Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:45:20.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Russian Peasant Commune After the Reforms of the 1860s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Boris Mironov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the 1860s the Russian government carried out a series of major reforms that had important consequences for key dimensions of Russian society—its economy, judiciary, local administration, army, censorship, and education. Historians have generally agreed that these reforms exerted a profound influence upon Russian historical development, but they have not arrived at an analogous consensus on how the reforms of the 1860s affected the general development of the country as a whole or the peasantry in particular. In this article I seek to analyze the immediate effect of the reforms of the 1860s on the fundamental institution of the peasantry—the commune. I shall employ a sociological approach, a mode of analysis for which the specialized literature is both rich and diverse, in an attempt to determine the underlying structural principles of the commune and to construct an analytical model for the functions and the development of the repartitional land commune.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , Fall 1985 , pp. 438 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This article was translated for the Slavic Review by Gregory L. Freeze; a preliminary version was drafted by Carol S. Leonard.

1. A negative assessment of the reforms is found in Druzhinin, N. M., Russkaia derevnia naperelome 1861–1880 gg. (Moscow, 1978), pp. 266–75Google Scholar, and Gerschenkron, Alexander, “Agrarian Politicsand Industrialization: Russia, 1861–1917,” Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. 6, pt. 2(London, 1965), pp. 727, 743, 765, 798–99Google Scholar. More positive evaluations are found in Ryndziunskii, P. G., Utverzhdenie kapitalizma v Rossii (Moscow, 1978), pp. 284–94Google Scholar; and Portal, R., “The Industrialization of Russia,” Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. 6, pt. 2, pp. 810–11.Google Scholar

2. Sociologists and anthropologists who have conducted research on the commune hold one ofthree theoretical positions: (1) typological, (2) ecological, or (3) structural-functionalist. See D. E.Poplin, Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of Research (New York, 1972), and Szacki, Jerzy, History of Sociological Thought (London, 1980), pp. 439–43Google Scholar. When examining the commune, historians rarely follow a particular theory; their approach is usually highly empirical. For the historiography on anthropological and sociological works on the commune, see Macfarlane, A., “History, Anthropology and the Study of Community,” Social History, 5 (1977): 631–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Redfield, R.,Human Nature and the Study of Society, vol. 1 (Chicago, 1962), pp. 302–10, 375–91Google Scholar; Silverman, Sydel, “The Peasant Concept of Anthropology,” Journal of Peasant Studies, 1 (1979): 49–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simpson, R. L., “Sociology of the Community: Current Status and Prospects,” Rural Sociology, 30 (1965): 127–49.Google Scholar

3. A model of the commune denotes an approximate analogue which, in a general way, reflectsthe fundamental features, regularities, and peculiar characteristics of the functioning of thousandsof individual communes.

4. The literature on the repartitional commune is enormous: about three thousand books andarticles (excluding works about the peasantry that treat the commune only in passing). As a rule, however, scholars have limited their research to particular aspects of communal life, primarily economicand juridical dimensions, and have not examined the commune in all its important aspects asa total, internally coherent system. For the historiography on the commune, see Aleksandrov, V A., Sel'skaia obshchina v Rossii (XVII-nachalo XIX v.) (Moscow, 1976), pp. 3–24 Google Scholar; Dubrovskii, S. M., “Rossiiskaia obshchina v literature XIX i nachale XX v. (bibliograficheskii obzor),” in Voprosy istoriisel'skogo khoziaistva, krest'ianstva i revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia v Rossii (Moscow, 1961), pp. 348–61Google Scholar; Kacharovsky, K. R., “The Russian Land Commune in History and Today,” Slavonic Review, 7(1929): 565–76Google Scholar; Petrovich, M. B., “The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Historiography,” in Vucinich, W. S., ed., The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Stanford, 1968), pp. 191–320 Google Scholar. For a bibliographyof literature about the commune, see Pushkarev, S. G., Krest'ianskaia pozemel'naia peredeinaiaobshchina (Newtonville, Mass., 1976), pp. vi–x Google Scholar. For the commune in the 1860s–1870s, see Vasil'chikov, A. I., Zemlevladenie i zemledelie, vol. 2(St. Petersburg, 1876), pp. 699–709 Google Scholar; Izgoev, A. S., Obshchinnoepravo (St. Petersburg, 1906)Google Scholar; Kaufman, A. A., K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii russkoi zemel' noi obshchiny (Moscow, 1907)Google Scholar; Trirogov, V,Obshchina i podat’ (St. Petersburg, 1882)Google Scholar; S. S. Sashkov, , “Russkaia obshchina i ee vragi,” Delo, 1881, no. 1: 129–54Google Scholar; Shcherbina, F., “Russkaia zemel'naia obshchina,” Russkaia mysl', 1881, nos. 5–8, 10, 12Google Scholar; Kennard, Howard P., Russian Peasant (London, 1907), pt. 1Google Scholar; Kravchinskii, S. N., The Russian Peasantry: Their Agrarian Conditions, Social Life and Religion (London and New York, 1888)Google Scholar; Leroy-Beaulieu, Anatole, The Russian Peasant (Sandoval, N.M., 1962), pts. 2–3Google Scholar; Pechoux, Pierre, “La Commune rurale dans l'empire de tsars de J. H. Schnitzler,” Cahiers du monde russe etsovietique, 3 (1965): 367–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; F. M. Watters, “The Peasant and the Village Commune,” in Vucinich,Peasant, pp. 158–90.

