



Produced by Melissa McDaniel and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)










            _STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW._

                               EDITED BY
              THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
                         OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE.

            Volume II.]                           [Number 1.

                             THE ECONOMICS
                                OF THE
                           RUSSIAN VILLAGE.

                                  BY
                       ISAAC A. HOURWICH, PH.D.,
       _Seligman Fellow in Political Science, Columbia College._

                               NEW YORK.
                                 1892.




TABLE OF CONTENTS.


                                                                    PAGE

  INTRODUCTION. THE RISE OF “PEASANTISM.”                              7

  CHAPTER I. GENERAL SKETCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANDHOLDING IN
  RUSSIA                                                              19

  The Russian village community of historical times--Survivals of
  communal co-operation--The communistic peasant household--Origins
  of private property in land--Patrimony and fee--Slavery resulting
  from the obligation of loan--Tenure in fee an institute of public
  law--Limitation of the peasant’s right of migration--The fee
  becomes hereditary--Statute of Peter the Great on inheritance in
  the estates held by the nobility; abolition of the distinction
  between patrimony and fee--The poll tax--Slaves and serfs put
  upon a common footing--Emancipation of the nobility from their
  duty toward the state--The serfs agitated by a feeling in favor
  of emancipation--“Land and Liberty”--The question discussed in
  the Legislative Assembly convoked by Catherine II.--Insurrection
  under the head of Emilian Pougatchoff--Further developments of
  the abolitionist problem--Peasant riots about the time of the
  Crimean War--Economic necessity of abolition of serfdom--Evolution
  of private property achieved by the emancipation--Expropriation
  of the peasantry--Legends of land nationalization popular
  with the peasantry--The Statute of 1861 in its characteristic
  features--Russian taxation--Limitation of the personal liberty of
  the taxpayer--The village community upheld by over-taxation of the
  land--Counteracting influence of the rise of rent.

  CHAPTER II. COMMUNITY OF LAND                                       37

  The region selected for review with regard to geographical
  position and population--Forms of ownership in land--Agrarian
  communism--Community of land with shares fixed in
  perpetuity--History of the latter form of ownership--Evolution of
  the same into agrarian communism--Opinions of Russian students on
  the origin of agrarian communism.

  CHAPTER III. THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF THE PEASANTRY                 47

  Normal size of a farm required by the present state
  of agriculture--Actual size of peasant farms--Legal
  discrimination--Want of fodder--Depressed condition of stock
  breeding--Want of fuel--Manure used as fuel--The land not
  fertilized--Exhaustion of the soil--Improper situation of the
  lots--Yields of cereals--Balance of peasant agriculture--Review
  of real peasant budgets--Development of money economy in peasant
  farming.

  CHAPTER IV. TAXATION OF THE PEASANT                                 59

  The taxes in inverse ratio to the income--The redemption tax
  paid by the former serf--Assessment _per capita_--Arrears in
  taxes--Bearing upon the peasant’s live stock--The fiscal system
  lived down by economic development.

  CHAPTER V. COMMUNAL TENURE AND SMALL HOLDINGS                       67

  Economic relations arising from the lack of
  land--Tenure at will--Community as party to the
  agreement--Easements--Pasture--Tendency toward individualism
  produced by inequality of wealth and money economy--Arable
  land and grass land--Individualism prevailing--Communal
  agreements--Influence of divergent interests within the
  community--Rental partnerships, a step toward individualism.

  CHAPTER VI. THE EVOLUTION OF THE FARMER INTO THE AGRICULTURAL
  LABORER                                                             75

  Relations between landlord and tenant--Division of crops--Labor
  in payment for rent--Tendency towards money agreements--Rise of
  rent--Rate of rent to wages--Differentiation of tenant and farm
  laborer.

  CHAPTER VII. THE WAGES IN THE RURAL DISTRICTS                       80

  Farmer as wage-worker--Farm work prevailing--Indebtedness
  of the farmer--Wages in rural districts cut down by the
  farmer-workingman--Low wages a drawback to the development of
  industry--Pauperism.

  CHAPTER VIII. THE RURAL SURPLUS POPULATION                          85

  Increasing movement away from the rural districts--Wages higher
  abroad--The bonds to the village severed--Growth of the proletariat.

  CHAPTER IX. THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY               90

  The position of the peasantists and of the government in the
  question--Opinions of students of peasant life on the dissolution
  of the patriarchal family--The typical family of to-day--Influence
  of outside jobs--Parcellation of the soil--Landless--Ruin of
  the farmer occasioned by the decay of family co-operation--The
  employing farmer.

  CHAPTER X. THE MODERN AGRICULTURAL CLASSES                         104

  The vagueness of class distinctions at a primitive stage of
  economic development--The peasantist conception of class antagonism
  in the village--Results of statistical investigation--Farmers
  deriving a net profit from agriculture--Farmer and business
  man--Concentration of the land and a strong patriarchal
  household--The employing farmer developing side by side with the
  dissolution of the compound family--The rural proletariat--Lack
  of land--The dissolution of the patriarchal family complete--The
  Russian proletarian as wage-laborer and employer at the same
  time--The transitional class--Deficit in the balance of farming
  resulting from the division of the co-operative family--The
  farmer as wage laborer--Imminent transition into the proletarian
  class--“The struggle of generations” in the village a reflected
  form of class antagonism.

  CHAPTER XI. INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP AND AGRARIAN COMMUNISM            123

  Their effects upon the distribution of landed property--Lease of
  communal land a step toward expropriation of the poor--Speculation
  in peasant lots--Mobilisation of communal land.

  CHAPTER XII. THE REDIVISION OF THE COMMUNAL LAND                   130

  The censuses for the assessment of the poll tax--Redivisions
  of land--General redivisions--Partial redivisions brought into
  disuse by the rise of rent--Lease of communal land a check to its
  redivision by the _mir_--Vote required for redivision--Privilege
  for the wealthy minority--Concentration of communal land in private
  hands--Influence of redemption--Antagonism of economic interests
  within the village--Dissolution of the community going on.

  _Note_: The “inalienability” scheme.

  CHAPTER XIII. AGRICULTURE ON A LARGE SCALE                         138

  The peasantist view of the matter--_The destinies of
  capitalism in Russia_, by V. V.--Large agriculture and peasant
  farming--Backwardness of large agriculture--The latter still
  prevailing over small peasant tenure--Agriculture progressing
  with the increase of the estate--The beginnings of capitalistic
  agriculture--Decrease in the dominions of the nobility--Growth of
  capitalistic property in land--Displacement of the small tenant
  by the capitalist farmer--Progressive tendencies of capitalistic
  management--Substitution of the small farmer by the proletarian
  laborer--Economic dependence of the nobility upon the small
  farmer--Imminent ruin of the landed nobility.

  CHAPTER XIV. CONCLUSION: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAMINE            157

  The bearing of the above discussion upon Middle Russia at
  large--The economic policy of the Government--Crédit Foncier for
  the peasants, and its failure--The famine a result of agricultural
  backwardness--Failure of the peasantry and of the landed
  nobility--The rise of capitalistic agriculture.

  APPENDICES. STATISTICAL TABLES.

  I. Distribution of land among the several sections of the peasant
  population                                                         166

  I., _a._ Acreage of a peasant farm                                 167

  II. Taxation of the peasantry                                      168

  III. Arrears in taxes                                              169

  IV. Distribution of rented land: _A._--With regard to ownership in
  land; _B._--With regard to stock-breeding                          170

  V. Budgets of typical peasant households                           171

  VI. Wages of the peasant in industrial employment: _A._--Local;
  _B._--Outside                                                      180

  VII. Average yields of wheat                                       182




INTRODUCTION.

THE RISE OF “PEASANTISM.”


The awful famine which has lately been raging over an area as large
as the territory of the _Dreibund_, and inhabited by a population as
numerous as that of the “allied Republic,” has called the attention
of the whole civilized world to the condition of the starving Russian
peasant. A movement has been set on foot in this country to relieve
the hard need of the sufferers. This has induced me to think that it
would perhaps not be without some interest for the American student
of economics to cast a glance at the rural conditions which have
finally resulted in that tremendous calamity. I felt bound to improve
the opportunity of having been educated in Russia, by introducing
the American reader to some one portion of the vast Russian economic
literature which, because of the language, remains as yet completely
unknown to the scientific world at large.

Russians by education, though not by ethnical descent, who, in spite
of having identified themselves with the cause of the Russian people,
are now denied the honorable title of “Russian,” may find consolation
in the fact that the first investigator of Russian history (Schlözer),
the first grammarian who scientifically elaborated the laws of Russian
grammar, our Brown (Vostokoff = von Osteneck), the best, if not the
first Russian lexicographer, our Webster (Dahl), and finally the man
who, it may be said, discovered for the Russian public the Russian
village community, the _mir_ (Freiherr August von Haxthausen), were all
of foreign birth.

The last named discovery was destined to play a prominent part in
the subsequent political history of Russia. Agrarian communism,
spread throughout a vast country during an age of extreme economic
individualism, when the last traces of such a form of possession were
deeply buried in the past of European nations, gave rise for years to
an erroneous theory both in Russia and in Western Europe, _viz_: that
this was a specifically Russian or Slavic institution. In Russia it
contributed greatly towards drawing the line between the two parties of
the Russian educated class in “the epoch of the forties,” between the
“occidentalists” (_zapadniki_) and the “slavophiles.”

The latter regarded the village community as being, with autocracy and
orthodoxy, an emanation of the Russian “national spirit.” These three
institutions were predestined in their belief to prevent Holy Russ from
entering upon the impious ways of the “rotten West,” with its class
antagonism, extremes of luxury and poverty, intestinal discords and
civil wars.

Precisely for the same reasons, considering the village community
as an integral part of the prevailing system of paternalism, the
“occidentalists,” opposed to autocracy and orthodoxy, strove for the
abolition of the _mir_ as well as of bond serfdom.

The archaic communism of the _mir_ appeared to them to stand in acute
contradiction to Western liberalism or individualism. The “epoch of
emancipation,” however, that came to realize the aspirations of the
occidentalists, brought about a fundamental change of public opinion in
regard to the village community.

The intellectual development in Russia was ever going on under the
steady influence of Western ideas. The “epoch of the forties” coincided
with the era during which socialistic and communistic ideas were in
full blast throughout France. Thanks to the many Russian tourists
and students who became imbued with these ideas during their sojourn
in Paris, socialism, towards the end of “the forties,” attained no
inconsiderable popularity among the educated class in Russia. Not to
speak of Herzen or Bakunin--who were at that time closely affiliated
with Proudhon, Karl Marx and other prominent representatives of the
social movements of the day--Belinsky, who was the foremost Russian
critic and publicist, equally renowned among all parties (except,
of course, the bureaucratic party), became in his latter years a
socialist. “Secret circles,” or, as they would be called in this
country, debating clubs, swarmed in every large centre of intellectual
culture. Among the young men connected with this movement, there was
one who was later on to play a part of extraordinary importance in
Russian history; this was _Nicholas Gavrielovitch Tchernyshefsky_.

The influence of Tchernyshefsky upon the development of Russia
was far wider, and far more many-sided, than might be supposed.
Philosophy, ethics, æsthetics, criticism, political economy, politics,
fiction:--these were the various fields of his activity; and everywhere
his ideas determined the course of further development. It would
require the elaborate study of a scholar to truly represent the
historical value of Tchernyshefsky, who can justly be called the father
of Russian Nihilism.

Nihilism was entirely misunderstood in Western countries. It will,
perhaps, appear somewhat surprising to an English reader to learn that
Jeremy Bentham’s doctrine of utilitarianism offered the philosophical
foundation of Nihilism. The latter was in reality nothing but an
attempt to construct socialism upon the basis of individual utility.

The village community, seen in the light of Nihilism, must evidently
have presented quite a different aspect from that which it presented to
both the slavophiles and the occidentalists of the preceding epoch. The
first article of Tchernyshefsky upon the village community was written
in 1857, on the eve of the emancipation of the peasants, and was in the
form of a criticism on the papers that had appeared in the slavophile
magazine _Russkaya Beseda_. Tchernyshefsky, though apparently an
“occidentalist,” sided with the slavophiles, and in a series of
brilliant articles laid down the basis of the so-called “peasantism”
(_narodnitchestvo_) which since then, and until quite recently, has
constituted the common ground of all liberal and radical aspirations in
Russia, however greatly they may have differed upon other questions.

“Must Russian development of historical necessity follow in the tracks
of Western Europe? Cannot Russia benefit by the lessons taught by the
history of Western nations, and find out some new way of her own to
avoid that evil of pauperism which necessarily accompanies private
enterprise in production?”

These were the questions raised by Tchernyshefsky. Taking as a basis
Hegel’s famous triad, he showed that Western Europe went from State
regulation to individualism and _laissez-faire_, and now was entering
upon a new path which tended toward coöperation and social regulation
of economic phenomena. Why then should Russia pass through the
intermediate phase, since she already possessed a national institution
which permeated the whole economic life of the people, and embodied
the principles of coöperation? The individualistic French farmer must
inevitably succumb in the war of competition with the large landholder,
for the latter is in a position to utilize all new agricultural
improvements, while the former lacks all means of combination with his
neighbors. On the other hand, supposing that the time has come for the
introduction of improved machinery into Russian agriculture, would
it require any revolution in the social relations prevailing in the
Russian village? Not in the least; the land belongs to the community,
and not to the individual; the forms of distribution of land are
very various, and admit, not infrequently, even of collective mowing
and subsequent distribution of the hay. If new machinery were to be
introduced, the Russian community would combine at once the advantages
of a large concern, and those of having each individual worker
directly interested in his work. This latter, it is claimed, is the
characteristic feature of small farm holding. Having thus proved the
superiority of Russian communism in land, judged from the standpoint of
individual utility, Tchernyshefsky goes on to the other very important
question:

“Is it possible for Russia to leap over one phase of her historical
development? _Natura non agit per saltus._”

To answer this question he quoted the history of technical progress.
There was a time when our forefathers produced fire by rubbing together
pieces of dry wood. Man next found out how to strike the fire from
flint, but centuries elapsed before matches were invented. Now suppose
an African nation were to come into contact with European culture,
would such a nation have to pass through all the inconveniences of the
period of transition suffered by Europeans, or would it not rather
adopt matches immediately? Applying the same principle to social
institutions, Tchernyshefsky advocated nationalization of land, and
communal landholding, as a basis for the emancipation of the peasants,
which was then under the consideration of the government. In a paper
entitled _Is the Redemption of Land Difficult?_ he showed in figures
the practicability of buying out the land by the government, and in a
series of other articles he maintained that such a reform would prevent
the formation of a proletariat in Russia.

The period that preceded the reform of 1861, was a time of universal
enthusiasm for the liberal government on the part of the educated
class. So much the greater was the disappointment when the reform was
at last proclaimed. It has not been stated whether Tchernyshefsky
himself was in any way connected with the “underground” agitation
against the government, of which he was accused at so early a date as
1862. Tried in 1864, and exiled to Siberia, he was allowed to return
to European Russia only in 1883, when the revolutionary party seemed
to have been finally suppressed by the government. And yet for this
whole period none but Tchernyshefsky was the spiritual leader of the
social movement that sprang up from the disappointment caused by the
manner in which the emancipation of the peasants had been carried out.
It will be seen further that, owing to the origin and development of
private ownership in land, nationalization of land became intimately
connected, in the minds of the Russian peasants, with emancipation.
Hence a series of riots in 1861-62, at the time when the reform was
being put in force. The peasants claimed that they were duped by the
“masters” and the officials, who were concealing from the people “the
true will of the Czar.” The belief that the Czar desired to nationalize
the land for the use of the tiller of the soil was so universal among
the peasants that, in 1878, minister Makoff found himself under the
necessity of issuing a special circular for the purpose of dispelling
the gossip current upon the subject. The priests were ordered to read
and explain this circular in all the churches; and on the 16th day of
May, 1883, while receiving the elders of the peasants, who presented
their congratulations on the solemn occasion of the Czar’s coronation,
the latter told the delegates to disabuse the peasants’ minds of the
false rumors of gratuitous distribution of land, that were being spread
abroad by the enemies of the throne. Yet the influence of the said
enemies of the throne was infinitesimal as compared with the extent
to which these rumors became popular. On the contrary, instead of its
being a case of the radicals influencing the people, it was precisely
the radicals themselves who were influenced by this popular belief. The
latter seemed to them a proof of the moral support their aspirations
were to gain from the people; and if “the will of the people” is not to
be fulfilled _through_ the government, why, this will must be complied
with _against_ the government. Thus revolutionary peasantism came into
being. After years of propaganda it broke out in 1873-1874 in a huge
movement that was called “the pilgrimage amongst the folk.” Hundreds of
boys and girls, chiefly college students, settled in villages as common
laborers to make propaganda among the peasants for what they believed
to be socialistic ideas. They hoped to be able, sooner or later, to
foment a popular uprising that would result in the establishment of a
new social order.

Certainly this juvenile movement must, under any circumstances, have
inevitably proved a failure. Defeat was, however, accelerated by the
merciless persecution of the Government. The events which followed
are only too well known for it to be necessary for me to dwell on
them. The final defeat of revolutionary peasantism after 1881, brought
into the foreground a peaceable peasantist movement that excited
little attention, but which will certainly be of great consequence
for the coming development of Russia. Having suffered shipwreck in
their revolutionary course, the peasantists came to the conclusion
that scientific investigation of the economics of the village was the
most essential preliminary for any rational political action. And
scores of former revolutionists zealously took part in the statistical
investigation started by the _zemstvos_ (provincial assemblies).

It is true that the revolutionary peasantists cannot be credited with
the initiative of this important work. The founder of the so-called
“Moscow method” of statistical investigation, the late _Vasili
Ivanovitch Orloff_, was a peaceable peasantist in 1875, when a young
man of twenty-seven he took into his hands the Statistical Bureau of
the Moscow _zemstvo_. Yet the many who helped him in his work, and
who afterwards became somewhat prominent in spreading his system over
new provinces, such men as Messrs. Greegoryeff, Werner, Shtcherbina,
Annensky, etc., had previously spent several years in prison and in
exile for “political offences.”

It is by no means exaggerated to say that in the hundreds of
volumes of the censuses, ordered by the majority of the thirty-two
_zemstvos_, Russia possesses a masterpiece of statistics which for its
completeness, and for the mathematical exactness of its figures, has
hardly been rivalled in any country. The following quotations will
give some idea of the methods practiced by the Russian statisticians:

“We used to begin by making a minute extract from the _Book of assessed
taxes_. Another highly interesting document found in the “bailiff’s
board” (_volostnoye pravlenie_) was the _Book of transactions and
contracts_. It had been kept for many years, and contained the terms
of agreements made between peasants and landlords of the neighborhood
for agricultural work, as well as the terms of those agreements
made between peasants and contractors, where the work had been done
outside the limits of the village. There were also to be found there
rental agreements, made both by peasants and those outside the ranks
of the peasants; loan agreements made by individuals, as well as by
communities, with joint suretyship of all their members, etc. The
third document was the _Book for registering passports_, from which
we could learn approximately the number of peasants yearly leaving
their villages for a time.… After these quotations had been made in
the bailiff’s board, we made a tour through the villages under the
jurisdiction of the board, and it was here that the local inquiries
began, and the most valuable material was collected. In every community
of every village[1] we called a regular meeting of the community’s
members, and, in meeting assembled we took a census. We passed with
every householder through a series of questions, tending to elucidate
the economic capacity of his family, and capable of being put in
figures. The method itself of collecting these data in full meeting
insured the greatest possible correctness of the figures obtained;
one householder often aided the other in remembering some fact, or
corrected his misstatements. It frequently happened that some sheep or
calf, which was intended for sale or was already sold, called forth a
discussion as to whether it should not also be included in the list.
The questions were asked with a view to ascertain from every household
the following points: the area of land allotted at the emancipation,
purchased as private property, or farmed; the way in which the soil
was tilled, whether it was cultivated by the householder himself, or
by some of his neighbors, whom, in such cases, he had usually hired,
because he himself owned no horse, or finally, whether he had entered
the ranks of the “husbandless” (_i. e._, destitute of husbandry),[2]
who lease their lots or desert them altogether. We also ascertained
what were the labor forces of the family, male and female; the entire
number of heads of which it consisted; the business, apart from
agriculture, of every adult member of the family, and whether the
member sought work at a distance from home; the quantity of cattle; the
size of the buildings; the shops belonging to every family. In a word,
through the census a picture is drawn of the economic condition of all
the households of the community. The number of those who can read, or
who are learning to read, is also given in the census. Certainly the
material collected appears to be of such a character as to furnish
fundamental facts for the formation of a judgment as to the economic
condition of the population.”[3]

The technical side of statistics, says Mr. Shtcherbina, the methods
applied in the local investigations, are elaborated with the minutest
detail.… The questions are several times crossed by each other, so as
to mutually complete and verify the statements.[4]

The area covered by the investigations for the year 1890, is
represented by the following figures:[5]

  Provinces (Gubernias)            25
  Districts                       148
  Communes                     50,429
  Peasant households        3,309,020
  Total males and females  19,693,191

This is about one-fifth of the total population of European Russia.

As the unit for all information is identical with the economic
cell--the peasant household--these investigations present us with
the true scientific anatomy of Russian economic life. Nevertheless
there may be cases in which plain truth is not exceedingly welcome.
This holds true even of the most advanced reform parties. Why then
should the Russian nobility be among the exceptions, if there are
any? If the rent is exorbitant and the earnings of the farmer are
scanty, it does not require a genius to draw the conclusion that
there must be some connection of cause and sequence between the two
facts. Still, this is precisely what the landlords would like to keep
hidden from public notice. Hence strong opposition by the party of
the nobility to the statistical investigations. The statisticians
were generally charged with representing only such facts as favored
their leanings toward land nationalization and expropriation of the
landlords. The first outbreak of this opposition took place in 1882 in
Ryazañ against Mr. Greegoryeff, Superintendent of the Ryazañ Bureau
of Statistics, and his assistants. The assembly passed a resolution
that the two volumes of the census which dealt with the districts
of Dankoff and Ranenburg should be suppressed. These volumes were
confined exclusively to raw material, and contained only tables and
statements, without any generalizations. The excitement was so great
that some of the members moved to buy out all copies which had already
been put in circulation, though it should cost 100 roubles ($50) a
copy, and to solemnly burn them as a public example. It is true that
this extreme motion was not carried, but Mr. Greegoryeff was sent for
four years into administrative exile at Kineshma, a small town of the
province of Kostroma, and put under police surveillance as a political
suspect. Thus Russian statistics have already had their martyr. Mr.
Greegoryeff’s book, _The Emigration of the Peasants from the Province
of Ryazañ_, founded on the same proscribed data, was subsequently
honored with a prize by the University of Moscow.

Similar occurrences took place in Kazañ and Kursk. In the latter
province the assembly proscribed the general review of the province,
although the review consisted merely of the totals of the respective
items for the several districts, and the volumes containing these items
were in due time published by the assembly.

However, it must be admitted that Mr. Werner’s fate was not a specially
hard one, since he was not even exiled, while his book, which caused
his discharge from the Bureau, was awarded the same honor by the
University of Moscow, as Mr. Greegoryeff’s investigation had received.

Finally the government saw fit to interfere, and a law was passed in
1888 forbidding any investigations into the relations between landlord
and peasant, and putting the programmes of statistical investigations
under the control of the administrative authorities. The work, however,
had been done; a work that may be truly called the social work of the
eighties.

Was it virtually a fallacious census, imbued with party spirit?

The present famine has offered the most striking proof of the
authenticity of the much-assailed figures.

It will require years of study to sum up the results of the statistical
investigations, and I have been necessarily forced to limit the scope
of my essay to some one locality. I have selected the two districts
of the province of Ryazañ,[6] the statistical data relating to which
were attacked as unreliable by the nobility in 1882. This is the
very locality in which Count Leo Tolstoi has carried on his work of
philanthropy in feeding the hungry. It has seemed to me that it might
be of some interest to know what information there was actually at
command, as far back as 1882, respecting the districts now stricken
with famine.




CHAPTER I.

GENERAL SKETCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANDHOLDING IN RUSSIA.


It seems now to be a fairly well established fact in science that
at the dawn of the evolution of mankind the individual had not yet
differentiated from the social aggregate. Archaic communism in the
production of food and other necessaries, as well as in possession
and consumption, is now, I imagine, universally recognized as the
primitive form of social life. It is only during the higher stages of
development that private ownership by individuals comes into existence;
and private property in land was the latest to appear on the historical
scene. The dissolution of the land community in Western Europe is a
fact of comparatively very recent date. In Russia, where the process
of evolution has been less rapid, we see this primeval institution
preserved until to-day.

In Russia we do not find within historical times that tribal communism
which Lewis H. Morgan met with among the American Indians. The Russian
village community of historical times consists of a number of large
families, often, yet not necessarily, of common ancestry, who possess
the soil in common, but cultivate it by households. The ancient
communal coöperation re-appears sporadically, upon various special
occasions, in the form of the _pómoch_ (help). Some householder invites
his neighbors to help him in a certain work: to mow his meadow lot,
to reap his field, to cut down wood for a new house he has undertaken
to build, _etc._ This is considered as a reception tendered by the
family to its neighbors, and different kinds of refreshments are
prepared for the occasion. These constitute the only remuneration
for the work done collectively by the guests. Of course, there is
nothing compulsory in the custom, and no one is bound to answer the
call in case he does not like to do so. On the other hand, the party
benefited is under an obligation to appear at the call of all those
who participated in the _pómoch_. This custom, which is now limited
for the most part to extraordinary occasions and is more and more
falling into disuse, apparently played a far more conspicuous part in
former days, when rural settlements were scattered clearings in the
midst of virgin forests, and pioneer work was constantly needed. Still
even then it was but a social revival, hinting at a preceding epoch of
closer communistic co-operation, yet at the same time pointing out the
existing severance between the households of which the community was
formed. In other words, the _pómoch_, being undoubtedly a revival of
primeval communism, is at the same time a sign of the dissolution of
communism into individual households.

However, it is essential to notice that the Russian household is
not identical with the Roman family or its derivatives. The Roman
_paterfamilias_ is the absolute master of all living under his _patria
potestas_; he is the unlimited owner of all property belonging to the
household, even where such property is the product of the personal
industry of particular members of the family. The modern family, on the
other hand, is merely a union of individuals having their individual
rights recognized by law, though sometimes not without certain
limitations in favor of the head of the family. The Russian peasant
family alone is a perfect communistic commonwealth. All the moveables
belonging to the household, as well as its whole income, constitute the
collective property of the family, but not of its head. The same holds
good even of those parts of the Empire in which the village community
disappeared long before the emancipation of the peasants. In Little
Russia and White Russia, as elsewhere, the statute of 1861 recognized
the rural institutions upheld by peasant common law. Thus the land was
there allotted to the families, and it was subsequently reaffirmed
by the Senate, in one of its interpretations, that the land does not
belong to the head of the family, but does belong to the family as a
whole.

Moreover, an old Russian family greatly resembled a community even in
the number of its members. Mr. Krasnoperoff, in a paper which appeared
some ten years ago in the _Otechestvenniya Zapiski_, described a
family he met with in the province of Mohileff. The family numbered
ninety-nine members, and was composed of a grandmother, with her
children and married grandchildren, all of whom were living together
and working for their own common benefit. Such households are, indeed,
isolated exceptions at the present day, but they were universal in the
past.

Thus ownership of land by the community without, and complete communism
within the family, were the fundamental elements in the structure of
the village at the dawn of Russian history.

The rise and growth of private property in land soon came in to
restrict the domain of the village community.

In the early days of mankind coöperation is essential to success in the
struggle for life which man is carrying on daily against his natural
surroundings. Landholding, whether collective or individual, must be
large enough to admit of coöperation. Therefore private ownership in
land first appears in history in the form of large holdings. Now, so
long as population is thin, and vacant land lies practically free to
anybody, it would be useless to occupy large estates if there were no
means of compelling the husbandman to labor in the landlord’s fields
instead of for his own benefit. Indeed, private property in land in the
early periods of history goes hand in hand with the personal dependence
of the tiller of the soil.

In the Muscovite State we find two forms of individual landed property:
patrimony (_vottchina_) or freehold, and fee (_pomest’ye_) or benefice.

While fee was an institution of public law, patrimony owed its origin
to private law and to a more ancient epoch. Patrimonies were to be
found in the Republic of Novgorod, and in some other States of the
Russian Federation, before their conquest by the Great Princes of
Muscovy, afterwards Czars of all the Russias. The rise of this form of
property is intimately bound up with the growth of slavery in ancient
Russia. Slavery, like patrimony, was also an institution of private
law, arising from the transaction of loan. The payment of the debt
was secured, as in the civil law (_jus civile_), by the person of
the debtor. Unquestionably this was the only possible security in an
historical epoch when landed property had no value, save when human
labor was applied to it. As in Rome, war was the constant cause that
put the peasant under the necessity of contracting loans. As in Rome,
there could hardly be found two years of uninterrupted peace in the
course of the first centuries of Russia’s history. Destruction, by
force of arms and rapine, usually compelled the plundered peasant to
alienate his liberty to the “better man” (_vir bonus_, καλὸς κἀγαθός)
who furnished him with cattle, seed, and implements. The peasant sold
himself either for a term of years, or for life, and in the course of
time the state of serfdom became hereditary. The labor of these slaves
(_zakup_, _kabalniy holóp_) was used by the creditors to cultivate
their estates, or to reclaim new acres from the forest. Amidst the
wilderness of primitive forests, such parcels of cultivated land had
already a certain value which attracted settlers. Here we have the
origin of patrimonies in Russia during the “period of federation and
witenagemote.”

Left, however, as it was, to private intercourse and initiative, the
spread of individual landed property, like the number of slaves,
remained comparatively limited. It was only as political institutions
that individual landholding and personal dependence of the peasant were
to become the foundations of social life in Russia.

The fee was the virtual germ of Russian private property in land.

Not only in Russia, but also in many other countries, private property
in land owed its origin to relations of public law. Public land (_ager
publicus_) was primarily held by officers on the ground of, and for the
purposes of their office as a benefice. In proportion as the offices
became hereditary, and the relations growing out of administration of
public affairs developed into personal dependence of the common people
upon the office holders, the tenure of land by reason of office became
hereditary, and subsequently developed into an institution of private
law. The next step was in the direction of freeing the landholder
from the duty of public service connected with the tenure of his
land. Thus his possession became independent. On the other hand, the
free ownership of land by the people was replaced, in the course of
evolution, by dependent possession. And finally, with the abolition of
the personal dependence of the peasant, his right to land expired.

Such was, taking a bird’s eye view, the evolution of private property
in most European countries. In Russia the course was essentially the
same.

Old republican and semi-republican Russia of “the period of federation
and witenagemote” knew no firm government. The prince was elected and
deposed by the people, and it was very difficult for him to hold his
position for more than any single year amidst the dissensions of the
hostile factions of turbulent citizens. Usually princes tramped their
whole life long from one principality to another, attendants tramping
with them. War was their chief business and war was also their chief
source of income. Moreover, through a confiscation of the judicial
functions by the prince, a part of the wergild paid by the convicted
wrongdoer to the right party, found its way into the treasury of the
prince to be distributed among his followers. No bond wedded the prince
and his followers to the land until the nomadic elected prince was
replaced by the Muscovite Great Prince and Lord of All the Russias.
Struggle with the Tartar conquerors--a struggle that lasted for two
centuries--furthered the growth of centralization and of monarchical
authority, and the former free attendant of the prince became the
servitor of his sovereign. The State in Russia has always been a
self-sufficing entity, which claimed the services of everybody, without
owing in return anything to anybody. And this still remains to-day
the fundamental principle wherein Russian public law differs from
constitutional law. If, perchance, the state engaged in suppressing
crime, it was not for the sake of justice or defense to the people, but
rather for fiscal considerations, or for the sake of the safety of the
state, threatened by gangs of brigands and highway robbers. It was the
duty of the “servitor” (_sloozhiliy chelovek_) to prosecute bandits, to
defend the frontiers from invasion by nomadic tribes, and to appear in
case of war among his sovereign’s troops with a number of armed men.
To furnish the “gentleman” with the necessary means for the support of
his detachment, and in general for the discharge of his office, he was
granted a certain tract of land “in fee.” The peasant who settled upon
this lot was bound to pay a certain tax (in kind) to the “gentleman”
to whom the power of taxation was delegated by the State. However, it
was no easy task to enforce the exact payment of the taxes, since the
peasant could run away at any time he chose as soon as he found the
payments becoming burdensome.

Indeed, even in modern Russia, wherever land is in abundance,
agriculture is to a great extent a nomadic pursuit. A field is
cultivated uninterruptedly for from two to three years, and the peasant
then leaves it and turns to another fresh lot. It is only after a
period of not less than twenty years that the peasant will perhaps
return to the first lot. It may be, however, that he will change his
place for an entirely new one.

In olden times the facilities for migration were the same as they now
are in Siberia. This state of things gave rise to competition among
the gentry, who vied with one another in cutting down the rate of
payments exacted from the peasants. The gentry constantly complained
of being unable to fulfil their duties toward the State so long as
this self-willedness on the part of the peasants continued. In order
to secure exact fulfilment by each of his duties toward the state,
freedom of migration was first limited, and then gradually abolished.
The free peasant became bound to the soil, _glebæ adscriptus_. Yet
this dependence was based entirely upon public law. The peasant was
made subject to the gentleman, not for the gentleman’s sake, but
for the benefit of the state. The only restriction of civil rights
imposed upon the peasant by his dependence was the prohibition of
emigration; and even in that no distinction existed between the peasant
and the gentleman, since the latter was also forbidden to quit his
fee. Throughout the Muscovite period the peasant was considered as a
citizen, and was protected by the state against abuses of power on the
part of the gentleman. The latter was not even the owner of the land;
it belonged to the state, or to the Czar, as the personification of the
state. Land was allotted to the gentleman for service, and for lifetime
only, and could escheat by the state for cause. Inasmuch, however, as
the gentleman’s son also entered the service of the Czar, it became
little by little a custom to transfer to the son his father’s fee. Thus
the fee became hereditary.

Peter the Great effaced all the distinctions that were characteristic
of the preceding epoch. By compelling every landholder to enter the
service of the state, and by establishing a uniform law of inheritance
for all real estate belonging to the nobility, he merged in one
patrimonies and fees. On the other hand, by imposing the poll tax
upon peasants, and by making the landholder responsible for the exact
payment of this tax, he put slaves and serfs upon a common footing,
and made the latter personally dependent upon the landlord. His
successors restricted the civil rights of the peasants and took away
from them the right to sue their masters. At the same time the latter
were granted the right to exile their peasants to Siberia, and to sell
them, even where such sale entailed the separation of the wife from her
husband, of the child from its parents. On the other hand, after the
time of Peter the Great, the duty of service was gradually relaxed, and
at last definitively abolished by Peter III in 1762.

It was by this ukase that private property in land and serfdom were
finally recognized in Russia as institutions of private law.[7] But
immediately after the “Charter to the Nobility” was granted by Peter
III, the question of emancipation began to agitate the peasants. Three
generations were too short a period in which to implant in the minds
of the peasantry the new principles brought into social relations by
the St. Petersburg Emperors. The conservative mind of the peasant was
wedded to the old customs of the Muscovite common law. He knew no
Emperor; for him there was still a Czar, who owned all the lands of
his country for the good of his people. The gentleman was bound to
serve the Czar; the peasant was bound to provide the gentleman with
the necessary means; hence bond serfdom and fee. And was the idea
really so obsolete? Were not the gentlemen daily granted large estates
for services they had rendered to the Czar? Now, since the Czar in his
grace has freed the gentleman from service, there is no longer any
ground upon which the gentleman can be justified in detaining the land
in his possession, nor is there any reason for keeping the peasant
in dependence upon the gentleman. Consequently “Land and Liberty!”
(_Zemlya ee Volya!_) It is now plain enough why the nobility conspired
to assassinate the Emperor Peter III Theodorovitch. After the “dear
father” had narrowly escaped his fate, the lords declared him dead;
but fortunately he succeeded at last, after eleven years of exile,
in recruiting an army of loyal subjects to help him in taking lawful
possession of his throne, usurped by his perfidious wife. The war over,
the people will be graciously vouchsafed “Land and Liberty.”

This legend found its way readily into the minds of the peasants,
who for a whole year, under the leadership of the rebellious Cossack
Emilian Pugacheff, alias “Emperor Peter Theodorovitch,” held half
Russia in their power. It would be, of course, a rash conclusion to
seek to establish any immediate connection between the bloody uprising
of 1773-1774 and the discussion of the question of emancipation in
the “Commission for the Enactment of a New Code,” called by Catherine
II. in 1767. Yet it is worth noticing that such a question did
arise, and that the emancipation of the peasants was pleaded for by
the representative of the Don Cossacks, who were shortly to lead
the insurrection. And, indeed, many of those who represented the
Cossacks in the commission were later on active in the civil war.
The suppression of the latter led to the expansion of serfdom, since
the “pension system” of that epoch consisted, of necessity, only in
grants of “peasant souls.” Thus in the reign of Catherine II. about
one million “state serfs” were given into the private possession of
landlords, for military, or civil (or “personal”) merit.

The reigns of her successors were marked by an uninterrupted series of
peasant uprisings, agrarian crimes, and half-measures on the part of
the government to loosen the bonds of serfdom. At the same time, after
the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars, abolitionist ideas began to win
their way among the land-owning, upper classes. The insurrection of
December 14th (26th), 1825, had among its chief purposes the abolition
of serfdom. The disastrous termination of that insurrection did not
stop the propaganda of the abolitionist ideas which reached even to
the palace, through the famous Russian poet Zhukoffsky, instructor of
Alexander II.

The political necessity of emancipation, as guaranteeing the safety
of the state, was brought still farther home to the minds of the
ruling classes by the general excitement among the peasantry which
followed the Crimean war, and broke out in numberless riots of a most
alarming character throughout the country. “We must free the peasants
from above, before they begin to free themselves from below,”--these
were the historical words addressed by Alexander II to the Assembly
of the Nobility in Moscow, August 31st (September 12th), 1858. Yet
such political farsightedness could hardly have developed, had not
the economic conditions been ripe for the change. Indeed, after the
Crimean war it became obvious to the government that Russia, with
her old-fashioned methods of transportation, could play no prominent
part in the “European concert.” Now it was perfectly evident that an
extensive system of railways could not possibly be supported out of
the resources of agriculture alone, in a country in which nine-tenths
of the people were serfs, either of the state or of the landlords, and
had to bear out of their scanty income the expenses of a large military
state, and of an aristocracy. Industry and commerce were necessary
for the maintenance of the state. The emancipation of the peasants
was the scheme to attract domestic and foreign capital to industrial
pursuits in Russia. By placing money in the hands of the landlords it
was sought to promote the progress of agriculture, and the growth of
industries intimately connected therewith. By setting at liberty twenty
million serfs, who were the subjects of the landlords, wage-workers
were created for industrial enterprises.

The economic significance of the reform of February 19th, (March
3d,) 1861, lies in the fact that, on the one hand, it completed the
evolution of private property in land, and that, on the other hand, it
effected at a single blow the expropriation of the peasantry on a large
scale.

Before the emancipation anything like distinction between the land of
the lord and that of the peasant existed on those estates on which the
duties of the serf toward his master were discharged in compulsory
labor. Yet even there the distinction was not clearly marked, for the
peasants enjoyed the right of pasture in common with the lord, and were
furnished a modicum of wood from the lord’s forest. The distinction,
moreover, was not a rigid one, since the lord could, at his option,
transform the _corvée_ into tallage (_taille_)--compulsory labor into
compulsory payments. The latter form prevailed on many estates. In such
cases the lord enjoyed merely the legal ownership, _Ober-Eigenthum_
(_dominium ex jure Quiritium_) while to the peasant belonged the real
possession, _Nutzeigenthum_ (_possessio ex jure gentium_). Now the
severance of a tract of land from the fields held by the community
transformed communal possession into private property of the gentleman.
The owner who tilled the soil was transformed into a tenant or into a
wage-laborer.

There was a party among the nobility at the time of the emancipation
who would have liked to see a still more decided reform in the same
direction. In compliance with the wishes of the members of this
party it was accordingly proposed to transfer all the land into the
private property of the noble, while leaving to the peasant merely his
homestead (i. e. house, yard and garden). But, after consideration,
this radical plan was abandoned, for fear lest it might prove
seriously dangerous to the public peace.

Unquestionably, the principles in accordance with which the reform was
carried out stood in striking contradiction to the aspirations of the
peasants, who held fast to the idea expressed by the old saying: “We
are yours, but the land is ours!” Hence general disappointment of the
peasantry with the reform, which failed to grant the people “land”
as well as “liberty.” Now, since the land is the Czar’s and has been
unlawfully seized by the masters, can there be any doubt that the
gentlemen and the officials have conspired together against the will
of the Czar? We here arrive at the source of those wide-spread legends
of land nationalization that were so popular with the peasants for a
quarter of a century after the emancipation.

To obviate all incitement to acute outbreaks of popular discontent, the
government, as far as possible, avoided drastic measures.

In order to meet the wishes of those who leaned toward the Irish system
of landholding, the government satisfied itself with offering to every
community the choice either of agreeing to pay the redemption tax for
the normal lots, or of taking in lieu thereof the so called “donated
lots” extending to one-fourth of the normal lots, and free from the
redemption tax. At the same time these lots became at once the absolute
property of the donees.

Similarly, the government did not proceed to an immediate assault upon
agrarian communism, though considering the same as an obstacle to
agricultural progress. Wherever communism was in existence, the land
was allotted to the community as a whole. But a road was opened to the
spontaneous and gradual dissolution of the community. The “homesteads,”
_i. e._ the house, the yard and garden, were declared the property of
the family. Further, the community was empowered to divide the field
into private property, upon a vote of two-thirds of the householders.
Finally every individual householder was granted the right of enclosing
his lot, after having complied with certain formalities, and paid the
whole amount of amortization. It was hoped that as soon as the way had
been opened to private property, the latter would not fail to take the
place of communism. These expectations were, however, fulfilled but in
a comparatively meagre measure. The reason lay in the fact that the
government could not make up its mind to break entirely with the old
regime.

In order to smooth the opposition of the nobility to the emancipation
of their serfs, the redemption of land was not made compulsory. The
State undertook the part of middleman between the gentleman and the
peasant, under certain normal conditions. But the agreement was to be
made voluntarily between the parties. The gentleman alone was given the
privilege of rendering the redemption compulsory at his own option, by
making an abatement of one-fifth of the normal rate of installments. In
case no such action was taken by him, and no mutual understanding could
be reached, the peasant remained in a transitional state of dependence
upon his former master. His obligation was to be discharged either in
pecuniary payments or in forced labor. This state of moderated serfdom
lasted throughout the reign of Alexander II., surnamed “the Liberator,”
and was abolished in 1883 by a law ordering the compulsory settlement
of the relations between the so-called “_temporary obligors_” and their
masters.[8]

In so far as this state of dependence remained in existence, the
destructive influence of the “Statute of Redemption” upon the rural
community was suspended.[9]

Whatever may have been the effect of permitting the dependence of the
peasant to be continued, the support offered to the community by the
old fiscal system, which has remained up to this very day, was still
more influential.

