Brian Carnell's Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
<html>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[i]</a></span></p>

<div class="ad">

<p class="titlepage larger"><i>STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW.</i></p>

<p class="titlepage">EDITED BY<br />
THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE<br />
OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE.</p>

<p class="titlepage">Volume II.]<span style="margin-left: 30%;">[Number 1.</span></p>

<h1>THE ECONOMICS<br />
OF THE<br />
RUSSIAN VILLAGE.</h1>

<p class="titlepage">BY<br />
<span class="smcap">Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph.D.</span>,<br />
<i>Seligman Fellow in Political Science, Columbia College.</i></p>

<p class="titlepage"><span class="smcap">New York.</span><br />
1892.</p>

</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[ii]</a><br /><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[iii]</a></span></p>

<h2>TABLE OF CONTENTS.</h2>

<table id="toc" summary="Contents">
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"></td><td class="page">PAGE</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#INTRODUCTION"><span class="smcap">Introduction.</span> <span class="smcap">The Rise of “Peasantism.”</span></a></td><td class="page">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_I"><span class="smcap">Chapter I.</span> <span class="smcap">General Sketch of the Development of Landholding
in Russia</span></a></td><td class="page">19</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">The Russian village community of historical times&mdash;Survivals of communal
co-operation&mdash;The communistic peasant household&mdash;Origins of
private property in land&mdash;Patrimony and fee&mdash;Slavery resulting from
the obligation of loan&mdash;Tenure in fee an institute of public law&mdash;Limitation
of the peasant’s right of migration&mdash;The fee becomes hereditary&mdash;Statute
of Peter the Great on inheritance in the estates held by the nobility;
abolition of the distinction between patrimony and fee&mdash;The poll
tax&mdash;Slaves and serfs put upon a common footing&mdash;Emancipation of the
nobility from their duty toward the state&mdash;The serfs agitated by a feeling
in favor of emancipation&mdash;“Land and Liberty”&mdash;The question discussed
in the Legislative Assembly convoked by Catherine II.&mdash;Insurrection
under the head of Emilian Pougatchoff&mdash;Further developments of the
abolitionist problem&mdash;Peasant riots about the time of the Crimean War&mdash;Economic
necessity of abolition of serfdom&mdash;Evolution of private property
achieved by the emancipation&mdash;Expropriation of the peasantry&mdash;Legends
of land nationalization popular with the peasantry&mdash;The Statute
of 1861 in its characteristic features&mdash;Russian taxation&mdash;Limitation of
the personal liberty of the taxpayer&mdash;The village community upheld by
over-taxation of the land&mdash;Counteracting influence of the rise of rent.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_II"><span class="smcap">Chapter II.</span> <span class="smcap">Community of Land</span></a></td><td class="page">37</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">The region selected for review with regard to geographical position
and population&mdash;Forms of ownership in land&mdash;Agrarian communism&mdash;Community
of land with shares fixed in perpetuity&mdash;History of the latter
form of ownership&mdash;Evolution of the same into agrarian communism&mdash;Opinions
of Russian students on the origin of agrarian communism.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_III"><span class="smcap">Chapter III.</span> <span class="smcap">The Productive Forces of the Peasantry</span></a></td><td class="page">47</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">Normal size of a farm required by the present state of agriculture&mdash;Actual
size of peasant farms&mdash;Legal discrimination&mdash;Want of fodder&mdash;Depressed
condition of stock breeding&mdash;Want of fuel&mdash;Manure used as
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[iv]</a></span>fuel&mdash;The land not fertilized&mdash;Exhaustion of the soil&mdash;Improper situation
of the lots&mdash;Yields of cereals&mdash;Balance of peasant agriculture&mdash;Review
of real peasant budgets&mdash;Development of money economy in
peasant farming.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV"><span class="smcap">Chapter IV.</span> <span class="smcap">Taxation of the Peasant</span></a></td><td class="page">59</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">The taxes in inverse ratio to the income&mdash;The redemption tax paid
by the former serf&mdash;Assessment <i>per capita</i>&mdash;Arrears in taxes&mdash;Bearing
upon the peasant’s live stock&mdash;The fiscal system lived down by economic
development.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_V"><span class="smcap">Chapter V.</span> <span class="smcap">Communal Tenure and Small Holdings</span></a></td><td class="page">67</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">Economic relations arising from the lack of land&mdash;Tenure at will&mdash;Community
as party to the agreement&mdash;Easements&mdash;Pasture&mdash;Tendency
toward individualism produced by inequality of wealth and money economy&mdash;Arable
land and grass land&mdash;Individualism prevailing&mdash;Communal
agreements&mdash;Influence of divergent interests within the community&mdash;Rental
partnerships, a step toward individualism.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI"><span class="smcap">Chapter VI.</span> <span class="smcap">The Evolution of the Farmer into the Agricultural
Laborer</span></a></td><td class="page">75</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">Relations between landlord and tenant&mdash;Division of crops&mdash;Labor in
payment for rent&mdash;Tendency towards money agreements&mdash;Rise of rent&mdash;Rate
of rent to wages&mdash;Differentiation of tenant and farm laborer.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII"><span class="smcap">Chapter VII.</span> <span class="smcap">The Wages in the Rural Districts</span></a></td><td class="page">80</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">Farmer as wage-worker&mdash;Farm work prevailing&mdash;Indebtedness of the
farmer&mdash;Wages in rural districts cut down by the farmer-workingman&mdash;Low
wages a drawback to the development of industry&mdash;Pauperism.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII"><span class="smcap">Chapter VIII.</span> <span class="smcap">The Rural Surplus Population</span></a></td><td class="page">85</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">Increasing movement away from the rural districts&mdash;Wages higher
abroad&mdash;The bonds to the village severed&mdash;Growth of the proletariat.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX"><span class="smcap">Chapter IX.</span> <span class="smcap">The Dissolution of the Patriarchal Family</span></a></td><td class="page">90</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">The position of the peasantists and of the government in the question&mdash;Opinions
of students of peasant life on the dissolution of the patriarchal
family&mdash;The typical family of to-day&mdash;Influence of outside jobs&mdash;Parcellation
of the soil&mdash;Landless&mdash;Ruin of the farmer occasioned by the
decay of family co-operation&mdash;The employing farmer.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_X"><span class="smcap">Chapter X.</span> <span class="smcap">The Modern Agricultural Classes</span></a></td><td class="page">104</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">The vagueness of class distinctions at a primitive stage of economic
development&mdash;The peasantist conception of class antagonism in the village&mdash;Results
of statistical investigation&mdash;Farmers deriving a net profit
from agriculture&mdash;Farmer and business man&mdash;Concentration of the land
and a strong patriarchal household&mdash;The employing farmer developing
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[v]</a></span>side by side with the dissolution of the compound family&mdash;The rural
proletariat&mdash;Lack of land&mdash;The dissolution of the patriarchal family
complete&mdash;The Russian proletarian as wage-laborer and employer at the
same time&mdash;The transitional class&mdash;Deficit in the balance of farming
resulting from the division of the co-operative family&mdash;The farmer as wage
laborer&mdash;Imminent transition into the proletarian class&mdash;“The struggle
of generations” in the village a reflected form of class antagonism.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI"><span class="smcap">Chapter XI.</span> <span class="smcap">Individual Ownership and Agrarian Communism</span></a></td><td class="page">123</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">Their effects upon the distribution of landed property&mdash;Lease of communal
land a step toward expropriation of the poor&mdash;Speculation in
peasant lots&mdash;Mobilisation of communal land.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XII"><span class="smcap">Chapter XII.</span> <span class="smcap">The Redivision of the Communal Land</span></a></td><td class="page">130</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">The censuses for the assessment of the poll tax&mdash;Redivisions of land&mdash;General
redivisions&mdash;Partial redivisions brought into disuse by the rise
of rent&mdash;Lease of communal land a check to its redivision by the <i>mir</i>&mdash;Vote
required for redivision&mdash;Privilege for the wealthy minority&mdash;Concentration
of communal land in private hands&mdash;Influence of redemption&mdash;Antagonism
of economic interests within the village&mdash;Dissolution
of the community going on.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub"><a href="#NOTE"><i>Note</i></a>: The “inalienability” scheme.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIII"><span class="smcap">Chapter XIII.</span> <span class="smcap">Agriculture on a Large Scale</span></a></td><td class="page">138</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">The peasantist view of the matter&mdash;<i>The destinies of capitalism in
Russia</i>, by V. V.&mdash;Large agriculture and peasant farming&mdash;Backwardness
of large agriculture&mdash;The latter still prevailing over small peasant
tenure&mdash;Agriculture progressing with the increase of the estate&mdash;The
beginnings of capitalistic agriculture&mdash;Decrease in the dominions of the
nobility&mdash;Growth of capitalistic property in land&mdash;Displacement of the
small tenant by the capitalist farmer&mdash;Progressive tendencies of capitalistic
management&mdash;Substitution of the small farmer by the proletarian
laborer&mdash;Economic dependence of the nobility upon the small farmer&mdash;Imminent
ruin of the landed nobility.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIV"><span class="smcap">Chapter XIV.</span> <span class="smcap">Conclusion: The Consequences of the Famine</span></a></td><td class="page">157</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">The bearing of the above discussion upon Middle Russia at large&mdash;The
economic policy of the Government&mdash;Crédit Foncier for the peasants,
and its failure&mdash;The famine a result of agricultural backwardness&mdash;Failure
of the peasantry and of the landed nobility&mdash;The rise of capitalistic
agriculture.</td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="chapter"><a href="#APPENDICES"><span class="smcap">Appendices.</span> <span class="smcap">Statistical Tables.</span></a></td><td class="page"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">I. Distribution of land among the several sections of the peasant
population</td><td class="page">166</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">I., <i>a.</i> Acreage of a peasant farm</td><td class="page">167</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[vi]</a></span>II. Taxation of the peasantry</td><td class="page">168</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">III. Arrears in taxes</td><td class="page">169</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">IV. Distribution of rented land: <i>A.</i>&mdash;With regard to ownership in
land; <i>B.</i>&mdash;With regard to stock-breeding</td><td class="page">170</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">V. Budgets of typical peasant households</td><td class="page">171</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">VI. Wages of the peasant in industrial employment: <i>A.</i>&mdash;Local;
<i>B.</i>&mdash;Outside</td><td class="page">180</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="sub">VII. Average yields of wheat</td><td class="page">182</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a>INTRODUCTION.<br />
<span class="smaller">THE RISE OF “PEASANTISM.”</span></h2>

<p>The awful famine which has lately been raging over an
area as large as the territory of the <i>Dreibund</i>, 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>mir</i> (Freiherr August von
Haxthausen), were all of foreign birth.</p>

<p>The last named discovery was destined to play a prominent
part in the subsequent political history of Russia. Agrarian<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span>
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, <i>viz</i>: 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” (<i>zapadniki</i>) and the
“slavophiles.”</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>mir</i> as well as of bond serfdom.</p>

<p>The archaic communism of the <i>mir</i> 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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>
of Herzen or Bakunin&mdash;who were at that time closely affiliated
with Proudhon, Karl Marx and other prominent representatives
of the social movements of the day&mdash;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 <i>Nicholas Gavrielovitch Tchernyshefsky</i>.</p>

<p>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:&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Russkaya Beseda</i>. Tchernyshefsky, though apparently
an “occidentalist,” sided with the slavophiles, and in a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>
series of brilliant articles laid down the basis of the so-called
“peasantism” (<i>narodnitchestvo</i>) 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.</p>

<p>“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?”</p>

<p>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
<i>laissez-faire</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>
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:</p>

<p>“Is it possible for Russia to leap over one phase of her historical
development? <i>Natura non agit per saltus.</i>”</p>

<p>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 <i>Is the
Redemption of Land Difficult?</i> 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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span>
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 <i>through</i> the government,
why, this will must be complied with <i>against</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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 <i>zemstvos</i>
(provincial assemblies).</p>

<p>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 <i>Vasili Ivanovitch Orloff</i>, was a peaceable peasantist in
1875, when a young man of twenty-seven he took into his
hands the Statistical Bureau of the Moscow <i>zemstvo</i>. 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.”</p>

<p>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 <i>zemstvos</i>, 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span>
The following quotations will give some idea of the
methods practiced by the Russian statisticians:</p>

<p>“We used to begin by making a minute extract from the
<i>Book of assessed taxes</i>. Another highly interesting document
found in the “bailiff’s board” (<i>volostnoye pravlenie</i>) was the
<i>Book of transactions and contracts</i>. 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 <i>Book for registering
passports</i>, 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<a name="FNanchor_1" id="FNanchor_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span>
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>i. e.</i>, destitute of husbandry),<a name="FNanchor_2" id="FNanchor_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> 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.”<a name="FNanchor_3" id="FNanchor_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_4" id="FNanchor_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p>

<p>The area covered by the investigations for the year 1890, is
represented by the following figures:<a name="FNanchor_5" id="FNanchor_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <td>Provinces (Gubernias)</td><td class="right">25</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Districts</td><td class="right">148</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Communes</td><td class="right">50,429</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Peasant households</td><td class="right">3,309,020</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total males and females</td><td class="right">19,693,191</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>This is about one-fifth of the total population of European
Russia.</p>

<p>As the unit for all information is identical with the economic
cell&mdash;the peasant household&mdash;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>
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, <i>The Emigration
of the Peasants from the Province of Ryazañ</i>, founded on the
same proscribed data, was subsequently honored with a prize
by the University of Moscow.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Was it virtually a fallacious census, imbued with party
spirit?</p>

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

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_6" id="FNanchor_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> the statistical<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span>
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.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I.<br />
<span class="smaller">GENERAL SKETCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANDHOLDING
IN RUSSIA.</span></h2>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>pómoch</i> (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, <i>etc.</i> This is considered
as a reception tendered by the family to its neighbors,
and different kinds of refreshments are prepared for the occasion.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>
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 <i>pómoch</i>. 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 <i>pómoch</i>, being undoubtedly a revival of primeval communism,
is at the same time a sign of the dissolution of communism
into individual households.</p>

<p>However, it is essential to notice that the Russian household
is not identical with the Roman family or its derivatives.
The Roman <i>paterfamilias</i> is the absolute master of all living
under his <i>patria potestas</i>; 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Otechestvenniya
Zapiski</i>, 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>In the Muscovite State we find two forms of individual
landed property: patrimony (<i>vottchina</i>) or freehold, and fee
(<i>pomest’ye</i>) or benefice.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span></p>

<p>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 (<i>jus civile</i>), 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” (<i>vir bonus</i>,
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 (<i>zakup</i>, <i>kabalniy holóp</i>)
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.”</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span></p>

<p>The fee was the virtual germ of Russian private property in
land.</p>

<p>Not only in Russia, but also in many other countries, private
property in land owed its origin to relations of public law.
Public land (<i>ager publicus</i>) 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>
by the Muscovite Great Prince and Lord of All the
Russias. Struggle with the Tartar conquerors&mdash;a struggle
that lasted for two centuries&mdash;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” (<i>sloozhiliy
chelovek</i>) 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In olden times the facilities for migration were the same as
they now are in Siberia. This state of things gave rise to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>
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, <i>glebæ adscriptus</i>.
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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>It was by this ukase that private property in land and serfdom
were finally recognized in Russia as institutions of private
law.<a name="FNanchor_7" id="FNanchor_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> 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;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>
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!” (<i>Zemlya ee
Volya!</i>) 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.”</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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,”&mdash;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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>corvée</i> into tallage (<i>taille</i>)&mdash;compulsory
labor into compulsory payments. The latter form
prevailed on many estates. In such cases the lord enjoyed
merely the legal ownership, <i>Ober-Eigenthum</i> (<i>dominium ex jure
Quiritium</i>) while to the peasant belonged the real possession,
<i>Nutzeigenthum</i> (<i>possessio ex jure gentium</i>). 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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>
was abandoned, for fear lest it might prove seriously dangerous
to the public peace.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>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>i. e.</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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 “<i>temporary obligors</i>” and their masters.<a name="FNanchor_8" id="FNanchor_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_9" id="FNanchor_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>solo</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_10" id="FNanchor_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> 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&mdash;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.</p>

<p>What follows?</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span></p>

<p>A great sensation was produced in 1877 by a book on Russian
taxation by Prof J. E. Janson, of the University of St.
Petersburg.<a name="FNanchor_11" id="FNanchor_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> On the strength of the <i>Reports of the Commission
of Inquiry into the Condition of Agriculture in Russia</i>, 1872, and
of the <i>Proceedings of the Commission on Taxation</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_12" id="FNanchor_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>
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 <i>versts</i> (about 20
miles) without a passport, under penalty of being imprisoned
and forwarded home by <i>étape</i>. Should, however, the peasant
renounce his right of locomotion, then public sale of his homestead
and personal effects, and corporal punishment<a name="FNanchor_13" id="FNanchor_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_14" id="FNanchor_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> the ancestral
tenet of communal supremacy is emphatically observed,
and the most scrupulous justice and equality are maintained in
the distribution of the land.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>
requests to be relieved of a part of his land on the
ground of the decrease in the number of workers in his family,
<i>e. g.</i>, because his son has been enlisted in the army. At the
same time there may be other families who are “strong,” <i>i. e.</i>,
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.</p>

<p>And yet, notwithstanding the strictest minuteness in the
distribution of land, wherein the sovereignty of the <i>mir</i> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_15" id="FNanchor_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> Moreover,
in 1866 the emancipation of the State peasants brought about<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II.<br />
<span class="smaller">COMMUNITY OF LAND.</span></h2>

<p>The region which has been selected for the present discussion
comprises two Districts: Dankoff and Ranenburg, (or
Oranienburg) in the province (<i>Gubernia</i>) 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.<a name="FNanchor_16" id="FNanchor_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p>

<p>According to the census taken by the <i>zemstvo</i> in 1882, the
entire peasant population of this region numbered 36,126 families,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>
composed of 232,323 males and females, and living in 653
village communities.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Still, side by side with agrarian communism, we meet with
that peculiar form of hereditary tenure known as “quarterly”
(<i>tschetvertnoye</i>) possession.<a name="FNanchor_17" id="FNanchor_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> The difference between agrarian
communism and quarterly possession consists in the fact that
under the former, the plots are fixed by the <i>mir</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>
by law as private property, is virtually subdivided by the community
according to the same rules as those practiced wherever
agrarian communism is dominant&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_18" id="FNanchor_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p>

<p>In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the present <i>gubernias</i>
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 (<i>odnodvortzy</i>, 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>
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
<i>odnodvortzy</i>. To insure obedience to its ukases the government,
in 1766, changed the method of allotting land to the
<i>odnodvortzy</i>, 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>i. e.</i> to
agrarian communism. According to the information gathered
by the Ministry of Public Domains, toward the fifties, the
<i>odnodvortzy</i>, as regards the forms of possession, were divided
as follows:<a name="FNanchor_19" id="FNanchor_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Forms of Possession:</i></th><th class="right forcewidth"><i>Number of Males and Females:</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Quarterly</td><td class="right">452,508.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Communistic</td><td class="right">533,201.</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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 <i>odnodvortzy</i> in the whole
<i>gubernia</i> of Ryazañ. According to the forms of landholding
they were divided as follows:</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th class="border forcewidth">Forms of Landholding.</th><th class="border">Number of villages.</th><th class="border">Number of Males and Females.</th><th class="border">Land in dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Quarterly possession</td><td class="border right">176</td><td class="border right">11,265</td><td class="border right last-col">64,811</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Agrarian communism</td><td class="border right">56</td><td class="border right">21,283</td><td class="border right last-col">84,448</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Mixed</td><td class="border right last-row">55</td><td class="border right last-row">12,627</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">49,508</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span></p>

<p>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 <i>odnodvortzy</i> was recognized as their private alienable
property. The progress of agrarian communism between
1849 and 1882 can be seen from the following table:<a name="FNanchor_20" id="FNanchor_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a></p>

<p class="center">EXTENSION OF QUARTERLY POSSESSION.</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th colspan="2" class="center"><i>Population (males and females.)</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th></th><th class="right">In 1849.</th><th class="right">In 1882.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">19,714</td><td class="right">4,213</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">10,509</td><td class="right">6,089</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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 <i>in solido</i> of all
members of the community for the punctual payment of the
tax.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Responsibility <i>in solido</i> 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 (<i>Zemskee
Sobor</i>) 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
<i>in solido</i> 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.</p>

<p>The study of the development of landed property among the
<i>odnodvortzy</i>, 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 <i>odnodvortzy</i>, as well as with
the purchase and sale of their lots, seems to support this opinion.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Mr. Pankeyeff, the statistician, inclines to the latter opinion.
The investigations made by the statisticians of the <i>zemstvo</i>,
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.</p>

<p>There appears, however, to be room for yet a third view.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span>
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.</p>

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

<p>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” (<i>zaeemka</i>). In the region under consideration the
right of first possession<a name="FNanchor_21" id="FNanchor_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> was still in use in the beginning of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>
this century, and the movement toward subdivision of the
arable land dates from then.<a name="FNanchor_22" id="FNanchor_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p>

<p>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&mdash;quarterly
ownership, and the final form&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>
the quarterly arable. Thereby the intermediate form passes
into communal landholding proper, or agrarian communism.<a name="FNanchor_23" id="FNanchor_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III.<br />
<span class="smaller">THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF THE PEASANTRY.</span></h2>

<p>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>i. e.</i>,
included in the last preceding census) for the “regions where
land is scarce.”</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_24" id="FNanchor_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Title of Possession.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Communities.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Revision males.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Land (Dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Number</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Total.</th>
    <th class="border">To one revision male.</th>
    <th class="border">To one household.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Communal land:</td><td class="border"></td><td class="border"></td><td class="border"></td><td class="border"></td><td class="border"></td><td class="border"></td><td class="border last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><i>a.</i> allotted</td><td class="border right">28</td><td class="border right">465</td><td class="border right">158</td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right">1180</td><td class="border right">2.5</td><td class="border right last-col">7.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><i>b.</i> rented</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">?</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">314</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure from landlords</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">107</td><td class="border right">68</td><td class="border right">666</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">6.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Private property</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">14</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right">147</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">10.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right total">121</td><td class="border right total">77</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">In all</td><td class="border right total">28</td><td class="border right total">465</td><td class="border right total">158</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total">2307</td><td class="border right total">5.0</td><td class="border right total last-col">14.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Total in the region (allotted land)</td><td class="border right last-row">653</td><td class="border right last-row">90031</td><td class="border right last-row">36126</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row">294443</td><td class="border right last-row">3.3</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">8.1</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Districts and Classes.</th><th colspan="2" class="border">In every 100.</th><th class="border">To each peasant.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Peasants.</th><th colspan="2" class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>Ranenburg</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Former serfs</td><td class="border right">59.9</td><td class="border right">45.4</td><td class="border right last-col">1.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Former state peasants</td><td class="border right">39.9</td><td class="border right">54.4</td><td class="border right last-col">1.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>Dankoff</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Former serfs</td><td class="border right">64.1</td><td class="border right">50.0</td><td class="border right last-col">1.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1 last-row">Former state peasants</td><td class="border right last-row">35.4</td><td class="border right last-row">49.4</td><td class="border right last-col last-row">1.9</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th class="forcewidth"><i>To each male of the Xth census:</i></th><th><i>Ranenburg. Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Dankoff. Dessiatines.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Former serfs</td><td class="center">2.4</td><td class="center">2.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Former state peasants</td><td class="center">4.3</td><td class="center">4.6</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_25" id="FNanchor_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The total hay yield of the meadows belonging to the peasants
who live under agrarian communism<a name="FNanchor_26" id="FNanchor_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a>, is 458,000 poods<a name="FNanchor_27" id="FNanchor_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a>,
and this has to be distributed among 83,079 head of large
cattle<a name="FNanchor_28" id="FNanchor_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>. This makes on an average 5½ <i>poods</i>, <i>i. e.</i> 200 pounds
to every head for the Russian winter, lasting at least half a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span>
year. In other words, there is about <i>one pound of hay a day</i>
for every head of cattle.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_29" id="FNanchor_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_30" id="FNanchor_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> 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, <i>viz</i>: 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.<a name="FNanchor_31" id="FNanchor_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p>

<p>Apart from these general conditions, we cannot pass by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>
without notice certain special circumstances that continually
depress the level of the peasants’ agriculture in a number of
villages inhabited by former serfs.</p>

<p>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 (<i>volost</i>) Hrushchefskaya, Dankoff district.
We find the following in the <i>Statistical Reports</i>:</p>

<p>“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.”</p>

<p>“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.”<a name="FNanchor_32" id="FNanchor_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p>

<p>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
(<i>servitus itineris, actus, aquæ etc.</i>), 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.<a name="FNanchor_33" id="FNanchor_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This can be easily figured from the yields of rye and oats,
the principal crops raised by the peasantry<a name="FNanchor_34" id="FNanchor_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>:</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Countries.</th><th colspan="4" class="border">Yield Per Acre.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Rye.</th><th colspan="2" class="border">Oats.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Bushels.</th><th class="border">Per Cent.</th><th class="border">Bushels.</th><th class="border">Per Cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>Russia</i>,<a name="FNanchor_35" id="FNanchor_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> District of Ostrogozhsk, <i>Gubernia</i> of Voronezh, average for 10 years (1877-1886)</td><td class="border right"><b>8.9</b></td><td class="border right"><b>100</b></td><td class="border right"><b>10.7</b></td><td class="border right last-col"><b>100</b></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">United States, average for 10 years (1880-1889)</td><td class="border right">11.9</td><td class="border right">134</td><td class="border right">26.6</td><td class="border right last-col">249</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Ontario, Canada (1889-1890)</td><td class="border right">15.5</td><td class="border right">174</td><td class="border right">30.7</td><td class="border right last-col">287</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Great Britain (1889-1890)</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">40.3</td><td class="border right last-col">377</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">France (1888-1889)</td><td class="border right">16.1</td><td class="border right">181</td><td class="border right">26.1</td><td class="border right last-col">244</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Germany (1890)</td><td class="border right">14.7</td><td class="border right">165</td><td class="border right">30.1</td><td class="border right last-col">287</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Austria (1889)</td><td class="border right">14.5</td><td class="border right">163</td><td class="border right">17.6</td><td class="border right last-col">164</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Hungary (1889)</td><td class="border right last-row">13.8</td><td class="border right last-row">155</td><td class="border right last-row">17.4</td><td class="border right last-col last-row">163</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span></p>

<p>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 <i>gubernia</i> 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:<a name="FNanchor_36" id="FNanchor_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Districts.</th><th rowspan="2" class="border">Households.</th><th rowspan="2" class="border">Receipts from sale of produce (rubles).</th><th colspan="3" class="border">Expenses (rubles).</th><th rowspan="2" class="border">Deficit<a name="FNanchor_37" id="FNanchor_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> (rubles).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Consumption</th><th class="border">Rent.</th><th class="border">Total.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Zadonsk</td><td class="border right">15,528</td><td class="border right">390,178</td><td class="border right">784,061</td><td class="border right">239,072</td><td class="border right">1,023,133</td><td class="border right last-col">632,955</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">20,232</td><td class="border right">1,280,206</td><td class="border right">1,017,727</td><td class="border right">304,789</td><td class="border right">1,322,516</td><td class="border right last-col">42,310</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Nizhnedevitzk</td><td class="border right last-row">20,051</td><td class="border right last-row">1,326,110</td><td class="border right last-row">1,069,013</td><td class="border right last-row">327,200</td><td class="border right last-row">1,396,213</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">70,103</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_38" id="FNanchor_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span></p>

<p>To give some idea of the standard of life of the Russian
peasant, we append a summary review of three peasant budgets
of the <i>gubernia</i> of Tamboff.<a name="FNanchor_39" id="FNanchor_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_40" id="FNanchor_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> All the
dresses of two rustic Lady Astors amount to the exorbitant
figure of sixteen rubles a year, while the gentlemen are satisfied<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>
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 <i>Reports</i> for the district of Borisoglebsk,
it would cause a deduction from the income, as
follows:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <td>3.5:10 from 40 Russian quarters rye @ 2.00 rubles</td><td class="right">56.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>3.2:10 <span class="ditto1">”</span> 60 <span class="ditto2">”</span> <span class="ditto2">”</span>oat @ 2.00 <span class="ditto1">”</span></td><td class="right">38.40</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">94.40</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In short, it is manifest that even the most favored classes of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_41" id="FNanchor_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>
very considerable extent superseded by money economy.<a name="FNanchor_42" id="FNanchor_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> In
other words, Russian farming has developed from the production
of use-values or utilities to a production of commodities.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV.<br />
<span class="smaller">TAXATION OF THE PEASANT.</span></h2>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_43" id="FNanchor_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_44" id="FNanchor_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 (<i>taille</i>):</p>