5. Thirty-three descriptions of communes have been published in Sbornik materialov dlia izucheniiasel'skoi pozemel'noi obshchiny, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1890) [hereafter Sbornik materialov](the questionnaire format is published in ibid., pp. 1–36); Al'din, S. K., “Materialy dlia izucheniiasel'skoi pozemel'noi obshchiny: fakty mirskogo zemlevladeniia v fabrichnykh seleniiakh Vladimirskoigubernii,” Russkoe bogatstvo, 1 (1879): 2–16 Google Scholar; P. Georgievskii, “Ocherk byta odnoi sel'skoi obshchiny, “Slovo, January 1879, pp. 99–118; M. Kuroptev, “Fedossevskaia obshchina v Stulovskoivolosti,” Viatskie gubernskie vedomosti, 1879, nos. 15–16. Additional descriptions of 751 Russianrepartitional communes and 32 Belorussian household communes are preserved in Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyiistoricheskii arkhiv SSSR (hereafter TsGIA), fond 91 (Vol'noe ekonomicheskoe obshchestvo),opis’ 2, dela 768–84. For an overview of these descriptions, see Kapustin, S. Ia., “Obzormaterialov po obshchinnomu zemlevladeniiu, khraniashchikhsia v Vol'nom ekonomicheskom obshchestve, ”Russkai mysl', 1890, no. 1, pp. 16–33; no. 3, pp. 20–40; no. 4, pp. 1–30Google Scholar. A detailed source analysis is to be found in Kuchumova, L. I., “Iz istorii obsledovaniia sel'skoi pozemel'noiobshchiny v 1877–1880 godakh,” Istoriia SSSR, 1978, no. 2, pp. 115–26Google Scholar. A further 54 descriptions, not based upon the FES questionnaire, are to be found in the following: Bogolepov, I. P., “Ocherk Spaso-Temnevskogo sel'skogo obshchestva,” in Sbornik statisticheskikhsvedenii po Moskovskoi gubernii. Otdel khoziaistvennoi statistiki, 4, no. 1 (Moscow, 1879)Google Scholar, prilozhenie 3–38; N. N. Vecheslav, Svedeniia o sel'skikh pozemel'nykh obshchinakh Kazanskoi gubernii(Kazan', 1879); Dobrotvorskii, , “Pozemel'naia obshchina v Orlovskom uezde Viatskoi gubernii, “Russkaia mysl', 1884, no. 9, pp. 26–60 Google Scholar; Krasnoperov, I., “Pozemel'naia obshchina v Kretetskom uezde,” Russkaia rech', 1880, no. 5, pp. 267–85Google Scholar; Mineiko, G., Sel'skaia pozemel'naiaobshchina v Arkhangelskoi gubernii, no. 1–4 (Arkhangel'sk, 1882–89)Google Scholar; Polovtsev, A. V., “Pervyeshagi na puti fakticheskogo issledovaniia sel'skoi obshchiny,” Trudy Vol'nogo ekonomicheskogo obshchestva, 1879, 1, no. 1: 1–23 Google Scholar; Posnikov, A. S., Obshchinnoe zemlevladenie, no. 2 (Odessa, 1878)Google Scholar; Sergeev, P. I., “S Severa (Ocherki obshchinnogo vladeniia v Arkhangel'skoi gubernii),” Delo, 1880,no. 4, pp. 203–22Google Scholar; Shcherbina, F., “Obshchinno-zemel'nye poriadki Vorobinskoi volostiSol'vychegodskogo uezda,” in Vologodskii sbornik, vol. 1 (Vologda, 1879), pp. 1–22 Google Scholar; Shcherbina, , “Sol'vychegodskaia zemel'naia obshchina,” Otechestvennye zapiski, 1879, no. 7, pp. 41–84; no. 8,pp. 167–209Google Scholar; Shcherbina, , “Zemel'naia obshchina v Dneprovskom uezde,” Russkaia mysl', 1880,no. 4, pp. 38–63 Google Scholar; Iasnitskii, A. , “Muranskaia obshchina (Simbirskaia guberniia),” Ustoi, 1882, no. 1,pp. 50–62.Google Scholar

6. TsGIA, fond 91, opis’ 2, deb 777, l. 194; d. 779, l. 491; Sbornik materialov, pp. 43, 175,205, 238, 333–34 et passim.

7. Golovin, K., Sel'skaia obshchina v literature i deistvitel'nosti (St. Petersburg, 1887), pp. 7–33.Google Scholar

8. For an example of a large commune, see TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 775, ll. 36–87.

9. Blum, Jerome, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (Princeton,N.J., 1961), pp. 504–506 Google Scholar; Iu. E. Ianson, Sravnitel'naia statistika Rossii i zapadno-evropeiskikhgosudarstv, vol. 1 (Territoriia i naselenie) (St. Petersburg, 1876), p. 38; Sbornik statisticheskikh svedenii po Moskovskoi gubernii: Otdel khoziaistvennoi statistiki, 4, no. 1 (Moscow, 1879), p. 250; Kuchumova, L. I., “Sel'skaia pozemel'naia obshchina Evropeiskoi Rossii v 60–70-e gody XIX v.,” Istoricheskiezapiski, 106 (1981): 325–35.Google Scholar

10. Calculated according to data in Statisticheskii vremennik Rossiiskoi imperii, series 3, no. 10(St. Petersburg, 1886), pp. 42–43, 113, 121, 129; Blum, Lord and Peasant, pp. 504–506; Blagoveshchenskii, N. A., Svodnyi statisticheskii sbornik khoziaistvennykh svedenii po zemskim podvornymperepisiam. I: Krest'ianskoe khoziaistvo (Moscow, 1893), p. 130.Google Scholar

11. For the various types of communes, see K. Golovin, Sel'skaia obshchina, pp. 13–22; Karelin, A. A., Obshchinnoe vladenie v Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1893), pp. 219–29Google Scholar; Kachorovskii, K. R.,Russkaia obshchina (Moscow, 1906)Google Scholar; Lalosh, A., “Sel'skaia obshchina v Olonetskoi gubernii,” Otechestvennye zapiski, 1874, no. 2, pp. 227–28Google Scholar; and V P. Vorontsov, “Krest'ianskaia obshchina,” inItogi ekonomicheskogo issledovaniia Rossii po dannym zemskoi statistiki (Moscow, 1892), vol. 1.

12. In some cases the communes controlled the quality of fertilization and cultivation of thefields and took measures against “indolent peasants,” who were at first “reproved and exhorted ata communal assembly” and then were temporarily stripped of their land allotment. See TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 769, l. 62; d. 774, l. 61; d. 776, l. 24ob.; Sbornik materialov, p. 366.

13. The law was enforced only by the volost’ peasant court (the volost’ was the lowest administrativeunit, embracing from 600 to 4,000 persons). By custom, however, the commune itself hadits own court, which took several forms: (a) the family, (b) court of arbitration, (c) elders,(d) neighbors, (e) village elder, and (f) village communal meeting. See TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 769, l. 66; Sbornik materialov, p. 381; Zarudnyi, M. I., Zakony i zhizri. Itogi issledovaniia krest'ianskikhsudov (St. Petersburg, 1874), pp. 172–73Google Scholar; Kalachov, N. V., “O volostnykh i sel'skikh sudakh v drevneii nyneshnei Rossii,” in Sbornik gosudarstvennykh znanii (St. Petersburg, 1880), 8:128–48Google Scholar; V. V. Tenishev, Pravosudie v russkom krest'ianskom bytu (St. Petersburg, 1907), pp. 33–69; Trudy Komissiipo preobrazovaniiu volostnykh sudov, 6 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1873–74). According to field researchconducted in ten provinces, communal courts of elders and stariki existed everywhere and alongsidethe volost’ court (ibid., 1:252).

14. This characterization of communal activity is based on responses to the FES questionnaireand the general statute on serf emancipation in 1861 (see Polozhenie 19 fevralia 1861 g. okrest'ianakh, vyshedshikh iz krepostnoi zavisimosti [Moscow, 1916]).

