The Economics of the Russian Village

by Isaac A. Hourwich

FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

[4] Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh, Vol. I., p. 2.

[5] “The Zemstvo and the national economy,” by I. P. Bielokonsky. Severny Vestnik (monthly magazine), May, 1892.

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

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

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

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

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

RUBLES.

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

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

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

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

EXCESS OF TAXATION ABOVE THE NET INCOME.

In the gubernias.	Per cent. former State peasants.	Per cent. former serfs.
Tver	144	152
Smolensk	66	120
Kostroma	46	140
Pskoff	30	113
Vladimir	68	176
Vyatka	3	100

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

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

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

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

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

[16]

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

1 dessiatine = 2.7 acres.

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

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

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

HEREDITARY POSSESSION.

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

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

[18] Op. cit., book III., page 28.

[19] Op. cit., book III., page 33.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Dessiatines.	Per cent.
Before the emancipation	53870	100
After ” ”	40537	75
Cut off for the nobles	13333	25

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

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

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

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

[29]

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

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

[30] This is shown in the table below:

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

(Cf. Statistical Reports, Vol. II, pp. I-II., Appendices.)

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

[32] Statistical Reports for the District of Dankoff, p. 240.

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

	Communes of former serfs.
	Total.	Injured by site.
Ranenburg	288	22
Dankoff	274	17

(Cf. Statistical Reports, Vol. II., Appendices.)

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

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

Yield of Rye per Acre.	Seed = 1.	Per cent.
All over Russia	4.5	100
In Ostrogozhsk	4.5	100
In the U. S. (1890)	6.1	135

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

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

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

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

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

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

Districts.	Households buying bread, per cent.	Deficit of bread, per cent.
Ostrogozhsk	58	54
Zadonsk	41	44

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

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

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

[41]

CONSUMPTION.

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

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

TOTAL EXPENDED.

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

[42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[46]

	Households, per cent.	Land, per cent.
Ranenburg	91.6	86.9
Dankoff	83.8	73.8

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

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

[49] Cf. Reports, Vol. II., part I., preface, p. 7.

[50] Cf. above page 16.

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

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

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

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

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

[53]

	Percentage of families owning
Districts.	No horse.	Neither horse nor cow.
Ranenburg	36	25
Dankoff	34	25

(Cf. Reports, Vol. II., part I., p. 255; part II., p. 189.)

[54] The numbers designate communities.

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

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

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

[58] Cf. Forms of Agricultural Production in Russia, p. 43 et passim, by Mr. Euzhakoff, an admirer of Mr. Henry George. The paper was published in the magazine Otetchestvenniya Zapiski, 1882.

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

	Communal tenure.
Classes of tenants.	Dessiatines.	Per cent.
Former serfs	9924	96
Former State peasants	456	4
Total	10380	100

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

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

[61]

AVERAGE HOLDING (IN DESSIATINES).

	Communal.	Individual.
Ranenburg	88	3
Dankoff	97	3

[62]

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

[63]

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

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

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

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

[66] Ibid., Vol. II., part I., p. 264.

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

Classes and Districts.	Tenants.		Land leased.		Tenants to population, per cent.	Land leased to land owned, per cent.
	Households.	Per cent.	Dessiatines.	Per cent.
Ranenburg.
Former serfs	4392	83	15337	84	34	20
Former State peasants	893	17	3010	16	11	3
Dankoff.
Former serfs	3205	83	11078	81	32	17
Former State peasants	676	17	2765	20	13	4

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

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

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

(Cf. Statistical Reports, Vol. IV., part I., Vol. V., part I.; Vol. VI., part I., Table of Rented Land.)

[70] Here are some instances:

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

		Rent (in rubles) paid:
	Number of tenants.	By all tenants.	By each one.
In 1877	100	6000	60
In 1882	75	3514	47

(Cf. p. 123.)

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

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

[71] Cf. Table IV. in the Appendix.

[72] Principles of Political Economy, eighth edition, Vol. I., p. 453.

[73]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[80] Cf. Appendix, Table V.

[81]

ENGAGED IN SKILLED LABOR IN EVERY 1000.

	Households.	Adult workers.
Ranenburg	72	53
Dankoff	67	49

[82]

BOARD FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYER.