It would be idle to criticise the Russian financial system from the
standpoint of justice in taxation. The law of self-preservation is
the first law of all being. To cover her nine hundred million budget,
official Russia has got simply to take money wherever it can be found.
Now where can it be found in Russia? The State can tax either the
producer or the consumer, or both. Where is the producer to be sought
for purposes of taxation? Is it in industry, which is being fostered by
means of bounties and prohibitive tariffs? Is it the noble landlord,
for whom State mortgage banks are established, and State lotteries
issued, whose _solo_ notes are discounted by the State Bank, etc? Then
there remains none but the peasant to pay the taxes. Should on the
other hand the consumer be taxed, then again it is the 80 per cent.
peasants who must pay the major part of the indirect taxes.[10] In a
word, whether the burden weigh upon producer or consumer, it must needs
be the Russian peasant to whom will fall the lion’s share--in paying
the taxes. And truly the peasantry, like the “burghers,” are designated
as a “taxable order,” but the burghers are too few to cut any figure as
compared with the peasant.

What follows?

A great sensation was produced in 1877 by a book on Russian taxation
by Prof J. E. Janson, of the University of St. Petersburg.[11] On
the strength of the _Reports of the Commission of Inquiry into the
Condition of Agriculture in Russia_, 1872, and of the _Proceedings of
the Commission on Taxation_, he brought to light the startling fact
that the amount of taxes paid by the peasant toward 1872 considerably
exceeded the net income of his land.[12] This means that it did not
pay for the peasant to own land, since he had to cover a part of the
taxes from his wages, while, by deserting his plot, he would enjoy the
whole amount of his wages with the exception of a small poll tax.
And indeed many a peasant would be glad to run away from his farm, if
he was only permitted to do so. But the fulfilment of the peasant’s
obligation toward the State was secured by the curtailment of his
personal liberty. In case of arrears he would get no passport, and
no one is allowed in Russia to go farther from home than 30 _versts_
(about 20 miles) without a passport, under penalty of being imprisoned
and forwarded home by _étape_. Should, however, the peasant renounce
his right of locomotion, then public sale of his homestead and personal
effects, and corporal punishment[13] inevitably follow arrears in
the payment of taxes. Moreover all the members of the community are
responsible, jointly and severally, for the exact payment of the taxes
assessed upon the community as a whole. Therefore wherever, and so long
as, the taxes exceed the rent brought in by the land[14] the ancestral
tenet of communal supremacy is emphatically observed, and the most
scrupulous justice and equality are maintained in the distribution of
the land.

The lots are strictly proportioned to the number of males in each
family, or to that of the workers (from the ages of 15-18 to 55-60),
or even to the number of “eaters”; democratic principles being so
far lived up to as to efface all distinction between male and female
“mouths.” The terms of distribution vary according to the kinds
of land. Meadows are subdivided every summer. Arable is usually
distributed at intervals of greater length. Yet, in the meantime, for
some reason or other, land may become vacant, or fall to the disposal
of the community. It often happens that some householder requests
to be relieved of a part of his land on the ground of the decrease
in the number of workers in his family, _e. g._, because his son
has been enlisted in the army. At the same time there may be other
families who are “strong,” _i. e._, well-off and numerous enough to
pay the taxes for an additional tract of land. In such cases a partial
subdivision between the households is made by the community. After a
time, with the increase in the number of these partial subdivisions,
the complexity and inequality of distribution necessitate a fresh
general subdivision. The land is once more minutely redivided among the
villagers. The optimistic enthusiast of the community would fancy that
at last it stood firmly rooted in the soil, in spite of all unfavorable
environments.

And yet, notwithstanding the strictest minuteness in the distribution
of land, wherein the sovereignty of the _mir_ over private interests
is manifested, the equilibrium of the rural community must be defined
as utterly unstable, since it rests upon such a shaky basis as
over-taxation of the land. The economic development of Russia, however,
tends to eliminate the disproportion between tax and income.

By taking one-half of the land out of the occupancy of the community,
the government put the peasant under the necessity of seeking land or
employment outside of his own farmstead. To secure to the landlords
an abundant supply of farm hands, the emigration of the former serfs
to districts where there was plenty of vacant land was so throttled
with red tape that it was practically equivalent to prohibition.[15]
Moreover, in 1866 the emancipation of the State peasants brought about
the repeal of the old law, which encouraged emigration, under certain
conditions, through the support of the State. As opposed to this the
“Statute of the peasants freed from bond serfdom,” which was now to be
applied to the former State peasant, brought with it a new restriction
of his personal rights.

The peasants now found themselves tied to the place in which they had
been born. The increased demand for land could not but react upon
the peasants’ plots, by raising the rent that they brought, and so
neutralizing the effects of over-taxation. The fiscal influence which
tends to counteract the dissolution of the village community is thus
passing away.




CHAPTER II.

COMMUNITY OF LAND.


The region which has been selected for the present discussion comprises
two Districts: Dankoff and Ranenburg, (or Oranienburg) in the province
(_Gubernia_) of Ryazañ. They are situated in Middle Russia, between
North latitude 53° and 53° 31´, East longitude 38° 40´ and 40° 10´, and
enjoy a moderate climate, at least when judged by Russian ideas. The
soil is mostly pure black earth, the rest being made up of black earth
mixed, or alternated with other soils.[16]

According to the census taken by the _zemstvo_ in 1882, the entire
peasant population of this region numbered 36,126 families, composed
of 232,323 males and females, and living in 653 village communities.

Agrarian communism is the prevailing form of land tenure; the right
of property belongs to the community, while the land is either used
in common, or subdivided in equal shares among the members of the
community, according to some scale, adopted by the same.

It is the pasture alone that remains to-day in the common use of all
the members of the community. Arable land and meadow are subdivided,
and remain in the temporary possession of the several householders. But
after harvest and mowing they return into communal usage, for pasture.

Still, side by side with agrarian communism, we meet with that peculiar
form of hereditary tenure known as “quarterly” (_tschetvertnoye_)
possession.[17] The difference between agrarian communism and quarterly
possession consists in the fact that under the former, the plots are
fixed by the _mir_, whereas under the latter they are fixed through
inheritance, gift, etc. Yet it is not the land itself, but some ideal
share in the common possession, that is held by the individual,
precisely as under agrarian communism. The arable land, though
considered by law as private property, is virtually subdivided by
the community according to the same rules as those practiced wherever
agrarian communism is dominant--the pasture, the forest, and the
meadow are in the possession of the community. The forest and the
meadow are redivided yearly. The villages differ as to the standard of
subdivision: in some of them the lots of the peasants are proportioned
to the size of the inherited lots of arable land, in some they are
equal. The pasture is used in common.

It is a well established fact that the actual agrarian communism
among the majority of the State peasants of the region in question
is a phenomenon of very recent date and has evolved from hereditary
possession.[18]

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the present _gubernias_ of
Middle Russia formed the boundaries of Muscovy adjoining the dominions
of the Porte and the military Republic of Little Russia. To defend
the borders of the state a kind of national militia, or yeomanry, was
settled along the frontiers. As usual, it was granted land in fee. The
gradual transformation of fee into patrimony by force of legislation
did not, however, concern this class of tenants in fee, as they did
not count among the gentry. Nevertheless, the process went on, thanks
to the natural play of economic forces. Mr. Pankeyeff, in his essay
on the subject, does not show us the causes of the frequent sales of
small fees during the eighteenth century. As the times coincided with
the period during which the resources of the country were strained to
the utmost in order to keep up the aggressive annexation policy of the
Empire, it seems very probable that this mobility of the land belonging
to the yeomen (_odnodvortzy_, as they were designated after 1719) was
due to the burdens imposed by the State. On the other hand, the policy
of the government in regard to this class tended to bring them down to
the level of the peasantry. Alienability of land was obviously opposed
to these views of the government, since thereby many members of this
class became landless. The attempt was therefore made to put a stop
to it by a series of ukases forbidding the sale of lands belonging to
the _odnodvortzy_. To insure obedience to its ukases the government,
in 1766, changed the method of allotting land to the _odnodvortzy_, in
conformity with the communistic method used by the peasantry. It was
ordered that land should henceforth be measured for the entire village
in one tract, and not in individual parcels to every householder, as
had been previously done; and at the same time the alienation of lots
was forbidden. Thus the community was entrusted with the subdivision of
the land among its members. The distribution was based originally upon
the dimensions of individual possession of former times. It generally
led, however, through many intermediate forms to the establishment
of equal distribution, _i. e._ to agrarian communism. According to the
information gathered by the Ministry of Public Domains, toward the
fifties, the _odnodvortzy_, as regards the forms of possession, were
divided as follows:[19]

  _Forms of Possession:_     _Number of Males and Females:_
  Quarterly                                    452,508.
  Communistic                                  533,201.

In all the villages inhabited by these 533,201 persons, agrarian
communism came to be substituted for the once generally prevailing
quarterly possession. In the region now in question there were,
according to the census taken by the Government in 1849, 287 villages
inhabited by _odnodvortzy_ in the whole _gubernia_ of Ryazañ. According
to the forms of landholding they were divided as follows:

  +---------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
  |Forms of Landholding.|Number of|Number of Males|  Land in   |
  |                     |villages.|  and Females. |dessiatines.|
  +---------------------+---------+---------------+------------+
  |Quarterly possession |   176   |    11,265     |   64,811   |
  |Agrarian communism   |    56   |    21,283     |   84,448   |
  |Mixed                |    55   |    12,627     |   49,508   |
  +---------------------+---------+---------------+------------+

Here also agrarian communism developed from quarterly possession. The
process went on after 1849, without even stopping after the reform of
1866, by which the land held by the former _odnodvortzy_ was recognized
as their private alienable property. The progress of agrarian communism
between 1849 and 1882 can be seen from the following table:[20]

EXTENSION OF QUARTERLY POSSESSION.

            _Population (males and females.)_
                    In 1849.       In 1882.
  Ranenburg          19,714          4,213
  Dankoff            10,509          6,089

What appears here in most striking contradiction with the ideas
universally adopted by modern writers, is the inverse historical
correlation between these two forms of possession. This fact seems to
offer a new argument in favor of the theory which regards community of
land as a derivative form of ownership owing its origin to the policy
of the State. Prof. Tschitscherin, the author of this theory, maintains
that the land community was called into life by the ukases of Peter I
establishing the poll tax and the responsibility _in solido_ of all
members of the community for the punctual payment of the tax.

A full discussion of the issue in controversy does not come within
the scope of this essay; for whatever may have been the origin of
the land community, its existence during the past two centuries is a
fact beyond dispute; and it is only the period after the emancipation
that constitutes the immediate subject under consideration. Moreover,
the theory belongs to an epoch when the study of the history of
the Russian peasantry was yet in its infancy. In the course of the
last thirty years this special branch of knowledge has progressed
enormously, and Prof. Tschitscherin’s views have been since abandoned
by the students of the history of Russian law. A few remarks will
suffice for the purpose of the present discussion, inasmuch as no one
to-day believes that communism in land sprang, like Minerva, from the
head of some administrative Jupiter.

Responsibility _in solido_ for the payment of taxes could hardly be
thought of in a country of developed individualism. It presupposes a
state of society in which not the individual but the aggregate alone
counts in social relations. And such was indeed the social condition of
Russia as late as the seventeenth century. The Council of the Commons
(_Zemskee Sobor_) represented, not, as under modern constitutional
governments, the individual voters, but the communities alone. These
Councils were convoked on extraordinary occasions, one of their chief
purposes being to assess certain additional taxes upon the communities
represented therein, but never upon individual tax-payers. Even
punishments were inflicted _in solido_ upon the community where a
murdered body had been found, or some other crime had been perpetrated,
and the culprit remained undiscovered. Collective ownership in land
appears to be the inseparable concomitant, if not the material basis,
of such social conditions.

The study of the development of landed property among the
_odnodvortzy_, however, brought about a revival of the views held by
Prof. Tschitscherin, so far as this class of the Russian peasantry is
concerned. Prof. Klutschefsky advanced the opinion that the growth of
communal landholding was due to the policy of the Government, which saw
in this form of ownership a means of guaranteeing the fiscal interest.
The fact that the ukases of the Government interfered with the method
of surveying the land among the _odnodvortzy_, as well as with the
purchase and sale of their lots, seems to support this opinion. On
the other hand, Mr. Semefsky, the famous historian of the Russian
peasantry, thinks that the establishment of agrarian communism was due
to the initiative of the peasantry, who came to the conclusion that
this form of ownership suited their needs better than did quarterly
possession. The Government acted only in accordance with the wishes of
the peasants, as expressed in numberless petitions and land-suits, and
granted the sanction of law to the results of economic development.

Mr. Pankeyeff, the statistician, inclines to the latter opinion. The
investigations made by the statisticians of the _zemstvo_, showed
that the struggle over the form of landholding was very obstinate
and lasted for years. Oftentimes the contending parties had recourse
to violence. The courts were encumbered with interminable suits, and
not infrequently the courts and the government decided in favor of
quarterly possession. Thus the decisive stand made by the government
in favor of the village community is open to question. Moreover, the
development of agrarian communism from quarterly possession after the
emancipation, when the policy of the government took a turn directly
favoring private property, is considered by the peasantists as a proof
of the vitality of the communistic spirit among the peasantry. While
the promoters of agriculture upon a large scale, on the one hand,
and the Russian Marxists, on the other hand, point out the growing
dissolution of the village community, the example of the quarterly
landholding tends, in the view of the peasantists, to disprove their
position. Mr. Pankeyeff claims that, even at present, quarterly
landholding cannot be considered as a settled form of possession. A
hidden strife is ever going on within the village between the rich and
the poor, similar to that which previously led to the final victory of
agrarian communism; and it seems very probable that the latter will
soon triumph over quarterly possession all along the line.

There appears, however, to be room for yet a third view. The case
can hardly be considered as one of evolution from private property
to communal landholding; nor, consequently, can it serve to support
the theory that derives communal landholding from the policy of the
government.

As Mr. Pankeyeff correctly puts it, quarterly landholding, even in its
present aspect, combines the features of private and communal property.

If we go back to the origin of quarterly landholding, we find that
even the fees granted to the yeomen in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries cannot be construed as private property. The land was given
in temporary or hereditary possession; the right of property remained
with the state. The pasture, the forest, and the meadow were allotted
to the village as a whole, not to the individual yeoman. The arable
alone was apportioned to every one in separate plots. Though these
plots were conferred on individuals, through inheritance, gift etc.,
yet this cannot be considered as a proof of private property in land.
It must be borne in mind that wherever in Russia land is in abundance,
its possession rests upon the title by occupancy. In Siberia such
plots pass from father to son, or daughter, exactly as was the custom
among the quarterly landholders some hundred years ago. And yet by all
students of the Russian village community this is regarded as communal,
not individual, landholding, since the supreme right over the land
rests in the community. So long as there is no want of land, this right
is exercised by using the stubble as common pasture after the harvest.
As soon as land, with the increase of population, becomes too scarce
to allow of unlimited exercise of the right of first possession, the
supreme right of the community asserts itself through the subdivision
of the “claims” (_zaeemka_). In the region under consideration the
right of first possession[21] was still in use in the beginning of
this century, and the movement toward subdivision of the arable land
dates from then.[22]

In the district now under review we are able to observe the steps in
the transition from possession by occupancy to subdivision of arable
land. We find here the original form--quarterly ownership, and the
final form--equal subdivision of the land by the community among its
members, and the intermediate stage in which one part of the field is
subdivided into fixed hereditary shares, and the other part in equal
lots among all the members of the community.

In the districts of Dankoff and Ranenburg, in those communities
where this intermediate form of possession is prevalent, forty-four
per cent of the whole land (pasture, forest and meadow inclusive)
is now considered as communal property. Formerly it was all common
pasture. When want of land began to be felt, various tracts of the
communal pasture were taken possession of by individual householders,
and converted into arable land. This arable land was the first to
be declared the property of the community, and subject to equal
subdivision among the community’s members. The next step is subdivision
of the quarterly arable. Thereby the intermediate form passes into
communal landholding proper, or agrarian communism.[23]

The conclusion which can be drawn from the facts as presented above
is that quarterly landholding, is but an archaic form of communal
landholding, and follows no exceptional course in its development,
though that development has been somewhat retarded.




CHAPTER III.

THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF THE PEASANTRY.


The old laws governing the State peasants, before the reform of 1866,
fixed the normal size of the plots at eight dessiatines (about 21
acres) to each male “of the revision” (_i. e._, included in the last
preceding census) for the “regions where land is scarce.”

By the reforms of 1861 and 1866, not a single class of peasants was
granted the extent of land that the state of agriculture in the
district under consideration called for,[24] and the average tract
owned by the more comfortably situated State peasant is only a little
more than one-half of this normal plot as it was empirically fixed;
of course, the normal extent of a farm is subject to change through
increase of population and progress of agricultural methods. Let us see
how large is the extent of land actually required by, but not in the
possession of, the peasantry of the districts under review.

The table on the top of the next page gives the total number of
communities, in which all the householders were able to carry on
farming with their own stock and implements.

The favorable condition of these few communities was due to the fact
that the land rented and acquired as private property by the prevailing
majority equalled in extent the communal tract. The communities in
question occupied, as a whole, over one-half more land than the
average.

  +-------------------+-------+--------+-----------+----------------------+
  |                   |       |        |Households.|  Land (Dessiatines.) |
  |                   |Commu- |Revision+-----+-----+------+--------+------+
  |     Title of      |nities.| males. |     |     |      | To one |To one|
  |    Possession.    |       |        |Num- |Per  |Total.|revision|house-|
  |                   |       |        |ber. |cent.|      |  male. |hold. |
  +-------------------+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+------+
  |Communal land:     |       |        |     |     |      |        |      |
  |  _a._ allotted    |   28  |    465 | 158 | 100 |  1180|   2.5  |  7.5 |
  |  _b._ rented      |       |        | ?   |     |   314|        |      |
  |Tenure from        |       |        | 107 |  68 |   666|        |  6.2 |
  |  landlords        |       |        |     |     |      |        |      |
  |Private property   |       |        |  14 |   9 |   147|        | 10.5 |
  |                   |       |        +-----+-----+      |        |      |
  |                   |       |        | 121 |  77 |      |        |      |
  |                   +-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+------+
  |In all             |   28  |    465 | 158 | 100 |  2307|   5.0  | 14.6 |
  |Total in the region|       |        |     |     |      |        |      |
  |  (allotted land)  |  653  |  90031 |36126|     |294443|   3.3  |  8.1 |
  +-------------------+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+------+

Still land tenure is unequally distributed among the peasantry, thanks
to legal discrimination. The main distinctions date from the reforms
of 1861 and 1866. Here is the proportion of land to population in the
several classes of the peasantry of our region:

  +-----------------------+----------------+----------------+
  |                       |  In every 100. |To each peasant.|
  |Districts and Classes. +---------+------+----------------+
  |                       |Peasants.|    Dessiatines.       |
  +-----------------------+---------+------+----------------+
  |_Ranenburg_:           |         |      |                |
  |  Former serfs         |   59.9  | 45.4 |     1.0        |
  |  Former state peasants|   39.9  | 54.4 |     1.7        |
  |                       |         |      |                |
  |_Dankoff_:             |         |      |                |
  |  Former serfs         |   64.1  | 50.0 |     1.1        |
  |  Former state peasants|   35.4  | 49.4 |     1.9        |
  +-----------------------+---------+------+----------------+

That the disproportion is not the result of subsequent alterations in
population or property can be seen from the comparison between the
average lot fixed by law for the former serf in 1861, and that given to
the former state peasant in 1866:

  _To each male of the Xth census:_  _Ranenburg.        _Dankoff.
                                     Dessiatines._     Dessiatines._
  Former serfs                          2.4                2.7
  Former state peasants                 4.3                4.6

This inequality is due to the influence of landlord interests upon the
reform of 1861, considerable tracts of land having been cut off from
the former peasant possessions and granted in absolute property to the
masters.[25] It goes without saying that the free peasant must have
sunk below the level of the serf. By the side of the former serfs even
the state peasants appear as an “upper class.” And yet the average
quantity of land held by the state peasants falls short of the extent
proved by experience to be necessary for farming in the districts under
consideration.

Want of land urged the peasant to convert everything into arable land,
and that to such an extent that no improvements worth mentioning were
left for the use of the cattle.

The total hay yield of the meadows belonging to the peasants who live
under agrarian communism[26], is 458,000 poods[27], and this has to be
distributed among 83,079 head of large cattle[28]. This makes on an
average 5½ _poods_, _i. e._ 200 pounds to every head for the Russian
winter, lasting at least half a year. In other words, there is about
_one pound of hay a day_ for every head of cattle.

Nor is the condition any better in the summer, since the pastures,
where there are any, are very scanty; and this is due to conversion
of pasture into arable land, as already mentioned, as well as into
homesteads for the increased population. This reduces to a paltry
figure the number of cattle raised by the peasants.[29] Two working
horses to a farm can hardly be considered as representing, even for
Russian agriculture, a particularly high standard. The actual extent
to which stock-breeding is carried on by the peasants falls below even
this minimum, save among the 415 quarterly proprietors in the Ranenburg
district, who are a kind of peasant “four hundred” in their own way,
owing to the extent of allotted land that they own.

The depressed condition of stock-breeding reacts in its turn upon
agriculture. Apart from this there is another universal cause that
diverts the cattle manure from its natural use. I refer to the lack of
woods.

With respect to possession of forests, so necessary in a climate like
Russia, most of the state peasants were originally in a privileged
condition, compared with the former serfs, to whom, as a rule,
no woodland at all was allotted.[30] However, time has effaced
all distinction between the privileged communities and those less
fortunate. Of the former forests there remain at present only shrubs,
and young bushes, of no practical value. State peasant and former
serf are equally dominated by the want of fuel, a want which must be
satisfied with the only burning material at hand, _viz_: with dung. In
many a community this precludes the fertilizing of the soil altogether;
in a great many others it is but the land next to the homestead that
is manured, and the poorest among the peasants have no manure at all
worth carrying to their fields. It is needless to speak of the extent
to which this contributes to the rapid exhaustion of the soil.[31]

Apart from these general conditions, we cannot pass by without notice
certain special circumstances that continually depress the level of the
peasants’ agriculture in a number of villages inhabited by former serfs.

The reform of 1861 was not carried out without serious troubles which
in certain cases called for the intervention of armed force. As an
example we may quote the village Speshnevo, bailiwick (_volost_)
Hrushchefskaya, Dankoff district. We find the following in the
_Statistical Reports_:

“In 1861 the peasants refused to accept the present tract, which was
allotted to them in the place of one they had formerly held. The latter
was far superior as regards both situation and quality. They stopped
ploughing for seven years and finally agreed to accept the tract only
after a detachment of soldiers had arrived at the village.”

“The village is now surrounded by property that is owned by strangers.
The plots owned by the peasants begin at a distance of 1400 feet,
and extend about 3½ miles. The peasants are very frequently fined
for damage done by the cattle to the fields of the landlords of the
neighborhood.”[32]

Behind this dry, matter-of-fact statement, is hidden the story of a
system of trickery practiced, at the time of the emancipation, by the
masters and the subservient officials. The land was, in some cases,
purposely divided in such a way as to create for the peasants the
necessity of an easement or servitude (_servitus itineris, actus, aquæ
etc._), in the master’s estate. The tract given in possession to the
peasants is situated, at least in part, far away from their villages,
sometimes without even a road for driving, and stretched in a long and
narrow strip. Not to speak of the waste of time in going to and fro,
it would not pay to manure the distant tracts. Thus in addition to
the immediate injury to the peasants aimed at by this system, a large
portion of land is lost to all rational culture.[33]

In short, the effects of the scarcity of land are summed up in the
lack of animal power, which is no unimportant drawback to agricultural
progress, and in the predatory character of the peasant farming.

This can be easily figured from the yields of rye and oats, the
principal crops raised by the peasantry[34]:

  +---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
  |                           |              Yield Per Acre.              |
  |         Countries.        +---------------------+---------------------+
  |                           |         Rye.        |        Oats.        |
  +---------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
  |                           | Bushels. | Per Cent.| Bushels. | Per Cent.|
  |_Russia_,[35] District of  |          |          |          |          |
  |  Ostrogozhsk, _Gubernia_  |          |          |          |          |
  |  of Voronezh, average for |          |          |          |          |
  |  10 years (1877-1886)     |   =8.9=  |   =100=  |  =10.7=  |   =100=  |
  |United States, average for |          |          |          |          |
  |  10 years (1880-1889)     |   11.9   |    134   |   26.6   |    249   |
  |Ontario, Canada (1889-1890)|   15.5   |    174   |   30.7   |    287   |
  |Great Britain (1889-1890)  |          |          |   40.3   |    377   |
  |France (1888-1889)         |   16.1   |    181   |   26.1   |    244   |
  |Germany (1890)             |   14.7   |    165   |   30.1   |    287   |
  |Austria (1889)             |   14.5   |    163   |   17.6   |    164   |
  |Hungary (1889)             |   13.8   |    155   |   17.4   |    163   |
  +---------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

Unless the small productivity of agriculture is made up for by the
size of the farm, the balance must needs close with a deficit.
This is exactly what has been stated in figures by the statistical
investigation of the _gubernia_ of Voronezh, where balances of all
moneys received and expended were made out by the statisticians for
each one of the registered families. The results are shown in the
following table:[36]

  -------------+------+---------+---------------------------+-----------
               |      |Receipts |      Expenses (rubles).   |
               |      |from     +---------+-------+---------+-----------
    Districts  |House-|sale of  |Consump- | Rent  |  Total  |Deficit[37]
               |holds.|produce  |tion     |       |         |(rubles)
               |      |(rubles) |         |       |         |
  -------------+------+---------+---------+-------+---------+-----------
  Zadonsk      |15,528|  390,178|  784,061|239,072|1,023,133| 632,955
  Korotoyak    |20,232|1,280,206|1,017,727|304,789|1,322,516|  42,310
  Nizhnedevitzk|20,051|1,326,110|1,069,013|327,200|1,396,213|  70,103
  -------------+------+---------+---------+-------+---------+-----------

If we examine the items of expenses, we find rye and flour among those
necessaries which the farmer has to procure in the market during a
portion of the year. The deficit of a peasant farm is consequently one
of daily bread.[38]

To give some idea of the standard of life of the Russian peasant, we
append a summary review of three peasant budgets of the _gubernia_ of
Tamboff.[39]

1. Gabriel, the son of Michea, surnamed Trupoff, who owns four horses
and holds 15 dessiatines (40 acres) of land, is, in faith, one of the
chosen ones among the Tamboff peasantry. Verily it is worth while
going through the budget of these peasant “four hundred.” The total
expenditure of a family of four adult persons and three children does
not exceed 510 rubles a year, say (in round figures) $10 a week.[40]
All the dresses of two rustic Lady Astors amount to the exorbitant
figure of sixteen rubles a year, while the gentlemen are satisfied
with one hat once in five years, and one girdle of the value of eighty
cents once in a decade. To make both ends meet they have to content
themselves with, upon an average, about one and a half pounds meat a
day, for seven persons, and to do without tea, rejoicing over one glass
of brandy a day, for the whole family. All the sundries expended make
up the sum of ten dollars a year, or less than one cent a day to every
grown up man or woman. This frugality enables them to add to their
wealth 7.79 rubles in a year, when the harvest is 10:1 to the seed.
Now this is about twice as much as the Ryazañ average, and exceeds
by one-half the Ryazañ maximum. Should we reduce the yield from 10:1
to the average 6.5:1 for rye and to 6.8:1 for oats, as given in the
_Reports_ for the district of Borisoglebsk, it would cause a deduction
from the income, as follows:

  3.5:10 from 40 Russian quarters rye @ 2.00 rubles   56.00
  3.2:10   ”  60    ”       ”     oat @ 2.00   ”      38.40
                                                      -----
         Total                                        94.40

This would give a deficit of 86.61 rubles a year. To cover this deficit
Gabriel Trupoff used to engage in various occupations besides his
farming.

2. The second family is likewise one of the best off, since they can
even allow themselves the luxury of consuming one pound of tea, and
five pounds of sugar yearly. Their farm yields them however a total
income of only 358.80 rubles and the balance, 660.45, must be provided
from other sources.

3. Finally, the third family of “peasant-proprietors” draws a
yearly income of 27.80 rubles from farm and house, while the entire
expenditure amounts to 241.80 a year, or 20.15 a month for 8 persons.
Although it causes a yearly deficit of 65.20, which must be covered
through loans, and probably through the sale from time to time of their
chattels, yet they are tax-payers, and contribute 8.00 yearly toward
the expenses of the state.

In short, it is manifest that even the most favored classes of the
Russian peasantry are hardly able to make a living, however moderate,
by farming on their plots. Hence the economic dependence of the Russian
peasant, evidenced in various ways.

There is yet another very important feature of modern peasant economy
which is brought to light by the budgets. A by no means insignificant
part of the entire peasant consumption is to be provided for in the
market outside of farming,[41] and consequently a corresponding portion
of the peasant’s labor must be spent in production for the market. Thus
the archaic peasant husbandry based upon natural economy has been to
a very considerable extent superseded by money economy.[42] In other
words, Russian farming has developed from the production of use-values
or utilities to a production of commodities.




CHAPTER IV.

TAXATION OF THE PEASANT.


When the balance of a peasant farm is closed, year in, year out, with a
deficit, it is only of secondary importance whether there be added to
it a score of rubles or not, in taxes. In either case the farmer has
to look for employment outside of his homestead that he may be able
to keep body and soul together. Nor is it of great moment that the
taxes must be paid in money, since at any rate not a small part of the
produce must be carried to the market to be converted into money for
the purchase of implements, clothing, and even of food for the peasant
and his cattle.[43] But the economic influence of taxation is marked
by its compulsory character, as well as by its unequal pressure upon
different classes of the people.

It may be regarded as an established rule that the burden of taxation
is, in Russia, in inverse ratio to the means of the taxpayer.[44]

The former serf is taxed more, absolutely (every male and every
worker), and relatively (every acre of land), than is the former State
peasant. The difference is literally the tribute paid to the landlord
class for the emancipation of their serfs.

Indeed, the greater part of the contributions of the former serf is
composed either of his redemption tax, or of the payment due to his
master (_taille_):

AMOUNT OF TAXES (IN RUBLES) TO ONE “REVISION” MALE.

  +------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
  |                  |                   Dankoff.                    |
  |   Classes of     +--------+---------+------------+-------+-------+
  |    Peasants.     | Total. | Taille. | Redemption | Rent. |  Per  |
  |                  |        |         |    Tax.    |       | Cent. |
  +------------------+--------+---------+------------+-------+-------+
  |I. Former serfs:  |        |         |            |       |       |
  | 1. Temporary     |        |         |            |       |       |
  |     obligors     |  12.6  |    8.2  |            |       |   65  |
  | 2. Proprietors   |  11.1  |         |     6.6    |       |   59  |
  |II. Former serfs, |        |         |            |       |       |
  |    subsequently  |        |         |            |       |       |
  |    state         |        |         |            |       |       |
  |    peasants      |   7.9  |         |            |  2.9  |   36  |
  |III. Former state |        |         |            |       |       |
  |     peasants     |  10.0  |         |            |  3.8  |   38  |
  +------------------+--------+---------+------------+-------+-------+

  +------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
  |                  |                  Ranenburg.                   |
  |   Classes of     +--------+---------+------------+-------+-------+
  |    Peasants.     | Total. | Taille. | Redemption | Rent. |  Per  |
  |                  |        |         |    Tax.    |       | Cent. |
  +------------------+--------+---------+------------+-------+-------+
  |I. Former serfs:  |        |         |            |       |       |
  | 1. Temporary     |        |         |            |       |       |
  |     obligors     |  11.9  |   7.5   |            |       |   60  |
  | 2. Proprietors   |  10.8  |         |     6.3    |       |   58  |
  |II. Former serfs, |        |         |            |       |       |
  |    subsequently  |        |         |            |       |       |
  |    state         |        |         |            |       |       |
  |    peasants      |   7.0  |         |            |  2.4  |   34  |
  |III. Former state |        |         |            |       |       |
  |     peasants     |  10.4  |         |            |  4.4  |   42  |
  +------------------+--------+---------+------------+-------+-------+

That there is one part of the payments to the landlord which is in
reality nothing but a redemption tax for the person of the serf,[45]
appears clear from the comparison between the amount of rent paid by
the former State peasant to the treasury, and that of the taille paid
by the “temporary obligor” to his master, since in neither is any
portion set apart for redemption of the land. And the amount of taille
paid is made the basis for the amortization.

On the other hand, the least amount in taxes is paid by those among
the former serfs who have already redeemed their lots (“absolute
proprietors”) or who received the so-called donated lots, _i. e._, the
least is levied from those who are free from the obligation to their
former masters.

Here, however, we are again face to face with the characteristic
feature of the Russian financial system: the “absolute proprietor,” who
owns from six to ten times as much land as the donee, and who breeds
more than twice as much stock as the latter, is taxed from four to
eight times less upon every acre. It would be absurd to suspect even
a Russian financial administration of the intention to overtax the
neediest while relieving the burdens of the better-off. Yet this is the
necessary result of a financial system which belongs to a different
historical epoch, and has survived the overthrow of its economic
foundations through a social revolution.

Let us take as a unit every male of the revision, (_i. e._, the
official unit of taxation); let us then compare with one another
the assessments levied upon both exceptional classes of absolute
proprietors and donees, on the one hand, and let us again compare with
each other the assessments levied upon the remaining classes of the
peasantry. We shall see that every male is taxed on the whole at an
approximately uniform rate. This is the usual system of taxation in
every primitive state, where land is in abundance and human labor is
the main source of wealth. The labor powers of men being approximately
equal, assessment _per capita_ insures a rude equity in taxation.
But after the reforms of 1861 and 1866, which added new and sharp
distinctions to those already in existence among the peasantry,
taxation _per capita_ became a power that accentuated the social
inequalities, and hastened, through its extortion, the ruin of the
feeble.

Indebtedness of landed property is the inclined plane usually
leading toward expropriation of the small farmer, as well as of the
aristocratic landlord. In Russia the three minor subdivisions of the
peasantry, viz. the “absolute proprietors,” the “donees” and the
“quarterly possessors,” are the only ones who enjoy the title of
property in their land, and consequently they alone are in a position
to mortgage to private persons. The bulk of the peasantry[46] have no
right of alienating their plots. Chronic indebtedness upon the latter
takes, therefore, as its only possible form that of arrears in taxes,
which is precisely the sore place of the Russian administration.

The amount of “arrears” due by the peasants to the treasury is
represented by no inconsiderable figure, as may be seen from the
following table:

                                   _Amount of taxes      _Arrears._
                                     apportioned
                                      (rubles)_    _Rubles._  _Per cent._

  _Ranenburg_--Former serfs            347,672       176,288      50
               Former State peasants   212,571        70,303      33.1
                                       -------        ------      ----
                 Total                 560,243       246,591      44

  _Dankoff_--Former serfs              292,648        12,352       4.2
             Former State peasants     135,019         4,936       3.7
                                       -------        ------      ----
                 Total                 427,667        17,288       4

It is needless to dilate upon the consequences to the budget of a
deficiency of about one-half of the direct taxes paid by the most
numerous class of the population. Yet the average figures for the
entire region do not convey any true idea of the real disturbance
caused to the concrete communities which are unable to stand the
burden of their payments. The number of those communities, as well as
the rate of indebtedness, is very considerable, and the burden is,
moreover, very unequally distributed among the communities indebted,
the consequence being that some are entirely crushed.[47]

In the district of Ranenburg, this den of “sturdy nonpayers,” we find
only 9.6 per cent. of the former serfs and 2.1 per cent. of the former
State peasants who give no annoyance to the “constituted authorities.”
The rest, that is to say, 293 communities out of 340, are in arrears
for not less than 6.70 rubles. The burden is aggravated by its unequal
distribution. We find one third of the former State peasants owing
above one-half of the arrears of their class, while above three-eighths
of the former serfs are responsible for 70 per cent. of the entire
debt of their class. These, the most heavily indebted groups, are
made up of those communities which are in arrears for more than the
tax levied for the use of the land, the rent paid to the treasury by
the former state peasant, the _taille_ or the redemption tax imposed
upon the former serf. In other words, one-third of the former State
peasants, and three-eighths of the former serfs, are unable to bear
the fee levied for the use of their land.[48] Finally, this fact
attracted the attention of the central government, and in 1882, the
_zemstvos_ were required by the Minister of the Interior to report
upon “the communities in which husbandry had fallen into ultimate
destitution,”[49] and a relief in the amount of the redemption tax was
desirable. The committee elected by the _zemstvo_ of the district of
Ryazañ applied, as we learn, to the Reports of the Statistical Bureau.
The same could hardly be done for the districts under consideration,
since the Reports were subsequently proscribed by the _zemstvo_ of
the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ.[50] If the Reports were taken into account,
all the above three-eighths of the former serfs would perhaps have
to be classed among those whose husbandry “has fallen into ultimate
destitution,” since above one-fourth owed to the treasury 20.10 rubles,
and one-ninth above 34 ruble to an average household. This one-ninth
was in chronic arrears of from one to two annual instalments.

Whatever may be the absolute amount of the arrears, the point is that
they bear upon the peasant’s live stock, which is the only valuable
part of his movable property, and is consequently the first to be taken
hold of by the auctioneer. Arrears in taxes are, therefore, a constant
threat to the very existence of the peasant’s farming.[51]

Moreover they bind the peasant to the spot, and thus restrict the
market for his labor.

This, however, is only an evil of the transitional epoch. A change of
great moment has taken place in so short a period as the ten years
which separate the census of the _zemstvo_ from the investigations of
the above mentioned Commissions of the central government.

Overtaxation has been swallowed up in the increase in value of
the land. The rent of the peasant’s plot in both districts of the
_gubernia_ of Ryazañ exceeds the taxes by from one to three rubles
(_i. e._ the taxes absorb, in an average, from 78 to 91 per cent. of
the rent.)[52] Though rise of rent is by no means a blessing for the
Russian peasant, partly tenant, partly agricultural laborer as he is,
yet the benefit he gains as taxpayer is the possibility of disposing
of his labor by leasing his plot to any one willing to pay the taxes
thereon.

Thus the old question of chronic arrears is to-day easy to be settled
through public sale of the peasant’s stock. Flogging as a measure
of financial policy can be dispensed with, so far at least as the
insolvent debtor is concerned; for the taxes are secured by the land,
over and above the body of the taxpayer.

Thus economic evolution has loosened the legal bonds which formerly
chained the Russian peasant to the soil.




CHAPTER V.

COMMUNAL TENURE AND SMALL HOLDINGS.


Two economic features determined the further development of
Russia, after the abolition of serfdom. Personal dependence of the
serf was replaced, as above shown, by economic dependence of the
“peasant-proprietor” compelled to seek work for wages beyond the limits
of his own holding. Inequality of condition among the peasants, created
by legal discrimination and furthered by the fiscal system, furnished
the basis for the division of labor by which the peasants tried to fill
up the holes in their farming. What were these occupations, and how did
they react upon the village community?

In the times of serfdom the village community, as above mentioned,
enjoyed certain rights to the land which was used by the master
himself. Pasture, and water, and way in the landlord’s estate were
free to the community. The emancipation deprived the peasants of
these privileges and put them under the necessity of entering into
agreements, of one kind or another, with the landlord for the use of
these easements.

Where lack of water, or the necessity of a way through the landlord’s
estate, has been artificially created by the reform, it is obviously
the community as a whole that must contract the agreement.

In so far, however, as rented pasture is concerned, the usual
communistic rule is put on trial by the growing inequalities that have
arisen in the business of stock breeding within the village community.
About one fourth of the community is composed of the poorest families,
who own no horses, and oftentimes no cattle at all.[53] It is obvious
that whenever the use of a pasture is rented for horses or cows, a not
inconsiderable part of the community is practically excluded from the
agreement. The assessment of the obligation in proportion to the shares
held by the several householders in the communal land would be unjust
to the poorest part of the community.

Another basis for the distribution is found, in many instances, in
the number of heads of cattle belonging to each householder, _i. e._
outside of the province of agrarian communism; the poor are thus
released from the burden of payments. But, on the other hand, the
community becomes virtually the voluntary partnership of its wealthier
members. The economic tendency of the time is shown by the following
figures:[54]

  +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+-------+
  |                               |          Rented pasture.      | Total |
  |                               +------------------------+------+  in   |
  |       Party of the renter.    |  In consideration of   |      | class |
  |                               +------+------+----------+      |  and  |
  |                               |Labor.|Money.|Mixed.[55]|Total.|region.|
  +-------------------------------+------+------+----------+------+-------+
  |    _Former State peasants._   |      |      |          |      |       |
  |1. Community                   |      |   1  |          |   1  |       |
  |2. Individuals                 |      |      |    1     |   1  |       |
  +-------------------------------+------+------+----------+------+       |
  |   All to former State peasants|      |   1  |    1     |   2  |   91  |
  |                               |      |      |          |      |       |
  |    _Former serfs._            |      |      |          |      |       |
  |1. Community                   |  93  |  22  |    8     | 123  |       |
  |2. Community, obligation       |      |      |          |      |       |
  |     discharged _per_          |  12  |  14  |          |  26  |       |
  |     head of stock             |      |      |          |      |       |
  |3. Community, beside individuals      |      |    3     |   3  |       |
  |4. Partnerships and individuals|      |   1  |    1     |   2  |       |
  +-------------------------------+------+------+----------+------+       |
  |    All to former serfs        | 105  |  37  |   12     | 154  |  562  |
  +-------------------------------+------+------+----------+------+-------+

We find the province of communism extended in only two villages of
the former state peasants, who had nothing to do with the landlords’
pasture before the emancipation. On the other hand, the right of
pasture held by the _mir_ in the landlord’s fields in the times of
serfdom has disappeared in 408 out of the 562 free communities.
Yet wherever pasture is rented, the _mir_ prevails, and individual
agreements are the rarest exception. The latter form is, however,
likely to keep pace with the development of money economy in rural
relations. So long as the easement is granted in consideration of a
certain amount of farm work to be done, (and this is now the ordinary
rule), it is to the landlord’s advantage to secure the collective
labor of a whole community at once, instead of entering into a special
agreement with each peasant for a small service. The fulfilment of
the obligation is secured by the joint suretyship of the community,
while to sue each peasant for failure to perform two or three days’
work would be far too troublesome. It certainly matters little to the
landlord, how the labor is distributed among the several members of the
community, and it was but in 12 cases out of 105 that the agreement was
made for so much work to be done _per_ head. On the other hand payment
was stipulated for at so much _per_ head in 14 out of 37 cases, in
which the transaction was one of money. But as soon as the agreement
is made in this form, the householders can act individually as well as
through the _mir_, and this was in reality the case in 6 communities
out of the 156, the peasants managing to get their cattle counted as
part of the landlord’s flock.

