CHAPTER XIV._The Economics of the Russian Village

CONCLUSION: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAMINE.

The conclusions drawn from the previous discussion of the economic

structure of the Russian village must be taken with a threefold

limitation.

In the first place, the science of statistics is essentially a science

of large numbers. There are many questions, by no means unimportant,

which it has been impossible even to touch upon, their discussion being

feasible only where large agricultural areas are concerned.

In the second place, inasmuch as the facts and deductions have only a

local basis, the question arises whether the conclusions drawn would

also hold good when applied upon a larger scale.

In the third place, the conditions prevailing some five or ten years

ago must inevitably have undergone by this time great modifications.

It is no exaggeration to say that the round thousand[176] communities

in the section submitted to examination represent an equal number

of varying combinations of the fundamental agencies of rural

economy. Nevertheless, we observe a certain regularity as soon as

a complex, sufficient and necessary, of units is taken as a basis

for examination. Thus we notice that all the figures relating to the

district of Ranenburg are copied with a remarkable constancy in the

district of Dankoff in the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ. The same similitude is

observed between the districts of Korotoyak and Nizhnedevitzk in the

_gubernia_ of Voronezh. It points to a certain uniformity of economic

constitution as prevailing under like conditions over a still wider

area. In a region confined mainly to agriculture, landholding is the

determining factor of economic life. Should we find the same condition

of landholding amidst similar surroundings, physical, geographical and

legal, we might be justly entitled to assume throughout identity of

economic structure. Such is virtually the case as regards the “central

black soil, prairieless zone,” which has been the main seat of famine.

It may, therefore, reasonably be assumed that economic conditions in

middle Russia about 1881 were essentially the same as in the region

here described, allowance being made for numerical fluctuations.

It was at this date that revolutionary peasantism had reached its

climax, and to cope with it, a new era of “national policy” was

inaugurated by Count Ignatieff. The question now arises as to whether

counter-influences had arisen which exercised a neutralizing effect

upon the economic tendencies that developed during the reign of

Alexander II. A full discussion of the economic policy of the present

Russian government would carry us beyond the limits of the present

treatise.[177] I shall confine myself, therefore, to a few remarks

relative to the two state institutions created for the encouragement

of agriculture, viz: The Nobility’s Crédit Foncier, and the Peasant’s

Crédit Foncier.

Hundreds of millions were appropriated in the course of a few years

to prevent the complete ruin of the landholding nobility. No such

liberality was allowed in the conduct of the Peasant’s Bank, which

was founded with the express object of providing the money needed by

the peasant for the purchase of land.[178] Amidst the jubilations

with which the peasantist press greeted the birth of this still-born

child, Mr. Lobachevsky (pseudonym), one of the broadest minded of

the Russian statisticians, raised the sole dissenting voice. He

advanced the opinion[179] that to establish a Bank with a stock of a

few millions for tens of millions of peasants, was to create a small

peasant _bourgeoisie_ that would inevitably take advantage of the

poverty of the more helpless members of its class, and that the poor

householder would infallibly succumb if he accepted the services of

the Peasant’s Bank. This opinion received a speedy confirmation in the

actual practice of the Bank, which soon proved itself to be merely a

supplementary department of the Nobility’s Bank.

Says Mr. Herzenstein, a Russian Catheder-Sozialist, “It is universally

known that the peasants’ purchases enabled the landlords to get rid, at

a high price, of those tracts which yielded them no income, and that,

taking it all in all, the peasants paid more for their land than it was

worth.”[180]

It was again the same truly Russian system which had been tried with

such splendid success on the occasion of the emancipation of the serfs.

Furthermore, the interest levied by the Bank, viz: 7½ per cent.,

exceeds that charged by any of the private mortgage banks (6 per

cent.), whereas, with the Nobility’s Bank, the interest is less than

that charged by private banks.[181]

It is therefore by no means surprising to find that speedy ruin is the

debtor’s fate. In the period from 1887 to 1890, 8.8 per cent. of all

the land purchased with the aid of the Peasant’s Bank, was relinquished

by the mortgageors, the failures amounting to 7,637,034 rubles, or to

14 per cent. of all the loans granted by the Bank.[182] The operations

of the Bank necessarily suffered a diminution.[183] However, all these

inconveniences are but matters of secondary importance. Had everything

gone smoothly, the Bank would nevertheless have effected no actual

change in the economics of the village.

As may be remembered, the village community needs about one-half

more land in order to enable all its members to hold their position

as farmers. To put peasant landholding upon a proper footing in the

famine-stricken region, many times more land would be required than

that purchased by all the peasants throughout Russia with the aid of

the Peasant’s Bank.[184]

It may be questioned whether the operations of the Bank have been

even sufficient to counterbalance the further parcellation of peasant

holdings which has resulted from the growth of population. The economic

tendencies prevalent in the village during the first year of the

present reign may be regarded as being even more pronounced to-day.

The present catastrophe was consequently by no means unexpected, and

there has been no lack of alarming symptoms within the past ten years.

In 1883, 1884 and 1885 famine stalked alternately through western

Siberia, through the northeast, and through certain of the central

provinces of European Russia (Vyatka, Kazañ, Kursk, etc.). Famine

was again reported in 1889.[185] To such an extent was the peasantry

already exhausted that even the extraordinarily good harvest of

1890[186] was unable to prevent a subsequent failure of crops from

resulting in a famine.

It is only in the area affected that the present failure is

distinguished from its precursors.[187] The cause of the various

famines is at bottom always essentially the same, viz: the backwardness

of Russian agriculture. The surface of the soil has become finally

exhausted and the wooden plough of the Russian peasant is unable to

reach down to the deeper layers where the soil is yet virgin. Deep

ploughing is impossible with only one horse, and that horse fed on

straw. It is further not only the peasant land, but also the major

part of the landlord’s fields, that is cultivated with the peasant’s

stock and implements. Thus the crisis of peasant agriculture is at the

same time the crisis of Russian landlord farming.[188] The famine

has brought about at one single stroke the dissolution which had been

slowly going on in the village since 1861.

The Russian papers have published a multitude of letters from their

correspondents telling of the loss of some 50% of the horses owned

by the peasants. This means the complete ruin of the weak groups

of the village, and the further concentration of the communal land

into the hands of the strong, who alone survived as the farming

class.[189] The class of small farmers in Russia is evolving into

a peasant _bourgeoisie_ similar to the French peasantry after the

great Revolution, or to the American small employing farmers. The

transitional groups of half farmers, half laborers, by whom the major

part of the landlords’ estates were formerly cultivated, have sunk

through the famine into the proletarian class. The laborer having

become a proletarian, it is by proletarian labor that the estates

must be tilled, and agriculture upon a large scale becomes a regular

capitalistic pursuit.[190] The nobility with its estates under mortgage

can not possibly afford the capital needed.[191]

The land is destined to be divided between the large capitalist and the

small farmer--the _homo novus_ of the village.[192]

Thus the present famine must be considered as a genuine turning-point

in the economic history of Russia.

Family co-operation, village community, nobility, and natural

economy--such was the economic constitution of Russia in the past.

The Russia of the days to come will have for its basis a peasant

_bourgeoisie_, a rural proletariat, and capitalistic agriculture.[193]

APPENDICES.

STATISTICAL TABLES.

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

PEASANT POPULATION.

-------------+-----------------------+----------------------------------

| Population. | Land (Dessiatines).