<p class="center">AMOUNT OF TAXES (IN RUBLES) TO ONE “REVISION” MALE.</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Classes of Peasants.</th>
    <th colspan="5" class="border">Dankoff.</th>
    <th colspan="5" class="border">Ranenburg.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Total.</th>
    <th class="border">Taille.</th>
    <th class="border">Redemption Tax.</th>
    <th class="border">Rent.</th>
    <th class="border">Per Cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Total.</th>
    <th class="border">Taille.</th>
    <th class="border">Redemption Tax.</th>
    <th class="border">Rent.</th>
    <th class="border">Per Cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. Former serfs:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">1. Temporary obligors</td><td class="border right">12.6</td><td class="border right">8.2</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">65</td><td class="border right">11.9</td><td class="border right">7.5</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">60</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">2. Proprietors</td><td class="border right">11.1</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">6.6</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">59</td><td class="border right">10.8</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">6.3</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">58</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">II. Former serfs, subsequently state peasants</td><td class="border right">7.9</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">2.9</td><td class="border right">36</td><td class="border right">7.0</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right last-col">34</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">III. Former state peasants</td><td class="border right last-row">10.0</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row">3.8</td><td class="border right last-row">38</td><td class="border right last-row">10.4</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row">4.4</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">42</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_45" id="FNanchor_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span>
donated lots, <i>i. e.</i>, the least is levied from those who are
free from the obligation to their former masters.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Let us take as a unit every male of the revision, (<i>i. e.</i>, 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 <i>per capita</i> 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 <i>per capita</i> became a power that
accentuated the social inequalities, and hastened, through its
extortion, the ruin of the feeble.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>
they alone are in a position to mortgage to private persons.
The bulk of the peasantry<a name="FNanchor_46" id="FNanchor_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" colspan="2"></th>
    <th rowspan="2"><i>Amount of taxes apportioned (rubles).</i></th>
    <th colspan="2"><i>Arrears.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th><i>Rubles.</i></th>
    <th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="forcewidth top-pad"><i>Ranenburg</i>&mdash;</td><td class="forcewidth top-pad">Former serfs</td><td class="top-pad right">347,672</td><td class="top-pad right">176,288</td><td class="top-pad right">50</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td><td>Former State peasants</td><td class="right">212,571</td><td class="right">70,303</td><td class="right">33.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td><td>Total</td><td class="right total">560,243</td><td class="right total">246,591</td><td class="right total">44</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="top-pad"><i>Dankoff</i>&mdash;</td><td class="top-pad">Former serfs</td><td class="top-pad right">292,648</td><td class="top-pad right">12,352</td><td class="top-pad right">4.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td><td>Former State peasants</td><td class="right">135,019</td><td class="right">4,936</td><td class="right">3.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td><td>Total</td><td class="right total">427,667</td><td class="right total">17,288</td><td class="right total">4</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_47" id="FNanchor_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a></p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span>
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 <i>taille</i>
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.<a name="FNanchor_48" id="FNanchor_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> Finally, this fact attracted the attention
of the central government, and in 1882, the <i>zemstvos</i> were required
by the Minister of the Interior to report upon “the
communities in which husbandry had fallen into ultimate destitution,”<a name="FNanchor_49" id="FNanchor_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>
and a relief in the amount of the redemption tax was
desirable. The committee elected by the <i>zemstvo</i> 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 <i>zemstvo</i> of the <i>gubernia</i> of Ryazañ.<a name="FNanchor_50" id="FNanchor_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a>
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.</p>

<p>Whatever may be the absolute amount of the arrears, the
point is that they bear upon the peasant’s live stock, which is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_51" id="FNanchor_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span></p>

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

<p>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 <i>zemstvo</i> from
the investigations of the above mentioned Commissions of the
central government.</p>

<p>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 <i>gubernia</i> of Ryazañ exceeds the taxes by from one to
three rubles (<i>i. e.</i> the taxes absorb, in an average, from 78 to
91 per cent. of the rent.)<a name="FNanchor_52" id="FNanchor_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> Though rise of rent is by no means<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V.<br />
<span class="smaller">COMMUNAL TENURE AND SMALL HOLDINGS.</span></h2>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_53" id="FNanchor_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> It is obvious that whenever the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>Another basis for the distribution is found, in many instances,
in the number of heads of cattle belonging to each
householder, <i>i. e.</i> 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:<a name="FNanchor_54" id="FNanchor_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a></p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Party of the renter.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Rented pasture.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Total in class and region.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">In consideration of</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Total.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Labor.</th>
    <th class="border">Money.</th>
    <th class="border">Mixed.<a name="FNanchor_55" id="FNanchor_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>Former State peasants.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">1. Community</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">2. Individuals</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total">All to former State peasants</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">1</td><td class="border right total">1</td><td class="border right total">2</td><td class="border right total last-col">91</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent2"><i>Former serfs.</i></td><td class="border top-pad right"></td><td class="border top-pad right"></td><td class="border top-pad right"></td><td class="border top-pad right"></td><td class="border top-pad right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">1. Community</td><td class="border right">93</td><td class="border right">22</td><td class="border right">8</td><td class="border right">123</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">2. Community, obligation discharged <i>per</i> head of stock</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">3. Community, beside individuals</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">4. Partnerships and individuals</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">All to former serfs</td><td class="border right total last-row">105</td><td class="border right total last-row">37</td><td class="border right total last-row">12</td><td class="border right total last-row">154</td><td class="border right total last-col last-row">562</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span></p>

<p>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 <i>mir</i> 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 <i>mir</i> 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 <i>per</i> head. On the other hand
payment was stipulated for at so much <i>per</i> 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 <i>mir</i>, 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th class="border forcewidth">Party to the agreement.</th>
    <th class="border">Number of communities.</th>
    <th class="border">Rented dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Land, per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 top-pad"><i>Ranenburg.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Community</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-footnote">25</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-footnote">2195</span></td><td class="border right last-col">12.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Partnerships</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-footnote">2</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-footnote">143</span></td><td class="border right last-col">0.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Individuals</td><td class="border right">265<a name="FNanchor_56" id="FNanchor_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></td><td class="border right">16009<a name="FNanchor_56a" id="FNanchor_56a"></a><a href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></td><td class="border right last-col">87.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Total</td><td class="border right total"><span class="align-footnote">290</span></td><td class="border right total">18347<a name="FNanchor_57" id="FNanchor_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></td><td class="border right total last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 top-pad"><i>Dankoff.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Community</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-footnote">23</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-footnote">2240</span></td><td class="border right last-col">16.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Partnerships</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-footnote">3</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-footnote">42</span></td><td class="border right last-col">0.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Individuals</td><td class="border right">230<a name="FNanchor_56b" id="FNanchor_56b"></a><a href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></td><td class="border right">11561<a name="FNanchor_56c" id="FNanchor_56c"></a><a href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></td><td class="border right last-col">83.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-footnote">256</span></td><td class="border right total last-row">13843<a name="FNanchor_57a" id="FNanchor_57a"></a><a href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></td><td class="border right total last-col last-row">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Such was the argument of an optimistic school of peasantists,
which gained much credit in Russia in a few years ago.<a name="FNanchor_58" id="FNanchor_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a>
In reality, however, nothing like a growth of communism can<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span>
be seen in the recent rise of communal tenancy. As a matter
of fact the latter is restricted solely to communities of former
serfs.<a name="FNanchor_59" id="FNanchor_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Let us compare the area of land held by the tenants in 1882
with the tracts carved out of the peasants’ possession in 1861.<a name="FNanchor_60" id="FNanchor_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a></p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Carved out <br />in 1861.</i></th><th><i>Rented <br />in 1882.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">3710</td><td class="right">3274</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">5179</td><td class="right">4327</td>
  </tr>
</table>

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

<p>In the first place the lots leased by the community are considerably
larger than those rented by individual peasants.<a name="FNanchor_61" id="FNanchor_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_62" id="FNanchor_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a></p>

<p>The result of cheaper rent is the better condition of the communities
in question as compared with the average.<a name="FNanchor_63" id="FNanchor_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a></p>

<p>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:</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Classes of communities.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Percentage of householders.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Engaging in tenure.</th>
    <th class="border">Indifferent.</th>
    <th class="border">Letting out their own lots.<a name="FNanchor_64" id="FNanchor_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>Ranenburg.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure by the community</td><td class="border right">64</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right last-col">11</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure by individuals</td><td class="border right">26</td><td class="border right">57</td><td class="border right last-col">17</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>Dankoff.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure by the community</td><td class="border right">58</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right last-col">17</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Tenure by individuals</td><td class="border right last-row">25</td><td class="border right last-row">59</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">16</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>The language of the figures is unequivocal. Wherever land
is leased by the <i>mir</i>, 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.</p>

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>pro rata</i> to
the capital invested? It seems to be rather a joint partnership.</p>

<p>Yet partnership is by nature an individualistic contract,
whether the parties to such contract be the “elders” of the <i>mir</i>,
or common business men.<a name="FNanchor_65" id="FNanchor_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> We consider therefore rental<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>
partnership only as a stage of transition from communal to individual
tenancy.</p>

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

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th colspan="2"><i>Ranenburg.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Dankoff.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Held by the <i>mir</i></td><td class="right">2195</td><td class="right">66</td><td class="right">2240</td><td class="right">81</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Held by individuals</td><td class="right">1138</td><td class="right">34</td><td class="right">534</td><td class="right">19</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total rented</td><td class="total right">3333</td><td class="total right">100</td><td class="total right">2774</td><td class="total right">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_66" id="FNanchor_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI.<br />
<span class="smaller">THE EVOLUTION OF THE FARMER INTO THE AGRICULTURAL
LABORER.</span></h2>

<p>In the vast majority of cases tenure at will did but take the
place of the old relations between master and serf.<a name="FNanchor_67" id="FNanchor_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> The obligation
of the serf toward his master was discharged on some
estates in labor (<i>corvée</i>), on others by payments, either in
money or in kind. It is only natural to find the old practice
inherited by modern economy:</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Rented for</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Communal tenure.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Individual tenure.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">In all.<a name="FNanchor_68" id="FNanchor_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Communities.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Land.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Communities.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Land.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Land.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Share in crops</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">47</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right">382</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right">429</td><td class="border right last-col">2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Money rental (merely)</td><td class="border right">34</td><td class="border right">3330</td><td class="border right">76</td><td class="border right">84</td><td class="border right">6687</td><td class="border right">43</td><td class="border right">10017</td><td class="border right last-col">50</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Labor (merely)</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">48</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">8</td><td class="border right">562</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right">610</td><td class="border right last-col">3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Labor compulsory and money in addition</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right">958</td><td class="border right">22</td><td class="border right">132</td><td class="border right">8065</td><td class="border right">51</td><td class="border right">9023</td><td class="border right last-col">45</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">48</td><td class="border right total last-row">4383</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">228</td><td class="border right total last-row">15696</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">20079</td><td class="border right total last-col last-row">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>The patriarchal custom of division of the product itself between
landlord and tenant (<i>métayage</i>) 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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span></p>

<p>The economic tendency of the time, however, is toward
money economy and “free contract.”<a name="FNanchor_69" id="FNanchor_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> As in the matter of
taxation, the change is brought about by the rise of rent.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>On the other hand, whenever the rent is to be paid in cash,
at least one part must be advanced in the spring, <i>i. e.</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_70" id="FNanchor_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> The circle of tenants who can pay their rents in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span>
cash has thus been reduced to the “stronger” householders.<a name="FNanchor_71" id="FNanchor_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>These are the average amount of rent and the average price<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span>
paid for the full work of cultivating, and harvesting one dessiatine,
and carrying the crops to the barn:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <td class="forcewidth">Rent</td><td>rubles</td><td class="right">14.78</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Labor</td><td><span class="ditto1">”</span></td><td class="right">4.75</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="center" colspan="3">Rent for 1 dessiatine ＞ Wages for 3 dessiatines.</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">District of Ranenburg.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Communities.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Land rented (dessiatines).</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Average rent per dessiatine (rubles).</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Wages per dessiatine (rubles).</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Rates of rent to wages.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">From.</th>
    <th class="border">To.</th>
    <th class="border">From.</th>
    <th class="border">To.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Minimum of wages</td><td class="border right">44</td><td class="border right">1909</td><td class="border right">15.16</td><td class="border right">3.00</td><td class="border right">4.00</td><td class="border right">5.2:1</td><td class="border right last-col">3.9:1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Maximum of rent</td><td class="border right last-row">12</td><td class="border right last-row">833</td><td class="border right last-row">23.72</td><td class="border right last-row">4.00</td><td class="border right last-row">5.00</td><td class="border right last-row">5.9:1</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">4.3:1</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Thus land tenure is degenerating into wage labor.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII"></a>CHAPTER VII.<br />
<span class="smaller">THE WAGES IN THE RURAL DISTRICTS.</span></h2>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_72" id="FNanchor_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> Exactly
the same is observed in Russia.</p>

<p>The greater part of the work in agriculture, as well as in industry,
is performed by farmers.<a name="FNanchor_73" id="FNanchor_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_74" id="FNanchor_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></p>

<p>We have seen how, in the course of the evolution from
farmer to wage worker, the tenant first becomes farm laborer.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span>
Accordingly it is natural to find farm labor prevailing among
the local occupations of the peasants:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Agriculture. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Trades. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">69</td><td class="right">31</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">72</td><td class="right">28</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_75" id="FNanchor_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a></p>

<p>The relation between employer and employee is, with a very
few exceptions,<a name="FNanchor_76" id="FNanchor_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> one of money economy.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_77" id="FNanchor_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span>
The noble descendant of Rurik<a name="FNanchor_78" id="FNanchor_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> gains the benefit of 50 per
cent. yearly upon an average on the reduced rate of hire.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p class="center">BOARD FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYER.</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th colspan="2"><i>Male.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Female.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Minimum.</i></th><th><i>Maximum.</i></th><th><i>Minimum.</i></th><th><i>Maximum.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In winter</td><td class="right">0.18</td><td class="right">0.25</td><td class="right">0.12</td><td class="right">0.15</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In spring and fall</td><td class="right">0.25</td><td class="right">0.35</td><td class="right">..</td><td class="right">..</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In summer</td><td class="right">0.35</td><td class="right">0.70</td><td class="right">0.20</td><td class="right">0.45</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Furthermore, the comparison between agriculture and industry
brings out the fact that skilled labor<a name="FNanchor_79" id="FNanchor_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> is paid in the rural
districts at nearly the same rate as farm work.<a name="FNanchor_80" id="FNanchor_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> The case is
perfectly analogous to that of agricultural labor. In many of
the households in question there are, besides the artisan, other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span>
male members of the family who carry on their farming.<a name="FNanchor_81" id="FNanchor_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a>
In fall and winter the farmer, who is at the same time an artisan,
would work for any price. A tailor, <i>e. g.</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_82" id="FNanchor_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max15">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Percentage of “horseless.”</i></th><th><i>Households engaged in industry.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">36</td><td class="right">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">34</td><td class="right">8.5</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_83" id="FNanchor_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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>i. e.</i> between $0.75
and $1.00 a week!<a name="FNanchor_84" id="FNanchor_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span></p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_85" id="FNanchor_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> or
of leaving his village.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII"></a>CHAPTER VIII.<br />
<span class="smaller">THE RURAL SURPLUS POPULATION.</span></h2>

<p>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.</p>

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

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Ratio to the population of 1858. <br />Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Ratio to the respective groups of the population of 1882. <br />Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Emigration, 1858-1882.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Surplus of population in 1882.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Adult males working outside, 1882.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Total.</th>
    <th class="border">Males.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Ranenburg</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right">30</td><td class="border right">23</td><td class="border right last-col">20</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Dankoff</td><td class="border right last-row">9</td><td class="border right last-row">26</td><td class="border right last-row">22</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">21</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_86" id="FNanchor_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> It is still to agriculture that
most of the wandering peasantry are looking, not as farmers,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>
however, but as wage laborers, while a vast minority flock to
the cities.<a name="FNanchor_87" id="FNanchor_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2"><i>Branches.</i></th>
    <th colspan="2"><i>Local.</i></th>
    <th colspan="2"><i>Abroad.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th><i>Minimum.</i></th>
    <th><i>Maximum.</i></th>
    <th><i>Minimum.</i></th>
    <th><i>Maximum.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1 top-pad">I. <i>Agriculture.</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Per summer, board provided by the employer.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Farm help</td><td class="right">25.00</td><td class="right">35.00</td><td class="right">40.00</td><td class="right">60.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranchmen in the south</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">50.00</td><td class="right">100.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1 top-pad">II. <i>Trade and service.</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Per month, no board extra.</td><td class="right">7.00</td><td class="right">15.00</td><td class="right">10.00</td><td class="right">18.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1 top-pad">III. <i>Capitalistic industry.</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Per month, no board extra.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Factory hands, in winter</td><td class="right">5.00</td><td class="right">9.00</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Factory hands through the year</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">10.00</td><td class="right">18.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Turf cutters in summer</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">15.00</td><td class="right">25.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Coal miners, in winter, etc.</td><td class="right">8.00</td><td class="right">13.00</td><td class="right">24.00</td><td class="right">37.00</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Difference of wages stimulates the movement, which when
once started in a village, goes on at an ever increasing rate.<a name="FNanchor_88" id="FNanchor_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_89" id="FNanchor_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_90" id="FNanchor_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> To such a man the attraction of a large capitalistic
concern running winter and summer, is one that will hold
him captive for years.</p>

<p>How far this estrangement of the peasant from his native
village has gone, can be learned from the following figures:<a name="FNanchor_91" id="FNanchor_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Outside workers.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Permanently absent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households with.</th>
    <th class="border">Male.</th>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Male workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Male workers.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Percentage within the total population.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Percentage within the class of outside workers.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Youkhnoff</td><td class="border right">57</td><td class="border right">52</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border right last-col">11</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Dorogobouzh</td><td class="border right last-row">16</td><td class="border right last-row">14</td><td class="border right last-row">5</td><td class="border right last-row">4</td><td class="border right last-row">32</td><td class="border right last-col last-row">26</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>The ownership of a home holds the peasant fast to his village
even after he has already abandoned farming.<a name="FNanchor_92" id="FNanchor_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_93" id="FNanchor_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a></p>

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

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IX" id="CHAPTER_IX"></a>CHAPTER IX.<br />
<span class="smaller">THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY.</span></h2>

<p>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”<a name="FNanchor_94" id="FNanchor_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> of Archaic communism with the deepest regret.
“<i>O tempora, o mores!</i>” 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span>
flock? Thus about 1885<a name="FNanchor_95" id="FNanchor_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_96" id="FNanchor_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> 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.”<a name="FNanchor_97" id="FNanchor_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a>
The head of the family could oppose no moral authority<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span>
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.</p>

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

<p>This is the comparative membership <i>per</i> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">I. To one family upon an average.</th>
    <th colspan="6" class="border">Gubernia of Ryazañ.</th>
    <th colspan="6" class="border">Gubernia of Voronezh.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Ranenburg.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Dankoff.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Nizhnedevitzk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">1858</th>
    <th class="border">1882</th>
    <th class="border">Decrease.</th>
    <th class="border">1858</th>
    <th class="border">1882</th>
    <th class="border">Decrease.</th>
    <th class="border">1858</th>
    <th class="border">1887</th>
    <th class="border">Decrease.</th>
    <th class="border">1858</th>
    <th class="border">1887</th>
    <th class="border">Decrease.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Total membership</td><td class="border right">9.7</td><td class="border right">6.4</td><td class="border right">3.3</td><td class="border right">9.7</td><td class="border right">6.4</td><td class="border right">3.3</td><td class="border right">10.3</td><td class="border right">7.3</td><td class="border right">3.0</td><td class="border right">11.4</td><td class="border right">7.8</td><td class="border right last-col">3.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Male workers<a name="FNanchor_98" id="FNanchor_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a></td><td class="border right last-row">2.2</td><td class="border right last-row">1.5</td><td class="border right last-row">..</td><td class="border right last-row">2.2</td><td class="border right last-row">1.5</td><td class="border right last-row">..</td><td class="border right last-row">2.1</td><td class="border right last-row">1.7</td><td class="border right last-row">..</td><td class="border right last-row">2.6</td><td class="border right last-row">1.8</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">II. Classification of the families to-day (1887).</th>
    <th colspan="6" class="border">Gubernia of Voronezh.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Nizhnedevitzk.</th>
    <th class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th class="border">Nizhnedevitzk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Average <br />membership.</th>
    <th class="border">Average <br />membership.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without adult workers.</td>
    <td class="border right">5</td>
    <td></td>
    <td class="border right">4</td>
    <td></td>
    <td class="border right">3.0</td>
    <td class="border right last-col">3.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Having 1 adult worker.</td>
    <td class="border right">46</td>
    <td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;76</td>
    <td class="border right">44</td>
    <td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;76</td>
    <td class="border right">5.4</td>
    <td class="border right last-col">5.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto2">”</span>2<span class="ditto1">”</span>workers.</td>
    <td class="border right">30</td>
    <td class="border right">32</td>
    <td class="border right">7.8</td>
    <td class="border right last-col">8.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row"><span class="ditto2">”</span>3 or more adult workers.</td>
    <td class="border right last-row">19</td>
    <td class="last-row"></td>
    <td class="border right last-row">20</td>
    <td class="last-row"></td>
    <td class="border right last-row">12.2</td>
    <td class="border right last-row last-col">12.3</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">II (continued). Classification of the families to-day (1882).</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Gubernia of Ryazañ.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Ranenburg, <br />per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Dankoff, <br />per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without adult workers</td>
    <td class="border right">7</td>
    <td></td>
    <td class="border right">7</td>
    <td class="border-override"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Having 1 adult worker</td>
    <td class="border right">42</td>
    <td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;74</td>
    <td class="border right">43</td>
    <td rowspan="2" class="right border-override"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;74</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span>from 1-2 adult workers inclusive</td>
    <td class="border right">32</td>
    <td class="border right">31</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span><span class="ditto1">”</span>2-3<span class="ditto1">”</span><span class="ditto2">”</span><span class="ditto2">”</span></td>
    <td class="border right">13</td>
    <td rowspan="2" class="right last-row border-override"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;19</td>
    <td class="border right">13</td>
    <td rowspan="2" class="right last-row border-override"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;19</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row"><span class="ditto1">”</span>above 3<span class="ditto1">”</span><span class="ditto2">”</span> <span class="ditto2">”</span></td>
    <td class="border right last-row">6</td>
    <td class="right last-row">6</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span>
an accomplished fact.<a name="FNanchor_99" id="FNanchor_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> That this individualistic tendency
develops as outside jobs gain in importance in the
household economy is shown by the following figures:</p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Nizhnedevitzk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Percentage of male hands (of any age) taking to jobs.</th>
    <th class="border">Percentage of families separated 1878-1887.</th>
    <th class="border">Percentage of male hands (of any age) taking to jobs.</th>
    <th class="border">Percentage of families separated 1878-1887.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 1 adult male worker</td><td class="border right">52</td><td class="border right">44</td><td class="border right">67</td><td class="border right last-col">44</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 2 adult male workers</td><td class="border right">39</td><td class="border right">31</td><td class="border right">47</td><td class="border right last-col">40</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">With 3 or more adult male workers</td><td class="border right last-row">36</td><td class="border right last-row">24</td><td class="border right last-row">34</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">28</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The dissolution of the old household was of the greatest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span>
economic consequence, parcellation of the soil being its necessary
result:</p>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Classes and Districts.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Percentage to the total of households.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Average membership of 1 family.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Adult male workers to 1 family upon an average.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Families separated from 1877 to 1887.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Landholding (dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Without adult male workers.</th>
    <th class="border">With 1 adult male worker.</th>
    <th class="border">With 2 adult male workers.</th>
    <th class="border">With 3 or more adult male workers.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">To one household upon an average.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">To 1 adult male worker upon an average.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Korotoyak:</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure, less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">14</td><td class="border right">4.0</td><td class="border right">1.0</td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right">80</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">46</td><td class="border right">4.1</td><td class="border right last-col">4.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure, from 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right">5.3</td><td class="border right">1.5</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">55</td><td class="border right">34</td><td class="border right">8</td><td class="border right">38</td><td class="border right">10.5</td><td class="border right last-col">7.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure, from 15 to 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right">9.1</td><td class="border right">2.1</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">27</td><td class="border right">40</td><td class="border right">32</td><td class="border right">31</td><td class="border right">19.7</td><td class="border right last-col">9.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure, above 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right">13.5</td><td class="border right">3.1</td><td class="border right">. .</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right">66</td><td class="border right">24</td><td class="border right">35.6</td><td class="border right last-col">11.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">98</td><td class="border right total">7.4</td><td class="border right total">1.7</td><td class="border right total">5</td><td class="border right total">46</td><td class="border right total">30</td><td class="border right total">19</td><td class="border right total">36</td><td class="border right total">14.2</td><td class="border right total last-col">7.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Nizhnedevitsk:</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure, less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">17</td><td class="border right">4.6</td><td class="border right">1.1</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right">74</td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right">3.7</td><td class="border right last-col">3.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure, from 5 to 15  dessiatines</td><td class="border right">51</td><td class="border right">6.7</td><td class="border right">1.6</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right">37</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right">41</td><td class="border right">10.3</td><td class="border right last-col">6.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure, from 15 to 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">23</td><td class="border right">9.9</td><td class="border right">2.2</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">24</td><td class="border right">38</td><td class="border right">37</td><td class="border right">33</td><td class="border right">19.4</td><td class="border right last-col">8.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tenure, above 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">8</td><td class="border right">15.0</td><td class="border right">3.4</td><td class="border right">. .</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">21</td><td class="border right">72</td><td class="border right">24</td><td class="border right">36.6</td><td class="border right last-col">9.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">99</td><td class="border right total last-row">7.8</td><td class="border right total last-row">1.8</td><td class="border right total last-row">4</td><td class="border right total last-row">44</td><td class="border right total last-row">32</td><td class="border right total last-row">20</td><td class="border right total last-row">39</td><td class="border right total last-row">13.5</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">7.2</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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 <i>vice versâ</i>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span>
families of the old stamp, of whom only about one-quarter
have undergone division during the last decade.<a name="FNanchor_100" id="FNanchor_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a></p>

<p>Furthermore we find a certain percentage of the village
community absolutely without any land: Thus we have&mdash;</p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th>Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In Ranenburg</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">4</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In Dankoff</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">4</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In Korotoyak</td><td class="right">1.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In Nizhnedevitsk</td><td class="right">0.5</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>This new class of the peasantry owes its existence solely to
the division of the family:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Landless households.</i></th><th><i>Korotoyak.</i></th><th><i>Nizhnedevitsk.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="top-pad">Without male worker</td><td class="right">260</td><td class="right">69</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 1 male worker</td><td class="right">58</td><td class="right">42</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 2 male workers</td><td class="right">12</td><td class="right">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 3 or more male workers</td><td class="right">5</td><td class="right">2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">335</td><td class="right total">119</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="top-pad">Above the age of 60&mdash;</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Males</td><td class="right">31</td><td class="right">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Females</td><td class="right">68</td><td class="right">14</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Difference, females</td><td class="right total">37</td><td class="right total">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="top-pad"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span>In the age from 18 to 60&mdash;</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Males</td><td class="right">113</td><td class="right">68</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Females</td><td class="right">382</td><td class="right">149</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Difference, females</td><td class="right total">269</td><td class="right total">81</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="top-pad">Males between 18 and 60&mdash;</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">With physical defects</td><td class="right">6</td><td class="right">7</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>It might be supposed that landlessness was connected mainly
with old age, widowhood, orphanry, and bodily defects (blindness,
lameness, <i>etc.</i>). 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This is shown by the following tables:</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span></p>

<p class="center">I. HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF ADULT MALE
WORKERS.</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">D. of Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="7" class="border">Classes of Households (per cent.).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">With regard to the number of horses.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">With regard to the size of the farms.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Horseless.</th>
    <th class="border">1 horse.</th>
    <th class="border">2 or 3 horses.</th>
    <th class="border">4 or more horses.</th>
    <th class="border">Less than 5 dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">From 5 to 15 dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Above 15 dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without workers</td><td class="border right">60</td><td class="border right">29</td><td class="border right">11</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right">61</td><td class="border right">33</td><td class="border right last-col">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 1 worker</td><td class="border right">20</td><td class="border right">46</td><td class="border right">33</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right">59</td><td class="border right last-col">16</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 2 workers</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">28</td><td class="border right">61</td><td class="border right">5</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">56</td><td class="border right last-col">41</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 3 or more workers</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right">62</td><td class="border right">27</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">22</td><td class="border right last-col">77</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">13</td><td class="border right total last-row">32</td><td class="border right total last-row">48</td><td class="border right total last-row">7</td><td class="border right total last-row">15</td><td class="border right total last-row">50</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">35</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p class="center">II. HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF HORSES RAISED.</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">D. of Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="7" class="border">Classes of Households (per cent.).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">With regard to the number of workers.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">With regard to the size of the farm.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">None.</th>
    <th class="border">One.</th>
    <th class="border">Two.</th>
    <th class="border">Three.</th>
    <th class="border">Less than 5 dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">From 5 to 15 dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Above 15 dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Horseless</td><td class="border right">17</td><td class="border right">68</td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right">49</td><td class="border right">43</td><td class="border right last-col">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 1 horse</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">63</td><td class="border right">28</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">20</td><td class="border right">65</td><td class="border right last-col">15</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 2 horses</td><td rowspan="2" class="border right valign"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;1</td><td rowspan="2" class="border right valign2">31</td><td rowspan="2" class="border right valign2">41</td><td rowspan="2" class="border right valign">27&nbsp;<span class="bracket">{</span></td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">55</td><td class="border right last-col">39</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 3 horses</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right">32</td><td class="border right last-col">66</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 4 or more horses</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">22</td><td class="border right">71</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">18</td><td class="border right last-col">81</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">5</td><td class="border right total last-row">46</td><td class="border right total last-row">30</td><td class="border right total last-row">19</td><td class="border right total last-row">15</td><td class="border right total last-row">50</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">35</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>The highest class in regard to the ownership of live stock
is composed chiefly of the households of the old type that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span>
number at least three male workers, and whose shares in the
communal land exceed the average.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>vice versâ</i>: 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_101" id="FNanchor_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> Still these two groups cover at least one-half of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span>
the peasantry of to-day.<a name="FNanchor_102" id="FNanchor_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_103" id="FNanchor_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> Lack of land,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span>
varying between one and two to one household, so as
to constitute the required coöperation of three working men.<a name="FNanchor_104" id="FNanchor_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></p>

