18世纪俄国改革与贵族
摘要
19世纪中期开始的俄国早期现代化举步维艰、冲突迭起,根植于18世纪改革运动奠定的社会基础。18世纪的改革运动分为三个发展阶段,彼得一世的改革时期、宫廷政变时期、叶卡特琳娜二世的改革时期。18世纪的改革运动仅仅是俄国封建体制内部的自我调整,旨在克服俄国封建主义上升时期社会面临的危机,强化西欧资本主义工业世界冲击下重建的沙皇专制主义政权,而这种专制主义政权是悖论性的集合体——现代结构与中世纪结构的奇怪混合物。彼得一世的改革从国家的整体利益出发,物质层面的欧化改革使俄国社会分裂为贵族和农民二个等级。彼得一世的继承者从贵族等级利益出发,物质、精神层面的进一步欧化改革和贵族内部的矛盾加剧了贵族等级的分裂和对抗。俄国专制主义的君主一人独裁变为君主和大贵族的联合专制,大贵族成为俄国社会进步发展的阻力;中小贵族生活贫困,某些大贵族受到旧世袭贵族的排挤,他们以退役方式逃避国家义务,脱离俄国社会现实。从这个意义上说,贵族是18世纪改革的积极推动者和受益者,又是18世纪改革的逃避者和受害者。
基辅罗斯时期,中介流动商业贸易、“索贡巡行”的经济制度和政治上的长幼顺序制决定了贵族的侍卫身份;蒙古罗斯时期,鞑靼人的暴力统治摧毁了俄国旧的经济形态和社会组织,封建世袭领地制度的建立,定居农业生活的开始,侍卫转变成为大公的“廷臣”;莫斯科罗斯时期,莫斯科公国疆域的不断拓展,封邑公国的相继归附,服役王公、侍卫成为莫斯科大公的“服役人员”。领地制度加强了“服役人员”对沙皇政府的经济依附,门第制又阻碍了“服役人员”之间的政治联盟和团结。18世纪俄罗斯帝国前期的改革使贵族成为统一的特权等级,但却没有建立起具有统一社会意识的政治联盟。沙皇专制主义统治的强化,农奴制的扩大延误了俄国现代化的进程。贵族体制的矛盾发展便是改革悖论性的集中体现。
在政治、社会文化领域,俄国封建主义自产生起就缺乏西欧的法制化传统和封建隶属之间的“互惠性”原则。《官秩表》把服役人员组成为统一的社会等级贵族等级。所有社会成员可以通过做官的方式获得贵族称号,根据教育程度和任职期限晋升官职,赏赐徽章、爵位。《官秩表》取代了中世纪门第原则,打破贵族等级的封闭性,增强了俄国君主制度的生命力和弹性。18世纪中期,安娜·伊凡诺芙娜及时修正彼得一世的过激政策,减缓贵族服役义务,创办贵族学校,对贵族子弟进行定期的4次检阅。18世纪后期,叶卡特琳娜二世进一步完善了《官秩表》的任职原则,贵族铨叙局通过定期登记、鉴定、履历表、《名册》和人口普查等方式规范贵族官员的服役。重新强调任职年限、功绩和教育程度原则。尤其强调功绩原则,优胜劣汰。并把《官秩表》任职原则扩大到国家的其他行政部门。可见,《官秩表》的任职原则使俄国封建贵族等级和官僚等级有机地融为一体,俄国的服役贵族原则比普鲁士实行得更为彻底。贵族头衔的社会来源和名称来源都出自于宫廷,拥有土地和农民的贵族个人对沙皇政权的感恩程度比任何国家要大。农民一直是对抗政府的社会异己力量,贵族从未兴风作浪,职业性、永久性、无自主性的军事服役依然是贵族的主要价值取向。所以,18世纪是沙皇政府和贵族和解的时代,在社会危机面前他们同
Russia early modernization beginning in the middle 19~(th) century was filled with difficulties and resistances, which was rooted in the social background established by the reformation in 18th century which can be divided into three phases: Peter I's reign,palace revolution period, Екатерина Ⅱ reign.The reformation in 18~(th) century was just a readjustment whithin Russian feudalism in order to overcome the social crisis caused by feudal development and strengthen Czar despotism striked by Western industrialization .The despotism was a paradoxical complex :a strange mixture of modern structure and medieval frame. Peter I's reform aimed at the national whole interest ,but the economicoccidentalization divided the society into two classes: aristocracy and peasantry. The successors' further economicand cultural occidentalization and the conflict within aristocracy sharpened the aristocratic split and rivalry. Then the Czar's absolutism turned into an allied depotism between the monarch and high-class aristocracy.The latter became resistance to social development,while the low-class aristocracy were in hot water.,were pushed aside by the traditional eupatrid and chose to escape the national service and the social reality through retirement. In this point the aristocracy were not only the propellants and benefits but also evaders and victims of the reformation.During Kiev period,the aristocratic housecarl status was determined by agent commerce,economic and ranking system. With Tatar's invasion which destroyed Russian past economic form and social structure, feudalism was built;settled agriculture began,and the housecarl turned to courtier, then to be service man of Moscow archduke with the territorial expansion and ducal submission Seigneur strengthened the service man's economic dependence on Czar, meanwhile the hierarchical system hindered the their political alliance and solidarity. The reform of the 18th century made aristocracy a privilege class, but didn't estabilsh a political league with uniform social consciousness. The progress of Russian modernization was delayed by the enhanced Czar depotism and the spreaded serfdom.The aristocratic system's paradoxcial development embodied the dualism of this reform.In political and social fields, Russia feudalism never had any sort of feudal reciprocal principle and legal tradition like Western Europe. 《Табелъ о рангах》 united the service man to an uniform social class: Aristocracy. Under this principle, each member can receive a title by being an officer. Promoting or conferring medal were based on educational level and service time. This principle replaced the traditional rank framework, broke the exclusion of aristocratic hierarchy and enhanced the aristocratic vitality and flexibility. In the middle 18~(th) century , Анна Ивановна modified Peter's radical policies in time,reducing aristocratic service obligation,set up schools for their children who were inspected regularly.In the late 18th century, Екатерина Ⅱ further made the principle perfect,and aristocratic service was regulated through regular register,identification,record,scroll and census. Position term .achievements and education
degree were reemphasized,especially the achievements .The principle spreaded to other service and united the feudal aristocracy and bureaucracy,which was carried out more utterly than Prussian principle.Therefore, all the title and social power came from court, the Russian aristocracy with land and serf were more appreciated to the monarch than any other countries'. Peasantry was always a dissident force.Professional, permanent and military services without any self-determination were the characters of aristocrat,who never made trouble. In one word, 18th century saw a compromise between Czar and aristocrat. Confronted with social crisis,they were in the same boat,which enhanced the solidarity of Russian society and created helpful conditions for future prosperity.But every coin has two sides. We should not ignore that the reform of 18th century split Russia society even more, firstly into aristocrat and peasant. Later reform again divided the aristocracy into high and low ranks. ^Taoejit o paHrax)) ostensibly weakened the feudal hierarchical system, but the effects could not be exaggerated. Actually the social origin and pedigree were still very important to officer appointment.,and civil officers had more difficult in promotion than aristocray. In the middle 18th century aristocracy could get a position through regnal largess,and aristocratic officers'number and rank increased,which destroyed Peter's democratic principle.lt was regulated that aristocry obtained permanent freedom and independence in 1785.In late 18th century,aristocratic privilege was protected eagerly,and civil officers'work term was prolonged while military officers' was shortened.A committee summoned in 1767 abrogated old means of becoming a aristocrat through appointment and decided family status as a main criterion in appointing officials Aristocray was divided into six categories in 1782.Aristocratic property and rank privilege was estabilshed in law in 1785. It was obvious that in 18th century absolute government acquired some capitalism characteristic,but in essence,Russian bureaucratic system retreated back into the traditional principle based on family status Government wouldn't consider the low-class aristocracy as real officer, the prime positions in government still in the hands of high-class aristocracy. What's more, Czar's governments often changed the preferment order of military officer and lift the qualification higher and higher in order to limit the ordinary entering into aristocratic class. The bureaucratic system gradually tended to be aristocratic.Besides, some rank discrimination inside sharpened this tendency. Compared with the Western Europe, Russian aristocracy showed itself unprecedented diversity and openness. But the laggard economic development limited the renewal and progress of aristocratic system. The traditional eupatrid refused new official title and looked down on the bureaucracy. While the bureaucracy with humble origin tried hard to conceal their real status and be deferential to the eupatrid. The life of most aristocrats deteriorated along with the total number's increase of aristocracy. Especially in the later 18th century, a lot of French exiled aristocrats' affluxing into Russia made the hierarchical discrimination spread?Ta6ejib o paHrax)) also prescripted that the aristocracy included both eupatrid and