Classes of +----------+------------+------+-----+-------+------+------

peasantry |Commun- |Persons | | |To |To |To

| | | |Per | | | |of the census

| | | |cent.| | | |of 1882.[194]

-------------+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------

taille | 75| 2547| 16071| 12 | 14797| 9 | 2.4 | 6.2 | 1.0

2. Redemption|192| 10310| 63621| 47.4| 59509| 36.2| 2.4 | 6.1 | 1.0

3. Donation | 5| 90| 553| 0.4| 119.5| 0.1| 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.3

Property | 4| 16| 133| 0.1| 242| 0.1| 5.3 |16.1 | 1.9

+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------

serfs |276| 12963| 80378| 59.9| 74667| 45.4| 2.4 | 6.1 | 1.0

| | | | | | | | |

communism | 27| 6237| 42297| 31.5| 68230| 41.5| 4.1 |11.1 | 1.6

possession| 15| 415| 2940| 2.2| 6144| 3.7| 6.7 |15 | 2.1

3. Mixed[195]| 10| 1224| 8248| 6.2| 15092| 9.2| 4.5 |12.4 | 1.8

+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------

peasants | 52| 7876| 53485| 39.9| 89466| 54.4| 4.3 |11.5 | 1.7

| | | | | | | | |

peasants| 12| 36| 236| 0.2| 228| 0.2| 2.3 | 6.5 | 1.0

+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+-------

Total |340| 20875|134099|100 |164361|100 | 3.1 | 8.2 | 1.3

| | | | | | | | |

taille | 75| 2078| 12923| 13.2| 13512| 10.4| 2.6 | 6.9 | 1.1

2. Redemption|172| 7524| 48126| 49 | 50026| 38.5| 2.5 | 7 | 1.1

3. Donation | 7| 231| 1376| 1.4| 551| 0.4| 0.8 | 2.7 | 0.4

property | 6| 69| 511| 0.5| 947| 0.7| 4.8 |14.1 | 1.9

+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------

serfs |260| 9902| 62936| 64.1| 65036| 50.0| 2.7 | 6.9 | 1.1

| | | | | | | | |

communism | 18| 3082| 19817| 20.2| 31756| 24.4| 4.1 |10.4 | 1.6

possession| 18| 1765| 12131| 12.4| 27208| 20.9| 5.4 |15.9 | 2.3

3. Mixed[195]| 3| 415| 2789| 2.8| 5331| 4.1| 5.1 |12.9 | 1.9

+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------

peasants | 39| 5262| 34737| 35.4| 64295| 49.4| 4.6 |12.4 | 1.9

| | | | | | | | |

peasants[196]| 14| 87| 551| 0.5| 751| 0.6| 4 | 9.1 | 1.4

+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------

Total |313| 15251| 98224|100 |130082|100 | 3.3 | 8.9 | 1.4

-------------+---+------+------+-----+------+-----+-------+------+------

TABLE I, _a_.

To make it clearer for the purposes of comparative study, some of these

data are translated into English measures:

ACREAGE OF A PEASANT FARM OR HOUSEHOLD ON AVERAGE.

_Classes._ _Ranenburg._ _Dankoff._

I. Former serfs:

1. Corvée or taille 16.8 18.7

2. Redemption 16.5 18.9

3. Donation 5.4 7.3

4. Absolute property 43.5 38.1

---- ----

All to former serfs 16.5 18.7

II. Former state peasants:

1. Agrarian Communism 29.7 28.1

2. Quarterly possession 40.5 43.0

3. Mixed 33.5 34.9

---- ----

All to former state peasants 31.1 33.5

III. Mixed 17.6 24.6

---- ----

Total 22.2 24.1

TABLE II.--TAXATION OF THE PEASANTRY.

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------+

| | District of Ranenburg. |

| +-------+----------+---------------------+

| +-------+----------+-------+-----+-------+

| | To 1 | | To 1 |To 1 | To 1 |

+-----------------------------+-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+

| 1. Corvée or taille | 2.4 | 6.2| 2.7| 5.2 | 11.9| 19.9 |

| 2. Redemption | 2.4 | 6.1| 2.5| 4.5 | 10.8| 17.9 |

| 3. Donation | 0.5 | 1.9| 1.8| 6.8 | 3.6| 6.2 |

| 4. Absolute property | 5.3 | 16.1| 4.2| 0.8 | 4.6| 5.1 |

| | | | | | | |

| state peasants | 2.3 | 6.5| 2.4| 3.1 | 7.0| 14.2 |

| +-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+

| Total | 2.4 | 6.1| 2.6| 4.6 | 11.0| 18.2 |

| | | | | | | |

| 1. Agrarian communism | 4.1 | 11.1| 2.9| 2.4 | 10.1| 16.2 |

| 2. Quarterly possession | 6.7 | 15.0| 4.0| 1.9 | 13.2| 18.0 |

| 3. Mixed | 4.5 | 12.4| 3.1| 2.4 | 11.1| 18.6 |

| +-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+

| Total | 4.3 | 11.5| 3.0| 2.4 | 10.4| 16.7 |

+-----------------------------+-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+

| | District of Dankoff. |

| +-------+----------+---------------------+

| +-------+----------+-------+-----+-------+

| | To 1 | | To 1 |To 1 | To 1 |

+-----------------------------+-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+

| 1. Corvée or taille | 2.6 | 6.9| 2.7| 5.1 | 12.6| 21.9 |

| 2. Redemption | 2.5 | 7.0| 2.5| 4.3 | 11.1| 18.7 |

| 3. Donation | 0.8 | 2.7| 1.6| 4.6 | 4.0| 8.1 |

| 4. Absolute property | 4.8 | 14.1| 4.3| 1.1 | 5.8| 8.9 |

| | | | | | | |

| state peasants | 4.0 | 9.1| 3.0| 2.5 | 7.9| 15.8 |

| +-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+

| Total | 2.7 | 6.8| 2.5| 4.4 | 11.2| 19.1 |

| | | | | | | |

| 1. Agrarian communism | 4.1 | 10.4| 2.6| 2.2 | 9.4| 15.6 |

| 2. Quarterly possession | 5.4 | 15.9| 3.3| 1.9 | 10.8| 18.1 |

| 3. Mixed | 5.1 | 12.9| 2.9| 2.6 | 10.5| 17.9 |

| +-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+

| Total | 4.6 | 12.4| 2.9| 2.6 | 10.0| 16.7 |

+-----------------------------+-------+-----+----+-------+-----+-------+

TABLE III.--ARREARS IN TAXES.

+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+

| | Former serfs. |

| +-------+-------------+--------------------+

| Degree of indebtedness. | +-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| | | | | | |To 1 |

| |Commu- | |Per | |Per |house-|

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Without arrears | 175 | 6107 | 61.2| | | |

| For not more than | 88 | 3541 | 35.4| 6602| 53.4| 1.9 |

| For not more than | 8 | 162 | 1.6| 2432| 19.7| 15.0 |

| For from 1 to 2 | 3 | 179 | 1.8| 3322| 26.9| 18.6 |

| +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Total in arrears | 99 | 3882 | 38.8| 12356|100 | |

| +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Total in the district| 274 | 9989 |100 | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| Without arrears | 41 | 1254 | 9.6| | | |

| For not more than | 138 | 6776 | 52.1| 52891| 30.1| 7.8 |

| For not more than | 76 | 3529 | 27.1| 70814| 40.3| 20.1 |

| For from 1 to | 29 | 1367 | 10.6| 47392| 26.9| 34.7 |

| For from 2 to | 3 | 73 | 0.6| 4768| 2.7| 65.3 |

| +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Total in arrears | 246 | 11745 | 90.4| 175865|100 | |

| +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Total in the district| 287 | 12999 |100 | | | |

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| | Former state peasants. |

| +-------+-------------+--------------------+

| Degree of indebtedness. | +-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| | | | | | |To 1 |

| |Commu- | |Per | |Per |house-|

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Without arrears | 17 | 2125 | 40.4| | | |

| For not more than | 21 | 3119 | 59.3| 4668| 94.7| 1.5 |

| For not more than | 1 | 18 | 0.3| 263| 5.3| 14.6 |

| For from 1 to 2 | -- | -- | -- | --| -- | -- |

| +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Total in arrears | 22 | 3137 | 59.6| 4931|100 | |

| +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Total in the district| 39 | 5262 |100 | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| Without arrears | 6 | 169 | 2.1| | | |

| For not more than | 34 | 5063 | 64.3| 33869| 47.9| 6.7 |

| For not more than | 13 | 2644 | 33.6| 36857| 52.1| 13.9 |

| For from 1 to | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |

| For from 2 to | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |

| +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Total in arrears | 47 | 7107 | 97.9| 70726|100 | |

| +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

| Total in the district| 53 | 7876 |100 | | | |

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+------+

TABLE IV.--DISTRIBUTION OF RENTED LAND.