Paid to	For the summer season.	Per year.
Farm help	From 25.00 to 35.00	From 35.00 to 60.00
Carpenters	” 55.00 to 70.00	100.00

[83]

		Workingmen.
	Concerns.	Total.	Average to concern.
Ranenburg	506	1985	3.9
Dankoff	240	1355	5.6
Total	746	3340	4.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Workers.	Per cent.
Agriculture	1283	62
Handicraft	469	23	} 38
Personal service	89	4
City and railroad labourers	219	11
Total	2060	100

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

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

Kind of employment.	Communities.	Households.	Horseless, per cent.
Local only, no outside workers	90	1124	27
Throughout the region	653	36126	35

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

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

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

	Percentage of families.
	Houseless.	Landless or leasing their total lots.	Owning neither horse nor cow.
Ranenburg	8	15	25
Dankoff	10	15	25

[93] This is confirmed by a great many statements in the Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ, as well as by the following table taken from the Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Smolensk:

Absent.	Youkhnoff, per cent.	Dorogobouzh, per cent.	Houseless.	Youkhnoff, per cent.	Dorogobouzh, per cent.
Rate to the population	7	5	Rate to the population	9	6
Of these:			Of these:
Owning houses	19	27	Living in the village	36	41
Houseless	81	73	Absent from the village	64	59
Total	100	100	Total	100	100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[101]

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

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

[102]

Districts.	“Horseless,” per cent.	With 1 horse, per cent.	In all, per cent.
Gubernia of Voronezh—
Zadonsk	25	40	65
Korotoyak	13	32	45
Nizhnedevitsk	13	32	45
Gubernia of Ryazañ—
Ranenburg	36	27	63
Dankoff	34	25	59

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

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

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

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

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

[104]

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

[105]

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

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

[107]

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

[108]

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

[109]

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

[110]

	Zadonsk.	Korotoyak.	Nizhnedevitzk.
Total permanently employed	100	100	100
Households with 1 full worker	64	33	38
Stopped working on their farms	43	33	17

[111] Kulak means “fist”; miroyed means “mir fretter.” These are nicknames for the village usurer and saloon keeper.

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

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

[114]

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

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

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

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

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

[118]

Households.	Farmers merely. Per cent.	Traders. Per cent.
Without adult male workers	..	3
With 1 adult male worker	29	24
With 2 adult male workers	40	33
With 3 or more adult male workers	31	40
Total	100	100

[119]

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

[120]

Households of trading farmers.	Employing permanent laborers, per cent.
With 3 or more adult male workers	16
With 2 or less adult male workers	25
Total	22

[121]

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

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

“Horseless.”	Households.	Per cent.
Traders	68	3	} 8
Tilling their plots	143	5
Stopped tilling their plots	2471	92
Total	2682	100

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

[122]

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

[123]

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

[124]

Proletarians. (Stopped tilling their plots).	Korotoyak. Per cent.	Nizhnedevitzk. Per cent.
Farm laborers	48	50
Miscellaneous	39	40
No steady employment	13	10
Total	100	100

[125]

District of Korotoyak, “Horseless.”	Rubles.	Per cent.
Gross income from farming	40610	24
Wages	122604	72
Odd jobs	6719	4
Total	169933	100

[126]

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

[127]

District of Zadonsk.	“Horseless.”
	Households.	Per cent.
Feeding on the bread produced on their farms:
All the year through	771	30
9 months	531	21	} 44
From 6 to 9 months	358	14
From 1 to 6 months	220	9
Purchasing bread all through the year	665	26
Total	2545	100

[128]

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

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

Districts.	Per cent.
Zadonsk	8
Korotoyak	5
Nizhnedevitzk	3
Ranenburg (landless included)	15
Dankoff ” ”	15

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

Districts and classes.	Industrial laborers. Per cent.	Farm laborers. Per cent.
Korotoyak:
“Husbandless”	51	39
Farming proletarians	34	53
Nizhnedevitzk:
“Husbandless”	48	44
Farming proletarians	37	53

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

[130]

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

[131]

	Households.
D. of Korotoyak.	With net profit. Per cent.		With deficit. Per cent.
Male workers to 1 household—
None	..		3	} 73
One	29		70
Two	41	} 71	23	} 27
Three or more	30		4

[132]

	Households.
D. of Korotoyak.	With net profit. Per cent.	With deficit. Per cent.
Size of the farms—
Less than 5 dessiatines	..	15
From 5 to 15 dessiatines	..	79
From 15 to 25 dessiatines	72	6
Above 25 dessiatines	28	..
Total	100	100
	Dessiatines.	Dessiatines.
Average to 1 household	24.4	10.6
” to 1 adult male worker	11.5	8.3