15. M. I. Zarudnyi, Zakony i zhizri, pp. 167–85; P. N. Zyrianov, “Obychnoe grazhdanskoepravo v poreformennoi Rossii,” in Ezhegodnik po agrarnoi istorii, vol. 6 (Problemy istorii russkoiobshchiny) (Vologda, 1976), pp. 91–101; S. V. Pakhman, Obychnoe grazhdanskoe pravo v Rossii, vols. 1–2 (St. Petersburg, 1877–79); Iakushkin, E. I., Obychnoe pravo: Materialy dlia bibliografiiobychnogo prava, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1910), pp. i–xxx Google Scholar; vol. 2 (Iaroslavl', 1896), pp. i–xxxv.

16. S. T. Semenov, Dvadtsat’ piat’ let v derevne (Petrograd, 1925), pp. 35–40; O. P. Semenova-Tian-Shanskaia, Zhizn’ Ivana (St. Petersburg, 1914), p. 106; Skaldin, V zakholust'e i v stolitse (St.Petersburg, 1870), p. 45.

17. Skaldin, V zakholust'e, pp. 34–41; K. I. Tur, Golos zhizni o krest'ianskom neustroistve (St.Petersburg, 1898), pp. 9–18; S. I. Shidlovskii, Zemel'nye zakhvaty i mezhevoe delo (St. Petersburg,1904), p. 16; and Shidlovskii, Obshchii obzor trudov mestnykh komitetov (Vysochaishe uchrezhdennoeosoboe soveshchanie o nuzhdakh sel'sko-khoziaistvennoipromyshlennosti) (St. Petersburg, 1905),pp. 119–20, 133.

18. N. N. Zlatovratskii, Ustoi, published in his Sobranie sochinenii (St. Petersburg, 1912), 3:119;Selo Viriatino v proshlom i nastoiashchem (Moscow, 1958), p. 96.

19. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 770, l. 32; E. P. Busygin et al., Obshchestvennyi i semeinyi bytrusskogo sel'skogo naseleniia Srednego Povolzft'ia Istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie (seredinaXlX-nachalo XX v.) (Kazan', 1973), p. 59; N. N. Zlatovratskii, “Ocherki krest'ianskoi obshchiny, “Sobranie sochinenii (St. Petersburg, 1913), 8:14, 44; Semenova-Tian-Shanskaia, Zhizri Ivana, p. III; Skaldin, V zakholust'e, p. 223; E. Solov'ev, “Samosudy i krest'ian,” Zapiski Russkogo geograficheskogoobshchestva po otdeleniiu etnografii (St. Petersburg, 1878), vol. 8, section 3:15–17.

20. Sbornik materialov, p. 201.

21. Obshchee polozhenie o krest'ianakh, arts. 60, 64, 67, 68, 122, 125.

22. According to data compiled by the Ministry of Internal Affairs on 34 provinces in EuropeanRussia in 1880 (concerning 85,279 village elders), 37.5 percent were currently in their first year ofservice, 26.9 percent in their second, 25.9 percent in their third, 3.1 percent in their fourth, and only6.6 percent were in office for more than four years. Since the single term of an elder was set at threeyears, it follows that 90.3 percent of the elders were still in their first term, and only 9.7 percent hadserved for two or more terms. Calculated from data in Statisticheskie materialy po volostnomu isel'skomu upravleniiu 34 gubernii, v koikh vvedeny zemskie ustanovleniia. Svod dannykh, dostavlennykhpo tsirkuliariu MVD 18 ianvaria 1880 g. za no. 4 (Sostavlen v kantseliarii vysochaishe uchrezhdennoiOsoboi komissii dlia sostavleniia proektov mestnogo upravleniia) (n.p., n.d.), table 4.

23. Korolenko, V. G., “Golodnyi god,” Sobranie sochinenii (Moscow, 1955), 9:297–303 Google Scholar; Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii, 1861–69 gg. (Moscow, 1964), pp. 22–23.

24. Obshchee polozhenie o krest'ianakh, art. 119.

25. V I. Dal', Poslovitsy russkogo naroda (Moscow, 1957), p. 405.

26. L. I. Kuchumova, “Sel'skaia pozemel'naia obshchina,” pp. 341–42.

27. Calculated from data in Statisticheskie materialy po volostnomu i sel'skomu upravleniiu, table 1; see also TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 116, I. 1.

28. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 770, l. 21ob; d. 774, l. 7.

29. Ibid., d. 774, l. 22ob; Sbornik materialov, p. 185; Kuchumova, “Sel'skaia pozemel'naiaobshchina,” p. 342.

30. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 772, l. 29; d. 774, l. 22ob; Sbornik materialov, pp. 162–63, 173,213, 308, 340, 344, 381 et passim; Zlatovratskii, N. N., “Avraam,” Sobranie sochinenii (St. Petersburg, 1912), 2:271 Google Scholar; Zlatovratskii, Ustoi, p. 74. See also A. M. Anfimov and P. N. Zyrianov, “Nekotoryecherty evoliutsii russkoi krest'ianskoi obshchiny v poreformennyi period (1861–1914), “Istoriia SSSR, 1980, no. 4, pp. 34–35; Kuchumova, “Sel'skaia pozemel'naia obshchina,” p. 340.

31. Sbornik materialov, p. 259; P. A. Zaionchkovskii, Otmena krepostnogoprava v Rossii (Moscow,1968), pp. 99–101, 166–77; Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii v 1861–69 gg., pp. 17–26; Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii 1870–80 gg. (Moscow, 1968), pp. 39–48; Maslov, P. P., Agrarnyivopros v Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1908), 2:43–70 Google Scholar; Chernukha, V G., Krest'ianskii vopros v pravitel'stvennoipolitike Rossii (60–70-e gody XIX v.) (Leningrad, 1972), pp. 79–82 Google Scholar.In 1861–63 four percent of the conflicts between peasants and the government ended inconfrontation with military forces. Zaionchkovskii, P. A., Provedenie v zhizn’ krest'ianskoi reformy1861 g. (Moscow, 1958), p. 131.Google Scholar

32. Kavelin, K. D., Krest'ianskii vopros (St. Petersburg, 1882), p. 151 Google Scholar; see also Vestnik Evropy, 1886, no. 10, pp. 745–46.

33. Kornilov, A. A., “Krest'ianskoe samoupravlenie po Polozheniiu 19 fevralia,” Velikaia reforma(Moscow, 1911), 6:137–57Google Scholar; Materialy dlia izucheniia sovremennogo polozheniia zemlevladeniiai set’ sko-khoziaistvennoi promyshlennosti v Rossii, sobrannye po rasporiazheniiu ministra gosudarstvennykhimushchestv, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1880), pp. 38–43; S., “O krest'ianskom samoupravlenii, “Ustoi, no. 2, pp. 72–99; no. 3–4, pp. 42–182; Tenishev, V. V., Administrativnyi stroi russkogokrest'ianina (St. Petersburg, 1908), pp. 1–129.Google Scholar

34. Dal', Poslovitsy, p. 405.

35. Tenishev, Administrativnyi stroi, pp. 92–94; A. N. Engel'gardt, Iz derevni: 12 pisem, 1872–87 (Moscow, 1937), pp. 407–408; Anfimov and Zyrianov, “Nekotorye cherty,” pp. 33–34; P. N. Zyrianov, “Nekotorye cherty evoliutsii krest'ianskogo ‘mira’ v poreformennuiu epokhu,” Ezhegodnik poagrarnoi istorii Vostochnoi Evropy 1971 g. (Vilnius, 1974), pp. 383–85; Kuchumova, “Sel'skaia pozemel'naiaobshchina,” pp. 341, 343.