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

+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+

| | D. of Korotoyak. |

| +-----------+--------------------+

| | | Rented land. |

| Households. | +-----------+--------+

+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+

| Landless | 0.2} | 0.3} | 5.4 |

|Owning under 5 dessiatines | 13.2} 13.4| 8.9} 9.2 | 2.8 |

| ” from 5 to 15 dessiatines | 49.0 | 38.9 | 3.3 |

| ” from 15 to 25 dessiatines| 26.1} | 27.5} | 4.5 |

| ” over 25 dessiatines | 11.5} 37.6| 24.4} 51.9| 9.0 |

| +-----------+-----------+--------+

| Total |100 |100 | 4.2 |

+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+

| | D. of Nizhnedevitsk. |

| +-----------+--------------------+

| | | Rented land. |

| Households. | +-----------+--------+

+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+

| Landless | 0.3} | 0.3} | 3.4 |

|Owning under 5 dessiatines | 19.1} 19.4| 14.6} 14.9| 3.0 |

| ” from 5 to 15 dessiatines | 49.7 | 41.7 | 3.3 |

| ” from 15 to 25 dessiatines| 22.0} | 24.6} | 4.4 |

| ” over 25 dessiatines | 8.9} 30.9| 18.8} 43.4| 8.2 |

| +-----------+-----------+--------+

| Total |100 |100 | 3.9 |

+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+--------+

| | In all. |

| Households. +---------------+----------------+

| | Rented for | Rented for |

| | money rental, | share in crops,|

| | per cent. | per cent. |

+--------------------------------+---------------+----------------+

| Landless | 0.3 | 0.2 |

|Owning under 5 dessiatines | 11.6 | 12.8 |

| ” from 5 to 15 dessiatines | 39.8 | 50.0 |

| ” from 15 to 25 dessiatines| 26.1 | 26.4 |

| ” over 25 dessiatines | 22.2 | 10.6 |

| +---------------+----------------+

| Total | 100 | 100 |

+--------------------------------+---------------+----------------+

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

+-----------------------+--------------------------------+

| | D. of Nizhnedevitsk. |

| +--------+------+--------+-------+

| | per | per | the | to 1 |

+-----------------------+--------+------+--------+-------+

|Without horses | 3.5 | 1.9 | 11.5 | 2.1 |

|With 1 horse | 28.4 | 16.5 | 37.9 | 2.3 |

| ” from 2 to 3 horses| 54.1 | 46.7 | 49.6 | 3.4 |

| ” 4 or more horses | 14.0 | 34.9 | 78.5 | 9.7 |

| +--------+------+--------+-------+

| Total | 100 |100 | 43.0 | 3.9 |

+-----------------------+--------+------+--------+-------+

| | D. of Korotoyak. |

| +--------+------+--------+-------+

| | |Rented| age | To 1 |

| | per | per | the |dessia-|

+-----------------------+--------+------+--------+-------+

|Without horses | 1.1 | 0.4 | 3.5 | 1.3 |

|With 1 horse | 21.4 | 10.6 | 28.8 | 2.1 |

| ” from 2 to 3 horses| 63.0 | 50.3 | 54.9 | 3.4 |

| ” 4 or more horses | 14.5 | 38.7 | 81.6 | 11.3 |

| +--------+------+--------+-------+

| Total | 100 |100 | 41.9 | 4.2 |

+-----------------------+--------+------+--------+-------+

| | In all. |

| Households. +---------------+----------------+

| | Rented for | Rented for |

| | money rental, | share in crops,|

| | per cent. | per cent. |

+-----------------------+---------------+----------------+

|Without horses | 1.1 | 0.6 |

|With 1 horse | 13.3 | 16.4 |

| ” from 2 to 3 horses| 48.0 | 59.5 |

| ” 4 or more horses | 37.6 | 23.5 |

| +---------------+----------------+

| Total | 100 | 100 |

+-----------------------+---------------+----------------+

TABLE V.

BUDGETS OF TYPICAL PEASANT HOUSEHOLDS.

Translated from the _Statistical Reports for the District of

Borisoglebsk, Gubernia of Tamboff_ (Appendix I., pp. 28-32, 88-97).[198]

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

(_volost_) Sukmanka.

The family selected is one of medium standing, getting along well with

its farming. The figures refer to 1879, when the crops were good, the

yield being in the ratio of 10:1 to the seed.

_Members of the Family._

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

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

3. _Their son_, aged 27.

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

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

years of age.

_Schedule of Property Owned by the Family._

1. Wooden house, straw roof:

_Dimensions._ _Yards._ _Feet._ _Inches._

_a._ Length 9 1

_b._ Breadth 4 2

_c._ Height 2 2 2

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

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

3. Stock:

_a._ Horses 4

_b._ Cow 1

_c._ Calf 1

_Income in Rubles._

+-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

| _Dr._ |_Price._| _In | _In |_Total._|

+-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

| Rye, 40 Russian quarters, @ | 4.00 | 90.00 | 70.00 | 160.00 |

| Oats, 60 Russian quarters, @ | 2.00 | 40.00 | 80.00 | 120.00 |

| Millet, 5 Russian quarters, @ | 5.00 | 25.00 | | 25.00 |

| Potatoes, 40 Russian measures, @| 0.15 | 6.00 | | 6.00 |

| Flaxseed, 5 quarters, @ | 10.00 | | 50.00 | 50.00 |

| Flax and hemp, fibre | | 30.00 | | 30.00 |

| Hemp seed, 2½ quarters, @ | 8.00 | 20.00 | | 20.00 |

| Hay, 100 _poods_, @ | 0.10 | 10.00 | | 10.00 |

| Straw | | 40.00 | | 40.00 |

| Two slaughtered pigs, @ | 5.00 | 10.00 | | 10.00 |

| One calf, @ | 20.00 | 20.00 | | 20.00 |

| Sold: ducks, @ | | | 4.00 | |

| 3 geese, @ | 1.00 | | 3.00 | |

| 1 colt, @ | 23.00 | | 23.00 | 30.00 |

+-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

| Total from farm and house | | 291.00 | 230.00 | 521.00 |

| | | | | |

| Hay, 180 _poods_, @ | 0.10 | 18.00 | | 18.00 |

| | | | | |

| (Farm work and driving) | | | 52.00 | 52.00 |

+-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

| Grand total | | 309.00 | 282.00 | 591.00 |

+-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

_Expenses in Rubles._

+-------------------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+

| _Cr._ |_Price._| _In | _In |_Total._|

+-------------------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+

| Hay | | 28.00 | | |

| Oats | | 40.00 | | |

| Straw | | 40.00 | | |

| +--------+-------+-------+--------+

| All to forage | |108.00 | | 108.00 |

| The family’s share | | 3.00 | | |

| 3. Wear and tear of implements | | 30.00 | | |

| +--------+-------+-------+--------+

| Total productive consumption | |108.00 | 33.00 | 141.00 |

| Rye flour, 15 _poods_ a month @| 0.50 | 90.00 | | |

| Salt, 4½ _poods_ a year @ | 0.70 | | 3.15 | |

| Hemp oil | | 20.00 | | |

| Wheat flour, 217 lbs. a year | | | 12.00 | |

| Corn | | 25.00 | | |

| Potatoes | | 6.00 | | |

| _a._ On holidays 72 lbs.| | | 5.60 | |

| _b._ On workdays 430 lbs.| | 30.00 | | |

| ---------| | | | |

| Salted fish and herring | | | 5.00 | |

| Brandy, 4 pails (400 glasses) | | | 16.00 | |

| +--------+-------+-------+--------+

| All to food[200] | |171.00 | 41.75 | 212.75 |

| of the family | | | 13.00 | |

| Felt boots for all | | | 3.00 | |

| +--------+-------+-------+--------+

| All for shoes | | | 16.00 | 16.00 |

| son, once in 5 years @ | 10.00 | | 4.00 | |

| years @ | 5.00 | | 5.00 | |

| years @ | 0.16 | | 0.80 | |

| years @ | 2.00 | | 10.00 | |

| once in 3 years @ | 6.00 | | 4.00 | |

| once in 2 years @ | 5.00 | | 2.50 | |

| Dresses for two women | | | 16.00 | |

| Dresses for children | | | 10.00 | |

| Linen from own flax and seed | | 30.00 | | |

| +--------+-------+-------+--------+

| All to clothing | | 30.00 | 42.46 | 72.46 |

| Lard candles, 10 lbs. a year | | | 1.60 | |

| Kerosene, 36 lbs. a year | | | 2.40 | |

| Expenses of worship | | | 5.50 | |

| Soap | | | 1.50 | |

| Tar | | | 2.50 | |

| Moulding of rye, etc. | | | 10.00 | |

| Unexpected | | | 10.00 | |

| +--------+-------+-------+--------+

| All to sundries | | | 33.50 | 33.50 |

| +--------+-------+-------+--------+

| Total personal consumption | |201.00 |133.71 | 334.71 |

|III. _Taxes_ | | | 37.50 | 37.50 |

| +--------+-------+-------+--------+

| All to ordinary expenses | |309.00 |204.21 | 513.21 |

| land, @ | 5.00 | | 15.00 | 15.00 |

| +--------+-------+-------+--------+

| Total expenditures | |309.00 |219.21 | 528.21 |

+-------------------------------------+--------+-------+-------+--------+

| Balance: |

| 1. Net income from farm and house 7.79 |

| 2. Net income from rented land 3.00 |

| 3. Income from sundry jobs 52.00 |

| ------ |

| Grand total 591.00 |

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

yevskaya.