<p>For the present this class appears but in small numbers in
the Russian village,<a name="FNanchor_105" id="FNanchor_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_106" id="FNanchor_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> with the division of the
compound family, as can be seen from the following table:</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Extent of the farm.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Nizhnedevitzk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households with 3, or more, workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Households with 2, or less, workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Households with 3, or more, workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Households with 2, or less, workers.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Above 25 dessiatines:&mdash;</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>a.</i> Employing farmers (total = 100)</td><td class="border right">54</td><td class="border right">46</td><td class="border right">53</td><td class="border right last-col">47</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>b.</i> Non-employing farmers (total = 100)</td><td class="border right">66</td><td class="border right">34</td><td class="border right">74</td><td class="border right last-col">26</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1 top-pad">From 15 to 25 dessiatines:&mdash;</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>a.</i> Employing farmers (total = 100)</td><td class="border right">21</td><td class="border right">79</td><td class="border right">31</td><td class="border right last-col">69</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row"><i>b.</i> Non-employing farmers (total = 100)</td><td class="border right last-row">31</td><td class="border right last-row">69</td><td class="border right last-row">36</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">64</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>As the dissolution of the patriarchal family is going on at a
progressive rate,<a name="FNanchor_107" id="FNanchor_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> 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.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_X" id="CHAPTER_X"></a>CHAPTER X.<br />
<span class="smaller">THE MODERN AGRICULTURAL CLASSES.</span></h2>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_108" id="FNanchor_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span>
while the other is employed outside.<a name="FNanchor_109" id="FNanchor_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_110" id="FNanchor_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Farm laborers whose plots are</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Nizhnedevitsk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tilled by hired laborers</td><td class="border right">371</td><td class="border right">64</td><td class="border right">237</td><td class="border right last-col">66</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Leased</td><td class="border right">205</td><td class="border right">36</td><td class="border right">124</td><td class="border right last-col">34</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">In all</td><td class="border right total last-row">576</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">361</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Thus we have the very peculiar economic type of a wage-laborer<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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”&mdash;<i>kulak</i> or <i>miroyed</i><a name="FNanchor_111" id="FNanchor_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a>&mdash;and his victim, the
peasant imbued with the communistic spirit.<a name="FNanchor_112" id="FNanchor_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a></p>

<p>The statisticians necessarily started in their investigations
with preconceived ideas respecting the uniformity of the peasantry<a name="FNanchor_113" id="FNanchor_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a>
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 <i>Reports</i> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span>
cover only a minor part of the peasantry of to-day,<a name="FNanchor_114" id="FNanchor_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> 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.</p>

<p>We shall divide the peasantry into three main classes:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>III. Proletarians, <i>i. e.</i> those who stopped working on their
plots and earn their living exclusively by means of wage labor.</p>

<p>Let us examine these classes in detail.</p>

<p><i>Ad I.</i> Combine all merely agricultural groups in which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span>
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:</p>

<p class="center"><i>1. Balance Sheet.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Households, 1501, D. of Korotoyak.</i></th>
    <th><i>Receipts. <br />Rubles.</i></th>
    <th><i>Expenses. <br />Rubles.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gross income from farming</td><td class="right">185171</td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Expenses of housekeeping</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">77004</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Rent</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">33000</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Taxes</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">59094</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">185171</td><td class="right total">169098</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Net profit</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">16073</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td><td class="right total">185171</td><td class="right total">185171</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Net profit to 1 household upon an average</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">10.70</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p class="center"><i>2. Land to 1 farm.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Households, <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>From 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="right">5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>From 15 to 25 dessiatines</td><td class="right">72</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Above 25 dessiatines</td><td class="right">23</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p class="center"><i>3. Live stock to 1 farm.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Households, <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1 horse</td><td class="right">1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2 horses<a name="FNanchor_115" id="FNanchor_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a></td><td class="right">42</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>3 horses<a name="FNanchor_115a" id="FNanchor_115a"></a><a href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a></td><td class="right">38</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>4 or more</td><td class="right">19</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

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

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

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th colspan="2"><i>In the class.</i></th><th><i>In the district <br />at large.</i></th><th></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total households</td><td class="right">1999</td><td></td><td class="right">20282</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1 top-pad"><i>Membership of an average household:</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Males and females</td><td class="right">10.1</td><td></td><td class="right">7.3</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Adult male work</td><td class="right">2.1</td><td></td><td class="right">1.7</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Half-workers</td><td class="right">0.6</td><td></td><td class="right">0.4</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1 top-pad"><i>Landholding:</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Communal land (dessiatines)&mdash;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1"><i>a.</i> To 1 adult male worker</td><td class="right">11.5</td><td></td><td class="right">8.3</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1"><i>b.</i> To 1 household</td><td class="right">24.4</td><td></td><td class="right">14.2</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Rented land, to 1 household (dessiatines)</td><td class="right">5.1</td><td></td><td class="right">4.2</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Horses, to 1 household</td><td class="right">2.7</td><td></td><td class="right">1.8</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gross income from farming minus expenses, taxes, rent and wages paid: to 1 household, rubles</td><td class="right">+2.09</td><td></td><td class="right">-26.97</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Households classified with regard to&mdash;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1 top-pad"><i>Labor forces:</i></td><td colspan="2" class="center"><i>Per cent.</i></td><td colspan="2" class="center"><i>Per cent.</i></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Having 1 adult male worker</td><td class="right">29</td><td></td><td class="right">47</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Having 2 adult male workers</td><td class="right">41</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;71</td><td class="right">30</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;49</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Having 3 adult male workers</td><td class="right">30</td><td class="right">19</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">100</td><td></td><td class="right total">96</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1 top-pad"><i>Landholding:</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Owning from 15 to 25 dessiatines</td><td class="right">72</td><td></td><td class="right">25</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Owning above 25 dessiatines</td><td class="right">28</td><td></td><td class="right">9</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">100</td><td></td><td class="right total">34</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Tenants of rented land</td><td class="right">54</td><td></td><td class="right">42</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1 top-pad"><i>Live stock:</i></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Keeping 2 horses</td><td class="right">45</td><td></td><td class="right">33</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Keeping 3 horses</td><td class="right">38</td><td></td><td class="right">16</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Keeping 4 or more horses</td><td class="right">17</td><td></td><td class="right">7</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">100</td><td></td><td class="right total">56</td><td></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p class="center">DISTRICT OF KOROTOYAK.</p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Items.</th>
    <th class="border">Households, <br />or concerns.</th>
    <th class="border">Receipts. <br />Rubles.</th>
    <th class="border">Expenses. <br />Rubles.</th>
    <th class="border">Balance. <br />Rubles.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Gross income from sale of produce</td><td class="border right">1366</td><td class="border right">211237</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Taxes</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">48626</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Rent</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">79550</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Wages paid</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">16113</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">All to farming</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">211237</td><td class="border right total">144289</td><td class="border right total last-col">+66948</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">Gross income from trade and commerce</td><td class="border right">1384</td><td class="border right">230527</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Expenses of housekeeping</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">171705</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">All to trade and commerce</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">230527</td><td class="border right total">171705</td><td class="border right total last-col">+58822</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">1366</td><td class="border right total">441864</td><td class="border right total">315994</td><td class="border right total last-col">+125770</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad last-row">Net profit to 1 household</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row last-col">9207</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_116" id="FNanchor_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> The economic
level of this section is shown in the following table:</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th class="forcewidth"><i>Class I., D. of Korotoyak.</i></th>
    <th><i>Average size of a farm, dessiatines.</i></th>
    <th><i>Land rented (by 1 household) dessiatines.</i></th>
    <th><i>Tenants (in every 100 households).</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Farmers merely</td><td class="right">24.4</td><td class="right">5.1</td><td class="right">54</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Traders</td><td class="right">21.9</td><td class="right">11.4</td><td class="right">73</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">In the district at large</td><td class="total right">14.2</td><td class="total right">4.2</td><td class="total right">42</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span></p>

<p>Concentration of the communal land proves to be the
general basis of the economic welfare of the class under consideration.<a name="FNanchor_117" id="FNanchor_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a>
Under the rule of the <i>mir</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_118" id="FNanchor_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a></p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span>
member of this progressive class <i>par excellence</i>.<a name="FNanchor_119" id="FNanchor_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_120" id="FNanchor_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a></p>

<p><i>Ad III.</i> The rural proletariat is generally marked by the
absence of live stock to till the land with.<a name="FNanchor_121" id="FNanchor_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> The class in question<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span>
is formed of those peasants whom it did not pay to work
on their farms, in view of the scarcity of the same.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_122" id="FNanchor_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a></p>

<p>This is the immediate result of the complete dissolution of
the patriarchal family among the village proletariat, the bulk<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span>
of the latter consisting of families with only one adult male
worker.<a name="FNanchor_123" id="FNanchor_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a></p>

<p>Having failed as farmers, one-half have become farm laborers,
the rest are employed in industry, or have no steady employment
at all.<a name="FNanchor_124" id="FNanchor_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> With all of them, wages are the chief means of
livelihood.<a name="FNanchor_125" id="FNanchor_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> The income from their farms is of secondary importance.
The gross receipts from sale of produce are absorbed
by the taxes.<a name="FNanchor_126" id="FNanchor_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> Still the produce of the farm is partly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span>
consumed in kind and may serve to supply the owner with
some of the necessaries of life.<a name="FNanchor_127" id="FNanchor_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_128" id="FNanchor_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_129" id="FNanchor_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span></p>

<p><i>Ad II.</i> The mean between both extremes, <i>i. e.</i> between the
independent farmers and the proletarian laborers, is occupied
by a transitional class who are farmers and wage laborers at
once.</p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span>
class under consideration is characterized by the ownership of
from one to two horses.<a name="FNanchor_130" id="FNanchor_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a></p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">District of Korotoyak, Class II.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Income from farming, per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Income from wage labor.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 household per year, rubles.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Section <i>A</i></td><td class="border right">92</td><td class="border right">8</td><td class="border right last-col">6.39</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Section <i>B</i></td><td class="border right last-row">50</td><td class="border right last-row">50</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">50.47</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Small as the deficit of agriculture is in Section <i>A</i>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span>
with the dissolution of the patriarchal family.<a name="FNanchor_131" id="FNanchor_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_132" id="FNanchor_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a>. 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.</p>

<p>This wing of the transitional class seems to show even a
somewhat greater strength of farming than the upper section
just described.<a name="FNanchor_133" id="FNanchor_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> It must be, however, placed at a lower degree<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span>
of the scale, inasmuch as, in the first place, the relative income
per adult male worker is below that of Section <i>A</i>,<a name="FNanchor_134" id="FNanchor_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> 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 <i>B</i>, while it is about to
disappear in Section <i>A</i>.<a name="FNanchor_135" id="FNanchor_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> The existence of the compound family
enables some of its workers to carry on farming,
while others are employed outside.<a name="FNanchor_136" id="FNanchor_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span>
summer as farm laborers. At present they number as follows:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2"><i>Households.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Households.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 1 adult male worker</td><td class="right">649</td><td class="indent1">With 2 or more adult male workers</td><td class="right">1242</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>“Horseless”</td><td class="right">568</td><td class="indent1">With 1 horse or more</td><td class="right">1323</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Stopped tilling their plots</td><td class="right">576</td><td class="indent1">Tilling their plots</td><td class="right">1315</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Classes.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households, per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Average membership per household.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Males and female.</th>
    <th class="border">Full workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Half-workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Total workers.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">I. Agriculture yielding net profit:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Trading farmers</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">10.5</td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right">0.6</td><td class="border right last-col">3.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Farmers merely</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right">10.1</td><td class="border right">2.1</td><td class="border right">0.6</td><td class="border right last-col">2.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">All to the class</td><td class="border right total">16</td><td class="border right total">10.2</td><td class="border right total">2.2</td><td class="border right total">0.6</td><td class="border right total last-col">2.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">II. Agriculture leaving a deficit:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">A. Farmers merely</td><td class="border right">20</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">1.3</td><td class="border right">0.3</td><td class="border right last-col">1.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">B. Farmers&mdash;laborers</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right">7.9</td><td class="border right">1.9</td><td class="border right">0.4</td><td class="border right last-col">2.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">All to the class</td><td class="border right total">70</td><td class="border right total">7.4</td><td class="border right total">1.7</td><td class="border right total">0.4</td><td class="border right total last-col">2.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">III. Proletarians:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Employing labor</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Proletarians proper</td><td class="border right">5</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">All to the class</td><td class="border right total last-row">14</td><td class="border right last-row">3.8</td><td class="border right last-row">0.9</td><td class="border right last-row">0.2</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">1.1</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>We find a clue to the coming development of the village in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span>
the fact that the main classes within the peasantry correspond
to the age of the householders.</p>

<p>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>i. e.</i> 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.</p>

<p>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,&mdash;half farmer, half laborer at once,&mdash;and
the proletarian, with their variance of views, which mirrors their
diverse and antagonistic economic interests.<a name="FNanchor_137" id="FNanchor_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a></p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a><br /><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XI" id="CHAPTER_XI"></a>CHAPTER XI.<br />
<span class="smaller">INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP AND AGRARIAN COMMUNISM.</span></h2>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Former state peasants.</th>
    <th class="border">Quarterly possession.</th>
    <th class="border">Agrarian communism.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dankoff and Ranenburg. <br />Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Zadonsk, Gubernia of Voronezh. <br />Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Households:</td><td class="border"></td><td class="border last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Landless</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">4</span></td><td class="border right last-col"><span class="align-fraction">1</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">37</span></td><td class="border right last-col"><span class="align-fraction">27</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning more than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">59</span></td><td class="border right last-col"><span class="align-fraction">72</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border right total last-col"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Average holding: dessiatines</td><td class="border right total last-row">10.9</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">10.4</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span></p>

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

<p>Let us compare further the number of the dispossessed under
agrarian communism and under quarterly possession:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Dankoff and Ranenburg: <br />Former state peasants.</i></th>
    <th><i>Landless. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
    <th><i>Emigrated. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
    <th><i>Total. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With quarterly possession</td><td class="right">3</td><td class="right">14</td><td class="right">17</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With agrarian communism</td><td class="right">1</td><td class="right">9</td><td class="right">10</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

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

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2"></th>
    <th><i>Tenure from the landlords.</i></th>
    <th colspan="2"><i>Communal land in lease.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th>
    <th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th>
    <th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">18044</td><td class="right">17060</td><td class="right">10</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">13792</td><td class="right">9846</td><td class="right">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Zadonsk</td><td class="right">12160</td><td class="right">11886</td><td class="right">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Korotoyak</td><td class="right">11815</td><td class="right">21695</td><td class="right">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nizhnedevitzk</td><td class="right">13851</td><td class="right">18950</td><td class="right">7</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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:</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th></th>
    <th><i>Ranenburg. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
    <th><i>Dankoff. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
    <th><i>Zadonsk. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Leased: a part of the plot, the rest cultivated</td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">a) by the owner</td><td class="right">7</td><td class="right">7</td><td class="right">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">b) with the aid of hired labor</td><td class="right">6</td><td class="right">6</td><td class="right">5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>The total plot</td><td class="right">12</td><td class="right">11</td><td class="right">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">In all</td><td class="total right">25</td><td class="total right">24</td><td class="total right">20</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_138" id="FNanchor_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span></p>

<p>It will be remembered<a name="FNanchor_139" id="FNanchor_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> 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.</p>

<p>Thus, under the rule of the <i>mir</i>, 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span>
they must be at the top of the tenant class,<a name="FNanchor_140" id="FNanchor_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span>
for a term of from six to twelve years,<a name="FNanchor_141" id="FNanchor_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_142" id="FNanchor_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_143" id="FNanchor_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> The fact that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span>
alienability of the peasant land had become a rule in the community,
was first stated by Mr. Trirogoff as far back as 1879.<a name="FNanchor_144" id="FNanchor_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a>
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.</p>

<p>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 <i>mir</i> in the beginning of the eighties.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XII" id="CHAPTER_XII"></a>CHAPTER XII.<br />
<span class="smaller">THE REDIVISION OF THE COMMUNAL LAND.</span></h2>

<p>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 (<i>revisions</i>),
made by the government for the assessment of the poll-tax,
at average intervals of fifteen years.</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_145" id="FNanchor_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span>
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 <i>mir</i>. But in the great majority the controversy had just
reached its climax.</p>

<p>In 6 bailiwicks (out of the 45), <i>i. e.</i> in 87 communities, a
serious obstacle to the subdivision arose from the lease of communal
land.</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_146" id="FNanchor_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a>, while
it would have been useless to have sued the lessors<a name="FNanchor_147" id="FNanchor_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a>. The
remedy lies in the fact that, under given circumstances, the
present law enables a small minority to put a stop to the subdivision.</p>

<p>The resolution must be passed by a vote of two-thirds of the
<i>mir</i>. 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span>
the habit of leasing their plots would have no interest in the
subdivision, even if present. The case of the adherents of the
<i>mir</i> thus becomes a very precarious one. This is strikingly
evidenced by the following figures:</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Ranenburg. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Dankoff. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total of the community</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Lessors</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">25</span></td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">24</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Remainder</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">75</span></td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">76</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vote required for subdivision</td><td class="right">66⅔</td><td class="right">66⅔</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Opposition sufficient to stay the same.<a name="FNanchor_148" id="FNanchor_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a></td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">9</span></td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">10</span></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span></p>

<p>We know that the lessor class is constantly growing with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span>
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.</p>

<p>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 <i>mir</i>. The position
of these groups is, however, very unstable.</p>

<p>It follows that the formation of classes within the <i>mir</i> tends
to perpetuate the expropriation of the “weak” families, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span>
the concentration of communal land, formerly held by them,
in the hands of the “strong.”</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_149" id="FNanchor_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_150" id="FNanchor_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a>.</p>

<p>Whatever may have been the final outcome of the issue
this time<a name="FNanchor_151" id="FNanchor_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a>, “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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span>
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 <i>mir</i>, instead of alienating it for his own benefit.</p>

<p>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 <i>bourgeoisie</i>, to whom the
title to a large portion of communal land is destined to be
transferred.</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<h3><a name="NOTE" id="NOTE"></a>NOTE TO CHAPTER XII., THE “INALIENABILITY” SCHEME.</h3>

<p>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 <i>gubernias</i>.
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.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. (<i>Cf.</i>, next chapter.)</p>

<p>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 <i>mésalliance</i> of oriental paternalism with some queer sort<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span>
of state socialistic prohibitionism, however, would be apt to meet with opposition
from the very ones who were supposed to be benefited.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Title of possession.</i></th><th><i>Ranenburg. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Dankoff. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Quarterly possession</td><td class="right">17</td><td class="right">12</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Agrarian communism</td><td class="right">9</td><td class="right">5</td>
  </tr>
</table>

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

<p>“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.” (<i>Loc.
cit.</i>, part II., pp. 115, 247.) According to Mr. Greegoryeff (<i>Emigration of the
peasants of the gubernia of Ryazañ</i>), 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.</p>

<p>I shall, of course, be charged with pessimism, as I have been recently on account
of my views on the emigration of the peasants. (<i>Cf.</i>, <i>The public and
the Statute on Emigration, by A. Bogdanoffsky, p. 38, in the Severny Vestnik</i>,
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.</p>

</div>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIII" id="CHAPTER_XIII"></a>CHAPTER XIII.<br />
<span class="smaller">AGRICULTURE ON A LARGE SCALE.</span></h2>

<p>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 <i>V. V.</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_152" id="FNanchor_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a></p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_153" id="FNanchor_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> Mr. V. V. found the solution of the riddle
in reaching the conclusions of Tchernyshefsky through the
materialistic method of Karl Marx.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_154" id="FNanchor_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a></p>

<p>This attractive theory gained for a time control of the whole<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span>
monthly press. Statistical investigation, however, has subsequently
brought to light the utter baselessness of the very
premises of the doctrine.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_155" id="FNanchor_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span></p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th><i>District of Voronezh.</i></th>
    <th>Land, <br />Dessiatines.</th>
    <th>Horses.</th>
    <th>To 1 horse <br />on an average, <br />Dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>On large estates under cultivation (land in small tenure excluded)</td><td class="right">86360</td><td class="right">1708</td><td class="right">50.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In the district at large</td><td class="right">434372</td><td class="right">52465</td><td class="right">8.3</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_156" id="FNanchor_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span>
tillage with the antediluvian peasant plough (<i>sohá</i>) 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.<a name="FNanchor_157" id="FNanchor_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a></p>

<p>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:<a name="FNanchor_158" id="FNanchor_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Classes of farms.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Rye.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Oats.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Ratio to the seed.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Ratio to the seed.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">On peasant farms</td><td class="border right">5.3</td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right">4.6</td><td class="border right last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">On large estates (over 50 dessiatines)</td><td class="border right last-row">7.3</td><td class="border right last-row">138</td><td class="border right last-row">5.8</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">126</td>
  </tr>
</table>

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

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Arable land yearly under cultivation.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Payment in money, Dessiatines.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Payment in share of crops, Dessiatines.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">In all.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">In small peasant tenure</td><td class="border right">24226</td><td class="border right">1083</td><td class="border right">25309</td><td class="border right last-col">40</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Cultivated by the large farmer</td><td class="border right">37183</td><td class="border right">1028</td><td class="border right">38211</td><td class="border right last-col">60</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total<a name="FNanchor_159" id="FNanchor_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a>, dessiatines</td><td class="border right total">61409</td><td class="border right total">2111</td><td class="border right total">63520</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Per cent.</td><td class="border right total last-row">97</td><td class="border right total last-row">3</td><td class="border right total last-row">..</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">I. System of management.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Number of estates.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Total extent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Average Dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Estates without arable land</td><td class="border right">14</td><td class="border right">5117</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Estates exclusively in small tenure</td><td class="border right">64</td><td class="border right">15605</td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right last-col">244</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Estates with large farming</td><td class="border right">190</td><td class="border right">109615</td><td class="border right">83</td><td class="border right last-col">577</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Management not stated</td><td class="border right">11</td><td class="border right">1616</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">279</td><td class="border right total last-row">131953</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">473</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th>II. <i>Ploughland yearly under culture.</i></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total on the estates with large farming</td><td class="right">52627</td><td class="right">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Cultivated by the owners</td><td class="right">37183</td><td class="right">71</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">In small peasant tenure</td><td class="right">15444</td><td class="right">29</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Small peasant tenure is a very ruinous management of large
estates, inasmuch as the land allotted in tenure is, as a rule,
never manured.<a name="FNanchor_160" id="FNanchor_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> The above figures testify therefore to a certain<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_161" id="FNanchor_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> On larger estates application of manure
goes hand in hand with the culture of more valuable crops.</p>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_162" id="FNanchor_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a>; whereas on the larger estates it has been
supplanted to a vast extent by winter wheat:</p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Estates with large agriculture.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Number of estates.</th>
    <th colspan="5" class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Wheat to total winter crops (per cent.).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Total extent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Average extent.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Winter crops.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Total.</th>
    <th class="border">Rye.</th>
    <th class="border">Wheat.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Wheat not grown</td><td class="border right">96</td><td class="border right">34453</td><td class="border right">359</td><td class="border right">4444</td><td class="border right">4444</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Wheat grown</td><td class="border right">94</td><td class="border right">75162</td><td class="border right">800</td><td class="border right">12744</td><td class="border right">8171</td><td class="border right">4573</td><td class="border right last-col">36</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right last-row">190</td><td class="border right last-row">109615</td><td class="border right last-row">577</td><td class="border right last-row">17188</td><td class="border right last-row">12615</td><td class="border right last-row">4573</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Winter wheat is only exceptionally grown on unfertilized
land; on the other hand, only a minor part of the fertilized<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span>
land is never planted with wheat. As a rule a field is manured
on an average for two seeds of winter wheat.<a name="FNanchor_163" id="FNanchor_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_164" id="FNanchor_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> This leads to the improvement of
farming implements, and must consequently be considered as
another proof of the progressive tendency of large farming.<a name="FNanchor_165" id="FNanchor_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a></p>

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

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The following shows the movement of private landed property
in the district of Ryazañ, from 1867 to 1881.<a name="FNanchor_166" id="FNanchor_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Classes of owners.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Percentage in the area.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Average holding (Dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">1867.</th>
    <th class="border">1881.</th>
    <th class="border">1867.</th>
    <th class="border">1881.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Property of the nobility</td><td class="border right">92</td><td class="border right">66.6</td><td class="border right">284.9</td><td class="border right last-col">283.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Property of the capitalistic class</td><td class="border right">3.3</td><td class="border right">22.3</td><td class="border right">124.4</td><td class="border right last-col">372.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Small property</td><td class="border right last-row">4.7</td><td class="border right last-row">11.1</td><td class="border right last-row">3.7</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">4.9</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_167" id="FNanchor_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a></p>

<p>The following figures may serve as an illustration:</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span></p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border forcewidth">Status of owners.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Percentage of the area.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Estates under 50 dessiatines.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Estates over 50 dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Ryazañ. <br />1881.</th>
    <th class="border">Voronezh. <br />1884.</th>
    <th class="border">Ryazañ. <br />1881.</th>
    <th class="border">Voronezh. <br />1884.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Nobility</td><td class="border right">13.9</td><td class="border right">32.0</td><td class="border right">74.5</td><td class="border right last-col">80.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Peasants</td><td class="border right">77.7</td><td class="border right">44.2</td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right last-col">3.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Merchants &amp; “hon. citizens.”<a name="FNanchor_168" id="FNanchor_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a></td><td class="border right">1.2</td><td class="border right">8.2</td><td class="border right">20.4</td><td class="border right last-col">14.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Burghers, clergy, etc.</td><td class="border right">7.2</td><td class="border right">15.6</td><td class="border right">2.6</td><td class="border right last-col">1.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border forcewidth">Systems of management.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Property of the nobility.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Property of the capitalist class.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Number of estates.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Total extent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Average (dessiatines).</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Number of estates.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Total extent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Average (dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Estates exclusively in small tenure</td><td class="border right">51</td><td class="border right">13942</td><td class="border right">13.4</td><td class="border right">273</td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border right">1664</td><td class="border right">6.3</td><td class="border right last-col">128</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Estates without tillage land</td><td class="border right">5</td><td class="border right">794</td><td class="border right">0.7</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right">4323</td><td class="border right">16.3</td><td class="border right last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Estates with large agriculture</td><td class="border right">123</td><td class="border right">90223</td><td class="border right">85.4</td><td class="border right">734</td><td class="border right">67</td><td class="border right">19391</td><td class="border right">73.4</td><td class="border right last-col">289</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Management not stated</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">556</td><td class="border right">0.5</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right">5</td><td class="border right">1060</td><td class="border right">4.0</td><td class="border right last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">185</td><td class="border right total last-row">105515</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">576</td><td class="border right total last-row">94</td><td class="border right total last-row">26438</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">281</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span></p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Average holding of a noble in small peasant tenure</td><td class="right">273</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Average holding of a capitalist with farming on a large scale</td><td class="right">289</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Estates in small peasant tenure.</i></th><th><i>Percentage <br />in the area.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Property of the nobility</td><td class="right">13.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Property of the capitalists</td><td class="right">6.3</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_169" id="FNanchor_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span></p>

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

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border forcewidth">Estates with large agriculture.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Number of estates.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Average (dessiatines).</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Area under cultivation.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Once in how many years manured?</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Total.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Yearly manured.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Property of the nobility</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Farming with manure</td><td class="border right">104</td><td class="border right">816</td><td class="border right">28495</td><td class="border right total">92</td><td class="border right">2555</td><td class="border right last-col">11.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Farming without manure</td><td class="border right">19</td><td class="border right">280</td><td class="border right">2415</td><td class="border right">8</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Property of the capitalist class</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Farming with manure</td><td class="border right">45</td><td class="border right">363</td><td class="border right">5314</td><td class="border right total">85</td><td class="border right">825</td><td class="border right last-col">6.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Farming without manure</td><td class="border right last-row">22</td><td class="border right last-row">138</td><td class="border right last-row">958</td><td class="border right last-row">15</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row last-col"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span></p>

<p>The expense of fertilizing is compensated by the greater productivity
of capitalistic agriculture.</p>

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

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Estates with large agriculture.</i></th><th><i>Number.</i></th><th><i>Average <br />(Dessiatines).</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>Property of the nobility</i>:</td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Wheat grown</td><td class="right">72</td><td class="right">898</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">No wheat grown</td><td class="right">51</td><td class="right">501</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>Property of the capitalist class</i>:</td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Wheat grown</td><td class="right">22</td><td class="right">478</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">No wheat grown</td><td class="right">45</td><td class="right">197</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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<a name="FNanchor_170" id="FNanchor_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a>:</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="4" class="border">Wheat planted.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th colspan="5" class="border">Average yields.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Yields stated.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Yields not stated.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Regardless of class of property.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">With regard to class of property.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Chetverts<a name="FNanchor_171" id="FNanchor_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> from 1 dessiatine.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Bushels per acre.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Comparative percentage rates.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Manured.</th>
    <th class="border">Not manured.</th>
    <th class="border">Regardless of manure.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">By noblemen</td><td class="border right">3609</td><td class="border right">166</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">5.4</td><td class="border right">5.3</td><td class="border right">11.7</td><td class="border right last-col">97</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">By capitalists</td><td class="border right">768</td><td class="border right">30</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">8.4</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">8.1</td><td class="border right">17.8</td><td class="border right last-col">148</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"></td><td class="border right total">4377</td><td class="border right total">196</td><td class="border right total">4</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">U.S. 1880-89<a name="FNanchor_172" id="FNanchor_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row">12.0</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span></p>