36. V. Dobrovol'skii, “Prozvishcha krest'ian,” Zhivaia starina, 8 (1898), no. 2: 421–24; A. A.Shustikov, “Prozvishcha krest'ian,” ibid., 9 (1899), sec. 2: 526–28; A. A. Iarkov, “Narodnye slovai prozvishcha,” ibid., 12 (1902), no. 1, pp. 127–28; P. S. Efimenko, Materialy po etnografii russkogonaseleniia Arkhangelskoi gubernii. Chast’ 1: Opisanie vneshnego i vnutrennego byta (Moscow, 1877),p. 161.

37. Shcherbina, Russkaia zemel'naia obshchina, p. 63.

38. For example, see TsGIA, l. 91, op. 2, d. 116, 11. 11–12, and Sbornik materialov, p. 375.See also A. Nikol'skii, “Lichnost’ v obshchinnomu bytu,” Russkoe ekonomicheskoe obozrenie, 1(1898): 54–95; Rittikh, A. A., Zavisimost’ krest'ian ot obshchiny i mira (St. Petersburg, 1903).Google Scholar

39. Mozharovskii, Iz zhizni krest'ianskikh detei Kazanskoi gubernii (Kazan', 1882).

40. Blagoveshchenskii, Svodnyi statisticheskii sbornik, 1:128; N. Bychkov, “Gramotnost'sel'skogo naseleniia (po dannym zemskoi statistiki),” Iwidicheskii vestnik, July-August 1890,pp. 310–12.

41. R. Ia. Vnukov, Protivorechiia staroi krest'ianskoi sem'i (Orel, 1929).

42. N. N. Zlatovratskii, Ustoi, p. 119.

43. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 113, l. 15; Sbornik materialov, p. 371.

44. V. A. Novakovskii, Opyt podvedeniia itogov ugolovnoi statistiki s 1861 po 1871 g. (St. Petersburg,1891), p. 18. S. S. Ostroumov, Prestupnost’ i ee prichiny v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii (Moscow,1980), p. 39; E. N. Tarnovskii, “Itogi russkoi ugolovnoi statistiki za 20 let (1874–1894 gg.), “Zhurnal ministerstva iustitsii, 1889, no. 7, prilozhenie: 187; and Tarnovskii, “Raspredelenie prestupnostipo professiiam,” ibid., 1907, no. 8, pp. 67–68.

45. N. P. Shveikin, “Umershie nasil'stvenno i vnezapno v Evropeiskoi Rossii v 1875–1887 gg., “Vremennik TsSK MVD, 35 (1894): ii, v.

46. P. Bechasnov, “Statisticheskie dannye o razvodakh i nedeistvitel'nykh brakakh za 1867–1886 gg.,” ibid., 1893, no. 26, pp. 30–31. Data for divorce applied to entire provinces (including theurban areas) and is not broken down by estates. But evidence that divorce rates were higher in citiesis suggested by the close correlation between the number of divorces and the percentage of urbanpopulation in a given province.

47. Aleksandrov, V. A. et al., eds., Russkie. Istoriko-etnograficheskii atlas. Zemledelie.Krest'ianskoe zhilishche. Krest'ianskaia odezhda (Moscow, 1967)Google Scholar; Aleksandrov, et al., Russkie. Istoriko-etnograficheskii atlas. Iz istorii russkogo narodnogo zhilishcha i kostiuma (Moscow, 1970)Google Scholar.

48. Simmel, Georg, Philosophische Kultur: Gesammelte Essays, 2d ed. (Potsdam, 1923), p. 26.Google Scholar

49. For a good description of the status of the individual personality in the commune, seeSemonov, Dvadtsat’ piat’ let, pp. 60–62, 72–76, 120 et passim.

50. Evidence is found in all the responses to the questionnaire. See, for example, TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 772, ll. 6–7; Sbornik materialov, pp. 70–72. See also Blagoveshchenskii, pp. 132–33; V P.Vorontsov, “Razdelenie truda zemledel'cheskogo i promyshlennogo v Rossii,” Vestnik Evropy, 1884,bk. 7, pp. 330, 332; P. Lokhtin, BezzemeV nyi proletariat v Rossii (Moscow, 1905), p. 156; Materialydlia izuchenia sovremennogo polozheniia zemlevladeniia, no. 1, pp. 17–18, 62–67; A. Fortunatov, “K statistike raspredeleniia khoziaistvennogo dostatka sredi krest'ian,” Russkaia mysl, 1894, no. 9,pp. 156; N. N. Chernenkov, K kharakteristike krest'ianskogo khoziaistva (Moscow, 1918), pp. 68–113; Anfimov and Zyrianov, “Nekotorye cherty,” p. 31.

51. A comprehensive characterization of peasant consumption is given in Chaianov, A. V., Organizatsiiakrest'ianskogo khoziaistva (Moscow, 1925)Google Scholar.

52. See for instance, Sbornik materialov, p. 366; Orlov, V., “Formy krest'ianskogo zemlevladeniiav Moskovskoi gubernii,” in Sbomik statisticheskikh svedenii po Moskovskoi gubernii. Otdelkhoziaistvennoi statistiki, 4, no. 1 (Moscow, 1879).Google Scholar

53. Materialy vysochaishe uchrezhdennoi 16 noiabria 1901 g. Komissii po issledovaniiu voprosao dvizhenii s 1861 g. po 1900 g. blagosostoianiia sel'skogo naseleniia srednezemledel cheskikh guberniisravnitel'no s drugimi mestnostiami Evropeiskoi Rossii (hereafter Materialy komissii 1901 g.), vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1903), p. 177.

54. Ibid. According to A. S. Nifontov's calculations, based on the governors’ annual reports,the per capita harvest of grain and potatoes rose from 2.75 to 3 chetverts (3.36 to 3.66 centners) inthe 1860s and 1870s; see his book, Zernovoe proizvodstvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka (Moscow,1974), p. 201. Nifontov's calculations, however, occasion some doubt. His data show that, for1861–70 and 1871–80, the absolute measure of grain harvested rose by 13 percent (p. 183), but therural population grew by 15 percent (Material komissii 1901 g., p. 6). It would follow then that theper capita harvest of grain represented a two-percent decrease, not a seven-percent increase asestimated by Nifontov. In view of this, the data of the Commission of 1901 seem preferable.