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

_Members._

3 male workers.

3 female workers.

3 children.

1 elder.

_Schedule of Property._

1. 1 house (with appurtenances):

_Yards._ _Inches._

_a._ Length 6 8

_b._ Breadth 6 8

2. Land, 3 _dessiatines_ (8 acres).

3. Stock:

_a._ Horses 5

_b._ Cow 1

_c._ Calves 2

_d._ Sheep 11

_e._ Lambs 7

_f._ Pigs 2

_Income in Rubles._

+-------------------------------------------+-------+-------+

| _Dr._ | | |

+-------------------------------------------+-------+-------+

| I. Farming on the allotted land (garden, | | |

| house and appurtenances) | 181.00| |

| II. Domestic industry for domestic use | 177.80| |

| +-------+-------+

| Total farm and house | 358.80| 358.80|

| Deficit to cover the expenses | | 660.45|

| | +-------+

| Total | |1019.25|

|III. Farming on rented land: | | |

| Gross income | 640.00| |

| Rent | | 282.00|

| Net product | | 358.00|

| | +-------+

| Total | | 640.00|

| IV. Odd jobs: | | |

| Farm work, tailoring, carrying | | |

| trade, wage work, _etc._ | 245.00| |

| +-------+-------+

| Total income |1243.80|1243.80|

| Balance (deficit) | | 57.45|

+-------------------------------------------+-------+-------+

| Grand Total | |1301.25|

+-------------------------------------------+-------+-------+

_Expenses[201] in Rubles._

+---------------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+

+---------------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+

| I. Productive consumption | 154.00 | 127.00 | 281.00 |

| Food[202] | 255.00 | 137.05 | 392.05 |

| Clothing | 170.00 | 60.00 | 230.00 |

| Shoes and stockings | 7.80 | 51.50 | 59.30 |

| Miscellaneous | | 40.90 | 40.90 |

| +----------+-----------+---------+

| All to personal consumption | 432.80 | 289.45 | 722.25 |

|III. Taxes | | 16.00 | 16.00 |

| +----------+-----------+---------+

| Total ordinary expenditure | 586.80 | 432.45 | 1019.25 |

| IV. Rent: For 20 _dessiatines_ | | 282.00 | 282.00 |

+---------------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+

| Grand total | 586.80 | 714.45 | 1301.25 |

+---------------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+

III. _Capiton Popoff_, village Pavlovka, bailiwick Pavlodarovka.

The family is considered one of the “powerless.”

_Members._

1. Father.

2. Mother.

3. Son.

4. Daughter-in-law.

5. Girl of 16.

6. Girl of 13.

7-8. Two little boys.

_Schedule of Property._

1. House, 14×14 square feet.

2. Land, 1½ dessiatines (4 acres).

3. Stock:

_a._ Horse 1

_b._ Cow 1

_c._ Sheep 3

_Yearly Income in Rubles._

+-----------------------------------------------+---------+

| _Dr._ | |

+-----------------------------------------------+---------+

| Farm and house | 27.80 |

| Rented land | 74.00 |

| Wage labor | 74.80 |

| -------------------------+---------+

| Total | 176.60 |

| Balance, deficit | 65.20 |

| +---------+

| Grand total | 241.80 |

+-----------------------------------------------+---------+

_Yearly Expenses in Rubles._

+----------------------------------------------------+---------+

| _Cr._ | |

+----------------------------------------------------+---------+

| I. Rent | 57.00 |

| II. Taxes | 8.00 |

|III. Food: | |

| Meat at Easter, 11 pounds @ 9 _copecks_ | 0.99 |

| at St. Peter’s day, 10 pounds @ 8 _cop._ | 0.80 |

| at Christmas, @ 5 _cop._ (of own produce)| 1.75 |

| +---------+

| All to meat | 3.54 |

| 5 chickens and 50 eggs | 1.05 |

| 18 pounds very bad salted fish at the | |

| carnival, @ 4 _cop._ | 0.72 |

| Rye bread, cabbage, potatoes, salt, | |

| butter, corn, pickles, and apples | |

| for the children | 106.61 |

| +---------+

| All to food | 111.92 |

| IV. Clothing[203] | 23.10 |

| V. Shoes[203] | 27.00 |

| VI. Sundries[204] | 15.78 |

| +---------+

| Grand total | 241.80 |

+----------------------------------------------------+---------+

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

(Compiled from the Appendices to the _Statistical Reports for the

Gubernia of Ryazañ_, 1882.)

_A._--_Local._

-----------+------+-----+------------------------------------------------

| | | Wages in rubles

| | +---------+---------+----------+------------+----

| | +----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+Per

| | |From| To |From| To |From| To |From | To |year

-----------+------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+----

Brickmakers| | |0.50|1.00| | | | |50.00| 80.00|

Charcoal | | |0.50|0.70| | | | |40.00| |

from stumps| |With-| | | | |7.00|12.00| | |

Diggers |Spring|out |0.60|0.70| | |8.00|10.00|40.00| 50.00|

Masons | and |board| | | | |7.00|12.00|40.00| 80.00|

_a._ | | | | | | | | | | |

craftsmen | | | | | | | | |75.00|100.00|

_b._ | | | | | | | | | | |

contractors| | | | | | | | |35.00| 60.00|

| +-----+ | | | | | | | |

Carpenters | |With | | | | | | |55.00| 70.00|

| All +-----+ | | | | | | | |100

| the | | | | | | | | | |

| year | | | | | |7.00|13.00| | |

Water flour|Winter|out | | | | |5.00| | | |

| and | | | | | | | | | |

|Summer| | | | | |8.00|15.00| | |

+------+-----+ | | | | | | | |

Felt | | |0.40|0.60| | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

Furriers | Fall | |0.40|0.60| | | | | | |

Tailors | |With | | |1.50|2.50| | | | |

+------+ | | | | | | | | |

Timber | | | | |1.00| | | | | |

sawing | +-----+ | | | | | | | |

| | |0.50|0.70| | | | | | |

Coal miners| | |0.30|0.50| | | | | | |

Distilleries | |0.25| | | |5.00| 9.00| | |

Sugar |Winter| | | | | |6.00| 8.00| | |

a. Males | | |0.30|0.45| | | | | | |

+------+With |0.70|1.00| | | | | | |

|Summer|board| | | | |9.00|12.00| | |

+------+ | | | | | | | | |

b. Females | | |0.20|0.40| | | | | | |

mills | All | |0.40|0.50| | | | | | |

Carrying |through |0.60|1.00| | | | | | |

Day | the | |0.30|0.40| | | | | | |

+------+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+----

In all: {With board |0.40|0.60|1.00|2.50| | |55.00| 70.00|100

full {Without board|0.25|1.00| | |5.00|15.00|35.00| 60.00|

------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+------+----

_B._--_Outside._

-----------+----------+-------+--------------------------------------

| | | Wages in rubles.

