Peter I, Decree On Single Inheritance
To buttress the material capacity of noble families to perform state service hereditarily, Peter attempted to abolish the Muscovite practice of dividing estates equally among heirs. He attempted instead to introduce the British system of "entail," whereby the bulk of the estate (especially its land and the serfs that went with it) would pass to a single designated heir. His main intention was to prevent the endless subdivision of property, which over time tended to impoverish the nobility. He also hoped to compel non-inheritors to earn their keep by entering one or another branch of state service. As Hosking suggests, however, this Petrine attempt at reform met considerable resistance from a nobility accustomed to sharing its patrimony. The Decree was repealed shortly after Peter's death.
1. According to Peter, how does the customary division of estates harm state interests?
2. What is his proposed solution to the problem?
3. What does the Decree say regarding the disposition of "moveable" estate property" (i.e., the non-real estate portion of an inheritance)?
4. Who within noble families might be most inclined to resist Peter's reform? Why?
23 March 1714.
We, Peter I, Tsar and Autocrat of All Russia, etc., issue this ukaz for all the subjects of Our state, of whatever rank or status:
The division of estates upon the death of fathers causes great harm to Our state and state interests, and brings ruin to our subjects and to the families concerned. For example:
1. Concerning Taxes. Suppose a man had 1000 serf households and five sons, had a fine manor, a good table, and a sound relationship with people. If after his death this property is divided among his children, each will receive 200 households. Those children, remembering the fame of their father and the honor of their family tree, will not wish to live the life of an orphan. Everyone can see that the poor serfs will have to supply five tables instead of one, and that 200 households [per table] cannot bear the burden (including state taxes) previously borne by 1000. Does not this practice bring ruin to the people and harm to state interest? 200 households cannot make payments as reliably to the state and to a nobleman as 1000 households can. As noted above, a lord with the revenue from 1000 households--and not 200--will be satisfied. Thus he will moderate the situation of his peasants. They will be able to pay taxes punctually to both the state and to him. Consequently, the division of estates brings great harm to the government treasury and ruins base people.
2. Concerning Families. Should each of those five sons have two sons, each of them son will receive 100 households. Should they further multiply, they will be so impoverished that they may turn into one-household owners, with the result that the descendants of a glorious line, in place of fame, will turn into villagers. There are already many examples of this among the Russian people.
3. On indolence: On top of these two harms, there is yet another. Anyone who receives his bread gratuitously, even if it is not much, will neither serve the state without compulsion nor try to improve himself. On the contrary, each will seek any excuse to live in idleness, which (according to Holy Scripture) is the mother of all evil.
In contrast to Item 1:
If all real estate were to be handed down to one son, and the others were to inherit only movable property, then state revenues would be sounder. The nobleman would be better off even if he should collect small amounts from a larger number of serfs. There would be only one manor instead of five (as stated above), and he could show favor to his serfs.
As for Item 2:
Families will not decline, but will remain stable in all their glory. Their manors shall remain famous and renowned.
Regarding Item 3:
The remaining members of the family will not be idle because they will be forced to earn their bread through service, teaching, trade, and so forth. And whatever they do for their own living will also benefit the state.
Because this new system is intended to bring benefit, the following is proclaimed:
(a) All real estate, i.e. hereditary, service, and purchased estates, as well as homes and stores, should neither be sold nor mortgaged but retained in the family line in the following manner.
(b) Whosoever has sons must bequeath his real estate to one, who will inherit all of it. Other children of both sexes, however many there are, will be awarded movable property which either the father or mother will divide for both sons and daughters in the amount they wish, except that the one who inherits the real estate will be excluded. If someone does not have sons, but daughters only, he should then designate one in the same manner. If someone fails to assign his property, a government decree will assign the real estate to the eldest son as his inheritance, while movable property will be divided equally among the others. Obviously, the same procedure is to apply to daughters.
(c) Whosoever is childless is free to leave his real estate to one of the members of his family, whomever he wishes, and the movable property to his kin or even to outsiders. If he fails to do this, both forms of property will then be divided by a decree among the members of the family line. Real estate shall go to the closest relative and the rest to all others equally....
Original translation by Daniel Field. Syntax restructuring and emendations Jon Bone.