We notice here how economic inequality weakens the tie of communism,
even where that communism has its roots set deep in the prevailing
methods of agriculture, the cattle grazing in one flock upon the common
pasture under the surveillance of the communal shepherd.

Quite naturally we find individualism to be the rule as soon as we come
to the tenure of arable land, which is cultivated by the householders
individually:

  +-----------------------+------------+------------+---------+
  |                       | Number of  |   Rented   |Land, per|
  |Party to the agreement.|communities.|dessiatines.|  cent.  |
  +-----------------------+------------+------------+---------+
  |    _Ranenburg._       |            |            |         |
  |Community              |     25     |    2195    |   12.0  |
  |Partnerships           |      2     |     143    |    0.8  |
  |Individuals            |    265[56] |   16009[56]|   87.2  |
  |                       +------------+------------+---------+
  |    Total              |    290     |   18347[57]|  100    |
  |                       |            |            |         |
  |    _Dankoff._         |            |            |         |
  |Community              |     23     |    2240    |   16.2  |
  |Partnerships           |      3     |      42    |    0.3  |
  |Individuals            |    230[56] |   11561[56]|   83.5  |
  |                       +------------+------------+---------+
  |    Total              |    256     |   13843[57]|  100    |
  +-----------------------+------------+------------+---------+

As appears from this table, in so far as peasant farming has survived
on the landlord’s estate, agrarian communism has been almost entirely
superseded by individual tenancy.

Should not, however, the few cases of communal tenure be considered,
on the contrary, as signs of a budding agrarian communism? Is it not a
fact that peasant tenancy has sprung into existence from nothing within
recent times, and that in 48 villages agrarian communism has acquired
a foothold even in that tenancy which was always considered as being
essentially an individualistic form of landholding?

Such was the argument of an optimistic school of peasantists, which
gained much credit in Russia in a few years ago.[58] In reality,
however, nothing like a growth of communism can be seen in the recent
rise of communal tenancy. As a matter of fact the latter is restricted
solely to communities of former serfs.[59] Consequently it is but
the title of possession that has changed, and that from tenure in
perpetuity into tenancy at will, for periods of from 3 to 12 years.

On the other hand, the land which had been before the emancipation
occupied by the village community of the serfs, is now held by the
individual tenant.

Let us compare the area of land held by the tenants in 1882 with the
tracts carved out of the peasants’ possession in 1861.[60]

               _Carved out    _Rented
                in 1861._     in 1882._

  Ranenburg       3710          3274
  Dankoff         5179          4327

Really worth thinking over is the question; why could not communal
tenure stand the competition of individual peasant tenancy?

In the first place the lots leased by the community are considerably
larger than those rented by individual peasants.[61] Moreover by the
joint suretyship of all the members of the community a security is
offered lacking in small individual contracts. Quite naturally the
terms on which land is rented by the community are more favorable for
the peasants than those of individual contracts.[62]

The result of cheaper rent is the better condition of the communities
in question as compared with the average.[63]

Why then should not other communities imitate this praiseworthy
example? The answer seems to be found precisely in the higher economic
level of the communities concerned, which carries with it greater
uniformity of interests:

  +-----------------------+------------------------------------------+
  |                       |         Percentage of householders.      |
  |Classes of communities.+-----------+------------+-----------------+
  |                       |Engaging in|Indifferent.|Letting out their|
  |                       |  tenure.  |            |  own lots.[64]  |
  +-----------------------+-----------+------------+-----------------+
  |       _Ranenburg._    |           |            |                 |
  |Tenure by the community|     64    |     25     |       11        |
  |Tenure by individuals  |     26    |     57     |       17        |
  |       _Dankoff._      |           |            |                 |
  |Tenure by the community|     58    |     25     |       17        |
  |Tenure by individuals  |     25    |     59     |       16        |
  +-----------------------+-----------+------------+-----------------+

The language of the figures is unequivocal. Wherever land is leased by
the _mir_, the prevailing majority is made up of tenants, while under
ordinary circumstances they form but a small minority. On the contrary
above one-half of the village assembly consists at large of those
householders who are indifferent to the question, and would not put
themselves to the trouble of incurring responsibility.

Thus it is in the growing heterogeneity of the village that the cause
of the decline of communism in tenancy is to be sought.

On the other hand, the same reason accounts for the substitution of
the usual method of distribution of land and burdens by the community,
through subdivision of the rented land in proportion to the money
invested by each householder.

The question arises whether that can really be called tenure by the
community, where a part of its members keep out of the agreement, and
the land is held severally, and _pro rata_ to the capital invested? It
seems to be rather a joint partnership.

Yet partnership is by nature an individualistic contract, whether
the parties to such contract be the “elders” of the _mir_, or common
business men.[65] We consider therefore rental partnership only as a
stage of transition from communal to individual tenancy.

As above mentioned, in those very communities where communal tenure is
yet in existence, side by side with it individual tenancy has taken
root:

                          _Ranenburg._                    _Dankoff._
                   _Dessiatines._  _Per cent._  _Dessiatines._  _Per cent._

  Held by the _mir_     2195           66            2240            81
  Held by individuals   1138           34             534            19
                        ----          ---            ----           ---
      Total rented      3333          100            2774           100

Thus communism in tenancy is passing away; small holdings for a
term of one summer have become to-day the dominant form of rental
agreements.[66]




CHAPTER VI.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE FARMER INTO THE AGRICULTURAL LABORER.


In the vast majority of cases tenure at will did but take the place
of the old relations between master and serf.[67] The obligation of
the serf toward his master was discharged on some estates in labor
(_corvée_), on others by payments, either in money or in kind. It is
only natural to find the old practice inherited by modern economy:

  +---------------------+--------------+----------------+------------+
  |                     |   Communal   |  Individual    |            |
  |                     |    tenure.   |   tenure.      | In all.[68]|
  |                     +--------------+----------------+------------+
  |                     |Communities.  |Communities.    |            |
  |                     |  |   Land.   |   |   Land.    |   Land.    |
  | Rented for          |  +-----------+   +------------+------------+
  |                     |  |Dessiatines|   |Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|
  |                     |  |    |Per   |   |     | Per  |     |Per   |
  |                     |  |    |cent. |   |     |cent. |     | cent.|
  +---------------------+--+----+------+---+-----+------+-----+------+
  |Share in crops       | 3|  47|    1 |  4|  382|     2|  429|     2|
  |Money rental (merely)|34|3330|   76 | 84| 6687|    43|10017|    50|
  |Labor (merely)       | 1|  48|    1 |  8|  562|     4|  610|     3|
  |Labor compulsory and |  |    |      |   |     |      |     |      |
  | money in addition   |10| 958|   22 |132| 8065|    51| 9023|    45|
  +---------------------+--+----+------+---+-----+------+-----+------+
  |     Total           |48|4383|   100|228|15696|   100|20079|   100|
  +---------------------+--+----+------+---+-----+------+-----+------+

The patriarchal custom of division of the product itself between
landlord and tenant (_métayage_) has now become about entirely
obsolete, and is now to be found only in combination with extra
payments in money. Forced labor on the part of the peasant for the
benefit of the landlord continued in use. Abolished by law, it has
been upheld until to-day, through the economic pressure of the need of
land. The free tenant was compelled to bind himself to do a certain
amount of work for the landlord. If he failed in this he could not get
the opportunity of renting land. Pecuniary agreements were in vogue on
those estates alone, whose owners did not care for farming.

The economic tendency of the time, however, is toward money economy
and “free contract.”[69] As in the matter of taxation, the change is
brought about by the rise of rent.

On the one hand, the amount of work done by the tenant for the landlord
has enormously increased, thereby diminishing the demand for compulsory
labor.

On the other hand, whenever the rent is to be paid in cash, at least
one part must be advanced in the spring, _i. e._ at a time when most of
the peasants are short of money. Moreover, the extraordinarily heavy
rents exacted have made the leasing of land a very hazardous business;
one bad yield is sufficient to upset all the tenant’s calculations,
and to throw him into insolvency.[70] The circle of tenants who can
pay their rents in cash has thus been reduced to the “stronger”
householders.[71] The natural consequence was increased offers of farm
labor in exchange for land, on the part of those who could not afford
to lay out ready money.

Thus in the process of the economic evolution, compulsory labor becomes
obsolete. It was only in the minority of cases that the promise of
labor was required as an essential part of the rental agreement, and
even then it was only in exceptional cases that farm work was to be
performed for the full amount of the rent. Generally only a part of the
latter was to be covered through labor; the rest could be paid, at the
option of the tenant, either in work or in money.

In this transitional form of agreement prevalent in 1882, the peasant
appears, properly speaking, as tenant and laborer at once. The next
step is toward the differentiation of both.

The purely money form of rent has already won the field over about one
half of the whole area of rented land.

That this is the form which is finally to prevail, follows from the
fact, undisputed by Russian statisticians, that peasants in good
standing avoid working on the landlords’ estates, and prefer to pay
their rent in money. The miserable remuneration for farm work is the
very obvious reason of this dislike.

These are the average amount of rent and the average price paid for
the full work of cultivating, and harvesting one dessiatine, and
carrying the crops to the barn:

  Rent                                rubles 14.78
  Labor                                  ”    4.75
  ------------------------------------------------
  Rent for 1 dessiatine ＞ Wages for 3 dessiatines.

The average figures can be considered, however, merely as representing
static conditions at any given moment. The tendency of the movement is
rather indicated by the extreme limits.

When work is offered in payment of rent, wages very often sink far
below the level. At the same time rent is ever on the rise.

Let us take for purposes of comparison, some communities in which piece
wages are lowest, and some others in which rent is highest:

  ----------------+-------+--------+----------+-----------+-------------
      District    |Commu- |  Land  | Average  | Wages per |Rates of rent
    of Ranenburg. |nities.| rented | rent per |dessiatine |  to wages.
                  |       |(dessia-|dessiatine| (rubles). |
                  |       | tines).|(rubles). +-----+-----+------+------
                  |       |        |          |From.| To. | From.|  To.
  ----------------+-------+--------+----------+-----+-----+------+------
  Minimum of wages|  44   |  1909  |  15.16   | 3.00| 4.00| 5.2:1| 3.9:1
  Maximum of rent |  12   |   833  |  23.72   | 4.00| 5.00| 5.9:1| 4.3:1
  ----------------+-------+--------+----------+-----+-----+------+------

As the ratio of rent to wages is moving from 3:1 towards 5:1, it
finally becomes questionable whether we should class among tenants
or among laborers a peasant who has to till five dessiatines for the
landlord in exchange for one dessiatine given to himself.

Thus land tenure is degenerating into wage labor.




CHAPTER VII.

THE WAGES IN THE RURAL DISTRICTS.


The amphibious character of the peasant, who is at once farmer and
laborer, proves a very important factor in shaping the relations of
Russian economic life.

In Russia we have the case of the so called allotment system on a large
scale. The influence of this system was picturesquely elucidated by
John Stuart Mill when he stated that “it makes the people grow their
own poor rates.”[72] Exactly the same is observed in Russia.

The greater part of the work in agriculture, as well as in industry, is
performed by farmers.[73] With them the earnings from outside labor are
to cover only a part of their expenses, which cannot be provided for
by farming. It is obvious that wages alone must fall below the usual
standard of life.[74]

We have seen how, in the course of the evolution from farmer to wage
worker, the tenant first becomes farm laborer. Accordingly it is
natural to find farm labor prevailing among the local occupations of
the peasants:

            _Agriculture. Per cent._    _Trades. Per cent._
  Ranenburg            69                     31
  Dankoff              72                     28

The transitional stage between husbandman and help is occupied by
the householder who alternates his own farming with working on the
landlord’s estate. In either case the workman comes with his own horse
and implement.[75]

The relation between employer and employee is, with a very few
exceptions,[76] one of money economy.

Owing to the circumstances above discussed, the farmer is ever in
quest of ready money. In his quality of “peasant proprietor” he enjoys
“the blessing of credit,” that is to say, he is always in debt to the
landlord. Unquestionably, the favor is not granted for the sake of pure
neighborliness. Money is advanced in fall time, or in winter, in reward
for farm work to be performed next summer, and sometimes in a year or
two.[77] The noble descendant of Rurik[78] gains the benefit of 50 per
cent. yearly upon an average on the reduced rate of hire.

Low pay for piece work beats down the workman proper, who has to depend
entirely upon his employment. The wages for day-labor may serve as an
illustration:

BOARD FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYER.

                               _Male._                  _Female._
                       _Minimum._   _Maximum._   _Minimum._   _Maximum._

  In winter               0.18         0.25         0.12         0.15
  In spring and fall      0.25         0.35          ..           ..
  In summer               0.35         0.70         0.20         0.45

Furthermore, the comparison between agriculture and industry brings
out the fact that skilled labor[79] is paid in the rural districts at
nearly the same rate as farm work.[80] The case is perfectly analogous
to that of agricultural labor. In many of the households in question
there are, besides the artisan, other male members of the family who
carry on their farming.[81] In fall and winter the farmer, who is at
the same time an artisan, would work for any price. A tailor, _e. g._,
travelling around his village, earns in the fall from 1.50 to 2.50 a
week, while boarding with the customer. On the other hand, the maximum
in wages is paid to carpenters, whose trade is carried on in the
summer, so as to preclude competition on the part of the farmer.[82]

Certainly, the maximum of two rubles, say $2.00, a week, and board,
to a skilled carpenter, falls short of the minimum in some civilized
countries. It is in this rate of wages that we must seek the reason for
the slow development of industry in the rural districts.

Indeed, it is but for a small part of the hands who have been “freed”
from farming, that room could be found in local industry:

            _Percentage of “horseless.”_  _Households engaged in industry._
  Ranenburg              36                               9
  Dankoff                34                               8.5

The ranks of the rural proletarians, who had no working horses with
which to carry on their farming, grew four times as fast as rural
industry, though it might be expected that the latter would have been
fostered by low wages. The example of the quarries in the bailiwick
Ostrokamenskaya, District of Dankoff, can be used to make the matter
plain.

About fifty men are engaged there in breaking stone, and working it
into millstones. Some of them work in small partnerships, and sell the
stone to middle men; some are in the employ of petty contractors.
A rent of 25.00 per head is levied by the owner of the place; the
net income of an independent worker is from 75.00 to 100.00 for the
summer, which is more than the income in any other trade. The hired
workman, however, is paid only from 35.00 to 60.00, the profit of
the entrepreneur amounting to 47-66 per cent. in a season. Where
the product of a man’s semi-annual labor sells for 125 rubles, no
mechanical improvements could make the commodity cheaper. So long
as ten per cent. a month can be made by the petty employer, at a
practically nominal outlay of money, he will successfully compete
with big capitalistic enterprises. Indeed, we see that five men are
about the average number of workers employed in any one concern.[83]
There are, certainly, a few capitalistic concerns: distilleries, sugar
factories, steam flour mills, coal mines. A railway line is crossing
the district, and employs some of the peasants. But here, as elsewhere,
the proletarian is beaten on the labor market by the farmer.

In distilleries a farmer can be got to work in winter merely for mash,
which is used as fodder for his cattle. Money wages naturally oscillate
between the very modest limits of 5.00 and 9.00 a month, out of which
the workingman must board at his own expense. In sugar factories the
wages are between 6 and 8 rubles a month in winter, _i. e._ between
$0.75 and $1.00 a week![84]

It follows from what has been here shown that it is only the farmer who
can get along with the rates paid in rural industry. The peasant who
is unable to farm could hardly eke out an existence. He has the choice
either of becoming a pauper[85] or of leaving his village.




CHAPTER VIII.

THE RURAL SURPLUS POPULATION.


The movement of population away from the rural districts, which is an
economic law in capitalistic countries, plays a very conspicuous part
in modern Russian economy.

Colonization of the border districts and periodical migration in quest
of work, are tending to absorb the natural increase of the peasant
population:

  +----------+--------------------------+------------------------+
  |          |                          |Ratio to the respective |
  |          |Ratio to the population of|groups of the population|
  |          |           1858.          |        of 1882.        |
  |          |         Per cent.        |        Per cent.       |
  |          +--------------+-----------+---------+--------------+
  |Districts.|              |Surplus of population| Adult males  |
  |          |  Emigration, |      in 1882.       |   working    |
  |          |  1858-1882.  +-----------+---------+outside, 1882.|
  |          |              |   Total.  |  Males. |              |
  +----------+--------------+-----------+---------+--------------+
  |Ranenburg |      10      |    30     |   23    |     20       |
  |Dankoff   |       9      |    26     |   22    |     21       |
  +----------+--------------+-----------+---------+--------------+

There is thus but a minor fraction of the surplus population that has
forever left the native village with the chance of settling somewhere
else as farmers.[86] It is still to agriculture that most of the
wandering peasantry are looking, not as farmers, however, but as wage
laborers, while a vast minority flock to the cities.[87]

As to this class of the peasantry, it is commonly regarded by the
Russian press as standing on the lowest round of the ladder of village
life. It does not seem generally to occur to the public mind that
a regular movement of the working population, like the movement of
mercury in the barometrical tube, has to select the line of least
resistance. Indeed, it is distinctly shown by comparison that the wages
are higher outside than within the village.

                                      _Local._              _Abroad._
    _Branches._                _Minimum._ _Maximum._  _Minimum._ _Maximum._

  I. _Agriculture._

  Per summer, board provided
    by the employer.
  Farm help                      25.00      35.00        40.00      60.00
  Ranchmen in the south                                  50.00     100.00

  II. _Trade and service._
  Per month, no board extra.      7.00      15.00        10.00      18.00

  III. _Capitalistic industry._
  Per month, no board extra.
  Factory hands, in winter        5.00       9.00
  Factory hands through the year                         10.00      18.00
  Turf cutters in summer                                 15.00      25.00
  Coal miners, in winter, etc.    8.00      13.00        24.00      37.00

Difference of wages stimulates the movement, which when once started in
a village, goes on at an ever increasing rate.[88]

This rural surplus population, nominally counted as peasant
proprietors, is in reality even now severing the bond that has hitherto
linked it to its birthplace. Those who year after year spend the
summers as farm-laborers in the South or in the East have already said
farewell to farming.[89] The case of artisans who leave the village for
the summer season is similar. A peasant who has given up his farming
for the sake of working outside has very little to gain by returning
for the winter, when the supply of labor in the village far exceeds
the demand. After a time some of them move their families to the place
in which they have found employment, and part with the old homestead
forever.

Those who are employed in factories, in St. Petersburg and Moscow, in
coal mines and in railroad service, may have started by spending only
their winter leisure in town. But imagine the position of the peasant
who manages to put aside, out of his four rubles a week, from 50 to 70
rubles a year to send home.[90] To such a man the attraction of a large
capitalistic concern running winter and summer, is one that will hold
him captive for years.

How far this estrangement of the peasant from his native village has
gone, can be learned from the following figures:[91]

  +-----------+----------------+---------------------------------+
  |           |Outside workers.|        Permanently absent.      |
  |           +----------+-----+------+--------+--------+--------+
  |           |Households|     |House-| Male   | House- | Male   |
  |           |   with.  |Male.|holds.|workers.| holds. |workers.|
  | Districts.+----------+-----+------+--------+--------+--------+
  |           |   Percentage within the total  |Percentage within|
  |           |            population.         |   the class of  |
  |           |                                | outside workers.|
  +-----------+----------+-----+------+--------+--------+--------+
  |Youkhnoff  |    57    |  52 |   7  |    6   |   13   |   11   |
  |Dorogobouzh|    16    |  14 |   5  |    4   |   32   |   26   |
  +-----------+----------+-----+------+--------+--------+--------+

The ownership of a home holds the peasant fast to his village even
after he has already abandoned farming.[92] The peasant however, who is
year by year employed far away from home, has settled, through the sale
of his house, his account with the old village.[93]

We have here consequently an indication of the recent growth of
Russia’s town proletariat.




CHAPTER IX.

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY.


The Russian village community, as has been stated above, was a
compound integer of which the unit was the communistic household.
The individualistic tendency of the economic evolution after the
emancipation did not fail to affect this cell of archaic communism. The
dissolution of the compound family became the evil of the day within
the village, and the most warmly discussed topic both in literature
and in administrative circles. The peasantist regarded the decline of
the “pillars”[94] of Archaic communism with the deepest regret. “_O
tempora, o mores!_” clamored the bureaucrat, indignant at the spirit
of “disobedience to the elder” which was permeating the village. Of
greater importance, perhaps, was the perfectly justified apprehension
as to whether the dissolution of the peasant family might not have
an injurious effect upon the taxpaying power of the household. It
might be questioned by individualists whether the peasant, as a human
being, was necessarily to be guided in his domestic life solely by
regard for the public purse, but from the standpoint of Russian public
law, such objections do not hold water. To use an analogy, the stock
farmer, when mating his animals, does not take in consideration the
possible condition of their mutual affection, his object being solely
the maintenance and improvement of the breed. Is not the wise ruler
the shepherd of his human flock? Thus about 1885[95] a law was passed
forbidding the “self-willed” division of the compound family without
due authorization by the village assembly, whose resolutions are
subject to the control of the officers of the State.

This new dictate of paternalism has certainly caused much annoyance
in the village, and it must unquestionably have failed in achieving
the desired end. The matter has been excellently elucidated by Mr.
Gleb Oospensky, one of Russia’s foremost writers, as well as by Mrs.
Epheemenko and Prof. Engelhardt.

So long as the occupations of all the members of the family were
identical, the tie of co-operation bound them closely together. The
income of the family, due to their collective labor, constituted
accordingly their collective property. The authority of the “major” of
the household was respected on the ground of his greater experience,
which comes with age, as well as of his administrative ability.[96]
When altered circumstances forced the family to look for its income to
a variety of sources, the basis of the ancient household received a
fatal shock. The carpenter who worked all through the summer in some
far distant town was no longer an active member of the agricultural
co-operative circle. On the other hand, his income being greater than
that of his elder brother who was still employed as a farm laborer in
the neighborhood, the spirit of individualism revolted against the old
communistic rule. The age-long despotism of the elder over the younger
members of the family became unendurable. The women, who had to suffer
most, were the champions in this “fight for individuality.”[97] The
head of the family could oppose no moral authority to this spirit of
“disregard of age,” inasmuch as, with all his agricultural experience,
he had nothing to say in industry. Thus the growing economic
differentiation within the family made its dissolution into separate
couples unavoidable.

This presentation of the case, made as the result of individual
observation, was fully proved by the figures subsequently collected by
the statisticians.

This is the comparative membership _per_ household before, and a
quarter of a century after, the emancipation, and the distribution of
the peasantry according to the membership of the several families:

  +-----------------+---------------------------------------+
  |                 |          Gubernia of Ryazañ.          |
  |I. To one family +-------------------+-------------------+
  | upon an average.|    Ranenburg.     |    Dankoff.       |
  |                 +----+----+---------+----+----+---------+
  |                 |1858|1882|Decrease.|1858|1882|Decrease.|
  +-----------------+----+----+---------+----+----+---------+
  |Total membership | 9.7| 6.4|   3.3   | 9.7| 6.4|   3.3   |
  |Male workers[98] | 2.2| 1.5|   ..    | 2.2| 1.5|   ..    |
  +-----------------+----+----+---------+----+----+---------+
  |                 |          Gubernia of Voronezh.        |
  |I. To one family +-------------------+-------------------+
  | upon an average.|     Korotoyak.    |   Nizhnedevitzk.  |
  |                 +----+----+---------+----+----+---------+
  |                 |1858|1887|Decrease.|1858|1887|Decrease.|
  +-----------------+----+----+---------+----+----+---------+
  |Total membership |10.3| 7.3|   3.0   |11.4| 7.8|   3.6   |
  |Male workers[98] | 2.1| 1.7|   ..    | 2.6| 1.8|   ..    |
  +-----------------+----+----+---------+----+----+---------+

  +----------------------+------------------------------------------------+
  |                      |            Gubernia of Voronezh.               |
  |                      +----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
  |II. Classification of |Korotoyak.|             |Korotoyak. |           |
  |  the families to-day |          Nizhnedevitzk.|         Nizhnedevitzk.|
  |  (1887).             +----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
  |                      |          |             |  Average  |  Average  |
  |                      | Per cent.|  Per cent.  |membership.|membership.|
  +----------------------+----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
  |                      |          |             |           |           |
  |Without adult workers.|    5     |    4        |    3.0    |    3.9    |
  |Having 1 adult worker.|   46}    |   44}       |    5.4    |    5.7    |
  |  ”    2   ”  workers.|   30} 76 |   32} 76    |    7.8    |    8.1    |
  |  ”    3 or more adult|          |             |           |           |
  |              workers.|   19     |   20        |   12.2    |   12.3    |
  +----------------------+----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+

  +---------------------------------------+--------------------+
  |                                       | Gubernia of Ryazañ.|
  |II (continued). Classification of the  +----------+---------+
  |       families to-day (1882).         |Ranenburg,|Dankoff, |
  |                                       |per cent. |per cent.|
  +---------------------------------------+----------+---------+
  |Without adult workers                  |    7     |   7     |
  |Having 1 adult worker                  |   42}    |  43}    |
  |  ”    from 1-2 adult workers inclusive|   32} 74 |  31} 74 |
  |  ”      ”  2-3   ”     ”         ”    |   13}    |  13}    |
  |  ”    above 3    ”     ”         ”    |    6} 19 |   6} 19 |
  +---------------------------------------+----------+---------+

In 1858 the average family had from two to three adult male workers
above the age of 18, while in 1882 it had only from one to two male
workers. This shows that before the emancipation the compound family,
consisting either of the father and his married sons, or of married
brothers, was the rule. To-day the typical family is represented either
by a young couple with little children, or by the father and his boys
below 18, who are counted only as “half-workers,” or finally by the
father and one of his adult sons. In all, the family has decreased
by from three to four persons. It points out plainly that separation
of the younger couple from the old stock is already an accomplished
fact.[99] That this individualistic tendency develops as outside jobs
gain in importance in the household economy is shown by the following
figures:

  +-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
  |                         |       Korotoyak.    |    Nizhnedevitzk.   |
  |                         +----------+----------+----------+----------+
  |                         |Percentage|Percentage|Percentage|Percentage|
  |       Households.       | of male  |    of    | of male  |    of    |
  |                         |hands (of | families |hands (of | families |
  |                         | any age) |separated | any age) |separated |
  |                         |taking to |1878-1887.|taking to |1878-1887.|
  |                         |  jobs.   |          |   jobs.  |          |
  +-------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
  |With 1 adult male worker |   52     |   44     |    67    |    44    |
  |With 2 adult male workers|   39     |   31     |    47    |    40    |
  |With 3 or more adult     |   36     |   24     |    34    |    28    |
  |     male workers        |          |          |          |          |
  +-------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

The rate of separated families increases with the percentage of wage
laborers. It is by wage laborers that most of the households of the
modern type (with one adult male) have been started, while within the
patriarchal household about two-thirds of its labor forces are applied
to farming.

The dissolution of the old household was of the greatest economic
consequence, parcellation of the soil being its necessary result:

  -----------+------+-----------+---------------------+--------------------
             |Per-  |Average    |                     |Families separated
             |cent- |membership |     Households.     |from +--------------
             |age   |of 1 family+-----+----+----+-----+1877 | Landholding
             |to the|    +------+With-|With|With|With | to  |(dessiatines.)
             |total |    |Adult |out  | 1  | 2  | 3   |1887.+------+-------
  Classes and|of    |    |male  |     |    |    | or  |     |      |To 1
   Districts.|house-|    workers|     |    |    |more |     |To one|adult
             |holds.|    |to 1  |adult male worker(s).|     |house-|male
             +------+    |family+-----+----+----+-----+-----+hold  |worker
             |Per   |    upon an|                     |Per  |   upon an
             |cent. |    average|      Per cent.      |cent.|   average.
  -----------+------+----+------+-----+----+----+-----+-----+------+-------
  Korotoyak: |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
             |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  Tenure,    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  less       |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  than 5     |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  dessiatines|   14 | 4.0| 1.0  |  12 | 80 |  7 |   1 |  46 |  4.1 |  4.2
             |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  Tenure,    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  from       |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  5 to 15    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  dessiatines|   50 | 5.3| 1.5  |   3 | 55 | 34 |   8 |  38 | 10.5 |  7.1
             |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  Tenure,    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  from       |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  15 to 25   |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  dessiatines|   25 | 9.1| 2.1  |   1 | 27 | 40 |  32 |  31 | 19.7 |  9.3
             |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  Tenure,    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  above 25   |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  dessiatines|    9 |13.5| 3.1  |  .. |  9 | 25 |  66 |  24 | 35.6 | 11.6
  -----------+------+----+------+-----+----+----+-----+-----+------+-------
      Total  |   98 | 7.4| 1.7  |   5 | 46 | 30 |  19 |  36 | 14.2 |  7.9
  -----------+------+----+------+-----+----+----+-----+-----+------+-------
  Nizhnedevitsk:    |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
             |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  Tenure,    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  less       |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  than 5     |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  dessiatines|   17 | 4.6| 1.1  |   9 | 74 | 13 |   4 |  50 |  3.7 |  3.3
             |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  Tenure,    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  from       |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  5 to 15    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  dessiatines|   51 | 6.7| 1.6  |   3 | 50 | 37 |  10 |  41 | 10.3 |  6.5
             |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  Tenure,    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  from       |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  15 to 25   |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  dessiatines|   23 | 9.9| 2.2  |   1 | 24 | 38 |  37 |  33 | 19.4 |  8.5
             |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  Tenure,    |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  above 25   |      |    |      |     |    |    |     |     |      |
  dessiatines|    8 |15.0| 3.4  |  .. |  7 | 21 |  72 |  24 | 36.6 |  9.2
  -----------+------+----+------+-----+----+----+-----+-----+------+-------
    Total    |   99 | 7.8| 1.8  |   4 | 44 | 32 |  20 |  39 | 13.5 |  7.2
  -----------+------+----+------+-----+----+----+-----+-----+------+-------

We notice that the greater the percentage of separations during the
period from 1877 to 1887, the smaller the average plot per family and
per worker, and _vice versâ_. About one-half of the households whose
plots are the smallest, are those who have separated in the course of
the last ten years and have as a rule only one worker. On the other
hand, the largest plots, absolutely and relatively, are held by the
compound families of the old stamp, of whom only about one-quarter
have undergone division during the last decade.[100]

Furthermore we find a certain percentage of the village community
absolutely without any land: Thus we have--

                       Per cent.
  In Ranenburg           4
  In Dankoff             4
  In Korotoyak           1.7
  In Nizhnedevitsk       0.5

This new class of the peasantry owes its existence solely to the
division of the family:

      _Landless households._     _Korotoyak._  _Nizhnedevitsk._
  Without male worker             260          69
  With 1 male worker               58          42
  With 2 male workers              12           6
  With 3 or more male workers       5           2
                                 ----        ----
        Total                     335         119

  Above the age of 60--
    Males                          31           8
    Females                        68          14
                                 ----        ----
        Difference, females        37           6

  In the age from 18 to 60--
    Males                     113    68
    Females                   382   149
                             ----    --
        Difference, females   269    81

  Males between 18 and 60--
    With physical defects       6     7

It might be supposed that landlessness was connected mainly with old
age, widowhood, orphanry, and bodily defects (blindness, lameness,
_etc._). Yet such, what we may call, biological phenomena will carry
with them consequences that vary according to the social institutions
of the time. The patriarchal family was not destroyed by the death
of one of its male members. His widow and orphans belonged, in some
analogy with the Roman family, not to the husband, but to the household
as a whole. It was no unusual thing for a widowed daughter-in-law to
be given in marriage to an outsider with the purpose of introducing a
new male worker into the coöperative body in the place of the deceased
member. Similarly the other members remained until death in their
family. It was only after the dissolution of the patriarchal household
that the feeble and helpless began to figure as a distinct group in
village life.

On the other hand the division of the original household and of its lot
in the communal land necessarily resulted in a decrease of the live
stock belonging to each family, and consequently in a decrease of its
agricultural efficiency.

This is shown by the following tables:

I. HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF ADULT MALE WORKERS.

  +----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
  |                |       Classes of Households (per cent.).        |
  |                +-----------------------------+-------------------+
  |                |  With regard to the number  |With regard to the |
  |D. of Korotoyak.|          of horses.         |size of the farms. |
  |                +------+------+-------+-------+------+------+-----+
  |                |Horse-|  1   |2 or 3 |   4   |Less  |From 5|Above|
  |                |less. |horse.|horses.|or more|than 5|to 15 | 15  |
  |                |      |      |       |horses.|    dessiatines.   |
  +----------------+------+------+-------+-------+------+------+-----+
  |Without workers |   60 |  29  |  11   |  ..   |  61  |  33  |  6  |
  |With 1 worker   |   20 |  46  |  33   |   1   |  25  |  59  | 16  |
  |With 2 workers  |    6 |  28  |  61   |   5   |   3  |  56  | 41  |
  |With 3 or more  |      |      |       |       |      |      |     |
  |  workers       |    1 |  10  |  62   |  27   |   1  |  22  | 77  |
  +----------------+------+------+-------+-------+------+------+-----+
  |    Total       |   13 |  32  |  48   |   7   |  15  |  50  | 35  |
  +----------------+------+------+-------+-------+------+------+-----+

II. HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF HORSES RAISED.

  +----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
  |                |       Classes of Households (per cent.).        |
  |                +-----------------------------+-------------------+
  |                |  With regard to the number  |With regard to the |
  |D. of Korotoyak.|         of workers.         |size of the farms. |
  |                +------+------+-------+-------+------+------+-----+
  |                |      |      |       |       |Less  |From 5|Above|
  |                |None. | One. |  Two. |Three. |than 5|to 15 | 15  |
  |                |      |      |       |       |    dessiatines.   |
  +----------------+------+------+-------+-------+------+------+-----+
  |Horseless       |  17  |  68  |  13   |   2   |  49  |  43  |  8  |
  |With 1 horse    |   3  |  63  |  28   |   6   |  20  |  65  | 15  |
  |With 2 horses   |}  1  |  31  |  41   |  27  {|   6  |  55  | 39  |
  |With 3 horses   |}     |      |       |      {|   2  |  32  | 66  |
  |With 4 or more  |      |      |       |       |      |      |     |
  |  horses        |      |   7  |  22   |  71   |   1  |  18  | 81  |
  +----------------+------+------+-------+-------+------+------+-----+
  |    Total       |   5  |  46  |  30   |  19   |  15  |  50  | 35  |
  +----------------+------+------+-------+-------+------+------+-----+

The highest class in regard to the ownership of live stock is composed
chiefly of the households of the old type that number at least three
male workers, and whose shares in the communal land exceed the average.

The households of the new type consisting of two adult male workers are
provided in the majority of cases with two working horses; but there is
a very notable minority which is gradually falling into the lower group
with only one working horse to a household.

Finally even that level appears to be too high for the households
in which there is only one male worker. Only the minority of such
households are in the position to keep up at least two working horses;
the great majority have either one horse or none, and _vice versâ_: the
groups with one horse or without horses are made up mainly of those
households with only one adult male worker, their plots only very
seldom exceeding the average, or even falling short of the average.

Now, without a horse there can be no farming; and a household with only
one horse is liable to go down in the long run.[101] Still these two
groups cover at least one-half of the peasantry of to-day.[102] Thus
the dissolution of the old peasant family sapped the productive forces
of the peasantry at large and prompted the liquidation of independent
farming with a considerable minority of the householders. A distinct
group of the village is formed to-day by those peasants who for want
of live stock with which to till their plots, are compelled either
to hire their neighbors to do the work, or to lease their plots and
consequently to stop their farming altogether. The bulk of this class
is made up of those families in which there is only one adult male
worker.[103] Lack of land, lack of live stock and lack of labor power,
make it by no means an easy task for a “singleton” to carry on farming,
and a good many must needs fail.

It becomes plain that small peasant agriculture, based on the labor of
the farmer alone, could stand only as long as its basis, the compound
coöperative family, held together. The previous economic evolution has
demonstrated that the co-operation of three adult workers is required
upon an average to constitute a stable peasant household. As the
progress of individualism will not stop in presence of the survivals
of the patriarchal compound family, so the lacking labor force will
have to be supplied by hire. The dissolution of the patriarchal family
brings forth, of necessity, the employing farmer.

The characteristic feature of this class is that the employer is still
the tiller of the soil. The laborer is hired only to help the farmer in
his work, the average number of laborers employed varying between one
and two to one household, so as to constitute the required coöperation
of three working men.[104]

For the present this class appears but in small numbers in the Russian
village,[105] and this obviously accounts for the little attention paid
to the employing farmer in Russian literature, even in the statistical
investigations. Still the need of hired labor increases on the larger
farms[106] with the division of the compound family, as can be seen
from the following table:

  ----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------
                              |     Korotoyak.      |    Nizhnedevitzk.
                              +----------+----------+----------+----------
                              |Households|Households|Households|Households
       Extent of the farm.    |with 3,   |with 2,   |with 3,   |with 2,
                              |or more,  |or less,  |or more,  |or less,
                              |workers.  |workers.  |workers.  |workers.
  ----------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------
  Above 25 dessiatines:--     |          |          |          |
  _a._ Employing farmers      |    54    |    46    |    53    |    47
       (total = 100)          |          |          |          |
  _b._ Non-employing farmers  |    66    |    34    |    74    |    26
       (total = 100)          |          |          |          |
                              |          |          |          |
  From 15 to 25 dessiatines:--|          |          |          |
  _a._ Employing farmers      |    21    |    79    |    31    |    69
       (total = 100)          |          |          |          |
  _b._ Non-employing farmers  |    31    |    69    |    36    |    64
       (total = 100)          |          |          |          |
  ----------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------

As the dissolution of the patriarchal family is going on at a
progressive rate,[107] it follows that the class of employing
farmers is on the rise. The farmer’s own family, supplemented by the
assistance of one or two permanent wage-laborers, is the coming type of
agricultural coöperation, which is destined to take the place of the
natural family coöperation.




CHAPTER X.

THE MODERN AGRICULTURAL CLASSES.


The existence of the employer presupposes his correlative, the
employee. Thus we are brought close to the fact that there have arisen
opposite social classes within the village community.

It must be borne in mind, however, that the lines between the classes
in the Russian village are as yet far from being as sharply drawn as
in countries with developed capitalism. It would seem that laborers
permanently employed outside of their farms must unquestionably be
classed among the proletarians. And yet we find the majority of them
maintaining the standard of farmers.[108] This is due to the existence
of the compound family, the average household numbering two adult male
workers, which enables one of them to carry on farming, while the
other is employed outside.[109] Only the minority of the households in
question that have only one adult worker, and accordingly we find that
independent farming has been given up only by the minority of those
householders who are permanently employed as farm laborers.[110] These
are the genuine rural proletarians with whom the earnings from wage
labor constitute the main source of income. Still they are landholders,
and inasmuch as they have no live stock of their own, their plots are
tilled chiefly by means of wage labor:

  +--------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
  |                                |   Korotoyak.   | Nizhnedevitsk. |
  | Farm laborers whose plots are  +--------+-------+--------+-------+
  |                                | House- | Per   | House- | Per   |
  |                                | holds. | cent. | holds. | cent. |
  +--------------------------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+
  | Tilled by hired laborers       |  371   |   64  |  237   |   66  |
  | Leased                         |  205   |   36  |  124   |   34  |
  +--------------------------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+
  |     In all                     |  576   |  100  |  361   |  100  |
  +--------------------------------+--------+-------+--------+-------+

Thus we have the very peculiar economic type of a wage-laborer who
is at the same time employer of wage labor. It is obvious that the
characteristics of a modern European proletarian could not properly be
extended to the Russian agricultural laborer.

Class distinctions are very easily perceived, of course, when the
classes have already ripened to a certain degree. In the embryonic
stage, the true tendency of the development going on is disguised by
the many transitional forms combining the characteristic features of
opposite classes. The peasantist of “the seventies,” whose opinions
were influenced by European socialism, had no idea of class antagonism
within the ranks of the peasantry themselves, regarding it as confined
entirely to the “exploiter”--_kulak_ or _miroyed_[111]--and his victim,
the peasant imbued with the communistic spirit.[112]

The statisticians necessarily started in their investigations with
preconceived ideas respecting the uniformity of the peasantry[113]
as a class, except in so far as legal discriminations had to be
taken into account. The study of the facts brought them subsequently
to a recognition of the true position, and in some of the later
_Reports_ attempts were made to arrange the data according to class
distinctions. The main difficulty in the question is as to what
proof should be selected for classification. The characteristics of
employer and employee would cover only a minor part of the peasantry
of to-day,[114] not to speak of a certain vagueness of the terms, as
explained above. Mr. Shtcherbina, Superintendent of the Statistical
Department of Voronezh, has classified the peasants according to: 1,
the size of their farms, 2, the quantity of stock raised, 3, the number
of adult male workers to a household, and 4, to the occupation by which
they supplement the insufficient income derived from their plots. The
households are accordingly scheduled into 320 minute sections, so as to
afford the opportunity of subsequently combining them into wider social
classes.

We shall divide the peasantry into three main classes:

I. Those whose income from farming is sufficient to meet all the
expenses of the household (taxes included), so as to obviate any need
of wage earnings.

Households that pay their expenses by the income from commercial or
industrial enterprises and draw a net profit from agriculture, are also
included in that class.

II. Farmers who are at the same time wage laborers, either in
agriculture, or in industry.

III. Proletarians, _i. e._ those who stopped working on their plots and
earn their living exclusively by means of wage labor.

Let us examine these classes in detail.

_Ad I._ Combine all merely agricultural groups in which the income
from farming exceeds the expenses of housekeeping, taxes and rent,
and in which, furthermore, all the householders cultivate their plots
with their own stock and implements. The results are presented in the
following tables:

_1. Balance Sheet._

  _Households, 1501, D. of Korotoyak._          _Receipts._   _Expenses._
                                                 _Rubles._     _Rubles._

  Gross income from farming                       185171
  Expenses of housekeeping                                       77004
  Rent                                                           33000
  Taxes                                                          59094
                                                  ------        ------
  Total                                           185171        169098
  Net profit                                                     16073
                                                  ------        ------
                                                  185171        185171
  Net profit to 1 household upon an average                      10.70

_2. Land to 1 farm._

                              _Households,
                               Per cent._
  From 5 to 15 dessiatines         5
  From 15 to 25 dessiatines       72
  Above 25 dessiatines            23
                                 ---
                       Total     100

_3. Live stock to 1 farm._

                              _Households,
                               Per cent._
  1 horse                          1
  2 horses[115]                   42
  3 horses[115]                   38
  4 or more                       19
                                 ---
                       Total     100

The requirements for a “strong” household, as evidenced by the
above tables, are as follows: 1, a farm exceeding in size fifteen
dessiatines, _i. e._ one of above the average size; 2, at least two
working horses.