| | +--------------+--------------+--------

| | +------+-------+------+-------+--------

| | +---+--+----+--+---+--+----+--+----+---

| | | |To| |To| |To| |To| |To

-----------+----------+-------+---+--+----+--+---+--+----+--+----+---

Diggers | | | | | | | | | 60 |75| |

Quarries | Moscow. | | | | | | 40|50| | | |

+----------+ | | | | | | | | | |

Brickmakers| Moscow | | | | | | 40|50| | | |

+----------+ and | | | | | | | | | |

May to July| and | | | | | | 30|50| | | |

May to | Vladimir.| | | | | | 50|70| | | |

+----------+ | | | | | | | | | |

Railways | | | | | 14 |20| | | | | |

| +-------+ | | | | | | | | |

| |Winter.| | | 9 |10| | | | | |

+----------+-------+ | | | | | | | | |

Cabmen | | | 6 | 9| | | | | | | |

Drivers | | | 7 |12| 15 |18| | | | | 90 |150

House- | | | | | 15 |18| | | | | |

etc. | | the | | | | | | | | | 75 |100

Flour mills| | year. | | | | | | | | | 50 | 70

+----------+ | | | | | | | | | |

Factory | Moscow | | | | 10 |18| | | | | |

+----------+-------+---+--+----+--+---+--+----+--+----+---

In all, in Moscow and vicinity| 6 |12| 10 |18| 30|70| 60 |75| 50 |150

------------------------------+---+--+----+--+---+--+----+--+----+---

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

+----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------------------+

| 50 dessiatines. | | +-----------+-----------+

+----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

| No. 81 | 19 | 300 | 8.4 | 5.6 |

| ” 197 | 5 | 30 | 8 | |

| ” 32 | 10 | 51 | ? | 6.3 |

| ” 103 | 9 | 113 | | 5.2 |

| ” 81 | 6 | 110 | | 5.2 |

| ” 189 bis. | 7 | 90 | | 4.7 |

| ” 192 bis. | 7 | 103 | | 4 |

| +----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

|Average on 7 estates. | 12 | 797 | | |

| | +-----------+ | |

| | | 330 | 8.4 | |

| | | 767 | | 5.4[205] |

| 13 estates | | 596 | 7.9 | |

| 5 estates | | 86.5 | | 5.4 |

| +----------+-----------+ | |

| Total 18 estates | | 682.5 | | |

+----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

FOOTNOTES

[1] There are large villages composed of several distinct communities,

something like Zurich until recently, or New York, Brooklyn, Jersey

City, _etc._; that is to say, municipally divided, though socially and

geographically a unit.

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

Shakespeare.

[3] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ, District of

Ryazañ_, Vol. I., pp. 2-4.

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

[5] “The _Zemstvo_ and the national economy,” by I. P. Bielokonsky.

_Severny Vestnik_ (monthly magazine), May, 1892.

[6] As the investigation of the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ had not been

brought to an end, the gaps have been filled in most cases by referring

to the _Reports_ for the _gubernias_ of Voronezh, Tamboff and Smolensk,

which are now likewise among those affected by the famine.

[7] Prof. W. J. Ashley, in the introductory chapter of his translation

of _The Origin of Property in Land_ by Fustel de Coulanges, represents

the Russian village community as “only a joint cultivation and not

a joint ownership.” The Russian _mir_, he thinks, has always in

historical times been a “village group in serfdom under a lord” (p.

xx.). This opinion stands in direct contradiction to the results

of Russian historical investigation, which are here presented in a

condensed summary. The development of landlord property in Russia,

on the contrary, is but a fact of modern centuries; there are vast

provinces in Russia where there never was anything like a nobility

and landlord property (_e. g._, the _gubernias_ of Olonetz, Vyatka,

Vologda, Archangelsk), save in a few exceptional cases. Serfdom was

altogether unknown in these districts, and in all the rest of Russia a

considerable part of the peasantry, though dependent upon the State,

knew no landlord above them. Toward 1861 the total number of State

peasants amounted to 29⅓ millions, while the former serfs numbered 22⅔

millions. (Prof. Janson, _Essay of a Statistical Investigation on the

Peasants’ Landed Property and Taxation_, 2d ed., p. 1.) Thus, in so far

at least as one-half of the Russian peasantry is concerned, the village

community must be construed, in direct opposition to Prof. Ashley, as

“joint ownership and not joint cultivation.”

[8] Most of the Russians were doubtless extremely surprised to learn

that bond serfdom in Russia was in existence up to this very year of

1892. The Kalmyks, a semi-nomadic tribe of 150,000 men, in southeastern

Russia, near the Caspian Sea, remained serfs of their chiefs, the

_zaisangs_ and _noyons_, until the ukase issued on the 8th (20th) of

May, 1892, whereby bond serfdom of the common Kalmyks was at last

abolished.

[9] The government did not act in consistence with the principles

of the emancipation of the serfs when applying in 1866 the “Statute

on peasants freed from bond serfdom” to those freed from dependence

upon the State. While the former were declared “peasant proprietors,”

the latter were regarded only as hereditary tenants. A new law was

subsequently passed, granting the former State peasants the right

of buying out their lots from the State. I have not the respective

statutes at hand, and am not certain as to the year in which the law

was passed. It was certainly later than 1882, the year of the census

whose reports we use further on.

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

as follows:

RUBLES.

1892. 1891.

Sec. 4. From liquors 242,570,981 259,550,981

” 7. ” naphtha 10,026,800 9,528,500

” 8. ” matches 4,720,000 4,524,000

” 5. ” tobacco 27,741,102 28,213,102

” 6. ” sugar 21,174,000 20,161,000

” 9. Customs duties 110,900,000 110,929,000

----------- -----------

417,182,883 432,906,583

(_Cf._ _The Government Messenger_, No. 1, 1892.) The taxes in Secs.

4, 7 and 8 are naturally paid chiefly by the peasants, who are the

majority, and these items alone amount to from 62 to 63 per cent. of

all indirect taxes.

[11] _Essay of a Statistical Investigation on the Peasants’ Landed

Property and Taxation._

[12] In the _gubernia_ of Novgorod the former State peasants paid in

taxes the entire net income of their land, and the former serfs from

61 to 465 per cent. above their net income. In the _gubernia_ of St.

Petersburg they paid 34, and in that of Moscow, upon an average, 105

per cent. in excess of their net income.

EXCESS OF TAXATION ABOVE THE NET INCOME.

_In the _Per cent. former _Per cent.

gubernias._ State peasants._ former serfs._

Tver 144 152

Smolensk 66 120

Kostroma 46 140

Pskoff 30 113

Vladimir 68 176

Vyatka 3 100

In the “black soil” region the difference amounted to from 24 to 200

per cent. for the former serfs, while the former State peasants, more

favorably situated, had to pay in taxes from 30 to 148 per cent. of

their net income, etc. (_Loc. cit._, pp. 35-36, 86.)

[13] Corporal punishment for debts (_pravyozh_) is an institution of

Russian law bearing the stamp of antiquity. It might perhaps flatter

the Russian “national pride” to class this institution as one of the

emanations of the “self-existent Russian spirit.” Unfortunately for the

latter, this is a method of procedure common to many other nations at a

certain stage of historical development.

[14] The rent is here no fictitious quantity, it being an every-day

occurrence for peasants to lease their lots.

[15] Picture the condition of a New Jersey farmer who would have to

await the permission of the Governor of New Jersey, the Secretary of

State, and the Treasury Department, before moving to Minnesota. This is

exactly the condition of the Russian peasant.

According to the recent law, more liberal than the original law of

1861, emigration is allowed by a special permission, in every single

case, of the Ministers of the Interior and of Public Domains, which

permission is issued upon the presentation of the local governor.

[16]

+---------------+-----------------------------------+

| | Land in peasants’ possession. |

| +------------+----------------------+

| Districts. | Total. | Pure black soil. |

| +------------+------------+---------+

+---------------+------------+------------+---------+

|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.

+------------+-----------------+-----------------+----------------------+

| +-------+---------+-------+---------+------------+---------+

+------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------------+---------+

|Ranenburg | 25 | 48 | 1,639 | 21 | 21,236 | 24 |

|Dankoff | 21 | 54 | 2,180 | 41 | 32,539 | 50 |

+------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+------------+---------+

Cf. _Quarterly Possession_, by Mr. K. Pankeyeff, in the Moscow review

_Russkaya Mysl_, 1886, book 2, p. 50. The paper quoted was to have been

published as a part of the _Reports of the Ryazañ Statistical Bureau_,

but after the work was stopped (see above page 16) it appeared in one

of our liberal magazines.