55. N. M. Druzhinin, Russkaia derevnia, pp. 132–33; P. Kovan'ko, Reforma 19 fevralia i eeposledstviia s finansovoi tochki zreniia (vykupnaia operatsiia 1861–1907 gg.) (Kiev, 1914), pp. 431–33; Iu. E. Ianson, Opyt statisticheskogo issledovaniia o krest'ianskikh nadelakh i platezhakh (St.Petersburg, 1877), pp. 25, 39, 45–46, 67, 81.

56. Litvak, B. G., Russkaia derevnia v reforme 1861 goda. Chernozemnyi tsentr 1861–1895 gg.(Moscow, 1972), p. 320.Google Scholar

57. Ezhegodnik Ministerstva Finansov, no. xiii (St. Petersburg, 1883).

58. Astyrev, N. M., “Prazdniki v krest'ianskom bytu Moskovskoi gubernii,” Ezhegodnik Moskovskogogubernskogo zemstva za 1887 g. (Moscow, 1887)Google Scholar; Vasil'chikov, Zemlevladenie i zemledelie, 2:582–84; Doklad vysochaishe uchrezhdennoi Komissii dlia issledovaniia nyneshnego polozheniiasel'skogo khoziaistva i sel'skoi proizvoditel'nosti v Rossii (hereafter Doklad Komisii 1872 g.), prilozhenie 1 (St. Petersburg, 1873), pp. 201–24; Semenov, Dvadsat’ piat’ let, pp. 43, 83.

59. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 774, l. 72ob; d. 775, ll. 22, 24.

60. Ibid., d. 774, 11. 14–15.

61. Materialy dlia izucheniia sovremennogo polozheniia zemlevladeniia, 1:40; A. A. Syrnev, “Svedeniia o chisle sotskikh i desiatskikh v 1888 g.,” Vremennik TsSK MVD, 1889, no. 9, pp. 1–4.

62. For example, see TsGIA, f. 91, op. 770, d. 770, l. 7ob, 25; Sbornik materialov, p. 173.

63. For an analysis of the attitude of the peasantry toward beggars, and the causes and disseminationof mendicity, see Maksimov, S. V., “Brodiachaia Rus’ Khrista-radi,” Sobranie sochinenii (St.Petersburg, 1912), vols. 5–6.Google Scholar

64. Engel'gardt, Iz derevni, pp. 14–18; Semenova-Tian-Shanskaia, Zhizri Ivana, p. 100; Skaldin, V zakholust'e, p. 195.

65. Korolenko, Golodnyi god, p. 281.

66. Pomoch’ was so widespread that it is noted on all the responses to the FES questionnaires,save one (see Sbornik materialov, p. 189). See also G. I. Kulilkovskii, “Olonetskie pomochi,” inOlonetskiisbornik, no. 3 (Petrozavodsk, 1894), pp. 396–97; I. Kh., “Pomoch’ (iz obychno-obshchinnykhotnoshenii),” Russkoe bogatstvo, 1879, no. 1, pp. 66–74.

67. Rediger, A., Komplektovanie i ustroistvo vooruzhennoi sily (St. Petersburg, 1900), pp. 85–91.Google Scholar

68. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 774, l. 22ob.

69. Besides the responses to the questionnaire, see also Vorontsov, Krest'ianskaia obshchina, pp. 134–44; Orlov, Formy, pp. 274–94.

70. Dubrovskii, S. M., Stolypinskaia zemel'naia reforma (Moscow, 1963), pp. 222–30.Google Scholar

71. See n. 84.

72. Dal', Poslovitsy, pp. 404–405.

73. Anfimov, A. M., Krestianskoe khoziaistvo Evrcpeiskoi Rossii, 1881–1904 (Moscow, 1980),p. 92.Google Scholar

74. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 771, l. 98ob. See also: Vasil'chikov, Zemlevladenie i zemledelie, 2:715–18, 734–36, 748–51; I. V. Veretennikov, Obshchestvennoe i chastnoe zemlevladenie v Zemlianskomi Zadonskom uezdakh Voronezhskoi gubernii (Voronezh, 1893); N. A. Karyshev, “Podvornoei obshchinnoe khoziaistvo; statisticheskie paralleli,” Russkoe bogatstvo, 1894, no. 1, pp. 49–54; no. 6, pp. 106–13; I. Krasnoperov, “Sovremennaia krest'ianskaia obshchina,” Severenyi vestnik, 1893, no. 10, pp. 17–29.

75. Beskrovnyi, L. G., Vodarskii, I. E., and Kabuzan, V. M., “Migratsii naseleniia Rossii vXVII—nachale XX vv.,” Problemy istoricheskoi demografii SSSR (Tomsk, 1980), p. 32.Google Scholar

76. Materialy Komissii 1901 g., pt. 1, pp. 2–3, 22–23.

77. Blagoveshchenskii, Svodnyi statisticheskii sbornik, 1:133. See also B. Lenskii, “Otkhozhiezemledel'skie promysli v Rossii,” Otechestvennye zapiski, 1877, no. 12, p. 210; Materialy dlia izucheniiasovremennogo polozheniia zemlevladeniia, 1:26–29; Rudnev, N. F., “Promysli krest'ian vEvropeiskoi Rossii,” Sbornik Saratovskogo zemstva, vol. 6 (Saratov, 1894), pp. 190–91Google Scholar; Ryndziunskii, P. G., “Krest'ianskii otkhod i chislennost’ sel'skogo naseleniia v 80-kh godakh XIX v.,” Problemygenezisa kapitalizma (Moscow, 1970), pp. 423–26.Google Scholar

78. Vesin, “Znachenie otkhozhikh promyslov v zhizni russkogo krest'ianstva,” Delo, 1887, no. 2, pp. 119, 123–214; Dobrotvorskii, Pozemel'naia obshchina, pp. 26–27; D. N. Zhbankov, Vliianieotkhozhikh promyslov na dvizhenie narodonaseleniia Kostromskoi gubernii po dannym 1866–83 gg. (Kostroma, 1887), pp. 33, 108, 113–14; Zhbankov, Otkhozhie promysli v Smolenskoi guberniiv 1892–95 gg. (Smolensk, 1896), p. 3; N. N. Kharuzin, “Iz materialov, sobrannykh sredi krest'ianPudozhskogo uezda Olonetskoi gubernii,” Olonetskii sbornik, vol. 3 (Petrozavodsk, 1894), pp. 302–303, 340–41.

79. A correspondent from Moscow province observed that life in the city “develops urbaninterests in the peasant” and that peasants “appear more denned in their individuality, basicallybehave in a more original manner, and in a word become more individualistic.” TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2,d. 776, l. 47–48.

80. Vorontsov, Krest'ianskaia obshchina, pp. 90, 99, 102, 110–15, 117; Zlatovratskii, Ustoi, p. 224; Vorontsov, “Krest'iane-prisiazhnye,” Sobranie sochinenii, 2:162, 175; F. S. Prugavin, Russkaiazemel'naia obshchina v trudakh ee mestnykh issledovatelei (St. Petersburg, 1888), pp. 25–30; Johnson, Robert E., Peasant and Proletarian. The Working Class of Moscow in the Late NineteenthCentury (New Brunswick, N.J., 1979), pp. 51–98 Google Scholar.

