FOOTNOTES

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]“TheZemstvoand the national economy,” by I. P. Bielokonsky.Severny Vestnik(monthly magazine), May, 1892.[6]As the investigation of theguberniaof Ryazañ had not been brought to an end, the gaps have been filled in most cases by referring to theReportsfor theguberniasof 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 ofThe Origin of Property in Landby Fustel de Coulanges, represents the Russian village community as “only a joint cultivation and not a joint ownership.” The Russianmir, 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., theguberniasof 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, thezaisangsandnoyons, 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 liquors242,570,981259,550,981”7.”naphtha10,026,8009,528,500”8.”matches4,720,0004,524,000”5.”tobacco27,741,10228,213,102”6.”sugar21,174,00020,161,000”9.Customs duties110,900,000110,929,000417,182,883432,906,583(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 theguberniaof 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 theguberniaof 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.Tver144152Smolensk66120Kostroma46140Pskoff30113Vladimir68176Vyatka3100In 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.Ranenburg16436111368169Dankoff13008289376691 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.Ranenburg25481,6392121,23624Dankoff21542,1804132,53950Cf.Quarterly Possession, by Mr. K. Pankeyeff, in the Moscow reviewRusskaya Mysl, 1886, book 2, p. 50. The paper quoted was to have been published as a part of theReports 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’sReport to the XVII. Assembly of the Gubernia of Ryazañ, p. 5.Cf.alsoEmigration 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 pointcf.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 theguberniaof 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.Quarterly332,18015,0713,7541129,59889”and Communistic121,63911,0379,2104511,21355Communistic proper459,31962,11499,49399.54930.5[24]Cf.Table of the Distribution of Land and Population, in the Appendix.[25]The appendices to theStatistical Reportscontain 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 emancipation53870100After””4053775Cut off for the nobles1333325It 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]1pood= 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 serfs12,99916,1408,9241.22.6II. Former State peasants—a.Agrarian communism6,2378,2415,6871.32.9b.Quarterly possession41583051424c.Mixed1,2241,7811,1951.53.1Total20,87526,99216,3201.32.6Dankoff.I. Former serfs9,98913,5766,4851.42.5II. Former State peasants—a.Agrarian communism3,0824,0922,1891.32.6b.Quarterly possession1,7653,1261,4061.83.3c.Mixed4156483181.62.9Total15,25121,44210,3981.42.7(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.Total2765226039Forest allotted to3261927(Cf. Statistical Reports, Vol. II, pp. I-II., Appendices.)[31]We read in the Appendix to theStatistical 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.Injuredby site.Ranenburg28822Dankoff27417(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 Russia4.5100In Ostrogozhsk4.5100In the U. S. (1890)6.1135(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.Korotoyak3,3681631,48142,310Nizhnedevitzk7,2383684,47370,103Ibid., 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 57poodsupon 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.Ostrogozhsk5854Zadonsk4144(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 theguberniaof Tamboff.Rubles.Per cent.Own produce.Market produce.Own produce.Market produce.Gabriel Trupoff309.00166.716535Kosma Abramoff586.80416.455941Taxes 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 Trupoff309.00219.215941Kosma Abramoff586.80714.454555[42]Districts in theguberniaof Voronezh.Households buying in the market.Households selling produce.Households consuming their total produce.Number.Per cent.Number.Per cent.Zadonsk15,5288,094517,61049Korotoyak20,23218,769931,4637Nizhnedevitzk20,05118,558931,4937Those 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 sameReports. (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 theguberniaof Voronezh.Money expenditure for the needs of the farmer (rubles).Taxes (rubles).Receipts from sale of produce (rubles).Zadonsk784,061271,729390,178Korotoyak1,017,727504,6081,280,206Nizhnedevitzk1,069,013511,2851,326,110[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.Ranenburg91.686.9Dankoff83.873.8[47]Cf.the Table of the Distribution of Arrears, in the Appendix to this essay.[48]In addition a tax assessedper capitais 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 foroù il n’y a rien, le roi perd son droit. Neither is flogging endowed with any creative power. Yet, inasmuch as the community is responsiblein solidofor 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 thetaille. 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 ofbonus pater familias(hozyaïslvenniy mushik). The rest have but one horse, and some of them no cow. “They live but poorly,” explains theAppendix(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 themir; 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 owningDistricts.No horse.Neither horse nor cow.Ranenburg3625Dankoff3425(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 theReports, 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.

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

[6]As the investigation of theguberniaof Ryazañ had not been brought to an end, the gaps have been filled in most cases by referring to theReportsfor theguberniasof 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 ofThe Origin of Property in Landby Fustel de Coulanges, represents the Russian village community as “only a joint cultivation and not a joint ownership.” The Russianmir, 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., theguberniasof 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, thezaisangsandnoyons, 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 liquors242,570,981259,550,981”7.”naphtha10,026,8009,528,500”8.”matches4,720,0004,524,000”5.”tobacco27,741,10228,213,102”6.”sugar21,174,00020,161,000”9.Customs duties110,900,000110,929,000417,182,883432,906,583(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.

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

RUBLES.

(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 theguberniaof 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 theguberniaof 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.Tver144152Smolensk66120Kostroma46140Pskoff30113Vladimir68176Vyatka3100In 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.)

EXCESS OF TAXATION ABOVE THE NET INCOME.

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.

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.Ranenburg16436111368169Dankoff13008289376691 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.

[16]

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.Ranenburg25481,6392121,23624Dankoff21542,1804132,53950Cf.Quarterly Possession, by Mr. K. Pankeyeff, in the Moscow reviewRusskaya Mysl, 1886, book 2, p. 50. The paper quoted was to have been published as a part of theReports of the Ryazañ Statistical Bureau, but after the work was stopped (see above page 16) it appeared in one of our liberal magazines.

[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.

Cf.Quarterly Possession, by Mr. K. Pankeyeff, in the Moscow reviewRusskaya Mysl, 1886, book 2, p. 50. The paper quoted was to have been published as a part of theReports 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’sReport to the XVII. Assembly of the Gubernia of Ryazañ, p. 5.Cf.alsoEmigration 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 pointcf.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 theguberniaof 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.Quarterly332,18015,0713,7541129,59889”and Communistic121,63911,0379,2104511,21355Communistic proper459,31962,11499,49399.54930.5

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

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

[25]The appendices to theStatistical Reportscontain 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 emancipation53870100After””4053775Cut off for the nobles1333325It 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.

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]1pood= 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 serfs12,99916,1408,9241.22.6II. Former State peasants—a.Agrarian communism6,2378,2415,6871.32.9b.Quarterly possession41583051424c.Mixed1,2241,7811,1951.53.1Total20,87526,99216,3201.32.6Dankoff.I. Former serfs9,98913,5766,4851.42.5II. Former State peasants—a.Agrarian communism3,0824,0922,1891.32.6b.Quarterly possession1,7653,1261,4061.83.3c.Mixed4156483181.62.9Total15,25121,44210,3981.42.7(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).

[29]

(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.Total2765226039Forest allotted to3261927(Cf. Statistical Reports, Vol. II, pp. I-II., Appendices.)

[30]This is shown in the table below:

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

[31]We read in the Appendix to theStatistical 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.Injuredby site.Ranenburg28822Dankoff27417(Cf. Statistical Reports, Vol. II., Appendices.)

(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 Russia4.5100In Ostrogozhsk4.5100In the U. S. (1890)6.1135(Cf. Reports, etc., by J. A. Dodge, p. 480;Comparative Statistics of Russia, by Prof. J. E. Janson, p. 74).

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

(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.Korotoyak3,3681631,48142,310Nizhnedevitzk7,2383684,47370,103Ibid., 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 57poodsupon 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.Ostrogozhsk5854Zadonsk4144(Ibid., Vol. II., part I., p. 223, col. 58, 59; Vol. IV., part I., p. 97, col. 77-82.)

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

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 57poodsupon 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:

(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 theguberniaof Tamboff.Rubles.Per cent.Own produce.Market produce.Own produce.Market produce.Gabriel Trupoff309.00166.716535Kosma Abramoff586.80416.455941Taxes 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 Trupoff309.00219.215941Kosma Abramoff586.80714.454555

[41]

CONSUMPTION.

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

TOTAL EXPENDED.

[42]Districts in theguberniaof Voronezh.Households buying in the market.Households selling produce.Households consuming their total produce.Number.Per cent.Number.Per cent.Zadonsk15,5288,094517,61049Korotoyak20,23218,769931,4637Nizhnedevitzk20,05118,558931,4937Those 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 sameReports. (L. c.)

[42]

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 sameReports. (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 theguberniaof Voronezh.Money expenditure for the needs of the farmer (rubles).Taxes (rubles).Receipts from sale of produce (rubles).Zadonsk784,061271,729390,178Korotoyak1,017,727504,6081,280,206Nizhnedevitzk1,069,013511,2851,326,110

[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.Ranenburg91.686.9Dankoff83.873.8

[46]

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

[48]In addition a tax assessedper capitais 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 foroù il n’y a rien, le roi perd son droit. Neither is flogging endowed with any creative power. Yet, inasmuch as the community is responsiblein solidofor 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 thetaille. 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 ofbonus pater familias(hozyaïslvenniy mushik). The rest have but one horse, and some of them no cow. “They live but poorly,” explains theAppendix(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 themir; 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.)

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 foroù il n’y a rien, le roi perd son droit. Neither is flogging endowed with any creative power. Yet, inasmuch as the community is responsiblein solidofor 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 thetaille. 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 ofbonus pater familias(hozyaïslvenniy mushik). The rest have but one horse, and some of them no cow. “They live but poorly,” explains theAppendix(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 themir; 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 owningDistricts.No horse.Neither horse nor cow.Ranenburg3625Dankoff3425(Cf.Reports, Vol. II., part I., p. 255; part II., p. 189.)

[53]

(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 theReports, 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.

Back to Index Next