<p>It appears from these figures&mdash;</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_173" id="FNanchor_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a></p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Estates with large farming.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Number of estates.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Total extent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Average <br />Dessiatines.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">To 1 horse, <br />Dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Property of the nobility</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With working horses</td><td class="border right">88</td><td class="border right">78814</td><td class="border right total">87</td><td class="border right">896</td><td class="border right last-col">62</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without working horses</td><td class="border right">35</td><td class="border right">11409</td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border right">326</td><td class="border right last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Property of the capitalists</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With working horses</td><td class="border right">54</td><td class="border right">17597</td><td class="border right total">91</td><td class="border right">326</td><td class="border right last-col">44</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Without working horses</td><td class="border right last-row">13</td><td class="border right last-row">1794</td><td class="border right last-row">9</td><td class="border right last-row">138</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span></p>

<p>The displacement of the laborer’s live stock and implements
by the owner’s stock, while it fosters the introduction
of improved implements,<a name="FNanchor_174" id="FNanchor_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th class="border forcewidth">Estates with large agriculture.</th>
    <th class="border">Number of estates.</th>
    <th class="border">Average size, (Dessiatines).</th>
    <th class="border">Permanently employed (males).</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 laborer (Dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Property of the nobility</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Proletarian labor employed</td><td class="border right">112</td><td class="border right">783</td><td class="border right">1956</td><td class="border right last-col">45</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto2">”</span><span class="ditto2">”</span> not employed</td><td class="border right">11</td><td class="border right">233</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Property of the capitalist class</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Proletarian labor employed</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right">351</td><td class="border right">398</td><td class="border right last-col">48</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row"><span class="ditto2">”</span><span class="ditto2">”</span> not employed</td><td class="border right last-row">17</td><td class="border right last-row">108</td><td class="border right last-row">..</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span></p>

<p>The biggest of the aristocratic landlords are the only ones
who can keep on capitalizing a part of their net income.<a name="FNanchor_175" id="FNanchor_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIV" id="CHAPTER_XIV"></a>CHAPTER XIV.<br />
<span class="smaller">CONCLUSION: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAMINE.</span></h2>

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>It is no exaggeration to say that the round thousand<a name="FNanchor_176" id="FNanchor_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> 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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span>
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 <i>gubernia</i> of Ryazañ. The same similitude is observed
between the districts of Korotoyak and Nizhnedevitzk in the
<i>gubernia</i> 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.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_177" id="FNanchor_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> I shall confine myself, therefore, to a few remarks<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span>
relative to the two state institutions created for the encouragement
of agriculture, viz: The Nobility’s Crédit Foncier, and
the Peasant’s Crédit Foncier.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_178" id="FNanchor_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> 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<a name="FNanchor_179" id="FNanchor_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> that to establish a Bank with a stock of a few
millions for tens of millions of peasants, was to create a small
peasant <i>bourgeoisie</i> 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.</p>

<p>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.”<a name="FNanchor_180" id="FNanchor_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a></p>

<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_181" id="FNanchor_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_182" id="FNanchor_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> The operations of the Bank
necessarily suffered a diminution.<a name="FNanchor_183" id="FNanchor_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> 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.</p>

<p>As may be remembered, the village community needs about
one-half more land in order to enable all its members to hold<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_184" id="FNanchor_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span></p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_185" id="FNanchor_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> To such an extent was the peasantry already
exhausted that even the extraordinarily good harvest of 1890<a name="FNanchor_186" id="FNanchor_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a>
was unable to prevent a subsequent failure of crops from resulting
in a famine.</p>

<p>It is only in the area affected that the present failure is distinguished
from its precursors.<a name="FNanchor_187" id="FNanchor_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_188" id="FNanchor_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> The famine<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span>
has brought about at one single stroke the dissolution which
had been slowly going on in the village since 1861.</p>

<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_189" id="FNanchor_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> The class of small<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span>
farmers in Russia is evolving into a peasant <i>bourgeoisie</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_190" id="FNanchor_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> The nobility with its estates
under mortgage can not possibly afford the capital needed.<a name="FNanchor_191" id="FNanchor_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span></p>

<p>The land is destined to be divided between the large capitalist
and the small farmer&mdash;the <i>homo novus</i> of the village.<a name="FNanchor_192" id="FNanchor_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a></p>

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

<p>Family co-operation, village community, nobility, and natural
economy&mdash;such was the economic constitution of Russia
in the past.</p>

<p>The Russia of the days to come will have for its basis a
peasant <i>bourgeoisie</i>, a rural proletariat, and capitalistic agriculture.<a name="FNanchor_193" id="FNanchor_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a></p>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span></p>

<h2><a name="APPENDICES" id="APPENDICES"></a>APPENDICES.<br />
<span class="smaller">STATISTICAL TABLES.</span></h2>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span></p>

<h3>TABLE I.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Distribution of Land Among the Several Sections of the Peasant Population.</span></h3>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Classes of peasantry by district, origin, and by title of possession.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Population.</th>
    <th colspan="5" class="border">Land (Dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Communities.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Persons (males and females).</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Total.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">To each male of the tenth census.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">To each household of the census of 1882.<a name="FNanchor_194" id="FNanchor_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a></th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">To each person of the census of 1882.<a name="FNanchor_194a" id="FNanchor_194a"></a><a href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>District of Ranenburg</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. Former serfs:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">1. Corvée or taille</td><td class="border right">75</td><td class="border right">2547</td><td class="border right">16071</td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right">14797</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right">6.2</td><td class="border right last-col">1.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">2. Redemption</td><td class="border right">192</td><td class="border right">10310</td><td class="border right">63621</td><td class="border right">47.4</td><td class="border right">59509</td><td class="border right">36.2</td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right">6.1</td><td class="border right last-col">1.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">3. Donation</td><td class="border right">5</td><td class="border right">90</td><td class="border right">553</td><td class="border right">0.4</td><td class="border right">119.5</td><td class="border right">0.1</td><td class="border right">0.1</td><td class="border right">0.5</td><td class="border right last-col">0.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">4. Absolute Property</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right">16</td><td class="border right">133</td><td class="border right">0.1</td><td class="border right">242</td><td class="border right">0.1</td><td class="border right">5.3</td><td class="border right">16.1</td><td class="border right last-col">1.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">All to former serfs</td><td class="border right total">276</td><td class="border right total">12963</td><td class="border right total">80378</td><td class="border right total">59.9</td><td class="border right total">74667</td><td class="border right total">45.4</td><td class="border right total">2.4</td><td class="border right total">6.1</td><td class="border right total last-col">1.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">II. Former State peasants</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">1. Agrarian communism</td><td class="border right">27</td><td class="border right">6237</td><td class="border right">42297</td><td class="border right">31.5</td><td class="border right">68230</td><td class="border right">41.5</td><td class="border right">4.1</td><td class="border right">11.1</td><td class="border right last-col">1.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">2. Quarterly possession</td><td class="border right">15</td><td class="border right">415</td><td class="border right">2940</td><td class="border right">2.2</td><td class="border right">6144</td><td class="border right">3.7</td><td class="border right">6.7</td><td class="border right">15</td><td class="border right last-col">2.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">3. Mixed<a name="FNanchor_195" id="FNanchor_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a></td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right">1224</td><td class="border right">8248</td><td class="border right">6.2</td><td class="border right">15092</td><td class="border right">9.2</td><td class="border right">4.5</td><td class="border right">12.4</td><td class="border right last-col">1.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">All to former state peasants</td><td class="border right total">52</td><td class="border right total">7876</td><td class="border right total">53485</td><td class="border right total">39.9</td><td class="border right total">89466</td><td class="border right total">54.4</td><td class="border right total">4.3</td><td class="border right total">11.5</td><td class="border right total last-col">1.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">III. Former serfs, subsequently state peasants</td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right">36</td><td class="border right">236</td><td class="border right">0.2</td><td class="border right">228</td><td class="border right">0.2</td><td class="border right">2.3</td><td class="border right">6.5</td><td class="border right last-col">1.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">340</td><td class="border right total">20875</td><td class="border right total">134099</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total">164361</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total">3.1</td><td class="border right total">8.2</td><td class="border right total last-col">1.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad"><i>District of Dankoff</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. Former serfs:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">1. Corvée or taille</td><td class="border right">75</td><td class="border right">2078</td><td class="border right">12923</td><td class="border right">13.2</td><td class="border right">13512</td><td class="border right">10.4</td><td class="border right">2.6</td><td class="border right">6.9</td><td class="border right last-col">1.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">2. Redemption</td><td class="border right">172</td><td class="border right">7524</td><td class="border right">48126</td><td class="border right">49</td><td class="border right">50026</td><td class="border right">38.5</td><td class="border right">2.5</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right last-col">1.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">3. Donation</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">231</td><td class="border right">1376</td><td class="border right">1.4</td><td class="border right">551</td><td class="border right">0.4</td><td class="border right">0.8</td><td class="border right">2.7</td><td class="border right">0.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">4. Absolute property</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">69</td><td class="border right">511</td><td class="border right">0.5</td><td class="border right">947</td><td class="border right">0.7</td><td class="border right">4.8</td><td class="border right">14.1</td><td class="border right last-col">1.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">All to former serfs</td><td class="border right total">260</td><td class="border right total">9902</td><td class="border right total">62936</td><td class="border right total">64.1</td><td class="border right total">65036</td><td class="border right total">50.0</td><td class="border right total">2.7</td><td class="border right total">6.9</td><td class="border right total last-col">1.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">II. Former state peasants</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">1. Agrarian communism</td><td class="border right">18</td><td class="border right">3082</td><td class="border right">19817</td><td class="border right">20.2</td><td class="border right">31756</td><td class="border right">24.4</td><td class="border right">4.1</td><td class="border right">10.4</td><td class="border right last-col">1.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">2. Quarterly possession</td><td class="border right">18</td><td class="border right">1765</td><td class="border right">12131</td><td class="border right">12.4</td><td class="border right">27208</td><td class="border right">20.9</td><td class="border right">5.4</td><td class="border right">15.9</td><td class="border right last-col">2.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">3. Mixed<a name="FNanchor_195a" id="FNanchor_195a"></a><a href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a></td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">415</td><td class="border right">2789</td><td class="border right">2.8</td><td class="border right">5331</td><td class="border right">4.1</td><td class="border right">5.1</td><td class="border right">12.9</td><td class="border right last-col">1.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">All to former state peasants</td><td class="border right total">39</td><td class="border right total">5262</td><td class="border right total">34737</td><td class="border right total">35.4</td><td class="border right total">64295</td><td class="border right total">49.4</td><td class="border right total">4.6</td><td class="border right total">12.4</td><td class="border right total last-col">1.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">III. Former serfs, subsequently state peasants<a name="FNanchor_196" id="FNanchor_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a></td><td class="border right">14</td><td class="border right">87</td><td class="border right">551</td><td class="border right">0.5</td><td class="border right">751</td><td class="border right">0.6</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right">9.1</td><td class="border right last-col">1.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">313</td><td class="border right total last-row">15251</td><td class="border right total last-row">98224</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">130082</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">3.3</td><td class="border right total last-row">8.9</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">1.4</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span></p>

<h3>TABLE I, <i>a</i>.</h3>

<p>To make it clearer <!-- hahahaha; go on, YOU try and work out how the totals in this table are calculated --> for the purposes of comparative study, some of these data
are translated into English measures:</p>

<p class="center">ACREAGE OF A PEASANT FARM OR HOUSEHOLD ON AVERAGE.</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Classes.</i></th><th><i>Ranenburg.</i></th><th><i>Dankoff.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="top-pad">I. Former serfs:</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">1. Corvée or taille</td><td class="right">16.8</td><td class="right">18.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">2. Redemption</td><td class="right">16.5</td><td class="right">18.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">3. Donation</td><td class="right">5.4</td><td class="right">7.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">4. Absolute property</td><td class="right">43.5</td><td class="right">38.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">All to former serfs</td><td class="right total">16.5</td><td class="right total">18.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="top-pad">II. Former state peasants:</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">1. Agrarian Communism</td><td class="right">29.7</td><td class="right">28.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">2. Quarterly possession</td><td class="right">40.5</td><td class="right">43.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">3. Mixed</td><td class="right">33.5</td><td class="right">34.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">All to former state peasants</td><td class="right total">31.1</td><td class="right total">33.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="top-pad">III. Mixed</td><td class="right">17.6</td><td class="right">24.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">22.2</td><td class="right total">24.1</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span></p>

<h3>TABLE II.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Taxation of the Peasantry.</span></h3>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Classes of peasants and titles of possession.</th>
    <th colspan="6" class="border">District of Ranenburg.</th>
    <th colspan="6" class="border">District of Dankoff.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Land in dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Cattle.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Taxes in rubles.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Land in dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Cattle.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Taxes in rubles.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">To 1 male, 1858.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">To 1 household.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 dessiatine.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 male, 1858.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 male worker.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 male, 1858.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">To 1 household.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 dessiatine.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 male, 1858.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 male worker.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. <i>Former serfs</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">1. Corvée or taille</td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right">6.2</td><td class="border right">2.7</td><td class="border right">5.2</td><td class="border right">11.9</td><td class="border right">19.9</td><td class="border right">2.6</td><td class="border right">6.9</td><td class="border right">2.7</td><td class="border right">5.1</td><td class="border right">12.6</td><td class="border right last-col">21.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">2. Redemption</td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right">6.1</td><td class="border right">2.5</td><td class="border right">4.5</td><td class="border right">10.8</td><td class="border right">17.9</td><td class="border right">2.5</td><td class="border right">7.0</td><td class="border right">2.5</td><td class="border right">4.3</td><td class="border right">11.1</td><td class="border right last-col">18.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">3. Donation</td><td class="border right">0.5</td><td class="border right">1.9</td><td class="border right">1.8</td><td class="border right">6.8</td><td class="border right">3.6</td><td class="border right">6.2</td><td class="border right">0.8</td><td class="border right">2.7</td><td class="border right">1.6</td><td class="border right">4.6</td><td class="border right">4.0</td><td class="border right last-col">8.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">4. Absolute property</td><td class="border right">5.3</td><td class="border right">16.1</td><td class="border right">4.2</td><td class="border right">0.8</td><td class="border right">4.6</td><td class="border right">5.1</td><td class="border right">4.8</td><td class="border right">14.1</td><td class="border right">4.3</td><td class="border right">1.1</td><td class="border right">5.8</td><td class="border right last-col">8.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">II. Former serfs, subsequently state peasants</td><td class="border right">2.3</td><td class="border right">6.5</td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right">3.1</td><td class="border right">7.0</td><td class="border right">14.2</td><td class="border right">4.0</td><td class="border right">9.1</td><td class="border right">3.0</td><td class="border right">2.5</td><td class="border right">7.9</td><td class="border right last-col">15.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">2.4</td><td class="border right total">6.1</td><td class="border right total">2.6</td><td class="border right total">4.6</td><td class="border right total">11.0</td><td class="border right total">18.2</td><td class="border right total">2.7</td><td class="border right total">6.8</td><td class="border right total">2.5</td><td class="border total right">4.4</td><td class="border total right">11.2</td><td class="border right total last-col">19.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">III. <i>Former state peasants</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">1. Agrarian communism</td><td class="border right">4.1</td><td class="border right">11.1</td><td class="border right">2.9</td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right">10.1</td><td class="border right">16.2</td><td class="border right">4.1</td><td class="border right">10.4</td><td class="border right">2.6</td><td class="border right">2.2</td><td class="border right">9.4</td><td class="border right last-col">15.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">2. Quarterly possession</td><td class="border right">6.7</td><td class="border right">15.0</td><td class="border right">4.0</td><td class="border right">1.9</td><td class="border right">13.2</td><td class="border right">18.0</td><td class="border right">5.4</td><td class="border right">15.9</td><td class="border right">3.3</td><td class="border right">1.9</td><td class="border right">10.8</td><td class="border right last-col">18.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">3. Mixed</td><td class="border right">4.5</td><td class="border right">12.4</td><td class="border right">3.1</td><td class="border right">2.4</td><td class="border right">11.1</td><td class="border right">18.6</td><td class="border right">5.1</td><td class="border right">12.9</td><td class="border right">2.9</td><td class="border right">2.6</td><td class="border right">10.5</td><td class="border right last-col">17.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">4.3</td><td class="border right total last-row">11.5</td><td class="border right total last-row">3.0</td><td class="border right total last-row">2.4</td><td class="border right total last-row">10.4</td><td class="border right total last-row">16.7</td><td class="border right total last-row">4.6</td><td class="border right total last-row">12.4</td><td class="border right total last-row">2.9</td><td class="border right total last-row">2.6</td><td class="border right total last-row">10.0</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">16.7</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span></p>

<h3>TABLE III.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Arrears in Taxes.</span></h3>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Degree of indebtedness.</th>
    <th colspan="6" class="border">Former serfs.</th>
    <th colspan="6" class="border">Former state peasants.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Communities.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Arrears in Rubles.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Communities.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Arrears in Rubles.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Amount.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 household.</th>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Amount.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 household.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>District of Dankoff</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without arrears</td><td class="border right">175</td><td class="border right">6107</td><td class="border right">61.2</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">17</td><td class="border right">2125</td><td class="border right">40.4</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">In arrears:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">For not more than the land tax<a name="FNanchor_197" id="FNanchor_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a></td><td class="border right">88</td><td class="border right">3541</td><td class="border right">35.4</td><td class="border right">6602</td><td class="border right">53.4</td><td class="border right">1.9</td><td class="border right">21</td><td class="border right">3119</td><td class="border right">59.3</td><td class="border right">4668</td><td class="border right">94.7</td><td class="border right last-col">1.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">For not more than 1 year’s taxes</td><td class="border right">8</td><td class="border right">162</td><td class="border right">1.6</td><td class="border right">2432</td><td class="border right">19.7</td><td class="border right">15.0</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">18</td><td class="border right">0.3</td><td class="border right">263</td><td class="border right">5.3</td><td class="border right last-col">14.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">For from 1 to 2 years’ taxes</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">179</td><td class="border right">1.8</td><td class="border right">3322</td><td class="border right">26.9</td><td class="border right">18.6</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total in arrears</td><td class="border right total">99</td><td class="border right total">3882</td><td class="border right total">38.8</td><td class="border right total">12356</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">22</td><td class="border right total">3137</td><td class="border right total">59.6</td><td class="border right total">4931</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total in the district</td><td class="border right total">274</td><td class="border right total">9989</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">39</td><td class="border right total">5262</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad"><i>District of Ranenburg</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without arrears</td><td class="border right">41</td><td class="border right">1254</td><td class="border right">9.6</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">169</td><td class="border right">2.1</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">In arrears:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">For not more than the land tax</td><td class="border right">138</td><td class="border right">6776</td><td class="border right">52.1</td><td class="border right">52891</td><td class="border right">30.1</td><td class="border right">7.8</td><td class="border right">34</td><td class="border right">5063</td><td class="border right">64.3</td><td class="border right">33869</td><td class="border right">47.9</td><td class="border right last-col">6.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">For not more than 1 year’s taxes</td><td class="border right">76</td><td class="border right">3529</td><td class="border right">27.1</td><td class="border right">70814</td><td class="border right">40.3</td><td class="border right">20.1</td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border right">2644</td><td class="border right">33.6</td><td class="border right">36857</td><td class="border right">52.1</td><td class="border right last-col">13.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">For from 1 to 2 year’s taxes</td><td class="border right">29</td><td class="border right">1367</td><td class="border right">10.6</td><td class="border right">47392</td><td class="border right">26.9</td><td class="border right">34.7</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">For from 2 to 3 years’ taxes</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">73</td><td class="border right">0.6</td><td class="border right">4768</td><td class="border right">2.7</td><td class="border right">65.3</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total in arrears</td><td class="border right total">246</td><td class="border right total">11745</td><td class="border right total">90.4</td><td class="border right total">175865</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">47</td><td class="border right total">7107</td><td class="border right total">97.9</td><td class="border right total">70726</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total in the district</td><td class="border right total last-row">287</td><td class="border right total last-row">12999</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">53</td><td class="border right total last-row">7876</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row last-col"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span></p>

<h3>TABLE IV.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Distribution of Rented Land.</span></h3>

<p class="center"><i>A.&mdash;Classification with regard to ownership of land.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border" style="min-width: 15em;">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="5" class="border">D. of Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="5" class="border">D. of Nizhnedevitsk.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">In all.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" colspan="2" class="border">Tenants, per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Rented land.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" colspan="2" class="border">Tenants, per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Rented land.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Rented for money rental, per cent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Rented for share in crops, per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">To one tenant (dessiatines).</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">To one tenant (dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Landless</td><td class="border right">0.2</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;13.4</td><td class="border right">0.3</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;9.2</td><td class="border right">5.4</td><td class="border right">0.3</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;19.4</td><td class="border right">0.3</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;14.9</td><td class="border right">3.4</td><td class="border right">0.3</td><td class="border right last-col">0.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning under 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">13.2</td><td class="border right">8.9</td><td class="border right">2.8</td><td class="border right">19.1</td><td class="border right">14.6</td><td class="border right">3.0</td><td class="border right">11.6</td><td class="border right last-col">12.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> from 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">49.0</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">38.9</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">3.3</td><td class="border right">49.7</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">41.7</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">3.3</td><td class="border right">39.8</td><td class="border right last-col">50.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> from 15 to 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">26.1</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;37.6</td><td class="border right">27.5</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;51.9</td><td class="border right">4.5</td><td class="border right">22.0</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;30.9</td><td class="border right">24.6</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;43.4</td><td class="border right">4.4</td><td class="border right">26.1</td><td class="border right last-col">26.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> over 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">11.5</td><td class="border right">24.4</td><td class="border right">9.0</td><td class="border right">8.9</td><td class="border right">18.8</td><td class="border right">8.2</td><td class="border right">22.2</td><td class="border right last-col">10.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">4.2</td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">3.9</td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border right total last-row last-col"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p class="center"><i>B.&mdash;Classification with regard to stock-breeding.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border" style="min-width: 12em;">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">D. of Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">D. of Nizhnedevitsk.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">In all.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Tenants, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Rented land, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Tenants, percentage within the class.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines to 1 tenant.</th>
    <th class="border">Tenants, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Rented land, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Tenants, percentage within the class.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 tenant, dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Rented for money rental, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Rented for share in crops, per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without horses</td><td class="border right">3.5</td><td class="border right">1.9</td><td class="border right">11.5</td><td class="border right">2.1</td><td class="border right">1.1</td><td class="border right">0.4</td><td class="border right">3.5</td><td class="border right">1.3</td><td class="border right">1.1</td><td class="border right last-col">0.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 1 horse</td><td class="border right">28.4</td><td class="border right">16.5</td><td class="border right">37.9</td><td class="border right">2.3</td><td class="border right">21.4</td><td class="border right">10.6</td><td class="border right">28.8</td><td class="border right">2.1</td><td class="border right">13.3</td><td class="border right last-col">16.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> from 2 to 3 horses</td><td class="border right">54.1</td><td class="border right">46.7</td><td class="border right">49.6</td><td class="border right">3.4</td><td class="border right">63.0</td><td class="border right">50.3</td><td class="border right">54.9</td><td class="border right">3.4</td><td class="border right">48.0</td><td class="border right last-col">59.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> 4 or more horses</td><td class="border right">14.0</td><td class="border right">34.9</td><td class="border right">78.5</td><td class="border right">9.7</td><td class="border right">14.5</td><td class="border right">38.7</td><td class="border right">81.6</td><td class="border right">11.3</td><td class="border right">37.6</td><td class="border right last-col">23.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border right total last-row">43.0</td><td class="border right total last-row">3.9</td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border right total last-row">41.9</td><td class="border right total last-row">4.2</td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td><td class="border right total last-row last-col"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span></p>

<h3>TABLE V.<br />
BUDGETS OF TYPICAL PEASANT HOUSEHOLDS.</h3>

<p class="center">Translated from the <i>Statistical Reports for the District of Borisoglebsk, Gubernia
of Tamboff</i> (Appendix I., pp. 28-32, 88-97).<a name="FNanchor_198" id="FNanchor_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a></p>

<h4>I. <i>Gabriel Michea’s</i> (son) <i>Trupoff</i>, village Sukmanka, bailiwick
(<i>volost</i>) Sukmanka.</h4>

<p>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.</p>

<p class="center"><i>Members of the Family.</i></p>

<p>1. <i>The housefather</i>, 60 year old, doing all kinds of farm work.</p>

<p>2. <i>His wife</i>, of the same age, keeping the house.</p>

<p>3. <i>Their son</i>, aged 27.</p>

<p>4. <i>Their daughter-in law</i>, aged 26, and,</p>

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

<p class="center"><i>Schedule of Property Owned by the Family.</i></p>

<p>1. Wooden house, straw roof:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Dimensions.</i></th><th><i>Yards.</i></th><th><i>Feet.</i></th><th><i>Inches.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>a.</i> Length</td><td class="right">9</td><td class="right">1</td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>b.</i> Breadth</td><td class="right">4</td><td class="right">2</td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>c.</i> Height</td><td class="right">2</td><td class="right">2</td><td class="right">2</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Add thereto sheds, <i>etc.</i>, used for various farming purposes.</p>

<p>2. Land, 15 dessiatines (= 40 acres).</p>

<p>3. Stock:</p>
<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <td><i>a.</i> Horses</td><td class="right">4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>b.</i> Cow</td><td class="right">1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>c.</i> Calf</td><td class="right">1</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a><br />
<a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span></p>

<p class="center"><i>Income in Rubles.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th class="border"><i>Dr.</i></th><th class="border"><i>Price.</i></th><th class="border"><i>In Kind.</i></th><th class="border"><i>In Money.</i></th><th class="border"><i>Total.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">1. Farm and house:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Rye, 40 Russian quarters, @</td><td class="border right">4.00</td><td class="border right">90.00</td><td class="border right">70.00</td><td class="border right last-col">160.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Oats, 60 Russian quarters, @</td><td class="border right">2.00</td><td class="border right">40.00</td><td class="border right">80.00</td><td class="border right last-col">120.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Millet, 5 Russian quarters, @</td><td class="border right">5.00</td><td class="border right">25.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">25.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Potatoes, 40 Russian measures, @</td><td class="border right">0.15</td><td class="border right">6.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">6.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Flaxseed, 5 quarters, @</td><td class="border right">10.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">50.00</td><td class="border right last-col">50.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Flax and hemp, fibre</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">30.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">30.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Hemp seed, 2½ quarters, @</td><td class="border right">8.00</td><td class="border right">20.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">20.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Hay, 100 <i>poods</i>, @</td><td class="border right">0.10</td><td class="border right">10.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">10.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Straw</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">40.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">40.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Two slaughtered pigs, @</td><td class="border right">5.00</td><td class="border right">10.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">10.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">One calf, @</td><td class="border right">20.00</td><td class="border right">20.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">20.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Sold: ducks, @</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">4.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">3 geese, @</td><td class="border right">1.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">3.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">1 colt, @</td><td class="border right">23.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">23.00</td><td class="border right last-col">30.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total">Total from farm and house</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">291.00</td><td class="border right total">230.00</td><td class="border right total last-col">521.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">II. Rented grass land: 3 dessiatines (8 acres):</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Hay, 180 <i>poods</i>, @</td><td class="border right">0.10</td><td class="border right">18.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">18.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">III. Odd jobs:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">(Farm work and driving)</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">52.00</td><td class="border right last-col">52.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4 total last-row">Grand total</td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">309.00</td><td class="border right total last-row">282.00</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">591.00</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a><br />
<a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span></p>