[133]

D. of Korotoyak.	Section A. Per cent.		Section B. Per cent.
Landholding—
Households owning
Less than 5 dessiatines	15		10
From 5 to 15 dessiatines	79		52
From 15 to 25 dessiatines	6		28	} 38
Above 25 dessiatines	..		10
Total	100		100
Live stock—
Households
Without working horses	..		1	} 40
With 1 working horse	49		39
With 2 working horses	36	} 51	38	} 60
With 3 working horses	13		16
With 4 or more working horses	2		6
Total	100		100

[134]

Gross income per worker.	Rubles.
Section A	66.17
Section B	54.29

[135]

Households (D. of Korotoyak).	Section A. Per cent.		Section B. Per cent.
Without adult male workers	3	} 73	1	} 39
With 1 adult male worker	70		38
With 2 adult male workers	23	} 27	37	} 61
With 3 or more adult male workers	4		24
Total	100		100

[136]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to the extent of the farms leased in toto, the following figures need no comment:

	Average extent of cultured land to 1 household (dessiatines).
	Zadonsk.	Korotoyak.
Total plot leased	2.2	2.5
In the region at large	4.6	5.8

	Percentage of families to population.		Percentage of leased land to the total communal land.
Ranenburg:
Leasing their plots—
1) Total	12	}	10
2) Partly	14
Dankoff:
Leasing their plots—
1) Total	11	}	8
2) Partly	13

[139] Cf. Chapter III.

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

Classes and districts.	Tenants. Per cent.		Land in tenure. Per cent.
	Rented from landlords.	Rented from peasants.	Rented from landlords.	Rented from peasants.
Zadonsk:
Owning less than 5 dessiatines	38	31	28	21
Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines	52	51	48	48
Owning above 15 dessiatines	10	18	24	31
Total	100	100	100	100
Korotoyak:
Owning less than 5 dessiatines	13	13	10	8
Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines	53	48	38	38
Owning above 15 dessiatines	34	39	52	54
Total	100	100	100	100
Nizhnedevitsk:
Owning less than 5 dessiatines	25	15	23	9
Owning from 5 to 15 dessiatines	52	49	41	42
Owning above 15 dessiatines	23	36	36	49
Total	100	100	100	100

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

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

[142]

Rental Prices per 1 Dessiatine.

Districts.	In yearly lease. Rubles.	For long terms. Rubles.
Zadonsk	9.34	6.28
Korotoyak	8.45	5.81
Nizhnedevitsk	8.71	6.17

[143]

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

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

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

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

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

[144] In a series of articles which appeared first in the Otetchestvenniya Zapiski (monthly) subsequently published in book form under the heading “Community and Tax.”

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

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

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

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

Lost paradise!

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

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

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

(Cf. ib., p. 16.)

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

Let us now compare the figures:

Former serfs.	Communities.	Householders allotted.	Lessors.
			Number.	Per cent.
Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya	15	372	79	21
Throughout the districts (former serfs)				25

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

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

	Communities.	Householders allotted.	Lessors.
			Number.	Per cent.
Subdivision out of order	15	370	167	45

(Loc. cit., pp. 248, 110-129.)

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

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

Let us show it in figures:

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

(Loc. cit., pp. 130, 131.)

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

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

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

Householders.	Personally.	By hire.	In all.
Tilling their lots—
Total	9	2	11
In part (the rest leased)	2	4	6
	11	6	17

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

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

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

These are the figures connected with the above statement:

	Per cent.
Horseless	54
Outside workers	56

(Ibid., pp. 116-120.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[156]

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

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

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

To 1 head of big cattle.	Dessiatines of tillage land.
On peasant farms	2.0
On estates over 50 dessiatines	7.9

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

Arable land.	Dessiatines.	Per cent.
Yearly under culture	61882	100
Yearly manured	3431	5.5

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

Used to manure the fields on the estates.	Head of big cattle.	Per cent.
Total, 3431 dessiatines × 6 heads	20586	100
Total stock of the landlords	11010	53
Stock of the peasants	9576	47

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

[158] Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh, vol. I., p. 234.