81. For this mechanism of “screening,” see Dunn, Stephen and Dunn, Ethel, The Peasants of Central Russia (New York and London, 1967), p. 129.Google Scholar

82. Rashin, A. G., Naselenie Rossii za 100 let (1811–1913 gg.) (Moscow, 1956), p. 98.Google Scholar

83. Vasil'chikov, A., Sel'skii byt i seiskoe khoziaistvo v Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1881), pp. 74–84 Google Scholar; Vikhliaev, P. A., Ocherki iz russkoi sel'sko-khoziaistvennoi deistvitel'nosti (St. Petersburg, 1901),p. 107 Google Scholar; Kablukov, N. A., Ob usloviiakh razvitiia krest'ianskogo khoziaistva v Rossii (Moscow, 1899),pp. 294, 300.Google Scholar

84. Boris Mironov, “Sotsial'naia mobil'nost’ i sotsial'noe rassloenie v russkoi derevne XIXnachaleXX v.,” Problemy razvitiia feodalizma i kapitalizma v stranakh Baltiki (Tartu, 1972), pp. 156–83; Mironov, “Soziale Struktur und soziale Mobilitat der russischen Bauernschaft vom 16.bis 19. Jahrhundert,” Jahrbuch filr Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1976, no. 4, pp. 193–208. See also Dunnand Dunn, Peasant, p. 22; Teodor Shanin, “Socio-economic Mobility and the Rural History of Russia, 1905–1930,” Soviet Studies, 23 (1971): 222–35; Shanin, , The Awkward Class. The PoliticalSociology of the Peasantry in a Developing Society: Russia, 1919–25 (New York, 1972)Google Scholar. The differencebetween my view and Shanin's is that I acknowledge the gradual formation of social “sediment “(hereditary strata of poor and rich peasants in the commune), whereas Shanin denies this process.

85. Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Sochineniia, vol. 19 (Moscow, 1961), p. 405.Google Scholar

86. A. Nikol'skii, Zemlia, obshchina i trud: Osobennosti krest'ianskogo pravoporiadka, ikhproiskhozhdenie i znachenie (St. Petersburg, 1902), p. 109.

87. These principles are postulated on the basis of an analysis of all responses to the FESquestionnaire. Particular principles in communal life are noted in the following: Zlatovratskii, Ustoi, pp. 14, 24–25; Zlatovratskii, “Ocherki krest'ianskoi obshchiny,” pp. 96–97, 304; Korolenko, Golodnyigod, p. 308; Selo Viriatino, pp. 96–97.

88. Sbornik materialov, pp. 163, 175, 212 et passim; Zlatovratskii, Ustoi, p. 342; Korolenko,Golodnyi god, pp. 46–55; P. Nebol'sin, “Okolo muzhichkov,” Otechestvennye zapiski, 141 (1861):432.

89. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 769, l. 58.

90. Sbornik materialov, pp. 175, 316, 344 et passim.

91. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 779,1. 318; d. 780, l. 4. See also Kachorovskii, Russkaia obshchina, p. 315; Prugavin, Russkaia zemel'naia obshchina, p. 268; G. I. Uspenskii, “Ravnenie ‘pod odno,’ “Russkaia mysl', 1882, no. 1, pp. 210–39.

92. Efimenko, Materialy po etnografii, p. 161; M. la. Fenomenov, Sovremennaia derevnia, pt. 2(Moscow-Leningrad, 1925), pp. 91–94; Semenov, Dvadtsat’ piat’ let, p. 74.

93. Engel'gardt, Iz derevni, pp. 395–96.

94. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 768, l. 3; d. 769, l. 63; d. 772, l. 4ob; d. 777, l. 86ob-87ob; d. 779,l 202ob; d. 782, l. 46; Sbornik materialov, pp. 169, 372–73 et passim; N. Karyshev, Trud, ego rol’ iusloviia prilozheniia v proizvodstve (St. Petersburg, 1897), pp. 554–59; Sushchestvuiushchii poriadokvzimaniia okladnykh sborov s krest'ian. Po svedeniiam, dostavlennym podatnymi inspektorami za1887–1893 gg., nos. 1–2 (St. Petersburg, 189–95).

95. TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 769, l. 63; d. 772, ll. 3, 5, 36; d. 114, l. 2.

96. For example, see ibid., d. 772, ll. 22, 43; d. 774, l. 42. See also Druzhinin, Russkaia derevnia, pp. 147–48; Materialy dlia izucheniia sovremennogo polozheniia zemlevladeniia, 1:13–18,26–29, 43–45, 83–87; Ryndziunskii, Utverzhdenie kapitalizma, pp. 152–84.

97. Doklad Komissii 1872 g., appendix 1, sec. 1, p. 253; Minkh, Narodnye obychai, p. 7; SeloViriatino, p. 97; Tur, Golos zhizni, p. 101.

98. Doklad Komissii 1872 g., appendix 1, sec. 1, pp. 225–52.

99. The discussion here refers to the dominant tendency in the great majority of communes.See Druzhinin, Russkaia derevnia, p. 272; A. V. Peshekhonov, “Ekonomicheskoe polozheniekrest'ianstva v poreformennoe vremia,” Velikaia reforma, 6:200–48; A. D, Polenov, Issledovanieekonomicheskogo polozheniia tsentral’ no-chernozemnykh gubernii. Trudy osobogo soveshchaniia,1899–1901 (St. Petersburg, 1901), pp. 31, 66–67; Chernukha, Krest'ianskii vopros, p. 99. To be sure, some communes enjoyed unusually favorable circumstances and did not sufferdegradation. For an example, see Sbornik materialov, pp. 87–88.

100. I. Anisimov, “Razlozhenie nashei zemel'noi obshchiny,” Vestnik Evropy, 1885, no. 1,p. Ill; Golovin, Sel'skaia obshchina, pp. 255–59; Zyrianov, P. N., “Rol’ krest'ianskoi obshchiny vispol'zovanii i vostanovlenii estestvennykh resursov,” in Obshchestvo i priroda: istoricheskie etapy iformy vzaimodeistviia (Moscow, 1981), pp. 211–12Google Scholar; Karelin, Obshchinnoe vladenie, pp. 96, 103–104; Lokhtin, Bezzemeinyi proletariat, pp. 55–62.

101. Materialy Komissii 1901 g., pt. 1, p. 43; pt. 3, p. 135. Data here refer to the entire populace,not just the countryside; given the predominance of the rural population, however, the datacan be taken to represent patterns in the village.

102. Rediger, Komplektovanie i ustroistvo, pp. 167–75.

103. Gigiena pitaniia, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1971), pp. 223–24.

104. After the introduction of universal military conscription, draftees consisted almost exclusivelyof youths 21 years of age.

