The Nohle Serviwr and the Petrine Stateburden, le<lding to what Milyukov provocatively called, in the title of one sec
tion of his work, 'the ruin of the population': Klyuchevsky declared that b)
1725 'the taxpaying capacity of the peasants had been exhausted'.^911 Against
this view Strumilin argues that: (a) Milyukov, driven hy ideological animus
against the Petrine state, exaggerated the st r:1in im p~~~;cd en nu:i0i"1ctl 1 csources;
(b) he tailed to note the benefits that accrued from ces~ation of grain dues in
kind to maintain the stref'l.1y; (c) misreading the cemus data. he assumed that
there had been a great drop in population, whereas actually this was a time of
demographic growth; (d) economic expansion made higher taxation relatively
less burdensome than it had been before Peter's reign.
This indictment deserves fuller examination than it can be given here. The
first point would require a lengthy digression into all the sources of state
revenue; but it is clear merely from the problems encountered in introducing
the poll tax that Strumilin exaggerates in declaring roundly: 'there can be no
question of any financial crisis in these years'.^91 On the second point, while it is
true that this tax fell into abeyance, Peter did not live up to his promise that all
such dues, in cash or kind, would be replaced by the poll tax. On the contrary,
once the army was quartered among them peasants were under continual
pressure to provide a wide range of non-monetary services, especially accom-
modation and transport. Neither Strumilin nor any other writer offers an
estimate of these disbursements. The 1724 Instruction to Colonels fixed pay-
ment for military use of peasant horses and carts ( 5-IO kopecks a day in
summer, 4-6 kopecks in winter),^92 but said nothing about any payment for
accommodation or other facilities such as the regulation serviz. There was also
the cost to donors of recruits, estimated by the Senate in 1725 at no less than
100 roubles per man despatched, which many will have passed on to their
dependants.^93
Strumilin's third point has more substance. Since he wrote further research
has confirmed his belief that this was an era of demographic expansion. The
peasant population (exclusive of recruits) is now thought to have risen from
4.5 to 6.3 million males between 1678 and 1719.^9 ~ In 1724 the taxpaying
population of 5.7 million males was more than twice as large as in 1678. But
two points need to be borne in mind here. First, those peasants who managed
to conceal their existence from the census-takers (and so lead later historians
into error) did not pay taxes; if discovered, they could be charged arrears, but
this will not have yielded much, and in the interim the burden fell on those who
had declared themselves. Second, the doubling of taxpayers was achieved less
by natural growth or territorial expansion than by the expedient of including
(^90) Milyukov, Gos. khoz. Rossi1, p. 244; I\ lyu.:11c•\ 'ky, .\ocli .. j, 14:1-6 (Pe/er !ht' Ci real, p. 180).
91 S1rumili11, 'K vopr°'u', p. 188.
92 PSZ vii. 4535 (26 June 1724), * .1.
9• Anisimov, 'lz isl. fo.kal" noy poli1iki'. p. I~ I. I 1 ""'· however. no1 al" ay' produ.:cd: in 1719
nearly I million roubles was collected in fine., from 1cc"aki1rant dunnr'.
94 Vodarsky, Naseleniye, p. 192.