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

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

Rented for money rental.	Dessiatines.
In all	25992
Tenements over 50 dessiatines	474
Small tenure	25518
Held from small estates (of under 50 dessiatines)	1292
Held from large estates (of over 50 dessiatines)	24226

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

[160]

Ploughland in small tenure.	Dessiatines.
In all	25309
Manured	51

This topic was very fully discussed by Prof. Engelhardt in his Letters from the Village.

[161]

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

[162] As for peasant agriculture; Cf. loc. cit., p. 101.

[163]

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

[164]

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

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

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

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

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

[167] Ibid., pp. 28-29.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[171] 1 chetvert = 5.9 Winchester bushels.

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

[173] Cf. Le commerce de grains dans l’Amérique du Nord, par Paul Lafargue.

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

Estates with large agriculture.	Number.	Average. Dessiatines.	To 1 plough. Dessiatines.
Property of the nobility:
Estates with ploughs	54	1044	91
Estates without ploughs	79	428	..
Property of the capitalist class:
Estates with ploughs	20	520	93
Estates without ploughs	47	191	..

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

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

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

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

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

[176]

Districts.	Communities.
Ranenburg	340
Dankoff	313
Ostrogozhsk	250
Zadonsk	197
Korotoyak	124
Nizhnedevitsk	161
Total	1385

[177] A sweeping criticism of the policy of the Russian government with regard to agriculture is to be found in Prof. Issaiew’s article, La Famine en Russie, in the Revue d’Economie Politique, 1892, No. 7. The apologists of the “historical friendship” pattern, should carefully read Chapter III.: Qu’est ce qui a été fait pour relever l’agriculture en Russie? One can there get the knowledge of some very conclusive facts which it is, of course, impossible to come across during a rapid trip through a vast country like Russia. The paper referred to should gain in authority by the fact that it was read before a meeting held at Emperor Alexander’s Lyceum of St. Petersburg, (to which only the sons of the highest dignitaries of the State or the offspring of the most aristocratic families are admitted,) and—last, not least—by the fact that it was published in France, which is now plus Tzariste que le Tzar.

[178]

Loans granted.	Rubles.
By the nobility’s Crédit Foncier, to January 1, 1892	328,000,000
By the Peasant’s Bank, to January 1, 1891	56,140,438

[179] “On small crédit foncier.” Otechstvenniya Zapiski (monthly), 1883.

[180] “The operations of the Peasant’s Crédit Foncier,” p. 105—Russkaya Mysl (monthly), February, 1892.

[181] Ibid., pp. 107, 108.

[182] In some of the gubernias failures were even more extensive:

	Percentage to the total in the gubernia.
Gubernias.	Land forfeited.	Loans failed.
Penza	39.34	48.80
Poltava	34.36	33.53
Voronezh	31.13	33.36
Kursk	25.22	30.81

These are moreover the very gubernias in which the Bank operated most extensively. (Ibid., p. 100.)

[183] Loans granted by the Bank:

	Rubles.
In 1884	9,529,368
” 1885	13,761,978
” 1886	11,148,850
” 1887	7,495,197
” 1888	5,133,539
” 1889	3,692,133
” 1890	4,519,209
Total	56,140,438

(Ibid., p. 103.)

[184] The normal size of a peasant farm, which is above referred to, was calculated in Chapters II. and X. These are the respective figures:

	Normal extent of landholding, Dessiatines.	Actual average, Dessiatines.	Excess of the normal over the average, per cent.
Ranenburg and Dankoff:
(Communities of which all the members are farmers taken as the normal.) To 1 “revision” male	5.0	3.4	+47
Korotoyak:
(Farms with net profit taken as the normal.) To 1 adult male worker	11.5	8.3	+39

The extent of landholding in the gubernia of Ryazañ (districts of Ranenburg and Dankoff) may be considered as characteristic of the central and most crowded part of the black soil zone, while the gubernia of Voronezh (d. of Korotoyak) partakes of the character of the more thinly populated border districts adjoining the southeastern prairies.—(Cf., Prof. Janson’s Essay of a Statistical Investigation, etc., App., pp. 12, 13, Table II. [bis]). Should we fix the increase of landholding needed by the peasants at 40 per cent. in the gubernias of the famine stricken sections of Middle Russia (Voronezh, Kazañ, Kursk, Orel, Penza, Ryazañ, Samara, Saratoff, Simbirsk, Tamboff, Tula), the area lacking would compare as follows with that purchased through the Peasant’s Bank (Cf., Herzenstein, l. c., p. 104):

	Dessiatines.	Per cent.
Land wanting	12,070,484	100
Land purchased through the Bank (from April, 1883, up to January 1, 1890)	1,579,391	13

Mr. Lobachevsky, in his article above referred to, estimated the need of land in 8 gubernias of the same section, at 17,124,321 dessiatines (l. c., April, 1883, p. 178), which is about ten times as much as the land acquired through the Peasant’s Bank.