105. Data about the physically unfit among recruits are found in the following: Materialy Komissii 1901 g., 1:32–33; Stoletie voennogo ministerstva, 1802–1902, vol. 4, pt. 3, no. 1, sec. 2: Glavnyishtab; istoricheskii ocherk. Komplektovanie voisk s 1855 po 1902 god, comp. V V. Shchepetil'nikov(St. Petersburg, 1914), pp. 178, 298, 317–19. The total number of recruits examined is the sum ofthose rejected and those actually inducted into military service. The numbers inducted were asfollows: 9,439,000 in 1874–78; 12,821,000 in 1889–93; and 14,664,000 in 1897–1901.

106. P. Griaznov, Opyt sravnitelnogo izucheniia gigisnicheskikh uslovii krest'ianskogo byta imediko-topografiia Cherepovetskogo uezda (St. Petersburg, 1880), pp. 142–57, 183; S. A. Dediulin,K voprosu o prichinakh fizicheskogo vyrozhdeniia russkogo naroda. Doklad vysochaishe utverzhdennomuobshchestvu dlia sodeistviia russkoi promyshlennosti i torgovle, 25 marta 1899 goda (St. Petersburg,1900), pp. 1–48; Doklad Komissii 1872 g., appendix 1, seel, pp. 225–52; Pokrovskii, M. M., “Zdorov'e russkogo naroda v sviazi s usloviiami ego byta,” Russkaia mysl', 1882, no. 2,pp. 132–33, 149Google Scholar; Materialy dlia izucheniia sovremennogo polozheniia zemlevladeniia, no. 1, pp. 49–51.

107. This has led to contradictory views about the commune in the period under examination.Those contemporaries and researchers who stressed new phenomena in communal life spoke of thedecline of the commune; by contrast, those interested in the foundations of the commune regardedthe institution as still essentially solid and stable. In my view the commune preserved its collectivebasis intact in the 1860s and 1870s. It was later that individualistic, private-property tendencies sharplyintensified, evoking the acrimonious debate of the 1880s and 1890s between populists, “Westerners, “and Marxists about the fate of the commune. An analysis of this later controversy, however, liesbeyond the scope of the present paper.

108. These new phenomena emerged most forcefully in the non-black-earth provinces. SeeA. A. Golovachev, “Kapitalizm i krest'ianskoe khoziaistvo,” Russkaia mysl, 1882, no. 10, pp. 71–72; Golovin, Sel'skaia obshchina, pp. 255–59; Efimenko, Narodnye iuridicheskie obychai Arkhangel'skoigubernii (Arkhangel'sk, 1869), p. 200; Karelin, Obshchinnoe vladenie, pp. 95–104; Nikol'skii,Zemlia, obshchina i trud, pp. 22–23. See also Anfimov and Zyrianov, “Nekotorye cherty, “pp. 31, 35; Zyrianov, “Rol’ krest'ianskoi obshchiny,” pp. 211–12; Zyrianov, “Nekotory cherty, “pp. 383–86; Kuchumova, “Sel'skaia pozemel'naia obshchina,” pp. 340–47; Ryndziunskii, Utverzhdeniekapitalizma, pp. 168–73; Ryndziunskii, Krest'ianskii otkhod, pp. 423–26.

109. Aleksandrov, Sel'skaia obshchina v Rossii; Alekseev, S. G., Mestnoe samoupravlenie russkikhkrest'ianXVUI-XIXvv. (St. Petersburg, 1902), pp. 117–59, 193–263Google Scholar; M. M. Gromyko, “Territorial'naiakrest'ianskaia obshchina Sibiri (30-e gg.XVIII v.—60-e gg. XIX v.),” in Krest'ianskaiaobshchina v SibiriXVII-nachalaXX v. (Novosibirsk, 1977), pp. 33–103; Gromyko, Trudovye traditsiirusskikh krest'ian Sibiri (XVIII-pervaia polovina XIX v.) (Novosibirsk, 19753, pp. 294–342; Gromyko, “Obshchina v obychnom prave sibirskikh krest'ian XVIII-—70-kh godov XIX v.,” Ezhegodnikpo agrarnoi istorii Vostochnoi Evropy 1971 g. (Vil'nius, 1974), pp. 388–94; N. M. Druzhinin, “Krest'ianskaia obshchina v otsenke A. Gakstgauzena i ego russkikh sovremennikov,” Ezhegodnikgermanskoi istorii (Moscow, 1968), pp. 28–50; A. P. Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, “O nedostatkakh obshchestvennogovladeniia zemlei,” TsGIA, f. 940 (Zablotskii-Desiatovskii), op. \,d. 16; Zablotskii-Desiatovskii, “Istoricheskii ocherk russkikh obshchin,” ibid., dd. 296–97, 313–14; Zaitsev, K. I., Ocherk istorii samoupravleniia gosudarstvennykh krest'ian (St. Petersburg, 1912)Google Scholar; Ignatovich, I. I., Pomeshchich'i krest'iane nakanune osvobozhdeniia (Leningrad, 1925), p. 71 Google Scholar; N. A. Minenko, “Traditsionnyeformy rassledovaniia i suda u russkikh krest'ian Zapadnoi Sibiri v XVIII—pervoi polovineXIX v.,” Sovetskaia etnografiia, 1980, no. 5, pp. 21–33; V A. Panaev, Obshchinnoe zemlevladenie ikrest'ianskii vopros (St. Petersburg, 1881), pp. 1–69; L. S. Prokof'eva, Krest'ianskaia obshchina vRossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII—pervoi polovine XIX veka (Leningrad, 1981); P. A. Sokolovskii,Ocherk sel'skoi obshchiny na Severe Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1877), pp. 158–83; F. M. Umanets, “Sel'skaia obshchina v Rossii,” Otechestvennye zapiski, 150 (1863): 131–70, 463–500; August von Haxthausen, The Russian Empire, Its People, Institutions and Resources, 2 vols. (London, 1856); Le-Play, F., Les ouvriers europiens. Études sur travaux, la vie domestique et la condition morale despopulations ouvrieres de l'Europe (Paris, 1855)Google Scholar; Pushkarev, Krest'ianskaia pozemel'naia obshchina.

110. N. Dobrotvorskii, Pozemel'naia obshchina, pp. 26–27; L. I. Ivaniukov, “Obshchinnoezemlevladenie,” Russkaia mysl, 1885, no. 1, pp. 47–48; S. Ia. Kapustin, “Nashe krest'ianstvo iobshchinnoe zemlevladenie,” Russkaia mysl', 1881, no. 6, pp. 1–35; no. 2, pp. 25–78; Kapustin,Formy zemlevladeniia u russkogo naroda (St. Petersburg, 1877), pp. 70–73; Krasnoperov, Pozemel'naiaobshchina, pp. 267–68; Polovtsev, Pervye shagi, p. 19; Prugavin, “K voprosu o razrusheniikrest'ianskoi obshchiny,” Russkaia mysl', 1884, no. 7, pp. 11–22, 28; Sergeev, S severa, pp. 221–22;Shcherbina, Zemel'naia obshchina, pp. 62–63.