Guided by these principles, we obtain the following table comprising
all the householders of the class in question, in the district of
Korotoyak:

                                           _In the class._ _In the district
                                                               at large._

  Total households                               1999           20282

    _Membership of an average household:_
  Males and females                              10.1             7.3
  Adult male work                                 2.1             1.7
  Half-workers                                    0.6             0.4

    _Landholding:_
  Communal land (dessiatines)--
    _a._ To 1 adult male worker                  11.5             8.3
    _b._ To 1 household                          24.4            14.2
  Rented land, to 1 household (dessiatines)       5.1             4.2
  Horses, to 1 household                          2.7             1.8
  Gross income from farming minus expenses,
    taxes, rent and wages paid:
    to 1 household, rubles                       +2.09          -26.97

  Households classified with regard to--

    _Labor forces:_                            _Per cent._    _Per cent._
  Having 1 adult male worker                      29             47
  Having 2 adult male workers                     41 }           30 }
  Having 3 adult male workers                     30 } 71        19 } 49
                                                 ---            ---
          Total                                  100             96

    _Landholding:_
  Owning from 15 to 25 dessiatines                72             25
  Owning above 25 dessiatines                     28              9
                                                 ---            ---
          Total                                  100             34

  Tenants of rented land                          54             42

    _Live stock:_
  Keeping 2 horses                                45             33
  Keeping 3 horses                                38             16
  Keeping 4 or more horses                        17              7
                                                 ---            ---
          Total                                  100             56

The class in question occupies the top of the village. It owes its
economic independence to the fact that the majority of the households
represent a co-operation of at least two adult male workers, assisted
by half-workers, as well as to the favorable circumstance that the
size of the farm exceeds by about one-half, relatively to the number
of workers, the average in the district. The number of working horses
is accordingly increased in the same ratio, three horses constituting
about the average to a farm, while about one half of the households at
large fall short of even the average two to a farm.

Another branch of the same class is formed by those householders
with whom trade and commerce are as important a source of revenue as
agriculture, as shown by the balance below:

DISTRICT OF KOROTOYAK.

  +---------------------------+------------+---------+---------+--------+
  |          Items.           |Households, |Receipts.|Expenses.|Balance.|
  |                           |or concerns.| Rubles. | Rubles. |Rubles. |
  +---------------------------+------------+---------+---------+--------+
  |Gross income from sale of  |            |         |         |        |
  |  produce                  |    1366    |  211237 |         |        |
  |Taxes                      |            |         |   48626 |        |
  |Rent                       |            |         |   79550 |        |
  |Wages paid                 |            |         |   16113 |        |
  |                           +------------+---------+---------+--------+
  |  All to farming           |            |  211237 |  144289 | +66948 |
  |Gross income from trade    |            |         |         |        |
  |  and commerce             |    1384    |  230527 |         |        |
  |Expenses of housekeeping   |            |         |  171705 |        |
  |                           +------------+---------+---------+--------+
  |  All to trade and commerce|            |  230527 |  171705 | +58822 |
  |                           +------------+---------+---------+--------+
  |      Total                |    1366    |  441864 |  315994 |+125770 |
  |Net profit to 1 household  |            |         |         |   9207 |
  +---------------------------+------------+---------+---------+--------+

The net profit drawn from trade and commerce enables these householders
to enlarge their farming, with the exception of a very small minority
who have devoted themselves entirely to trade, and do not turn to
farming.[116] The economic level of this section is shown in the
following table:

                                _Average size _Land rented (by _Tenants (in
  _Class I., D. of Korotoyak._   of a farm,     1 household)     every 100
                                dessiatines._   dessiatines_  households)._
  Farmers merely                   24.4             5.1             54
  Traders                          21.9            11.4             73
                                   ----            ----             --
      In the district at large     14.2             4.2             42

Concentration of the communal land proves to be the general basis of
the economic welfare of the class under consideration.[117] Under the
rule of the _mir_ a large farm means a strong patriarchal family; the
preservation of the latter is equally characteristic of the trader as
of the mere farmers of the class, and appears to be even somewhat more
pronounced among the former than among the latter.[118]

On the other hand, farming with the help of hired labor has enormously
advanced among this section of the village community; it may be said
that the employing farmer is a member of this progressive class _par
excellence_.[119] The growth of this form of agricultural coöperation
is going on within the class under consideration keeping pace with the
dissolution of the patriarchal family.[120]

_Ad III._ The rural proletariat is generally marked by the absence of
live stock to till the land with.[121] The class in question is formed
of those peasants whom it did not pay to work on their farms, in view
of the scarcity of the same.

Nearly one-half of the class are landless or own less than five
dessiatines, the percentage of such households being three times
greater than among the peasantry at large. Only a very small minority
are in the possession of plots exceeding the average, the percentage
being three times less than among the peasants at large. On the whole,
a holding of a proletarian is half the average in the district.[122]

This is the immediate result of the complete dissolution of the
patriarchal family among the village proletariat, the bulk of the
latter consisting of families with only one adult male worker.[123]

Having failed as farmers, one-half have become farm laborers, the rest
are employed in industry, or have no steady employment at all.[124]
With all of them, wages are the chief means of livelihood.[125] The
income from their farms is of secondary importance. The gross receipts
from sale of produce are absorbed by the taxes.[126] Still the produce
of the farm is partly consumed in kind and may serve to supply the
owner with some of the necessaries of life.[127] In fact, it proves
profitable for the village proletarian to cultivate his plot with the
help of hired labor; accordingly, the majority of the proletarians of
the Russian villages are not only employees, but also employers at the
same time.[128] As yet there is but a small fraction of the village
that has evolved into the condition of proletarians proper, whose only
economic interest is that of wage labor.[129]

_Ad II._ The mean between both extremes, _i. e._ between the
independent farmers and the proletarian laborers, is occupied by a
transitional class who are farmers and wage laborers at once.

The soil being tilled by its owner’s labor, the farmer is supposed to
raise live stock. We remember that two horses to a farm is the minimum
required to constitute a strong household, the normal approaching three
horses upon an average. The proletarians, as a rule, have no horses.
The transitional class under consideration is characterized by the
ownership of from one to two horses.[130]

Within this class a further distinction is to be made as between (A),
those with whom outside earnings are to cover only a small deficit
in their farming, and (B), those with whom wage labor has become as
important a source of income as farming:

  +----------------------+------------+------------------------+
  |                      |            |Income from wage labor. |
  |                      |Income from +---------+--------------+
  |District of Korotoyak,| farming,   |         |To 1 household|
  |      Class II.       | per cent.  |Per cent.|  per year,   |
  |                      |            |         |   rubles.    |
  +----------------------+------------+---------+--------------+
  |Section _A_           |     92     |     8   |     6.39     |
  |Section _B_           |     50     |    50   |    50.47     |
  +----------------------+------------+---------+--------------+

Small as the deficit of agriculture is in Section _A_, still it is
the first step down of the lately independent farmer. The comparison
between this section and the farmer pure and simple of Class I brings
out the unmistakable reason: the deficit begins with the dissolution
of the patriarchal family.[131] The absolute and relative size of the
farm owned by a divided family with only one male worker cannot compare
with that of a patriarchal household[132]. The single worker keeps only
very seldom above the average; in the long run he is liable to turn to
some wage-paying occupation, that is to say, to pass into the section
adjoining the proletarians.

This wing of the transitional class seems to show even a somewhat
greater strength of farming than the upper section just described.[133]
It must be, however, placed at a lower degree of the scale, inasmuch
as, in the first place, the relative income per adult male worker is
below that of Section _A_,[134] and, in the second place, its higher
absolute level of agriculture is not of long duration. In reality, it
is due to the fact that the compound family still prevails in Section
_B_, while it is about to disappear in Section _A_.[135] The existence
of the compound family enables some of its workers to carry on farming,
while others are employed outside.[136] With the division of the
family, which, as we know, is only a question of time, a number of
householders will be compelled to stop farming. Such are in the first
place those employed yearly or during the summer as farm laborers. At
present they number as follows:

        _Households._                         _Households._

  With 1 adult male worker     649  With 2 or more adult male workers  1242
  “Horseless”                  568  With 1 horse or more               1323
  Stopped tilling their plots  576  Tilling their plots                1315

The “single” householders permanently employed as farm laborers have
in most cases stopped working on their plots. The separation of the
remaining 1242 compound householders would swell the proletarian class
by nearly as many families, which would constitute an increase of the
proletariat by forty-five per cent.

After having examined in detail the several classes of the village, let
us sum up their characteristic features in one schedule, to show the
tendency of the evolution going on:

  +--------------------------+------+------------------------------------+
  |                          |      |      Average membership per        |
  |                          |House-|          household.                |
  |Classes.                  |holds,+---------+--------+--------+--------+
  |                          |per   |Males and|Full    |Half-   |Total   |
  |                          |cent. |female.  |workers.|workers.|workers.|
  +--------------------------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
  |  I. Agriculture yielding |      |         |        |        |        |
  |     net profit:          |      |         |        |        |        |
  |      Trading farmers     |   6  |  10.5   |  2.4   |  0.6   |  3.0   |
  |      Farmers merely      |  10  |  10.1   |  2.1   |  0.6   |  2.7   |
  |                          +------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
  |         All to the class |  16  |  10.2   |  2.2   |  0.6   |  2.8   |
  | II. Agriculture leaving a|      |         |        |        |        |
  |     deficit:             |      |         |        |        |        |
  |      A. Farmers merely   |  20  |   6     |  1.3   |  0.3   |  1.6   |
  |      B. Farmers--laborers|  50  |   7.9   |  1.9   |  0.4   |  2.3   |
  |                          +------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
  |         All to the class |  70  |   7.4   |  1.7   |  0.4   |  2.1   |
  |III. Proletarians:        |      |         |        |        |        |
  |      Employing labor     |   9  |         |        |        |        |
  |      Proletarians proper |   5  |         |        |        |        |
  |                          +------+---------+--------+--------+--------+
  |         All to the class |  14  |   3.8   |  0.9   |  0.2   |  1.1   |
  +--------------------------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------+

We find a clue to the coming development of the village in the fact
that the main classes within the peasantry correspond to the age of the
householders.

It is but the minority of old-fashioned compound families that have
stood their ground as virtual farmers; the middle economic group of the
village, is formed by “the middlers” _i. e._ the householders of middle
age, who count in their families half-workers or one adult worker
besides themselves. The proletarians are recruited from among the
youngest generations, who consist of husband and wife with their little
children.

Here we have the economic basis of the “struggle of generations” in the
village, a topic which was very much discussed in Russian literature.
The elders, the “middlers” and the young, represent the farmer of the
old stamp and strong make, the modern peasant,--half farmer, half
laborer at once,--and the proletarian, with their variance of views,
which mirrors their diverse and antagonistic economic interests.[137]




CHAPTER XI.

INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP AND AGRARIAN COMMUNISM.


Thus far we have seen the changes which the parcelling of soil wrought
in the constitution of the village population. We are now brought
face to face with the question of how small peasant landholding is
influenced by this parcelling.

In countries with individual property in land, the question is settled.
In Russia the case is complicated by the system of communal ownership
in land.

Yet the right of alienation, the main essential for the question at
issue, is inherent in quarterly possession on an equal footing with
private property. Thus we can avail ourselves of the opportunity for
comparative study.

Quite naturally, the distribution of land shows more irregularity under
quarterly possession than under agrarian communism.

  +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
  |                                | Quarterly | Agrarian  |
  |                                |possession.|communism. |
  |                                +-----------+-----------+
  |    Former state peasants.      |Dankoff and|  Zadonsk, |
  |                                | Ranenburg.|Gubernia of|
  |                                |           | Voronezh. |
  |                                | Per cent. | Per cent. |
  +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
  |  Households:                   |           |           |
  |Landless                        |     4     |      1    |
  |Owning less than 5 dessiatines  |    37     |     27    |
  |Owning more than 5 dessiatines  |    59     |     72    |
  |                                +-----------+-----------+
  |    Total                       |   100     |    100    |
  |                                +-----------+-----------+
  |    Average holding: dessiatines|   10.9    |    10.4   |
  +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+

The maximum extent of one quarterly holding exceeded ten times
the average. Under the rule of agrarian communism, where land is
periodically distributed _pro rata_, according to the membership of the
families, such extremes are quite impossible, so far as ownership is
concerned.

Let us compare further the number of the dispossessed under agrarian
communism and under quarterly possession:

  _Dankoff and Ranenburg:    _Landless.   _Emigrated.   _Total.
   Former state peasants._    Per cent._   Per cent._   Per cent._

  With quarterly possession      3            14           17
  With agrarian communism        1             9           10

It must be taken into account that the plots of the emigrants remain,
under agrarian communism, the property of the community, which is not
the case under any other form of possession that is at all analogous
to private property. Thus the rural community appears to be a fairly
efficient safety-valve against the expropriation of the poorest among
the peasantry. In reality, however, the influence of communal ownership
is merely formal. Communal land escapes from the hands of its titular
owners under the form of lease.

The communal land held under lease is now nearly equal in amount to
that leased by the peasants directly from the landlords.

         _Tenure from the landlords._  _Communal land in lease._
                _Dessiatines._         _Dessiatines._  _Per cent._

  Ranenburg        18044                   17060           10
  Dankoff          13792                    9846            7
  Zadonsk          12160                   11886            9
  Korotoyak        11815                   21695            8
  Nizhnedevitzk    13851                   18950            7

Furthermore, the figures show that only about one-fourth of the lessors
are regular farmers, cultivating their lots with their own horses and
implements, while about one-half have abandoned farming altogether:

                                   _Ranenburg.   _Dankoff.    _Zadonsk.
                                   Per cent._    Per cent._   Per cent._
  Leased: a part of the plot,
  the rest cultivated
    a) by the owner                    7             7            7
    b) with the aid of hired labor     6             6            5
                                      --            --           --
  The total plot                      12            11            8
        In all                        25            24           20

Now, it is only in a few cases that the lease of a part of the plot
is a proof of its extra size. As a rule, the plot is leased in part
by those who are unable to raise the quantity of live stock required
for the cultivation of their farms. The plots leased in full are the
smallest, which it would not pay to cultivate.[138]

It will be remembered[139] that the terms of the agreement include the
payment of the taxes with from one to three rubles yearly per plot for
the enjoyment of the owner. It is evident that lease on such terms
means practically expropriation of the owner.

Thus, under the rule of the _mir_, about one-fourth of the
householders, nominally counted among “peasant proprietors,” are on
the way toward expropriation, or have already become expropriated. As
to the lessees of the peasant plots, they must be at the top of the
tenant class,[140] by reason of the terms of lease. The landlord gives
the tenant credit for his rent, at least in part, till after harvest,
and, in case of need, part of the rent is permitted to be paid in
labor. The peasant lets his plot, either in full for the payment of
taxes, or in part, by reason of lack of money. In either case it must
be advanced in the fall. It is by no means unusual for the lease to be
contracted for a term of from six to twelve years,[141] the rent for
the whole being payable in advance. This is very often the case with
the plots of emigrants, leaving home for purposes of colonization,
and with those who are permanently employed outside. It goes without
saying that rent is advanced only at a considerable reduction of
the rates.[142] This difference gave rise to speculation in peasant
land. A hundred shares are leased by a wealthy peasant or merchant,
to be re-rented in the spring in small plots to the poorer among the
lessees.[143] The fact that alienability of the peasant land had
become a rule in the community, was first stated by Mr. Trirogoff as
far back as 1879.[144] The observer, however, was not aware of the
economic significance of the phenomenon when he advanced the opinion
that alienability of land exhibits the great capacity of adaptation
intrinsic in the community.

In reality the contrary is the case. The fact that communal land is
disposed of by private agreement, means the displacement of agrarian
communism by economic individualism. This was most strikingly
demonstrated when the question of the general redivision of the
communal land came up before the free _mir_ in the beginning of the
eighties.




CHAPTER XII.

THE REDIVISION OF THE COMMUNAL LAND.


Peasant Russia of the time of serfdom was a kind of a single tax realm.
Land was treated by the peasantry as the only source of taxable income.
Accordingly, the terms of the general subdivisions of the land were
adapted to the censuses (_revisions_), made by the government for the
assessment of the poll-tax, at average intervals of fifteen years.

The division of the nation into “taxable orders” and “privileged
orders” did not correspond to the new idea of equality before the law,
proclaimed by the reformers who surrounded Alexander II. A commission
was appointed in 1858 to consider the question of the repeal of the
poll-tax, and of a general reform in the financial system. After
twenty-five years of hard labor (very liberally remunerated, I feel
bound to state, to the credit of the government), the Commission
brought about the repeal of the poll-tax[145]. In the meantime the
censuses were held in abeyance, since they had for their sole purpose
the assessment of the tax. The general redivision was consequently
delayed. Wherever, and so long as the rent did not cover the taxes,
partial subdivisions took place yearly to readjust the assessment of
the taxes to the changed condition of the several tax-payers. Rise
of rent made the intervention of the community unnecessary, and the
practice of partial subdivisions fell into disuse. Yet, while at first
everybody had been anxious to be relieved from his share of land,
which imposed a heavy obligation upon the holder, everybody now became
eager for land, since it brought a certain income. Inequality of
landholding, which developed with the growth of population, produced
a keen antagonism within the village. About the time of the Ryazañ
census, in a few communities the strife was already over, having
resulted in the victory of the _mir_. But in the great majority the
controversy had just reached its climax.

In 6 bailiwicks (out of the 45), _i. e._ in 87 communities, a serious
obstacle to the subdivision arose from the lease of communal land.

A strong opposition was shown by the wealthy members of the community,
who held the lots of the emigrants, and of outside workers, for long
terms, and had advanced the rent for the whole period of lease. The
subdivision would necessarily have had the effect of rendering their
agreements void[146], while it would have been useless to have sued
the lessors[147]. The remedy lies in the fact that, under given
circumstances, the present law enables a small minority to put a stop
to the subdivision.

The resolution must be passed by a vote of two-thirds of the _mir_.
Now, about one-fifth of the householders are absent from home, engaged
in some wage-earning occupation, and there is also a certain percentage
among the emigrants who have not yet severed their relations with the
community. After subtraction of both these groups, which are counted
in the vote, it becomes very easy for the stronger households to stand
against the advocates of subdivision. Furthermore, those who are
in the habit of leasing their plots would have no interest in the
subdivision, even if present. The case of the adherents of the _mir_
thus becomes a very precarious one. This is strikingly evidenced by the
following figures:

                                           _Ranenburg.   _Dankoff.
                                            Per cent._    Per cent._
  Total of the community                       100          100
  Lessors                                       25           24
                                                ----        ----
        Remainder                               75           76
  Vote required for subdivision                 66⅔          66⅔
                                                ----        ----
  Opposition sufficient to stay the same.[148]   9           10

We know that the lessor class is constantly growing with the increase
of the population, and the spread of the movement from the village.
Thus the young generation grows indifferent to the custom of the
village community.

The old-fashioned households, on the other hand, are accumulating the
plots of the declining farmers, and show a pronounced opposition to
agrarian communism. There still remain the intermediate groups of the
“weak” householders, who faithfully preserve their allegiance to the
_mir_. The position of these groups is, however, very unstable.

It follows that the formation of classes within the _mir_ tends
to perpetuate the expropriation of the “weak” families, and the
concentration of communal land, formerly held by them, in the hands of
the “strong.”

It is true that it is only the right of possession which is conferred
upon the lessee of communal land. But there are many facts that go to
show the possible evolution of possession into property.

Attention has been called in Russian economic literature to the
tendency toward private property developing among the former serfs out
of the redemption of their plots. At the time of the Ryazañ census
there were 364 communities concerned in the region under consideration,
and it was in 100[149] out of this number that the opposition against
the redivision of the communal land came to the front. Those who had
been paying the redemption tax at the time when the taxes exceeded the
net income of the lots, objected to the decrease of the latter after
the land had acquired a certain value. The wealthier householders had
threatened to pay at once the whole amortization debt that hung over
their plots, so as to compel the community to deed them over to their
owners at the time, according to law[150].

Whatever may have been the final outcome of the issue this time[151],
“the ides of March are not gone.” The nearer we approach the end of
the period of redemption, the greater becomes the material interest
attaching the individual to his plot, and the greater, consequently,
his opposition to the redivision of the land. At present, since the
Statute of Redemption has been extended to all divisions of the
peasantry, the conflict between agrarian communism and the interests of
the individual has become universal. The old peasant common law, which
developed naturally as the consequence of economic equality, now proves
oppressive for the destitute, no less than for the wealthy. Given the
existing class distinctions within the community, there is no good
reason why the proletarian, on leaving his village, should sacrifice
his right of property to the _mir_, instead of alienating it for his
own benefit.

Thus the play of economic interests is dissolving the village community
into, on the one hand, a landless rural proletariat, and, on the other
hand, a peasant _bourgeoisie_, to whom the title to a large portion of
communal land is destined to be transferred.

    NOTE TO CHAPTER XII., THE “INALIENABILITY” SCHEME.

    The antiquated presumption of the homogeneity of the village
    found its practical expression in a scheme which came out of
    the peasantist press, and caught the ear of the ruling classes.
    This was the proposal to declare communal land inalienable.
    The question at issue has had its history. So long as the
    capitalized amortization tax exceeded the value of the land,
    the number of peasants who had redeemed their lots in absolute
    property was limited to a score of the wealthiest householders
    in a district. It took about 20 years before the rise of
    rent brought the price of land above the redemption debt, as
    decreased by the previous amortization payments made by the
    peasants. It then became profitable for speculators to advance
    the money necessary for the repayment of the remainder, so as
    to compel the community to carve out the lot into a separate
    tract, and thus make the sale feasible. As this speculation
    dates only from the eighties, the statistics gathered by local
    investigations are as yet insufficient. The question can be
    properly handled only when we have the data of a large region
    comprising, at least, several _gubernias_. So the matter has
    been dealt with in a series of articles in the Russian press.
    It appears that a considerable number of peasant plots have
    passed, by sale, into the hands of strangers, thanks to the law
    permitting the alienation of communal land. (Sec. 165 of the
    General Statute of the Peasants freed from bond serfdom.)

    To see our way clearly through the question at issue, we have
    to discover who are the buyers of the land sold by the peasants.

    We have seen that only a minor portion of the quarterly lots
    have been purchased by merchants. As a rule, the small lots
    sold by the nobility are acquired by peasants only. (_Cf._,
    next chapter.)

    The question at issue is thus one that has been settled as
    between peasants alone, and that affects neither the interests
    of the nobility nor those of the capitalistic class. In such
    cases it may well please the Russian government to throw a sop
    to the peasantists. This _mésalliance_ of oriental paternalism
    with some queer sort of state socialistic prohibitionism,
    however, would be apt to meet with opposition from the very
    ones who were supposed to be benefited.

    As the process of dissolution is obviously spreading from
    within, and not from without the village, inalienability of
    peasant land would simply mean gratuitous expropriation of the
    poor for the benefit of the wealthy members of the community.

    We notice that the percentage of emigrants among the quarterly
    possessors who have enjoyed the right of alienating their land
    has been far greater than that among the former state peasants
    who live in agrarian communism:

          _Title of possession._  _Ranenburg.   _Dankoff.
                                   Per cent._    Per cent._
      Quarterly possession            17            12
      Agrarian communism               9             5

    To what is this difference due? A single concrete example will
    clear up the matter.

    “In 1881 a small community of 5 households, former serfs of
    Gregoroff, emigrated from the village of Bigildino, district of
    Dankoff. Their land, 30 dessiatines, was sold to a rich peasant
    in consideration of 1500 rubles. The emigrants could not make a
    living at home, and most of them were yearly laborers.” (_Loc.
    cit._, part II., pp. 115, 247.) According to Mr. Greegoryeff
    (_Emigration of the peasants of the gubernia of Ryazañ_),
    300 rubles, the price of an average peasant holding of 6
    dessiatines, is sufficient to enable a peasant family to start
    farming in Southern Siberia. A peasant who has been absolutely
    ruined is thus enabled, through the sale of his lot in the
    communal land, to rise to the position of a farmer in the new
    country. Devotion to the sacred customs of forefathers would
    hardly be able to withstand such a temptation as this, but for
    the helpful right hand of the most gracious Bureaucracy.

    I shall, of course, be charged with pessimism, as I have been
    recently on account of my views on the emigration of the
    peasants. (_Cf._, _The public and the Statute on Emigration, by
    A. Bogdanoffsky, p. 38, in the Severny Vestnik_, May, 1892).
    The usual method of reasoning followed takes some such course
    as this: Granted that the case is presented true to life as it
    actually stands, the evil consequences are nevertheless due
    to the present abnormal condition of the peasantry, and under
    normal circumstances, the objections are “no good.” Unhappily,
    however, these very “abnormal” conditions are developing
    spontaneously, while the creation of “normal” conditions is
    beyond the jurisdiction of the well-wishers of the peasantry.




CHAPTER XIII.

AGRICULTURE ON A LARGE SCALE.


The peasantist ideas with regard to the village community found their
necessary complement in an economic theory which gathered to itself
a large following in Russia some ten years ago. The founder of this
school, a young writer who concealed his name under the initials _V.
V._, advanced the thesis that the development of capitalism in Russia
is precluded by her economic constitution, as well as by her belated
appearance on the international market. Export of grain had been the
only vacancy left by European capitalism for the enjoyment of its
younger brother in Russia. But then there you have “our Transatlantic
friends,” the Yankees, who are going to turn us out of the Western
ports. Production for the international grain market is a phantastic
dream of Russian “large agriculture.” The reality belongs to the
peasant, who produces for home consumption. Large estates are in
decay. Small peasant farming is spreading in all the dominions of the
nobility. Economic development will compel the noble to cede to the
triumphant ploughman the use of the land, while taking for himself the
modest role of an absentee.[152]

At last the word was uttered which was so eagerly longed for. The
Russian peasantists labored at the riddle how to reconcile the theory
of Karl Marx with the teachings of Tchernyshefsky. If capitalism is the
laboratory in which socialism is concocted; if furthermore, capitalism
has grown out of the expropriation of the peasant, then the consistent
Russian socialist must foster the dissolution of agrarian communism, to
which all his sympathies are pledged, and contribute to the development
of capitalism, of which he himself is a bitter enemy.[153] Mr. V.
V. found the solution of the riddle in reaching the conclusions of
Tchernyshefsky through the materialistic method of Karl Marx.

The unrelenting course of historical development tends to eliminate
landlord agriculture in Russia. As land is steadily passing into
the control of the peasantry, the time is imminent when land
nationalization can easily be carried out through the abolition of
rent. Whether the reform will be accomplished through violence, like
the emancipation of the slaves in the United States, or in a peaceful
way, like the emancipation of the peasants and the redemption of land
in Russia, entirely depends on the wisdom of the ruling classes. Sooner
or later the government will see itself in a condition similar to that
which existed before 1861, and the next reform will only achieve the
work which had been left half done by the emancipation.[154]

This attractive theory gained for a time control of the whole monthly
press. Statistical investigation, however, has subsequently brought to
light the utter baselessness of the very premises of the doctrine.

Given the development and actual condition of farm labor, the character
of agriculture on a large scale is fully determined thereby. Farming
on the estates of the nobility after the emancipation of the peasants
continued for a time as a pursuit of merely natural economy. One part
of the land was rented to the peasants in consideration of a certain
amount of work to be done on the other part. Labor was also provided
for through the grant of easements to the peasant communities. The
entire area of the estate, whether rented or farmed by the owner, was
cultivated by the peasants’ implements and live stock. This enabled the
landlord to carry on agriculture on a large scale without any outlay of
capital.

The rise of rent resulted in the increase of the work to be performed
by the tenant for the benefit of the landlord. The area cultivated by
the latter increased, diminishing the part of the estate rented to the
peasant. Small peasant agriculture was being step by step displaced by
large farming, and that continually without any additional investment
of capital.

Finally, however, the displacement of the small farmer must needs have
led to the gradual substitution of money economy for natural economy.
As the number of impoverished peasants increased in inverse ratio to
the tenant class, a time arrived when the demand for labor could no
longer be supplied by tenants alone, and had to be provided for through
wage labor. The employer became the creditor of the laborer. This
necessitated money payments for the land given in tenure.

Such are the inferences necessarily following from the above review
of peasant agriculture. The immediate study of agriculture on a large
scale must obviously lead to the same conclusions.[155]

As yet the major part of the area of private property is cultivated
by means of peasant live stock and implements, as evidenced by the
comparative quantity of live stock raised on the large farms and in the
rural districts abroad:

                                                         _To 1 horse
                                _Land,       _Horses._   on an average,
  _District of Voronezh._    Dessiatines._               Dessiatines._

  On large estates
    under cultivation
    (land in small
    tenure excluded)          86360          1708           50.5

  In the district at large   434372         52465            8.3

It follows from these figures that the landlords’ stock is hardly
sufficient for the cultivation of one-sixth of the land which is
virtually farmed by the owners of large estates. Quite naturally,
from the agronomic standpoint the Russian “bonanza farms” have very
little advantage over small peasant farming. The primitive division
of the arable land into three well-nigh equal fields, of which one is
yearly left unsown, prevails on the large estates as well as on peasant
farms.[156] The tillage with the antediluvian peasant plough (_sohá_)
is very imperfect, while improved ploughs are not in common use, and
wherever they are, one plough is found for every 91.2 dessiatines (246
acres) of arable land. Superficial tillage strains the productive
forces of the upper layers of the soil, while lack of live stock
prevents the fertilizing of the land on a reasonable scale, the fields
being manured on an average once in eighteen years.[157]

Large farming thus partakes of the wasteful character of small peasant
agriculture, and proves therefore almost as little productive, a fact
shown by the comparative yields of cereals:[158]

  +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
  |                       |          Rye.         |         Oats.         |
  |                       +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
  |   Classes of farms.   | Ratio to  |           | Ratio to  |           |
  |                       | the seed. | Per cent. | the seed. | Per cent. |
  |-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
  |                       |           |           |           |           |
  |On peasant farms       |    5.3    |    100    |    4.6    |    100    |
  |                       |           |           |           |           |
  |On large estates       |           |           |           |           |
  | (over 50 dessiatines) |    7.3    |    138    |    5.8    |    126    |
  +-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

Still, even that slight increase of productivity is sufficient to make
large farming prevail over small peasant tenure:

  +-----------------------+------------+------------+------------------+
  |                       |            | Payment in |                  |
  |  Arable land yearly   |Payment in  |  share of  |       In all.    |
  |  under cultivation.   |   money,   |   crops,   +------------+-----+
  |                       |Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|Per  |
  |                       |            |            |            |cent.|
  +-----------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----+
  |                       |            |            |            |     |
  |In small peasant tenure|   24226    |    1083    |   25309    |  40 |
  |                       |            |            |            |     |
  |Cultivated by the large|            |            |            |     |
  |  farmer               |   37183    |    1028    |   38211    |  60 |
  |                       +------------+------------+------------+     |
  |Total[159], dessiatines|   61409    |    2111    |   63520    |     |
  |                       +------------+------------+------------+-----+
  |  Per cent.            |     97     |      3     |     ..     | 100 |
  +-----------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----+

Another reason for the prevalence of large farming over small peasant
tenure is to be found in the greater economic dependence of the farm
laborer as compared with the tenant, while the laborer, being a farmer
himself, saves his employer the investment of fixed capital.

Nevertheless a certain outlay of capital for the payment of wages was
necessitated by the development of money economy in agriculture. This
has drawn the line between the smaller and the larger estates.

While on the smaller estates peasant tenure is practiced to the extent
of excluding landlord agriculture, on the larger estates, on the
contrary, peasant tenure plays but a subordinate part:

  +-----------------------------+--------+-------------+-------+
  |                             |        |Total extent.|       |
  |                             | Number +-------+-----+Average|
  |  I. System of management.   |   of   |Dessia-| Per |Dessia-|
  |                             |estates.|tines. |cent.| tines.|
  +-----------------------------+--------+-------+-----+-------+
  |Estates without arable land  |    14  |   5117|   4 |       |
  |Estates exclusively in small |        |       |     |       |
  |  tenure                     |    64  |  15605|  12 |   244 |
  |Estates with large farming   |   190  | 109615|  83 |   577 |
  |Management not stated        |    11  |   1616|   1 |       |
  |                             +--------+-------+-----+-------+
  |      Total                  |   279  | 131953| 100 |   473 |
  +-----------------------------+--------+-------+-----+-------+

  II. _Ploughland yearly under culture._   _Dessiatines._   _Per cent._
  Total on the estates with large farming      52627          100
  Cultivated by the owners                     37183           71
                                              ------          ---
        In small peasant tenure                15444           29

Small peasant tenure is a very ruinous management of large estates,
inasmuch as the land allotted in tenure is, as a rule, never
manured.[160] The above figures testify therefore to a certain
progress of agriculture on the larger estates. Farming without
fertilizing the soil is found only on the smallest estates, which
do not reach even the average size of those exclusively in peasant
tenure.[161] On larger estates application of manure goes hand in hand
with the culture of more valuable crops.

On peasant farms, as well as on the smaller estates approaching the
standard of peasant agriculture, rye is found to be the only winter
crop[162]; whereas on the larger estates it has been supplanted to a
vast extent by winter wheat:

  +---------------+--------+------------------------------------+--------+
  |               |        |             Dessiatines.           |Wheat to|
  |   Estates     | Number +-------+-------+--------------------+ total  |
  |  with large   |  of    | Total |Average|     Winter crops.  | winter |
  | agriculture.  |estates.|extent.|extent.+------+------+------+ crops  |
  |               |        |       |       |Total.| Rye. |Wheat.| (per   |
  |               |        |       |       |      |      |      | cent.).|
  +---------------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+------+--------+
  |               |        |       |       |      |      |      |        |
  |Wheat not grown|   96   | 34453 |  359  | 4444 | 4444 |  ..  |  ..    |
  |Wheat grown    |   94   | 75162 |  800  |12744 | 8171 | 4573 |  36    |
  |               +--------+-------+-------+------+------+------+--------+
  |    Total      |  190   |109615 |  577  |17188 |12615 | 4573 |  ..    |
  +---------------+--------+-------+-------+------+------+------+--------+

Winter wheat is only exceptionally grown on unfertilized land; on the
other hand, only a minor part of the fertilized land is never planted
with wheat. As a rule a field is manured on an average for two seeds of
winter wheat.[163]

The need of manure necessitates the raising of live stock by the
landlord. Then it becomes a matter of good economy with the largest
farmer to apply his own live stock and implements to the tillage of his
land.[164] This leads to the improvement of farming implements, and
must consequently be considered as another proof of the progressive
tendency of large farming.[165]

Still all these improvements presuppose a corresponding investment of
capital. Thus we are face to face with the beginnings of capitalistic
agriculture in Russia.

The nobility, as a class, owed its existence to relations of
natural economy. The bonds, which were issued to the landlords by
the government in payment for the land allotted to the peasantry,
were promptly wasted for personal enjoyment, for all kind of risky
speculations, and for agricultural improvements which could not pay
from a business standpoint. Thus, as soon as the need of capital began
to be felt in agriculture, the estates of the nobility flew, through
lease, mortgage and sale, into the hands of the capitalist class.

The following shows the movement of private landed property in the
district of Ryazañ, from 1867 to 1881.[166]

  +----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
  |                                  |   Percentage    | Average holding |
  |                                  |  in the area.   | (Dessiatines).  |
  |        Classes of owners.        +--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |                                  |  1867. |  1881. |  1867. |  1881. |
  +----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |Property of the nobility          |  92    |  66.6  |  284.9 |  283.6 |
  |Property of the capitalistic class|   3.3  |  22.3  |  124.4 |  372.1 |
  |Small property                    |   4.7  |  11.1  |    3.7 |    4.9 |
  +----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Immediately after the emancipation of the peasants the domains of the
nobility covered nearly the total area of private property. Twenty
years after the reform, one-third of their property had already gone
to other classes. The land which was lost by the nobility was divided
between the capitalist and the small farmer in the ratio of two to one,
the possessions of the capitalist growing about three times as fast as
small private property.

The new classes of property holders well-nigh correspond, as to their
origin, to the legal status of “merchants” and “peasants.” Among
these classes is being divided the inheritance of the nobility. “The
merchant class take possession mainly of the large estates, neglecting
altogether, and even relinquishing, the small plots, … which gradually
pass into the hands of the peasant.”[167]

The following figures may serve as an illustration:

  +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
  |                                 |      Percentage of the area.      |
  |                                 +-----------------+-----------------+
  |                                 |  Estates under  |  Estates over   |
  |       Status of owners.         | 50 dessiatines. | 50 dessiatines. |
  |                                 +-------+---------+-------+---------+
  |                                 |Ryazañ.|Voronezh.|Ryazañ.|Voronezh.|
  |                                 | 1881. |  1884.  | 1881. |  1884.  |
  +---------------------------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+
  |Nobility                         |  13.9 |   32.0  |  74.5 |   80.1  |
  |Peasants                         |  77.7 |   44.2  |   2.4 |    3.6  |
  |Merchants & “hon. citizens.”[168]|   1.2 |    8.2  |  20.4 |   14.5  |
  |Burghers, clergy, etc.           |   7.2 |   15.6  |   2.6 |    1.8  |
  |                                 +-------+---------+-------+---------+
  |      Total                      | 100   |  100    |  100  |  100    |
  +---------------------------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+

The growth of capitalistic tenure furthers the progress of capitalistic
agriculture. The small tenant is being superseded by the large business
man (or merchant, to use the Russian expression), exploiting the land
by means of wage labor. This is proved by the following figures:

  -----------+------------------------------+------------------------------
             |        Property of the       |       Property of the
             |           nobility.          |      capitalist class.
  Systems of +--------+------------+--------+--------+------------+--------
  management.|        |  Total     |        |        |  Total     |
             |        |  extent.   |        |        |  extent.   |
             |        +------+-----+        |        +------+-----+
             | Number |Dessiatines.|Average | Number |Dessiatines.|Average
             |  of    |      |Per  |(dessia-|  of    |      |Per  |(dessia-
             |estates.|      |cent.| tines).|estates.|      |cent.| tines).
  -----------+--------+------+-----+--------+--------+------+-----+--------
  Estates    |    51  | 13942| 13.4|   273  |    13  | 1664 |  6.3|  128
  exclusively|        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
  in small   |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
  tenure     |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
             |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
  Estates    |     5  |   794|  0.7|    ..  |     9  | 4323 | 16.3|   ..
  without    |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
  tillage    |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
  land       |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
             |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
  Estates    |   123  | 90223| 85.4|   734  |    67  |19391 | 73.4|  289
  with large |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
  agriculture|        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
             |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
  Management |     6  |   556|  0.5|    ..  |     5  | 1060 |  4.0|   ..
  not stated |        |      |     |        |        |      |     |
             +--------+------+-----+--------+--------+------+-----+--------
      Total  |   185  |105515|100  |   576  |    94  |26438 |100  |  281
  -----------+--------+------+-----+--------+--------+------+-----+--------

The nobility has proved able to farm only on the largest estates. Where
the nobleman would merely distribute his estate in small lots among
peasant tenants, the capitalist landholder carries on agriculture on a
large scale:

                                                            _Dessiatines._
  Average holding of a noble in small peasant tenure             273
  Average holding of a capitalist with farming on a large scale  289

The average holding on which peasant tenure pays the capitalist better
than farming, is less than one-half the corresponding size of a noble’s
estate. Accordingly we find that wherever the capitalist has replaced
the noble, the exclusive practice of small peasant tenure has lost over
one-half of its area:

  _Estates in small peasant tenure._   _Percentage in the area._
  Property of the nobility                        13.4
  Property of the capitalists                      6.3

Among the capitalists we notice the timber speculator, who purchases
tracts without ploughland, or, perhaps, sells the latter to the small
farmer. Yet, with all that, three-fourths of the total area acquired by
the capitalist class are farmed by the owners. Practical business men
who invest their money in large estates, would undoubtedly prefer to
quietly pocket the enormous rents paid by the peasants, if in reality
agriculture on a large scale had proved a loss, as both the nobility
and the peasantists claimed.[169]

Moreover, the management of the estates by the capitalists is far
superior to that which the noble landlord could afford.

The capitalist would manure his fields as soon as his holding reaches
scarcely one-half the average estate on which the nobleman would
care to fertilize the soil; and even then the latter lags behind the
capitalist as regards the area yearly manured:

  +----------------------+--------+--------+------------------------------+
  |                      |        |        |    Area under cultivation.   |
  |    Estates with      |        |        +---------------------+--------+
  |       large          |        |        |     Dessiatines.    | Once in|
  |    agriculture.      | Number |Average +------+-----+--------+how many|
  |                      |   of   |(dessia-|      | Per | Yearly | years  |
  |                      |estates.| tines).|Total.|cent.|manured.|manured?|
  +----------------------+--------+--------+------+-----+--------+--------+
  |  _Property of the    |        |        |      | 100 |        |        |
  |   nobility_:         |        |        |      +-----+        |        |
  |Farming with manure   |  104   |   816  | 28495|  92 |  2555  |  11.1  |
  |Farming without manure|   19   |   280  |  2415|   8 |        |        |
  |                      |        |        |      |     |        |        |
  |  _Property of the    |        |        |      | 100 |        |        |
  |   capitalist class_: |        |        |      +-----+        |        |
  |Farming with manure   |   45   |   363  |  5314|  85 |   825  |   6.4  |
  |Farming without manure|   22   |   138  |   958|  15 |        |        |
  +----------------------+--------+--------+------+-----+--------+--------+

The expense of fertilizing is compensated by the greater productivity
of capitalistic agriculture.

We observe that wheat is planted by the capitalist where rye would be
the only winter crop raised by a nobleman:

                                                   _Average
  _Estates with large agriculture._   _Number._  (Dessiatines)._
  _Property of the nobility_:
    Wheat grown                          72            898
    No wheat grown                       51            501
  _Property of the capitalist class_:
    Wheat grown                          22            478
    No wheat grown                       45            197

Of much greater consequence is, moreover, the fact that the yields of
wheat are by far higher on capitalistic farms than on the estates of
the nobility[170]:

  --------------+---------------------+------------------------------------
                |     Dessiatines.    |         Average yields.
                +-------+-------+-----+-------------+----------------------
                |       |       |     |Regardless of|With regard to
                |       |       |     |class of     |class of property.
                |       |       |     |property.    |
                |       |       |     +-------------+-------+-------+------
  Wheat planted.|       |       |     |Chetverts[171] from 1|       |Compa-
                |       |       |     |    dessiatine.      |       |rative
                |       |       |     +-----+-------+-------+       |per-
                |       |Yields |     |Manured.     |Regard-|Bushels|cent-
                |Yields | not   | Per |     |  Not  |less of|  per  |age
                |stated.|stated.|cent.|     manured.|manure.| acre. |rates.
  --------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-------+-------+-------+------
  By noblemen   |  3609 |  166  |     |     |  5.4  |  5.3  |  11.7 |  97
  By capitalists|   768 |   30  |     | 8.4 |       |  8.1  |  17.8 | 148
                +-------+-------+-----+     |       |       |       |
                |  4377 |  196  |  4  |     |       |       |       |
  U.S.          |       |       |     |     |       |       |  12.0 | 100
  1880-89[172]  |       |       |     |     |       |       |       |
  --------------+-------+-------+-----+-----+-------+-------+-------+------

It appears from these figures--

1. That on the estates of the nobility the average yield of wheat
amounts to what can be got from the soil without the application of
manure, while on capitalistic farms the average is nearly on a par with
that which is raised from fertilized land.

2. That the average yield of wheat per acre on a capitalistic farm
in the district of Voronezh outruns by about one-half the American
average, while the noble landlord is barely able to keep on a level
with the American producer. Taking into consideration that the farm
laborer of middle Russia, with his 50 kopeks a day (25 cents in gold)
in the summer, is well fitted to underbid the Chinese cooly, so large
an advance in productivity seems to justify the prediction of Mr. Paul
Lafargue, viz., that Russia will soon become a successful competitor of
America on the international grain market.[173]

The rise of the income from agriculture, as above shown, goes hand in
hand with the development of stock breeding. Thus where the nobleman
would have all his land tilled with peasant live stock, the capitalist
draws a benefit from cultivating a part of his estate with his own
stock, and this part is relatively greater than on the largest estates
owned by the nobility. The evidence is presented in the following table:

  +------------------------------+--------+-------------+-------+-------+
  |                              |        |Total extent.|       |       |
  |                              |        +-------+-----+       | To 1  |
  | Estates with large farming.  | Number |       |     |Average|horse, |
  |                              |   of   |Dessia-| Per |Dessia-|Dessia-|
  |                              |estates.| tines.|cent.|tines. |tines. |
  +------------------------------+--------+-------+-----+-------+-------+
  |_Property of the nobility_:   |        |       | 100 |       |       |
  |                              |        |       +-----+       |       |
  |With working horses           |   88   | 78814 |  87 |  896  |  62   |
  |Without working horses        |   35   | 11409 |  13 |  326  |  ..   |
  |                              |        |       |     |       |       |
  |_Property of the capitalists_:|        |       | 100 |       |       |
  |                              |        |       +-----+       |       |
  |With working horses           |   54   | 17597 |  91 |  326  |  44   |
  |Without working horses        |   13   |  1794 |   9 |  138  |  ..   |
  +------------------------------+--------+-------+-----+-------+-------+

The displacement of the laborer’s live stock and implements by
the owner’s stock, while it fosters the introduction of improved
implements,[174] replaces on the other hand the small farmer by the
proletarian. In fact, proletarian labor is employed by the capitalist
on estates where the noble owner would confine himself to the services
of the small farmer:

  +----------------------------+--------+--------+-----------+--------+
  |                            |        | Average|           |  To 1  |
  |  Estates with large        | Number |  size, |Permanently|laborer |
  |    agriculture.            |   of   |(Dessia-| employed  |(Dessia-|
  |                            |estates.| tines).| (males).  |tines). |
  +----------------------------+--------+--------+-----------+--------+
  | _Property of the nobility_:|        |        |           |        |
  |Proletarian labor employed  |  112   |   783  |   1956    |   45   |
  |     ”        ” not employed|   11   |   233  |    ..     |   ..   |
  | _Property of the           |        |        |           |        |
  |  capitalist class_:        |        |        |           |        |
  |Proletarian labor employed  |   50   |   351  |    398    |   48   |
  |     ”        ” not employed|   17   |   108  |    ..     |   ..   |
  +----------------------------+--------+--------+-----------+--------+

To sum up, it is thanks solely to the obstinate persistence of backward
methods in Russian agriculture that the nobility is able to maintain
its position.

The biggest of the aristocratic landlords are the only ones who can
keep on capitalizing a part of their net income.[175]

On the whole, the existence of the nobility as an agricultural class is
closely dependent upon the continued vegetation of a class of peasants,
who are farmers and laborers at once, or who, to express it more
accurately, are neither farmers nor laborers. We have seen what is the
trend of the times with regard to this class of peasantry. The former
masters will inevitably share the fate of their former serfs.




CHAPTER XIV.

CONCLUSION: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAMINE.


The conclusions drawn from the previous discussion of the economic
structure of the Russian village must be taken with a threefold
limitation.

In the first place, the science of statistics is essentially a science
of large numbers. There are many questions, by no means unimportant,
which it has been impossible even to touch upon, their discussion being
feasible only where large agricultural areas are concerned.

In the second place, inasmuch as the facts and deductions have only a
local basis, the question arises whether the conclusions drawn would
also hold good when applied upon a larger scale.

In the third place, the conditions prevailing some five or ten years
ago must inevitably have undergone by this time great modifications.

It is no exaggeration to say that the round thousand[176] communities
in the section submitted to examination represent an equal number
of varying combinations of the fundamental agencies of rural
economy. Nevertheless, we observe a certain regularity as soon as
a complex, sufficient and necessary, of units is taken as a basis
for examination. Thus we notice that all the figures relating to the
district of Ranenburg are copied with a remarkable constancy in the
district of Dankoff in the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ. The same similitude is
observed between the districts of Korotoyak and Nizhnedevitzk in the
_gubernia_ of Voronezh. It points to a certain uniformity of economic
constitution as prevailing under like conditions over a still wider
area. In a region confined mainly to agriculture, landholding is the
determining factor of economic life. Should we find the same condition
of landholding amidst similar surroundings, physical, geographical and
legal, we might be justly entitled to assume throughout identity of
economic structure. Such is virtually the case as regards the “central
black soil, prairieless zone,” which has been the main seat of famine.

It may, therefore, reasonably be assumed that economic conditions in
middle Russia about 1881 were essentially the same as in the region
here described, allowance being made for numerical fluctuations.
It was at this date that revolutionary peasantism had reached its
climax, and to cope with it, a new era of “national policy” was
inaugurated by Count Ignatieff. The question now arises as to whether
counter-influences had arisen which exercised a neutralizing effect
upon the economic tendencies that developed during the reign of
Alexander II. A full discussion of the economic policy of the present
Russian government would carry us beyond the limits of the present
treatise.[177] I shall confine myself, therefore, to a few remarks
relative to the two state institutions created for the encouragement
of agriculture, viz: The Nobility’s Crédit Foncier, and the Peasant’s
Crédit Foncier.

Hundreds of millions were appropriated in the course of a few years
to prevent the complete ruin of the landholding nobility. No such
liberality was allowed in the conduct of the Peasant’s Bank, which
was founded with the express object of providing the money needed by
the peasant for the purchase of land.[178] Amidst the jubilations
with which the peasantist press greeted the birth of this still-born
child, Mr. Lobachevsky (pseudonym), one of the broadest minded of
the Russian statisticians, raised the sole dissenting voice. He
advanced the opinion[179] that to establish a Bank with a stock of a
few millions for tens of millions of peasants, was to create a small
peasant _bourgeoisie_ that would inevitably take advantage of the
poverty of the more helpless members of its class, and that the poor
householder would infallibly succumb if he accepted the services of
the Peasant’s Bank. This opinion received a speedy confirmation in the
actual practice of the Bank, which soon proved itself to be merely a
supplementary department of the Nobility’s Bank.

Says Mr. Herzenstein, a Russian Catheder-Sozialist, “It is universally
known that the peasants’ purchases enabled the landlords to get rid, at
a high price, of those tracts which yielded them no income, and that,
taking it all in all, the peasants paid more for their land than it was
worth.”[180]

It was again the same truly Russian system which had been tried with
such splendid success on the occasion of the emancipation of the serfs.
Furthermore, the interest levied by the Bank, viz: 7½ per cent.,
exceeds that charged by any of the private mortgage banks (6 per
cent.), whereas, with the Nobility’s Bank, the interest is less than
that charged by private banks.[181]

It is therefore by no means surprising to find that speedy ruin is the
debtor’s fate. In the period from 1887 to 1890, 8.8 per cent. of all
the land purchased with the aid of the Peasant’s Bank, was relinquished
by the mortgageors, the failures amounting to 7,637,034 rubles, or to
14 per cent. of all the loans granted by the Bank.[182] The operations
of the Bank necessarily suffered a diminution.[183] However, all these
inconveniences are but matters of secondary importance. Had everything
gone smoothly, the Bank would nevertheless have effected no actual
change in the economics of the village.

As may be remembered, the village community needs about one-half
more land in order to enable all its members to hold their position
as farmers. To put peasant landholding upon a proper footing in the
famine-stricken region, many times more land would be required than
that purchased by all the peasants throughout Russia with the aid of
the Peasant’s Bank.[184]

It may be questioned whether the operations of the Bank have been
even sufficient to counterbalance the further parcellation of peasant
holdings which has resulted from the growth of population. The economic
tendencies prevalent in the village during the first year of the
present reign may be regarded as being even more pronounced to-day.

The present catastrophe was consequently by no means unexpected, and
there has been no lack of alarming symptoms within the past ten years.
In 1883, 1884 and 1885 famine stalked alternately through western
Siberia, through the northeast, and through certain of the central
provinces of European Russia (Vyatka, Kazañ, Kursk, etc.). Famine
was again reported in 1889.[185] To such an extent was the peasantry
already exhausted that even the extraordinarily good harvest of
1890[186] was unable to prevent a subsequent failure of crops from
resulting in a famine.

It is only in the area affected that the present failure is
distinguished from its precursors.[187] The cause of the various
famines is at bottom always essentially the same, viz: the backwardness
of Russian agriculture. The surface of the soil has become finally
exhausted and the wooden plough of the Russian peasant is unable to
reach down to the deeper layers where the soil is yet virgin. Deep
ploughing is impossible with only one horse, and that horse fed on
straw. It is further not only the peasant land, but also the major
part of the landlord’s fields, that is cultivated with the peasant’s
stock and implements. Thus the crisis of peasant agriculture is at the
same time the crisis of Russian landlord farming.[188] The famine
has brought about at one single stroke the dissolution which had been
slowly going on in the village since 1861.

The Russian papers have published a multitude of letters from their
correspondents telling of the loss of some 50% of the horses owned
by the peasants. This means the complete ruin of the weak groups
of the village, and the further concentration of the communal land
into the hands of the strong, who alone survived as the farming
class.[189] The class of small farmers in Russia is evolving into
a peasant _bourgeoisie_ similar to the French peasantry after the
great Revolution, or to the American small employing farmers. The
transitional groups of half farmers, half laborers, by whom the major
part of the landlords’ estates were formerly cultivated, have sunk
through the famine into the proletarian class. The laborer having
become a proletarian, it is by proletarian labor that the estates
must be tilled, and agriculture upon a large scale becomes a regular
capitalistic pursuit.[190] The nobility with its estates under mortgage
can not possibly afford the capital needed.[191]

The land is destined to be divided between the large capitalist and the
small farmer--the _homo novus_ of the village.[192]

Thus the present famine must be considered as a genuine turning-point
in the economic history of Russia.

Family co-operation, village community, nobility, and natural
economy--such was the economic constitution of Russia in the past.

The Russia of the days to come will have for its basis a peasant
_bourgeoisie_, a rural proletariat, and capitalistic agriculture.[193]




APPENDICES.

STATISTICAL TABLES.


TABLE I.--DISTRIBUTION OF LAND AMONG THE SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE
PEASANT POPULATION.

  -------------+-----------------------+----------------------------------
               |       Population.     |      Land (Dessiatines).
  Classes of   +----------+------------+------+-----+-------+------+------
  peasantry    |Commun-   |Persons     |      |     |To     |To    |To
  by district, |ities.    |(males and  |      |     |each   |each  |each
  origin, and  |          |females)    |      |     |male   |house-|person
  by title of  |   +------+------------+Total.|Per  |of the |hold  |
  possession.  |   |House-|Number.     |      |cent.|tenth  |      |
               |   |holds.|      +-----+      |     |census.|      |
               |   |      |      |Per  |      |     |       |of the census
               |   |      |      |cent.|      |     |       |of 1882.[194]
  -------------+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------
  _District of |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  Ranenburg_:  |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  I. Former    |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     serfs:    |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  1. Corvée or |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     taille    | 75|  2547| 16071| 12  | 14797|  9  | 2.4   | 6.2  | 1.0
  2. Redemption|192| 10310| 63621| 47.4| 59509| 36.2| 2.4   | 6.1  | 1.0
  3. Donation  |  5|    90|   553|  0.4| 119.5|  0.1| 0.1   | 0.5  | 0.3
  4. Absolute  |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     Property  |  4|    16|   133|  0.1|   242|  0.1| 5.3   |16.1  | 1.9
               +---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------
  All to former|   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  serfs        |276| 12963| 80378| 59.9| 74667| 45.4| 2.4   | 6.1  | 1.0
               |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  II. Former   |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
      State    |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
      peasants |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  1. Agrarian  |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     communism | 27|  6237| 42297| 31.5| 68230| 41.5| 4.1   |11.1  | 1.6
  2. Quarterly |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     possession| 15|   415|  2940|  2.2|  6144|  3.7| 6.7   |15    | 2.1
  3. Mixed[195]| 10|  1224|  8248|  6.2| 15092|  9.2| 4.5   |12.4  | 1.8
               +---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------
  All to former|   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  state        |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  peasants     | 52|  7876| 53485| 39.9| 89466| 54.4| 4.3   |11.5  | 1.7
               |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  III. Former  |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
       serfs,  |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
   subsequently|   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
       state   |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
       peasants| 12|    36|   236|  0.2|   228|  0.2| 2.3   | 6.5  | 1.0
               +---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+-------
    Total      |340| 20875|134099|100  |164361|100  | 3.1   | 8.2  | 1.3
               |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  _District of |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  Dankoff_:    |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  I. Former    |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     serfs:    |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  1. Corvée or |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     taille    | 75|  2078| 12923| 13.2| 13512| 10.4| 2.6   | 6.9  | 1.1
  2. Redemption|172|  7524| 48126| 49  | 50026| 38.5| 2.5   | 7    | 1.1
  3. Donation  |  7|   231|  1376|  1.4|   551|  0.4| 0.8   | 2.7  | 0.4
  4. Absolute  |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     property  |  6|    69|   511|  0.5|   947|  0.7| 4.8   |14.1  | 1.9
               +---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------
  All to former|   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  serfs        |260|  9902| 62936| 64.1| 65036| 50.0| 2.7   | 6.9  | 1.1
               |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  II. Former   |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
      state    |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
      peasants |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  1. Agrarian  |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     communism | 18|  3082| 19817| 20.2| 31756| 24.4| 4.1   |10.4  | 1.6
  2. Quarterly |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
     possession| 18|  1765| 12131| 12.4| 27208| 20.9| 5.4   |15.9  | 2.3
  3. Mixed[195]|  3|   415|  2789|  2.8|  5331|  4.1| 5.1   |12.9  | 1.9
               +---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------
  All to former|   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  state        |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  peasants     | 39|  5262| 34737| 35.4| 64295| 49.4| 4.6   |12.4  | 1.9
               |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  III. Former  |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  serfs,       |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  subsequently |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  state        |   |      |      |     |      |     |       |      |
  peasants[196]| 14|    87|   551|  0.5|   751|  0.6| 4     | 9.1  | 1.4
               +---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------
    Total      |313| 15251| 98224|100  |130082|100  | 3.3   | 8.9  | 1.4
  -------------+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------


TABLE I, _a_.

To make it clearer for the purposes of comparative study, some of these
data are translated into English measures:

ACREAGE OF A PEASANT FARM OR HOUSEHOLD ON AVERAGE.

                _Classes._          _Ranenburg._  _Dankoff._
  I. Former serfs:
      1. Corvée or taille               16.8        18.7
      2. Redemption                     16.5        18.9
      3. Donation                        5.4         7.3
      4. Absolute property              43.5        38.1
                                        ----        ----
         All to former serfs            16.5        18.7

  II. Former state peasants:
      1. Agrarian Communism             29.7        28.1
      2. Quarterly possession           40.5        43.0
      3. Mixed                          33.5        34.9
                                        ----        ----
         All to former state peasants   31.1        33.5

  III. Mixed                            17.6        24.6
                                        ----        ----
         Total                          22.2        24.1


TABLE II.--TAXATION OF THE PEASANTRY.

  +-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
  |                             |        District of Ranenburg.          |
  |                             +-------+----------+---------------------+
  |   Classes of peasants and   |Land in|          |                     |
  |    titles of possession.    |dessia-|  Cattle. |   Taxes in rubles.  |
  |                             |tines. |          |                     |
  |                             +-------+----------+-------+-----+-------+
  |                             | To 1  |          | To 1  |To 1 | To 1  |
  |                             | male, |   To 1   |dessia-|male,| male  |
  |                             | 1858. |household.| tine. |1858.|worker.|
  +-----------------------------+-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
  |I. _Former serfs_:           |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |    1. Corvée or taille      |  2.4  |  6.2| 2.7|  5.2  | 11.9|  19.9 |
  |    2. Redemption            |  2.4  |  6.1| 2.5|  4.5  | 10.8|  17.9 |
  |    3. Donation              |  0.5  |  1.9| 1.8|  6.8  |  3.6|   6.2 |
  |    4. Absolute property     |  5.3  | 16.1| 4.2|  0.8  |  4.6|   5.1 |
  |                             |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |II. Former serfs,            |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |    subsequently             |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |    state peasants           |  2.3  |  6.5| 2.4|  3.1  |  7.0|  14.2 |
  |                             +-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
  |        Total                |  2.4  |  6.1| 2.6|  4.6  | 11.0|  18.2 |
  |                             |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |III. _Former state peasants_:|       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |    1. Agrarian communism    |  4.1  | 11.1| 2.9|  2.4  | 10.1|  16.2 |
  |    2. Quarterly possession  |  6.7  | 15.0| 4.0|  1.9  | 13.2|  18.0 |
  |    3. Mixed                 |  4.5  | 12.4| 3.1|  2.4  | 11.1|  18.6 |
  |                             +-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
  |        Total                |  4.3  | 11.5| 3.0|  2.4  | 10.4|  16.7 |
  +-----------------------------+-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
  |                             |           District of Dankoff.         |
  |                             +-------+----------+---------------------+
  |   Classes of peasants and   |Land in|          |                     |
  |    titles of possession.    |dessia-|  Cattle. |  Taxes in rubles.   |
  |                             |tines. |          |                     |
  |                             +-------+----------+-------+-----+-------+
  |                             | To 1  |          | To 1  |To 1 | To 1  |
  |                             | male, |   To 1   |dessia-|male,| male  |
  |                             | 1858. |household.| tine. |1858.|worker.|
  +-----------------------------+-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
  |I. _Former serfs_:           |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |    1. Corvée or taille      |  2.6  |  6.9| 2.7|  5.1  | 12.6|  21.9 |
  |    2. Redemption            |  2.5  |  7.0| 2.5|  4.3  | 11.1|  18.7 |
  |    3. Donation              |  0.8  |  2.7| 1.6|  4.6  |  4.0|   8.1 |
  |    4. Absolute property     |  4.8  | 14.1| 4.3|  1.1  |  5.8|   8.9 |
  |                             |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |II. Former serfs,            |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |    subsequently             |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |    state peasants           |  4.0  |  9.1| 3.0|  2.5  |  7.9|  15.8 |
  |                             +-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
  |        Total                |  2.7  |  6.8| 2.5|  4.4  | 11.2|  19.1 |
  |                             |       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |III. _Former state peasants_:|       |     |    |       |     |       |
  |    1. Agrarian communism    |  4.1  | 10.4| 2.6|  2.2  |  9.4|  15.6 |
  |    2. Quarterly possession  |  5.4  | 15.9| 3.3|  1.9  | 10.8|  18.1 |
  |    3. Mixed                 |  5.1  | 12.9| 2.9|  2.6  | 10.5|  17.9 |
  |                             +-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+
  |        Total                |  4.6  | 12.4| 2.9|  2.6  | 10.0|  16.7 |
  +-----------------------------+-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+


TABLE III.--ARREARS IN TAXES.

  +---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
  |                           |              Former serfs.               |
  |                           +-------+-------------+--------------------+
  |                           |       | Households. | Arrears in Rubles. |
  | Degree of indebtedness.   |       +-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |                           |       |       |     |       |     |To 1  |
  |                           |Commu- |       |Per  |       |Per  |house-|
  |                           |nities.|Number.|cent.|Amount.|cent.|hold. |
  +---------------------------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |_District of Dankoff_:     |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |  Without arrears          |   175 |  6107 | 61.2|       |     |      |
  |  In arrears:              |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For not more than      |    88 |  3541 | 35.4|   6602| 53.4|  1.9 |
  |      the land tax[197]    |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For not more than      |     8 |   162 |  1.6|   2432| 19.7| 15.0 |
  |      1 year’s taxes       |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For from 1 to 2        |     3 |   179 |  1.8|   3322| 26.9| 18.6 |
  |      years’ taxes         |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |                           +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |      Total in arrears     |    99 |  3882 | 38.8|  12356|100  |      |
  |                           +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |      Total in the district|   274 |  9989 |100  |       |     |      |
  |                           |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |_District of Ranenburg_:   |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |  Without arrears          |    41 |  1254 |  9.6|       |     |      |
  |  In arrears:              |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For not more than      |   138 |  6776 | 52.1|  52891| 30.1|  7.8 |
  |      the land tax         |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For not more than      |    76 |  3529 | 27.1|  70814| 40.3| 20.1 |
  |      1 year’s taxes       |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For from 1 to          |    29 |  1367 | 10.6|  47392| 26.9| 34.7 |
  |      2 year’s taxes       |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For from 2 to          |     3 |    73 |  0.6|   4768|  2.7| 65.3 |
  |      3 years’ taxes       |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |                           +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |      Total in arrears     |   246 | 11745 | 90.4| 175865|100  |      |
  |                           +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |      Total in the district|   287 | 12999 |100  |       |     |      |
  +---------------------------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |                           |          Former state peasants.          |
  |                           +-------+-------------+--------------------+
  |                           |       | Households. | Arrears in Rubles. |
  | Degree of indebtedness.   |       +-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |                           |       |       |     |       |     |To 1  |
  |                           |Commu- |       |Per  |       |Per  |house-|
  |                           |nities.|Number.|cent.|Amount.|cent.|hold. |
  +---------------------------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |_District of Dankoff_:     |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |  Without arrears          |    17 |  2125 | 40.4|       |     |      |
  |  In arrears:              |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For not more than      |    21 |  3119 | 59.3|   4668| 94.7|  1.5 |
  |      the land tax[197]    |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For not more than      |     1 |    18 |  0.3|    263|  5.3| 14.6 |
  |      1 year’s taxes       |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For from 1 to 2        |    -- |    -- | --  |     --| --  | --   |
  |      years’ taxes         |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |                           +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |      Total in arrears     |    22 |  3137 | 59.6|   4931|100  |      |
  |                           +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |      Total in the district|    39 |  5262 |100  |       |     |      |
  |                           |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |_District of Ranenburg_:   |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |  Without arrears          |     6 |   169 |  2.1|       |     |      |
  |  In arrears:              |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For not more than      |    34 |  5063 | 64.3|  33869| 47.9|  6.7 |
  |      the land tax         |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For not more than      |    13 |  2644 | 33.6|  36857| 52.1| 13.9 |
  |      1 year’s taxes       |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For from 1 to          |    -- |    -- | --  |    -- | --  | --   |
  |      2 year’s taxes       |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |    For from 2 to          |    -- |    -- | --  |    -- | --  | --   |
  |      3 years’ taxes       |       |       |     |       |     |      |
  |                           +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |      Total in arrears     |    47 |  7107 | 97.9|  70726|100  |      |
  |                           +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+
  |      Total in the district|    53 |  7876 |100  |       |     |      |
  +---------------------------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+


TABLE IV.--DISTRIBUTION OF RENTED LAND.

_A.--Classification with regard to ownership of land._

  +--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
  |                                |        D. of Korotoyak.        |
  |                                +-----------+--------------------+
  |                                |           |    Rented land.    |
  |        Households.             |           +-----------+--------+
  |                                |           |           | To one |
  |                                |           |           | tenant |
  |                                | Tenants,  |           |(dessia-|
  |                                | per cent. | Per cent. | tines.)|
  +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
  |  Landless                      |  0.2}     |  0.3}     |   5.4  |
  |Owning under 5 dessiatines      | 13.2} 13.4|  8.9} 9.2 |   2.8  |
  |   ”   from 5 to 15 dessiatines | 49.0      | 38.9      |   3.3  |
  |   ”   from 15 to 25 dessiatines| 26.1}     | 27.5}     |   4.5  |
  |   ”   over 25 dessiatines      | 11.5} 37.6| 24.4} 51.9|   9.0  |
  |                                +-----------+-----------+--------+
  |      Total                     |100        |100        |   4.2  |
  +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
  |                                |      D. of Nizhnedevitsk.      |
  |                                +-----------+--------------------+
  |                                |           |    Rented land.    |
  |        Households.             |           +-----------+--------+
  |                                |           |           | To one |
  |                                |           |           | tenant |
  |                                | Tenants,  |           |(dessia-|
  |                                | per cent. | Per cent. | tines.)|
  +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
  |  Landless                      |  0.3}     |  0.3}     |  3.4   |
  |Owning under 5 dessiatines      | 19.1} 19.4| 14.6} 14.9|  3.0   |
  |   ”   from 5 to 15 dessiatines | 49.7      | 41.7      |  3.3   |
  |   ”   from 15 to 25 dessiatines| 22.0}     | 24.6}     |  4.4   |
  |   ”   over 25 dessiatines      |  8.9} 30.9| 18.8} 43.4|  8.2   |
  |                                +-----------+-----------+--------+
  |      Total                     |100        |100        |  3.9   |
  +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+
  |                                |            In all.             |
  |        Households.             +---------------+----------------+
  |                                |  Rented for   |   Rented for   |
  |                                | money rental, | share in crops,|
  |                                |   per cent.   |   per cent.    |
  +--------------------------------+---------------+----------------+
  |  Landless                      |      0.3      |       0.2      |
  |Owning under 5 dessiatines      |     11.6      |      12.8      |
  |   ”   from 5 to 15 dessiatines |     39.8      |      50.0      |
  |   ”   from 15 to 25 dessiatines|     26.1      |      26.4      |
  |   ”   over 25 dessiatines      |     22.2      |      10.6      |
  |                                +---------------+----------------+
  |      Total                     |    100        |     100        |
  +--------------------------------+---------------+----------------+

_B.--Classification with regard to stock-breeding._

  +-----------------------+--------------------------------+
  |                       |      D. of Nizhnedevitsk.      |
  |                       +--------+------+--------+-------+
  |                       |        |      |Tenants,|       |
  |     Households.       |        |      |percent-|       |
  |                       |        |Rented|  age   |Dessia-|
  |                       |Tenants,| land,| within | tines |
  |                       |  per   |  per |  the   | to 1  |
  |                       | cent.  | cent.| class. |tenant.|
  +-----------------------+--------+------+--------+-------+
  |Without horses         |   3.5  |  1.9 |  11.5  |  2.1  |
  |With 1 horse           |   28.4 | 16.5 |  37.9  |  2.3  |
  |  ”  from 2 to 3 horses|   54.1 | 46.7 |  49.6  |  3.4  |
  |  ”  4 or more horses  |   14.0 | 34.9 |  78.5  |  9.7  |
  |                       +--------+------+--------+-------+
  |        Total          |  100   |100   |  43.0  |  3.9  |
  +-----------------------+--------+------+--------+-------+
  |                       |        D. of Korotoyak.        |
  |                       +--------+------+--------+-------+
  |                       |        |      |Tenants,|       |
  |     Households.       |        |      |percent-|       |
  |                       |        |Rented|  age   | To 1  |
  |                       |Tenants,| land,| within |tenant,|
  |                       |  per   |  per |  the   |dessia-|
  |                       | cent.  | cent.| class. | tines.|
  +-----------------------+--------+------+--------+-------+
  |Without horses         |   1.1  |  0.4 |   3.5  |  1.3  |
  |With 1 horse           |  21.4  | 10.6 |  28.8  |  2.1  |
  |  ”  from 2 to 3 horses|  63.0  | 50.3 |  54.9  |  3.4  |
  |  ”  4 or more horses  |  14.5  | 38.7 |  81.6  | 11.3  |
  |                       +--------+------+--------+-------+
  |        Total          | 100    |100   |  41.9  |  4.2  |
  +-----------------------+--------+------+--------+-------+
  |                       |            In all.             |
  |     Households.       +---------------+----------------+
  |                       |  Rented for   |   Rented for   |
  |                       | money rental, | share in crops,|
  |                       |   per cent.   |   per cent.    |
  +-----------------------+---------------+----------------+
  |Without horses         |      1.1      |       0.6      |
  |With 1 horse           |     13.3      |      16.4      |
  |  ”  from 2 to 3 horses|     48.0      |      59.5      |
  |  ”  4 or more horses  |     37.6      |      23.5      |
  |                       +---------------+----------------+
  |        Total          |    100        |     100        |
  +-----------------------+---------------+----------------+


TABLE V.

BUDGETS OF TYPICAL PEASANT HOUSEHOLDS.

Translated from the _Statistical Reports for the District of
Borisoglebsk, Gubernia of Tamboff_ (Appendix I., pp. 28-32, 88-97).[198]

I. _Gabriel Michea’s_ (son) _Trupoff_, village Sukmanka, bailiwick
(_volost_) Sukmanka.

The family selected is one of medium standing, getting along well with
its farming. The figures refer to 1879, when the crops were good, the
yield being in the ratio of 10:1 to the seed.

_Members of the Family._

1. _The housefather_, 60 year old, doing all kinds of farm work.

2. _His wife_, of the same age, keeping the house.

3. _Their son_, aged 27.

4. _Their daughter-in law_, aged 26, and,

5-7. The son and daughter-in-law’s three children, between 3 and 8
years of age.

_Schedule of Property Owned by the Family._

1. Wooden house, straw roof:

         _Dimensions._    _Yards._ _Feet._ _Inches._
    _a._ Length              9       1
    _b._ Breadth             4       2
    _c._ Height              2       2        2

Add thereto sheds, _etc._, used for various farming purposes.

2. Land, 15 dessiatines (= 40 acres).

3. Stock:

    _a._ Horses     4
    _b._ Cow        1
    _c._ Calf       1

_Income in Rubles._

  +-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  | _Dr._                             |_Price._|  _In   |  _In   |_Total._|
  |                                   |        | _Kind._| Money._|        |
  +-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |1. Farm and house:                 |        |        |        |        |
  |   Rye, 40 Russian quarters, @     |   4.00 |  90.00 |  70.00 | 160.00 |
  |   Oats, 60 Russian quarters, @    |   2.00 |  40.00 |  80.00 | 120.00 |
  |   Millet, 5 Russian quarters, @   |   5.00 |  25.00 |        |  25.00 |
  |   Potatoes, 40 Russian measures, @|   0.15 |   6.00 |        |   6.00 |
  |   Flaxseed, 5 quarters, @         |  10.00 |        |  50.00 |  50.00 |
  |   Flax and hemp, fibre            |        |  30.00 |        |  30.00 |
  |   Hemp seed, 2½ quarters, @       |   8.00 |  20.00 |        |  20.00 |
  |   Hay, 100 _poods_, @             |   0.10 |  10.00 |        |  10.00 |
  |   Straw                           |        |  40.00 |        |  40.00 |
  |   Two slaughtered pigs, @         |   5.00 |  10.00 |        |  10.00 |
  |   One calf, @                     |  20.00 |  20.00 |        |  20.00 |
  |   Sold: ducks, @                  |        |        |   4.00 |        |
  |          3 geese, @               |   1.00 |        |   3.00 |        |
  |          1 colt, @                |  23.00 |        |  23.00 |  30.00 |
  +-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |    Total from farm and house      |        | 291.00 | 230.00 | 521.00 |
  |                                   |        |        |        |        |
  | II. Rented grass land:            |        |        |        |        |
  |    3 dessiatines (8 acres):       |        |        |        |        |
  |       Hay, 180 _poods_, @         |   0.10 |  18.00 |        |  18.00 |
  |                                   |        |        |        |        |
  | III. Odd jobs:                    |        |        |        |        |
  |    (Farm work and driving)        |        |        |  52.00 |  52.00 |
  +-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |           Grand total             |        | 309.00 | 282.00 | 591.00 |
  +-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

_Expenses in Rubles._

  +-------------------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+
  | _Cr._                               |_Price._| _In   | _In   |_Total._|
  |                                     |        | Kind._|Money._|        |
  +-------------------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |I. _Productive Consumption_:         |        |       |       |        |
  |   1. Forage for cattle[199]:        |        |       |       |        |
  |      Hay                            |        | 28.00 |       |        |
  |      Oats                           |        | 40.00 |       |        |
  |      Straw                          |        | 40.00 |       |        |
  |                                     +--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |        All to forage                |        |108.00 |       | 108.00 |
  |   2. Wages to the communal shepherd:|        |       |       |        |
  |      The family’s share             |        |  3.00 |       |        |
  |   3. Wear and tear of implements    |        | 30.00 |       |        |
  |                                     +--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |   Total productive consumption      |        |108.00 | 33.00 | 141.00 |
  |II. _Personal Consumption_:          |        |       |       |        |
  |   1. Food:                          |        |       |       |        |
  |      Rye flour, 15 _poods_ a month @|   0.50 | 90.00 |       |        |
  |      Salt, 4½ _poods_ a year @      |   0.70 |       |  3.15 |        |
  |      Hemp oil                       |        | 20.00 |       |        |
  |      Wheat flour, 217 lbs. a year   |        |       | 12.00 |        |
  |      Corn                           |        | 25.00 |       |        |
  |      Potatoes                       |        |  6.00 |       |        |
  |      Meat and lard                  |        |       |       |        |
  |         _a._ On holidays     72 lbs.|        |       |  5.60 |        |
  |         _b._ On workdays    430 lbs.|        | 30.00 |       |        |
  |                            ---------|        |       |       |        |
  |            Total meat       502 lbs.|        |       |       |        |
  |      Salted fish and herring        |        |       |  5.00 |        |
  |      Brandy, 4 pails (400 glasses)  |        |       | 16.00 |        |
  |                                     +--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |         All to food[200]            |        |171.00 | 41.75 | 212.75 |
  |   2. Shoes:                         |        |       |       |        |
  |      One pair a year to each member |        |       |       |        |
  |        of the family                |        |       | 13.00 |        |
  |      Felt boots for all             |        |       |  3.00 |        |
  |                                     +--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |         All for shoes               |        |       | 16.00 |  16.00 |
  |   3. Clothing:                      |        |       |       |        |
  |       One fur to each father and    |        |       |       |        |
  |         son, once in 5 years @      |  10.00 |       |  4.00 |        |
  |       One coat to each, once in 2   |        |       |       |        |
  |         years @                     |   5.00 |       |  5.00 |        |
  |       One gird to each, once in 10  |        |       |       |        |
  |         years @                     |   0.16 |       |  0.80 |        |
  |       One cap to each, once in 5    |        |       |       |        |
  |         years @                     |   2.00 |       | 10.00 |        |
  |       One holiday coat to each,     |        |       |       |        |
  |         once in 3 years @           |   6.00 |       |  4.00 |        |
  |       One overcoat for the son,     |        |       |       |        |
  |         once in 2 years @           |   5.00 |       |  2.50 |        |
  |       Dresses for two women         |        |       | 16.00 |        |
  |       Dresses for children          |        |       | 10.00 |        |
  |       Linen from own flax and seed  |        | 30.00 |       |        |
  |                                     +--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |          All to clothing            |        | 30.00 | 42.46 |  72.46 |
  |   4. Sundries:                      |        |       |       |        |
  |       Lard candles, 10 lbs. a year  |        |       |  1.60 |        |
  |       Kerosene, 36 lbs. a year      |        |       |  2.40 |        |
  |       Expenses of worship           |        |       |  5.50 |        |
  |       Soap                          |        |       |  1.50 |        |
  |       Tar                           |        |       |  2.50 |        |
  |       Moulding of rye, etc.         |        |       | 10.00 |        |
  |       Unexpected                    |        |       | 10.00 |        |
  |                                     +--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |          All to sundries            |        |       | 33.50 |  33.50 |
  |                                     +--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |          Total personal consumption |        |201.00 |133.71 | 334.71 |
  |III. _Taxes_                         |        |       | 37.50 |  37.50 |
  |                                     +--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |          All to ordinary expenses   |        |309.00 |204.21 | 513.21 |
  |IV. _Rent_ for 3 dessiatines grass   |        |       |       |        |
  |      land, @                        |   5.00 |       | 15.00 |  15.00 |
  |                                     +--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |          Total expenditures         |        |309.00 |219.21 | 528.21 |
  +-------------------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+
  |   Balance:                                                            |
  |     1. Net income from farm and house                            7.79 |
  |     2. Net income from rented land                               3.00 |
  |     3. Income from sundry jobs                                  52.00 |
  |                                                                ------ |
  |          Grand total                                           591.00 |
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

II. _Kosma Abramoff_, village Michaïlovka, bailiwick Nicholo-Kabañ
yevskaya.

The family counts as one of the “strong” economically.

_Members._

   3 male workers.
   3 female workers.
   3 children.
   1 elder.
  --
  10

_Schedule of Property._

1. 1 house (with appurtenances):

                                _Yards._  _Inches._
    _a._  Length                   6         8
    _b._  Breadth                  6         8

2.  Land, 3 _dessiatines_ (8 acres).

3.  Stock:

    _a._ Horses      5
    _b._ Cow         1
    _c._ Calves      2
    _d._ Sheep      11
    _e._ Lambs       7
    _f._ Pigs        2

_Income in Rubles._

  +-------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
  | _Dr._                                     |       |       |
  +-------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
  |  I. Farming on the allotted land (garden, |       |       |
  |       house and appurtenances)            | 181.00|       |
  | II. Domestic industry for domestic use    | 177.80|       |
  |                                           +-------+-------+
  |          Total farm and house             | 358.80| 358.80|
  |          Deficit to cover the expenses    |       | 660.45|
  |                                           |       +-------+
  |          Total                            |       |1019.25|
  |III. Farming on rented land:               |       |       |
  |       Gross income                        | 640.00|       |
  |       Rent                                |       | 282.00|
  |       Net product                         |       | 358.00|
  |                                           |       +-------+
  |          Total                            |       | 640.00|
  | IV. Odd jobs:                             |       |       |
  |       Farm work, tailoring, carrying      |       |       |
  |         trade, wage work, _etc._          | 245.00|       |
  |                                           +-------+-------+
  |          Total income                     |1243.80|1243.80|
  |          Balance (deficit)                |       |  57.45|
  +-------------------------------------------+-------+-------+
  |          Grand Total                      |       |1301.25|
  +-------------------------------------------+-------+-------+

_Expenses[201] in Rubles._

  +---------------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+
  | _Cr._                           |_In Kind._|_In Money._| _Total._|
  +---------------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+
  |  I. Productive consumption      |   154.00 |   127.00  |  281.00 |
  | II. Personal Consumption:       |          |           |         |
  |       Food[202]                 |   255.00 |   137.05  |  392.05 |
  |       Clothing                  |   170.00 |    60.00  |  230.00 |
  |       Shoes and stockings       |     7.80 |    51.50  |   59.30 |
  |       Miscellaneous             |          |    40.90  |   40.90 |
  |                                 +----------+-----------+---------+
  |     All to personal consumption |   432.80 |   289.45  |  722.25 |
  |III. Taxes                       |          |    16.00  |   16.00 |
  |                                 +----------+-----------+---------+
  |     Total ordinary expenditure  |   586.80 |   432.45  | 1019.25 |
  | IV. Rent: For 20 _dessiatines_  |          |   282.00  |  282.00 |
  +---------------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+
  |              Grand total        |   586.80 |   714.45  | 1301.25 |
  +---------------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+

III. _Capiton Popoff_, village Pavlovka, bailiwick Pavlodarovka.

The family is considered one of the “powerless.”

_Members._

1. Father.

2. Mother.

3. Son.

4. Daughter-in-law.

5. Girl of 16.

6. Girl of 13.

7-8. Two little boys.

_Schedule of Property._

1. House, 14×14 square feet.

2. Land, 1½ dessiatines (4 acres).

3. Stock:

    _a._ Horse      1
    _b._ Cow        1
    _c._ Sheep      3

_Yearly Income in Rubles._

  +-----------------------------------------------+---------+
  | _Dr._                                         |         |
  +-----------------------------------------------+---------+
  | Farm and house                                |   27.80 |
  | Rented land                                   |   74.00 |
  | Wage labor                                    |   74.80 |
  |                      -------------------------+---------+
  |                       Total                   |  176.60 |
  |                       Balance, deficit        |   65.20 |
  |                                               +---------+
  |                       Grand total             |  241.80 |
  +-----------------------------------------------+---------+

_Yearly Expenses in Rubles._

  +----------------------------------------------------+---------+
  | _Cr._                                              |         |
  +----------------------------------------------------+---------+
  |  I. Rent                                           |   57.00 |
  | II. Taxes                                          |    8.00 |
  |III. Food:                                          |         |
  |      Meat at Easter, 11 pounds @ 9 _copecks_       |    0.99 |
  |           at St. Peter’s day, 10 pounds @ 8 _cop._ |    0.80 |
  |           at Christmas, @ 5 _cop._ (of own produce)|    1.75 |
  |                                                    +---------+
  |               All to meat                          |    3.54 |
  |            5 chickens and 50 eggs                  |    1.05 |
  |           18 pounds very bad salted fish at the    |         |
  |               carnival, @ 4 _cop._                 |    0.72 |
  |           Rye bread, cabbage, potatoes, salt,      |         |
  |               butter, corn, pickles, and apples    |         |
  |               for the children                     |  106.61 |
  |                                                    +---------+
  |               All to food                          |  111.92 |
  | IV. Clothing[203]                                  |   23.10 |
  |  V. Shoes[203]                                     |   27.00 |
  | VI. Sundries[204]                                  |   15.78 |
  |                                                    +---------+
  |               Grand total                          |  241.80 |
  +----------------------------------------------------+---------+


TABLE VI.--WAGES OF THE PEASANT IN INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT.

(Compiled from the Appendices to the _Statistical Reports for the
Gubernia of Ryazañ_, 1882.)