<p class="center"><i>Expenses in Rubles.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th class="border"><i>Cr.</i></th><th class="border"><i>Price.</i></th><th class="border"><i>In Kind.</i></th><th class="border"><i>In Money.</i></th><th class="border"><i>Total.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. <i>Productive Consumption</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">1. Forage for cattle<a name="FNanchor_199" id="FNanchor_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Hay</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">28.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Oats</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">40.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Straw</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">40.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4">All to forage</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">108.00</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total last-col">108.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">2. Wages to the communal shepherd:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">The family’s share</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">3.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">3. Wear and tear of implements</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">30.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Total productive consumption</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">108.00</td><td class="border right total">33.00</td><td class="border right total last-col">141.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">II. <i>Personal Consumption</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">1. Food:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Rye flour, 15 <i>poods</i> a month @</td><td class="border right">0.50</td><td class="border right">90.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Salt, 4½ <i>poods</i> a year @</td><td class="border right">0.70</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">3.15</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Hemp oil</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">20.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Wheat flour, 217 lbs. a year</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">12.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Corn</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">25.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Potatoes</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">6.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Meat and lard</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4"><i>a.</i> On holidays 72 lbs.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">5.60</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4"><i>b.</i> On workdays 430 lbs.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">30.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4">Total meat 502 lbs.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Salted fish and herring</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">5.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Brandy, 4 pails (400 glasses)</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">16.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4">All to food<a name="FNanchor_200" id="FNanchor_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a></td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">171.00</td><td class="border right total">41.75</td><td class="border right total last-col">212.75</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">2. Shoes:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">One pair a year to each member of the family</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">13.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Felt boots for all</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">3.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4">All for shoes</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">16.00</td><td class="border right total last-col">16.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">3. Clothing:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">One fur to each father and son, once in 5 years @</td><td class="border right">10.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">4.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">One coat to each, once in 2 years @</td><td class="border right">5.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">5.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">One gird to each, once in 10 years @</td><td class="border right">0.16</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">0.80</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">One cap to each, once in 5 years @</td><td class="border right">2.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">10.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">One holiday coat to each, once in 3 years @</td><td class="border right">6.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">4.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">One overcoat for the son, once in 2 years @</td><td class="border right">5.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">2.50</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Dresses for two women</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">16.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Dresses for children</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">10.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Linen from own flax and seed</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">30.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4">All to clothing</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">30.00</td><td class="border right total">42.46</td><td class="border right total last-col">72.46</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">4. Sundries:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Lard candles, 10 lbs. a year</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">1.60</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Kerosene, 36 lbs. a year</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">2.40</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Expenses of worship</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">5.50</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Soap</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">1.50</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Tar</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">2.50</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Moulding of rye, etc.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">10.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Unexpected</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">10.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4">All to sundries</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">33.50</td><td class="border right total last-col">33.50</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Total personal consumption</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">201.00</td><td class="border right total">133.71</td><td class="border right total last-col">334.71</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">III. <i>Taxes</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">37.50</td><td class="border right last-col">37.50</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4">All to ordinary expenses</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">309.00</td><td class="border right total">204.21</td><td class="border right total last-col">513.21</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">IV. <i>Rent</i> for 3 dessiatines grass land, @</td><td class="border right">5.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">15.00</td><td class="border right last-col">15.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4 last-row">Total expenditures</td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">309.00</td><td class="border right total last-row">219.21</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">528.21</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="4" class="border indent1">Balance:</td><td class="border-override"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="4" class="border indent2">1. Net income from farm and house</td><td class="border-override">7.79</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="4" class="border indent2">2. Net income from rented land</td><td class="border-override">3.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="4" class="border indent2">3. Income from sundry jobs</td><td class="border-override">52.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="4" class="border indent4 last-row">Grand total</td><td class="right total border-override last-row">591.00</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[176]</a></span></p>

<h4>II. <i>Kosma Abramoff</i>, village Michaïlovka, bailiwick Nicholo-Kabañ
yevskaya.</h4>

<p>The family counts as one of the “strong” economically.</p>

<p class="center"><i>Members.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <td class="right">3</td><td>male workers.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="right">3</td><td>female workers.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="right">3</td><td>children.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="right">1</td><td>elder.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="right total">10</td><td></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p class="center"><i>Schedule of Property.</i></p>

<p>1. 1 house (with appurtenances):</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Yards.</i></th><th><i>Inches.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>a.</i> Length</td><td class="right">6</td><td class="right">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>b.</i> Breadth</td><td class="right">6</td><td class="right">8</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>2.  Land, 3 <i>dessiatines</i> (8 acres).</p>

<p>3.  Stock:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <td><i>a.</i> Horses</td><td class="right">5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>b.</i> Cow</td><td class="right">1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>c.</i> Calves</td><td class="right">2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>d.</i> Sheep</td><td class="right">11</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>e.</i> Lambs</td><td class="right">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>f.</i> Pigs</td><td class="right">2</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[177]</a></span></p>

<p class="center"><i>Income in Rubles.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th class="border"><i>Dr.</i></th><th colspan="2" class="border"></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. Farming on the allotted land (garden, house and appurtenances)</td><td class="border right">181.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">II. Domestic industry for domestic use</td><td class="border right">177.80</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total farm and house</td><td class="border right total">358.80</td><td class="border right total last-col">358.80</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Deficit to cover the expenses</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">660.45</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right total last-col">1019.25</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">III. Farming on rented land:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Gross income</td><td class="border right">640.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Rent</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">282.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Net product</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">358.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right total last-col">640.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">IV. Odd jobs:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Farm work, tailoring, carrying trade, wage work, <i>etc.</i></td><td class="border right">245.00</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total income</td><td class="border right total">1243.80</td><td class="border right total last-col">1243.80</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Balance (deficit)</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">57.45</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">Grand Total</td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">1301.25</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p class="center"><i>Expenses<a name="FNanchor_201" id="FNanchor_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> in Rubles.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th class="border"><i>Cr.</i></th><th class="border"><i>In Kind.</i></th><th class="border"><i>In Money.</i></th><th class="border"><i>Total.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. Productive consumption</td><td class="border right">154.00</td><td class="border right">127.00</td><td class="border right last-col">281.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">II. Personal Consumption:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Food<a name="FNanchor_202" id="FNanchor_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a></td><td class="border right last-col">255.00</td><td class="border right">137.05</td><td class="border right last-col">392.05</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Clothing</td><td class="border right">170.00</td><td class="border right">60.00</td><td class="border right last-col">230.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Shoes and stockings</td><td class="border right">7.80</td><td class="border right">51.50</td><td class="border right last-col">59.30</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Miscellaneous</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">40.90</td><td class="border right last-col">40.90</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">All to personal consumption</td><td class="border right total">432.80</td><td class="border right total">289.45</td><td class="border right total last-col">722.25</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">III. Taxes</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">16.00</td><td class="border right last-col">16.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total ordinary expenditure</td><td class="border right total">586.80</td><td class="border right total">432.45</td><td class="border right total last-col">1019.25</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">IV. Rent: For 20 <i>dessiatines</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">282.00</td><td class="border right last-col">282.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">Grand total</td><td class="border right total last-row">586.80</td><td class="border right total last-row">714.45</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">1301.25</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[178]</a></span></p>

<h4>III. <i>Capiton Popoff</i>, village Pavlovka, bailiwick Pavlodarovka.</h4>

<p>The family is considered one of the “powerless.”</p>

<p class="center"><i>Members.</i></p>

<p>1. Father.</p>

<p>2. Mother.</p>

<p>3. Son.</p>

<p>4. Daughter-in-law.</p>

<p>5. Girl of 16.</p>

<p>6. Girl of 13.</p>

<p>7-8. Two little boys.</p>

<p class="center"><i>Schedule of Property.</i></p>

<p>1. House, 14×14 square feet.</p>

<p>2. Land, 1½ dessiatines (4 acres).</p>

<p>3. Stock:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <td><i>a.</i> Horse</td><td class="right">1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>b.</i> Cow</td><td class="right">1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>c.</i> Sheep</td><td class="right">3</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[179]</a></span></p>

<p class="center"><i>Yearly Income in Rubles.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th class="border"><i>Dr.</i></th><th class="border"></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Farm and house</td><td class="border right last-col">27.80</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Rented land</td><td class="border right last-col">74.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Wage labor</td><td class="border right last-col">74.80</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total last-col">176.60</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Balance, deficit</td><td class="border right last-col">65.20</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">Grand total</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">241.80</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p class="center"><i>Yearly Expenses in Rubles.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th class="border"><i>Cr.</i></th><th class="border"></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. Rent</td><td class="border right last-col">57.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">II. Taxes</td><td class="border right last-col">8.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">III. Food:</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Meat at Easter, 11 pounds @ 9 <i>copecks</i></td><td class="border right last-col">0.99</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4">at St. Peter’s day, 10 pounds @ 8 <i>cop.</i></td><td class="border right last-col">0.80</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent4">at Christmas, @ 5 <i>cop.</i> (of own produce)</td><td class="border right last-col">1.75</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">All to meat</td><td class="border right total last-col">3.54</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">5 chickens and 50 eggs</td><td class="border right last-col">1.05</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">18 pounds very bad salted fish at the carnival, @ 4 <i>cop.</i></td><td class="border right last-col">0.72</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Rye bread, cabbage, potatoes, salt, butter, corn, pickles, and apples for the children</td><td class="border right last-col">106.61</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">All to food</td><td class="border right total last-col">111.92</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">IV. Clothing<a name="FNanchor_203" id="FNanchor_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a></td><td class="border right last-col">23.10</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">V. Shoes<a name="FNanchor_203a" id="FNanchor_203a"></a><a href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a></td><td class="border right last-col">27.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">VI. Sundries<a name="FNanchor_204" id="FNanchor_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a></td><td class="border right last-col">15.78</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total indent2 last-row">Grand total</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">241.80</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[180]</a></span></p>

<h3>TABLE VI.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Wages of the Peasant in Industrial Employment.</span></h3>

<p>(Compiled from the Appendices to the <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ</i>, 1882.)</p>

<p class="center"><i>A.</i>&mdash;<i>Local.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max70" id="tableVIa">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">No.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Trade.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Season.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Board.</th>
    <th colspan="9" class="border">Wages in rubles.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">No.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per day.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per week.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per month.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per term.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Per year.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">From</th>
    <th class="border">To</th>
    <th class="border">From</th>
    <th class="border">To</th>
    <th class="border">From</th>
    <th class="border">To</th>
    <th class="border">From</th>
    <th class="border">To</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">1</td><td class="border">Brickmakers</td><td rowspan="10" class="border valign">Spring and Summer.</td><td rowspan="9" class="border valign">Without board.</td><td class="border right">0.50</td><td class="border right">1.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">50.00</td><td class="border right">80.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">2</td><td class="border">Charcoal burning</td><td class="border right">0.50</td><td class="border right">0.70</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">40.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">3</td><td class="border">Clearing of the soil (from stumps)</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">7.00</td><td class="border right">12.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">4</td><td class="border">Diggers</td><td class="border right">0.60</td><td class="border right">0.70</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">8.00</td><td class="border right">10.00</td><td class="border right">40.00</td><td class="border right">50.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">5</td><td class="border">Masons</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">7.00</td><td class="border right">12.00</td><td class="border right">40.00</td><td class="border right">80.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">6</td><td class="border">Potters</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">45.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">7</td><td class="border">Quarries&mdash;</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right"></td><td class="border indent1"><i>a.</i> Independent craftsmen.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">75.00</td><td class="border right">100.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"><i>a</i></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right"></td><td class="border indent1"><i>b.</i> Working for contractors.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">35.00</td><td class="border right">60.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"><i>b</i></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="3" class="border right">8</td><td rowspan="3" class="border">Carpenters</td><td rowspan="2" class="border valign total">With board.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">55.00</td><td class="border right">70.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td rowspan="3"  class="border right last-col">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="2" class="border valign total">All through the year.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">100.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="3" class="border valign total">Without board.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">7.00</td><td class="border right">13.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="2" class="border right">9</td><td rowspan="2" class="border">Water flour mills</td><td class="border total valign">Winter.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">5.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td rowspan="2" class="border right last-col">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total">Spring and Summer.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">8.00</td><td class="border right">15.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">10</td><td class="border">Felt boot-makers</td><td rowspan="4" class="border valign total">Fall.</td><td rowspan="5" class="border valign total">With board.</td><td class="border right">0.40</td><td class="border right">0.60</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">10</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">11</td><td class="border">Furriers</td><td class="border right">0.40</td><td class="border right">0.60</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">11</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">12</td><td class="border">Tailors</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">1.50</td><td class="border right">2.50</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">12</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right"></td><td class="border">Apprentices</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">0.50</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="2" class="border right">13</td><td rowspan="2" class="border">Timber sawing</td><td rowspan="7" class="border valign total">Winter.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">1.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td rowspan="2" class="border right last-col">13</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="12" class="border valign total">With board.</td><td class="border right">0.50</td><td class="border right">0.70</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">14</td><td class="border">Coal miners</td><td class="border right">0.30</td><td class="border right">0.50</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">14</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">15</td><td class="border">Distilleries</td><td class="border right">0.25</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">5.00</td><td class="border right">9.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">15</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">16</td><td class="border">Sugar Factories</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">6.00</td><td class="border right">8.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">16</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">17</td><td class="border">Railways&mdash;</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">17</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="3" class="border right"></td><td rowspan="3" class="border indent1"><i>a.</i> Males</td><td class="border right">0.30</td><td class="border right">0.45</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td rowspan="3" class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border valign total">Summer.</td><td class="border right">0.70</td><td class="border right">1.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="5" class="border valign total">All through the year.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">9.00</td><td class="border right">12.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right"></td><td class="border indent1"><i>b.</i> Females</td><td class="border right">0.20</td><td class="border right">0.40</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">18</td><td class="border">Steam flour mills</td><td class="border right">0.40</td><td class="border right">0.50</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">18</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">19</td><td class="border">Carrying</td><td class="border right">0.60</td><td class="border right">1.00</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">19</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">20</td><td class="border">Day laborers (in town)</td><td class="border right">0.30</td><td class="border right">0.40</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">20</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right"></td><td rowspan="2" class="border valign right last-row">In all: full workers, males</td><td colspan="2" class="border total">With board.</td><td class="border right total">0.40</td><td class="border right total">0.60</td><td class="border right total">1.00</td><td class="border right total">2.50</td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total">55.00</td><td class="border right total">70.00</td><td class="border right total">100.00</td><td class="border right total last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right last-row"></td><td colspan="2" class="border last-row">Without board.</td><td class="border right last-row">0.25</td><td class="border right last-row">1.00</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row">5.00</td><td class="border right last-row">15.00</td><td class="border right last-row">35.00</td><td class="border right last-row">60.00</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row last-col"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[181]</a></span></p>

<p class="center"><i>B.</i>&mdash;<i>Outside.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="4" class="border">No.</th>
    <th rowspan="4" class="border">Trade.</th>
    <th rowspan="4" class="border">Gubernias.</th>
    <th rowspan="4" class="border">Season.</th>
    <th colspan="10" class="border">Wages in rubles.</th>
    <th rowspan="4" class="border">No.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Per month.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Per term.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per year.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">With board.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Without board.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">With board.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Without board.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">With board.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">From</th>
    <th class="border">To</th>
    <th class="border">From</th>
    <th class="border">To</th>
    <th class="border">From</th>
    <th class="border">To</th>
    <th class="border">From</th>
    <th class="border">To</th>
    <th class="border">From</th>
    <th class="border">To</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">1</td><td class="border">Diggers</td><td rowspan="2" class="border total valign">Moscow.</td><td rowspan="7" class="border total valign">Spring and Summer.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">60</td><td class="border right">75</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">2</td><td class="border">Quarries</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">40</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">3</td><td class="border">Brickmakers</td><td class="border total valign">Moscow and Orel.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">40</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">4</td><td class="border">Turf Cutters</td><td rowspan="3" class="border total valign">Moscow and Vladimir.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right"></td><td class="border indent1">May to July</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">30</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right"></td><td class="border indent1">May to August</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right">70</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="2" class="border right valign">5</td><td rowspan="2" class="border valign">Railways</td><td rowspan="2" class="border right valign total"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">14</td><td class="border right">20</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td rowspan="2" class="border right valign last-col">5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total valign">Winter.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">6</td><td class="border">Cabmen</td><td rowspan="5" class="border total valign">Moscow.</td><td rowspan="6" class="border total valign">All through the year.</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">7</td><td class="border">Drivers</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right">15</td><td class="border right">18</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">90</td><td class="border right">150</td><td class="border right last-col">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">8</td><td class="border">Housekeepers</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">15</td><td class="border right">18</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">9</td><td class="border">Janitors,&nbsp;servants,&nbsp;etc.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">75</td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right last-col">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">10</td><td class="border">Flour mills</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right">70</td><td class="border right last-col">10</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right">11</td><td class="border">Factory Hands</td><td class="border total valign">Moscow and St. Petersburg.</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right">18</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">11</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border right last-row"></td><td colspan="3" class="border total valign last-row">In all, in Moscow and vicinity</td><td class="border right total last-row">6</td><td class="border right total last-row">12</td><td class="border right total last-row">10</td><td class="border right total last-row">18</td><td class="border right total last-row">30</td><td class="border right total last-row">70</td><td class="border right total last-row">60</td><td class="border right total last-row">75</td><td class="border right total last-row">50</td><td class="border right total last-row">150</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<hr />

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[182]</a></span></p>

<h3>TABLE VII.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Average Yields of Wheat (District of Voronezh).</span></h3>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Estates of over 50 dessiatines.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Period of experience (years).</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Dessiatines under wheat.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Chetverts from 1 dessiatine.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Fertilized.</th>
    <th class="border">Not fertilized (or mixed).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>Series I.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">No. 81</td><td class="border right">19</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">300</span></td><td class="border right">8.4</td><td class="border right last-col">5.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><span class="ditto1">”</span> 197</td><td class="border right">5</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">30</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">8</span></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><span class="ditto1">”</span> 32</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">51</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">?</span></td><td class="border right last-col">6.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><span class="ditto1">”</span> 103</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">113</span></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">5.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><span class="ditto1">”</span> 81</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">110</span></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">5.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><span class="ditto1">”</span> 189 bis.</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">90</span></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">4.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><span class="ditto1">”</span> 192 bis.</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">103</span></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"><span class="align-fraction">4</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Average on 7 estates.</td><td class="border right total">12</td><td class="border right total"><span class="align-fraction">797</span></td><td class="border right total"></td><td class="border right total last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right total"><span class="align-fraction">330</span></td><td class="border right">8.4</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">767</span></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"><a name="FNanchor_205" id="FNanchor_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a>5.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad"><i>Series II.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">13 estates</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">596</span></td><td class="border right">7.9</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">5 estates</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">86.5</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col">5.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total 18 estates</td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">682.5</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row last-col"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<hr />

<div class="footnotes">

<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_1" id="Footnote_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> There are large villages composed of several distinct communities, something
like Zurich until recently, or New York, Brooklyn, Jersey City, <i>etc.</i>; that is to say,
municipally divided, though socially and geographically a unit.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_2" id="Footnote_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> I plead for liberty to use this expression, which is to be found in Shakespeare.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_3" id="Footnote_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ, District of Ryazañ</i>, Vol. I.,
pp. 2-4.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_4" id="Footnote_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh</i>, Vol. I., p. 2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_5" id="Footnote_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> “The <i>Zemstvo</i> and the national economy,” by I. P. Bielokonsky. <i>Severny
Vestnik</i> (monthly magazine), May, 1892.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_6" id="Footnote_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> As the investigation of the <i>gubernia</i> of Ryazañ had not been brought to an end,
the gaps have been filled in most cases by referring to the <i>Reports</i> for the <i>gubernias</i>
of Voronezh, Tamboff and Smolensk, which are now likewise among those
affected by the famine.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_7" id="Footnote_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Prof. W. J. Ashley, in the introductory chapter of his translation of <i>The Origin
of Property in Land</i> by Fustel de Coulanges, represents the Russian village
community as “only a joint cultivation and not a joint ownership.” The Russian
<i>mir</i>, 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 (<i>e. g.</i>, the <i>gubernias</i> 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, <i>Essay of a
Statistical Investigation on the Peasants’ Landed Property and Taxation</i>, 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.”</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_8" id="Footnote_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> 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 <i>zaisangs</i> and <i>noyons</i>, until the ukase issued
on the 8th (20th) of May, 1892, whereby bond serfdom of the common Kalmyks
was at last abolished.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_9" id="Footnote_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_10" id="Footnote_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> The indirect taxes are figured in the budget for the current year as follows:
</p>

<p class="center">RUBLES.</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th></th><th>1892.</th><th>1891.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Sec. 4.</td><td>From liquors</td><td class="right">242,570,981</td><td class="right">259,550,981</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="ditto1">”</span> 7.</td><td><span class="ditto1">”</span> naphtha</td><td class="right">10,026,800</td><td class="right">9,528,500</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="ditto1">”</span> 8.</td><td><span class="ditto1">”</span> matches</td><td class="right">4,720,000</td><td class="right">4,524,000</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="ditto1">”</span> 5.</td><td><span class="ditto1">”</span> tobacco</td><td class="right">27,741,102</td><td class="right">28,213,102</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="ditto1">”</span> 6.</td><td><span class="ditto1">”</span> sugar</td><td class="right">21,174,000</td><td class="right">20,161,000</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="ditto1">”</span> 9.</td><td>Customs duties</td><td class="right">110,900,000</td><td class="right">110,929,000</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td><td></td><td class="right total">417,182,883</td><td class="right total">432,906,583</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf.</i> <i>The Government Messenger</i>, 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_11" id="Footnote_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <i>Essay of a Statistical Investigation on the Peasants’ Landed Property and
Taxation.</i></p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_12" id="Footnote_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> In the <i>gubernia</i> 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 <i>gubernia</i> of St. Petersburg they paid 34, and in that of Moscow,
upon an average, 105 per cent. in excess of their net income.</p>

<p class="center">EXCESS OF TAXATION ABOVE THE NET INCOME.</p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
    <th><i>In the gubernias.</i></th><th><i>Per cent. former State peasants.</i></th><th><i>Per cent. former serfs.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Tver</td><td class="right">144</td><td class="right">152</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Smolensk</td><td class="right">66</td><td class="right">120</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Kostroma</td><td class="right">46</td><td class="right">140</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Pskoff</td><td class="right">30</td><td class="right">113</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vladimir</td><td class="right">68</td><td class="right">176</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vyatka</td><td class="right">3</td><td class="right">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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. (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, pp.
35-36, 86.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_13" id="Footnote_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Corporal punishment for debts (<i>pravyozh</i>) 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_14" id="Footnote_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> The rent is here no fictitious quantity, it being an every-day occurrence for
peasants to lease their lots.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_15" id="Footnote_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_16" id="Footnote_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Land in peasants’ possession.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Total.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Pure black soil.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Ranenburg</td><td class="border right">164361</td><td class="border right">113681</td><td class="border right last-col">69</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Dankoff</td><td class="border right last-row">130082</td><td class="border right last-row">89376</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">69</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>1 dessiatine = 2.7 acres.</p>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_17" id="Footnote_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> The term is derived from “quarter,” an old Muscovite measure in usage for
estates granted in fee.</p>

<p>The numerical relation between these two forms is given in the following
table:</p>

<p class="center">HEREDITARY POSSESSION.</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Communities of former State peasants.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Land.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Ranenburg</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right">48</td><td class="border right">1,639</td><td class="border right">21</td><td class="border right">21,236</td><td class="border right last-col">24</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Dankoff</td><td class="border right last-row">21</td><td class="border right last-row">54</td><td class="border right last-row">2,180</td><td class="border right last-row">41</td><td class="border right last-row">32,539</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">50</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Cf. <i>Quarterly Possession</i>, by Mr. K. Pankeyeff, in the Moscow review <i>Russkaya
Mysl</i>, 1886, book 2, p. 50. The paper quoted was to have been published as a part
of the <i>Reports of the Ryazañ Statistical Bureau</i>, but after the work was stopped
(see above page 16) it appeared in one of our liberal magazines.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_18" id="Footnote_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, book III., page 28.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_19" id="Footnote_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, book III., page 33.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_20" id="Footnote_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_21" id="Footnote_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> Mr. Greegoryeff’s <i>Report to the XVII. Assembly of the Gubernia of Ryazañ</i>,
p. 5. <i>Cf.</i> also <i>Emigration among the Peasants of the Gubernia of Ryazañ</i>,
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 <i>cf.</i> Prof. W. J. Ashley’s remarks in
his introduction to Fustel de Coulanges’ <i>The Origin of Property in Land</i>, pp.
xlvii-xlviii.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_22" id="Footnote_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> 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 <i>gubernia</i> of Voronezh (<i>Cf.</i> <i>op. cit.</i>, book III., p. 35). The analogy, however
is not further worked out.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_23" id="Footnote_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> The extent of the three forms of possession to-day is shown in the following
table:</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Forms of possession.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Communities.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Inhabitants.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Extent of land.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Communal proper.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Quarterly.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Quarterly</td><td class="border right">33</td><td class="border right">2,180</td><td class="border right">15,071</td><td class="border right">3,754</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">11</span></td><td class="border right">29,598</td><td class="border right last-col"><span class="align-fraction">89</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto2">”</span> and Communistic</td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right">1,639</td><td class="border right">11,037</td><td class="border right">9,210</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">45</span></td><td class="border right">11,213</td><td class="border right last-col"><span class="align-fraction">55</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Communistic proper</td><td class="border right last-row">45</td><td class="border right last-row">9,319</td><td class="border right last-row">62,114</td><td class="border right last-row">99,493</td><td class="border right last-row">99.5</td><td class="border right last-row">493</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">0.5</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_24" id="Footnote_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> Table of the Distribution of Land and Population, in the Appendix.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_25" id="Footnote_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> The appendices to the <i>Statistical Reports</i> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Before the emancipation</td><td class="right">53870</td><td class="right">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>After <span class="ditto1">”</span> <span class="ditto2">”</span></td><td class="right">40537</td><td class="right">75</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Cut off for the nobles</td><td class="right total">13333</td><td class="right total">25</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_26" id="Footnote_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_27" id="Footnote_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> 1 <i>pood</i> = 1 quarter, 11 pounds and 2 ounces avoirdupois.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_28" id="Footnote_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Small and young cattle (sheep, swine, calves, <i>etc.</i>) are also included in this
total, with a computation of ten head of small cattle to one head of big cattle (ox
or horse).</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_29" id="Footnote_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Classes.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Working horses.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Cows.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Average per household.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Horses.</th>
    <th class="border">Big cattle.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><i>Ranenburg.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I.  Former serfs</td><td class="border right">12,999</td><td class="border right">16,140</td><td class="border right">8,924</td><td class="border right">1.2</td><td class="border right last-col">2.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">II. Former State peasants&mdash;</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>a.</i> Agrarian communism</td><td class="border right">6,237</td><td class="border right">8,241</td><td class="border right">5,687</td><td class="border right">1.3</td><td class="border right last-col">2.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>b.</i> Quarterly possession</td><td class="border right">415</td><td class="border right">830</td><td class="border right">514</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">2</span></td><td class="border right last-col"><span class="align-fraction">4</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>c.</i> Mixed</td><td class="border right">1,224</td><td class="border right">1,781</td><td class="border right">1,195</td><td class="border right">1.5</td><td class="border right last-col">3.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Total</td><td class="border right total">20,875</td><td class="border right total">26,992</td><td class="border right total">16,320</td><td class="border right total">1.3</td><td class="border right total last-col">2.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Dankoff.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I.  Former serfs</td><td class="border right">9,989</td><td class="border right">13,576</td><td class="border right">6,485</td><td class="border right">1.4</td><td class="border right last-col">2.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">II. Former State peasants&mdash;</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>a.</i> Agrarian communism</td><td class="border right">3,082</td><td class="border right">4,092</td><td class="border right">2,189</td><td class="border right">1.3</td><td class="border right last-col">2.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>b.</i> Quarterly possession</td><td class="border right">1,765</td><td class="border right">3,126</td><td class="border right">1,406</td><td class="border right">1.8</td><td class="border right last-col">3.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>c.</i> Mixed</td><td class="border right">415</td><td class="border right">648</td><td class="border right">318</td><td class="border right">1.6</td><td class="border right last-col">2.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">15,251</td><td class="border right total last-row">21,442</td><td class="border right total last-row">10,398</td><td class="border right total last-row">1.4</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">2.7</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(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).</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_30" id="Footnote_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> This is shown in the table below:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Communities.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Ranenburg.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Dankoff.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Former serfs.</th>
    <th class="border">Former State peasants.</th>
    <th class="border">Former serfs.</th>
    <th class="border">Former State peasants.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Total</td><td class="border right">276</td><td class="border right">52</td><td class="border right">260</td><td class="border right last-col">39</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Forest allotted to</td><td class="border right last-row">3</td><td class="border right last-row">26</td><td class="border right last-row">19</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">27</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf. Statistical Reports</i>, Vol. II, pp. I-II., Appendices.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_31" id="Footnote_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> We read in the Appendix to the <i>Statistical Reports for the Ranenburg District</i>,
p. 321: “<i>Village Novoselki, former serfs of Barkoff.</i> 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.”</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_32" id="Footnote_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> <i>Statistical Reports for the District of Dankoff</i>, p. 240.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_33" id="Footnote_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> Moreover, a crying injustice was thereby created&mdash;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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th colspan="2"><i>Communes of former serfs.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Total.</i></th><th><i>Injured <br />by site.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">288</td><td class="right">22</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">274</td><td class="right">17</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf. Statistical Reports</i>, Vol. II., Appendices.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_34" id="Footnote_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> <i>Cf. Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh</i>, 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_35" id="Footnote_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> The yield in the district of Ostrogozhsk represents pretty nearly the average
for Russia, as can be shown by the following figures:</p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Yield of Rye per Acre.</i></th><th><i>Seed =&nbsp;1.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>All over Russia</td><td class="right">4.5</td><td class="right">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In Ostrogozhsk</td><td class="right">4.5</td><td class="right">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In the U. S. (1890)</td><td class="right">6.1</td><td class="right">135</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf. Reports, etc.</i>, by J. A. Dodge, p. 480; <i>Comparative Statistics of Russia</i>,
by Prof. J. E. Janson, p. 74).</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_36" id="Footnote_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> <i>Cf. Statistical Reports</i>, Vol. IV., part I., pp. 97, 98; Vol. V., part I., pp. 106-109;
Vol. VI., part I., pp. 144-146.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_37" id="Footnote_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_38" id="Footnote_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> This can be inferred from the table on the next page:</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Farmers buying rye and flour.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">To the amount of rubles.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Deficit of farming in the district (rubles).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">Percentage to the population.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">3,368</td><td class="border right">16</td><td class="border right">31,481</td><td class="border right last-col">42,310</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Nizhnedevitzk</td><td class="border right last-row">7,238</td><td class="border right last-row">36</td><td class="border right last-row">84,473</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">70,103</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p><i>Ibid.</i>, 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 <i>poods</i> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Districts.</i></th><th><i>Households buying bread, per cent.</i></th><th><i>Deficit of bread, per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ostrogozhsk</td><td class="right">58</td><td class="right">54</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Zadonsk</td><td class="right">41</td><td class="right">44</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Ibid.</i>, Vol. II., part I., p. 223, col. 58, 59; Vol. IV., part I., p. 97, col. 77-82.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_39" id="Footnote_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Cf. <i>Statistical Reports for Borisoglebsk District, Gubernia of Tamboff</i>, 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.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, and also page 28.) The budgets are produced in full in the Appendix below.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_40" id="Footnote_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> 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>i. e.</i>, 1.00 paper ruble = $0.50. The purchasing power of one
ruble is however equal to that of one dollar in New York.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_41" id="Footnote_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a></p>