111. Delay in land redistribution was due to a number of circumstances, of which the followingwere most significant: (1) waiting for a new population census (reviziia): redistribution after a censushad already become a tradition, but there had been no such census since 1858; (2) the peasants'belief that, if they redistributed the land from one census to the next, then at the new census thecommune would receive additional land from the state for those landless peasants born after the lastcensus; and (3) the presumption that the delivery of redemption payments would convert the landinto its possessor's private property. See Sbornik materialov, p. 360; K. Ermolinskii, “Vykupnyeplatzhi i kazennye peredely mirskoi zemli,” Slovo, 1881, no. 4, pp. 49–50; Kachorovskii, Russkaiaobshchina, pp. 314–15; Prugavin, K voprosu o razrushenii krest'ianskoi obshchiny, pp. 8–9, 22.

112. Only two responses to the questionnaire testify to a complete atrophy of the communalspirit, a cessation of land redistribution, and the like. See TsGIA, f. 91, op. 2, d. 783, ll. 1–18;Sbornik materialov, pp. 37–138.

113. Vorontsov, Krest'ianskaia obshchina, pp. 56–66, 133–53, 193–97, 480, 492–93; Karelin,Obshchina vladenie, pp. 23–54, 160–65; Karyshev, Trud, pp. 493–521; Kacharovskii, Russkaia obshchina, pp. 290–300, 315, 329, 360–61; Prugavin, Russkaia zemel'naia obshchina, pp. 267–69, 280.

114. Calculated according to data in Lositskii, A. E., Raspadenie obshchiny (St. Petersburg, 1912), pp. 57–65 Google Scholar; see also Tarasiuk, D. A., Pozemel'naia sobstvennost’ poreformennoi Rossii (Moscow,1931), p. 117 Google Scholar.

115. Dubrovskii, Stolypinskaia zemel'naia reforma, pp. 189.

116. G. A. Kavtaradze, “K istorii krest'ianskogo samosoznaniia perioda reformy 1861 g., “Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, Seriia istoriia, 1969, no. 14, pp. 54–64; V A.Fedorov, “Lozungi krest'ianskoi bor'by v 1861–1863 gg.,” Revoliutsionnaia situatsiia v Rossii v 1859–1861 gg. (Moscow, 1963), p. 247.

117. V. P. Danilov, “Ob istoricheskikh sud'bakh krest'ianskoi obshchiny v Rossii,” Ezhegodnikpo agrarnoi istorii, no. 6 (Vologda, 1976), p. 106; Dubrovskii, Stolypinskaia zemel'naia reforma, pp. 222–30; I. V Chernyshev, Obshchina posle 9 noiabria 1906 g. (Po ankete Vol'nogo ekonomicheskogoobshchestva), pt. 1 (Petrograd, 1917), pp. i–xxv.

118. V P. Danilov, Sovetskaia dokolkhoznaia derevnia: naselenie, zemlepol'zovanie, khoziaistvo(Moscow, 1977), p. 106; V. Ia. Osokina, Sotsialisticheskoe stroitel'stvo v derevne i obshchina 1920–1935 (Moscow, 1978), pp. 8–9.

119. The commission established early in the twentieth century to review legislation on thepeasantry confirmed that, prior to 1889, “peasant life was left almost entirely to go its own way,remained outside all supervision by the government, which did not even comprehend what wastranspiring in the commune.” See Trudy redaktsionnoi Komissii po peresmotru zakonopolozhenii okrest'ianakh, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1903), p. 5.

120. Sbornik materialov, pp. 238–56; Anfimov and Zyrianov, “Nekotorye cherty,” p. 31.

121. Anisimov, “Nadely,” Velikaia reforma, vol. 6, pp. 98, 102; Zaionchkovskii, Otmena krepostnogoprava, p. 196; Tarasiuk, Pozemel'naia sobstvennost', pp. 92, 128.

122. Vorontsov, Krest'ianskaia obshchina, p. 415; Druzhinin, Russkaia derevnia, pp. 122–23;Kachorovskii, Russkaia obshchina, pp. 290–300.

123. Marx and Engels, Sochineniia, 19:404. See also Zlatovratskii, Ocherk krest'ianskoi obshchiny, pp. 294, 302–304.

124. Chernukha, Krest'ianskii vopros, pp. 123–304; Chernyshev, I. V., Agrarno-krest'ianskaiapolitika Rossii za 150 let (Petrograd, 1918), pp. 121–53.Google Scholar

125. Selo Viriatino, p. 96.

126. In 1861 the average population density of European Russia was 13 persons per squarekilometer, and the average distance between settled points was 4.3 kilometers: Voenno-statisticheskiisbornik, no. 4: Rossiia (St. Petersburg, 1871), pp. 46, 178.

127. The predominant system of land utilization (three-field, open-field, and strip farming) wasintegrally related to the entire way of life in the Russian countryside at the time—its agriculturaltechnology and practice, its social structure, and the mentality of the peasantry. See A. V. Sovetov, Izbrannyesochineniia (Moscow, 1950), pp. 317–59; M. Conflno, Systèmes agraires et progrès agricole. L'assolement triennal en Russie aux 18e-19e siècles. Étude d'économie et de sociologie rurales (Parisand The Hague, 1969).

128. A. Vasil'chikov, Sel'skii byt i sel'skoe khoziaistvo v Rossii, p. 118; A. I. Skvortsov, Ekonomicheskieetiudy. Ekonomicheskie prichiny golodovok v Rossii i mery k ikh ustraneniiu (St. Petersburg,1894), pp. 73–92; Shul'ts-Gevernitz, G., Ocherki obshchestvennogo khoziaistva iekonomicheskoi politiki Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1901), pp. 274–84.Google Scholar

129. Y P. Danilov, “K voprosu o kharaktere i znachenii krest'ianskoi pozemel'noi obshchiny vRossii,” Problemy sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi istorii Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1901), pp. 274–84.

130. P. A. Zaionchkovskii, Krizis samoderzhaviia na rubezhe 1870–1880-kh godov XIX v. (Moscow,1964); M. I. Kheifets, Vtoraia revoliutsionnaia situatsiia v Rossii (konets 70-kh—nachalo 80-khgg. XIX v.) (Moscow, 1963).

131. As the noted Russian historian N. P. Pavlov-Sil'vanskii perceptively observed, “beneaththe upper stratum of the squire's authority … there always lay the ancient and fundamental bedrockof communal self-government: the peasant commune.” Thus it was, he added, that “this foundationprotruded into the open when the government removed the squire's authority over the peasantry, aswas done for all of Russia under Alexander II.” N. P. Pavlov-Sil'vanskii, Feodalizm v udel'noi Rusi(St. Petersburg, 1910), p. 210.