_A._--_Local._

  -----------+------+-----+------------------------------------------------
             |      |     |                 Wages in rubles
             |      |     +---------+---------+----------+------------+----
     Trade   |Season|Board|Per day  |Per week |Per month |  Per term  |
             |      |     +----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+Per
             |      |     |From| To |From| To |From| To  |From |  To  |year
  -----------+------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+----
  Brickmakers|      |     |0.50|1.00|    |    |    |     |50.00| 80.00|
  Charcoal   |      |     |0.50|0.70|    |    |    |     |40.00|      |
  burning    |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Clearing of|      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  the soil   |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  from stumps|      |With-|    |    |    |    |7.00|12.00|     |      |
  Diggers    |Spring|out  |0.60|0.70|    |    |8.00|10.00|40.00| 50.00|
  Masons     | and  |board|    |    |    |    |7.00|12.00|40.00| 80.00|
  Potters    |Summer|     |    |    |    |    |    |     |45.00|      |
  Quarries-- |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  _a._       |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Independent|      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  craftsmen  |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |75.00|100.00|
  _b._       |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Working for|      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  contractors|      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |35.00| 60.00|
             |      +-----+    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Carpenters |      |With |    |    |    |    |    |     |55.00| 70.00|
             +------+board|    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
             |  All +-----+    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |100
             |through     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
             |  the |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
             | year |     |    |    |    |    |7.00|13.00|     |      |
             +------+With-|    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Water flour|Winter|out  |    |    |    |    |5.00|     |     |      |
  mills      +------+board|    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
             |Spring|     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
             | and  |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
             |Summer|     |    |    |    |    |8.00|15.00|     |      |
             +------+-----+    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Felt       |      |     |0.40|0.60|    |    |    |     |     |      |
  boot-makers|      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
             |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Furriers   | Fall |     |0.40|0.60|    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Tailors    |      |With |    |    |1.50|2.50|    |     |     |      |
  Apprentices|      |board|    |    |0.50|    |    |     |     |      |
             +------+     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Timber     |      |     |    |    |1.00|    |    |     |     |      |
  sawing     |      +-----+    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
             |      |     |0.50|0.70|    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Coal miners|      |     |0.30|0.50|    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Distilleries      |     |0.25|    |    |    |5.00| 9.00|     |      |
  Sugar      |Winter|     |    |    |    |    |6.00| 8.00|     |      |
  Factories  |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Railways-- |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  a. Males   |      |     |0.30|0.45|    |    |    |     |     |      |
             +------+With |0.70|1.00|    |    |    |     |     |      |
             |Summer|board|    |    |    |    |9.00|12.00|     |      |
             +------+     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  b. Females |      |     |0.20|0.40|    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Steam flour|      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  mills      | All  |     |0.40|0.50|    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Carrying   |through     |0.60|1.00|    |    |    |     |     |      |
  Day        | the  |     |0.30|0.40|    |    |    |     |     |      |
   laborers  | year |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
   (in town) |      |     |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
             +------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+----
  In all:   {With board   |0.40|0.60|1.00|2.50|    |     |55.00| 70.00|100
   full     {Without board|0.25|1.00|    |    |5.00|15.00|35.00| 60.00|
   workers,               |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
   males                  |    |    |    |    |    |     |     |      |
  ------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+----

_B._--_Outside._

  -----------+----------+-------+--------------------------------------
             |          |       |          Wages in rubles.
             |          |       +--------------+--------------+--------
             |          |       |   Per month. |  Per term.   |Per year
             |          |       +------+-------+------+-------+--------
     Trade.  |Gubernias.|Season.| With |Without| With |Without|  With
             |          |       |board.| board.|board.| board.| board.
             |          |       +---+--+----+--+---+--+----+--+----+---
             |          |       |From  |From|  |From  |From|  |From|
             |          |       |   |To|    |To|   |To|    |To|    |To
  -----------+----------+-------+---+--+----+--+---+--+----+--+----+---
  Diggers    |          |       |   |  |    |  |   |  | 60 |75|    |
  Quarries   |  Moscow. |       |   |  |    |  | 40|50|    |  |    |
             +----------+       |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
  Brickmakers|  Moscow  |       |   |  |    |  | 40|50|    |  |    |
             | and Orel.|Spring |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
             +----------+  and  |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
  Turf Cutters  Moscow  |Summer.|   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
  May to July|   and    |       |   |  |    |  | 30|50|    |  |    |
  May to     | Vladimir.|       |   |  |    |  | 50|70|    |  |    |
    August   |          |       |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
             +----------+       |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
  Railways   |          |       |   |  | 14 |20|   |  |    |  |    |
             |          +-------+   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
             |          |Winter.|   |  |  9 |10|   |  |    |  |    |
             +----------+-------+   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
  Cabmen     |          |       | 6 | 9|    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
  Drivers    |          |       | 7 |12| 15 |18|   |  |    |  | 90 |150
  House-     |          |       |   |  | 15 |18|   |  |    |  |    |
     keepers |          |       |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
  Janitors,  | Moscow.  |  All  |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
    servants,|          |through|   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
    etc.     |          |  the  |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  | 75 |100
  Flour mills|          | year. |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  | 50 | 70
             +----------+       |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
  Factory    | Moscow   |       |   |  | 10 |18|   |  |    |  |    |
    Hands    | and St.  |       |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
             |Petersburg.       |   |  |    |  |   |  |    |  |    |
             +----------+-------+---+--+----+--+---+--+----+--+----+---
  In all, in Moscow and vicinity| 6 |12| 10 |18| 30|70| 60 |75| 50 |150
  ------------------------------+---+--+----+--+---+--+----+--+----+---


TABLE VII.--AVERAGE YIELDS OF WHEAT (DISTRICT OF VORONEZH).

  +----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------------------+
  |                      |          |           |    Chetverts from     |
  |   Estates of over    |          |           |     1 dessiatine.     |
  |   50 dessiatines.    |          |           +-----------+-----------+
  |                      |Period of |Dessiatines|           |    Not    |
  |                      |experience|   under   |           |fertilized |
  |                      | (years). |   wheat.  |Fertilized.|(or mixed).|
  +----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
  |_Series I._           |          |           |           |           |
  |  No.  81             |    19    |    300    |    8.4    |  5.6      |
  |   ”  197             |     5    |     30    |    8      |           |
  |   ”   32             |    10    |     51    |    ?      |  6.3      |
  |   ”  103             |     9    |    113    |           |  5.2      |
  |   ”   81             |     6    |    110    |           |  5.2      |
  |   ”  189 bis.        |     7    |     90    |           |  4.7      |
  |   ”  192 bis.        |     7    |    103    |           |  4        |
  |                      +----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
  |Average on 7 estates. |    12    |    797    |           |           |
  |                      |          +-----------+           |           |
  |                      |          |    330    |    8.4    |           |
  |                      |          |    767    |           |  5.4[205] |
  |_Series II._          |          |           |           |           |
  |  13 estates          |          |    596    |    7.9    |           |
  |   5 estates          |          |     86.5  |           |  5.4      |
  |                      +----------+-----------+           |           |
  |   Total 18 estates   |          |    682.5  |           |           |
  +----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+




FOOTNOTES


[1] There are large villages composed of several distinct communities,
something like Zurich until recently, or New York, Brooklyn, Jersey
City, _etc._; that is to say, municipally divided, though socially and
geographically a unit.

[2] I plead for liberty to use this expression, which is to be found in
Shakespeare.

[3] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ, District of
Ryazañ_, Vol. I., pp. 2-4.

[4] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh_, Vol. I., p. 2.

[5] “The _Zemstvo_ and the national economy,” by I. P. Bielokonsky.
_Severny Vestnik_ (monthly magazine), May, 1892.

[6] As the investigation of the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ had not been
brought to an end, the gaps have been filled in most cases by referring
to the _Reports_ for the _gubernias_ of Voronezh, Tamboff and Smolensk,
which are now likewise among those affected by the famine.

[7] Prof. W. J. Ashley, in the introductory chapter of his translation
of _The Origin of Property in Land_ by Fustel de Coulanges, represents
the Russian village community as “only a joint cultivation and not
a joint ownership.” The Russian _mir_, he thinks, has always in
historical times been a “village group in serfdom under a lord” (p.
xx.). This opinion stands in direct contradiction to the results
of Russian historical investigation, which are here presented in a
condensed summary. The development of landlord property in Russia,
on the contrary, is but a fact of modern centuries; there are vast
provinces in Russia where there never was anything like a nobility
and landlord property (_e. g._, the _gubernias_ of Olonetz, Vyatka,
Vologda, Archangelsk), save in a few exceptional cases. Serfdom was
altogether unknown in these districts, and in all the rest of Russia a
considerable part of the peasantry, though dependent upon the State,
knew no landlord above them. Toward 1861 the total number of State
peasants amounted to 29⅓ millions, while the former serfs numbered 22⅔
millions. (Prof. Janson, _Essay of a Statistical Investigation on the
Peasants’ Landed Property and Taxation_, 2d ed., p. 1.) Thus, in so far
at least as one-half of the Russian peasantry is concerned, the village
community must be construed, in direct opposition to Prof. Ashley, as
“joint ownership and not joint cultivation.”

[8] Most of the Russians were doubtless extremely surprised to learn
that bond serfdom in Russia was in existence up to this very year of
1892. The Kalmyks, a semi-nomadic tribe of 150,000 men, in southeastern
Russia, near the Caspian Sea, remained serfs of their chiefs, the
_zaisangs_ and _noyons_, until the ukase issued on the 8th (20th) of
May, 1892, whereby bond serfdom of the common Kalmyks was at last
abolished.

[9] The government did not act in consistence with the principles
of the emancipation of the serfs when applying in 1866 the “Statute
on peasants freed from bond serfdom” to those freed from dependence
upon the State. While the former were declared “peasant proprietors,”
the latter were regarded only as hereditary tenants. A new law was
subsequently passed, granting the former State peasants the right
of buying out their lots from the State. I have not the respective
statutes at hand, and am not certain as to the year in which the law
was passed. It was certainly later than 1882, the year of the census
whose reports we use further on.

[10] The indirect taxes are figured in the budget for the current year
as follows:

RUBLES.

                               1892.         1891.
  Sec. 4.   From liquors    242,570,981   259,550,981
   ”   7.     ”  naphtha     10,026,800     9,528,500
   ”   8.     ”  matches      4,720,000     4,524,000
   ”   5.     ”  tobacco     27,741,102    28,213,102
   ”   6.     ”  sugar       21,174,000    20,161,000
   ”   9.   Customs duties  110,900,000   110,929,000
                            -----------   -----------
                            417,182,883   432,906,583

(_Cf._ _The Government Messenger_, No. 1, 1892.) The taxes in Secs.
4, 7 and 8 are naturally paid chiefly by the peasants, who are the
majority, and these items alone amount to from 62 to 63 per cent. of
all indirect taxes.

[11] _Essay of a Statistical Investigation on the Peasants’ Landed
Property and Taxation._

[12] In the _gubernia_ of Novgorod the former State peasants paid in
taxes the entire net income of their land, and the former serfs from
61 to 465 per cent. above their net income. In the _gubernia_ of St.
Petersburg they paid 34, and in that of Moscow, upon an average, 105
per cent. in excess of their net income.

EXCESS OF TAXATION ABOVE THE NET INCOME.

   _In the       _Per cent. former     _Per cent.
  gubernias._     State peasants._    former serfs._

  Tver                  144                152
  Smolensk               66                120
  Kostroma               46                140
  Pskoff                 30                113
  Vladimir               68                176
  Vyatka                  3                100

In the “black soil” region the difference amounted to from 24 to 200
per cent. for the former serfs, while the former State peasants, more
favorably situated, had to pay in taxes from 30 to 148 per cent. of
their net income, etc. (_Loc. cit._, pp. 35-36, 86.)

[13] Corporal punishment for debts (_pravyozh_) is an institution of
Russian law bearing the stamp of antiquity. It might perhaps flatter
the Russian “national pride” to class this institution as one of the
emanations of the “self-existent Russian spirit.” Unfortunately for the
latter, this is a method of procedure common to many other nations at a
certain stage of historical development.

[14] The rent is here no fictitious quantity, it being an every-day
occurrence for peasants to lease their lots.

[15] Picture the condition of a New Jersey farmer who would have to
await the permission of the Governor of New Jersey, the Secretary of
State, and the Treasury Department, before moving to Minnesota. This is
exactly the condition of the Russian peasant.

According to the recent law, more liberal than the original law of
1861, emigration is allowed by a special permission, in every single
case, of the Ministers of the Interior and of Public Domains, which
permission is issued upon the presentation of the local governor.

[16]

  +---------------+-----------------------------------+
  |               |    Land in peasants’ possession.  |
  |               +------------+----------------------+
  |  Districts.   |   Total.   |    Pure black soil.  |
  |               +------------+------------+---------+
  |               |Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|Per cent.|
  +---------------+------------+------------+---------+
  |Ranenburg      |   164361   |   113681   |   69    |
  |Dankoff        |   130082   |    89376   |   69    |
  +---------------+------------+------------+---------+

1 dessiatine = 2.7 acres.

A word as to the way in which quotations are made from the Statistical
Reports. Pages are cited whenever the data are found in the Tables
or Appendices in such a shape as to be immediately available for the
purposes of the discussion. Where, however, the raw material would
have to be re-arranged, the pages of this essay would be needlessly
encumbered with references to hundreds of paragraphs. No citations are
given in such instances, but a general reference is made to the Reports
in question.

[17] The term is derived from “quarter,” an old Muscovite measure in
usage for estates granted in fee.

The numerical relation between these two forms is given in the
following table:

HEREDITARY POSSESSION.

  +------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------------+
  |            |  Communities of |                 |                      |
  |            |  former State   |   Households.   |         Land.        |
  | Districts. |  peasants.      |                 |                      |
  |            +-------+---------+-------+---------+------------+---------+
  |            |Number.|Per cent.|Number.|Per cent.|Dessiatines.|Per cent.|
  +------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------------+---------+
  |Ranenburg   |   25  |    48   | 1,639 |    21   |   21,236   |    24   |
  |Dankoff     |   21  |    54   | 2,180 |    41   |   32,539   |    50   |
  +------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------------+---------+

Cf. _Quarterly Possession_, by Mr. K. Pankeyeff, in the Moscow review
_Russkaya Mysl_, 1886, book 2, p. 50. The paper quoted was to have been
published as a part of the _Reports of the Ryazañ Statistical Bureau_,
but after the work was stopped (see above page 16) it appeared in one
of our liberal magazines.

[18] _Op. cit._, book III., page 28.

[19] _Op. cit._, book III., page 33.

[20] _Op. cit._, page 27. The figures show the number of population in
villages where the land is owned quarterly. The population of 1849 is
given according to the ninth revision (of 1846), and the population of
1882 according to the tenth revision (of 1858). The extent of private
property would be exaggerated were the comparison made with the census
of 1882. By overlooking the increase of the population between the
ninth and the tenth revisions, the results of the comparison are but
emphasized.

[21] _Cf._ Mr. Greegoryeff’s _Report to the XVII. Assembly of the
Gubernia of Ryazañ_, p. 5. _Cf._ also _Emigration among the Peasants
of the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, by the same author, which I have not now
at hand. In Eastern Russia the subdivision of the arable land is but
of very recent date. In Siberia it cannot be traced farther back than
two generations, and there are even now a great many districts in which
no limitations are imposed by the community on the free use of land
by every one of its members. Nevertheless the poll tax was applied to
these districts also for about two centuries. It seems to prove that
the imposition of the said tax did not necessitate subdivision except
where land was scarce. It may consequently be inferred that it was not
the poll tax, but the scarcity of land in the most crowded provinces,
that prompted the subdivision. In this view the subdivision of the land
appears to be a natural phase in the evolution of communal landholding.
(With reference to this point _cf._ Prof. W. J. Ashley’s remarks in his
introduction to Fustel de Coulanges’ _The Origin of Property in Land_,
pp. xlvii-xlviii.)

[22] Mr. Pankeyeff makes in one passage an allusion to the analogy
between the development of quarterly landholding into agrarian
communism and the transformation of the right of first possession into
communal ownership in New Russia and in the _gubernia_ of Voronezh
(_Cf._ _op. cit._, book III., p. 35). The analogy, however is not
further worked out.

[23] The extent of the three forms of possession to-day is shown in the
following table:

  +--------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
  |                    |Communities.       |      Extent of land.      |
  |                    |                   |                           |
  |                    |    +--------------+-------------+-------------+
  |                    |    |Households.   |   Communal  | Quarterly.  |
  |Forms of possession.|    |              |   proper.   |             |
  |                    |    |      +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+
  |                    |    |      |Inhab- |Dessia-|Per  |Dessia-|Per  |
  |                    |    |      |itants.|tines. |cent.|tines. |cent.|
  +--------------------+----+------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+
  |Quarterly           | 33 | 2,180| 15,071| 3,754 | 11  |29,598 | 89  |
  |  ”  and Communistic| 12 | 1,639| 11,037| 9,210 | 45  |11,213 | 55  |
  |Communistic proper  | 45 | 9,319| 62,114|99,493 | 99.5|   493 |  0.5|
  +--------------------+----+------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+

[24] _Cf._ Table of the Distribution of Land and Population, in the
Appendix.

[25] The appendices to the _Statistical Reports_ contain some figures
for the comparison between the extent of land formerly held by the
serf and now owned by the free “peasant-proprietor.” In 117 out of 562
communities of former serfs, there were held by the peasants:

                          _Dessiatines._   _Per cent._

  Before the emancipation    53870            100
  After   ”     ”            40537             75
                             -----            ---
  Cut off for the nobles     13333             25

It must be remembered that besides these 25 per cent., the nobles
cultivated, before 1861, large portions of land on their estates by
means of forced labor.

[26] Uniformity and equality being the law of the distribution of
land in these communities, the income of each share is controlled by
everybody, which makes it easy for the statistician to estimate. Those
communities of quarterly possession constitute but 8.4 per cent. of the
entire population of the district of Ranenburg and 15.2 per cent. of
that of Dankoff.

[27] 1 _pood_ = 1 quarter, 11 pounds and 2 ounces avoirdupois.

[28] Small and young cattle (sheep, swine, calves, _etc._) are also
included in this total, with a computation of ten head of small cattle
to one head of big cattle (ox or horse).

[29]

  +-----------------------------+------+-------+-------+---------------+
  |                             |      |       |       |  Average per  |
  |         Classes.            |House-|Working| Cows. |   household.  |
  |                             |holds.|horses.|       +-------+-------+
  |                             |      |       |       |Horses.|Big    |
  |                             |      |       |       |       |cattle.|
  +-----------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
  |    _Ranenburg._             |      |       |       |       |       |
  |I.  Former serfs             |12,999| 16,140|  8,924|  1.2  |  2.6  |
  |II. Former State peasants--  |      |       |       |       |       |
  |    _a._ Agrarian communism  | 6,237|  8,241|  5,687|  1.3  |  2.9  |
  |    _b._ Quarterly possession|   415|    830|    514|  2    |  4    |
  |    _c._ Mixed               | 1,224|  1,781|  1,195|  1.5  |  3.1  |
  |                             +------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
  |  Total                      |20,875| 26,992| 16,320|  1.3  |  2.6  |
  |                             |      |       |       |       |       |
  |    _Dankoff._               |      |       |       |       |       |
  |I.  Former serfs             | 9,989| 13,576|  6,485|  1.4  |  2.5  |
  |II. Former State peasants--  |      |       |       |       |       |
  |    _a._ Agrarian communism  | 3,082|  4,092|  2,189|  1.3  |  2.6  |
  |    _b._ Quarterly possession| 1,765|  3,126|  1,406|  1.8  |  3.3  |
  |    _c._ Mixed               |   415|    648|    318|  1.6  |  2.9  |
  |                             +------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
  |  Total                      |15,251| 21,442| 10,398|  1.4  |  2.7  |
  +-----------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

(Former State peasants holding their land on the right of quarterly
possession, are here noted separately in order to show that they enjoy
about the same facilities for stock-breeding as do the rest of the
peasantry).

[30] This is shown in the table below:

  +--------------------+------------------------+------------------------+
  |                    |      Ranenburg.        |        Dankoff.        |
  |                    +-----------+------------+-----------+------------+
  |   Communities.     |  Former   |  Former    |  Former   |  Former    |
  |                    |  serfs.   |  State     |  serfs.   |  State     |
  |                    |           |  peasants. |           |  peasants. |
  +--------------------+-----------+------------+-----------+------------+
  | Total              |     276   |      52    |    260    |     39     |
  | Forest allotted to |       3   |      26    |     19    |     27     |
  +--------------------+-----------+------------+-----------+------------+

(_Cf. Statistical Reports_, Vol. II, pp. I-II., Appendices.)

[31] We read in the Appendix to the _Statistical Reports for the
Ranenburg District_, p. 321: “_Village Novoselki, former serfs of
Barkoff._ About 1877, pressed by the extreme need of daily bread, the
peasants began sowing all the fields, without giving them rest for a
single year (in Russia every field rests once in three years); the
yield is now constantly going from bad to worse, and there is nothing
to manure the soil with.”

[32] _Statistical Reports for the District of Dankoff_, p. 240.

[33] Moreover, a crying injustice was thereby created--an injustice
peculiar to Russia alone. Enclosure is commonly considered the sign
of private property. To this rule Russia is the sole exception. There
the landlords do not care to enclose their estates, while the peasants
lack the necessary means to do so, having no woods in their possession.
Whenever the landlord’s estate adjoins the village, the peasants’
cattle, being innocent of the knowledge of geodesical distinctions,
invariably cross the fatal line. Then, if caught, (which is the rule,)
they are duly arrested and delivered to their owners only after
compensation has been paid for the damages suffered by the landlord.
The courts are overwhelmed with processes of this kind just when the
farmer is most busy. The number of villages laboring under these
unfavorable conditions is given in the following table:

                _Communes of former serfs._
               _Total._     _Injured by site._

  Ranenburg      288             22
  Dankoff        274             17

(_Cf. Statistical Reports_, Vol. II., Appendices.)

[34] _Cf. Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh_, Vol. II.,
part II., pp. 166, 172; Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1890
(Washington, 1891), p. 335; Reports of the Bureau of Statistics of the
Department of Agriculture, 1891, by J. R. Dodge, Statistician, pp.
277-280, 654-655.

[35] The yield in the district of Ostrogozhsk represents pretty nearly
the average for Russia, as can be shown by the following figures:

  _Yield of Rye per Acre._   _Seed = 1._    _Per cent._

     All over Russia          4.5            100
     In Ostrogozhsk           4.5            100
     In the U. S. (1890)      6.1            135

(_Cf. Reports, etc._, by J. A. Dodge, p. 480; _Comparative Statistics
of Russia_, by Prof. J. E. Janson, p. 74).

[36] _Cf. Statistical Reports_, Vol. IV., part I., pp. 97, 98; Vol. V.,
part I., pp. 106-109; Vol. VI., part I., pp. 144-146.

[37] In reality, the deficit is far greater, inasmuch as a part of the
receipts came from the produce raised on rented land. It must also be
noticed that taxes are not included in the expenses.

[38] This can be inferred from the table on the next page:

  +--------------+--------------------+---------+------------+
  |              | Farmers buying rye |         |            |
  |              |      and flour.    | To the  | Deficit of |
  |              +--------+-----------+ amount  | farming in |
  |  Districts.  |        |Percentage |   of    |the district|
  |              |Number. | to the    | rubles. | (rubles).  |
  |              |        |population.|         |            |
  +--------------+--------+-----------+---------+------------+
  |Korotoyak     | 3,368  |    16     |  31,481 |   42,310   |
  |Nizhnedevitzk | 7,238  |    36     |  84,473 |   70,103   |
  +--------------+--------+-----------+---------+------------+

_Ibid._, Vol. V., part I., p. 107, columns 89, 92, 93; Vol. VI., part
I., p. 145, col. 151, 154, 155. The quantity of bread consumed by a
peasant family in a year amounting to 57 _poods_ upon an average (l.
c., vol. IV., part I., p. 97, col. 75-76, total), the deficit of bread
in a year of ordinary crops figures as follows:

                   _Households buying    _Deficit of
  _Districts._     bread, per cent._     bread, per cent._

  Ostrogozhsk             58                    54
  Zadonsk                 41                    44

(_Ibid._, Vol. II., part I., p. 223, col. 58, 59; Vol. IV., part I., p.
97, col. 77-82.)

[39] Cf. _Statistical Reports for Borisoglebsk District, Gubernia of
Tamboff_, Appendix, pp. 86-87. Every budget was made out upon the
statement of the householder, in the presence of his neighbors, who
were thoroughly cognizant of the income and expenses of the house; the
data are therefore perfectly trustworthy. (_Ibid._, and also page 28.)
The budgets are produced in full in the Appendix below.

[40] 1 ruble in gold = $0.80. Still there is no gold in circulation in
Russia. The paper ruble, since the Turkish war of 1877-78, is worth
only 60 per cent. of its nominal value, _i. e._, 1.00 paper ruble =
$0.50. The purchasing power of one ruble is however equal to that of
one dollar in New York.

[41] CONSUMPTION.

  +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
  |Householders in |     Rubles.     |     Per cent.   |
  | the _gubernia_ +--------+--------+--------+--------+
  | of Tamboff.    |   Own  | Market |   Own  | Market |
  |                |produce.|produce.|produce.|produce.|
  +----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |Gabriel Trupoff | 309.00 | 166.71 |   65   |   35   |
  |Kosma Abramoff  | 586.80 | 416.45 |   59   |   41   |
  +----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Taxes and rents are not included. Should we count all expenses, the
figures would look as follows:

TOTAL EXPENDED.

  +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
  |                |     Rubles.     |     Per cent.   |
  |                +--------+--------+--------+--------+
  | Householders.  |   Own  | Market |   Own  | Market |
  |                |produce.|produce.|produce.|produce.|
  +----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
  |Gabriel Trupoff | 309.00 | 219.21 |   59   |   41   |
  |Kosma Abramoff  | 586.80 | 714.45 |   45   |   55   |
  +----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

[42]

  +--------------+-----------+--------------------+---------------------+
  |Districts in  | Households| Households selling | Households consuming|
  |the _gubernia_| buying in |    produce.        |        their        |
  | of Voronezh. |the market.|                    |   total produce.    |
  |              |           +--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
  |              |           | Number.| Per cent. | Number. | Per cent. |
  +--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+
  |Zadonsk       |  15,528   |  8,094 |    51     |  7,610  |    49     |
  |Korotoyak     |  20,232   | 18,769 |    93     |  1,463  |     7     |
  |Nizhnedevitzk |  20,051   | 18,558 |    93     |  1,493  |     7     |
  +--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+

Those households which purchased in the market without selling produce,
earned the necessary money by selling their own labor force, which is
shown by figures in the same _Reports_. (L. c.)

[43] Taxes constitute but a minor part--though a very considerable
one--of the money expenditure; and the receipts drawn from sale of
produce exceed by far the sum paid in taxes. The respective items are
contrasted in the following table:

  +--------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------------+
  | Districts in | Money expenditure  |  Taxes    | Receipts from   |
  |the _gubernia_|  for the needs of  | (rubles). |    sale of      |
  | of Voronezh. |the farmer (rubles).|           |produce (rubles).|
  +--------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------------+
  |Zadonsk       |      784,061       |  271,729  |     390,178     |
  |Korotoyak     |    1,017,727       |  504,608  |   1,280,206     |
  |Nizhnedevitzk |    1,069,013       |  511,285  |   1,326,110     |
  +--------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------------+

[44] _Cf._ Table II., in the Appendix. In this table, land and stock,
the principal instruments of production in Russian agriculture, give
the comparative standard of the peasant’s life.

[45] At the time of the reform it was ostentatiously declared by the
government that the person of the serf would be freed without any
compensation to the master.

[46]

               _Households,      _Land,
                per cent._     per cent._

  Ranenburg       91.6            86.9
  Dankoff         83.8            73.8

[47] _Cf._ the Table of the Distribution of Arrears, in the Appendix to
this essay.

[48] In addition a tax assessed _per capita_ is levied upon the lands
of the peasants for the expenses of the State.

[49] _Cf._ _Reports_, Vol. II., part I., preface, p. 7.

[50] _Cf._ above page 16.

[51] The maximum of arrears reached, in three communities, the
enormous sum of 65 rubles to an average household. This means complete
destruction of independent farming. Let us quote some examples, by way
of illustration:

1. The community of former serfs of Mr. Balk, village and bailiwick
Karpofka, district of Ranenburg: The arrears amount to 67.90 rubles
from each householder. Out of the total number of 51 householders there
are but 24 who cultivate their lots personally. Only three among them
have two horses, the rest must do with one, and 26 (one-half) have
no working animals at all. One householder among these 26 has a cow;
the rest have neither horse nor cow. There are likewise only 13 cows
to be distributed among the 24 better-off householders who personally
cultivate their farms. Only one pig is raised in the village, and 87
sheep--that is to say, less than two sheep, upon an average, to each
household. This means that the peasants have no meat on their tables,
and most of the children no milk. 10 “householders” (one-fifth of the
village) have neither houses nor land; they lease their lots in order
to pay their taxes, and, in all probability, seeing the coincidence of
the figures, they have no cattle either. The yield of rye is to the
seed as 3 to 1, and that of oats as 2 to 1 (_loc. cit._, Vol. II.,
tables, pp. 56-61). In 1864 many peasants’ chattels in this village
were sold for arrears. The majority of the peasants go a-begging (App.,
pp. 286-287), and certainly are very little afraid of public sale for
_où il n’y a rien, le roi perd son droit_. Neither is flogging endowed
with any creative power. Yet, inasmuch as the community is responsible
_in solido_ for the payment of the taxes, it was the minority who
had to pay, in addition to their own arrears, those of the beggars.
Seeing the extent of their wealth, it is not perhaps too pessimistic to
presume that in this year 1892 perfect equality reigns in place of the
old distinction between minority and majority.

2. Community of former serfs of Mr. Novikoff, in the same village, in
arrears for 46.30 rubles to each household, _i. e._, for about three
terms of payment. Soon after the emancipation two great public sales
of their chattels took place, the sales being to satisfy arrears in
the payment of the _taille_. Year in and year out, from 20 to 30
householders have their cattle and buildings sold at public auction
to satisfy arrears of taxes. 23 families out of the whole number of
245 (_i. e._, 9 per cent.) have lost their shanties; 105, or 43 per
cent., have no horses; and 84 among them, or more than one-third of
the village, have also no cows. 123 families, _i. e._, one half of the
village, do not cultivate their lots themselves (or cultivate only a
part), either hiring their neighbors to do the work, or leasing their
lots for the mere payment of the taxes. The wealthier half numbers
but 60 householders (_i. e._, one-fourth of the village), who own two
or more horses, and can be regarded as belonging 10 to the type of
_bonus pater familias_ (_hozyaïslvenniy mushik_). The rest have but one
horse, and some of them no cow. “They live but poorly,” explains the
_Appendix_ (l. c., p. 286).

3. Community of former serfs of Messrs. Muromtzeff, village
Durofshtchino, bailiwick Vednofskaya, of the same district. The
arrears amount in an average to 42.70 rubles to each householder. The
community may serve as an example of the astounding capacity for growth
of the Russian peasant’s wool after he has been shorn like a sheep,
as the great Russian satirist has it (_Playwork Manikins_, by M. E.
Saltykoff). Indeed, in 1881 all the cows in the village were sold for
arrears by the _mir_; in 1882 the statisticians found 38 householders,
each of whom was again in possession of a cow. However, notwithstanding
this capacity of accommodation, in which the Russian peasant approaches
the lowest zoölogical species, the village in question is still far
from prosperous. Among the 64 families there are 12, _i. e._, about
one-fifth, who own neither house nor cattle, and hold no land, having
either returned their lots to the community or leased them for payment
of the taxes, which comes to the same thing. On the other hand, there
are but 27 households, _i. e._, 42 per cent., who maintain a normal
standing, _i. e._, have not less than two horses and one cow, and
cultivate all the land in their possession. (Cf. _Tables_, pp. 194-199.
No. 29; _App._, p. 329.)

[52] _Ibid._, Vol. II., part I., p. 264; part II., p. 197. There are
in both districts only ten communities in which the taxes absorb the
entire rent, and only seven communities of former serfs (out of 562)
in which the taxes exceed the rent. On the other hand, there are only
17 communities where the difference is above three rubles; and the
maximum reaches 13 rubles in a community of former State peasants who
own a tract of forest in the district of Dankoff (_Ibid._, pp. 31, 210,
No. 8). The proportion of taxes to rent in this community is as 9.5 to
22.5, _i. e._, the taxes absorb 42 per cent. of the rent in the most
favored community. What would the New York landlord or the American
farmer say, to such a rate of taxation?

[53]

  _Districts._     _Percentage of families owning_

                   _No horse._       _Neither horse
                                       nor cow._
  Ranenburg            36                 25
  Dankoff              34                 25

(_Cf._ _Reports_, Vol. II., part I., p. 255; part II., p. 189.)

[54] The numbers designate communities.

[55] In these transitional communities labor agreements for pasture
are met with side by side with money contracts. In one case a very
patriarchal form of relations was observed. The community was admitted
to the pasture of the neighboring village for a reception yearly
tendered to the latter. (_Reports_, Vol. II., part I., p. 328, No. 27.)

[56] Some cases of communal tenure are not included in the tables of
the _Reports_, though mentioned in the Appendices; I have added the
extent of this tenure, which makes the difference between my totals and
those of the tables.

[57] The numbers of the two columns under this heading do not
correspond, since land is besides rented individually in those
communities where tenure by the _mir_ or by partnerships is practiced.

[58] _Cf._ _Forms of Agricultural Production in Russia_, p. 43 _et
passim_, by Mr. Euzhakoff, an admirer of Mr. Henry George. The paper
was published in the magazine _Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_, 1882.

[59] In the district of Ryazañ, where communal tenure is by far more
extended than in the districts under review, we find a few cases of
communal tenure among the former State peasants; yet the extent of land
so held is so small as to cut no figure at all:

                                _Communal tenure._
    _Classes of tenants._   _Dessiatines._  _Per cent._

  Former serfs                   9924           96
  Former State peasants           456            4
                                 ----           --
      Total                     10380          100

(_Cf._ _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, Vol. I., sec.
II., table 3, f.; p. 57.)

[60] Rented land is taken into account only in those communities
in which the area cut off at the time of the emancipation could be
ascertained by the statisticians. It may be further stated that only
such land is here taken into account as is yearly cultivated.

[61] AVERAGE HOLDING (IN DESSIATINES).

             _Communal._  _Individual._
  Ranenburg      88            3
  Dankoff        97            3

[62]

  +-----------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
  |                             |        Arable.    |       Meadow.     |
  | Average rent paid for       +----------+--------+----------+--------+
  | 1 dessiatine.               |Ranenburg.|Dankoff.|Ranenburg.|Dankoff.|
  +-----------------------------+----------+--------+----------+--------+
  |By the community      rubles |   13.11  |   9.76 |   10.86  |  7.74  |
  |By individuals in the same   |          |        |          |        |
  |  communities                |   19.82  |  13.47 |     ..   |   ..   |
  |By individuals throughout the|          |        |          |        |
  |  district                   |   16.62  |  12.76 |   15.91  |  7.59  |
  +-----------------------------+----------+--------+----------+--------+

[63]

  +------------------------------+--------------------+------------+
  |                              | Quantity of stock  |            |
  |                              | to one household.  |            |
  |                              +-------+------------+“Horseless,”|
  |   Districts and classes.     |       |All kinds of|  per cent. |
  |                              |Working|large cattle|            |
  |                              |horses.| (horses    |            |
  |                              |       |inclusive). |            |
  +------------------------------+-------+------------+------------+
  |    _Ranenburg._              |       |            |            |
  |In the communities in question|  1.6  |    3.2     |     27     |
  |Among former serfs at large   |  1.2  |    2.6     |     37     |
  |Among former State peasants   |       |            |            |
  |  with agrarian communism     |  1.3  |    2.9     |     33     |
  |                              |       |            |            |
  |    _Dankoff._                |       |            |            |
  |In the communities in question|  1.5  |    2.9     |     33     |
  |Among former serfs at large   |  1.3  |    2.5     |     35     |
  |Among former State peasants   |       |            |            |
  |  with agrarian communism     |  1.3  |    2.6     |     33     |
  +------------------------------+-------+------------+------------+

[64] Altogether or partly, but without cultivating the rest personally.

[65] Indeed, we find the _mir_ in some instances playing the part of
land broker. The community of former serfs of Prince Shtchetinin,
in the village of Sergievskee Borovok, Ranenburg, rented a field
of 434 dessiatines (1172 acres), at 16 rubles the dessiatine, and
re-rented one-third of the tract at a commission of from 3 to 4 rubles
per dessiatine (_i. e._, from 20 to 25 per cent.), and even more.
(_Reports_, part I., p. 316, No. 10. _Cf._ also p. 289, No. 15, etc.)

No doubt this business could be as successfully performed by any East
Side New York real estate and land improvement agency, as by the Ryazañ
peasant communists.

[66] _Ibid._, Vol. II., part I., p. 264.

[67] This is shown by the comparative data concerning tenure at will
among the two main divisions of the peasantry:

  +---------------------+------------+-------------+-----------+---------+
  |                     |  Tenants.  |Land leased. |           | Land    |
  |    Classes and      +------+-----+-------+-----+Tenants to |leased   |
  |    Districts.       |House-| Per |Dessia-| Per |population,|to land  |
  |                     |holds.|cent.|tines. |cent.| per cent. |owned,   |
  |                     |      |     |       |     |           |per cent.|
  +---------------------+------+-----+-------+-----+-----------+---------+
  |  _Ranenburg._       |      |     |       |     |           |         |
  |Former serfs         | 4392 |  83 | 15337 |  84 |     34    |   20    |
  |Former State peasants|  893 |  17 |  3010 |  16 |     11    |    3    |
  |                     |      |     |       |     |           |         |
  |  _Dankoff._         |      |     |       |     |           |         |
  |Former serfs         | 3205 |  83 | 11078 |  81 |     32    |   17    |
  |Former State peasants|  676 |  17 |  2765 |  20 |     13    |    4    |
  +---------------------+------+-----+-------+-----+-----------+---------+

[68] The table includes 62 per cent. of the total area of rented land,
the data for the classification being furnished by the statements in
the _Appendices_ to the _Reports_ for the districts in question.

[69] We find this tendency very pronounced in the _gubernia_ of
Voronezh:

  +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+
  |              |                                                   |
  |              |                 Area rented.                      |
  |              |                                                   |
  |  Districts.  +-----------+--------------+------------+-----------+
  |              | For money | For share in | For labor  |           |
  |              |  rented,  |    crops,    | and money, |  Total,   |
  |              | per cent. |   per cent.  |  per cent. | per cent. |
  +--------------+-----------+--------------+------------+-----------+
  |Zadonsk       |    86     |       7      |      7     |    100    |
  |Korotoyak     |    88     |      12      |     ..     |    100    |
  |Nizhnedevitsk |    94     |       4      |      2     |    100    |
  +--------------+-----------+--------------+------------+-----------+

(_Cf._ _Statistical Reports_, Vol. IV., part I., Vol. V., part I.; Vol.
VI., part I., Table of Rented Land.)

[70] Here are some instances:

1. Village Solntzevo, district of Ranenburg.--“Some five years ago,
after one failure of the crops, 100 householders were 6000 rubles in
arrears with their rent. Up to this date they have paid practically
nothing, and live with the threat of being sold out hanging perpetually
over their heads.” (_Loc. cit._ App., p. 308.) The result can be shown
in figures:

                                      _Rent (in rubles) paid:_
        _Number of tenants._     _By all tenants._    _By each one._
  In 1877         100                   6000                60
  In 1882          75                   3514                47

(_Cf._ p. 123.)

2. Village Bahmetyevo, Ranenburg.--“Excessive rent, often not returned
by the yields, has caused the heavy indebtedness of many a householder”
(p. 331).

3. Village Blagueeya.--“The terms of tenure are very burdensome--above
20 rubles the dessiatine. One part of the rent must be discharged in
labor, the rest is payable in advance. Leasing land is often direct
loss. A good many are in debt, and not infrequently get ruined.”
(_Ibid._)

[71] _Cf._ Table IV. in the Appendix.

[72] _Principles of Political Economy_, eighth edition, Vol. I., p. 453.

[73]

  +-------------------------------+------------------------------+
  |                               |Percentage to the total of the|
  |                               |           peasantry.         |
  |            Classes.           +--------------+---------------+
  |                               |  Korotoyak.  |Nizhnedevitzk. |
  +-------------------------------+--------------+---------------+
  |Households taking to wage-labor|      62      |      69       |
  |Of these are:                  |              |               |
  |    Regular farmers            |      50      |      63       |
  |    Laborers proper            |      12      |       6       |
  +-------------------------------+--------------+---------------+

[74] Detailed tables containing the rates of wages paid in different
occupations are found in the Appendix.

[75] Optimism is inborn in the Russian; to whatever creed or party
he may belong, things ever appear to him as he would like them to
be. The Russian peasantist must not therefore be censured for his
misconception of this most typical figure of the modern Russian
village. The peasant who agrees to do the full work of cultivating and
harvesting a tract of the landlord’s field appears to Mr. Euzhakoff as
a tenant, with the only peculiarity that “the tenant takes his share
in money, while leaving the landlord to take the crops” (_loc. cit._,
pp. 26-27). This confusion reminds one to some extent of the attempts
of certain economists to represent the workingman as capitalist, and
the capitalist as workingman. There is, however, one extenuating
circumstance that may be urged on behalf of the well-meaning author,
in the hopelessness of the task he has undertaken with the best
intentions, _viz._, to demonstrate that the debilitated Russian
Capitalism, condemned before its birth by history, is unable to hold
its ground in the contest with the triumphant small peasant culture.

[76] There are in all two statements to the effect that work is done
for straw, flour, etc. (_Loc. cit._, part II., p. 198, No. 4; p. 206,
No. 3.) Cases in which work is done for rented land, or for a share in
the crop, have been counted as tenure.

[77] _Loc. cit._, part I., p. 264. Figures on the indebtedness of
the peasantry with regard to farm labor for wages are found in the
_Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh_ (Vol. V., part 1.;
Vol. VI., part I., Table G.). In the table that follows the figures are
reduced to percentage rates:

  +----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+--------+
  |                            |  Rate to  | Rate to | Rate to |Average |
  |   Districts and classes.   |population,|  farm   |indebted,|due by 1|
  |                            | per cent. |laborers,|per cent.|house-  |
  |                            |           |per cent.|         |holder, |
  |                            |           |         |         |rubles. |
  +----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+--------+
  |_District of Korotoyak._    |           |         |         |        |
  |Indebted: 1. All told       |     50    |    --   |   100   |  34.80 |
  |          2. Farm laborers  |     --    |    52   |    39   |  23.99 |
  |                            |           |         |         |        |
  |_District of Nizhnedevitsk._|           |         |         |        |
  |Indebted: 1. All told       |     50    |    --   |   100   |  44.38 |
  |          2. Farm laborers  |     --    |    56   |    46   |  23.46 |
  +----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+--------+

[78] The mythical first Russian prince, to whom the _élite_ of the
aristocracy trace their ancestry.

[79] Carpenters, shoemakers, tailors, blacksmiths, and others who
supply by their work the local wants.

[80] _Cf._ Appendix, Table V.

[81] ENGAGED IN SKILLED LABOR IN EVERY 1000.

             _Households._  _Adult workers._
  Ranenburg       72               53
  Dankoff         67               49

[82] BOARD FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYER.