life peer. The jemadar whose degree was higher than eighth grade can be entitled eupatrid. Later the freedom proclamation of aristocracy in 1762, the Corpus Juries Committee and the aristocracy remit proclamation of 1785 prescripted that the main path to get a title was by monarch's largess or by pedigree. Thus the Russia aristocracy divided into two sides: great and mean, high-class and low-class. On one hand, the mean aristocracy were excluded by the great aristocracy, they didn't have prerogative to have serf or autonomy. They would dawdle everyday rather than engage the vocation other than military service. Consequently they conflicted between great aristocracy and ordinary taxpayer. Poor life made them go to country and become farmers, meanwhile, the greedy made them swarm into big city and capital. On the other hand, the great aristocracy despised the low-class aristocrat's humble breed. In order to maintain the hierarchical dignity, they chose to retire from military service or go abroad to avoid the contact with the low-class aristocracy. At the same time, the bureaucratic aristocracy tried their best to enter into hereditary aristocracy, even through counterfeiting a whole testified stuff. Although in 1760s 's Corpus Juris Committee, the representative aristocracy presented some feasible advices, the rank or regional differences and conflicts made them failed at last, the fissure in the aristocracy became more and more sharpen.As to regional difference, only Baltic Sea's aristocracy got autonomy. In social life, great aristocracy evaded the low ranks in entertainment and religious activities. In educational institution, they would accept private education at home rather than let their children to Moscow University, which didn't have aristocratic boardinghouses. In ideological field, they indulged in the Hierolatry of Orthodox Church and refused enlightening idea of Europe. The government put most attention on the military education which only opened to aristocracy. And the curriculum of aristocratic school concentrated on the foreign language so much that Russian traditional culture had been ignored. The aristocracy just copied the western culture and value, they hadn't understood western spirit. This superficial Occidentalization polarized Russian social culture into elite culture and rural communal culture, also caused a slit in the bosom of aristocratic class. On one side, some conservative aristocrat depended desperately on Czar government. They excluded western civilized culture, and finally became an obstacle of Russian modernization. On the other side, aristocratic intellectuals came to receive the western advanced culture. But they didn't have any certain value idea; they were absolutely deferential to government as well as doubtfully disavowal to it. This kind of deviation made them escape political life and became the Rover of Russia. The split in culture resulted in extreme conflict between different ranks, even a lot of social turbulences.Discrimination and conflict within Russian aristocrat prevented them to make political alliance, which resulted in the surge of aristocratic retirement from army in the middle and late eighteenth century. Social status and property became the only standard for employment, promotion, education, vacation and transfer to civilian work, therefore, large number of middle and lower aristocratic officers were transferred to civilian
irreversibly. The retired military officer were much more than the civilian officer, and they became younger and younger. They couldn't manage to subsist, so became destitute and homeless; they became beggars, clergy or robbers and threated the social stability. In middle and late 18th century, Russian government was corruptive, selling official position, Church authority's moralization slacked, and officers each tried to cheat each other. The upper aristocracy couldn't bear that burden, who both utterly submitted to and doubted and denied the Czar despotism, which droved them to ignore this life and retreated to country life. As a result, Czar government couldn't attract aristocracy to do military service within; Russian military power was weakened without, furthermore, citizen class with modern capitalist democratic and enterprising awareness didn't shape within Russian society, which would threat Czar despotism. The failure in the Crimean War suggested that Russian military technology trailed western nations, and that the inherent crisis of Russian military system based on aristocracy.In economic field, every Czar acquired power with aristocratic support .In order to gain further aristocratic favor and support, the government tried its best to broaden their privilege which presupposed serfdom. One Son Inheritance Law in 1724 regulated that in principle land couldn't be inherited, even couldn't be hold for life, which entirely depended on military service. Through secularization of church property, government hit and crippled church influence in economy, and made it dependent. Tax reformation changed past inequality, and treasury income increased. However, the new tax system reduced the freedom of employment choice through ID card system, which strictly prohibited citizen migrate at liberty at home and abroad. Government reduced the social mobility to the limited level. In order to attract aristocracy to military service, government replaced land largess with money largess. Aristocracy Book of 1785 ensured aristocratic privilege in law.Aristocracy benefited most from serfdom. In 17th century, Russian aristocracy held 9% land which increased to 29% in 18th century. As Russian territory expansion, church possession secularization, immense land became national economicfoundation, and government absolutely predominated land. Because Russian industrial development was based on military need rather living need, military industry priority resulted in economicstructure unbalance. Industrialization based on serfdom developed very low without an impulse to improve labour productivity. Potential labour was under aristocratic supervise, while short-term hired hand in factories were serf. The state had abundant resource and labour force, but couldn't expand reproduction or introduce in foreign capital. Aristocrats were more interested in usury to gain sudden huge profits. They even spent mint fund achieved from industry and commerce on luxurious consume, rather invested in expanding reproduction . Enterprisers without noble birth purchased noble title with big money by the way of ingratiation and intermarriage. Therefore, Russian capitalism accumulation was kept within limits, which determinate the failure and technical difficulties in the future. Aristocracy was the biggest obstacle for peasantry to gain
freedom. The more free aristocracy was, the less national farmer serf was. Serf was aristocrat's separate property. Because serf was the main taxpayer and main safeguard of national finance, army and military service, aristocratic privilege expansion prevented government from overseeing serf. Aristocracy took advantage of their economicpower to enhance their political influence. The more privilege aristocracy had, the less farmer the state hold. As long as aristocracy was Czar's vassal, government couldn't adjust its dominion over landlord, and serfdom was nationwide and arrived at zenith. Aristocratic golden age appeared in Russia in the late 18th century, but Russian economicfoundation was confronted with profound crisis. nyraneB peasantry revolt at the end of 18th century and the failure in the Crimean War in 19th century testified its economiclaggard. According modernization theory, modernization means the transition from traditional society to modern society, and, modernization centered on industrialization is a huge and total social change, while human development is a core and ultimate aim of every development. Any political modernization depends on the establishment and measurement of civil society, which depends on whether the relationship between individual and society and state is dealt with correctly. Russian modernization took place under outside influence. Nationwide market didn't form until the late 18th century,, and internal capitalist economy development was very limited. Although before faced with modernization challenge, Russia had established national boundary and base, and Czar government could response initiatively to the challenge, but its purpose was to resist foreign enemy rather to give up old system. A great deal of rural population couldn't be mobilized by modernization; the businessman and handworker couldn't acquire real autonomy; aristocracy couldn't become real ruler. The relationship between these three was contorted: Czar government was despotic; society was divisive; individual was enslaved. Russian reformation in 18th century strengthened serfdom and despotism, enlarged social and cultural disparity between different orders, and demolished social development harmony. Imbalance in political, economicand cultural development reached high-point, thus, under strong pressure, the nation still could keep its integrity through traditional cultural cohesion and self-identity. However, this development trend blocked social transition, and ultimately delayed the process of Russian modernization.