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

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

[20] _Op. cit._, page 27. The figures show the number of population in

villages where the land is owned quarterly. The population of 1849 is

given according to the ninth revision (of 1846), and the population of

1882 according to the tenth revision (of 1858). The extent of private

property would be exaggerated were the comparison made with the census

of 1882. By overlooking the increase of the population between the

ninth and the tenth revisions, the results of the comparison are but

emphasized.

[21] _Cf._ Mr. Greegoryeff’s _Report to the XVII. Assembly of the

Gubernia of Ryazañ_, p. 5. _Cf._ also _Emigration among the Peasants

of the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, by the same author, which I have not now

at hand. In Eastern Russia the subdivision of the arable land is but

of very recent date. In Siberia it cannot be traced farther back than

two generations, and there are even now a great many districts in which

no limitations are imposed by the community on the free use of land

by every one of its members. Nevertheless the poll tax was applied to

these districts also for about two centuries. It seems to prove that

the imposition of the said tax did not necessitate subdivision except

where land was scarce. It may consequently be inferred that it was not

the poll tax, but the scarcity of land in the most crowded provinces,

that prompted the subdivision. In this view the subdivision of the land

appears to be a natural phase in the evolution of communal landholding.

(With reference to this point _cf._ Prof. W. J. Ashley’s remarks in his

introduction to Fustel de Coulanges’ _The Origin of Property in Land_,

pp. xlvii-xlviii.)

[22] Mr. Pankeyeff makes in one passage an allusion to the analogy

between the development of quarterly landholding into agrarian

communism and the transformation of the right of first possession into

communal ownership in New Russia and in the _gubernia_ of Voronezh

(_Cf._ _op. cit._, book III., p. 35). The analogy, however is not

further worked out.

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

following table:

+--------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+

| |Communities. | Extent of land. |

| | | |

| | +--------------+-------------+-------------+

| | | +-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+

+--------------------+----+------+-------+-------+-----+-------+-----+

|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]

+-----------------------------+------+-------+-------+---------------+

| |holds.|horses.| +-------+-------+

| | | | |Horses.|Big |

+-----------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

|I. Former serfs |12,999| 16,140| 8,924| 1.2 | 2.6 |

| _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 |

| | | | | | |

|I. Former serfs | 9,989| 13,576| 6,485| 1.4 | 2.5 |

| _a._ Agrarian communism | 3,082| 4,092| 2,189| 1.3 | 2.6 |

| _b._ Quarterly possession| 1,765| 3,126| 1,406| 1.8 | 3.3 |

| _c._ Mixed | 415| 648| 318| 1.6 | 2.9 |

| +------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

| Total |15,251| 21,442| 10,398| 1.4 | 2.7 |

+-----------------------------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

(Former State peasants holding their land on the right of quarterly

possession, are here noted separately in order to show that they enjoy

about the same facilities for stock-breeding as do the rest of the

peasantry).

[30] This is shown in the table below:

+--------------------+------------------------+------------------------+

| | Ranenburg. | Dankoff. |

| +-----------+------------+-----------+------------+

+--------------------+-----------+------------+-----------+------------+

| 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:

+--------------+--------------------+---------+------------+

| +--------+-----------+ amount | farming in |

+--------------+--------+-----------+---------+------------+

|Korotoyak | 3,368 | 16 | 31,481 | 42,310 |

|Nizhnedevitzk | 7,238 | 36 | 84,473 | 70,103 |

+--------------+--------+-----------+---------+------------+

_Ibid._, Vol. V., part I., p. 107, columns 89, 92, 93; Vol. VI., part

I., p. 145, col. 151, 154, 155. The quantity of bread consumed by a

peasant family in a year amounting to 57 _poods_ upon an average (l.

c., vol. IV., part I., p. 97, col. 75-76, total), the deficit of bread

in a year of ordinary crops figures as follows:

_Households buying _Deficit of

_Districts._ bread, per cent._ bread, per cent._

Ostrogozhsk 58 54

Zadonsk 41 44

(_Ibid._, Vol. II., part I., p. 223, col. 58, 59; Vol. IV., part I., p.

97, col. 77-82.)

[39] Cf. _Statistical Reports for Borisoglebsk District, Gubernia of

Tamboff_, Appendix, pp. 86-87. Every budget was made out upon the

statement of the householder, in the presence of his neighbors, who

were thoroughly cognizant of the income and expenses of the house; the

data are therefore perfectly trustworthy. (_Ibid._, and also page 28.)

The budgets are produced in full in the Appendix below.

[40] 1 ruble in gold = $0.80. Still there is no gold in circulation in

Russia. The paper ruble, since the Turkish war of 1877-78, is worth

only 60 per cent. of its nominal value, _i. e._, 1.00 paper ruble =

$0.50. The purchasing power of one ruble is however equal to that of

one dollar in New York.

[41] CONSUMPTION.

+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

|Householders in | Rubles. | Per cent. |

| the _gubernia_ +--------+--------+--------+--------+

+----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

|Gabriel Trupoff | 309.00 | 166.71 | 65 | 35 |

|Kosma Abramoff | 586.80 | 416.45 | 59 | 41 |

+----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Taxes and rents are not included. Should we count all expenses, the

figures would look as follows:

TOTAL EXPENDED.

+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

| | Rubles. | Per cent. |

| +--------+--------+--------+--------+

+----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

|Gabriel Trupoff | 309.00 | 219.21 | 59 | 41 |

|Kosma Abramoff | 586.80 | 714.45 | 45 | 55 |

+----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

[42]

+--------------+-----------+--------------------+---------------------+

| | +--------+-----------+---------+-----------+

+--------------+-----------+--------+-----------+---------+-----------+

|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:

+--------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------------+

+--------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------------+

|Zadonsk | 784,061 | 271,729 | 390,178 |

|Korotoyak | 1,017,727 | 504,608 | 1,280,206 |

|Nizhnedevitzk | 1,069,013 | 511,285 | 1,326,110 |

+--------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------------+

[44] _Cf._ Table II., in the Appendix. In this table, land and stock,

the principal instruments of production in Russian agriculture, give

the comparative standard of the peasant’s life.

[45] At the time of the reform it was ostentatiously declared by the

government that the person of the serf would be freed without any

compensation to the master.

[46]

_Households, _Land,

per cent._ per cent._

Ranenburg 91.6 86.9

Dankoff 83.8 73.8

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

this essay.

[48] In addition a tax assessed _per capita_ is levied upon the lands

of the peasants for the expenses of the State.

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

[50] _Cf._ above page 16.

[51] The maximum of arrears reached, in three communities, the

enormous sum of 65 rubles to an average household. This means complete

destruction of independent farming. Let us quote some examples, by way

of illustration:

1. The community of former serfs of Mr. Balk, village and bailiwick

Karpofka, district of Ranenburg: The arrears amount to 67.90 rubles

from each householder. Out of the total number of 51 householders there

are but 24 who cultivate their lots personally. Only three among them

have two horses, the rest must do with one, and 26 (one-half) have

no working animals at all. One householder among these 26 has a cow;

the rest have neither horse nor cow. There are likewise only 13 cows

to be distributed among the 24 better-off householders who personally

cultivate their farms. Only one pig is raised in the village, and 87

sheep--that is to say, less than two sheep, upon an average, to each

household. This means that the peasants have no meat on their tables,

and most of the children no milk. 10 “householders” (one-fifth of the

village) have neither houses nor land; they lease their lots in order

to pay their taxes, and, in all probability, seeing the coincidence of

the figures, they have no cattle either. The yield of rye is to the

seed as 3 to 1, and that of oats as 2 to 1 (_loc. cit._, Vol. II.,

tables, pp. 56-61). In 1864 many peasants’ chattels in this village

were sold for arrears. The majority of the peasants go a-begging (App.,

pp. 286-287), and certainly are very little afraid of public sale for

_où il n’y a rien, le roi perd son droit_. Neither is flogging endowed

with any creative power. Yet, inasmuch as the community is responsible

_in solido_ for the payment of the taxes, it was the minority who

had to pay, in addition to their own arrears, those of the beggars.

Seeing the extent of their wealth, it is not perhaps too pessimistic to

presume that in this year 1892 perfect equality reigns in place of the

old distinction between minority and majority.