<p class="center">CONSUMPTION.</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Householders in the <i>gubernia</i> of Tamboff.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Rubles.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Own produce.</th>
    <th class="border">Market produce.</th>
    <th class="border">Own produce.</th>
    <th class="border">Market produce.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Gabriel Trupoff</td><td class="border right">309.00</td><td class="border right">166.71</td><td class="border right">65</td><td class="border right last-col">35</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Kosma Abramoff</td><td class="border right last-row">586.80</td><td class="border right last-row">416.45</td><td class="border right last-row">59</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">41</td>
  </tr>
</table>

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

<p class="center">TOTAL EXPENDED.</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Householders.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Rubles.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Own produce.</th>
    <th class="border">Market produce.</th>
    <th class="border">Own produce.</th>
    <th class="border">Market produce.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Gabriel Trupoff</td><td class="border right">309.00</td><td class="border right">219.21</td><td class="border right">59</td><td class="border right last-col">41</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Kosma Abramoff</td><td class="border right last-row">586.80</td><td class="border right last-row">714.45</td><td class="border right last-row">45</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">55</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_42" id="Footnote_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Districts in the <i>gubernia</i> of Voronezh.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households buying in the market.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Households selling produce.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Households consuming their total produce.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Zadonsk</td><td class="border right">15,528</td><td class="border right">8,094</td><td class="border right">51</td><td class="border right">7,610</td><td class="border right last-col">49</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">20,232</td><td class="border right">18,769</td><td class="border right">93</td><td class="border right">1,463</td><td class="border right last-col">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Nizhnedevitzk</td><td class="border right last-row">20,051</td><td class="border right last-row">18,558</td><td class="border right last-row">93</td><td class="border right last-row">1,493</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">7</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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 <i>Reports</i>. (L. c.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_43" id="Footnote_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Taxes constitute but a minor part&mdash;though a very considerable one&mdash;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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Districts in the <i>gubernia</i> of Voronezh.</th>
    <th class="border">Money expenditure for the needs of the farmer (rubles).</th>
    <th class="border">Taxes (rubles).</th>
    <th class="border">Receipts from sale of produce (rubles).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Zadonsk</td><td class="border right">784,061</td><td class="border right">271,729</td><td class="border right last-col">390,178</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">1,017,727</td><td class="border right">504,608</td><td class="border right last-col">1,280,206</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Nizhnedevitzk</td><td class="border right last-row">1,069,013</td><td class="border right last-row">511,285</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">1,326,110</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_44" id="Footnote_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_45" id="Footnote_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_46" id="Footnote_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Households, per cent.</i></th><th><i>Land, per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">91.6</td><td class="right">86.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">83.8</td><td class="right">73.8</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_47" id="Footnote_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> the Table of the Distribution of Arrears, in the Appendix to this essay.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_48" id="Footnote_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> In addition a tax assessed <i>per capita</i> is levied upon the lands of the peasants for
the expenses of the State.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_49" id="Footnote_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> <i>Reports</i>, Vol. II., part I., preface, p. 7.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_50" id="Footnote_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> above page 16.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_51" id="Footnote_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> 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:</p>

<p>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&mdash;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 (<i>loc. cit.</i>, 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 <i>où il n’y a rien, le roi perd son droit</i>. Neither is
flogging endowed with any creative power. Yet, inasmuch as the community is
responsible <i>in solido</i> 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.</p>

<p>2. Community of former serfs of Mr. Novikoff, in the same village, in arrears
for 46.30 rubles to each household, <i>i. e.</i>, 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 <i>taille</i>. 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>i. e.</i>, 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>i. e.</i>, 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>i. e.</i>, one-fourth of the village), who own two or more horses, and can be
regarded as belonging 10 to the type of <i>bonus pater familias</i> (<i>hozyaïslvenniy
mushik</i>). The rest have but one horse, and some of them no cow. “They live but
poorly,” explains the <i>Appendix</i> (l. c., p. 286).</p>

<p>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 (<i>Playwork Manikins</i>,
by M. E. Saltykoff). Indeed, in 1881 all the cows in the village were sold for
arrears by the <i>mir</i>; 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>i. e.</i>, 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>i. e.</i>, 42 per cent., who maintain a normal standing, <i>i. e.</i>, have
not less than two horses and one cow, and cultivate all the land in their possession.
(Cf. <i>Tables</i>, pp. 194-199. No. 29; <i>App.</i>, p. 329.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_52" id="Footnote_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 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 (<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 31, 210,
No. 8). The proportion of taxes to rent in this community is as 9.5 to 22.5, <i>i. e.</i>,
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?</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_53" id="Footnote_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th colspan="2"><i>Percentage of families owning</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th><i>Districts.</i></th><th><i>No horse.</i></th><th><i>Neither horse nor cow.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">36</td><td class="right">25</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">34</td><td class="right">25</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf.</i> <i>Reports</i>, Vol. II., part I., p. 255; part II., p. 189.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_54" id="Footnote_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> The numbers designate communities.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_55" id="Footnote_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> 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. (<i>Reports</i>, Vol. II.,
part I., p. 328, No. 27.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_56" id="Footnote_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> Some cases of communal tenure are not included in the tables of the <i>Reports</i>,
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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_57" id="Footnote_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> 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 <i>mir</i>
or by partnerships is practiced.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_58" id="Footnote_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> <i>Forms of Agricultural Production in Russia</i>, p. 43 <i>et passim</i>, by Mr.
Euzhakoff, an admirer of Mr. Henry George. The paper was published in the
magazine <i>Otetchestvenniya Zapiski</i>, 1882.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_59" id="Footnote_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th colspan="2"><i>Communal tenure.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th><i>Classes of tenants.</i></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Former serfs</td><td class="right">9924</td><td class="right">96</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Former State peasants</td><td class="right">456</td><td class="right">4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">10380</td><td class="right total">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf.</i> <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ</i>, Vol. I., sec. II., table 3,
f.; p. 57.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_60" id="Footnote_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_61" id="Footnote_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a></p>

<p class="center">AVERAGE HOLDING (IN DESSIATINES).</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Communal.</i></th><th><i>Individual.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">88</td><td class="right">3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">97</td><td class="right">3</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_62" id="Footnote_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" colspan="2" class="border">Average rent paid for 1 dessiatine.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Arable.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Meadow.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Ranenburg.</th>
    <th class="border">Dankoff.</th>
    <th class="border">Ranenburg.</th>
    <th class="border">Dankoff.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">By the community</td><td class="border-override right">rubles</td><td class="border right">13.11</td><td class="border right">9.76</td><td class="border right">10.86</td><td class="border right last-col">7.74</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="2" class="border">By individuals in the same communities</td><td class="border right">19.82</td><td class="border right">13.47</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right last-col">..</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="2" class="border last-row">By individuals throughout the district</td><td class="border right last-row">16.62</td><td class="border right last-row">12.76</td><td class="border right last-row">15.91</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">7.59</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_63" id="Footnote_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Districts and classes.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Quantity of stock to one household.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">“Horseless,” per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Working horses.</th>
    <th class="border">All kinds of large cattle (horses inclusive).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>Ranenburg.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">In the communities in question</td><td class="border right">1.6</td><td class="border right">3.2</td><td class="border right last-col">27</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Among former serfs at large</td><td class="border right">1.2</td><td class="border right">2.6</td><td class="border right last-col">37</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Among former State peasants with agrarian communism</td><td class="border right">1.3</td><td class="border right">2.9</td><td class="border right last-col">33</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent2"><i>Dankoff.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">In the communities in question</td><td class="border right">1.5</td><td class="border right">2.9</td><td class="border right last-col">33</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Among former serfs at large</td><td class="border right">1.3</td><td class="border right">2.5</td><td class="border right last-col">35</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Among former State peasants with agrarian communism</td><td class="border right last-row">1.3</td><td class="border right last-row">2.6</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">33</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_64" id="Footnote_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Altogether or partly, but without cultivating the rest personally.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_65" id="Footnote_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> Indeed, we find the <i>mir</i> 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>i. e.</i>, from 20 to 25 per cent.), and even more. (<i>Reports</i>,
part I., p. 316, No. 10. <i>Cf.</i> also p. 289, No. 15, etc.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_66" id="Footnote_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, Vol. II., part I., p. 264.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_67" id="Footnote_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> This is shown by the comparative data concerning tenure at will among the
two main divisions of the peasantry:</p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Classes and Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Tenants.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Land leased.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Tenants to population, per cent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Land leased to land owned, per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2"><i>Ranenburg.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Former serfs</td><td class="border right">4392</td><td class="border right">83</td><td class="border right">15337</td><td class="border right">84</td><td class="border right">34</td><td class="border right last-col">20</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Former State peasants</td><td class="border right">893</td><td class="border right">17</td><td class="border right">3010</td><td class="border right">16</td><td class="border right">11</td><td class="border right last-col">3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent2"><i>Dankoff.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Former serfs</td><td class="border right">3205</td><td class="border right">83</td><td class="border right">11078</td><td class="border right">81</td><td class="border right">32</td><td class="border right last-col">17</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Former State peasants</td><td class="border right last-row">676</td><td class="border right last-row">17</td><td class="border right last-row">2765</td><td class="border right last-row">20</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">13</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">4</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_68" id="Footnote_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> 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 <i>Appendices</i> to the <i>Reports</i>
for the districts in question.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_69" id="Footnote_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> We find this tendency very pronounced in the <i>gubernia</i> of Voronezh:</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Area rented.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">For money rented, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">For share in crops, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">For labor and money, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Total, per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Zadonsk</td><td class="border right">86</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">88</td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Nizhnedevitsk</td><td class="border right last-row">94</td><td class="border right last-row">4</td><td class="border right last-row">2</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf.</i> <i>Statistical Reports</i>, Vol. IV., part I., Vol. V., part I.; Vol. VI., part I.,
Table of Rented Land.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_70" id="Footnote_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> Here are some instances:</p>

<p>1. Village Solntzevo, district of Ranenburg.&mdash;“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.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i> App., p. 308.)
The result can be shown in figures:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th></th><th colspan="2"><i>Rent (in rubles) paid:</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Number of tenants.</i></th><th><i>By all tenants.</i></th><th><i>By each one.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In 1877</td><td class="right">100</td><td class="right">6000</td><td class="right">60</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In 1882</td><td class="right">75</td><td class="right">3514</td><td class="right">47</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf.</i> p. 123.)</p>

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

<p>3. Village Blagueeya.&mdash;“The terms of tenure are very burdensome&mdash;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.” (<i>Ibid.</i>)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_71" id="Footnote_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> Table IV. in the Appendix.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_72" id="Footnote_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> <i>Principles of Political Economy</i>, eighth edition, Vol. I., p. 453.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_73" id="Footnote_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Classes.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Percentage to the total of the peasantry.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th class="border">Nizhnedevitzk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Households taking to wage-labor</td><td class="border right">62</td><td class="border right last-col">69</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Of these are:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Regular farmers</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right last-col">63</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1 last-row">Laborers proper</td><td class="border right last-row">12</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">6</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_74" id="Footnote_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> Detailed tables containing the rates of wages paid in different occupations are
found in the Appendix.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_75" id="Footnote_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> 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” (<i>loc. cit.</i>, 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,
<i>viz.</i>, 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_76" id="Footnote_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> There are in all two statements to the effect that work is done for straw, flour,
etc. (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_77" id="Footnote_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> <i>Loc. cit.</i>, part I., p. 264. Figures on the indebtedness of the peasantry with
regard to farm labor for wages are found in the <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia
of Voronezh</i> (Vol. V., part 1.; Vol. VI., part I., Table G.). In the table
that follows the figures are reduced to percentage rates:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th class="border forcewidth">Districts and classes.</th>
    <th class="border">Rate to population, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Rate to farm laborers, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Rate to indebted, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Average due by 1 householder, rubles.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><i>District of Korotoyak.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Indebted: 1. All told</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right last-col">34.80</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">2. Farm laborers</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right">52</td><td class="border right">39</td><td class="border right last-col">23.99</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad"><i>District of Nizhnedevitsk.</i></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Indebted: 1. All told</td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right last-col">44.38</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">2. Farm laborers</td><td class="border right last-row">..</td><td class="border right last-row">56</td><td class="border right last-row">46</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">23.46</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_78" id="Footnote_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> The mythical first Russian prince, to whom the <i>élite</i> of the aristocracy trace
their ancestry.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_79" id="Footnote_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Carpenters, shoemakers, tailors, blacksmiths, and others who supply by their
work the local wants.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_80" id="Footnote_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> Appendix, Table V.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_81" id="Footnote_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a></p>

<p class="center">ENGAGED IN SKILLED LABOR IN EVERY 1000.</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Households.</i></th><th><i>Adult workers.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">72</td><td class="right">53</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">67</td><td class="right">49</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_82" id="Footnote_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a></p>

<p class="center">BOARD FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYER.</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Paid to</i></th><th><i>For the summer season.</i></th><th><i>Per year.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Farm help</td><td>From 25.00 to 35.00</td><td class="center">From 35.00 to 60.00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Carpenters</td><td><span class="ditto1">”</span> 55.00 to 70.00</td><td class="center">100.00</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_83" id="Footnote_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th class="forcewidth"></th><th></th><th colspan="2"><i>Workingmen.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Concerns.</i></th><th><i>Total.</i></th><th><i>Average to concern.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">506</td><td class="right">1985</td><td class="right">3.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">240</td><td class="right">1355</td><td class="right">5.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">746</td><td class="right total">3340</td><td class="right total">4.5</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_84" id="Footnote_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> This is the industry which is protected, through prohibitive tariffs and export
premiums, from foreign competition.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_85" id="Footnote_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> 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.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, 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&mdash;man, wife and
child&mdash;start on a journey “for crumbs.” We read in the <i>Statistical Reports for
the Gubernia of Tamboff</i>:</p>

<p>“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 <i>gubernias</i> of Vladimir and Ryazañ.” (Vol. III.,
p. 277.)</p>

<p>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?”</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_86" id="Footnote_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> 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, <i>Peasant Emigration to Siberia</i>, Moscow,
1888.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_87" id="Footnote_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> The wandering population of the district of Voronezh was divided as follows,
between the several branches of employment:</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Workers.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Agriculture</td><td class="right">1283</td><td class="right">62</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Handicraft</td><td class="right">469</td><td class="right">23</td><td rowspan="3" class="valign"><span class="bracket2">}</span>&nbsp;38</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Personal service</td><td class="right">89</td><td class="right">4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>City and railroad labourers</td><td class="right">219</td><td class="right">11</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">2060</td><td class="right total">100</td><td></td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_88" id="Footnote_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> The general statements made to this effect by the peasants, and reproduced in
the <i>Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ</i>, could obviously not be presented in
figures, for this would require at least two censuses.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_89" id="Footnote_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Kind of employment.</i></th><th><i>Communities.</i></th><th><i>Households.</i></th><th><i>Horseless, <br />per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Local only, no outside workers</td><td class="right">90</td><td class="right">1124</td><td class="right">27</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Throughout the region</td><td class="right">653</td><td class="right">36126</td><td class="right">35</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_90" id="Footnote_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> <i>Cf. loc. cit.</i>, part II., p. 233, No. 14.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_91" id="Footnote_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Smolensk</i>, Vol. IV., pp. 296, 304,
350, 352: Vol. V., pp. 218, 226, 272, 274.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_92" id="Footnote_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> It can be seen by contrasting the figures of families whose houses have been
sold with those of other destitute peasant groups:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th colspan="3"><i>Percentage of families.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Houseless.</i></th><th><i>Landless or leasing their total lots.</i></th><th><i>Owning neither horse nor cow.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">8</td><td class="right">15</td><td class="right">25</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">10</td><td class="right">15</td><td class="right">25</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_93" id="Footnote_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> This is confirmed by a great many statements in the <i>Reports for the Gubernia
of Ryazañ</i>, as well as by the following table taken from the <i>Statistical Reports
for the Gubernia of Smolensk</i>:</p>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Absent.</th>
    <th class="border">Youkhnoff, <br />per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Dorogobouzh, <br />per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Houseless.</th>
    <th class="border">Youkhnoff, <br />per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Dorogobouzh, <br />per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Rate to the population</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">5</td><td class="border">Rate to the population</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right last-col">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Of these:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border indent1">Of these:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning houses</td><td class="border right">19</td><td class="border right">27</td><td class="border">Living in the village</td><td class="border right">36</td><td class="border right last-col">41</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Houseless</td><td class="border right">81</td><td class="border right">73</td><td class="border">Absent from the village</td><td class="border right">64</td><td class="border right last-col">59</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_94" id="Footnote_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> “The Pillars” is the title of a very popular novel by Mr. Zlatovratsky, one of
the leading peasantist writers.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_95" id="Footnote_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> I must again plead for extenuating circumstances in the event of being mistaken
as to the exact date.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_96" id="Footnote_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> The “major” <i>i. e.</i> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_97" id="Footnote_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> To use the term adopted by Mr. Michaïlovsky, the renowned Russian writer
on sociology.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_98" id="Footnote_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg (1882)</td><td class="right">47</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff (1882)</td><td class="right">47</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Korotoyak (1887)</td><td class="right">47</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nizhnedevitzk (1887)</td><td class="right">46</td>
  </tr>
</table>

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

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_99" id="Footnote_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> 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 (<i>cf.</i> Introduction):</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <td>Communities</td><td class="right">50,429</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Households</td><td class="right">3,309,020</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Males and females</td><td class="right">19,693,191</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Average membership to 1 family</td><td class="right">5.95</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>To the do. of Ranenburg</td><td class="right">6.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="ditto1">” </span><span class="ditto2">”</span> Dankoff</td><td class="right">6.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="ditto1">” </span><span class="ditto2">”</span> Korotoyak</td><td class="right">7.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="ditto1">”</span> <span class="ditto2">”</span> Nizhnedevitzk</td><td class="right">7.8</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_100" id="Footnote_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> The correlation between the number of workers and the size of the farm can
be summed up as follows:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Number of Workers to 1 Family.</th>
    <th colspan="6" class="border">Classes of Farms (per cent.).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Nizhnedevitsk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Below the average size.</th>
    <th class="border">Average size.</th>
    <th class="border">Above the average size.</th>
    <th class="border">Below the average size.</th>
    <th class="border">Average size.</th>
    <th class="border">Above the average size.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">None</td><td class="border right">61</td><td class="border right">33</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">49</td><td class="border right">44</td><td class="border right last-col">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">One</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right">59</td><td class="border right">16</td><td class="border right">29</td><td class="border right">56</td><td class="border right last-col">15</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Two</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">56</td><td class="border right">41</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">60</td><td class="border right last-col">33</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Three</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">22</td><td class="border right">77</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right last-col">72</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">16</td><td class="border right total last-row">50</td><td class="border right total last-row">34</td><td class="border right total last-row">18</td><td class="border right total last-row">51</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">31</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_101" id="Footnote_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Stopped working on their farms.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Stopped tilling one part of their farms.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Horseless, per cent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">In the district at large, per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">With 1 horse.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">In the district at large, per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">All “stopped” <i>etc.</i> =&nbsp;100.</th>
    <th class="border">All with 1 horse =&nbsp;100.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Zadonsk</td><td class="border right">95</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right">73</td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border right last-col">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">95</td><td class="border right">15</td><td class="border right">62</td><td class="border right">16</td><td class="border right last-col">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Nizhnedevitsk</td><td class="border right last-row">96</td><td class="border right last-row">13</td><td class="border right last-row">65</td><td class="border right last-row">27</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">13</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_102" id="Footnote_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th class="forcewidth"><i>Districts.</i></th><th><i>“Horseless,” per cent.</i></th><th><i>With 1 horse, per cent.</i></th><th><i>In all, per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>Gubernia of Voronezh</i>&mdash;</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Zadonsk</td><td class="right">25</td><td class="right">40</td><td class="right">65</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Korotoyak</td><td class="right">13</td><td class="right">32</td><td class="right">45</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Nizhnedevitsk</td><td class="right">13</td><td class="right">32</td><td class="right">45</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><i>Gubernia of Ryazañ</i>&mdash;</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Ranenburg</td><td class="right">36</td><td class="right">27</td><td class="right">63</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Dankoff</td><td class="right">34</td><td class="right">25</td><td class="right">59</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_103" id="Footnote_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> The following tables are fully conclusive as regards the rise and growth of
this class:</p>

<p class="center">I. CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF ADULT MALE WORKERS TO ONE
HOUSEHOLD (TOTAL IN EVERY CLASS = 100.)</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Nizhnedevitsk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Total lot tilled with the owner’s live stock, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Stopped working on their farms, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Total lot tilled with the owner’s live stock, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Stopped working on their farms, per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 3 or more workers</td><td class="border right">89</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right">88</td><td class="border right last-col">2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 2 workers</td><td class="border right">86</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right">82</td><td class="border right last-col">5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 1 worker</td><td class="border right">73</td><td class="border right">19</td><td class="border right">65</td><td class="border right last-col">20</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without workers</td><td class="border right">24</td><td class="border right">72</td><td class="border right">30</td><td class="border right last-col">60</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total indent2">In all</td><td class="border right total">78</td><td class="border right total">15</td><td class="border right total">74</td><td class="border right total last-col">13</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total">In the Gubernia of Ryazañ</td><td class="border right total">57</td><td class="border right total">36</td><td class="border right total">59</td><td class="border right total last-col">34</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row"></td><td colspan="2" class="border center total last-row">Ranenburg.</td><td colspan="2" class="border center total last-row last-col">Dankoff.</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p class="center">II. CLASSIFICATION THE SAME (ALL “STOPPED WORKING,” ETC. = 100.)</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Stopped working on their farms.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Korotoyak, <br />per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Nizhnedevitsk, <br />per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 3 or more workers</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right last-col">2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 2 workers</td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right last-col">14</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 1 worker</td><td class="border right">62</td><td class="border right last-col">67</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without workers</td><td class="border right">24</td><td class="border right last-col">17</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">In all</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_104" id="Footnote_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Families numbering</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">All told.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">No adult male workers.</th>
    <th class="border">One adult male worker.</th>
    <th class="border">Two adult male workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Three or more adult male workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Full workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Half-workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Total workers.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><i>Korotoyak</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">The farmer’s family</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">0</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">1</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">2</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">3</span></td><td class="border right">1.8</td><td class="border right">0.4</td><td class="border right last-col">2.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Hired laborers</td><td class="border right">1.2</td><td class="border right">1.2</td><td class="border right">1.2</td><td class="border right">1.5</td><td class="border right">1.0</td><td class="border right">0.2</td><td class="border right last-col">1.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total">Total workers</td><td class="border right total">1.2</td><td class="border right total">2.2</td><td class="border right total">3.2</td><td class="border right total">4.5</td><td class="border right total">2.8</td><td class="border right total">0.6</td><td class="border right total last-col">3.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1 top-pad"><i>Nizhnedevitsk</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">The farmer’s family</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">0</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">1</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">2</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">3</span></td><td class="border right">2.0</td><td class="border right">0.5</td><td class="border right last-col">2.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Hired laborers</td><td class="border right">1.0</td><td class="border right">1.2</td><td class="border right">1.2</td><td class="border right">1.4</td><td class="border right">0.8</td><td class="border right">0.4</td><td class="border right last-col">1.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 total last-row">Total workers</td><td class="border right total last-row">1.0</td><td class="border right total last-row">2.2</td><td class="border right total last-row">3.2</td><td class="border right total last-row">4.4</td><td class="border right total last-row">2.8</td><td class="border right total last-row">0.9</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">3.7</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_105" id="Footnote_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Villages in the district.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Employing farmers.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Total households.</th>
    <th class="border">To every 100 households.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 village.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">128</td><td class="border right">829</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right last-col">6.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Nizhnedevitsk</td><td class="border right last-row">147</td><td class="border right last-row">1067</td><td class="border right last-row">5</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">7.3</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_106" id="Footnote_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> 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, <i>viz.</i>, by the lack of land, leaving a narrow field
for even the labor of the farmer himself.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_107" id="Footnote_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">Households separated within</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">The decennial periods</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">The quinquennial periods</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">1868-77, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">1878-87, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">1878-82, per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">1883-87, per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Zadonsk</td><td class="border right">30</td><td class="border right">36</td><td class="border right">17</td><td class="border right last-col">19</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">22</td><td class="border right">35</td><td class="border right">17</td><td class="border right last-col">18</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Nizhnedevitzk</td><td class="border right last-row">27</td><td class="border right last-row">39</td><td class="border right last-row">18</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">21</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_108" id="Footnote_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households of yearly or season laborers.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Tilling their plots with their own stock and implements.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">1891</td><td class="border right">1315</td><td class="border right last-col">70</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Nizhnedevitzk</td><td class="border right">2313</td><td class="border right">1912</td><td class="border right last-col">83</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Zadonsk</td><td class="border right last-row">2733</td><td class="border right last-row">1558</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">57</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_109" id="Footnote_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">To 1 household upon an average.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Nizhnedevitzk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Full-workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Half-workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Full-workers.</th>
    <th class="border">Half-workers.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Total membership</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right">0.4</td><td class="border right">1.9</td><td class="border right last-col">0.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Employed outside</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">0.1</td><td class="border right">0.9</td><td class="border right last-col">0.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Remain at home</td><td class="border right total last-row">1</td><td class="border right total last-row">0.3</td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">1</span></td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">0.1</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_110" id="Footnote_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Zadonsk.</i></th><th><i>Korotoyak.</i></th><th><i>Nizhnedevitzk.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total permanently employed</td><td class="right">100</td><td class="right">100</td><td class="right">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Households with 1 full worker</td><td class="right">64</td><td class="right">33</td><td class="right">38</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Stopped working on their farms</td><td class="right">43</td><td class="right">33</td><td class="right">17</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_111" id="Footnote_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> <i>Kulak</i> means “fist”; <i>miroyed</i> means “<i>mir</i> fretter.” These are nicknames
for the village usurer and saloon keeper.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_112" id="Footnote_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> 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.&mdash;<i>Cf.</i> his
<i>Casting in one mould (Ravnenie pod odno), Russkaya Mysl</i>, January, 1882.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_113" id="Footnote_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> In the <i>Reports for the gubernia of Ryazañ</i>, 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_114" id="Footnote_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Classes.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Zadonsk.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Nizhnedevitsk.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Employers</td><td class="border right">609</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right">829</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right">1067</td><td class="border right last-col">5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Employees (farm laborers engaged yearly or per season)</td><td class="border right">2733</td><td class="border right">17</td><td class="border right">1891</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right">2313</td><td class="border right last-col">12</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border total last-row">Total peasant population</td><td class="border right total last-row">15704</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">20282</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">20072</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_115" id="Footnote_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_116" id="Footnote_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> There are, all told, 103 households of traders who do not work on their farm,
<i>i. e.</i>, 8 per cent. of all the traders, or 0.5 per cent. of the total peasant population
of the district of Korotoyak.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_117" id="Footnote_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border" style="width: 45%;">D. of Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Total.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Tenants.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Rented <br />land to 1 <br />household <br />upon an average <br />(dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Traders owning from 1 to 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">59</td><td class="border right">5</td><td class="border right">48</td><td class="border right">81</td><td class="border right last-col">5.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> <span class="ditto2">”</span> <span class="ditto1">”</span> 5 to 15 <span class="ditto2">”</span></td><td class="border right">444</td><td class="border right">35</td><td class="border right">311</td><td class="border right">70</td><td class="border right last-col">8.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> <span class="ditto2">”</span> <span class="ditto1">”</span> 15 to 25 <span class="ditto2">”</span></td><td class="border right">392</td><td class="border right">31</td><td class="border right">288</td><td class="border right">73</td><td class="border right last-col">9.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> <span class="ditto2">”</span> above 25 <span class="ditto2">”</span></td><td class="border right">370</td><td class="border right">29</td><td class="border right">271</td><td class="border right">73</td><td class="border right last-col">17.3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">1265</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">918</td><td class="border right total last-row">73</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">11.4</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_118" id="Footnote_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Households.</i></th><th><i>Farmers merely. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Traders. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Without adult male workers</td><td class="right">..</td><td class="right">3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 1 adult male worker</td><td class="right">29</td><td class="right">24</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 2 adult male workers</td><td class="right">40</td><td class="right">33</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 3 or more adult male workers</td><td class="right">31</td><td class="right">40</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">100</td><td class="total right">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_119" id="Footnote_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Classes (in the District of Korotoyak).</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Employing farmers.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Laborers employed.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Rate within the class (per cent.).</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 household.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Traders</td><td class="border right">296</td><td class="border right">22</td><td class="border right">43</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;59</td><td class="border right last-col">1.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Mere farmers</td><td class="border right">161</td><td class="border right">8</td><td class="border right">16</td><td class="border right last-col">1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">In all the rest of the district</td><td class="border right">372</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right">41</td><td class="border-override"></td><td class="border right last-col">1.1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">829</td><td class="border right total last-row">4</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">1.3</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_120" id="Footnote_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
   <th><i>Households of trading farmers.</i></th><th class="forcewidth"><i>Employing permanent laborers, per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 3 or more adult male workers</td><td class="right">16</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 2 or less adult male workers</td><td class="right">25</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">22</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_121" id="Footnote_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Stopped working on their plots.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">In the class.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">In the district at large.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Horseless</td><td class="border right">2471</td><td class="border right">90</td><td class="border-override"></td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border-override right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 1 horse</td><td class="border right">256</td><td class="border right">9</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;10</td><td class="border right">32</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;87</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 2 horses or more</td><td class="border right">33</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">55</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">2760</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>The class almost coincides on the whole with the so-called “horseless:”</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
   <th>“<i>Horseless.</i>”</th><th><i>Households.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Traders</td><td class="right">68</td><td class="right">3</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Tilling their plots</td><td class="right">143</td><td class="right">5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Stopped tilling their plots</td><td class="right">2471</td><td class="right">92</td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">2682</td><td class="total right">100</td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_122" id="Footnote_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Stopped tilling <br />their plots.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">“Horseless.”</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">In the district <br />at large.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Landless</td><td class="border right">11</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;48</td><td class="border right">11</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;48</td><td class="border right">2</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;16</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">37</td><td class="border right">37</td><td class="border right">14</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">42</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">43</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border-override right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning from 15 to 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">9</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;10</td><td class="border right">8</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;9</td><td class="border right">25</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;34</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning above 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border-override right total"></td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border-override right total"></td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border-override right total"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">Average plot:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">To 1 household, dessiatines</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">7.2</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">14.4</td><td class="border-override right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1 last-row">To 1 adult male worker,  <span class="ditto1">”</span></td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border-override right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row">7.9</td><td class="border-override right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row">8.3</td><td class="border-override right last-row"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_123" id="Footnote_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max45">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Stopped tilling <br />their plots.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">“Horseless.”</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">In the district <br />at large.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without adult male workers</td><td class="border right">24</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;86</td><td class="border right">17</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp; 85</td><td class="border right">5</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp; 51</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 1 adult male worker</td><td class="border right">62</td><td class="border right">68</td><td class="border right">46</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 2 adult male workers</td><td class="border right">12</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp; 14</td><td class="border right">13</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp; 15</td><td class="border right">30</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp; 49</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 3 or more adult male workers</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right">19</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border-override right total"></td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border-override right total"></td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border-override right total"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">To 1 household upon an average:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Adult male workers</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">0.9</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">1.7</td><td class="border-override right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Half-workers</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">0.2</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">0.4</td><td class="border-override right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1 last-row">Males and females</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border-override right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row">3.8</td><td class="border-override right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row">7.4</td><td class="border-override right last-row"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_124" id="Footnote_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
   <th><i>Proletarians. <br />(Stopped tilling their plots).</i></th><th><i>Korotoyak. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Nizhnedevitzk. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Farm laborers</td><td class="right">48</td><td class="right">50</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Miscellaneous</td><td class="right">39</td><td class="right">40</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>No steady employment</td><td class="right">13</td><td class="right">10</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">100</td><td class="total right">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_125" id="Footnote_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
   <th><i>District of Korotoyak, “Horseless.”</i></th><th><i>Rubles.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gross income from farming</td><td class="right">40610</td><td class="right">24</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Wages</td><td class="right">122604</td><td class="right">72</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Odd jobs</td><td class="right">6719</td><td class="right">4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">169933</td><td class="total right">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_126" id="Footnote_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
   <th><i>“Horseless,” Korotoyak.</i></th><th><i>Receipts. <br />Rubles.</i></th><th><i>Expenses. <br />Rubles.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Gross income from farming</td><td class="right">40610</td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Taxes</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">33738</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Rent</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">1046</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Wages paid</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">1144</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">40610</td><td class="total right">35928</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Balance (2682 households)</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">4682</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td><td class="total right">40610</td><td class="total right">40610</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Balance to 1 household (money revenue)</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">1.75</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_127" id="Footnote_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
   <th rowspan="2"><i>District of Zadonsk.</i></th><th colspan="3">“<i>Horseless.</i>”</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th><i>Households.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Feeding on the bread produced on their farms:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>All the year through</td><td class="right">771</td><td class="right">30</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>9 months</td><td class="right">531</td><td class="right">21</td><td rowspan="3" class="right"><span class="bracket2">}</span>&nbsp;44</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>From 6 to 9 months</td><td class="right">358</td><td class="right">14</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>From 1 to 6 months</td><td class="right">220</td><td class="right">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Purchasing bread all through the year</td><td class="right">665</td><td class="right">26</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">2545</td><td class="total right">100</td><td></td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_128" id="Footnote_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
   <th><i>Districts.</i></th><th><i>Farm <br />cultivated <br />by hired <br />labor. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Farming <br />stopped <br />altogether. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Zadonsk (total proletarians = 100)</td><td class="right">69</td><td class="right">31</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Korotoyak <span class="ditto2">”</span></td><td class="right">67</td><td class="right">33</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nizhnedevitzk <span class="ditto2">”</span></td><td class="right">74</td><td class="right">26</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg <span class="ditto2">”</span></td><td class="right">64</td><td class="right">36</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff <span class="ditto2">”</span></td><td class="right">64</td><td class="right">36</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_129" id="Footnote_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> This is the rate of these avowed proletarians within the total peasant population:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
   <th><i>Districts.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Zadonsk</td><td class="right">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Korotoyak</td><td class="right">5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nizhnedevitzk</td><td class="right">3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg (landless included)</td><td class="right">15</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff <span class="ditto2">”</span> <span class="ditto2">”</span></td><td class="right">15</td>
  </tr>
</table>