[185] “Russian famines and the measures of the Government against them,” by Prof. Romanovitch-Slavatinsky, University Records, Jan., 1892, pp. 40, 61 (monthly publication of St. Vladimir University, Kieff.)

[186] The war of 1877 caused a depreciation of the paper ruble from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. It never got above that figure until 1890, when the enormous harvest unexpectedly raised its exchange value to 80 per cent., the rate that had prevailed before the war.

[187] The first chapters of this essay were written when the famine of 1891-92 had reached its climax. Now, while these concluding lines are being printed, the Russian papers have brought official reports of a failure in 11 gubernias, of which 5 are of the number of those affected by the last famine (Voronezh, Kursk, Orel, Samara, Tula). The Zemstvos have applied to the government for appropriations for the next seed.

[188] A delay in the payments was lately granted to the debtors of the Nobility’s Bank in the famine stricken region, for the purpose of saving numerous estates from being sacrificed at forced sale.

[189] In the tables that follow we have availed ourselves of some of the figures produced in a very interesting article, in which the consequences of the famine are discussed on the ground of the data recently published by the Statistical Bureau of the gubernia of Samara. (Cf. “The consequences of the failure of the crops in the gubernia of Samara,” by Vasili Vodovozoff in the Russkaya Zhizñ [daily], nos. 248 and 249, September 25 and 26, 1892).

The loss of working cattle toward January, 1892, figured as follows:

Bailiwicks.	Lost. Per cent.	Remains. Per cent.
Ivanteyeffskaya	74	26
Lipovetzkaya	67	33
Novotoolskaya	67	33
Koozabayeffskaya	61	39
Shintinoffskaya	45	55

Etc.

The heavy losses suffered by the peasantry have enormously accentuated the existing inequalities of distribution of live stock. This is evidenced in the village Dergoonofka, d. of Nicholayeff, which figured in 1887 among the wealthiest villages, 3.5 working horses being the average to a household (nearly twice as much as in the districts above examined). These are the comparative data for 1887 and 1891:

Households (total: 745).	1887.		October, 1891.		Increase or Decrease.
	Per cent.		Per cent.		Per cent.
“Horseless”	5	} 19	29	} 58	+480	} +205
With 1 horse	14		29		+107
” from 2 to 3 horses	32	} 81	28	} 42	-12	} -48
” 4 horses	14		7		-50
” 5 or more horses	35		7		-80
Total	100		100

Such was the condition of the peasantry as early as in October, when the famine was still at its very beginning. Concentration of communal land in the hands of a few wealthy lessees is reported by the Bureau as an immediate result of the famine, but the respective figures are not cited in Mr. Vodovozoff’s paper.

[190] We read in a communication from the district of Voronezh that “there is hardly one-fourth of the live stock left.… Thanks to the enfeebled condition, as well as to the complete loss of the peasants’ horses, many among the landlords, and larger tenants, have secured live stock of their own.” The Agriculturist (St. Petersburg), No. 26, April 24 (May 6), 1892.

Says another correspondent, also a landlord: “This year the greatest part of the farm work was to be done with the landlord’s live stock, it being impossible to get peasants for the purpose, as they had suffered a heavy loss of horses.” (Ib., No. 33, June 12 (24), 1892.)

[191] Fertilizing and irrigation have become a necessity in Russian agriculture. Let us figure the expenses entailed by these improvements.

We know that manure is procured for the landlord’s fields by the decaying small farmer. The ruin of the latter necessitates an outlay of capital by the landlord for the purchase of live stock. Now, to fertilize the fields once in three years, 2 heads of big cattle are required per dessiatine of arable land, which would cause an expense of 78.96 rubles per dessiatine. (Cf., Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh, Vol. II., Number II., App., pp. 44-45.) Here we have the Achilles heel of the Russian landed nobility. The land acquired by the peasants with the aid of the Peasants’ Bank sold at an average price of rubles 43.41 the dessiatine. (Herzenstein, l. c., p. 104). The cost of fertilizing alone exceeds the total value of the land; it could consequently not be conducted on a large scale by means of funded loans.