2. Community of former serfs of Mr. Novikoff, in the same village, in

arrears for 46.30 rubles to each household, _i. e._, for about three

terms of payment. Soon after the emancipation two great public sales

of their chattels took place, the sales being to satisfy arrears in

the payment of the _taille_. Year in and year out, from 20 to 30

householders have their cattle and buildings sold at public auction

to satisfy arrears of taxes. 23 families out of the whole number of

245 (_i. e._, 9 per cent.) have lost their shanties; 105, or 43 per

cent., have no horses; and 84 among them, or more than one-third of

the village, have also no cows. 123 families, _i. e._, one half of the

village, do not cultivate their lots themselves (or cultivate only a

part), either hiring their neighbors to do the work, or leasing their

lots for the mere payment of the taxes. The wealthier half numbers

but 60 householders (_i. e._, one-fourth of the village), who own two

or more horses, and can be regarded as belonging 10 to the type of

_bonus pater familias_ (_hozyaïslvenniy mushik_). The rest have but one

horse, and some of them no cow. “They live but poorly,” explains the

_Appendix_ (l. c., p. 286).

3. Community of former serfs of Messrs. Muromtzeff, village

Durofshtchino, bailiwick Vednofskaya, of the same district. The

arrears amount in an average to 42.70 rubles to each householder. The

community may serve as an example of the astounding capacity for growth

of the Russian peasant’s wool after he has been shorn like a sheep,

as the great Russian satirist has it (_Playwork Manikins_, by M. E.

Saltykoff). Indeed, in 1881 all the cows in the village were sold for

arrears by the _mir_; in 1882 the statisticians found 38 householders,

each of whom was again in possession of a cow. However, notwithstanding

this capacity of accommodation, in which the Russian peasant approaches

the lowest zoölogical species, the village in question is still far

from prosperous. Among the 64 families there are 12, _i. e._, about

one-fifth, who own neither house nor cattle, and hold no land, having

either returned their lots to the community or leased them for payment

of the taxes, which comes to the same thing. On the other hand, there

are but 27 households, _i. e._, 42 per cent., who maintain a normal

standing, _i. e._, have not less than two horses and one cow, and

cultivate all the land in their possession. (Cf. _Tables_, pp. 194-199.

No. 29; _App._, p. 329.)

[52] _Ibid._, Vol. II., part I., p. 264; part II., p. 197. There are

in both districts only ten communities in which the taxes absorb the

entire rent, and only seven communities of former serfs (out of 562)

in which the taxes exceed the rent. On the other hand, there are only

17 communities where the difference is above three rubles; and the

maximum reaches 13 rubles in a community of former State peasants who

own a tract of forest in the district of Dankoff (_Ibid._, pp. 31, 210,

No. 8). The proportion of taxes to rent in this community is as 9.5 to

22.5, _i. e._, the taxes absorb 42 per cent. of the rent in the most

favored community. What would the New York landlord or the American

farmer say, to such a rate of taxation?

[53]

_Districts._ _Percentage of families owning_

_No horse._ _Neither horse

nor cow._

Ranenburg 36 25

Dankoff 34 25

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

[54] The numbers designate communities.

[55] In these transitional communities labor agreements for pasture

are met with side by side with money contracts. In one case a very

patriarchal form of relations was observed. The community was admitted

to the pasture of the neighboring village for a reception yearly

tendered to the latter. (_Reports_, Vol. II., part I., p. 328, No. 27.)

[56] Some cases of communal tenure are not included in the tables of

the _Reports_, though mentioned in the Appendices; I have added the

extent of this tenure, which makes the difference between my totals and

those of the tables.

[57] The numbers of the two columns under this heading do not

correspond, since land is besides rented individually in those

communities where tenure by the _mir_ or by partnerships is practiced.

[58] _Cf._ _Forms of Agricultural Production in Russia_, p. 43 _et

passim_, by Mr. Euzhakoff, an admirer of Mr. Henry George. The paper

was published in the magazine _Otetchestvenniya Zapiski_, 1882.

[59] In the district of Ryazañ, where communal tenure is by far more

extended than in the districts under review, we find a few cases of

communal tenure among the former State peasants; yet the extent of land

so held is so small as to cut no figure at all:

_Communal tenure._

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

Former serfs 9924 96

Former State peasants 456 4

---- --

Total 10380 100

(_Cf._ _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, Vol. I., sec.

II., table 3, f.; p. 57.)

[60] Rented land is taken into account only in those communities

in which the area cut off at the time of the emancipation could be

ascertained by the statisticians. It may be further stated that only

such land is here taken into account as is yearly cultivated.

[61] AVERAGE HOLDING (IN DESSIATINES).

_Communal._ _Individual._

Ranenburg 88 3

Dankoff 97 3

[62]

+-----------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+

| | Arable. | Meadow. |

| Average rent paid for +----------+--------+----------+--------+

+-----------------------------+----------+--------+----------+--------+

|By the community rubles | 13.11 | 9.76 | 10.86 | 7.74 |

| communities | 19.82 | 13.47 | .. | .. |

| district | 16.62 | 12.76 | 15.91 | 7.59 |

+-----------------------------+----------+--------+----------+--------+

[63]

+------------------------------+--------------------+------------+

| | Quantity of stock | |

| | to one household. | |

| +-------+------------+“Horseless,”|

+------------------------------+-------+------------+------------+

|In the communities in question| 1.6 | 3.2 | 27 |

|Among former serfs at large | 1.2 | 2.6 | 37 |

| with agrarian communism | 1.3 | 2.9 | 33 |

| | | | |

|In the communities in question| 1.5 | 2.9 | 33 |

|Among former serfs at large | 1.3 | 2.5 | 35 |

| 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 +------+-----+-------+-----+Tenants to |leased |

+---------------------+------+-----+-------+-----+-----------+---------+

|Former serfs | 4392 | 83 | 15337 | 84 | 34 | 20 |

|Former State peasants| 893 | 17 | 3010 | 16 | 11 | 3 |

| | | | | | | |

|Former serfs | 3205 | 83 | 11078 | 81 | 32 | 17 |

|Former State peasants| 676 | 17 | 2765 | 20 | 13 | 4 |

+---------------------+------+-----+-------+-----+-----------+---------+

[68] The table includes 62 per cent. of the total area of rented land,

the data for the classification being furnished by the statements in

the _Appendices_ to the _Reports_ for the districts in question.

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

Voronezh:

+--------------+---------------------------------------------------+

| | |

| | Area rented. |

| | |

| Districts. +-----------+--------------+------------+-----------+

+--------------+-----------+--------------+------------+-----------+

|Zadonsk | 86 | 7 | 7 | 100 |

|Korotoyak | 88 | 12 | .. | 100 |

|Nizhnedevitsk | 94 | 4 | 2 | 100 |

+--------------+-----------+--------------+------------+-----------+

(_Cf._ _Statistical Reports_, Vol. IV., part I., Vol. V., part I.; Vol.

VI., part I., Table of Rented Land.)

[70] Here are some instances:

1. Village Solntzevo, district of Ranenburg.--“Some five years ago,

after one failure of the crops, 100 householders were 6000 rubles in

arrears with their rent. Up to this date they have paid practically

nothing, and live with the threat of being sold out hanging perpetually

over their heads.” (_Loc. cit._ App., p. 308.) The result can be shown

in figures:

_Rent (in rubles) paid:_

_Number of tenants._ _By all tenants._ _By each one._

In 1877 100 6000 60

In 1882 75 3514 47

(_Cf._ p. 123.)

2. Village Bahmetyevo, Ranenburg.--“Excessive rent, often not returned

by the yields, has caused the heavy indebtedness of many a householder”

(p. 331).

3. Village Blagueeya.--“The terms of tenure are very burdensome--above

20 rubles the dessiatine. One part of the rent must be discharged in

labor, the rest is payable in advance. Leasing land is often direct

loss. A good many are in debt, and not infrequently get ruined.”