基辅罗斯时期,中介流动商业贸易、“索贡巡行”的经济制度和政治上的长幼顺序制决定了贵族的侍卫身份;蒙古罗斯时期,鞑靼人的暴力统治摧毁了俄国旧的经济形态和社会组织,封建世袭领地制度的建立,定居农业生活的开始,侍卫转变成为大公的“廷臣”;莫斯科罗斯时期,莫斯科公国疆域的不断拓展,封邑公国的相继归附,服役王公、侍卫成为莫斯科大公的“服役人员”。领地制度加强了“服役人员”对沙皇政府的经济依附,门第制又阻碍了“服役人员”之间的政治联盟和团结。18世纪俄罗斯帝国前期的改革使贵族成为统一的特权等级,但却没有建立起具有统一社会意识的政治联盟。沙皇专制主义统治的强化,农奴制的扩大延误了俄国现代化的进程。贵族体制的矛盾发展便是改革悖论性的集中体现。
在政治、社会文化领域,俄国封建主义自产生起就缺乏西欧的法制化传统和封建隶属之间的“互惠性”原则。《官秩表》把服役人员组成为统一的社会等级贵族等级。所有社会成员可以通过做官的方式获得贵族称号,根据教育程度和任职期限晋升官职,赏赐徽章、爵位。《官秩表》取代了中世纪门第原则,打破贵族等级的封闭性,增强了俄国君主制度的生命力和弹性。18世纪中期,安娜·伊凡诺芙娜及时修正彼得一世的过激政策,减缓贵族服役义务,创办贵族学校,对贵族子弟进行定期的4次检阅。18世纪后期,叶卡特琳娜二世进一步完善了《官秩表》的任职原则,贵族铨叙局通过定期登记、鉴定、履历表、《名册》和人口普查等方式规范贵族官员的服役。重新强调任职年限、功绩和教育程度原则。尤其强调功绩原则,优胜劣汰。并把《官秩表》任职原则扩大到国家的其他行政部门。可见,《官秩表》的任职原则使俄国封建贵族等级和官僚等级有机地融为一体,俄国的服役贵族原则比普鲁士实行得更为彻底。贵族头衔的社会来源和名称来源都出自于宫廷,拥有土地和农民的贵族个人对沙皇政权的感恩程度比任何国家要大。农民一直是对抗政府的社会异己力量,贵族从未兴风作浪,职业性、永久性、无自主性的军事服役依然是贵族的主要价值取向。所以,18世纪是沙皇政府和贵族和解的时代,在社会危机面前他们同
Russia early modernization beginning in the middle 19~(th) century was filled with difficulties and resistances, which was rooted in the social background established by the reformation in 18th century which can be divided into three phases: Peter I's reign,palace revolution period, Екатерина Ⅱ reign.The reformation in 18~(th) century was just a readjustment whithin Russian feudalism in order to overcome the social crisis caused by feudal development and strengthen Czar despotism striked by Western industrialization .The despotism was a paradoxical complex :a strange mixture of modern structure and medieval frame. Peter I's reform aimed at the national whole interest ,but the economicoccidentalization divided the society into two classes: aristocracy and peasantry. The successors' further economicand cultural occidentalization and the conflict within aristocracy sharpened the aristocratic split and rivalry. Then the Czar's absolutism turned into an allied depotism between the monarch and high-class aristocracy.The latter became resistance to social development,while the low-class aristocracy were in hot water.,were pushed aside by the traditional eupatrid and chose to escape the national service and the social reality through retirement. In this point the aristocracy were not only the propellants and benefits but also evaders and victims of the reformation.During Kiev period,the aristocratic housecarl status was determined by agent commerce,economic and ranking system. With Tatar's invasion which destroyed Russian past economic form and social structure, feudalism was built;settled agriculture began,and the housecarl turned to courtier, then to be service man of Moscow archduke with the territorial expansion and ducal submission Seigneur strengthened the service man's economic dependence on Czar, meanwhile the hierarchical system hindered the their political alliance and solidarity. The reform of the 18th century made aristocracy a privilege class, but didn't estabilsh a political league with uniform social consciousness. The progress of Russian modernization was delayed by the enhanced Czar depotism and the spreaded serfdom.The aristocratic system's paradoxcial development embodied the dualism of this reform.In political and social fields, Russia feudalism never had any sort of feudal reciprocal principle and legal tradition like Western Europe. 《Табелъ о рангах》 united the service man to an uniform social class: Aristocracy. Under this principle, each member can receive a title by being an officer. Promoting or conferring medal were based on educational level and service time. This principle replaced the traditional rank framework, broke the exclusion of aristocratic hierarchy and enhanced the aristocratic vitality and flexibility. In the middle 18~(th) century , Анна Ивановна modified Peter's radical policies in time,reducing aristocratic service obligation,set up schools for their children who were inspected regularly.In the late 18th century, Екатерина Ⅱ further made the principle perfect,and aristocratic service was regulated through regular register,identification,record,scroll and census. Position term .achievements and education
degree were reemphasized,especially the achievements .The principle spreaded to other service and united the feudal aristocracy and bureaucracy,which was carried out more utterly than Prussian principle.Therefore, all the title and social power came from court, the Russian aristocracy with land and serf were more appreciated to the monarch than any other countries'. Peasantry was always a dissident force.Professional, permanent and military services without any self-determination were the characters of aristocrat,who never made trouble. In one word, 18th century saw a compromise between Czar and aristocrat. Confronted with social crisis,they were in the same boat,which enhanced the solidarity of Russian society and created helpful conditions for future prosperity.But every coin has two sides. We should not ignore that the reform of 18th century split Russia society even more, firstly into aristocrat and peasant. Later reform again divided the aristocracy into high and low ranks. ^Taoejit o paHrax)) ostensibly weakened the feudal hierarchical system, but the effects could not be exaggerated. Actually the social origin and pedigree were still very important to officer appointment.,and civil officers had more difficult in promotion than aristocray. In the middle 18th century aristocracy could get a position through regnal largess,and aristocratic officers'number and rank increased,which destroyed Peter's democratic principle.lt was regulated that aristocry obtained permanent freedom and independence in 1785.In late 18th century,aristocratic privilege was protected eagerly,and civil officers'work term was prolonged while military officers' was shortened.A committee summoned in 1767 abrogated old means of becoming a aristocrat through appointment and decided family status as a main criterion in appointing officials Aristocray was divided into six categories in 1782.Aristocratic property and rank privilege was estabilshed in law in 1785. It was obvious that in 18th century absolute government acquired some capitalism characteristic,but in essence,Russian bureaucratic system retreated back into the traditional principle based on family status Government wouldn't consider the low-class aristocracy as real officer, the prime positions in government still in the hands of high-class aristocracy. What's more, Czar's governments often changed the preferment order of military officer and lift the qualification higher and higher in order to limit the ordinary entering into aristocratic class. The bureaucratic system gradually tended to be aristocratic.Besides, some rank discrimination inside sharpened this tendency. Compared with the Western Europe, Russian aristocracy showed itself unprecedented diversity and openness. But the laggard economic development limited the renewal and progress of aristocratic system. The traditional eupatrid refused new official title and looked down on the bureaucracy. While the bureaucracy with humble origin tried hard to conceal their real status and be deferential to the eupatrid. The life of most aristocrats deteriorated along with the total number's increase of aristocracy. Especially in the later 18th century, a lot of French exiled aristocrats' affluxing into Russia made the hierarchical discrimination spread?Ta6ejib o paHrax)) also prescripted that the aristocracy included both eupatrid and
life peer. The jemadar whose degree was higher than eighth grade can be entitled eupatrid. Later the freedom proclamation of aristocracy in 1762, the Corpus Juries Committee and the aristocracy remit proclamation of 1785 prescripted that the main path to get a title was by monarch's largess or by pedigree. Thus the Russia aristocracy divided into two sides: great and mean, high-class and low-class. On one hand, the mean aristocracy were excluded by the great aristocracy, they didn't have prerogative to have serf or autonomy. They would dawdle everyday rather than engage the vocation other than military service. Consequently they conflicted between great aristocracy and ordinary taxpayer. Poor life made them go to country and become farmers, meanwhile, the greedy made them swarm into big city and capital. On the other hand, the great aristocracy despised the low-class aristocrat's humble breed. In order to maintain the hierarchical dignity, they chose to retire from military service or go abroad to avoid the contact with the low-class aristocracy. At the same time, the bureaucratic aristocracy tried their best to enter into hereditary aristocracy, even through counterfeiting a whole testified stuff. Although in 1760s 's Corpus Juris Committee, the representative aristocracy presented some feasible advices, the rank or regional differences and conflicts made them failed at last, the fissure in the aristocracy became more and more sharpen.As to regional difference, only Baltic Sea's aristocracy got autonomy. In social life, great aristocracy evaded the low ranks in entertainment and religious activities. In educational institution, they would accept private education at home rather than let their children to Moscow University, which didn't have aristocratic boardinghouses. In ideological field, they indulged in the Hierolatry of Orthodox Church and refused enlightening idea of Europe. The government put most attention on the military education which only opened to aristocracy. And the curriculum of aristocratic school concentrated on the foreign language so much that Russian traditional culture had been ignored. The aristocracy just copied the western culture and value, they hadn't understood western spirit. This superficial Occidentalization polarized Russian social culture into elite culture and rural communal culture, also caused a slit in the bosom of aristocratic class. On one side, some conservative aristocrat depended desperately on Czar government. They excluded western civilized culture, and finally became an obstacle of Russian modernization. On the other side, aristocratic intellectuals came to receive the western advanced culture. But they didn't have any certain value idea; they were absolutely deferential to government as well as doubtfully disavowal to it. This kind of deviation made them escape political life and became the Rover of Russia. The split in culture resulted in extreme conflict between different ranks, even a lot of social turbulences.Discrimination and conflict within Russian aristocrat prevented them to make political alliance, which resulted in the surge of aristocratic retirement from army in the middle and late eighteenth century. Social status and property became the only standard for employment, promotion, education, vacation and transfer to civilian work, therefore, large number of middle and lower aristocratic officers were transferred to civilian
irreversibly. The retired military officer were much more than the civilian officer, and they became younger and younger. They couldn't manage to subsist, so became destitute and homeless; they became beggars, clergy or robbers and threated the social stability. In middle and late 18th century, Russian government was corruptive, selling official position, Church authority's moralization slacked, and officers each tried to cheat each other. The upper aristocracy couldn't bear that burden, who both utterly submitted to and doubted and denied the Czar despotism, which droved them to ignore this life and retreated to country life. As a result, Czar government couldn't attract aristocracy to do military service within; Russian military power was weakened without, furthermore, citizen class with modern capitalist democratic and enterprising awareness didn't shape within Russian society, which would threat Czar despotism. The failure in the Crimean War suggested that Russian military technology trailed western nations, and that the inherent crisis of Russian military system based on aristocracy.In economic field, every Czar acquired power with aristocratic support .In order to gain further aristocratic favor and support, the government tried its best to broaden their privilege which presupposed serfdom. One Son Inheritance Law in 1724 regulated that in principle land couldn't be inherited, even couldn't be hold for life, which entirely depended on military service. Through secularization of church property, government hit and crippled church influence in economy, and made it dependent. Tax reformation changed past inequality, and treasury income increased. However, the new tax system reduced the freedom of employment choice through ID card system, which strictly prohibited citizen migrate at liberty at home and abroad. Government reduced the social mobility to the limited level. In order to attract aristocracy to military service, government replaced land largess with money largess. Aristocracy Book of 1785 ensured aristocratic privilege in law.Aristocracy benefited most from serfdom. In 17th century, Russian aristocracy held 9% land which increased to 29% in 18th century. As Russian territory expansion, church possession secularization, immense land became national economicfoundation, and government absolutely predominated land. Because Russian industrial development was based on military need rather living need, military industry priority resulted in economicstructure unbalance. Industrialization based on serfdom developed very low without an impulse to improve labour productivity. Potential labour was under aristocratic supervise, while short-term hired hand in factories were serf. The state had abundant resource and labour force, but couldn't expand reproduction or introduce in foreign capital. Aristocrats were more interested in usury to gain sudden huge profits. They even spent mint fund achieved from industry and commerce on luxurious consume, rather invested in expanding reproduction . Enterprisers without noble birth purchased noble title with big money by the way of ingratiation and intermarriage. Therefore, Russian capitalism accumulation was kept within limits, which determinate the failure and technical difficulties in the future. Aristocracy was the biggest obstacle for peasantry to gain
freedom. The more free aristocracy was, the less national farmer serf was. Serf was aristocrat's separate property. Because serf was the main taxpayer and main safeguard of national finance, army and military service, aristocratic privilege expansion prevented government from overseeing serf. Aristocracy took advantage of their economicpower to enhance their political influence. The more privilege aristocracy had, the less farmer the state hold. As long as aristocracy was Czar's vassal, government couldn't adjust its dominion over landlord, and serfdom was nationwide and arrived at zenith. Aristocratic golden age appeared in Russia in the late 18th century, but Russian economicfoundation was confronted with profound crisis. nyraneB peasantry revolt at the end of 18th century and the failure in the Crimean War in 19th century testified its economiclaggard. According modernization theory, modernization means the transition from traditional society to modern society, and, modernization centered on industrialization is a huge and total social change, while human development is a core and ultimate aim of every development. Any political modernization depends on the establishment and measurement of civil society, which depends on whether the relationship between individual and society and state is dealt with correctly. Russian modernization took place under outside influence. Nationwide market didn't form until the late 18th century,, and internal capitalist economy development was very limited. Although before faced with modernization challenge, Russia had established national boundary and base, and Czar government could response initiatively to the challenge, but its purpose was to resist foreign enemy rather to give up old system. A great deal of rural population couldn't be mobilized by modernization; the businessman and handworker couldn't acquire real autonomy; aristocracy couldn't become real ruler. The relationship between these three was contorted: Czar government was despotic; society was divisive; individual was enslaved. Russian reformation in 18th century strengthened serfdom and despotism, enlarged social and cultural disparity between different orders, and demolished social development harmony. Imbalance in political, economicand cultural development reached high-point, thus, under strong pressure, the nation still could keep its integrity through traditional cultural cohesion and self-identity. However, this development trend blocked social transition, and ultimately delayed the process of Russian modernization.
引文
1、2003再版.《9-18世纪俄国贵族历史》
2、2003再版.《18世纪到农奴制废除前俄国贵族》
3、1974.《18世纪俄国专制制度与贵族——官僚体制的形成》
4、1999.《自由宣言与18世纪俄国贵族的服役》》
5、1999.《18世纪后半期俄国贵族上层的社会心理》
6、1988.《17-19世纪上半期俄国贵族土地制度》
7、2001.《从彼得一世到保罗一世——18世纪俄国改革经验整体分析》
8、2000.《旧庄园——俄国贵族文化的特征》
9、1960.《18世纪贵族帝国——基本的法律文献》
10、2000.《18世纪俄国贵族证书》
11、2003.《贵族家族》
12、2000.《贵族家庭——俄国贵族家庭历史》
13、1975.《16-18世纪俄国贵族与农奴制度》
14、1990.《18世纪俄国贵族历史——有关贵族徽章资料》
15、1876.《俄国贵族阶层的历史》
16、2001.《在贵族庄园的旅行》
17、2001.《贵族庄园——圣彼得堡省》
18、1906.《1762-1855年贵族与它的阶层统治》
19、2002.《18-20世纪俄国东正教信仰和崇拜传统》
20、1999.《18世纪的俄罗斯帝国——传统与现代》
21、1964.《17-18世纪的俄国专制主义》
22、1966.《沙皇、上帝、俄罗斯——18世纪末期——19世纪初期俄国贵族的自我意识》
23、1982.《18世纪的俄罗斯》
24、2002.《俄国文化座谈——18-19世纪初期俄国贵族的习俗和传统》
25、1966.《18世纪俄国专制政府的财政政策》
26、1979.《1861-1914年的俄国贵族》
27、1994.《没有彼得的俄罗斯》
28、1999.《叶卡捷琳娜女皇》
29、1996.《叶卡捷琳娜和她周围的人》
30、1986.《18世纪中期的俄罗斯——为彼得王位继承权的争夺》
31、2000.《18世纪:俄国历史的秘密》
32、1988.《18世纪中期的俄罗斯》
33、2000.《18-20世纪俄国现代化经验》
34、1998.《俄国的怪兽》
35、1993.《俄国历史上争论的问题》
36、1998.《叶卡捷琳娜二世时代:俄国和波罗的海》
37、2001.《彼得大帝的改革》
38、1991.《18世纪》
39、1997.《改革与战争》
40、1983.《17-18世纪俄国的工业和商业》
41、1999.《俄国历史问答》
42、《18-19世纪俄国政府政策中的改革问题》
43、1991.《剑与火——1725-1825年俄国宫廷政变》
44、1984.《有关彼得大帝的公开读物》
45、1991.《18-19世纪上半期俄国人的回忆录》
46、1991.《索菲亚和彼得一世时期的俄国》
47、1989.《1664-1723年的女王》
48、1998.《俄国政治历史》
49、1994.《彼得一世的改革和俄国的命运》
50、1983.《18世纪下半期-19世纪俄国的农奴知识分子》
51、1998.《追随彼得大帝的业绩》
52、 1997.《俄国现代化的前提和国家文明进程的前景》
53、1995.《从平等到自由》
54、1996.《俄国历史上的改革与反改革》
55、1999.《俄国再生的现代化:贫穷、酗酒或者人类的资源?》
56、1993.《俄国现代化和价值冲突》
58、1993.《经济改革的特征》
59、2001.《在世界文明进程中的俄罗斯》
60、2002.《18世纪中期的俄国》
61、1989.《18世纪外国人眼中的俄罗斯》
62、2002.《18世纪的俄罗斯》
63、1925.《俄国历史上的国家、官僚体制和专制主义》
64、2002.《俄国封建制度的特征》
65、《苏联历史》1961.№2《18世纪俄国资产阶级的贵族化》
66、《在美国历史学家著作中的18世纪的俄罗斯》《苏联历史》1970.№5
67、《18世纪下半期专制政府与贵族的相互关系——在当代英美国家历史学家的著述中》《莫斯科大学学报》1989.№6
68、《18世纪中期俄国的对内政策》《历史问题》1987.№3
69、《叶卡捷琳娜二世》《历史 问题》1989.№3
70、《贵族庄园世界——社会生活的一面镜子》《莫斯科大学学报》1996.№6
71、《俄国贵族》《历史问题》1994.№1
72、《16-18世纪在俄国服役的波罗的海的德国贵族》《莫斯科大学学报》2000.№2
73、《彼得一世和波罗的海》《历史问题》1994.№1
74、Ⅱ《叶卡捷琳娜二世的等级政策》《莫斯科大学学报》2000.№2
75、《俄国的政权与改革》《莫斯科大学学报》1998.№2
76、《在东西斯拉夫封建社会发展中服役组织和它的作用》《祖国历史》1992.№2
77、《1767年的俄国贵族——贵族联盟问题》《苏联历史》1990.№1
77、《俄国贵族和政府取消农奴制度的纲领》《历史问题》1973.№9
78、《19-20世纪欧俄国贵族土地制度的分布和结构》《苏联历史》1971.№1
79、1785《1785年叶卡捷琳娜二世的对贵族和城市纲领》《历史问题》1993№5
80、1762-1785《1762-1785年俄国贵族的解放》《苏联历史》1976.№1
81、1767-1768《莫斯科大学学报》1991.№2
82、1767-1768《对1767-1768年法典委员会上贵族圣谕研究的分析》《苏联历史》1990.№1
83、 《16-20世纪俄国贵族和商人的庄园》《苏联历史》1996.№1
84、《18世纪莫斯科和圣彼得堡的贵族庄园》《苏联历史》1990.№5
85、《在叶卡捷琳娜二世圣谕中的保守主义政治和社会思想》《莫斯科大学学报》1995.№1
86、《在博洛托夫著作中的贵族道德和教育问题》《莫斯科大学学报》2001.№5
87、《18-19世纪上期城镇》《莫斯科大学学报》1999.№6
88、1762-1815《1762-1815年俄国的开明专制和对外政策》《祖国历史》2001.№2
89、《大改革前俄国地方自治的发展》《祖国历史》2001.№5
90、《1730年俄国君主立宪:思想和形式》《历史问题》1998.№3
91、《安娜·伊凡诺夫娜女皇和俄国旧时代的肖像》《莫斯科大学学报》1995.№4
92、《18世纪俄国贵族庄园——公园的景色和民族传统的产生》《莫斯科大学学报》2000 №2
93、《16-18世纪莫斯科的德国城镇》《莫斯科大学学报》2002.№3
94、《在第一次俄国革命时期贵族联盟会议》《莫斯科大学学报》2001.№4
95、《18-20世纪俄国政治历史上的宫廷政变》《历史问题》1995.№5
96、《贵族联盟与农业改革》《历史问题》1993.№9
97、《17世纪内讧时期俄国服役阶层的社会心理》《莫斯科大学学报》1993.№2
98、《18世纪俄国贵族庄园建设中农奴手工工匠的作用》《莫斯科大学学报》1981.№4
99、1767-1768《1767-1768年法典委员会中贵族权力方案的形成》《莫斯科大学学报》1990.№2
100、《1760-1762年商业法》《莫斯科大学学报》1994.№6
101、《18世纪贵族土地所有制法令问题》《莫斯科大学学报》1983.№1
102、《18-19世纪俄国的德国居民》《历史问题》1995.№5
103、《俄国历史进程中的自然气候因素和特征》《历史问题》1992.№4-5
104、《俄国封建制度的基本特征》《苏联历史》1989.№2
105、《16-17世纪旧时代的俄国贵族》《历史问题》2002.№4
[1] [俄]瓦·奥·克柳切夫斯基.俄国史教程:第一、二、三卷[M].贾宗谊,等译.北京:商务印书馆,1996年.
[2] [俄]瓦·奥·克柳切夫斯基.俄国各阶层史[M].徐昌翰译.北京:商务印书馆,1994年.
[3] [法]亨利·特罗亚.风流女皇叶卡特琳娜二世[M].冯志军译.北京:世界知识出版社,1983年.
[4] [法]亨利·特鲁瓦亚.彼得大帝[M].齐宗华译.天津:天津人民出版社,1983年.
[5] [波]瓦利舍夫斯基.叶卡特琳娜二世传[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1982年.
[6] [法]托克维尔.旧制度与大革命[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997年.
[7] [俄]索洛维约夫.俄罗斯思想[M].贾泽林,李树柏译.杭州:浙江人民出版社,2000年.
[8] [俄]A·H·别尔嘉耶夫.俄罗斯思想[M].雷永生等译.北京:三联书店,1995年.
[9] [俄]A·H·别尔嘉耶夫.俄罗斯思想的宗教阐释[M].北京:东方出版社,1998年.
[10] [俄]A·H·别尔嘉耶夫.俄罗斯的命运[M].汪剑钊译.昆明:云南人民出版社,1999年.
[11] [俄]别尔嘉耶夫集.一个贵族的回忆与思索[M].汪建钊编选.上海:远东出版社,2004年,
[12] [俄]恰达耶夫.箴言集[M].刘文飞译.昆明:云南人民出版社,1999年.
[13] [俄]A·H·别尔嘉耶夫俄国共产主义的起源与涵义——俄罗斯的宗教与思想[M].邓兰华译.西安:《苏联历史问题》,陕西师范大学历史系主编,1991年,第3、4期合刊.
[14] [俄]梅尼日科夫斯基.重病的俄罗斯[M].李莉,杜文娟译.昆明:云南人民出版社,1999年.
[15] [俄]安德兰尼克·米格拉尼扬.俄罗斯现代化之路——为何如此曲折[M].徐葵等译.北京:新华出版社,2002年.
[16] [俄]安德兰尼克·米格拉尼扬.俄罗斯现代化与公民社会[M].徐葵等译.北京:新华出版社,2003年.
[17] [苏]赫克.俄国革命前后的宗教[M].高骅等译.上海:学林出版社,1999年.
[18] [俄]赫尔岑.往事与随想:上、中、下册[M].项星耀译.北京:人民文学出版社,1998年.
[19] [俄]戈·瓦·普列汉诺夫.俄国社会思想史:第一、二、三卷[M].孙静工译.北京:商务印书馆,1999年.
[20] [苏]诺索夫.苏联简史[M].北京:三联书店,1977年.
[21] [苏]卡芬加乌,巴甫连科主编.彼得一世的改革:上、下册[M].郭奇格,陈明等译.北京:商务印书馆,1997年.
[22] [苏]苏联科学院历史所列宁格勒分所.俄国文化史纲要[M].张开,张曼真等译.北京:商务印书馆,1994年.
[23] [英]以赛亚·伯.俄国思想家[M].彭淮栋译.南京:译林出版社,2001年.
[24] [美]拉伊夫.裁下的嬗变与危机:俄罗斯帝国二百年剖析[M].蒋学祯,王端译.上海:学林出版社,1996年.
[25] [俄]布尔加科夫.东正教[M].徐风林译.北京:商务印书馆,2001年.
[26] [俄]尼·伊·帕甫连科.彼得大帝[M].斯庸译.北京:三联书店,1982年.
[27] [美]汤普逊.了解俄国:俄国文化中的神愚[M].杨德友译.北京:生活·读书·新知·三联书店,牛津大学出版社,1998年.
[28] [俄]M·P·泽齐娜,科什曼,B·C·舒利金.俄罗斯文化史[M].刘文飞,苏玲译.上海:上海译文出版社,1999年.
[29] [俄]H·M·尼科利斯基.俄国教会史[M].丁士超,苑一博,杜立克等译.北京商务印书馆,2000年.
[30] [俄]巴甫洛夫——西利万斯基.俄国封建主义[M].吕和声等译.北京:商务印书馆,1998年.
[31] [苏]波克罗夫斯基.俄国历史概要:上、下册[M].贝璋衡,叶林等译.北京:生活·读书·新知·三联书店,1978年.
[32] [苏]B·B·马夫罗金.俄罗斯统一国家的形成[M].北京:生活·读书·新知·三 联书店,1978年.
[33] [美]佩里·安德森.从古代到封建主义的过渡[M].郭方,刘键译.上海:上海人民出版社,2001年.
[34] [美]佩里·安德森.绝对主义国家的系谱[M].刘北成,龚晓庄译.上海人民出版社,2001年.
[35] [美]布莱克.日本和俄国的现代化[M].北京:商务印书馆,1984年.
[36] [苏]梁士琴科.苏联国民经济史:第一卷[M].中国人民大学编译室译.北京:人民出版社,1959年.
[37] [俄]德·谢·利哈乔夫.解读俄罗斯[M].吴晓都,王焕生等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2003年.
[38] 金雁,卞悟.农村公社、改革与革命[M].北京:中央编译出版社社,1996年.
[39] 金雁.苏俄现代化与改革研究[M].广州:广东教育出版社,1999年.
[40] 赵士国,杨可.俄国沙皇传略[M].长沙:湖南师范大学出版社,2001年.
[41] 赵士国.俄国政体与官制史[M].长沙:湖南师范大学出版社,1998.
[42] 张百春.当代东正教神学思想[M].上海:三联书店,2000年.
[43] 戴桂菊.东正教与俄罗斯改革[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2002年.
[44] 宋瑞芝.俄罗斯精神[M].武汉:长江出版社,2000年.
[45] 刘祖熙.改革与革命——俄国现代化研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001年.
[46] 刘祖熙.斯拉夫文化[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,1996年.
[47] 陶惠芬.俄国彼得大帝的欧化改革[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,1996年.
[48] 姚海.俄罗斯文化之路[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,1994年.
[49] 曹维安.俄国史新论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2002年.
[50] 乐峰.东正教史[M].北京:中国社会科学院出版社,1999年.
[51] 朱达秋,周力.俄罗斯文化论[M].重庆:重庆出版社,2004年.
[52] 孙成木.俄罗斯文化一千年[M].北京:东方出版社,1995年.
[53] 孙成木,刘祖熙,李建.俄国通史简编:上、下册[M].北京:人民出版社,1986年.
[54] 马克思.十八世纪外交史内幕[M].北京:人民出版社,1979年.
[55] 王晓菊.俄国东部移民开发问题研究[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003年.
[56] 王云龙.现代化特殊性道路——沙皇俄国最后60年社会转型历程解析[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004年.
[57] 谢立中,孙立平主编.二十世纪西方现代化理论文选[M].上海三联书店,2002年.
[58] 文池主编.俄罗斯文化之旅[M].北京:新世界出版社,2002年.
[59] 赵振英.俄国政治制度史[M].大连:辽宁师范大学出版社,2000年.
2、2003再版.《18世纪到农奴制废除前俄国贵族》
3、1974.《18世纪俄国专制制度与贵族——官僚体制的形成》
4、1999.《自由宣言与18世纪俄国贵族的服役》》
5、1999.《18世纪后半期俄国贵族上层的社会心理》
6、1988.《17-19世纪上半期俄国贵族土地制度》
7、2001.《从彼得一世到保罗一世——18世纪俄国改革经验整体分析》
8、2000.《旧庄园——俄国贵族文化的特征》
9、1960.《18世纪贵族帝国——基本的法律文献》
10、2000.《18世纪俄国贵族证书》
11、2003.《贵族家族》
12、2000.《贵族家庭——俄国贵族家庭历史》
13、1975.《16-18世纪俄国贵族与农奴制度》
14、1990.《18世纪俄国贵族历史——有关贵族徽章资料》
15、1876.《俄国贵族阶层的历史》
16、2001.《在贵族庄园的旅行》
17、2001.《贵族庄园——圣彼得堡省》
18、1906.《1762-1855年贵族与它的阶层统治》
19、2002.《18-20世纪俄国东正教信仰和崇拜传统》
20、1999.《18世纪的俄罗斯帝国——传统与现代》
21、1964.《17-18世纪的俄国专制主义》
22、1966.《沙皇、上帝、俄罗斯——18世纪末期——19世纪初期俄国贵族的自我意识》
23、1982.《18世纪的俄罗斯》
24、2002.《俄国文化座谈——18-19世纪初期俄国贵族的习俗和传统》
25、1966.《18世纪俄国专制政府的财政政策》
26、1979.《1861-1914年的俄国贵族》
27、1994.《没有彼得的俄罗斯》
28、1999.《叶卡捷琳娜女皇》
29、1996.《叶卡捷琳娜和她周围的人》
30、1986.《18世纪中期的俄罗斯——为彼得王位继承权的争夺》
31、2000.《18世纪:俄国历史的秘密》
32、1988.《18世纪中期的俄罗斯》
33、2000.《18-20世纪俄国现代化经验》
34、1998.《俄国的怪兽》
35、1993.《俄国历史上争论的问题》
36、1998.《叶卡捷琳娜二世时代:俄国和波罗的海》
37、2001.《彼得大帝的改革》
38、1991.《18世纪》
39、1997.《改革与战争》
40、1983.《17-18世纪俄国的工业和商业》
41、1999.《俄国历史问答》
42、《18-19世纪俄国政府政策中的改革问题》
43、1991.《剑与火——1725-1825年俄国宫廷政变》
44、1984.《有关彼得大帝的公开读物》
45、1991.《18-19世纪上半期俄国人的回忆录》
46、1991.《索菲亚和彼得一世时期的俄国》
47、1989.《1664-1723年的女王》
48、1998.《俄国政治历史》
49、1994.《彼得一世的改革和俄国的命运》
50、1983.《18世纪下半期-19世纪俄国的农奴知识分子》
51、1998.《追随彼得大帝的业绩》
52、 1997.《俄国现代化的前提和国家文明进程的前景》
53、1995.《从平等到自由》
54、1996.《俄国历史上的改革与反改革》
55、1999.《俄国再生的现代化:贫穷、酗酒或者人类的资源?》
56、1993.《俄国现代化和价值冲突》
58、1993.《经济改革的特征》
59、2001.《在世界文明进程中的俄罗斯》
60、2002.《18世纪中期的俄国》
61、1989.《18世纪外国人眼中的俄罗斯》
62、2002.《18世纪的俄罗斯》
63、1925.《俄国历史上的国家、官僚体制和专制主义》
64、2002.《俄国封建制度的特征》
65、《苏联历史》1961.№2《18世纪俄国资产阶级的贵族化》
66、《在美国历史学家著作中的18世纪的俄罗斯》《苏联历史》1970.№5
67、《18世纪下半期专制政府与贵族的相互关系——在当代英美国家历史学家的著述中》《莫斯科大学学报》1989.№6
68、《18世纪中期俄国的对内政策》《历史问题》1987.№3
69、《叶卡捷琳娜二世》《历史 问题》1989.№3
70、《贵族庄园世界——社会生活的一面镜子》《莫斯科大学学报》1996.№6
71、《俄国贵族》《历史问题》1994.№1
72、《16-18世纪在俄国服役的波罗的海的德国贵族》《莫斯科大学学报》2000.№2
73、《彼得一世和波罗的海》《历史问题》1994.№1
74、Ⅱ《叶卡捷琳娜二世的等级政策》《莫斯科大学学报》2000.№2
75、《俄国的政权与改革》《莫斯科大学学报》1998.№2
76、《在东西斯拉夫封建社会发展中服役组织和它的作用》《祖国历史》1992.№2
77、《1767年的俄国贵族——贵族联盟问题》《苏联历史》1990.№1
77、《俄国贵族和政府取消农奴制度的纲领》《历史问题》1973.№9
78、《19-20世纪欧俄国贵族土地制度的分布和结构》《苏联历史》1971.№1
79、1785《1785年叶卡捷琳娜二世的对贵族和城市纲领》《历史问题》1993№5
80、1762-1785《1762-1785年俄国贵族的解放》《苏联历史》1976.№1
81、1767-1768《莫斯科大学学报》1991.№2
82、1767-1768《对1767-1768年法典委员会上贵族圣谕研究的分析》《苏联历史》1990.№1
83、 《16-20世纪俄国贵族和商人的庄园》《苏联历史》1996.№1
84、《18世纪莫斯科和圣彼得堡的贵族庄园》《苏联历史》1990.№5
85、《在叶卡捷琳娜二世圣谕中的保守主义政治和社会思想》《莫斯科大学学报》1995.№1
86、《在博洛托夫著作中的贵族道德和教育问题》《莫斯科大学学报》2001.№5
87、《18-19世纪上期城镇》《莫斯科大学学报》1999.№6
88、1762-1815《1762-1815年俄国的开明专制和对外政策》《祖国历史》2001.№2
89、《大改革前俄国地方自治的发展》《祖国历史》2001.№5
90、《1730年俄国君主立宪:思想和形式》《历史问题》1998.№3
91、《安娜·伊凡诺夫娜女皇和俄国旧时代的肖像》《莫斯科大学学报》1995.№4
92、《18世纪俄国贵族庄园——公园的景色和民族传统的产生》《莫斯科大学学报》2000 №2
93、《16-18世纪莫斯科的德国城镇》《莫斯科大学学报》2002.№3
94、《在第一次俄国革命时期贵族联盟会议》《莫斯科大学学报》2001.№4
95、《18-20世纪俄国政治历史上的宫廷政变》《历史问题》1995.№5
96、《贵族联盟与农业改革》《历史问题》1993.№9
97、《17世纪内讧时期俄国服役阶层的社会心理》《莫斯科大学学报》1993.№2
98、《18世纪俄国贵族庄园建设中农奴手工工匠的作用》《莫斯科大学学报》1981.№4
99、1767-1768《1767-1768年法典委员会中贵族权力方案的形成》《莫斯科大学学报》1990.№2
100、《1760-1762年商业法》《莫斯科大学学报》1994.№6
101、《18世纪贵族土地所有制法令问题》《莫斯科大学学报》1983.№1
102、《18-19世纪俄国的德国居民》《历史问题》1995.№5
103、《俄国历史进程中的自然气候因素和特征》《历史问题》1992.№4-5
104、《俄国封建制度的基本特征》《苏联历史》1989.№2
105、《16-17世纪旧时代的俄国贵族》《历史问题》2002.№4
[1] [俄]瓦·奥·克柳切夫斯基.俄国史教程:第一、二、三卷[M].贾宗谊,等译.北京:商务印书馆,1996年.
[2] [俄]瓦·奥·克柳切夫斯基.俄国各阶层史[M].徐昌翰译.北京:商务印书馆,1994年.
[3] [法]亨利·特罗亚.风流女皇叶卡特琳娜二世[M].冯志军译.北京:世界知识出版社,1983年.
[4] [法]亨利·特鲁瓦亚.彼得大帝[M].齐宗华译.天津:天津人民出版社,1983年.
[5] [波]瓦利舍夫斯基.叶卡特琳娜二世传[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1982年.
[6] [法]托克维尔.旧制度与大革命[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997年.
[7] [俄]索洛维约夫.俄罗斯思想[M].贾泽林,李树柏译.杭州:浙江人民出版社,2000年.
[8] [俄]A·H·别尔嘉耶夫.俄罗斯思想[M].雷永生等译.北京:三联书店,1995年.
[9] [俄]A·H·别尔嘉耶夫.俄罗斯思想的宗教阐释[M].北京:东方出版社,1998年.
[10] [俄]A·H·别尔嘉耶夫.俄罗斯的命运[M].汪剑钊译.昆明:云南人民出版社,1999年.
[11] [俄]别尔嘉耶夫集.一个贵族的回忆与思索[M].汪建钊编选.上海:远东出版社,2004年,
[12] [俄]恰达耶夫.箴言集[M].刘文飞译.昆明:云南人民出版社,1999年.
[13] [俄]A·H·别尔嘉耶夫俄国共产主义的起源与涵义——俄罗斯的宗教与思想[M].邓兰华译.西安:《苏联历史问题》,陕西师范大学历史系主编,1991年,第3、4期合刊.
[14] [俄]梅尼日科夫斯基.重病的俄罗斯[M].李莉,杜文娟译.昆明:云南人民出版社,1999年.
[15] [俄]安德兰尼克·米格拉尼扬.俄罗斯现代化之路——为何如此曲折[M].徐葵等译.北京:新华出版社,2002年.
[16] [俄]安德兰尼克·米格拉尼扬.俄罗斯现代化与公民社会[M].徐葵等译.北京:新华出版社,2003年.
[17] [苏]赫克.俄国革命前后的宗教[M].高骅等译.上海:学林出版社,1999年.
[18] [俄]赫尔岑.往事与随想:上、中、下册[M].项星耀译.北京:人民文学出版社,1998年.
[19] [俄]戈·瓦·普列汉诺夫.俄国社会思想史:第一、二、三卷[M].孙静工译.北京:商务印书馆,1999年.
[20] [苏]诺索夫.苏联简史[M].北京:三联书店,1977年.
[21] [苏]卡芬加乌,巴甫连科主编.彼得一世的改革:上、下册[M].郭奇格,陈明等译.北京:商务印书馆,1997年.
[22] [苏]苏联科学院历史所列宁格勒分所.俄国文化史纲要[M].张开,张曼真等译.北京:商务印书馆,1994年.
[23] [英]以赛亚·伯.俄国思想家[M].彭淮栋译.南京:译林出版社,2001年.
[24] [美]拉伊夫.裁下的嬗变与危机:俄罗斯帝国二百年剖析[M].蒋学祯,王端译.上海:学林出版社,1996年.
[25] [俄]布尔加科夫.东正教[M].徐风林译.北京:商务印书馆,2001年.
[26] [俄]尼·伊·帕甫连科.彼得大帝[M].斯庸译.北京:三联书店,1982年.
[27] [美]汤普逊.了解俄国:俄国文化中的神愚[M].杨德友译.北京:生活·读书·新知·三联书店,牛津大学出版社,1998年.
[28] [俄]M·P·泽齐娜,科什曼,B·C·舒利金.俄罗斯文化史[M].刘文飞,苏玲译.上海:上海译文出版社,1999年.
[29] [俄]H·M·尼科利斯基.俄国教会史[M].丁士超,苑一博,杜立克等译.北京商务印书馆,2000年.
[30] [俄]巴甫洛夫——西利万斯基.俄国封建主义[M].吕和声等译.北京:商务印书馆,1998年.
[31] [苏]波克罗夫斯基.俄国历史概要:上、下册[M].贝璋衡,叶林等译.北京:生活·读书·新知·三联书店,1978年.
[32] [苏]B·B·马夫罗金.俄罗斯统一国家的形成[M].北京:生活·读书·新知·三 联书店,1978年.
[33] [美]佩里·安德森.从古代到封建主义的过渡[M].郭方,刘键译.上海:上海人民出版社,2001年.
[34] [美]佩里·安德森.绝对主义国家的系谱[M].刘北成,龚晓庄译.上海人民出版社,2001年.
[35] [美]布莱克.日本和俄国的现代化[M].北京:商务印书馆,1984年.
[36] [苏]梁士琴科.苏联国民经济史:第一卷[M].中国人民大学编译室译.北京:人民出版社,1959年.
[37] [俄]德·谢·利哈乔夫.解读俄罗斯[M].吴晓都,王焕生等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2003年.
[38] 金雁,卞悟.农村公社、改革与革命[M].北京:中央编译出版社社,1996年.
[39] 金雁.苏俄现代化与改革研究[M].广州:广东教育出版社,1999年.
[40] 赵士国,杨可.俄国沙皇传略[M].长沙:湖南师范大学出版社,2001年.
[41] 赵士国.俄国政体与官制史[M].长沙:湖南师范大学出版社,1998.
[42] 张百春.当代东正教神学思想[M].上海:三联书店,2000年.
[43] 戴桂菊.东正教与俄罗斯改革[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2002年.
[44] 宋瑞芝.俄罗斯精神[M].武汉:长江出版社,2000年.
[45] 刘祖熙.改革与革命——俄国现代化研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001年.
[46] 刘祖熙.斯拉夫文化[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,1996年.
[47] 陶惠芬.俄国彼得大帝的欧化改革[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,1996年.
[48] 姚海.俄罗斯文化之路[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,1994年.
[49] 曹维安.俄国史新论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2002年.
[50] 乐峰.东正教史[M].北京:中国社会科学院出版社,1999年.
[51] 朱达秋,周力.俄罗斯文化论[M].重庆:重庆出版社,2004年.
[52] 孙成木.俄罗斯文化一千年[M].北京:东方出版社,1995年.
[53] 孙成木,刘祖熙,李建.俄国通史简编:上、下册[M].北京:人民出版社,1986年.
[54] 马克思.十八世纪外交史内幕[M].北京:人民出版社,1979年.
[55] 王晓菊.俄国东部移民开发问题研究[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2003年.
[56] 王云龙.现代化特殊性道路——沙皇俄国最后60年社会转型历程解析[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004年.
[57] 谢立中,孙立平主编.二十世纪西方现代化理论文选[M].上海三联书店,2002年.
[58] 文池主编.俄罗斯文化之旅[M].北京:新世界出版社,2002年.
[59] 赵振英.俄国政治制度史[M].大连:辽宁师范大学出版社,2000年.