizneopisanie, 71.Google ScholarKafengauz, B. B., Istroiia khoziaistva Demidovykh v XVIII–XIX vv.: Opyt issledovaniia po istorii ural'skoi metallurgii vol. i (Moscow–Leningrad, 1949), 95, erroneusly assers that Demidov did not at this time receive the right to purchase peasants.Google Scholar

8. PSz, vol. VI, no. 3.711, 311–12. In fact with the permission of the Mining and Manufacturing Collegium, transfers of workers from one factory to another were carried out.Google Scholar

9. Ogarkov, V. V., Demidovy, ossnovateli gornago dela v Rosii (St. Peterburg, 1891), 27.Google Scholar

10. Zenkovsky, Serge A., “Staroobriadtsy: tekhnokraty gornogo dela Urala”, Zapiski Russkoi Akademicheskoi Gruppy v SShA 10 (1976): 154–57.Google Scholar The Old Belif was the result of the Russian Church schism of the seventeenth and represented an effort by the lower classes in particular to preserve their culture from foreign intrusions, religious and secular. For a discussion of the role Old Belivers in Russian metallurgy, see Hudson, Hugh D. Jr., The Rise of the Demidc Family and the Russian Iron Industry in the Eighteenth Century (Newtonville, Mass., 1986), 72–78.Google Scholar Of some 36,842 Old Believeres officially registered with the state in 1753 (a minuscule minority of those actually practicing the Old Belif), 4,165 were registered at the demidov Neviansk works, perhaps because they felt secure enough to register.

11. PSZ, vol. VI, no. 4.055, 746.Google Scholar

12. Kafengauz, , Istoriia, 189, 195.Google Scholar

13. Sokolovskii, I. V., “K voprosu o sostoianii promyshlennosti v Rossii v kontse XVII i v pervoi polovine XVIII stoletiia”, in Uchenye zapiski Kazanskogo universitea (1890), book 3, 46–50.Google Scholar

14. Rates for asscribed labor were set by edict of Jaunary 20, 1724, during summer at tenkopeks per day peasants with horses and five kopeks for those without: during winter, six kopeks per day for those with horses and four kopeks for those without, PSZ, VII, no. 4425.Google Scholar

15. Report to the Mining and Manufatcturing College, quoted in Krivonogov, V. la., Naemnyi trud v gornozavodskoi promyshlennosti Urala v XVIII veke (Sverdlovsk, 1959), 126–26.Google Scholar

16. Bestuhev-Riumin, B. K., “Vasilii Nikitch Tatishchev: administrator i istorik nachala XVIII veka (1686–1750 gg.)”, Drevniaia i novaia Rossiia 1 1 (1871): 13.Google Scholar

17. Decree of March 23. 1734. in PSZ. vol. IX, no. 6.559, 290–96.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., 293.

19. Bak, I. S., “Ekonomicheskie vozzreniia V. N. Tatishcheva,” Isioricheskie zapiski 55 (1955): 376.Google Scholar

20. The record of the meeting has survived. See Gorlovskii, M. A. and Pavlenko, N. I., eds., “Materialy soveshchaniia ural's skihproyshlennikov, 1734–36 gg.”, in Istoricheskii arkhiv 9 (1953): 5–155.Google Scholar

21. Pavlenko, N. I., ed., “ ‘Nakaz shikhtmesteru’ V. N. Tatishcheva”, Istricheskii arkhiv VI (1951): 5–155.Google Scholar

22. PSZ, vol. IX, nos. 6.849 (December 23, 1735), 659–60; and 6.939 (April 15, 1736), 799–800.Google Scholar

23. Popov, Nil, V. N. Tatishchev i ego vremia (Moscow, 1861), 181–92.Google Scholar

24. PSZ, vol. IX, no. 6559, pt. 9, 290–96.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., vol. IX, no. 6858, 707–12. To satisfy landlords' complaints against factory owners holding their peasants, the state ordered industrialists to pay compensation for skilled fugitives and to return runaway common laborers to their lawful owners.

26. See Pavlenko, N. I., “K voprosu o rynke rabochei sily dlia metallurgicheskikh manufaktur v 20–40-kh godakh XVIII veka,” Voprosy istorii 3 (1952):99–123;Google Scholaridem, “Zum Problem der Struktur der russischen Manufaktur im 17.–19. Jh..” in Jahrbuch für Geschichie der sozialistischen Länder Europas, Band XIII, no. 2 (1969), 109–120.Google Scholar

27. This parallel is suggested by Zelnik, Reginald, “The Peasant and the Factory,” in The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia, ed. Wayne, Vucinich (Stanford, 1968), 165–66.Google Scholar

28. See the relevant documents in Zaozerskaia, F. I. and Pushkarev, L. N., Volneniia rabotnykh liudei I pripisnykh krest'ian na metallurgicheskikh zavodakh Rossii v pervoi polovine XVIII v., vols. I and II (Moscow, 1975).Google Scholar

29. For a discussion of the disturbances in the Urals during the 1750s and 1760s, see Orlov, A. S., Volneniia na Urale v seredine XVIII veka (Moscow, 1979);Google Scholar and Mavrodin, V. V., Klassovaia bor'ba i obshchestvenno-politicheskaia mysl' v Rossii v XVIII v. (1 725–1773), vol. I (Leningrad, 1964), 47–64.Google Scholar

30. Pavlenko, N. I., “Naemnyi trud v metallurgicheskoi promyshlennosti Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v.,” Voprosy istorii 9 (1958):43Google Scholar, argues that this pronouncement signified the end of all ascription to mines and manufactories. The legislation is unfortunately not included in PSZ.

31. PSZ, vol. XV, no. 11.490, 966.Google Scholar

32. Four months after Peter's edict, his successor Catherine II confirmed the decision in an edict of her own on August 8, 1762. See PSZ, vol. XVI, no. 1.638, 47–48. An exception was made for certain foreign-born entrepreneurs. In 1798 Paul I reinstituted the right of non- nobles to purchase villages of serfs for industrial work, but relatively few entrepreneurs seem to have taken advantage of the right.Google Scholar

33. This is the figure given by Catherine herself nine years later. See Sbornik imperatorskago Russkago istoricheskago obshchestva, 148 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1867–1916) (hereafter SIRIO), vol. 10, 380. If Catherine's figures are correct, then some 35 percent of the ascribed peasant population was in revolt at the time of her accession.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., vol.7, 188–99.

35. Ibid., point 7, 192 (errnrously paginated as 182).

36. Many of the Petitions may be found in Orlov, Volneniia na Urale, 192–263.Google Scholar

37. PSZ, vol. XVI, no. 11. 790, 214–19. Although the edit made specific reference to the Kamsk peasants, the empress intended its regulations to apply throughout the metallurgical industry as a whole.Google Scholar

38. For a discussion of Viazemskii's final report, see Orlov, Volneniia na Urale, 158–60. the tax increase to which the price referred was decreed on October 12, 1761. The specific law, however, was not included in PSZ.Google Scholar

39. Eventually (1767), thegoverment adopted the edit of April 9, 1763, for all state enterprises. It also applied them in cases of disturbances at private olants.Google ScholarPortal, Roger, L'Ouralau XVIII siècle: étude d'histoire éconmique et sociale (Paris, 1950), 319;Google ScholarSemevskii, , Krest'iane v tsarstvovanie Ekateriny II, vol. II, 405–08;Google Scholar and de Madariaga, Isabel, Russia in the Age of catherine the Great (New Haven, 1981), 124–25.Google ScholarAlso noteworthy is the fact that on May 27, 1769, Catherine issued an edict that granted ascribed peasants both a pay raise and travel money. PSZ vol. XVIII, no. 13.303, 895–96.Google Scholar Although the increase and the introduction of travel money appeared to be attempts to improve conditions for the ascribed peasants, in reality they accounted for little because of a tax increase effected the previous year (1768). Ibid., no. 13.194, 767–68.

40. Contributions of indivisual enterprise to Pugache's rebellion are discussion in Prussak, A. V., “Zavody, rabotavshie na Pugacheva”, Istoricheskie zapiski 8 (1940): 174–207.Google Scholar

41. Dokumenty stavki E. I. Pugacheva povstancheskikh vlastei i uchrezhgenii (Moscow, 1975), 30–31.Google Scholar

42. Andrushchenko, A. I., Krest'ianskaia voina 1773–1775 gg.: na laike, v Priural'e, na urale, i v Sibire (Moscow, 1969), 237–38.Google Scholar

43. Pavlenko, N. I., Istoriia metallurgii v Rosii XVIII veka (Moscow, 1962), 475 ff.Google Scholar

44. Alexander, John T., Autocratic Politics in a National Crisis: the Imperial Russian Government and Pugache's Revolt, 1773–1775 (Bloomington, Ind., 1969), 145.Google Scholar

45. Catherine to G. A. Potemkin, undated note, cited in ibid.

46. PSZ, XX, no. 14.878, 822–24.Google Scholar

47. See SIRIO, vol. XXVII, 174.Google Scholar

48. Krivongov, Naemnyi trud, 110–11.Google ScholarGol'denberg, L. A., Mikhail Fedorovich Soimonov (1730–1804) (Moscow, 1973), 140.Google Scholar This, in fact, was the number set in 1807 for private factories; each state factory would have its number determined individually. PSZ, vol. XXIX, no. 22.498, 1052. According to the decree of March 15, 1807, the indispensable workers were placed in a legal and social position analogous to that of the vechno-otdannye. “Polozhenie dlia nepremennykh robotnikov pri gornykh zavodakh”, in ibid., 1071.

49. PSZ, vol. XXVI, no. 19.641, 379–82.Google Scholar

50. Ibid., vol. XXIX, no. 22. 498, 1052–157.

51 For a discussion of the disturbances of the early nineteenth century, Tal'skii, O. S., ‘Polozhenie i klassovaia bor'ba uglepostovshchikov metallurgicheskoi promyshlennosti Rossii v feodal'nom periode”, in Voprosy istorii SSSR i metodiki prepodavaniia istorii v srednei shkole (Barnaul, 1972).Google Scholar On thefate of the ascribed of Olonets and the state's decision to exclude them from the legislation of 1807, see PSZ, III, no. 1916, 350–57. The general emancipation is “Manifesto of 19 February 1861”, in ibid., vol. XXVI, no. 36.650, 128ff. On the freeing of the remainning ascribed peasants at private works, see “Dopolnitel'nye pravila o pripisannykh k chastnym gornym zavodam liudiakh vedomsva Ministerstva Finansov”, in ibid., 36.667, 376–82. the liberation of unfree labor by state works followed on may 1. 1861. (The ligislation is not contained in PSZ)

52 See in particular,Reiber, A. J., ed., The Politics of Autocracy: Letters of Alexander II to Prince A. I.BARatinskii, 1857–1864 (Paris, 1966), 21–30.Google Scholar

53 Quoted in Sidney Mintz, W., Caribbean Transformation (Chincago, 1974), 150–51.Google Scholar