The subject of the research in the article is the image and socio-economic practices of a middle-income landowner of one of the provinces of European Russia and his attitude to the role of agriculture in the history of the country and the relationship between peasants and landowners. The article analyzes the civic position of a rationally thinking progressive landowner, his ideological attitudes and motives for streamlining economic activity on the eve of the abolition of serfdom and in the first post-reform decades. The article is based on materials from the family archive of the Smolensk landed gentry Neielovs, inter alia, documents penned by P.D. Neielov, owner of the Peski estate in the Gzhatsky district of the Smolensk province. The author demonstrates that the desire to improve the economic efficiency of estates was stimulated by the economic interests and civic responsibility of the nobleman who linked the prosperity of his estate and the future of Russia with the development of the agricultural sector. The treatment of the peasants by the landowner was rational, as they were both involved in the common economic activity. In the era of serfdom, the latter was based on domination and subordination, which did not rule out economic efficiency. After the abolition of serfdom, it was founded on economic responsibility while some elements of paternalism were retained. The basis for the prosperity of the estate in the feudal era was the rationally organized management of the peasants, combined with the application of the achievements in agriculture. In the post-reform period, the specialization of the economy and civil contracts with peasants came to the fore. From the Russian landowner’s viewpoint, the use of rational farming methods had universal relevance for substantiating his civic position during the times of serfdom and the emancipation of the serfs. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that the author focuses on the life of one person at a crucial time in the history of Russia while studying the problem of the civil responsibility of a noble man. Addressing the case of a landowner of the Smolensk province is based on the author’s conviction that there is great potential in regional and “anthropological” approaches and the genre of microhistory for the study of economic and social practices, as well as the problems of civic consciousness, rationalism and “moral” economy in the feudal and post-reform Russia.

The article examines the mutual relations of zemstvo, local administration and government in the context of the decision of the food problem by Smolensk zemstvo during a crop failure in the late 1860s and early 1870s. The author analyzes a complex and resource-intensive food problem in the period of crop failure and famine in one of the non-chernozem provinces of Russia in the initial period of the zemstvo history, when the zemstvo reform of 1864 was not yet completed. She examines the general model of relations between the government and the zemstvo in overcoming famine, the state of food capital, specific zemstvo practices, the importance of large-scale public works, actions of local administrations, etc. The author concludes that historiographical idea about the oppression of zemstvo by the government immediately after its creation is not quite correct. Thus, in the fight against the famine of 1867–1872 in Smolensk province the government relied on the zemstvo, rather than on the administration, and protected zemstvo from the claims of local administrators. It is possible to speak about the trust on the part of the government in zemstvo bodies and their joint efforts to provide the population with food in the crisis conditions of the post-reform modernization of agriculture. Depending on objective factors, local zemstvo and government used food and cash loans and public works as basic practices to combat famine. The need to repay the state food capital received by peasants was a heavy burden for them. The lessons learned from the Smolensk famine were the impetus for consideration of the problem of money shortage in the agricultural sector. The misfortune of peasantry in some provinces of Russia 1867–1872 which was in the focus of attention of government stimulated the study and discussion of general situation in agriculture and influenced the attitude of central and local authorities to the zemstvo, food and taxation issues