    _Paid to_     _For the summer season._        _Per year._
  Farm help         From 25.00 to 35.00       From 35.00 to 60.00
  Carpenters         ”   55.00 to 70.00             100.00

[83]

                                     _Workingmen._
              _Concerns._     _Total._   _Average to concern._
  Ranenburg       506           1985              3.9
  Dankoff         240           1355              5.6
                  ---           ----              ---
      Total       746           3340              4.5

Virtually, however, the average is less than this, since there are
included only those industrial concerns belonging to peasants, and
situated in the precincts of the villages, while peasant labor is also
employed in those enterprises owned by the landlords and situated on
their estates.

[84] This is the industry which is protected, through prohibitive
tariffs and export premiums, from foreign competition.

[85] Twelve communities were found by the statisticians in which a
considerable part of the membership consisted of regular beggars. As an
example may be quoted the village Bratovka, bailiwick Naryshkinskaya,
Ranenburg: “A good many go a-begging even when crops are good; in years
of failure over half the village takes to begging.” (_Loc. cit._,
p. 283.) Professional beggary has been of late very comprehensively
described by some of the observers of peasant life. Late in the fall
the huts are nailed up, and caravans of peasants--man, wife and
child--start on a journey “for crumbs.” We read in the _Statistical
Reports for the Gubernia of Tamboff_:

“Everywhere the peasants report a great number of beggars; generally
they are peasants from a strange district. It is only in a case of
extreme necessity that a man able to work would force himself to ask
alms in his own village. Usually, the needy families are supported
through loans of bread from their neighbors, who divide with them
their last provisions. The peasants of the district of Morshansk
report, moreover, that they are haunted by a good many beggars from the
district of Shatzk, as well as from the _gubernias_ of Vladimir and
Ryazañ.” (Vol. III., p. 277.)

Does it not exactly remind one of the historical picture drawn by
Vauban, who reported that “one-tenth of the French peasants are
beggars, and the remaining nine-tenths have nothing to give them?”

[86] The question of the degree to which they are successful in
starting as farmers, is one that does not come within the scope of
this essay. I have discussed this question in my previous publication,
_Peasant Emigration to Siberia_, Moscow, 1888.

[87] The wandering population of the district of Voronezh was divided
as follows, between the several branches of employment:

                               _Workers._  _Per cent._
  Agriculture                     1283        62
  Handicraft                       469        23}
  Personal service                  89         4} 38
  City and railroad labourers      219        11}
                                  ----        ---
      Total                       2060        100

[88] The general statements made to this effect by the peasants, and
reproduced in the _Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, could obviously
not be presented in figures, for this would require at least two
censuses.

[89] The co-relation existing between outside work and the decay of
farming may be inferred from the following table for the districts
Ranenburg and Dankoff:

  _Kind of employment._       _Communities._  _Households._  _Horseless,
                                                              per cent._

  Local only, no outside workers     90         1124             27
  Throughout the region             653        36126             35

[90] _Cf. loc. cit._, part II., p. 233, No. 14.

[91] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Smolensk_, Vol. IV., pp.
296, 304, 350, 352: Vol. V., pp. 218, 226, 272, 274.

[92] It can be seen by contrasting the figures of families whose houses
have been sold with those of other destitute peasant groups:

                          _Percentage of families._
                            _Landless or leasing   _Owning neither horse
             _Houseless._   their total lots._        nor cow._
  Ranenburg       8               15                     25
  Dankoff        10               15                     25

[93] This is confirmed by a great many statements in the _Reports for
the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, as well as by the following table taken from
the _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Smolensk_:

  +-----------------------+----------+------------+
  |        Absent.        |Youkhnoff,|Dorogobouzh,|
  |                       |per cent. | per cent.  |
  +-----------------------+----------+------------+
  |Rate to the population |     7    |      5     |
  |  Of these:            |          |            |
  |Owning houses          |    19    |     27     |
  |Houseless              |    81    |     73     |
  |                       |   ----   |    ----    |
  |    Total              |   100    |    100     |
  +-----------------------+----------+------------+

  +-----------------------+----------+------------+
  |      Houseless.       |Youkhnoff,|Dorogobouzh,|
  |                       |per cent. | per cent.  |
  +-----------------------+----------+------------+
  |Rate to the population |     9    |      6     |
  |  Of these:            |          |            |
  |Living in the village  |    36    |     41     |
  |Absent from the village|    64    |     59     |
  |                       |   ----   |    ----    |
  |    Total              |   100    |    100     |
  +-----------------------+----------+------------+

[94] “The Pillars” is the title of a very popular novel by Mr.
Zlatovratsky, one of the leading peasantist writers.

[95] I must again plead for extenuating circumstances in the event of
being mistaken as to the exact date.

[96] The “major” _i. e._ the head of the family, composed of married
brothers and sisters, is not always the eldest brother. In case the
eldest male member of the family shows himself not qualified for
the management of the household, one of the younger brothers is
occasionally entrusted with the office.

[97] To use the term adopted by Mr. Michaïlovsky, the renowned Russian
writer on sociology.

[98] The number of workers included in the tenth census is not given
in the reports, but the distribution of the population according to
age is not likely to have changed very much in 25 years, the rates
being determined to a great extent by biological influences, which are
modified very slowly. The percentage of the total male population that
by the census of the zemstvo had reached the age at which they are
usually set to work is as follows:

                        _Per cent._
  Ranenburg (1882)          47
  Dankoff (1882)            47
  Korotoyak (1887)          47
  Nizhnedevitzk (1887)      46

Taking these figures as co-efficients, we obtain the number of male
workers to a family in 1858.

[99] The figures above given are rather too little expressive for the
actual degree of the dissolution of the patriarchal family abroad.
The following are the figures for the whole region covered by the
statistical investigation of the zemstvo toward January 1, 1890 (_cf._
Introduction):

  Communities                         50,429
  Households                       3,309,020
  Males and females               19,693,191
  Average membership to 1 family        5.95
  To the do. of Ranenburg               6.4
      ”   ”     Dankoff                 6.4
      ”   ”     Korotoyak               7.3
      ”   ”     Nizhnedevitzk           7.8

[100] The correlation between the number of workers and the size of the
farm can be summed up as follows:

  +-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
  |                 |        Classes of Farms (per cent.).          |
  |                 +-----------------------+-----------------------+
  |                 |      Korotoyak.       |     Nizhnedevitsk.    |
  |Number of Workers+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
  |  to 1 Family.   | Below |       | Above | Below |       | Above |
  |                 |  the  |Average|  the  |  the  |Average|  the  |
  |                 |average| size. |average|average| size. |average|
  |                 | size. |       | size. | size. |       | size. |
  +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
  |None             |  61   |  33   |   6   |  49   |  44   |   7   |
  |One              |  25   |  59   |  16   |  29   |  56   |  15   |
  |Two              |   3   |  56   |  41   |   7   |  60   |  33   |
  |Three            |   1   |  22   |  77   |   3   |  25   |  72   |
  +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
  |  Total          |  16   |  50   |  34   |  18   |  51   |  31   |
  +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

[101]

   +-------------+----------+---------+---------+-------+--------+
   |             | Stopped working on | Stopped tilling one part |
   |             |    their farms.    |     of their farms.      |
   +-------------+----------+---------+----------------+---------+
   |             |          |         | With 1 horse.  |         |
   |             |          |         +---------+------+         |
   |             |          | In the  |   All   | All  | In the  |
   |             |          |district |“stopped”|with 1|district |
   |             |Horseless,|at large,| _etc._  |horse |at large,|
   | Districts.  |per cent. |per cent.| = 100.  |= 100.|per cent.|
   +-------------+----------+---------+---------+------+---------+
   |Zadonsk      |    95    |    25   |    73   |  13  |     7   |
   |Korotoyak    |    95    |    15   |    62   |  16  |     8   |
   |Nizhnedevitsk|    96    |    13   |    65   |  27  |    13   |
   +-------------+----------+---------+---------+------+---------+

As shown by these figures, the percentage of householders who are
unable to till the full size of their farms is twice as large among
those with one horse as in the region at large; moreover, this
transitional class of weak householders consists chiefly of those with
one horse.

[102]

   _Districts._     _“Horseless,”     _With 1 horse,       _In all,
                    per cent._         per cent._        per cent._

   _Gubernia of
    Voronezh_--

    Zadonsk              25                 40                65
    Korotoyak            13                 32                45
    Nizhnedevitsk        13                 32                45

   _Gubernia of
    Ryazañ_--

    Ranenburg            36                 27                63
    Dankoff              34                 25                59

[103] The following tables are fully conclusive as regards the rise and
growth of this class:

I. CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF ADULT MALE WORKERS TO ONE
HOUSEHOLD (TOTAL IN EVERY CLASS = 100.)

   +-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
   |                         |     Korotoyak.      |   Nizhnedevitsk.    |
   |                         +-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
   |                         |Total lot  |Stopped  |Total lot  |Stopped  |
   | Households.             |tilled with|working  |tilled with|working  |
   |                         |the owner’s|on their |the owner’s|on their |
   |                         |live stock,|farms,   |live stock,|farms,   |
   |                         |per cent.  |per cent.|per cent.  |per cent.|
   +-------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
   |With 3 or more workers   |    89     |    2    |    88     |    2    |
   |With 2 workers           |    86     |    6    |    82     |    5    |
   |With 1 worker            |    73     |   19    |    65     |   20    |
   |Without workers          |    24     |   72    |    30     |   60    |
   +-------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
   |      In all             |    78     |   15    |    74     |   13    |
   +-------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
   |In the Gubernia of Ryazañ|    57     |   36    |    59     |   34    |
   |                         +-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
   |                         |      Ranenburg.     |       Dankoff.      |
   +-------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

II. CLASSIFICATION THE SAME (ALL “STOPPED WORKING,” ETC. = 100.)

   +-----------------------+---------------------------------+
   |                       | Stopped working on their farms. |
   |      Households.      +----------------+----------------+
   |                       |  Korotoyak,    | Nizhnedevitsk, |
   |                       |   per cent.    |   per cent.    |
   +-----------------------+----------------+----------------+
   |With 3 or more workers |       2        |        2       |
   |With 2 workers         |      12        |       14       |
   |With 1 worker          |      62        |       67       |
   |Without workers        |      24        |       17       |
   +-----------------------+----------------+----------------+
   |      In all           |     100        |      100       |
   +-----------------------+----------------+----------------+

[104]

  +-------------------+----------------------------------+----------------+
  |                   |        Families numbering        |   All told.    |
  |                   +--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+
  |                   |No adult|One    |Two     |Three or|Full|Half-|Total|
  |    Districts.     |male    |adult  |adult   |more    |    |     |     |
  |                   |workers.|male   |male    |adult   |    workers.    |
  |                   |        |worker.|workers.|male    |    |     |     |
  |                   |        |       |        |workers.|    |     |     |
  +-------------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+
  |    _Korotoyak_:   |        |       |        |        |    |     |     |
  |The farmer’s family|  0     |  1    |  2     |  3     |1.8 | 0.4 | 2.2 |
  |Hired laborers     |  1.2   |  1.2  |  1.2   |  1.5   |1.0 | 0.2 | 1.2 |
  +-------------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+
  |    Total workers  |  1.2   |  2.2  |  3.2   |  4.5   |2.8 | 0.6 | 3.4 |
  |  _Nizhnedevitsk_: |        |       |        |        |    |     |     |
  |The farmer’s family|  0     |  1    |  2     |  3     |2.0 | 0.5 | 2.5 |
  |Hired laborers     |  1.0   |  1.2  |  1.2   |  1.4   |0.8 | 0.4 | 1.2 |
  +-------------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+
  |Total workers      |  1.0   |  2.2  |  3.2   |  4.4   |2.8 | 0.9 | 3.7 |
  +-------------------+--------+-------+--------+--------+----+-----+-----+

[105]

  +---------------+----------+------------------------+
  |               |Villages  |   Employing farmers.   |
  |               |in the    +---------------+--------+
  |               |district. |Total |To every|To 1    |
  |Districts.     |          |house-|100     |village.|
  |               |          |holds.|house-  |        |
  |               |          |      |holds.  |        |
  +---------------+----------+------+--------+--------+
  |Korotoyak      |   128    |  829 |    4   |  6.5   |
  |Nizhnedevitsk  |   147    | 1067 |    5   |  7.3   |
  +---------------+----------+------+--------+--------+

[106] The farms of the average size (from 5 to 15 dessiatines), or
those below the average size, are not available for the purposes of
comparison, since the figures are influenced by yet another agent,
_viz._, by the lack of land, leaving a narrow field for even the labor
of the farmer himself.

[107]

  +---------------+----------------------------------------------------+
  |               |             Households separated within            |
  |               +-------------------------+--------------------------+
  |               |                         |                          |
  | Districts.    |  The decennial periods  | The quinquennial periods |
  |               +------------+------------+-------------+------------+
  |               |  1868-77,  | 1878-87,   |  1878-82,   |   1883-87, |
  |               |  per cent. | per cent.  |  per cent.  |  per cent. |
  +---------------+------------+------------+-------------+------------+
  | Zadonsk       |     30     |    36      |     17      |     19     |
  | Korotoyak     |     22     |    35      |     17      |     18     |
  | Nizhnedevitzk |     27     |    39      |     18      |     21     |
  +---------------+------------+------------+-------------+------------+

[108]

  +---------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
  |               |                      | Tilling their plots with |
  |               |                      |   their own stock and    |
  |  Districts.   | Households of yearly |       implements.        |
  |               | or season laborers.  +-------------+------------+
  |               |                      | Households. |  Per cent. |
  +---------------+----------------------+-------------+------------+
  | Korotoyak     |         1891         |    1315     |     70     |
  | Nizhnedevitzk |         2313         |    1912     |     83     |
  | Zadonsk       |         2733         |    1558     |     57     |
  +---------------+----------------------+-------------+------------+

[109]

  +----------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
  |                      |      Korotoyak.     |   Nizhnedevitzk.    |
  | To 1 household upon  +----------+----------+----------+----------+
  |   an average.        | Full-    | Half-    | Full-    | Half-    |
  |                      | workers. | workers. | workers. | workers. |
  +----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
  | Total membership     |     2    |   0.4    |   1.9    |   0.4    |
  | Employed outside     |     1    |   0.1    |   0.9    |   0.3    |
  |                      +----------+----------+----------+----------+
  |    Remain at home    |     1    |   0.3    |   1      |   0.1    |
  +----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

[110]

                                 _Zadonsk._  _Korotoyak._  _Nizhnedevitzk._
  Total permanently employed          100           100            100
  Households with 1 full worker        64            33             38
  Stopped working on their farms       43            33             17

[111] _Kulak_ means “fist”; _miroyed_ means “_mir_ fretter.” These are
nicknames for the village usurer and saloon keeper.

[112] Gleb Oospensky stood alone in his skepticism, opposing his
ironical smile to the universal illusion. With his perfect knowledge of
the peasantry, and his extraordinary artistic talent that penetrated
to the very heart of the phenomena, he did not fail to see that
individualism had become the basis of economic relations, not only
as between the usurer and the debtor, but among the peasants at
large.--_Cf._ his _Casting in one mould (Ravnenie pod odno), Russkaya
Mysl_, January, 1882.

[113] In the _Reports for the gubernia of Ryazañ_, column 36 of the
General Table, states “the area of land held in property by every 10
shareholders of the communal land,” and column 42, the respective data
with regard to lease. The figures have no practical value unless it is
assumed that all members of the community have their shares in the land
acquired in property, or held under lease. In reality, however, the
contrary is the case.

[114]

  +-------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
  |                         |   Zadonsk.   |  Korotoyak.  |Nizhnedevitsk.|
  |        Classes.         +-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+
  |                         | House-| Per  | House-| Per  | House-| Per  |
  |                         | holds.| cent.| holds.| cent.| holds.| cent.|
  +-------------------------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+
  |Employers                |   609 |   4  |   829 |   4  |  1067 |   5  |
  |Employees (farm          |       |      |       |      |       |      |
  |  laborers engaged       |       |      |       |      |       |      |
  |  yearly or per season)  |  2733 |  17  |  1891 |   9  |  2313 |  12  |
  +-------------------------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+
  |Total peasant population | 15704 | 100  | 20282 | 100  | 20072 | 100  |
  +-------------------------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+

[115] Households with 2 and those with 3 horses are counted together
in the tables; yet given the number of horses, the membership of every
group, is found by solving two equations with two unknown quantities.

[116] There are, all told, 103 households of traders who do not work on
their farm, _i. e._, 8 per cent. of all the traders, or 0.5 per cent.
of the total peasant population of the district of Korotoyak.

[117] We find among the traders a large minority whose farms do not
exceed the average; still the lack of communal land is made up by the
greater development of tenure, as shown in the following table:

  +---------------------+------------+------------+--------------+
  |                     |   Total.   |  Tenants.  | Rented land  |
  |                     |            |            |to 1 household|
  |  D. of Korotoyak.   +------+-----+------+-----+   upon an    |
  |                     |House-| Per |House-| Per |   average    |
  |                     |holds.|cent.|holds.|cent.|(dessiatines).|
  +---------------------+------+-----+------+-----+--------------+
  |Traders owning from  |      |     |      |     |              |
  |  1 to 5 dessiatines |   59 |   5 |   48 |  81 |      5.9     |
  |  5 to 15     ”      |  444 |  35 |  311 |  70 |      8.6     |
  |  15 to 25    ”      |  392 |  31 |  288 |  73 |      9.7     |
  |  above 25    ”      |  370 |  29 |  271 |  73 |     17.3     |
  |                     +------+-----+------+-----+--------------+
  |    Total            | 1265 | 100 |  918 |  73 |     11.4     |
  +---------------------+------+-----+------+-----+--------------+

[118]

                                    _Farmers
        _Households._                merely.     _Traders.
                                     Per cent._   Per cent._
  Without adult male workers            ..            3
  With 1 adult male worker              29           24
  With 2 adult male workers             40           33
  With 3 or more adult male workers     31           40
                                      ----         ----
        Total                          100          100

[119]

  +-------------------------------+-------------------+------------------+
  |                               |Employing farmers. |Laborers employed.|
  |                               +------+------------+-------+----------+
  |   Classes (in the District    |House-|Rate within | Per   |  To 1    |
  |         of Korotoyak).        |holds.|the class   | cent. |household.|
  |                               |      |(per cent.).|       |          |
  +-------------------------------+------+------------+-------+----------+
  |Traders                        |  296 |     22     | 43} 59|   1.5    |
  |Mere farmers                   |  161 |      8     | 16}   |   1      |
  |In all the rest of the district|  372 |      2     | 41    |   1.1    |
  |                               +------+------------+-------+----------+
  |      Total                    |  829 |      4     |100    |   1.3    |
  +-------------------------------+------+------------+-------+----------+

[120]

  _Households of trading farmers._       _Employing permanent
                                         laborers, per cent._
  With 3 or more adult male workers                16
  With 2 or less adult male workers                25
                                                   --
        Total                                      22

[121]

  +--------------------------+---------------------+---------+
  |                          |                     | In the  |
  |                          |    In the class.    |district |
  |    Stopped working       |                     |at large.|
  |    on their plots.       +-----------+---------+---------+
  |                          |Households.|Per cent.|Per cent.|
  +--------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+
  |Horseless                 |    2471   |  90     |  13     |
  |With 1 horse              |     256   |   9} 10 |  32} 87 |
  |With 2 horses or more     |      33   |   1}    |  55}    |
  |                          +-----------+---------+---------+
  |      Total               |    2760   | 100     | 100     |
  +--------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+

The class almost coincides on the whole with the so-called “horseless:”

        “_Horseless._”          _Households._  _Per cent._
  Traders                             68          3 } 8
  Tilling their plots                143          5 }
  Stopped tilling their plots       2471         92
                                    ----         ----
        Total                       2682         100

The 10 per cent. who stopped tilling their plots, though owning 1
horse or more, as well as the 8 per cent. who manage to till their
plots without working horses, make (each of these sections) only about
1 per cent. of the peasantry of the district. Thus, in identifying
the proletarians with the “horseless,” the error is of the kind to be
neglected, to use the mathematical term.

[122]

  +--------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
  |                                | Stopped |         | In the  |
  |                                | tilling | “Horse- |district |
  |         Households.            | their   |  less.” |at large.|
  |                                | plots.  |         |         |
  |                                +---------+---------+---------+
  |                                |Per cent.|Per cent.|Per cent.|
  +--------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
  |Landless                        |  11 } 48|  11 } 48|   2 } 16|
  |Owning less than 5 dessiatines  |  37 }   |  37 }   |  14 }   |
  |Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines |  42     |  43     |  50     |
  |Owning from 15 to 25 dessiatines|   9 } 10|   8 } 9 |  25 } 34|
  |Owning above 25 dessiatines     |   1 }   |   1 }   |   9 }   |
  |                                +---------+---------+---------+
  |      Total                     | 100     | 100     | 100     |
  |                                |         |         |         |
  |Average plot:                   |         |         |         |
  |    To 1 household, dessiatines |         |   7.2   |  14.4   |
  |    To 1 adult male worker,  ”  |         |   7.9   |   8.3   |
  +--------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

[123]

  +---------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
  |                                 | Stopped |         | In the  |
  |                                 | tilling | “Horse- |district |
  |          Households.            | their   |  less.” |at large.|
  |                                 | plots.  |         |         |
  |                                 +---------+---------+---------+
  |                                 |Per cent.|Per cent.|Per cent.|
  +---------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
  |Without adult male workers       |  24} 86 |  17} 85 |   5} 51 |
  |With 1 adult male worker         |  62}    |  68}    |  46}    |
  |With 2 adult male workers        |  12} 14 |  13} 15 |  30} 49 |
  |With 3 or more adult male workers|   2}    |   2}    |  19}    |
  |                                 +---------+---------+---------+
  |      Total                      | 100     | 100     | 100     |
  |To 1 household upon an average:  |         |         |         |
  |  Adult male workers             |         |   0.9   |   1.7   |
  |  Half-workers                   |         |   0.2   |   0.4   |
  |  Males and females              |         |   3.8   |   7.4   |
  +---------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

[124]

            _Proletarians.             _Korotoyak.  _Nizhnedevitzk.
    (Stopped tilling their plots)._     Per cent._     Per cent._
  Farm laborers                            48             50
  Miscellaneous                            39             40
  No steady employment                     13             10
                                          ----           ----
        Total                             100            100

[125]

  _District of Korotoyak, “Horseless.”_  _Rubles._  _Per cent._

  Gross income from farming                40610        24
  Wages                                   122604        72
  Odd jobs                                  6719         4
                                          ------      ----
        Total                             169933       100

[126]

  _“Horseless,” Korotoyak._             _Receipts.  _Expenses.
                                         Rubles._    Rubles._
  Gross income from farming               40610
  Taxes                                               33738
  Rent                                                 1046
  Wages paid                                           1144
                                         ------      ------
        Total                             40610       35928
        Balance (2682 households)                      4682
                                         ------      ------
                                          40610       40610
        Balance to 1 household (money
          revenue)                                     1.75

[127]

          _District of Zadonsk._                       “_Horseless._”
                                                 _Households._  _Per cent._
  Feeding on the bread produced on their farms:
  All the year through                                771           30
  9 months                                            531           21}
  From 6 to 9 months                                  358           14} 44
  From 1 to 6 months                                  220            9}
  Purchasing bread all through the year               665           26
                                                     ----          ----
  Total                                              2545          100

[128]

                                    _Farm cultivated by  _Farming stopped
           _Districts._                 hired labor.       altogether.
                                         Per cent._         Per cent._
  Zadonsk (total proletarians = 100)        69                 31
  Korotoyak             ”                   67                 33
  Nizhnedevitzk         ”                   74                 26
  Ranenburg             ”                   64                 36
  Dankoff               ”                   64                 36

[129] This is the rate of these avowed proletarians within the total
peasant population:

         _Districts._         _Per cent._
  Zadonsk                          8
  Korotoyak                        5
  Nizhnedevitzk                    3
  Ranenburg (landless included)   15
  Dankoff        ”       ”        15

Of these, a greater percentage find employment in industry, as compared
with the proletarians who cultivate their plots by means of hired labor:

  _Districts and classes._  _Industrial laborers.  _Farm laborers.
                                 Per cent._           Per cent._
      _Korotoyak_:
  “Husbandless”                      51                   39
  Farming proletarians               34                   53

    _Nizhnedevitzk_:
  “Husbandless”                      48                   44
  Farming proletarians               37                   53

Industrial proletarians are steadily carried away by the growing
movement out of the rural districts. Thus it may be reasonably assumed
that only one-half of the pure-blooded proletarians remain in the
village. This constitutes from 2 to 8 per cent. of the population.
Relative rates, however, are sometimes misleading without reference to
the absolute numbers. 2 per cent. of a 100-million population convey
the illusion of a two million strong rural proletariat with pronounced
class interests. Still we know that they are dissipated in villages
with an average inhabitancy of 62 households (_cf._ above page: 50,429
communes with 3,309,020 households). Now the maximum 8 per cent. of 62
households means only 5 proletarian families, and the minimum 2 per
cent., only 1 proletarian of the European type to a village. It seems
to show that there can be no proletarian class spirit (“_proletarisches
Klassen-bewusstsein_”) in the Russian village of to-day.

[130]

  +--------------------+--------------------------------------+---------+
  |                    |        Households. (Per cent.)       | Horses  |
  |  Classes in the    +------+------+-------+-------+--------+  to 1   |
  |    district of     |Horse-|With 1|With 2 |With 3 | With 4 |household|
  |     Korotoyak.     | less.|horse.|horses.|horses.| horses | upon an |
  |                    |      |      |       |       |or more.| average.|
  +--------------------+------+------+-------+-------+--------+---------+
  |Trading farmers     |      |  12  |   25  |   27  |   36   |   3.2   |
  |Farmers merely      |      |      |   45  |   38  |   17   |   2.8   |
  |Farmers--laborers   |      |  40  |   37  |   15  |    6   |   1.8   |
  |                    |      |      |  |__________________|  |         |
  |Proletarian laborers|  90  |   9  |            1           |   0.1   |
  +--------------------+------+------+------------------------+---------+

[131]

                                            _Households._
       _D. of Korotoyak._         _With net profit.   _With deficit.
                                      Per cent._        Per cent._
  Male workers to 1 household--
    None                               ..                3 } 73
    One                                29               70 }
    Two                                41 } 71          23 } 27
    Three or more                      30 }              4 }

[132]

                                            _Households._
       _D. of Korotoyak._         _With net profit.   _With deficit.
                                      Per cent._        Per cent._
  Size of the farms--
    Less than 5 dessiatines            ..               15
    From 5 to 15 dessiatines           ..               79
    From 15 to 25 dessiatines          72                6
    Above 25 dessiatines               28               ..
                                      ---              ---
        Total                         100              100

                                  _Dessiatines._  _Dessiatines._
  Average to 1 household              24.4              10.6
     ”    to 1 adult male worker      11.5               8.3

[133]

                               _Section A.   _Section B.
       _D. of Korotoyak._        Per cent._    Per cent._
    _Landholding_--
  Households owning
    Less than 5 dessiatines        15            10
    From 5 to 15 dessiatines       79            52
    From 15 to 25 dessiatines       6            28 } 38
    Above 25 dessiatines           ..            10 }
                                  ---           ---
        Total                     100           100

    _Live stock_--
  Households
    Without working horses          ..         1} 40
    With 1 working horse            49        39}

    With 2 working horses           36}       38}
    With 3 working horses           13} 51    16} 60
    With 4 or more working horses    2}        6}
                                  ----      ----
        Total                      100       100

[134]

    _Gross income per worker._     _Rubles._
  Section _A_                        66.17
  Section _B_                        54.29

[135]

                                     _Section A.     _Section B.
    _Households (D. of Korotoyak)._   Per cent._      Per cent._
  Without adult male workers             3} 73           1} 39
  With 1 adult male worker              70}             38}

  With 2 adult male workers             23} 27          37} 61
  With 3 or more adult male workers      4}             24}
                                      ----            ----
        Total                          100             100

[136]

          _Class II., Section B._
  Workers and half-workers              23110
  Employed without their farms          16299
                                       ------
  Working exclusively on their farms     6811
  Total households                      10016

[137] In the table below the percentage of old men is contrasted in
the several groups of landholders, with a view to the division of the
peasantry into the classes above mentioned:

  -----------------+---------------------------+---------+-----------------
                   |            Classes.       |         |Old men above 60.
  Households       +--------+----------+-------+Total    +------+----------
  (D. of           |Strong  |Farmers   |Prolet-|in the   |Total.|Rate to
  Korotoyak).      |farmers.|labouring.|arians.|district.|      |the number
                   |   I.   |    II.   |  III. |         |      |of house-
                   |        |          |       |         |      |holds.
  -----------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+------+----------
  Landless         | ..     |   ..     |11 }   |  2 }    | 1}   |     9
                   |        |          |   } 48|    } 16 |  } 8 |
  Owning from 1 to |  2     |   11     |37 }   | 14 }    | 7}   |     7
  5 dessiatines    |        |          |       |         |      |
                   |        |          |       |         |      |
  Owning from 5 to |        |          |       |         |      |
  15 dessiatines   | 14     |   60     |42     | 50      |41    |    11
                   |        |          |       |         |      |
  Owning from 15 to| 56 }   |   22 }   | 9 }   | 25 }    |31}   |    17
  25 dessiatines   |    }   |      }   |   }   |    }    |  }   |
                   |    } 84|      } 29|   } 10|    } 34 |  } 51|
  Owning above 25  | 28 }   |    7 }   | 1 }   |  9 }    |20}   |    28
  dessiatines      |        |          |       |         |      |
  -----------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+------+----------
  Total            |  100   |    100   | 100   |  100    | 100  |    14
  -----------------+--------+----------+-------+---------+------+----------

The relative number of old men above 60 is four times greater in the
uppermost than in the lowest class of landholders (28:7). The absolute
number of old householders belonging to the two lowest classes is the
half of the average in the district (8:16), while the uppermost class
numbers twice as many householders as the average, and in the two
upper groups taken together the number of old householders exceeds
the average by 50 per cent. (51:34). Now, the bulk of the class of
strong farmers is made up of these two groups, and one-half of the old
householders range among the very same groups, constituting there a
very noticeable minority. On the contrary, one-half of the proletarians
range among those groups in which old people cut no figure numerically.

[138] The above statements are based upon the following numerical data:

  +--------------------+----------------------------------+------------+
  |                    |        One part leased.          |            |
  |                    +------+---------------------------+            |
  |District of Zadonsk:|      |  Land to 1 household      |    All     |
  |     Classes.       |      |      (Dessiatines).       |cultivated. |
  |                    |House-+-------+-------+-----------+            |
  |                    |holds.|In all.|Leased.|Cultivated.|Dessiatines.|
  +--------------------+------+-------+-------+-----------+------------+
  |Owning above 25     |      |       |       |           |            |
  |  dessiatines       |   .. | 20.7  |  9.9  |   10.8    |    17.6    |
  |Owning from 15 to 25|      |       |       |           |            |
  |  dessiatines       |   .. |  9.7  |  5    |    4.7    |     8.9    |
  |Owning from 5 to 15 |      |       |       |           |            |
  |  dessiatines       |   .. |  5    |  2.7  |    2.3    |     4.9    |
  |Owning less than 5  |      |       |       |           |            |
  |  dessiatines       |   .. |  2.5  |  1.5  |    1      |     2      |
  |                    +------+-------+-------+-----------+------------+
  |      Total         |   .. |   6   |  3.2  |    2.8    |    4.9     |
  |                    |      |       |       |           |            |
  |Having 4 horses     |      |       |       |           |            |
  |  or more           |   10 |  38.1 |  9    |   29.1    |   10.7     |
  |Having from 2 to 3  |      |       |       |           |            |
  |  horses            |  226 |  11.8 |  5.6  |    6.2    |    5.9     |
  |Having 1 horse      |  909 |   6   |  3    |    3      |    3.6     |
  |Having no horse     |  877 |   4.3 |  2.7  |    1.6    |    2.6     |
  |                    +------+-------+-------+-----------+------------+
  |      Total         | 2022 |   6   |  3.2  |    2.8    |    4.9     |
  +--------------------+------+-------+-------+-----------+------------+

If we consider the first series specified according to the size of the
farms, we notice that the lessors, with their plots somewhat above the
average, are falling into the next lower classes with regard to the
extent of their farming. On the other hand, given the quantity of live
stock, the extent of cultivated land remains constant. The lessors are
those whose plots equal the standard of the higher class, while by the
quantity of their live stock they are on a par with the lower class.
The 10 households with 4 horses to each make an exception, the area
cultivated by them considerably exceeding the average. There may be a
few more households of the same kind, which are hidden in the average
figures; on a whole, however, such households are only an exception to
the rule.

As to the extent of the farms leased _in toto_, the following figures
need no comment:

                                _Average extent of cultured land
                                  to 1 household (dessiatines)._
                                  _Zadonsk._         _Korotoyak._
  Total plot leased                 2.2               2.5
  In the region at large            4.6               5.8

                      _Percentage of families   _Percentage of leased land
                           to population._     to the total communal land._
  _Ranenburg_:
    Leasing their plots--
      1) Total                  12 }                    10
      2) Partly                 14 }

  _Dankoff_:
    Leasing their plots--
      1) Total                  11 }                     8
      2) Partly                 13 }

[139] _Cf._ Chapter III.

[140] It appears from the following table that among the higher classes
of landholders, tenure of peasant plots is represented by a higher
percentage than tenure from landlords, while the latter kind of tenure
is stronger among the lower groups of landholders:

  +-------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
  |                               |      Tenants.     |  Land in tenure.  |
  |                               |      Per cent.    |      Per cent.    |
  |    Classes and districts.     +---------+---------+---------+---------+
  |                               | Rented  | Rented  | Rented  | Rented  |
  |                               |  from   |  from   | from    |  from   |
  |                               | land-   |peasants.| land-   |peasants.|
  |                               | lords.  |         | lords.  |         |
  +-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
  |        _Zadonsk_:             |         |         |         |         |
  |Owning less than 5 dessiatines |   38    |   31    |   28    |    21   |
  |Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines|   52    |   51    |   48    |    48   |
  |Owning above 15 dessiatines    |   10    |   18    |   24    |    31   |
  |                               +---------+---------+---------+---------+
  |      Total                    |  100    |  100    |  100    |   100   |
  |                               |         |         |         |         |
  |        _Korotoyak_:           |         |         |         |         |
  |Owning less than 5 dessiatines |   13    |   13    |   10    |     8   |
  |Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines|   53    |   48    |   38    |    38   |
  |Owning above 15 dessiatines    |   34    |   39    |   52    |    54   |
  |                               +---------+---------+---------+---------+
  |      Total                    |  100    |  100    |  100    |   100   |
  |                               |         |         |         |         |
  |        _Nizhnedevitsk_:       |         |         |         |         |
  |Owning less than 5 dessiatines |   25    |   15    |   23    |     9   |
  |Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines|   52    |   49    |   41    |    42   |
  |Owning above 15 dessiatines    |   23    |   36    |   36    |    49   |
  |                               +---------+---------+---------+---------+
  |      Total                    |  100    |  100    |  100    |   100   |
  +-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

[141] Peasant land held in lease for long terms:

  +-------------+--------------------------+----------------------------+
  |             |        Lessees.          |           Land.            |
  |             +-----------+--------------+------------+---------------+
  | Districts.  |           |   Per cent.  |            |   Per cent.   |
  |             |Households.|(total lessees|Dessiatines.|(total in lease|
  |             |           |    = 100).   |            |    = 100).    |
  +-------------+-----------+--------------+------------+---------------+
  |Zadonsk      |     179   |       5      |     801    |       8       |
  |Korotoyak    |     400   |       7      |    4090    |      22       |
  |Nizhnedevitsk|     238   |       4      |    1061    |       6       |
  +-------------+-----------+--------------+------------+---------------+

[142] _Rental Prices per 1 Dessiatine._

                  _In yearly lease._  _For long terms._
    _Districts._      _Rubles._           _Rubles._
  Zadonsk               9.34                6.28
  Korotoyak             8.45                5.81
  Nizhnedevitsk         8.71                6.17

[143]

  +---------------------+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+
  |                     |            |         | Price per |Net profit,|
  |     Districts.      |Dessiatines.|Per cent.|dessiatine,| per cent. |
  |                     |            |         |  rubles.  |           |
  +---------------------+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+
  |   _Korotoyak_:      |            |         |           |           |
  |Rented for long terms|   4090     |   100   |    5.81   |           |
  |Re-rented            |    990.5   |    24   |    7.14   |    23     |
  |   _Nizhnedevitsk_:  |            |         |           |           |
  |Rented for long terms|   1061     |   100   |    6.17   |           |
  |Re-rented            |    138     |    13   |   10.09   |    63     |
  +---------------------+------------+---------+-----------+-----------+

We find, however, some cases wherein communal land was used for the
purposes of farming on a large scale. The community was bound to
combine the plots annually into one tract for the use of the lessee,
who was often a merchant and a stranger to the community (_Statistical
Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, Vol. II., Part I., p. 272, No. 6;
p. 283, No. 5; p. 301, No. 5.)

In a few cases chronic arrears in taxes compelled the community itself
to lease tracts of communal lands, usually pasture, to be converted
into arable land. “The village ‘Dubki,’ Dankoff, was destroyed by
fire in 1861, and the peasants delayed paying the tallage, which was
levied through the sale of the rest of their chattels. Public sales
continued at intervals until 1872, when they were stopped by the
community through the lease of 50 dessiatines of meadow and pasture to
be converted into arable.” (_Loc. cit._, Part II., p. 199, No. 4.)

“In the village Plemyannikovo, Dankoff, arrears in the tallage gave
rise to repeated auction sales of the peasants’ chattels. In 1865 the
community resolved to let out 150 dessiatines, and has since been
unable to stop leasing.” (_Loc. cit._, p. 249, No. 6, _Cf._, also p.
210, No. 7.)

Exceptional as these cases are, they show nevertheless that the
ownership of land by the village community does not preclude the
possibility of capitalistic farming upon communal fields.

[144] In a series of articles which appeared first in the
_Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_ (monthly) subsequently published in book
form under the heading “_Community and Tax_.”

[145] The poll-tax did not exceed 1.60 rubles, and constituted but
a very small portion of the entire amount of taxes levied. It was
replaced by indirect taxes upon articles of peasant consumption.
Besides, though the capitation tax proper was repealed, the system
of taxation _per capita_ remained in force in the shape of the other
direct taxes levied upon the peasant.

[146] Such was indeed the case in the village of Voskresenskoye,
bailiwick Kochurofskaya, Dankoff, in which the plots of the emigrants
were distributed in the subdivision among all the members of the
community, notwithstanding the fact that the term of lease had not yet
expired. (_Loc. cit._, part II., p. 236.)

[147] It is very questionable whether there is any action at law at all
for the lessee in similar cases. The plot is held by the lessor under a
precarious title, and the lessee may be supposed to have been cognizant
of the risk.

[148] It is peculiar to find quite obsolete sentimentalism with regard
to the Russian _mir_, among even Russian writers of reputation with
the English public. We read in a recent issue of an English magazine:
“Voting and ballot are unknown to Russian peasants, and every question
is decided unanimously by means of mutual concessions and compromises,
as in united families.”

Lost paradise!

A few concrete cases are produced here by way of elucidation:

1. Village Pokrovskove, bailiwick Yeropkinskaya, Dankoff: “About ⅓ of
the householders are in good standing, the rest are destitute. The
former deal in communal lots. The debate over subdivision is very warm;
about 5 of the votes necessary to constitute the two-thirds majority
are lacking.” (_Loc. cit._, Part I., p. 202, No. 15.)

      _Householders._     _Number._    _Per   _Votes._
                                       cent._
  Total allotted            140         100   Total.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  In good standing (tilling
    their total plots)       52          37   Against the subdivision.
  Destitute                  88          63   In favor of the subdivision.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             93          66⅔  Vote required.
                          93 - 88 = 5         Votes deficient.

(_Cf. ib._, p. 16.)

2. Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya, district of Dankoff: “The question of
subdivision is brought up for discussion in only three communities.
In none of the others does it attract serious attention. In all
probability this is to be accounted for by the unsatisfactory quality
of the soil, as well as by the great number of families who have at
length fallen into destitution and lease their lots.” (_Loc. cit._,
part II., p. 211.)

Let us now compare the figures:

                                        _Householders      _Lessors._
      _Former serfs._     _Communities._  allotted._  _Number._ _Per cent._
  Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya    15          372            79        21
  Throughout the districts
    (former serfs)                                                  25

It is evident that if the reason given by the statistician is true for
the bailiwick in question, it holds good _a fortiori_ for the region at
large, where the average percentage of lessors is even greater.

The correctness of this explanation is strikingly proved by the figures
for the adjacent bailiwick Znamenskaya, Dankoff.

                                        _Householders      _Lessors._
                          _Communities._  allotted._  _Number._ _Per cent._
  Subdivision out of order     15           370          167        45

(_Loc. cit._, pp. 248, 110-129.)

As the shares of about one-half of the village are held by the other
half, the latter has no practical interest in the redivision. Were
it not so, however, a unanimous vote of the farming half could not
possibly effect the redivision.

3. Village Troitzkoye, the same bailiwick, Ranenburg, “There is some
talk about subdivision, yet it is very hard to have it passed here.
A good many are so impoverished that they show no interest in the
question of increasing the amount of their land, for, in any event, it
would have to be let out; while the redivision would bring prejudice
to the lessees, and there are many of them.” (_Loc. cit._, part I., p.
310.)

Let us show it in figures:

               _Householders._                        _Number._ _Per cent._
  Total allotted                                            187  100
  Vote required for redivision                              125   66⅔
  Indifferent to redivision (horseless, leasing their lots)  44   23
  Opposition sufficient to stay the same                     18   10
  Having 2 horses or more                                    36   20

(_Loc. cit._, pp. 130, 131.)

4. Village Kunakovo, b. Zmievskaya, Dankoff, “The peasants live in
great poverty. Redivision is talked about; it is much checkmated by the
fact that many among the householders are permanently living outside.”
(_Loc. cit._, p. 254.)

Out of the 28 householders holding a share in the communal land, 11
lease their lots _in toto_; 9 among them have no houses in the village;
23 adult males are working outside.

After deduction of the 11 lessors above mentioned, who obviously do not
live in the village, the remaining 17 are insufficient for a majority
even in case of unanimity. Yet they are divided as follows:

      _Householders._          _Personally._  _By hire._  _In all._
  Tilling their lots--
      Total                           9           2          11
      In part (the rest leased)       2           4           6
                                     --          --          --
                                     11           6          17

Nine workers among these are moreover employed outside. (_Ib._, pp.
128-132.)

If there is no antagonism to the redivision, then indifference on the
part of some is but natural.