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

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
   <th><i>Districts and classes.</i></th><th><i>Industrial <br />laborers. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Farm <br />laborers. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2"><i>Korotoyak</i>:</td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>“Husbandless”</td><td class="right">51</td><td class="right">39</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Farming proletarians</td><td class="right">34</td><td class="right">53</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2"><i>Nizhnedevitzk</i>:</td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>“Husbandless”</td><td class="right">48</td><td class="right">44</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Farming proletarians</td><td class="right">37</td><td class="right">53</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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 (<i>cf.</i> 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 (“<i>proletarisches Klassen-bewusstsein</i>”) in the Russian village of to-day.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_130" id="Footnote_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Classes in the district of Korotoyak.</th>
    <th colspan="5" class="border">Households. (Per cent.)</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Horses to 1 household upon an average.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Horseless.</th>
    <th class="border">With 1 horse.</th>
    <th class="border">With 2 horses.</th>
    <th class="border">With 3 horses.</th>
    <th class="border">With 4 horses or more.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Trading farmers</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right">27</td><td class="border right">36</td><td class="border right last-col">3.2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Farmers merely</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">45</td><td class="border right">38</td><td class="border right">17</td><td class="border right last-col">2.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Farmers&mdash;laborers</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">40</td><td class="border right">37</td><td class="border right">15</td><td class="border right">6</td><td class="border right last-col">1.8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Proletarian laborers</td><td class="border right last-row">90</td><td class="border right last-row">9</td><td colspan="3" class="border center last-row">1</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">0.1</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_131" id="Footnote_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
   <th></th><th colspan="4"><i>Households.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <th><i>D. of Korotoyak.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>With net profit. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>With deficit. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Male workers to 1 household&mdash;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">None</td><td class="right">..</td><td></td><td class="right">3</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;73</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">One</td><td class="right">29</td><td></td><td class="right">70</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Two</td><td class="right">41</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;71</td><td class="right">23</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;27</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Three or more</td><td class="right">30</td><td class="right">4</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_132" id="Footnote_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
   <th></th><th colspan="2"><i>Households.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <th><i>D. of Korotoyak.</i></th><th><i>With net profit. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th><i>With deficit. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Size of the farms&mdash;</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="right">..</td><td class="right">15</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">From 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="right">..</td><td class="right">79</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">From 15 to 25 dessiatines</td><td class="right">72</td><td class="right">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Above 25 dessiatines</td><td class="right">28</td><td class="right">..</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">100</td><td class="total right">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Average to 1 household</td><td class="right">24.4</td><td class="right">10.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="ditto2">”</span> to 1 adult male worker</td><td class="right">11.5</td><td class="right">8.3</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_133" id="Footnote_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
   <th><i>D. of Korotoyak.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Section A. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Section B. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1"><i>Landholding</i>&mdash;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Households owning</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="right">15</td><td></td><td class="right">10</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">From 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="right">79</td><td></td><td class="right">52</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">From 15 to 25 dessiatines</td><td class="right">6</td><td></td><td class="right">28</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;38</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Above 25 dessiatines</td><td class="right">..</td><td></td><td class="right">10</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">100</td><td></td><td class="total right">100</td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1 top-pad"><i>Live stock</i>&mdash;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Households</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Without working horses</td><td class="right">..</td><td></td><td class="right">1</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;40</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">With 1 working horse</td><td class="right">49</td><td></td><td class="right">39</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">With 2 working horses</td><td class="right">36</td><td rowspan="3" class="right"><span class="bracket2">}</span>&nbsp;51</td><td class="right">38</td><td rowspan="3" class="right"><span class="bracket2">}</span>&nbsp;60</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">With 3 working horses</td><td class="right">13</td><td class="right">16</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">With 4 or more working horses</td><td class="right">2</td><td class="right">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">100</td><td></td><td class="total right">100</td><td></td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_134" id="Footnote_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max15">
  <tr>
   <th><i>Gross income per worker.</i></th><th><i>Rubles.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Section <i>A</i></td><td class="right">66.17</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Section <i>B</i></td><td class="right">54.29</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_135" id="Footnote_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
   <th><i>Households (D. of Korotoyak).</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Section A. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Section B. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Without adult male workers</td><td class="right">3</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;73</td><td class="right">1</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;39</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 1 adult male worker</td><td class="right">70</td><td class="right">38</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 2 adult male workers</td><td class="right">23</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;27</td><td class="right">37</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;61</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>With 3 or more adult male workers</td><td class="right">4</td><td class="right">24</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="right total">100</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right total">100</td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_136" id="Footnote_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
   <th><i>Class II., Section B.</i></th><th></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Workers and half-workers</td><td class="right">23110</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Employed without their farms</td><td class="right">16299</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Working exclusively on their farms</td><td class="total right">6811</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total households</td><td class="right">10016</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_137" id="Footnote_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households&nbsp;(D.&nbsp;of&nbsp;Korotoyak).</th>
    <th colspan="6" class="border">Classes.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" colspan="2" class="border">Total in the district.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Old men above 60.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Strong farmers. <br />I.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Farmers laboring. <br />II.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Proletarians. <br />III.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Total.</th>
    <th class="border">Rate to the number of households.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Landless</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">11</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;48</td><td class="border right">2</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;16</td><td class="border right">1</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;8</td><td class="border right last-col">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning from 1 to 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">11</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">37</td><td class="border right">14</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right last-col">7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">14</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">60</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">42</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">50</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">41</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right last-col">11</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning&nbsp;from&nbsp;15&nbsp;to&nbsp;25&nbsp;dessiatines</td><td class="border right">56</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;84</td><td class="border right">22</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;29</td><td class="border right">9</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;10</td><td class="border right">25</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;34</td><td class="border right">31</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;51</td><td class="border right last-col">17</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning above 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">28</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">1</td><td class="border right">9</td><td class="border right">20</td><td class="border right last-col">28</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border-override right total last-row last-col">14</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_138" id="Footnote_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> The above statements are based upon the following numerical data:</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">District of Zadonsk: Classes.</th>
    <th colspan="4" class="border">One part leased.</th>
    <th rowspan="3" class="border">All cultivated. <br />Dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Land to 1 household (Dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">In all.</th>
    <th class="border">Leased.</th>
    <th class="border">Cultivated.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning above 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right">20.7</td><td class="border right">9.9</td><td class="border right">10.8</td><td class="border right last-col">17.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning from 15 to 25 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right">9.7</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">5</span></td><td class="border right">4.7</td><td class="border right last-col">8.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">5</span></td><td class="border right">2.7</td><td class="border right">2.3</td><td class="border right last-col">4.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">..</td><td class="border right">2.5</td><td class="border right">1.5</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">1</span></td><td class="border right last-col"><span class="align-fraction">2</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">..</td><td class="border right total"><span class="align-fraction">6</span></td><td class="border right total">3.2</td><td class="border right total">2.8</td><td class="border right total last-col">4.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad">Having 4 horses or more</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right">38.1</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">9</span></td><td class="border right">29.1</td><td class="border right last-col">10.7</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Having from 2 to 3 horses</td><td class="border right">226</td><td class="border right">11.8</td><td class="border right">5.6</td><td class="border right">6.2</td><td class="border right last-col">5.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Having 1 horse</td><td class="border right">909</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">6</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">3</span></td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">3</span></td><td class="border right last-col">3.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Having no horse</td><td class="border right">877</td><td class="border right">4.3</td><td class="border right">2.7</td><td class="border right">1.6</td><td class="border right last-col">2.6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">2022</td><td class="border right total last-row"><span class="align-fraction">6</span></td><td class="border right total last-row">3.2</td><td class="border right total last-row">2.8</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">4.9</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>As to the extent of the farms leased <i>in toto</i>, the following figures need no
comment:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
   <th class="forcewidth"></th><th colspan="2"><i>Average extent of cultured land to 1 household (dessiatines).</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <th></th><th><i>Zadonsk.</i></th><th><i>Korotoyak.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total plot leased</td><td class="right">2.2</td><td class="right">2.5</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In the region at large</td><td class="right">4.6</td><td class="right">5.8</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
   <th class="forcewidth"></th><th colspan="2"><i>Percentage of families to population.</i></th><th><i>Percentage of leased land to the total communal land.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td><i>Ranenburg</i>:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td class="indent1">Leasing their plots&mdash;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td class="indent2">1) Total</td><td class="right">12</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span></td><td rowspan="2" class="right">10</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td class="indent2">2) Partly</td><td class="right">14</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td><i>Dankoff</i>:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td class="indent1">Leasing their plots&mdash;</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td class="indent2">1) Total</td><td class="right">11</td><td rowspan="2" class="right"><span class="bracket">}</span></td><td rowspan="2" class="right">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td class="indent2">2) Partly</td><td class="right">13</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_139" id="Footnote_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> Chapter III.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_140" id="Footnote_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> 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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Classes and districts.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Tenants. <br />Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Land in tenure. <br />Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Rented from landlords.</th>
    <th class="border">Rented from peasants.</th>
    <th class="border">Rented from landlords.</th>
    <th class="border">Rented from peasants.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><i>Zadonsk</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">38</td><td class="border right">31</td><td class="border right">28</td><td class="border right last-col">21</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">52</td><td class="border right">51</td><td class="border right">48</td><td class="border right last-col">48</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning above 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right">18</td><td class="border right">24</td><td class="border right last-col">31</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Korotoyak</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border right">13</td><td class="border right">10</td><td class="border right last-col">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">53</td><td class="border right">48</td><td class="border right">38</td><td class="border right last-col">38</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning above 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">34</td><td class="border right">39</td><td class="border right">52</td><td class="border right last-col">54</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total">100</td><td class="border right total last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Nizhnedevitsk</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning less than 5 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">25</td><td class="border right">15</td><td class="border right">23</td><td class="border right last-col">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">52</td><td class="border right">49</td><td class="border right">41</td><td class="border right last-col">42</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Owning above 15 dessiatines</td><td class="border right">23</td><td class="border right">36</td><td class="border right">36</td><td class="border right last-col">49</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_141" id="Footnote_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> Peasant land held in lease for long terms:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Districts.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Lessees.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Land.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Households.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent. (total lessees =&nbsp;100).</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent. (total in lease =&nbsp;100).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Zadonsk</td><td class="border right">179</td><td class="border right">5</td><td class="border right">801</td><td class="border right last-col">8</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Korotoyak</td><td class="border right">400</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">4090</td><td class="border right last-col">22</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Nizhnedevitsk</td><td class="border right last-row">238</td><td class="border right last-row">4</td><td class="border right last-row">1061</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">6</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_142" id="Footnote_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a></p>

<p class="center"><i>Rental Prices per 1 Dessiatine.</i></p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Districts.</i></th><th><i>In yearly lease. <br />Rubles.</i></th><th><i>For long terms. <br />Rubles.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Zadonsk</td><td class="right">9.34</td><td class="right">6.28</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Korotoyak</td><td class="right">8.45</td><td class="right">5.81</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nizhnedevitsk</td><td class="right">8.71</td><td class="right">6.17</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_143" id="Footnote_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th class="border forcewidth">Districts.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Price per dessiatine, rubles.</th>
    <th class="border">Net profit, per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1"><i>Korotoyak</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Rented for long terms</td><td class="border right">4090</td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right">5.81</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Re-rented</td><td class="border right">990.5</td><td class="border right">24</td><td class="border right">7.14</td><td class="border right last-col">23</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad indent1"><i>Nizhnedevitsk</i>:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Rented for long terms</td><td class="border right">1061</td><td class="border right">100</td><td class="border right">6.17</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Re-rented</td><td class="border right last-row">138</td><td class="border right last-row">13</td><td class="border right last-row">10.09</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">63</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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 (<i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ</i>,
Vol. II., Part I., p. 272, No. 6; p. 283, No. 5; p. 301, No. 5.)
</p>

<p>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.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, Part II., p. 199, No. 4.)
</p>

<p>“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.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p.
249, No. 6, <i>Cf.</i>, also p. 210, No. 7.)
</p>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_144" id="Footnote_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> In a series of articles which appeared first in the <i>Otetchestvenniya Zapiski</i>
(monthly) subsequently published in book form under the heading “<i>Community
and Tax</i>.”</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_145" id="Footnote_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> 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 <i>per capita</i> remained in force in the shape of the
other direct taxes levied upon the peasant.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_146" id="Footnote_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> 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. (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, part II., p. 236.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_147" id="Footnote_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_148" id="Footnote_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> It is peculiar to find quite obsolete sentimentalism with regard to the Russian
<i>mir</i>, 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.”
</p>

<p>Lost paradise!
</p>

<p>A few concrete cases are produced here by way of elucidation:
</p>

<p>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.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, Part I., p.
202, No. 15.)</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Householders.</i></th><th><i>Number.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Votes.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total allotted</td><td class="right">140</td><td class="right">100</td><td>Total.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="total">In good standing (tilling their total plots)</td><td class="right total">52</td><td class="right total">37</td><td class="total">Against the subdivision.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Destitute</td><td class="right">88</td><td class="right">63</td><td>In favor of the subdivision.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="total"></td><td class="right total">93</td><td class="right total">66⅔</td><td class="total">Vote required.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td><td class="center">93 - 88 = 5</td><td></td><td>Votes deficient.</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf. ib.</i>, p. 16.)
</p>

<p>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.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, part II., p.
211.)
</p>

<p>Let us now compare the figures:</p>

<table summary="" class="max50">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2"><i>Former serfs.</i></th><th rowspan="2"><i>Communities.</i></th><th rowspan="2"><i>Householders <br />allotted.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Lessors.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th><i>Number.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya</td><td class="right">15</td><td class="right">372</td><td class="right">79</td><td class="right">21</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Throughout the districts (former serfs)</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td><td class="right">25</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>It is evident that if the reason given by the statistician is true for the bailiwick in
question, it holds good <i>a fortiori</i> for the region at large, where the average percentage
of lessors is even greater.
</p>

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

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"><i>Communities.</i></th><th rowspan="2"><i>Householders <br />allotted.</i></th><th colspan="2"><i>Lessors.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th><i>Number.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Subdivision out of order</td><td class="right">15</td><td class="right">370</td><td class="right">167</td><td class="right">45</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Loc. cit.</i>, pp. 248, 110-129.)
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>,
part I., p. 310.)
</p>

<p>Let us show it in figures:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Householders.</i></th><th><i>Number.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total allotted</td><td class="right">187</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Vote required for redivision</td><td class="right">125</td><td class="right">66⅔</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Indifferent to redivision (horseless, leasing their lots)</td><td class="right">44</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">23</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Opposition sufficient to stay the same</td><td class="right">18</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">10</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Having 2 horses or more</td><td class="right">36</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">20</span></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Loc. cit.</i>, pp. 130, 131.)
</p>

<p>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.” (<i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 254.)
</p>

<p>Out of the 28 householders holding a share in the communal land, 11 lease their
lots <i>in toto</i>; 9 among them have no houses in the village; 23 adult males are
working outside.
</p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Householders.</i></th><th><i>Personally.</i></th><th><i>By hire.</i></th><th><i>In all.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Tilling their lots&mdash;</td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td><td class="right"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Total</td><td class="right">9</td><td class="right">2</td><td class="right">11</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">In part (the rest leased)</td><td class="right">2</td><td class="right">4</td><td class="right">6</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td><td class="right total">11</td><td class="right total">6</td><td class="right total">17</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Nine workers among these are moreover employed outside. (<i>Ib.</i>, pp. 128-132.)
</p>

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

<p>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 <i>gubernia</i> 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 <i>mir</i> 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.”
(<i>Loc. cit.</i>, part I., p. 305,)
</p>

<p>These are the figures connected with the above statement:</p>

<table summary="" class="max15">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Horseless</td><td class="right">54</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Outside workers</td><td class="right">56</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 116-120.)
</p>

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

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_149" id="Footnote_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_150" id="Footnote_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> <i>Cf. loc. cit.</i>, Part I, p. 288, No. 4; p. 310, No. 2.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_151" id="Footnote_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> So far as I am aware from the newspapers, the land was afterward redistributed
in the communities of a number of <i>gubernias</i> of Middle Russia.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_152" id="Footnote_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> These views were expounded by Mr. V. V. in a series of articles which appeared
in the <i>Otetchestvenniya Zapiski</i>, in 1880 and 1881, and were published
in 1882, in book form, under the title: <i>The Destinies of Capitalism in Russia</i>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_153" id="Footnote_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> This question was put by Mr. Michaïloffsky, a very renowned Russian publicist,
in his article: “<i>Karl Marx on trial before Mr. J. Zhukoffsky</i>,” which appeared
in the <i>Otetchestvenniya Zapiski</i>, 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 <i>Juridichesky
Vestnik</i> (Juridical Herald, monthly), Moscow, 1888.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_154" id="Footnote_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> 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 <i>bourgeoisie</i>. This was a correct translation
from the Prussian into the Muscovite of Rodbertus’ motto: “<i>Christlich, monarchisch,
sozial!</i>” 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 <i>Narodnaya Volya</i>” (“The Will of the People”) did not share
in this enthusiasm for the blessing of autocracy bestowed by history upon the
chosen Russian nation.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_155" id="Footnote_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> With regard to the condition of agriculture on a large scale, reference will be
made in this chapter to the <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh</i>, 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).</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_156" id="Footnote_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Division of the fields on large estates.</th>
    <th class="border">Farmed by the landlord.</th>
    <th class="border">In small tenure for money rental.</th>
    <th class="border">Tilled for share in crops.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">In all.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. Winter seed&mdash;</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Rye</td><td class="border right">12615</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Wheat</td><td class="border right">4573</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"></td><td class="border right total">17188</td><td class="border right">7221</td><td class="border right">917</td><td class="border right">25326</td><td class="border right last-col">33</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">II. Spring seed</td><td class="border right">19995</td><td class="border right">6787</td><td class="border right">1194</td><td class="border right">27976</td><td class="border right last-col">36</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">III. Left unsown</td><td class="border right">24292</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">24292</td><td class="border right last-col">31</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">77594</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_157" id="Footnote_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> This is the comparative development of stock breeding on large estates and on
peasant farms, in the district of Voronezh:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>To 1 head of big cattle.</i></th><th><i>Dessiatines of tillage land.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>On peasant farms</td><td class="right">2.0</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>On estates over 50 dessiatines</td><td class="right">7.9</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Arable land.</i></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Yearly under culture</td><td class="right">61882</td><td class="right"><span class="align-fraction">100</span></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Yearly manured</td><td class="right">3431</td><td class="right">5.5</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>The fertilizing of 1 dessiatine requires 6 heads of big cattle (<i>op. cit.</i>, p. 92.)
Thus we have:</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Used to manure the fields on the estates.</i></th><th><i>Head of big cattle.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total, 3431 dessiatines × 6 heads</td><td class="right">20586</td><td class="right">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Total stock of the landlords</td><td class="right">11010</td><td class="right">53</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Stock of the peasants</td><td class="right total">9576</td><td class="right total">47</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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 <i>Statistical Reports
for the Gubernia of Ryazañ</i>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_158" id="Footnote_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh</i>, vol. I., p. 234.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_159" id="Footnote_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> 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.
</p>

<p>Peasant tenure in the district is represented by the following figures:</p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Rented for money rental.</i></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In all</td><td class="right">25992</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Tenements over 50 dessiatines</td><td class="right">474</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Small tenure</td><td class="right total">25518</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Held from small estates (of under 50 dessiatines)</td><td class="right">1292</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Held from large estates (of over 50 dessiatines)</td><td class="right total">24226</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Cf.</i> <i>op. cit.</i>, 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.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_160" id="Footnote_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max25">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Ploughland in small tenure.</i></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In all</td><td class="right">25309</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Manured</td><td class="right">51</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>This topic was very fully discussed by Prof. Engelhardt in his <i>Letters from the
Village</i>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_161" id="Footnote_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max35">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Estates with large agriculture.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Number.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Average size, dessiatines.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Arable yearly under cultivation.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">The fields fertilized</td><td class="border right">146</td><td class="border right">686</td><td class="border right">33809</td><td class="border right last-col">91</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">The fields not fertilized</td><td class="border right">44</td><td class="border right">215</td><td class="border right">3373</td><td class="border right last-col">9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2">Total</td><td class="border right total">190</td><td class="border right total">577</td><td class="border right total">37182</td><td class="border right total last-col">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border top-pad last-row">Estates in small tenure</td><td class="border right last-row">64</td><td class="border right last-row">244</td><td class="border right last-row"></td><td class="border right last-row last-col"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_162" id="Footnote_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> As for peasant agriculture; <i>Cf.</i> <i>loc. cit.</i>, p. 101.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_163" id="Footnote_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">Estates.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Planted with wheat.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Fertilized.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Percentage to the area under wheat.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With culture of wheat:</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">a) land not fertilized</td><td class="border right">136</td><td class="border right">3</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">b) land fertilized</td><td class="border right">4437</td><td class="border right">97</td><td class="border right">2216</td><td class="border right last-col">50</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without culture of wheat</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">1164</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">4573</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row">3380</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_164" id="Footnote_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Estates with large agriculture.</th>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Average <br />Dessiatines.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Without working horses</td><td class="border right">48</td><td class="border right">13103</td><td class="border right">12</td><td class="border right last-col">273</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With working horses</td><td class="border right">142</td><td class="border right">96512</td><td class="border right">88</td><td class="border right last-col">680</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">190</td><td class="border right total last-row">109615</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">577</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_165" id="Footnote_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> 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 <i>sohá</i>, ploughs being only too seldom
used by the peasantry. The figures are found in the following tables:</p>

<table summary="" class="max70">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">A. Estates with large agriculture.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Number.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Total extent.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Average (Dessiatines).</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Ploughs.</th>
    <th colspan="3" class="border">Horses (or oxen).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Dessiatines.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th class="border">Number.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 estate.</th>
    <th class="border">To one plough.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">I. Without ploughs</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">Still with working horses</td><td class="border right">70</td><td class="border right">33672</td><td class="border right">33</td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right">481</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right">544</td><td class="border right">7.8</td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">II. With ploughs</td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border-override right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right"></td><td class="border right last-col"></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">a) with working horses</td><td class="border right">72</td><td class="border right">62840</td><td class="border right">63</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;67</td><td class="border right">873</td><td class="border right">454</td><td class="border right">1087</td><td class="border right">15.1</td><td class="border right last-col">2.4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent1">b) with oxen</td><td class="border right">2</td><td class="border right">3966</td><td class="border right">4</td><td class="border right">1983</td><td class="border right">37</td><td class="border right">34</td><td class="border right"><span class="align-fraction">17</span></td><td class="border right last-col">0.9</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">144</td><td class="border right total last-row">100478</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">491</td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row last-col"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border forcewidth">B. Ploughs furnished.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Average estate. <br />(Dessiatines.)</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Ploughs.</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Ploughland tilled by the owner. <br />(Dessiatines.)</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">In all.</th>
    <th class="border">To 1 plough.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">By the landlord</td><td class="border right">903</td><td class="border right">491</td><td class="border right">44764</td><td class="border right last-col">91</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">By the laborer (<i>l. c.</i> p. 97.)</td><td class="border right">369</td><td class="border right">115</td><td class="border right">16710</td><td class="border right last-col">145</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">577</td><td class="border right total last-row">606</td><td class="border right total last-row">61474</td><td class="border right total last-row last-col">101</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_166" id="Footnote_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ</i>, 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_167" id="Footnote_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 28-29.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_168" id="Footnote_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> “Honorable citizenship” is awarded, under certain provisions, to merchants in
old standing. Others than merchants cut no figure in this class.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_169" id="Footnote_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> 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 (<i>tchoomáziy</i>). 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&mdash;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:</p>

<p>1. <i>Bailiwick Naryshkinskaya, d. Ranenburg.</i> “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.” (<i>L. c.</i>, vol. II., part I., p. 282.
No. 3-4, 6-9.)</p>

<p>2. <i>Village Prosech’ye, same district.</i> “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.” (<i>L. c.</i>, p. 305, No. 13.)</p>