(_Ibid._)

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

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

[73]

+-------------------------------+------------------------------+

| |Percentage to the total of the|

| | peasantry. |

| Classes. +--------------+---------------+

| | Korotoyak. |Nizhnedevitzk. |

+-------------------------------+--------------+---------------+

|Households taking to wage-labor| 62 | 69 |

|Of these are: | | |

| Regular farmers | 50 | 63 |

| Laborers proper | 12 | 6 |

+-------------------------------+--------------+---------------+

[74] Detailed tables containing the rates of wages paid in different

occupations are found in the Appendix.

[75] Optimism is inborn in the Russian; to whatever creed or party

he may belong, things ever appear to him as he would like them to

be. The Russian peasantist must not therefore be censured for his

misconception of this most typical figure of the modern Russian

village. The peasant who agrees to do the full work of cultivating and

harvesting a tract of the landlord’s field appears to Mr. Euzhakoff as

a tenant, with the only peculiarity that “the tenant takes his share

in money, while leaving the landlord to take the crops” (_loc. cit._,

pp. 26-27). This confusion reminds one to some extent of the attempts

of certain economists to represent the workingman as capitalist, and

the capitalist as workingman. There is, however, one extenuating

circumstance that may be urged on behalf of the well-meaning author,

in the hopelessness of the task he has undertaken with the best

intentions, _viz._, to demonstrate that the debilitated Russian

Capitalism, condemned before its birth by history, is unable to hold

its ground in the contest with the triumphant small peasant culture.

[76] There are in all two statements to the effect that work is done

for straw, flour, etc. (_Loc. cit._, part II., p. 198, No. 4; p. 206,

No. 3.) Cases in which work is done for rented land, or for a share in

the crop, have been counted as tenure.

[77] _Loc. cit._, part I., p. 264. Figures on the indebtedness of

the peasantry with regard to farm labor for wages are found in the

_Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh_ (Vol. V., part 1.;

Vol. VI., part I., Table G.). In the table that follows the figures are

reduced to percentage rates:

+----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+--------+

+----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+--------+

|Indebted: 1. All told | 50 | -- | 100 | 34.80 |

| 2. Farm laborers | -- | 52 | 39 | 23.99 |

| | | | | |

|Indebted: 1. All told | 50 | -- | 100 | 44.38 |

| 2. Farm laborers | -- | 56 | 46 | 23.46 |

+----------------------------+-----------+---------+---------+--------+

[78] The mythical first Russian prince, to whom the _élite_ of the

aristocracy trace their ancestry.

[79] Carpenters, shoemakers, tailors, blacksmiths, and others who

supply by their work the local wants.

[80] _Cf._ Appendix, Table V.

[81] ENGAGED IN SKILLED LABOR IN EVERY 1000.

_Households._ _Adult workers._

Ranenburg 72 53

Dankoff 67 49

[82] BOARD FURNISHED BY THE EMPLOYER.

_Paid to_ _For the summer season._ _Per year._

Farm help From 25.00 to 35.00 From 35.00 to 60.00

Carpenters ” 55.00 to 70.00 100.00

[83]

_Workingmen._

_Concerns._ _Total._ _Average to concern._

Ranenburg 506 1985 3.9

Dankoff 240 1355 5.6

--- ---- ---

Total 746 3340 4.5

Virtually, however, the average is less than this, since there are

included only those industrial concerns belonging to peasants, and

situated in the precincts of the villages, while peasant labor is also

employed in those enterprises owned by the landlords and situated on

their estates.

[84] This is the industry which is protected, through prohibitive

tariffs and export premiums, from foreign competition.

[85] Twelve communities were found by the statisticians in which a

considerable part of the membership consisted of regular beggars. As an

example may be quoted the village Bratovka, bailiwick Naryshkinskaya,

Ranenburg: “A good many go a-begging even when crops are good; in years

of failure over half the village takes to begging.” (_Loc. cit._,

p. 283.) Professional beggary has been of late very comprehensively

described by some of the observers of peasant life. Late in the fall

the huts are nailed up, and caravans of peasants--man, wife and

child--start on a journey “for crumbs.” We read in the _Statistical

Reports for the Gubernia of Tamboff_:

“Everywhere the peasants report a great number of beggars; generally

they are peasants from a strange district. It is only in a case of

extreme necessity that a man able to work would force himself to ask

alms in his own village. Usually, the needy families are supported

through loans of bread from their neighbors, who divide with them

their last provisions. The peasants of the district of Morshansk

report, moreover, that they are haunted by a good many beggars from the

district of Shatzk, as well as from the _gubernias_ of Vladimir and

Ryazañ.” (Vol. III., p. 277.)

Does it not exactly remind one of the historical picture drawn by

Vauban, who reported that “one-tenth of the French peasants are

beggars, and the remaining nine-tenths have nothing to give them?”

[86] The question of the degree to which they are successful in

starting as farmers, is one that does not come within the scope of

this essay. I have discussed this question in my previous publication,

_Peasant Emigration to Siberia_, Moscow, 1888.

[87] The wandering population of the district of Voronezh was divided

as follows, between the several branches of employment:

_Workers._ _Per cent._

Agriculture 1283 62

Handicraft 469 23}

Personal service 89 4} 38

City and railroad labourers 219 11}

---- ---

Total 2060 100

[88] The general statements made to this effect by the peasants, and

reproduced in the _Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, could obviously

not be presented in figures, for this would require at least two

censuses.

[89] The co-relation existing between outside work and the decay of

farming may be inferred from the following table for the districts

Ranenburg and Dankoff:

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

per cent._

Local only, no outside workers 90 1124 27

Throughout the region 653 36126 35

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

[91] _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Smolensk_, Vol. IV., pp.

296, 304, 350, 352: Vol. V., pp. 218, 226, 272, 274.

[92] It can be seen by contrasting the figures of families whose houses

have been sold with those of other destitute peasant groups:

_Percentage of families._

_Landless or leasing _Owning neither horse

_Houseless._ their total lots._ nor cow._

Ranenburg 8 15 25

Dankoff 10 15 25

[93] This is confirmed by a great many statements in the _Reports for

the Gubernia of Ryazañ_, as well as by the following table taken from

the _Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Smolensk_:

+-----------------------+----------+------------+

| Absent. |Youkhnoff,|Dorogobouzh,|

| |per cent. | per cent. |

+-----------------------+----------+------------+

|Rate to the population | 7 | 5 |

| Of these: | | |

|Owning houses | 19 | 27 |

|Houseless | 81 | 73 |

| | ---- | ---- |

| Total | 100 | 100 |

+-----------------------+----------+------------+

| Houseless. |Youkhnoff,|Dorogobouzh,|

| |per cent. | per cent. |

+-----------------------+----------+------------+

|Rate to the population | 9 | 6 |

| Of these: | | |

|Living in the village | 36 | 41 |

|Absent from the village| 64 | 59 |

| | ---- | ---- |

| Total | 100 | 100 |

+-----------------------+----------+------------+

[94] “The Pillars” is the title of a very popular novel by Mr.

Zlatovratsky, one of the leading peasantist writers.

[95] I must again plead for extenuating circumstances in the event of

being mistaken as to the exact date.

[96] The “major” _i. e._ the head of the family, composed of married

brothers and sisters, is not always the eldest brother. In case the

eldest male member of the family shows himself not qualified for

the management of the household, one of the younger brothers is

occasionally entrusted with the office.

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

writer on sociology.

[98] The number of workers included in the tenth census is not given

in the reports, but the distribution of the population according to

age is not likely to have changed very much in 25 years, the rates

being determined to a great extent by biological influences, which are

modified very slowly. The percentage of the total male population that

by the census of the zemstvo had reached the age at which they are

usually set to work is as follows:

_Per cent._

Ranenburg (1882) 47

Dankoff (1882) 47

Korotoyak (1887) 47

Nizhnedevitzk (1887) 46

Taking these figures as co-efficients, we obtain the number of male

workers to a family in 1858.

[99] The figures above given are rather too little expressive for the

actual degree of the dissolution of the patriarchal family abroad.

The following are the figures for the whole region covered by the

statistical investigation of the zemstvo toward January 1, 1890 (_cf._

Introduction):

Communities 50,429

Households 3,309,020

Males and females 19,693,191

Average membership to 1 family 5.95

To the do. of Ranenburg 6.4

” ” Dankoff 6.4

” ” Korotoyak 7.3

” ” Nizhnedevitzk 7.8

[100] The correlation between the number of workers and the size of the

farm can be summed up as follows: