【摘要】：19世紀(jì)中期開始的俄國早期現(xiàn)代化舉步維艱、沖突迭起,根植于18世紀(jì)改革運動奠定的社會基礎(chǔ)。18世紀(jì)的改革運動分為三個發(fā)展階段,彼得一世的改革時期、宮廷政變時期、葉卡特琳娜二世的改革時期。18世紀(jì)的改革運動僅僅是俄國封建體制內(nèi)部的自我調(diào)整,旨在克服俄國封建主義上升時期社會面臨的危機(jī),強(qiáng)化西歐資本主義工業(yè)世界沖擊下重建的沙皇專制主義政權(quán),而這種專制主義政權(quán)是悖論性的集合體——現(xiàn)代結(jié)構(gòu)與中世紀(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)的奇怪混合物。彼得一世的改革從國家的整體利益出發(fā),物質(zhì)層面的歐化改革使俄國社會分裂為貴族和農(nóng)民二個等級。彼得一世的繼承者從貴族等級利益出發(fā),物質(zhì)、精神層面的進(jìn)一步歐化改革和貴族內(nèi)部的矛盾加劇了貴族等級的分裂和對抗。俄國專制主義的君主一人獨裁變?yōu)榫骱痛筚F族的聯(lián)合專制,大貴族成為俄國社會進(jìn)步發(fā)展的阻力;中小貴族生活貧困,某些大貴族受到舊世襲貴族的排擠,他們以退役方式逃避國家義務(wù),脫離俄國社會現(xiàn)實。從這個意義上說,貴族是18世紀(jì)改革的積極推動者和受益者,又是18世紀(jì)改革的逃避者和受害者。 基輔羅斯時期,中介流動商業(yè)貿(mào)易、“索貢巡行”的經(jīng)濟(jì)制度和政治上的長幼順序制決定了貴族的侍衛(wèi)身份;蒙古羅斯時期,韃靼人的暴力統(tǒng)治摧毀了俄國舊的經(jīng)濟(jì)形態(tài)和社會組織,封建世襲領(lǐng)地制度的建立,定居農(nóng)業(yè)生活的開始,侍衛(wèi)轉(zhuǎn)變成為大公的“廷臣”;莫斯科羅斯時期,莫斯科公國疆域的不斷拓展,封邑公國的相繼歸附,服役王公、侍衛(wèi)成為莫斯科大公的“服役人員”。領(lǐng)地制度加強(qiáng)了“服役人員”對沙皇政府的經(jīng)濟(jì)依附,門第制又阻礙了“服役人員”之間的政治聯(lián)盟和團(tuán)結(jié)。18世紀(jì)俄羅斯帝國前期的改革使貴族成為統(tǒng)一的特權(quán)等級,但卻沒有建立起具有統(tǒng)一社會意識的政治聯(lián)盟。沙皇專制主義統(tǒng)治的強(qiáng)化,農(nóng)奴制的擴(kuò)大延誤了俄國現(xiàn)代化的進(jìn)程。貴族體制的矛盾發(fā)展便是改革悖論性的集中體現(xiàn)。 在政治、社會文化領(lǐng)域,俄國封建主義自產(chǎn)生起就缺乏西歐的法制化傳統(tǒng)和封建隸屬之間的“互惠性”原則�！豆僦缺怼钒逊廴藛T組成為統(tǒng)一的社會等級貴族等級。所有社會成員可以通過做官的方式獲得貴族稱號,根據(jù)教育程度和任職期限晉升官職,賞賜徽章、爵位�！豆僦缺怼啡〈酥惺兰o(jì)門第原則,打破貴族等級的封閉性,增強(qiáng)了俄國君主制度的生命力和彈性。18世紀(jì)中期,安娜·伊凡諾芙娜及時修正彼得一世的過激政策,減緩貴族服役義務(wù),創(chuàng)辦貴族學(xué)校,對貴族子弟進(jìn)行定期的4次檢閱。18世紀(jì)后期,葉卡特琳娜二世進(jìn)一步完善了《官秩表》的任職原則,貴族銓敘局通過定期登記、鑒定、履歷表、《名冊》和人口普查等方式規(guī)范貴族官員的服役。重新強(qiáng)調(diào)任職年限、功績和教育程度原則。尤其強(qiáng)調(diào)功績原則,優(yōu)勝劣汰。并把《官秩表》任職原則擴(kuò)大到國家的其他行政部門�？梢�,《官秩表》的任職原則使俄國封建貴族等級和官僚等級有機(jī)地融為一體,俄國的服役貴族原則比普魯士實行得更為徹底。貴族頭銜的社會來源和名稱來源都出自于宮廷,擁有土地和農(nóng)民的貴族個人對沙皇政權(quán)的感恩程度比任何國家要大。農(nóng)民一直是對抗政府的社會異己力量,貴族從未興風(fēng)作浪,職業(yè)性、永久性、無自主性的軍事服役依然是貴族的主要價值取向。所以,18世紀(jì)是沙皇政府和貴族和解的時代,在社會危機(jī)面前他們同
[Abstract]:The reform movement in the 18th century was divided into three stages: the period of Peter I's reform, the period of court coup, the period of Yekatrina II's reform. The reform movement in the 18th century was only a Russian feudal period. The internal self-adjustment of the system is aimed at overcoming the crisis confronted by Russian feudalism in its ascendant period and strengthening the Czarist autocratic regime reconstructed under the impact of the industrial world of capitalism in Western Europe. This autocratic regime is a paradoxical combination of modern and medieval structures. The reform of Peter I The successors of Peter I, proceeding from the interests of the aristocracy, further Europeanization of the material and spiritual levels and contradictions within the aristocracy aggravated the division and confrontation of the aristocracy. Man's dictatorship became the United autocracy of the monarch and the great nobility, and the great nobility became the resistance to the progress and development of Russian society; the middle and small nobles lived in poverty, and some of the great nobles were excluded by the old hereditary nobles. They escaped from the state's obligations by way of retirement and broke away from the reality of Russian society. And the beneficiaries are the evasion and victims of the reform in eighteenth Century.