5. Village Sergievskoye, Ranenburg, “Most of the ‘horseless’ half of
the village are working exclusively outside. A good many are in arrears
for taxes. Their lots are taken from them by the community and given
to the wealthiest householders. This tends greatly to still further
enrich the few at the expense of the many. In 1863 about one sixth of
the bailiwick (300 ‘revision males’) emigrated to the _gubernia_ of
Stavropol, Caucasus, leaving their lots to the community. The land was
distributed among the best-situated householders. All of the emigrants,
save 15 families, have now come back, but the _mir_ refuses to return
their lots. This is the case with the emigrants in all the communities
of the district. It is very difficult to settle the matter of the
redivision, for the people are always away at work, and the redivision
is opposed by the most influential householders, who keep in their
hands the lots of the former emigrants and delinquent tax-payers.”
(_Loc. cit._, part I., p. 305,)

These are the figures connected with the above statement:

                   _Per cent._
  Horseless            54
  Outside workers      56

(_Ibid._, pp. 116-120.)

Apart from the opposition of the lessees, it is hardly ever possible to
get even a simple majority to vote upon the redivision.

[149] Bailiwicks Naryshkinskaya, Karpovskaya, Nikolskaya, Vednovskaya,
and Zimarovskaya, district of Ranenburg; b. Spasskaya, Loshkovskaya,
and Yagodnovskaya, district of Dankoff, and some scattered communities
all over the region.

[150] _Cf. loc. cit._, Part I, p. 288, No. 4; p. 310, No. 2.

[151] So far as I am aware from the newspapers, the land was afterward
redistributed in the communities of a number of _gubernias_ of Middle
Russia.

[152] These views were expounded by Mr. V. V. in a series of articles
which appeared in the _Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_, in 1880 and 1881, and
were published in 1882, in book form, under the title: _The Destinies
of Capitalism in Russia_.

[153] This question was put by Mr. Michaïloffsky, a very renowned
Russian publicist, in his article: “_Karl Marx on trial before Mr.
J. Zhukoffsky_,” which appeared in the _Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_,
1877. An answer to this criticism, in letter form, was found in the
posthumous papers of Karl Marx, and was published in Russian, first by
the revolutionary press, and subsequently in the _Juridichesky Vestnik_
(Juridical Herald, monthly), Moscow, 1888.

[154] Mr. V. V. himself, in the preface to his book, placed his
confidence in Russian autocracy, which appeared to him particularly
adapted to the carrying out of social reforms in favor of the masses.
The Russian bicephalous eagle soars in his majesty high above the
classes, whereas constitutional government is avowedly a class rule
promoting the interests of the _bourgeoisie_. This was a correct
translation from the Prussian into the Muscovite of Rodbertus’ motto:
“_Christlich, monarchisch, sozial!_” Whether this declaration of
allegiance was not inspired to the peasantist author rather by the
reading of the Statute of Censorship, is open to question. It is sure,
however, that the adherents of the doctrine within the ranks of the
“party of the _Narodnaya Volya_” (“The Will of the People”) did not
share in this enthusiasm for the blessing of autocracy bestowed by
history upon the chosen Russian nation.

[155] With regard to the condition of agriculture on a large scale,
reference will be made in this chapter to the _Statistical Reports for
the Gubernia of Voronezh_, vol. I., district of Voronezh. The tables
contain detailed data, (62 columns) on each of the 279 estates of the
district, which exceed in size 50 dessiatines (135 acres).

[156]

  +------------------+------------+------------+------------+-------------+
  |                  |   Farmed   |  In small  |   Tilled   |             |
  |                  |   by the   |   tenure   | for share  |   In all.   |
  | Division of the  |  landlord. |  for money |  in crops. +-------+-----+
  | fields on large  |            |   rental.  |            |       |     |
  |    estates.      +------------+------------+------------+Dessia-| Per |
  |                  |Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|tines. |cent.|
  +------------------+------------+------------+------------+-------+-----+
  |  I. Winter seed--|            |            |            |       |     |
  |      Rye         |    12615   |            |            |       |     |
  |      Wheat       |     4573   |            |            |       |     |
  |                  +------------+            |            |       |     |
  |                  |    17188   |     7221   |     917    | 25326 |  33 |
  | II. Spring seed  |    19995   |     6787   |    1194    | 27976 |  36 |
  |III. Left unsown  |    24292   |            |            | 24292 |  31 |
  |                  +------------+------------+------------+-------+-----+
  |       Total      |            |            |            | 77594 | 100 |
  +------------------+------------+------------+------------+-------+-----+

This classification bears upon 89.5 per cent. of the total area of
ploughland; the deficient 10.5 per cent. concern the land which is held
in large tenure, but yearly re-rented in small plots to the peasants.

[157] This is the comparative development of stock breeding on large
estates and on peasant farms, in the district of Voronezh:

                                        _Dessiatines
      _To 1 head of big cattle._      of tillage land._

  On peasant farms                          2.0
  On estates over 50 dessiatines            7.9

We know that the fields of the peasants are very insufficiently
manured. The opportunities for large estates do not appear more
favorable. The extent to which land is fertilized on the estates is
shown by the following figures:

      _Arable land._     _Dessiatines._  _Per cent._

  Yearly under culture       61882          100
  Yearly manured              3431            5.5

The fertilizing of 1 dessiatine requires 6 heads of big cattle (_op.
cit._, p. 92.) Thus we have:

                                                   _Head of     _Per
  _Used to manure the fields on the estates._    big cattle._  cent._

  Total, 3431 dessiatines × 6 heads                 20586       100
  Total stock of the landlords                      11010        53
                                                   ------      ----
      Stock of the peasants                          9576        47

In a word, nearly one half of the manure used on large estates is
procured by the small farmers who are compelled to neglect their own
fields. Quite a number of statements to this effect are produced in the
Appendices to the _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_.

[158] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh_, vol. I., p.
234.

[159] The total of this table exceeds the total of plough land in large
estates by 1119 dessiatines, which amounts to 2 per cent. of the whole
area, and could by no means influence the inferences drawn from the
table. The difference concerns small tenure, on which the statements
are slightly at variance with those of the large landholders.

Peasant tenure in the district is represented by the following figures:

        _Rented for money rental._                 _Dessiatines._

  In all                                                25992
  Tenements over 50 dessiatines                           474
                                                        -----
        Small tenure                                    25518
  Held from small estates (of under 50 dessiatines)      1292
                                                        -----
  Held from large estates (of over 50 dessiatines)      24226

(_Cf._ _op. cit._, p. 251, column 18; p. 273, col. 65. Upon tenure for
share in crops, p. 251, col. 14, and cols. 55-56 on pp. 276-335.)

[160]

  _Ploughland in small tenure._     _Dessiatines._
  In all                            25309
  Manured                              51

This topic was very fully discussed by Prof. Engelhardt in his _Letters
from the Village_.

[161]

  +-------------------------+-------+-------------+----------------------+
  |                         |       |             | Arable yearly under  |
  |         Estates         |       |             |    cultivation.      |
  |       with large        |Number.|Average size,+------------+---------+
  |      agriculture.       |       |dessiatines. |Dessiatines.|Per cent.|
  +-------------------------+-------+-------------+------------+---------+
  |The fields fertilized    |  146  |     686     |   33809    |   91    |
  |The fields not fertilized|   44  |     215     |    3373    |    9    |
  |                         +-------+-------------+------------+---------+
  |    Total                |  190  |     577     |   37182    |  100    |
  |                         |       |             |            |         |
  |Estates in small tenure  |   64  |     244     |            |         |
  +-------------------------+-------+-------------+------------+---------+

[162] As for peasant agriculture; _Cf._ _loc. cit._, p. 101.

[163]

  +------------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
  |                        | Planted with wheat.  |       Fertilized.     |
  |                        +------------+---------+------------+----------+
  |       Estates.         |            |         |            |Percentage|
  |                        |Dessiatines.|Per cent.|Dessiatines.|  to the  |
  |                        |            |         |            |area under|
  |                        |            |         |            |  wheat.  |
  +------------------------+------------+---------+------------+----------+
  |With culture of wheat:  |            |         |            |          |
  | a) land not fertilized |     136    |     3   |            |          |
  | b) land fertilized     |    4437    |    97   |    2216    |    50    |
  |Without culture of wheat|            |         |    1164    |          |
  |                        +------------+---------+------------+----------+
  |    Total               |    4573    |   100   |    3380    |          |
  +------------------------+------------+---------+------------+----------+

[164]

  +------------------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+
  |  Estates with large    | Number. |Dessiatines.| Per cent.|  Average   |
  |     agriculture.       |         |            |          |Dessiatines.|
  +------------------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+
  | Without working horses |    48   |    13103   |    12    |    273     |
  | With working horses    |   142   |    96512   |    88    |    680     |
  |                        |---------+------------+----------+------------+
  |    Total               |   190   |   109615   |   100    |    577     |
  +------------------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+

[165] Wherever ploughs are in use, we find from two to three horses to
one plough upon an average; it shows that the horses are raised with
the avowed purpose of driving the plough. Such is the case with most
of the horses found on large estates. Ploughs without horses are kept
only in exceptional cases. Furthermore, we notice that those estates on
which ploughs are used are the largest. The smaller estates are tilled
with the primeval peasant _sohá_, ploughs being only too seldom used by
the peasantry. The figures are found in the following tables:

  ------------------+----+-------------+--------------+--------------------
        A. Estates  |    |Total extent.|Average       |  Horses (or oxen).
        with large  |    +-------+-----+(Dessiatines).|----+-------+-------
       agriculture. |Num-|Dessia-|Per  |     +--------+Num-|To 1   |To one
                    |ber.|tines. |cent.|     |Ploughs.|ber.|estate.|plough.
  ------------------+----+-------+-----+-----+--------+----+-------+-------
  I. Without ploughs|    |       |     |     |        |    |       |
     Still with     |    |       |     |     |        |    |       |
     working        |    |       |     |     |        |    |       |
     horses         | 70 |  33672|  33 | 481 |        | 544|  7.8  |
                    |    |       |     |     |        |    |       |
  II. With ploughs  |    |       |     |     |        |    |       |
   a) with working  | 72 |  62840|63}  | 873 |  454   |1087| 15.1  |  2.4
      horses        |    |       |  }67|     |        |    |       |
   b) with oxen     |  2 |   3966| 4}  |1983 |   37   |  34| 17    |  0.9
                    +----+-------+-----+-----+--------+----+-------+-------
          Total     |144 | 100478| 100 |     |  491   |    |       |
  ------------------+----+-------+-----+-----+--------+----+-------+-------

  ----------------+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+
                  |                 |         | Ploughland tilled |
                  |                 |         |   by the owner.   |
                  |                 |         |  (Dessiatines.)   |
    B. Ploughs    | Average estate. |Ploughs. |---------+---------|
    furnished.    | (Dessiatines.)  |         | In all. |  To 1   |
                  |                 |         |         | plough. |
  ----------------+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+
  By the landlord |       903       |   491   |  44764  |    91   |
  By the laborer  |       369       |   115   |  16710  |   145   |
  (_l. c._ p. 97.)|                 |         |         |         |
                  +-----------------+---------+---------+---------+
       Total      |       577       |   606   |  61474  |   101   |
  ----------------+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+

[166] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, vol. I.,
pp. 17-18. By “property of the capitalistic class,” is understood
all estates belonging to merchants, whatever may be the size of the
holding, as well as every estate above 50 dessiatines, whatever may
be the legal status of its owner (merchant, burgher or peasant). All
holdings below this size, except those owned by the noblemen and
merchants, are included in the class of small property. The idea of
this classification is to divide historical landed property of the
nobility from landholding for mercantile purposes, as well as from that
in which the owner may be supposed to be himself the tiller of his land.

[167] _Ibid._, pp. 28-29.

[168] “Honorable citizenship” is awarded, under certain provisions, to
merchants in old standing. Others than merchants cut no figure in this
class.

[169] The socialistic aversion of the Russian peasantists to the
“exploiters” was somewhat tainted with the patrician prejudices
against the merchant. The Russian magazines were crammed with touching
descriptions of how the poetry of a shadowy oak alley in the old
garden of the noble slave-owner was ruthlessly sacrificed in favor
of prosaic timber by the boorish parvenu (_tchoomáziy_). It was
universally believed that the merchant who engaged in land tenure was
something of a dynamiter, whose element was destruction for the mere
devilish voluptuousness of destruction. To devastate the forests while
re-renting the land to the peasant at an exorbitant interest--this
appeared to be the only aim of the merchant. Statistical investigations
did away with these naive conceptions. Here are some of the facts
brought to light by the Ryazañ census:

1. _Bailiwick Naryshkinskaya, d. Ranenburg._ “The lack of land to rent
is keenly felt. The condition of the communities under discussion has
grown much worse as compared with former years. The main reason thereof
is the considerable decrease in the area leased by landlords and the
rise of rental prices, which is closely connected with the passage of
the estates of the nobility into the hands of merchants through either
sale or lease.” (_L. c._, vol. II., part I., p. 282. No. 3-4, 6-9.)

2. _Village Prosech’ye, same district._ “Since their former master sold
his estate to the merchant, neither land nor easements are to be got
anywhere. The new owner cultivates everything for himself.” (_L. c._,
p. 305, No. 13.)

3. _Village Cheglokovo, b. Vednovskaya._ “The condition of the peasants
grew much worse after their former master sold his estate, about
1870, to a merchant, who has almost entirely stopped leasing land.
The master, on the contrary, used to lease much of his land, and the
peasants assert that they then made a pretty good living.” (_Ib._, p.
325, No. 5. _Cf._, also, Nos. 6, 7.)

4. _B. Troitskaya._ “Tenure is a rare exception, since the landlords
either carry on their own farming or have leased their estates to big
farmers, who cultivate everything for themselves.” (_Ib._, p. 309.)

5. _B. Hrushchovskaya, Dankoff._ “All the landlords in the neighborhood
either carry on their own farming, or have leased their estates to
merchants, who cultivate solely for themselves. The peasants can
positively get no land for rent, except a small tract of meadow.” (_L.
c._, part II., p. 208. _Cf._, also bailiwick _Ostrokamenskaya_, p. 211,
and b. _Odoevskaya_, p. 230.)

[170] More particulars as to the availability of these averages for
purposes of comparison are produced in the Appendix, Table VII.

[171] 1 chetvert = 5.9 Winchester bushels.

[172] _Cf._ Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1890, p. 335.

[173] _Cf._ _Le commerce de grains dans l’Amérique du Nord_, par Paul
Lafargue.

[174] The inference is drawn from the figures below:

    _Estates with large agriculture._ _Number._ _Average.     _To 1 plough.
                                                Dessiatines._ Dessiatines._
    Property of the nobility:
  Estates with ploughs                   54        1044             91
  Estates without ploughs                79         428             ..
    Property of the capitalist class:
  Estates with ploughs                   20         520             93
  Estates without ploughs                47         191             ..

With the nobility the average estate tilled exclusively with the
peasant _sohá_ is more than twice as large as the corresponding average
with the capitalist class.

On the other hand, the capitalist provides his farm with ploughs when
the same is only half as large as that on which the noble could afford
to have improved implements.

[175] The following is a synopsis of the results of the above
comparison between capitalist ownership of land and property of the
nobility:

  +--------------+--------------------+--------------+--------------------+
  |              |      Average       |              |      Average       |
  |              |       estate       |              |       estate       |
  |              |   (dessiatines).   |              |   (dessiatines).   |
  |   Negative   +----------+---------+   Positive   +----------+---------+
  |   qualifi-   |          |Property |   qualifi-   |          |Property |
  |   cations.   |Capitalist| of the  |   cations.   |Capitalist| of the  |
  |              | property.|nobility.|              | property.|nobility.|
  +--------------+----------+---------+--------------+----------+---------+
  |Small tenure  |    128   |   273   |Large farming |    289   |   734   |
  | exclusively  |          |         |              |          |         |
  |              |          |         |              |          |         |
  |Tilled by     |    108   |   233   |Proletarian   |    351   |   783   |
  | farmers only |          |         | labor        |          |         |
  |              |          |         | employed     |          |         |
  |              |          |         |              |          |         |
  |No fertilizing|    138   |   280   |Fertilizing   |    363   |   816   |
  |              |          |         |              |          |         |
  |Tilled with   |    138   |   326   |Working horses|    326   |   896   |
  | the peasant’s|          |         | raised       |          |         |
  | stock        |          |         |              |          |         |
  |              |          |         |              |          |         |
  |No wheat      |    197   |   501   |Wheat grown   |    478   |   898   |
  |              |          |         |              |          |         |
  |Tilled with   |    191   |   428   |Ploughs       |    520   |  1044   |
  | the peasant’s|          |         |              |          |         |
  | _sohá_       |          |         |              |          |         |
  +--------------+----------+---------+--------------+----------+---------+

Backward management by capitalists is found only within the average
limits from 108 to 197 dessiatines (292-532 acres), while the same
methods are still practiced by noblemen so long as the estate averages
from 233 to 501 dessiatines (629-1353 acres). Progress begins on
capitalistic farms as soon as they reach the average of from 289 to 520
dessiatines (780-1404 acres), while on those owned by the nobility,
improvement is observed only within the average limits of from 734 to
1044 dessiatines (1892-2819 acres). This plainly points to the lack
of money as the only reason which prevents the petty nobleman from
practicing the same methods as those applied by the capitalist as soon
as he takes possession of the same estate.

[176]

   _Districts._     _Communities._
  Ranenburg              340
  Dankoff                313
  Ostrogozhsk            250
  Zadonsk                197
  Korotoyak              124
  Nizhnedevitsk          161
                        ----
      Total             1385

[177] A sweeping criticism of the policy of the Russian government with
regard to agriculture is to be found in Prof. Issaiew’s article, _La
Famine en Russie_, in the _Revue d’Economie Politique_, 1892, No. 7.
The apologists of the “historical friendship” pattern, should carefully
read Chapter III.: _Qu’est ce qui a été fait pour relever l’agriculture
en Russie?_ One can there get the knowledge of some very conclusive
facts which it is, of course, impossible to come across during a rapid
trip through a vast country like Russia. The paper referred to should
gain in authority by the fact that it was read before a meeting held at
Emperor Alexander’s Lyceum of St. Petersburg, (to which only the sons
of the highest dignitaries of the State or the offspring of the most
aristocratic families are admitted,) and--last, not least--by the fact
that it was published in France, which is now _plus Tzariste que le
Tzar_.

[178]

                 _Loans granted._                            _Rubles._
  By the nobility’s Crédit Foncier, to January 1, 1892      328,000,000
  By the Peasant’s Bank, to January 1, 1891                  56,140,438

[179] “On small _crédit foncier_.” _Otechstvenniya Zapiski_ (monthly),
1883.

[180] “The operations of the Peasant’s Crédit Foncier,” p.
105--_Russkaya Mysl_ (monthly), February, 1892.

[181] _Ibid._, pp. 107, 108.

[182] In some of the _gubernias_ failures were even more extensive:

                 _Percentage to the total in the gubernia._
   _Gubernias._    _Land forfeited._      _Loans failed._
  Penza                 39.34                  48.80
  Poltava               34.36                  33.53
  Voronezh              31.13                  33.36
  Kursk                 25.22                  30.81

These are moreover the very _gubernias_ in which the Bank operated most
extensively. (_Ibid._, p. 100.)

[183] Loans granted by the Bank:

                 _Rubles._
  In 1884        9,529,368
   ” 1885       13,761,978
   ” 1886       11,148,850
   ” 1887        7,495,197
   ” 1888        5,133,539
   ” 1889        3,692,133
   ” 1890        4,519,209
                ----------
     Total      56,140,438

(_Ibid._, p. 103.)

[184] The normal size of a peasant farm, which is above referred to,
was calculated in Chapters II. and X. These are the respective figures:

                                 _Normal extent   _Actual    _Excess of the
  Districts.                     of landholding,  average,    normal over
                                 Dessiatines._  Dessiatines._ the average,
                                                              per cent._
  _Ranenburg and Dankoff_:
  (Communities of which all the
    members are farmers taken
    as the normal.)
    To 1 “revision” male                5.0        3.4            +47

  _Korotoyak_:
  (Farms with net profit taken as the
    normal.) To 1 adult male worker    11.5        8.3            +39

The extent of landholding in the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ (districts
of Ranenburg and Dankoff) may be considered as characteristic of
the central and most crowded part of the black soil zone, while the
_gubernia_ of Voronezh (d. of Korotoyak) partakes of the character
of the more thinly populated border districts adjoining the
southeastern prairies.--(_Cf._, Prof. Janson’s _Essay of a Statistical
Investigation, etc._, App., pp. 12, 13, Table II. [bis]). Should we
fix the increase of landholding needed by the peasants at 40 per
cent. in the _gubernias_ of the famine stricken sections of Middle
Russia (Voronezh, Kazañ, Kursk, Orel, Penza, Ryazañ, Samara, Saratoff,
Simbirsk, Tamboff, Tula), the area lacking would compare as follows
with that purchased through the Peasant’s Bank (_Cf._, Herzenstein, _l.
c._, p. 104):

                                                _Dessiatines._  _Per cent._
  Land wanting                                    12,070,484       100
  Land purchased through the Bank (from April,
    1883, up to January 1, 1890)                   1,579,391        13

Mr. Lobachevsky, in his article above referred to, estimated the need
of land in 8 _gubernias_ of the same section, at 17,124,321 dessiatines
(_l. c._, April, 1883, p. 178), which is about ten times as much as the
land acquired through the Peasant’s Bank.

[185] “Russian famines and the measures of the Government against
them,” by Prof. Romanovitch-Slavatinsky, _University Records_, Jan.,
1892, pp. 40, 61 (monthly publication of St. Vladimir University,
Kieff.)

[186] The war of 1877 caused a depreciation of the paper ruble from 80
per cent. to 60 per cent. It never got above that figure until 1890,
when the enormous harvest unexpectedly raised its exchange value to 80
per cent., the rate that had prevailed before the war.

[187] The first chapters of this essay were written when the famine
of 1891-92 had reached its climax. Now, while these concluding lines
are being printed, the Russian papers have brought official reports
of a failure in 11 _gubernias_, of which 5 are of the number of those
affected by the last famine (Voronezh, Kursk, Orel, Samara, Tula). The
_Zemstvos_ have applied to the government for appropriations for the
next seed.

[188] A delay in the payments was lately granted to the debtors of
the Nobility’s Bank in the famine stricken region, for the purpose of
saving numerous estates from being sacrificed at forced sale.

[189] In the tables that follow we have availed ourselves of some
of the figures produced in a very interesting article, in which the
consequences of the famine are discussed on the ground of the data
recently published by the Statistical Bureau of the _gubernia_ of
Samara. (_Cf._ “The consequences of the failure of the crops in the
_gubernia_ of Samara,” by Vasili Vodovozoff in the _Russkaya Zhizñ_
[daily], nos. 248 and 249, September 25 and 26, 1892).

The loss of working cattle toward January, 1892, figured as follows:

                        _Lost.        _Remains.
    _Bailiwicks._      Per cent._     Per cent._

  Ivanteyeffskaya         74             26
  Lipovetzkaya            67             33
  Novotoolskaya           67             33
  Koozabayeffskaya        61             39
  Shintinoffskaya         45             55
          Etc.

The heavy losses suffered by the peasantry have enormously accentuated
the existing inequalities of distribution of live stock. This is
evidenced in the village Dergoonofka, d. of Nicholayeff, which figured
in 1887 among the wealthiest villages, 3.5 working horses being the
average to a household (nearly twice as much as in the districts above
examined). These are the comparative data for 1887 and 1891:

  +--------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------------+
  |                          |           | October,  |  Increase or   |
  |                          |   1887.   |   1891.   |   Decrease.    |
  | Households (total: 745). +-----------|-----------+----------------+
  |                          | Per cent. | Per cent. |   Per cent.    |
  +--------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------------+
  | “Horseless”              |   5 }     |  29 }     |   +480 }       |
  | With 1 horse             |  14 } 19  |  29 } 58  |   +107 }  +205 |
  |                          |           |           |                |
  |   ”  from 2 to 3 horses  |  32 }     |  28 }     |    -12 }       |
  |   ”  4 horses            |  14 } 81  |   7 } 42  |    -50 }   -48 |
  |   ”  5 or more horses    |  35 }     |   7 }     |    -80 }       |
  |                          +-----------+-----------+----------------+
  |               Total      | 100       | 100       |                |
  +--------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------------+

Such was the condition of the peasantry as early as in October, when
the famine was still at its very beginning. Concentration of communal
land in the hands of a few wealthy lessees is reported by the Bureau as
an immediate result of the famine, but the respective figures are not
cited in Mr. Vodovozoff’s paper.

[190] We read in a communication from the district of Voronezh that
“there is hardly one-fourth of the live stock left.… Thanks to the
enfeebled condition, as well as to the complete loss of the peasants’
horses, many among the landlords, and larger tenants, have secured live
stock of their own.” _The Agriculturist_ (St. Petersburg), No. 26,
April 24 (May 6), 1892.

Says another correspondent, also a landlord: “This year the greatest
part of the farm work was to be done with the landlord’s live stock, it
being impossible to get peasants for the purpose, as they had suffered
a heavy loss of horses.” (_Ib._, No. 33, June 12 (24), 1892.)

[191] Fertilizing and irrigation have become a necessity in Russian
agriculture. Let us figure the expenses entailed by these improvements.

We know that manure is procured for the landlord’s fields by the
decaying small farmer. The ruin of the latter necessitates an outlay
of capital by the landlord for the purchase of live stock. Now, to
fertilize the fields once in three years, 2 heads of big cattle are
required per dessiatine of arable land, which would cause an expense
of 78.96 rubles per dessiatine. (_Cf._, _Statistical Reports for the
Gubernia of Voronezh_, Vol. II., Number II., App., pp. 44-45.) Here
we have the Achilles heel of the Russian landed nobility. The land
acquired by the peasants with the aid of the Peasants’ Bank sold at an
average price of rubles 43.41 the dessiatine. (Herzenstein, _l. c._,
p. 104). The cost of fertilizing alone exceeds the total value of the
land; it could consequently not be conducted on a large scale by means
of funded loans.

The conditions are similar in the case of irrigation. Mr. Vladimir
Biriukowicz, a writer in the _Russkaya Mysl_, quotes a few instances
of how artificial irrigation has increased the rental value of the
estates from 3 rubles to 15, and even 25 rubles yearly per dessiatine.
Moreover, and this is of greater importance, amidst the surrounding
failure, the irrigated estates were blessed by excellent crops.
According to Mr. Daniloff, a civil engineer, irrigation had raised the
productivity of ploughland by from 15 to 20 per cent., and of meadow by
100 per cent., while the cost of construction did not exceed 60 rubles
per dessiatine. (_l. c._, April 1, 1892, _Protection and Agriculture_,
pp. 2, 3.) Certainly there is nothing exorbitant in the expense;
still it likewise requires an outlay of capital exceeding the value
of the land, and this, in the opinion of a practical agriculturalist,
must be accounted for as the chief reason of the indifference of the
landlords in the matter of irrigation. (_Cf._, “Topographical Surveying
for irrigation works,” by V. Kasyanenko. _The Agriculturist_, St.
Petersburg, No. 47, 1892). Thus the progress of artificial irrigation
means the ruin of the nobleman.

[192] I am glad to know that this is the opinion advanced by so high
an authority in political economy as Mr. Frederick Engels, one of
the few Western students familiar with the Russian language. (_Die
Neue Zeit_, 1892.) So far, however, as my case is concerned, I claim
independence of judgment. I wrote in an editorial, dated December 20,
1891: “The consequences of this famine are equivalent to a revolution
in the social organization of the Russian village.… The development
of capitalism in agriculture, the dissolution of the peasantry into
two distinct groups: a rural _petite bourgeoisie_, and a rural
proletariat--these are the characteristics of a new epoch in Russia’s
social life.” (_Cf._, _Progress_, No. 3, a Russian weekly published at
the time in New York.)

[193] This economic revolution seems to be one of more than merely
national import. Up to the present day the American farmer has met the
Russian peasant on the international market, either as small farmer,
or as cultivator of the greater part of the landlords’ property. In
this competition the greater economy of labor and the cheaper methods
of transportation secured the prize to the American producer. From now
on the mortgaged American farmer will have to stand the competition
of the Russian capitalist. It hardly needs a prophet to foretell that
the breakdown of the Russian peasantry will hasten the decay of small
agriculture in America.

[194] Landless households and members thereof are not counted here.

[195] Here are included those possessing their land partly on the basis
of communism, and partly quarterly.

[196] This group was formed from the serfs who had belonged to petty
gentlemen; this small class of serfs was reduced in 1861 from private
serfdom to state serfdom, or, as it was called, to the class of state
peasants. In 1866 it shared the lot of the emancipated state peasants.
Thus, by its historical origin, this group should be classed among
former serfs, while by title of possession its members were hereditary
tenants like the rest of the former state peasants. Nowadays they
likewise enjoy the right of purchasing their land in property.

[197] Redemption tax, corvée, taille, or rent paid to the state by the
former state peasants.

[198] The translation differs from the original in the systematic
arrangement of the entries, which has been adapted to the purposes of
the present discussion.

[199] In the winter, cows as well as horses are fed mostly with straw
mixed with flour. Oats is given to horses only in the season of farm
work or in case of carrying.

[200] Milk, butter, cheese, as well as cabbage and cucumbers, which are
produced exclusively for domestic consumption, are not included in the
debits or in the credits.

[201] The single items are not quoted in detail, since they are very
similar to those already produced in Budget I.

[202] Among the entries of which this sum is made up, we notice a
yearly expense of 1.80 rubles for 1 pound of tea, and 1.00 ruble for 5
pounds of sugar a year.

[203] The boys go barefoot, and have no clothing but shirts; no pants,
nor overcoats.

[204] It is peculiar to read among the entries “For horseshoeing (only
the fore feet), 0.60.”

[205] _Note._--Series I contains the results of many years’ experience
on a few farms. Series II comprises such estates, on the one hand, on
which the area planted with wheat coincides with that manured, so as
to justify the inference that the fields are manured precisely for
the wheat crop; on the other hand, it includes such estates on which
no fertilizing is practiced at all. Series II, as well as the great
majority of the average yields which could be ascertained by one
census, is distinguished from Series I in that it refers to no stated
term of observation. The slight difference between, or rather the
identity of, the averages in both series guarantees the validity of all
the averages, though the period of observation be not stated.




BRITISH ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.


Council:

THE RIGHT HON. G. J. GOSCHEN, M.P., _President_.

THE RIGHT HON. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P., THE RIGHT HON. H. C. E. CHILDERS,
M.P., THE RIGHT HON. LEONARD H. COURTNEY, M.P., THE RIGHT HON. JOHN
MORLEY, M.P., _Vice-Presidents_.

MR. JOHN BIDDULPH MARTIN, _Treasurer._ 68 Lombard Street, E.C.

Professor C. BASTABLE.

Mr. HENRY R. BEETON.

Mr. JAMES BONAR.

Mr. CHARLES BOOTH.

Mr. JOHN BURNETT.

Mr. THOMAS BURT, M. P.

Major PATRICK GEORGE CRAGIE.

Rev. Professor CUNNINGHAM, D. D.

Mr. T. H. ELLIOTT (_Hon. Secretary_).

Sir THOMAS FARRER, Bart.

Professor H. S. FOXWELL (_Hon. Secretary_).

Mr. CHARLES GAIRDNER.

Dr. GIFFEN, C. B.

Professor E. C. K. GONN.

Mr. ALFRED SPALDING HARVEY.

Mr. HENRY HIGGS.

Mr. ALFRED HOARE.

Mr. GEORGE HOWELL. M. P.

Professor J. K. INGRAM.

Mr. J. N. KEYNES.

Professor ALFRED MARSHALL.

Professor J. E. C. MUNRO.

Professor J. S. NICHOLSON.

Mr. R. H. INGLIS PALGRAVE, F. R. S.

Rev. L. R. PHELPS.

Mr. L. L. PRICE (_Hon. Secretary_).

Mr. JOHN RAE.

Sir RAWSON RAWSON. K. C. M. G., C. B.

Mr. FREDERICK SEEBOHM.

Professor HENRY SIDGWICK.

Mr. H. LLEWELLYN SMITH.

Rev. PHILIP WICKSTEED.

PROFESSOR F. Y. EDGEWORTH, M. A., D. C. L., _Editor and Secretary_.

Correspondents:

Mr. F. C. HARRISON for CALCUTTA (4, Harrington Street, Calcutta).

Prof. W. J. ASHLEY for CANADA (University of Toronto).

Mr. A. DUCKWORTH for NEW SOUTH WALES (87, Pitt Street, Sydney).

Dr. STEPHAN BAUER for AUSTRIA-HUNGARY (1 Reichsrath-Strasse, 23,
Vienna).

Dr. MAHAIM for BELGIUM (322, Rue St. Giles, Liège).

Prof. CHARLES GIDE for FRANCE (Université, Montpellier).

Prof. GUSTAV COHN for GERMANY (Universität, Königsberg).

Prof. H. B. GREVEN for HOLLAND (Leiden).

Mons. E. CASTELOT for PARIS (158, Boulevard Mal’esherbes).

Prof. F. TAUSSIG for UNITED STATES (Cambridge, Massachusetts).

The Annual Subscription is a Guinea (26½ francs). There is at present
no entrance fee. Any member may at any time compound for his future
yearly payments by paying at once the sum of Ten Guineas (265 francs).
The Journal will be supplied to Members without charge. They will also
receive _gratis_ some of the other publications which the Association
may, from time to time, issue.

Any person desirous of becoming a member of the Association is
requested to send his name to PROFESSOR F. Y. EDGEWORTH, _British
Economic Association, 9, Adelphi Terrace, London, W. C._, who will
submit it to the Council for approval at their next meeting.

Editorial Communications should be addressed to Prof. F. Y. EDGEWORTH,
Balliol College, Oxford.

_For Statements made by Contributors to the Journal, they alone are
responsible._




AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.

PUBLICATIONS.


FIVE VOLUMES COMPLETED.--They will be sent:--bound in cloth, at $5
each; any two for $9; any three for $13; any four for $17; and all five
for $21; all five volumes bound in half morocco, $23.50; single volumes
in half morocco, $5.50. Unbound, $4 per volume. Forwarded post-paid.

Subscription to Volume VI, $4.00.

CONTENTS OF VOLUMES.

_Vol. I.--Bound, $5; Unbound, $4._

    =No. 1.--Report of the organization of the American Economic
    Association.= By RICHARD T. ELY.

    =Nos. 2 and 3.--The Relation of the Modern Municipality to the
    Gas Supply.= By EDMUND J. JAMES. Out of print, sold only in the
    complete volume.

    =No. 4.--Co-operation in a Western City.= By ALBERT SHAW.

    =No. 5.--Co-operation in New England.= EDWARD W. BEMIS.

    =No. 6.--Relation of the State to Industrial Action.= By HENRY
    C. ADAMS.

_Vol. II.--Bound, $5; Unbound, $4._

    =No. 1.--Three Phases of Co-operation in the West.= By AMOS G.
    WARNER. _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 2.--Historical Sketch of the Finances of Pennsylvania.=
    By T. K. WORTHINGTON, with an Introduction by RICHARD T. ELY.
    _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 3.--The Railway Question.= By EDMUND J. JAMES. _Price 75
    cents._

    =No. 4.--The Early History of the English Woolen Industry.= By
    W. J. ASHLEY. _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 5.--Two Chapters on the Mediæval Guilds of England.= By
    EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN. _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 6.--The Relation of Modern Municipalities to
    _Quasi_-Public Works.= By H. C. ADAMS, GEORGE W. KNIGHT, DAVIS
    R. DEWEY, CHARLES MOORE, FRANK J. GOODNOW and ARTHUR YAGER.
    _Price 75 cents._

_Vol. III--Bound, $5; Unbound, $4._

    =No. 1.--Three Papers Read at Meeting in Boston=: “Statistics
    in Colleges,” by CARROLL D. WRIGHT; “Sociology and Political
    Economy,” by F. H. GIDDINGS; “The Legal-Tender Decisions,” by
    E. J. JAMES. _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 2.--Capital and its Earnings.= By Prof. J. B. CLARK.
    _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 3 consists of three parts=: “The Manual Laboring Class,”
    by F. A. WALKER; “Mine Labor in the Hocking Valley,” by E. W.
    BEMIS; “Report of the Second Annual Meeting,” by RICHARD T.
    ELY. _Price 75 cents._

    =Nos. 4 and 5.--Statistics and Economics.= By RICHMOND
    MAYO-SMITH. Out of print, sold only in the complete vol.

    =No. 6.--The Stability of Prices.= By SIMON M. PATTEN. _Price
    75 cents._

_Vol. IV.--Bound $5; Unbound $4._

    =No. 1.--Contributions to the Wages Question=: “The Theory of
    Wages,” by STUART WOOD; “Possibility of a Scientific Law of
    Wages,” by J. B. CLARK. _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 2.--Socialism in England.= By SIDNEY WEBB. _Price 75
    cents._

    =No. 3.--Road Legislation for the American State.= By JEREMIAH
    W. JENKS. _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 4.--Report of the Proceedings of the Third Annual
    Meeting.= _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 5.--Three Papers Read at Third Annual Meeting=: “Malthus
    and Ricardo,” by SIMON N. PATTEN; “The Study of Statistics,” by
    DAVIS R. DEWEY; “Analysis in Political Economy,” by WILLIAM W.
    FOLWELL. _Price 75 cents._

    =No. 6.--An Honest Dollar.= By E. BENJAMIN ANDREWS. _Price 75
    cents._

_Vol. V.--Bound, $5; Unbound, $4._

    =No. 1.--The Industrial Transition in Japan.= By YEIJIRO ONO.
    _Price $1.00._

    =No. 2.--Two Prize Essays on Child Labor.= I. By WILLIAM F.
    WILLOUGHBY; II. By MISS CLARE DE GRAFFENRIED. _Price 75 cents._

    =Nos. 3 and 4.--Two Papers on the Canal Question.= I. By EDMUND
    J. JAMES; II. By LEWIS M. HAUPT. _Price $1.00._

    =No. 5.--History of the New York Property Tax.= By JOHN
    CHRISTOPHER SCHWAB. _Price $1.00._

    =No. 6.--The Educational Value of Political Economy.= By SIMON
    N. PATTEN. _Price 75 cents._

_Vol. VI.--Subscription, $4.00._

    =Nos. 1 and 2.--Report of the Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
    Meeting.= _Price $1.00._

The Association will Publish at least Six Numbers Annually.
Subscription, $4.00 per Volume.

For further information, address

PUBLISHING AGENT, American Economic Association, BALTIMORE, MD.




THE ECONOMIC REVIEW.

PUBLISHED QUARTERLY.


CONTENTS OF THE NUMBER FOR OCTOBER, 1892.

    1. _What attitude should the Church adopt towards the Aims and
    Methods of Labour Combinations?_

    THE REV. CANON H. S. HOLLAND, M. A.

    2. _The Present Position of the “Sweating System” Question in
    the United Kingdom._

    DAVID F. SCHLOSS, M. A.

    3. _Co-operative Credit-Banking in Germany._

    HENRY W. WOLFF.

    4. _The Universities’ Settlement in Whitechapel._

    THOMAS HANCOCK NUNN.

    5. _The Theory of Prize-giving._

    I. THE REV. AND HON. E. LYTTELTON, M. A.

    II. A CRITICISM. THE REV. H. RASHDALL, M. A.

    6. _Thoughts on Social Problems and Their Solution._

    E. VANSITTART NEALE, M. A.

    _Notes and Memoranda._

    _Legislation, Parliamentary Inquiries and Official Returns._

    EDWIN CANNAN, M. A.

    _Reviews and Short Notices._

PERCIVAL & CO., 34 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON.

Yearly Subscription in advance direct to the Publishers, 10s. post
free. Single copies, price 3s.

BERLIN: PUTTKAMMER & MÜHLBRECHT.

_Subscription, 12 marks. Single copies, 3 marks._




THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS.

STUDIES IN HISTORY AND POLITICS.

Edited by HERBERT B. ADAMS.


The Tenth Series is now in progress. Subscription, $3.00 per year.

=ANNUAL SERIES. 1883-1891.=

SERIES I.--LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pages. $4.00.

SERIES II.--INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pages. $4.00.

SERIES III.--MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON. 595 pages. $4.00.

SERIES IV.--MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TENURE. 600 pages. $3.50.

SERIES V.--MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND POLITICS. 559 pages. $3.50.

SERIES VI.--THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 540
pages. $3.50.

SERIES VII.--SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 628
pages. $3.50.

SERIES VIII--HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625 pages. $3.50.

SERIES IX.--EDUCATION, HISTORY, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 635 pages. $3.50.

=EXTRA VOLUMES.=

I. THE REPUBLIC OF NEW HAVEN. By CHARLES H. LEVERMORE. $2.00.

II. PHILADELPHIA, 1681-1887. By EDWARD P. ALLINSON and BOIES PENROSE.
$3.00.

III. BALTIMORE AND THE NINETEENTH OF APRIL, 1861. By GEORGE WILLIAM
BROWN. $1.00.

IV-V. LOCAL CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By GEORGE E.
HOWARD.

    Vol. I.--Development of the Township, Hundred, and Shire. $3.00.

    Vol. II.--Development of the City and the Local Magistracies
    (in preparation).

VI. THE NEGRO IN MARYLAND. By JEFFREY R. BRACKETT. $2.00.

VII. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. By W. W. WILLOUGHBY. $1.25.

VIII. THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN. By INAZO
NITOBE. $1.25.

IX. STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SWITZERLAND. By JOHN M. VINCENT.
$1.50.

X. SPANISH INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST. FRANK W. BLACKMAR. $2.00.

XI. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION. By MORRIS M.
COHN. $1.50.

XII. THE OLD ENGLISH MANOR. By CHARLES M. ANDREWS, $1.50.

XIII. AMERICA: ITS GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORY, 1492-1792. By W. B. SCAIFE.

The set of nine series is now offered in a handsome library edition for
$27.00.

The nine series, with twelve extra volumes, altogether twenty-one
volumes, for $45.00.

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.




Systematic Political Science

BY THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE.


The University Faculty of Political Science of Columbia College have
in preparation and intend to publish a series of systematic works
covering the entire field of political science proper and of the allied
sciences of public law and economics. The method of treatment will be
historical, comparative and statistical; and it will be the aim of the
writers to present the latest results of institutional development and
of scientific thought in Europe and America. Each work will be indexed
by subjects and authors, and the last volume will contain a topical
index to the entire series.

The series will consist of the following nine works:

    =Comparative Constitutional Law and Politics.= By JOHN W.
    BURGESS.

    =Comparative Constitutional Law of the American Commonwealths.=
    By FREDERICK W. WHITRIDGE.

    =Historical and Practical Political Economy.= By RICHMOND
    MAYO-SMITH.

    =Historical and Comparative Science of Finance.= By EDWIN R. A.
    SELIGMAN.

    =Comparative Administrative Law and Science.= By FRANK J.
    GOODNOW.

    =International Law.= By JOHN BASSETT MOORE.

    =Historical and Comparative Jurisprudence.= By MUNROE SMITH.

    =History of Political Theories.= By WILLIAM A. DUNNING.

    =Literature of Political Science.= By GEORGE H. BAKER.

The first of these works was published early in 1891, by Ginn and Co.
The entire series will probably be completed within three years.