<p>3. <i>Village Cheglokovo, b. Vednovskaya.</i> “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.” (<i>Ib.</i>, p. 325, No. 5. <i>Cf.</i>, also, Nos. 6, 7.)</p>

<p>4. <i>B. Troitskaya.</i> “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.” (<i>Ib.</i>, p. 309.)</p>

<p>5. <i>B. Hrushchovskaya, Dankoff.</i> “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.” (<i>L. c.</i>, part II., p. 208. <i>Cf.</i>, also bailiwick <i>Ostrokamenskaya</i>,
p. 211, and b. <i>Odoevskaya</i>, p. 230.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_170" id="Footnote_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a> More particulars as to the availability of these averages for purposes of comparison
are produced in the Appendix, Table VII.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_171" id="Footnote_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> 1 chetvert = 5.9 Winchester bushels.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_172" id="Footnote_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1890, p. 335.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_173" id="Footnote_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> <i>Cf.</i> <i>Le commerce de grains dans l’Amérique du Nord</i>, par Paul Lafargue.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_174" id="Footnote_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> The inference is drawn from the figures below:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Estates with large agriculture.</i></th><th><i>Number.</i></th><th><i>Average. <br />Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>To 1 plough. <br />Dessiatines.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Property of the nobility:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Estates with ploughs</td><td class="right">54</td><td class="right">1044</td><td class="right">91</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Estates without ploughs</td><td class="right">79</td><td class="right">428</td><td class="right">..</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1">Property of the capitalist class:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Estates with ploughs</td><td class="right">20</td><td class="right">520</td><td class="right">93</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Estates without ploughs</td><td class="right">47</td><td class="right">191</td><td class="right">..</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>With the nobility the average estate tilled exclusively with the peasant <i>sohá</i> is
more than twice as large as the corresponding average with the capitalist class.</p>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_175" id="Footnote_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> The following is a synopsis of the results of the above comparison between
capitalist ownership of land and property of the nobility:</p>

<table summary="">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Negative qualifications.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Average estate (dessiatines).</th>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Positive qualifications.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Average estate (dessiatines).</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th class="border">Capitalist property.</th>
    <th class="border">Property of the nobility.</th>
    <th class="border">Capitalist property.</th>
    <th class="border">Property of the nobility.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Small tenure exclusively</td><td class="border right">128</td><td class="border right">273</td><td class="border">Large farming</td><td class="border right">289</td><td class="border right last-col">734</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tilled by farmers only</td><td class="border right">108</td><td class="border right">233</td><td class="border">Proletarian labor employed</td><td class="border right">351</td><td class="border right last-col">783</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">No fertilizing</td><td class="border right">138</td><td class="border right">280</td><td class="border">Fertilizing</td><td class="border right">363</td><td class="border right last-col">816</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">Tilled with the peasant’s stock</td><td class="border right">138</td><td class="border right">326</td><td class="border">Working horses raised</td><td class="border right">326</td><td class="border right last-col">896</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">No wheat</td><td class="border right">197</td><td class="border right">501</td><td class="border">Wheat grown</td><td class="border right">478</td><td class="border right last-col">898</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border last-row">Tilled with the peasant’s <i>sohá</i></td><td class="border right last-row">191</td><td class="border right last-row">428</td><td class="border last-row">Ploughs</td><td class="border right last-row">520</td><td class="border right last-row last-col">1044</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_176" id="Footnote_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Districts.</i></th><th><i>Communities.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ranenburg</td><td class="right">340</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Dankoff</td><td class="right">313</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ostrogozhsk</td><td class="right">250</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Zadonsk</td><td class="right">197</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Korotoyak</td><td class="right">124</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Nizhnedevitsk</td><td class="right">161</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">1385</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_177" id="Footnote_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> A sweeping criticism of the policy of the Russian government with regard to
agriculture is to be found in Prof. Issaiew’s article, <i>La Famine en Russie</i>, in the
<i>Revue d’Economie Politique</i>, 1892, No. 7. The apologists of the “historical
friendship” pattern, should carefully read Chapter III.: <i>Qu’est ce qui a été fait
pour relever l’agriculture en Russie?</i> 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&mdash;last, not least&mdash;by the fact that it was published in France, which is now
<i>plus Tzariste que le Tzar</i>.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_178" id="Footnote_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a></p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Loans granted.</i></th><th><i>Rubles.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>By the nobility’s Crédit Foncier, to January 1, 1892</td><td class="right">328,000,000</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>By the Peasant’s Bank, to January 1, 1891</td><td class="right">56,140,438</td>
  </tr>
</table>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_179" id="Footnote_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> “On small <i>crédit foncier</i>.” <i>Otechstvenniya Zapiski</i> (monthly), 1883.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_180" id="Footnote_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> “The operations of the Peasant’s Crédit Foncier,” p. 105&mdash;<i>Russkaya Mysl</i>
(monthly), February, 1892.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_181" id="Footnote_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 107, 108.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_182" id="Footnote_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> In some of the <i>gubernias</i> failures were even more extensive:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th colspan="2"><i>Percentage to the total in the gubernia.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th><i>Gubernias.</i></th><th><i>Land forfeited.</i></th><th><i>Loans failed.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Penza</td><td class="right">39.34</td><td class="right">48.80</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Poltava</td><td class="right">34.36</td><td class="right">33.53</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Voronezh</td><td class="right">31.13</td><td class="right">33.36</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Kursk</td><td class="right">25.22</td><td class="right">30.81</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>These are moreover the very <i>gubernias</i> in which the Bank operated most extensively.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 100.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_183" id="Footnote_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> Loans granted by the Bank:</p>

<table summary="" class="max20">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Rubles.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>In 1884</td><td class="right">9,529,368</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;” 1885</td><td class="right">13,761,978</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;” 1886</td><td class="right">11,148,850</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;” 1887</td><td class="right">7,495,197</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;” 1888</td><td class="right">5,133,539</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;” 1889</td><td class="right">3,692,133</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;” 1890</td><td class="right">4,519,209</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent2">Total</td><td class="total right">56,140,438</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>(<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 103.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_184" id="Footnote_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> The normal size of a peasant farm, which is above referred to, was calculated
in Chapters II. and X. These are the respective figures:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Normal extent of landholding, Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Actual average, Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Excess of the normal over the average, per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1"><i>Ranenburg and Dankoff</i>:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>(Communities of which all the members are farmers taken as the normal.) To 1 “revision” male</td><td class="right">5.0</td><td class="right">3.4</td><td class="right">+47</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="indent1"><i>Korotoyak</i>:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>(Farms with net profit taken as the normal.) To 1 adult male worker</td><td class="right">11.5</td><td class="right">8.3</td><td class="right">+39</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>The extent of landholding in the <i>gubernia</i> 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 <i>gubernia</i> of Voronezh (d. of Korotoyak) partakes
of the character of the more thinly populated border districts adjoining the
southeastern prairies.&mdash;(<i>Cf.</i>, Prof. Janson’s <i>Essay of a Statistical Investigation,
etc.</i>, App., pp. 12, 13, Table II. [bis]). Should we fix the increase of landholding
needed by the peasants at 40 per cent. in the <i>gubernias</i> 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 (<i>Cf.</i>, Herzenstein, <i>l. c.</i>, p. 104):</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th></th><th><i>Dessiatines.</i></th><th><i>Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Land wanting</td><td class="right">12,070,484</td><td class="right">100</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Land purchased through the Bank (from April, 1883, up to January 1, 1890)</td><td class="right">1,579,391</td><td class="right">13</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Mr. Lobachevsky, in his article above referred to, estimated the need of land in
8 <i>gubernias</i> of the same section, at 17,124,321 dessiatines (<i>l. c.</i>, April, 1883, p.
178), which is about ten times as much as the land acquired through the Peasant’s
Bank.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_185" id="Footnote_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> “Russian famines and the measures of the Government against them,” by Prof.
Romanovitch-Slavatinsky, <i>University Records</i>, Jan., 1892, pp. 40, 61 (monthly
publication of St. Vladimir University, Kieff.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_186" id="Footnote_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_187" id="Footnote_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> 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 <i>gubernias</i>, of which 5
are of the number of those affected by the last famine (Voronezh, Kursk, Orel,
Samara, Tula). The <i>Zemstvos</i> have applied to the government for appropriations
for the next seed.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_188" id="Footnote_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_189" id="Footnote_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> 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 <i>gubernia</i> of Samara. (<i>Cf.</i> “The consequences of the failure of the crops
in the <i>gubernia</i> of Samara,” by Vasili Vodovozoff in the <i>Russkaya Zhizñ</i> [daily],
nos. 248 and 249, September 25 and 26, 1892).</p>

<p>The loss of working cattle toward January, 1892, figured as follows:</p>

<table summary="" class="max30">
  <tr>
    <th><i>Bailiwicks.</i></th><th><i>Lost. <br />Per cent.</i></th><th><i>Remains. <br />Per cent.</i></th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Ivanteyeffskaya</td><td class="right">74</td><td class="right">26</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Lipovetzkaya</td><td class="right">67</td><td class="right">33</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Novotoolskaya</td><td class="right">67</td><td class="right">33</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Koozabayeffskaya</td><td class="right">61</td><td class="right">39</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Shintinoffskaya</td><td class="right">45</td><td class="right">55</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>Etc.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<table summary="" class="max40">
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2" class="border">Households (total: 745).</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">1887.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">October, 1891.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Increase or Decrease.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
    <th colspan="2" class="border">Per cent.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">“Horseless”</td><td class="border right">5</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;19</td><td class="border right">29</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;58</td><td class="border right">+480</td><td rowspan="2" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket">}</span>&nbsp;+205</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border">With 1 horse</td><td class="border right">14</td><td class="border right">29</td><td class="border right">+107</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> from 2 to 3 horses</td><td class="border right">32</td><td rowspan="3" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket2">}</span>&nbsp;81</td><td class="border right">28</td><td rowspan="3" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket2">}</span>&nbsp;42</td><td class="border right">-12</td><td rowspan="3" class="border-override right"><span class="bracket2">}</span>&nbsp;-48</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> 4 horses</td><td class="border right">14</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">-50</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border"><span class="ditto1">”</span> 5 or more horses</td><td class="border right">35</td><td class="border right">7</td><td class="border right">-80</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td class="border indent2 last-row">Total</td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row">100</td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td><td class="border right total last-row"></td><td class="border-override right total last-row"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p>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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_190" id="Footnote_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> 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.” <i>The Agriculturist</i> (St.
Petersburg), No. 26, April 24 (May 6), 1892.</p>

<p>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.” (<i>Ib.</i>, No.
33, June 12 (24), 1892.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_191" id="Footnote_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> Fertilizing and irrigation have become a necessity in Russian agriculture. Let
us figure the expenses entailed by these improvements.</p>

<p>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. (<i>Cf.</i>, <i>Statistical Reports for the Gubernia
of Voronezh</i>, 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, <i>l. c.</i>, 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.</p>

<p>The conditions are similar in the case of irrigation. Mr. Vladimir Biriukowicz,
a writer in the <i>Russkaya Mysl</i>, 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. (<i>l. c.</i>, April 1, 1892,
<i>Protection and Agriculture</i>, 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.
(<i>Cf.</i>, “Topographical Surveying for irrigation works,” by V. Kasyanenko.
<i>The Agriculturist</i>, St. Petersburg, No. 47, 1892). Thus the progress of artificial
irrigation means the ruin of the nobleman.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_192" id="Footnote_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> 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. (<i>Die Neue Zeit</i>, 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 <i>petite bourgeoisie</i>, and a rural proletariat&mdash;these are the characteristics
of a new epoch in Russia’s social life.” (<i>Cf.</i>, <i>Progress</i>, No. 3, a Russian
weekly published at the time in New York.)</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_193" id="Footnote_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_194" id="Footnote_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> Landless households and members thereof are not counted here.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_195" id="Footnote_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> Here are included those possessing their land partly on the basis of communism, and partly quarterly.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_196" id="Footnote_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_197" id="Footnote_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> Redemption tax, corvée, taille, or rent paid to the state by the former state peasants.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_198" id="Footnote_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> The translation differs from the original in the systematic arrangement of the
entries, which has been adapted to the purposes of the present discussion.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_199" id="Footnote_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_200" id="Footnote_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_201" id="Footnote_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> The single items are not quoted in detail, since they are very similar to those already produced in Budget I.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_202" id="Footnote_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> 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.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_203" id="Footnote_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> The boys go barefoot, and have no clothing but shirts; no pants, nor overcoats.</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_204" id="Footnote_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> It is peculiar to read among the entries “For horseshoeing (only the fore feet), 0.60.”</p>

</div>

<div class="footnote">

<p><a name="Footnote_205" id="Footnote_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> <i>Note.</i>&mdash;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.</p>

</div>

</div>

<hr />

<div class="ad">

<h2>BRITISH ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.</h2>

<h3>Council:</h3>

<p class="center"><span class="smcap">The Right Hon.</span> G. J. GOSCHEN, M.P., <i>President</i>.</p>

<table id="people" summary="">
  <tr>
    <td><span class="smcap">The Right Hon.</span> A. J. BALFOUR, M.P.,</td><td rowspan="4" style="vertical-align: middle;"><i>Vice-Presidents</i>.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="smcap">The Right Hon.</span> H. C. E. CHILDERS, M.P.,</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="smcap">The Right Hon.</span> LEONARD H. COURTNEY, M.P.,</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td><span class="smcap">The Right Hon.</span> JOHN MORLEY, M.P.,</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Mr.</span> JOHN BIDDULPH MARTIN, <i>Treasurer.</i><br />
68 Lombard Street, E.C.</p>

<ul>

<li>Professor <span class="smcap">C. Bastable</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry R. Beeton</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">James Bonar</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles Booth</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">John Burnett</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">Thomas Burt</span>, M. P.</li>

<li>Major <span class="smcap">Patrick George Cragie</span>.</li>

<li>Rev. Professor <span class="smcap">Cunningham</span>, D. D.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">T. H. Elliott</span> (<i>Hon. Secretary</i>).</li>

<li>Sir <span class="smcap">Thomas Farrer</span>, Bart.</li>

<li>Professor <span class="smcap">H. S. Foxwell</span> (<i>Hon. Secretary</i>).</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">Charles Gairdner</span>.</li>

<li>Dr. <span class="smcap">Giffen</span>, C. B.</li>

<li>Professor <span class="smcap">E. C. K. Gonn</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Spalding Harvey</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">Henry Higgs</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">Alfred Hoare</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">George Howell</span>. M. P.</li>

<li>Professor <span class="smcap">J. K. Ingram</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">J. N. Keynes</span>.</li>

<li>Professor <span class="smcap">Alfred Marshall</span>.</li>

<li>Professor <span class="smcap">J. E. C. Munro</span>.</li>

<li>Professor <span class="smcap">J. S. Nicholson</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">R. H. Inglis Palgrave</span>, F. R. S.</li>

<li>Rev. <span class="smcap">L. R. Phelps</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">L. L. Price</span> (<i>Hon. Secretary</i>).</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">John Rae</span>.</li>

<li>Sir <span class="smcap">Rawson Rawson</span>. K. C. M. G., C. B.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frederick Seebohm</span>.</li>

<li>Professor <span class="smcap">Henry Sidgwick</span>.</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">H. Llewellyn Smith</span>.</li>

<li>Rev. <span class="smcap">Philip Wicksteed</span>.</li>

</ul>

<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Professor</span> F. Y. EDGEWORTH, M. A., D. C. L., <i>Editor and Secretary</i>.</p>

<h3>Correspondents:</h3>

<ul>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">F. C. Harrison</span> for <span class="smcap">Calcutta</span> (4, Harrington Street, Calcutta).</li>

<li>Prof. <span class="smcap">W. J. Ashley</span> for <span class="smcap">Canada</span> (University of Toronto).</li>

<li>Mr. <span class="smcap">A. Duckworth</span> for <span class="smcap">New South Wales</span> (87, Pitt Street, Sydney).</li>

<li>Dr. <span class="smcap">Stephan Bauer</span> for <span class="smcap">Austria-Hungary</span> (1 Reichsrath-Strasse, 23, Vienna).</li>

<li>Dr. <span class="smcap">Mahaim</span> for <span class="smcap">Belgium</span> (322, Rue St. Giles, Liège).</li>

<li>Prof. <span class="smcap">Charles Gide</span> for <span class="smcap">France</span> (Université, Montpellier).</li>

<li>Prof. <span class="smcap">Gustav Cohn</span> for <span class="smcap">Germany</span> (Universität, Königsberg).</li>

<li>Prof. <span class="smcap">H. B. Greven</span> for <span class="smcap">Holland</span> (Leiden).</li>

<li>Mons. <span class="smcap">E. Castelot</span> for <span class="smcap">Paris</span> (158, Boulevard Mal’esherbes).</li>

<li>Prof. <span class="smcap">F. Taussig</span> for <span class="smcap">United States</span> (Cambridge, Massachusetts).</li>

</ul>

<p>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 <i>gratis</i> some
of the other publications which the Association may, from time to time, issue.</p>

<p>Any person desirous of becoming a member of the Association is requested
to send his name to <span class="smcap">Professor</span> F. Y. EDGEWORTH, <i>British Economic Association,
9, Adelphi Terrace, London, W. C.</i>, who will submit it to the Council for
approval at their next meeting.</p>

<p class="smaller">Editorial Communications should be addressed to Prof. <span class="smcap">F. Y. Edgeworth</span>, Balliol College, Oxford.</p>

<p><i>For Statements made by Contributors to the Journal, they alone are responsible.</i></p>

</div>

<hr />

<div class="ad">

<h2>AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.</h2>

<h3>PUBLICATIONS.</h3>

<p>FIVE VOLUMES COMPLETED.&mdash;They will be sent:&mdash;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.</p>

<p>Subscription to Volume VI, $4.00.</p>

<h3>CONTENTS OF VOLUMES.</h3>

<p class="center"><i>Vol. I.&mdash;Bound, $5; Unbound, $4.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 1.&mdash;Report of the organization
of the American Economic Association.</b>
By <span class="smcap">Richard T. Ely.</span></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Nos. 2 and 3.&mdash;The Relation of the
Modern Municipality to the Gas
Supply.</b> By <span class="smcap">Edmund J. James</span>. Out
of print, sold only in the complete volume.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 4.&mdash;Co-operation in a Western
City.</b> By <span class="smcap">Albert Shaw</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 5.&mdash;Co-operation in New England.</b>
<span class="smcap">Edward W. Bemis.</span></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 6.&mdash;Relation of the State to Industrial
Action.</b> By <span class="smcap">Henry C. Adams</span>.</p>

<p class="center"><i>Vol. II.&mdash;Bound, $5; Unbound, $4.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 1.&mdash;Three Phases of Co-operation
in the West.</b> By <span class="smcap">Amos G. Warner</span>.
<i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 2.&mdash;Historical Sketch of the
Finances of Pennsylvania.</b> By <span class="smcap">T.
K. Worthington</span>, with an Introduction by
<span class="smcap">Richard T. Ely</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 3.&mdash;The Railway Question.</b> By
<span class="smcap">Edmund J. James</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 4.&mdash;The Early History of the
English Woolen Industry.</b> By <span class="smcap">W.
J. Ashley</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 5.&mdash;Two Chapters on the Mediæval
Guilds of England.</b> By <span class="smcap">Edwin
R. A. Seligman</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 6.&mdash;The Relation of Modern
Municipalities to <i>Quasi</i>-Public
Works.</b> By <span class="smcap">H. C. Adams</span>, <span class="smcap">George W.
Knight</span>, <span class="smcap">Davis R. Dewey</span>, <span class="smcap">Charles
Moore</span>, <span class="smcap">Frank J. Goodnow</span> and <span class="smcap">Arthur
Yager</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="center"><i>Vol. III&mdash;Bound, $5; Unbound, $4.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 1.&mdash;Three Papers Read at Meeting
in Boston</b>: “Statistics in Colleges,”
by <span class="smcap">Carroll D. Wright</span>; “Sociology and
Political Economy,” by <span class="smcap">F. H. Giddings</span>;
“The Legal-Tender Decisions,” by <span class="smcap">E. J.
James</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 2.&mdash;Capital and its Earnings.</b>
By Prof. <span class="smcap">J. B. Clark</span>.
<i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 3 consists of three parts</b>: “The
Manual Laboring Class,” by <span class="smcap">F. A. Walker</span>;
“Mine Labor in the Hocking Valley,” by
<span class="smcap">E. W. Bemis</span>; “Report of the Second Annual
Meeting,” by <span class="smcap">Richard T. Ely</span>.
<i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Nos. 4 and 5.&mdash;Statistics and Economics.</b>
By <span class="smcap">Richmond Mayo-Smith.</span>
Out of print, sold only in the complete vol.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 6.&mdash;The Stability of Prices.</b> By
<span class="smcap">Simon M. Patten</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="center"><i>Vol. IV.&mdash;Bound $5; Unbound $4.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 1.&mdash;Contributions to the Wages
Question</b>: “The Theory of Wages,” by
<span class="smcap">Stuart Wood</span>; “Possibility of a Scientific
Law of Wages,” by <span class="smcap">J. B. Clark</span>. <i>Price
75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 2.&mdash;Socialism in England.</b> By
<span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 3.&mdash;Road Legislation for the
American State.</b> By <span class="smcap">Jeremiah W.
Jenks</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 4.&mdash;Report of the Proceedings
of the Third Annual Meeting.</b>
<i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 5.&mdash;Three Papers Read at Third
Annual Meeting</b>: “Malthus and
Ricardo,” by <span class="smcap">Simon N. Patten</span>; “The
Study of Statistics,” by <span class="smcap">Davis R. Dewey</span>;
“Analysis in Political Economy,” by <span class="smcap">William
W. Folwell</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 6.&mdash;An Honest Dollar.</b> By <span class="smcap">E.
Benjamin Andrews</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="center"><i>Vol. V.&mdash;Bound, $5; Unbound, $4.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 1.&mdash;The Industrial Transition
in Japan.</b> By <span class="smcap">Yeijiro Ono</span>. <i>Price $1.00.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 2.&mdash;Two Prize Essays on Child
Labor.</b> I. By <span class="smcap">William F. Willoughby</span>;
II. By <span class="smcap">Miss Clare de Graffenried</span>.
<i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Nos. 3 and 4.&mdash;Two Papers on the
Canal Question.</b> I. By <span class="smcap">Edmund J.
James</span>; II. By <span class="smcap">Lewis M. Haupt</span>. <i>Price $1.00.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 5.&mdash;History of the New York
Property Tax.</b> By <span class="smcap">John Christopher
Schwab</span>. <i>Price $1.00.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>No. 6.&mdash;The Educational Value of
Political Economy.</b> By <span class="smcap">Simon N.
Patten</span>. <i>Price 75 cents.</i></p>

<p class="center"><i>Vol. VI.&mdash;Subscription, $4.00.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Nos. 1 and 2.&mdash;Report of the Proceedings
of the Fourth Annual
Meeting.</b> <i>Price $1.00.</i></p>

<p class="center">The Association will Publish at least Six Numbers Annually.
Subscription, $4.00 per Volume.</p>

<p>For further information, address</p>

<p class="center">PUBLISHING AGENT,<br />
American Economic Association,<br />
BALTIMORE, MD.</p>

</div>

<hr />

<div class="ad">

<h2>THE <span class="smcap">Economic Review</span>.</h2>

<p class="center">PUBLISHED QUARTERLY.</p>

<p class="center">CONTENTS OF THE NUMBER FOR OCTOBER, 1892.</p>

<p class="hanging">1. <i>What attitude should the Church adopt towards the
Aims and Methods of Labour Combinations?</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">The Rev. Canon H. S. Holland, M. A.</span></p>

<p class="hanging">2. <i>The Present Position of the “Sweating System”
Question in the United Kingdom.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">David F. Schloss, M. A.</span></p>

<p class="hanging">3. <i>Co-operative Credit-Banking in Germany.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Henry W. Wolff.</span></p>

<p class="hanging">4. <i>The Universities’ Settlement in Whitechapel.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Thomas Hancock Nunn.</span></p>

<p class="hanging">5. <i>The Theory of Prize-giving.</i></p>

<p>I. <span class="smcap">The Rev. and Hon. E. Lyttelton, M. A.</span></p>

<p>II. <span class="smcap">A Criticism. The Rev. H. Rashdall, M. A.</span></p>

<p class="hanging">6. <i>Thoughts on Social Problems and Their Solution.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">E. Vansittart Neale, M. A.</span></p>

<p class="hanging"><i>Notes and Memoranda.</i></p>

<p class="hanging"><i>Legislation, Parliamentary Inquiries and Official
Returns.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Edwin Cannan, M. A.</span></p>

<p class="hanging"><i>Reviews and Short Notices.</i></p>

<p class="center">PERCIVAL &amp; CO.,<br />
34 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON.</p>

<p class="center">Yearly Subscription in advance direct to the Publishers, 10s. post free.
Single copies, price 3s.</p>

<p class="center">BERLIN:<br />
PUTTKAMMER &amp; MÜHLBRECHT.</p>

<p class="center"><i>Subscription, 12 marks. Single copies, 3 marks.</i></p>

<hr />

<h2>THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS.</h2>

<p class="center larger">STUDIES IN HISTORY AND POLITICS.</p>

<p class="center">Edited by HERBERT B. ADAMS.</p>

<p class="center">The Tenth Series is now in progress. Subscription, $3.00 per year.</p>

<p class="center"><b>ANNUAL SERIES. 1883-1891.</b></p>

<p>SERIES I.&mdash;LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pages. $4.00.</p>

<p>SERIES II.&mdash;INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pages.
$4.00.</p>

<p>SERIES III.&mdash;MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON.
595 pages. $4.00.</p>

<p>SERIES IV.&mdash;MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TENURE.
600 pages. $3.50.</p>

<p>SERIES V.&mdash;MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND
POLITICS. 559 pages. $3.50.</p>

<p>SERIES VI.&mdash;THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE
UNITED STATES. 540 pages. $3.50.</p>

<p>SERIES VII.&mdash;SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. 628 pages. $3.50.</p>

<p>SERIES VIII&mdash;HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625
pages. $3.50.</p>

<p>SERIES IX.&mdash;EDUCATION, HISTORY, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.
635 pages. $3.50.</p>

<p class="center"><b>EXTRA VOLUMES.</b></p>

<p>I. THE REPUBLIC OF NEW HAVEN. By <span class="smcap">Charles H. Levermore</span>.
$2.00.</p>

<p>II. PHILADELPHIA, 1681-1887. By <span class="smcap">Edward P. Allinson</span> and <span class="smcap">Boies
Penrose</span>. $3.00.</p>

<p>III. BALTIMORE AND THE NINETEENTH OF APRIL, 1861.
By <span class="smcap">George William Brown</span>. $1.00.</p>

<p>IV-V. LOCAL CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED
STATES. By <span class="smcap">George E. Howard</span>.</p>

<div class="blockquote">

<p>Vol. I.&mdash;Development of the Township, Hundred, and Shire. $3.00.</p>

<p>Vol. II.&mdash;Development of the City and the Local Magistracies (in preparation).</p>

</div>

<p>VI. THE NEGRO IN MARYLAND. By <span class="smcap">Jeffrey R. Brackett</span>. $2.00.</p>

<p>VII. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. By
<span class="smcap">W. W. Willoughby</span>. $1.25.</p>

<p>VIII. THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND JAPAN. By <span class="smcap">Inazo Nitobe</span>. $1.25.</p>

<p>IX. STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SWITZERLAND.
By <span class="smcap">John M. Vincent</span>. $1.50.</p>

<p>X. SPANISH INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST. <span class="smcap">Frank
W. Blackmar</span>. $2.00.</p>

<p>XI. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION.
By <span class="smcap">Morris M. Cohn</span>. $1.50.</p>

<p>XII. THE OLD ENGLISH MANOR. By <span class="smcap">Charles M. Andrews</span>, $1.50.</p>

<p>XIII. AMERICA: ITS GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORY, 1492-1792.
By <span class="smcap">W. B. Scaife</span>.</p>

<p>The set of nine series is now offered in a handsome library edition for $27.00.</p>

<p>The nine series, with twelve extra volumes, altogether twenty-one volumes, for
$45.00.</p>

<p class="center">THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.</p>

</div>

<hr />

<div class="ad">

<h2>Systematic Political Science<br />
<span class="smaller">BY THE</span><br />
UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF<br />
COLUMBIA COLLEGE.</h2>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The series will consist of the following nine works:</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Comparative Constitutional Law and Politics.</b> By <span class="smcap">John
W. Burgess</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Comparative Constitutional Law of the American Commonwealths.</b>
By <span class="smcap">Frederick W. Whitridge</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Historical and Practical Political Economy.</b> By <span class="smcap">Richmond
Mayo-Smith</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Historical and Comparative Science of Finance.</b> By
<span class="smcap">Edwin R. A. Seligman</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Comparative Administrative Law and Science.</b> By <span class="smcap">Frank
J. Goodnow</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>International Law.</b> By <span class="smcap">John Bassett Moore</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Historical and Comparative Jurisprudence.</b> By <span class="smcap">Munroe
Smith</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>History of Political Theories.</b> By <span class="smcap">William A. Dunning</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging"><b>Literature of Political Science.</b> By <span class="smcap">George H. Baker</span>.</p>

<p class="hanging">The first of these works was published early in 1891, by Ginn and
Co. The entire series will probably be completed within three years.</p>

</div>
</html>