The conditions are similar in the case of irrigation. Mr. Vladimir Biriukowicz, a writer in the Russkaya Mysl, quotes a few instances of how artificial irrigation has increased the rental value of the estates from 3 rubles to 15, and even 25 rubles yearly per dessiatine. Moreover, and this is of greater importance, amidst the surrounding failure, the irrigated estates were blessed by excellent crops. According to Mr. Daniloff, a civil engineer, irrigation had raised the productivity of ploughland by from 15 to 20 per cent., and of meadow by 100 per cent., while the cost of construction did not exceed 60 rubles per dessiatine. (l. c., April 1, 1892, Protection and Agriculture, pp. 2, 3.) Certainly there is nothing exorbitant in the expense; still it likewise requires an outlay of capital exceeding the value of the land, and this, in the opinion of a practical agriculturalist, must be accounted for as the chief reason of the indifference of the landlords in the matter of irrigation. (Cf., “Topographical Surveying for irrigation works,” by V. Kasyanenko. The Agriculturist, St. Petersburg, No. 47, 1892). Thus the progress of artificial irrigation means the ruin of the nobleman.

[192] I am glad to know that this is the opinion advanced by so high an authority in political economy as Mr. Frederick Engels, one of the few Western students familiar with the Russian language. (Die Neue Zeit, 1892.) So far, however, as my case is concerned, I claim independence of judgment. I wrote in an editorial, dated December 20, 1891: “The consequences of this famine are equivalent to a revolution in the social organization of the Russian village.… The development of capitalism in agriculture, the dissolution of the peasantry into two distinct groups: a rural petite bourgeoisie, and a rural proletariat—these are the characteristics of a new epoch in Russia’s social life.” (Cf., Progress, No. 3, a Russian weekly published at the time in New York.)

[193] This economic revolution seems to be one of more than merely national import. Up to the present day the American farmer has met the Russian peasant on the international market, either as small farmer, or as cultivator of the greater part of the landlords’ property. In this competition the greater economy of labor and the cheaper methods of transportation secured the prize to the American producer. From now on the mortgaged American farmer will have to stand the competition of the Russian capitalist. It hardly needs a prophet to foretell that the breakdown of the Russian peasantry will hasten the decay of small agriculture in America.

[194] Landless households and members thereof are not counted here.

[195] Here are included those possessing their land partly on the basis of communism, and partly quarterly.

[196] This group was formed from the serfs who had belonged to petty gentlemen; this small class of serfs was reduced in 1861 from private serfdom to state serfdom, or, as it was called, to the class of state peasants. In 1866 it shared the lot of the emancipated state peasants. Thus, by its historical origin, this group should be classed among former serfs, while by title of possession its members were hereditary tenants like the rest of the former state peasants. Nowadays they likewise enjoy the right of purchasing their land in property.

[197] Redemption tax, corvée, taille, or rent paid to the state by the former state peasants.

[198] The translation differs from the original in the systematic arrangement of the entries, which has been adapted to the purposes of the present discussion.

[199] In the winter, cows as well as horses are fed mostly with straw mixed with flour. Oats is given to horses only in the season of farm work or in case of carrying.

[200] Milk, butter, cheese, as well as cabbage and cucumbers, which are produced exclusively for domestic consumption, are not included in the debits or in the credits.

[201] The single items are not quoted in detail, since they are very similar to those already produced in Budget I.

[202] Among the entries of which this sum is made up, we notice a yearly expense of 1.80 rubles for 1 pound of tea, and 1.00 ruble for 5 pounds of sugar a year.

[203] The boys go barefoot, and have no clothing but shirts; no pants, nor overcoats.

[204] It is peculiar to read among the entries “For horseshoeing (only the fore feet), 0.60.”

[205] Note.—Series I contains the results of many years’ experience on a few farms. Series II comprises such estates, on the one hand, on which the area planted with wheat coincides with that manured, so as to justify the inference that the fields are manured precisely for the wheat crop; on the other hand, it includes such estates on which no fertilizing is practiced at all. Series II, as well as the great majority of the average yields which could be ascertained by one census, is distinguished from Series I in that it refers to no stated term of observation. The slight difference between, or rather the identity of, the averages in both series guarantees the validity of all the averages, though the period of observation be not stated.

---