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.,