In Kiev-Ross period, the economic system and the political order of elder and younger of Saogong cruise decided the nobility's guard status; in Mongol-Ross period, the violent rule of the Tatars destroyed the old economic form and social organization of Russia, the establishment of the feudal hereditary territorial system, the beginning of the settlement of agricultural life, the guard. During the Moscow Ross period, the territory of the Moscow Duchy was continuously expanded, the feudal Duchy was attached, the princes served, and the guards became the "servicemen" of the Moscow Duchy. Political alliance and unity.The reform of the Russian Empire in the early 18th century made the aristocracy a unified privileged class,but did not establish a political alliance with a unified social consciousness.The intensification of the Czarist dictatorship and the expansion of serfdom delayed the process of Russian modernization.The contradiction development of the aristocracy was a paradox of reform. Concentrated expression.
In the political, social and cultural spheres, Russian feudalism has been lacking in the legalization tradition of Western Europe and the principle of "reciprocity" between feudal subordinates since its emergence. In the mid-18th century, Anna Ivanovna promptly revised Peter I's radical policies, alleviated the aristocratic service obligations, set up aristocratic schools, and treated the aristocratic children. In the late 18th century, Catherine II further improved the principle of appointment in the rank table. The aristocratic Bureau regulated the service of aristocratic officials by means of periodic registration, appraisal, curriculum vitae, roster and census. Emphasis was placed on the principles of length of service, merit and education. It can be seen that the principle of appointment in the rank table organically integrates the ranks of Russian feudal aristocrats and bureaucrats, and the principle of serving aristocrats in Russia is more thorough than that in Prussia. The peasants have always been a dissident force against the government. The nobility has never made waves, occupational, permanent, and independently military service is still the main value orientation of the nobility. Therefore, the 18th century was an era of reconciliation between the Czar government and the nobility. They face the same social crisis.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2005
【分類號】：K512.4

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 朱蕾;;從奴役到解放——淺談俄國宮廷政變時期貴族地位的轉(zhuǎn)變及其影響[J];文教資料;2010年24期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 周靜;19世紀(jì)中期—20世紀(jì)初俄國貴族與地方機(jī)構(gòu)改革[D];蘇州科技學(xué)院;2011年

2 王美娜;18世紀(jì)下半期—19世紀(jì)上半期的俄國貴族莊園[D];陜西師范大學(xué);2007年

3 李國權(quán);列寧解決蘇俄農(nóng)民問題之探究[D];內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué);2007年

4 霍玉穎;俄國貴族與革命[D];陜西師范大學(xué);2008年

5 謝慧芳;俄國的縉紳會議[D];陜西師范大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號：2206675