crops,

under

and in

pattern

tion

soil,

In

off

village

bourgeoisie

guLes

class

the

tion

urban

half.

break,

urbanization

it

191

Russia

will

So peasant

inhabitants

peasantS

aitnough

as

Russia

The

the

the

rural

its

old,

I

7

the

in

i

the

actually

9

which

be

t

Paradoxically,

and

and winter spring

rural

reason

:

middle

1

civilization

favour

strong

7,

farmers,

the

cities

the

has

with

westernized

last

peasants

habits

shown

past

fourfifths

not

the

1920,

Even

urban

arable

past.

preserved

had

to

left

with

to

the

crops

increased

are

for

:

ofthc

of

man,

of

necessarily

spring-crop

emulate,

a

into

be

shopkeepers

replaced

later,

the

fallow.

peasantry

Moscow

today,

consequence

the

beginning

one4ime

began

summer

population

and

was

urban,

was

sixteenth

the

the

country

of

elite

three-field

although

strong

throughout

against

THE

the

divided

the

sown

this

kulak.

when

city

The

to

had

it

engaged

lost

the

field

crops,

does

empire’s

peasants

influence

abandon

consisted

new

a

had

links

and

following

The

century,

CHAPTER

with

been

began

a

To

of

the

survey

country

the

it

into

PEASANTRY

was not

third

system

elite

the

been.

‘4’

industrial

had

another

this

Revolution

with

census

‘idiocy

in

spring

overthrown

its

call

three

population

set

or

to

fact

of

the

farming,

largely

instinctively

of

of

day

when

been

history

Almost

retains

their

year,

the

flee

the

(trekhpol’e) for

aside

its

th

slash-burn

that

shows

ofrural

crops, parts,

in

it

elaborate

countryside

village

population

to

workers

carried

they

6

has

August

immediate

soca1

ofpeasants

the

for

revealed

most

were

the

unmistakable

immediately

the

and

consisted

one

the

the

not

were

fallow.

field

life’,

modelled

countryside

on

urban

Under

classes

dispersed,

of

officially

out

majority

fallow

method of

with

been

Lacking explanation.

Russian

being

the

which

the

which

and

how

and

descendants.

in

in

The

of

winter

population

able inhabitants

i

in

this

their

with

the

9

after carried

Petrograd

itselfon

fixed

people,

tenuous

of traces

i

classified

cycle

had

old

of

was

a

the

7

life.

;

farming

to

name

cultiva

genuine

between

Revolu

Russia’s

various

winter

crops,

its

ruling

to

regime

shake

As

sown

been

After

was

of

with

out

the

who

the

late

the

As

of

its

of

of

as

a

!

1

I

t

1: I

centrated

life.

it

otiepel’

Whtte rivers,

very

a

extensively,

as

aut peasant

and

farming.

clear

for

0/ nothing

‘hiS

physical

holidays in

remainder

for

fiercely

twentieth

mai

be it, criticized

of ing completed

(‘onfino

xce ati

0

r

ther

lack

has

n

Spring

th

Observers

the

But

c

imn

isolated

sustained, the

hea

As

quit

land,

same

clitrat

n

m

siv

n

p

mmission

ed

summer

as

C

ofhabit

long

h

ii

and

or

central

wastes

soon

maximum

as

to

use

ana

i resisted

else

the

nd,

a

and

;

E sh

h

r explanation

0

thaw, in

physical Great

he

comes

if

hustle,

Marc

most it

OflC

i

the

S

ofthe

and every

‘

from

only

I fields

op

th

and

as

from

of

but

oi

t w co

r

that

ofthe

us p

fa

ing

for

working

provinces

turn bt disciplined

waters,

a 1

it

Russia, 2

to

a

of

nac

d Bloch

is Already

Oi

ter

fir

an

pressures

even,

work.

to

to

rs ng

because

much

the

year.

natural e the e

has three

in

sp

approximately

rest

c

to

exertion

work

them

1 exert

1

Russian

Russia

into

good RUSSIA

an

pal but

11

po

Tha

of

n

ry e

entire

11 v

descr

brief

arrived,

for

moderate, during

freed

day,

has

ty

Historians

The

years.

Cr

pressure

le

:

probabl

nergy

n

himselfstrenuously,

xp’anatO1 of fell

‘

s

green

before

icig

every

f

time,

in it

a

phenomenon

ofsuch

work:

x

Great

to

shown

be

Russia

during

suddenly.

complex

placed

that

village

UNDER

from

he

brevity

t

uring

cr the

ii

between

at

in

the

Rt

abandon It

,

a

the

and

if

ofR

s

ne

Great

cultural

fields.

Nakenrngs

the

their

was

and ssa

nature

Russian

eighte

eat’

was

0

enforced

intens

a

their

April

in

of

142

peasant

i the dur

a

a

so

then

had

as

introduction

THE

ofthe

few

well

‘f

the

the

ci

not

ofpeasant third

ss

exerted

n

I

ii

path

Russian

November

Overnight,

I

confinement,

The

days midd

e

nth

the

allows

often

so

where

am

n

to

ex

g

Th

or

e positivist

instance

months

o

summer

a

OLD

distributed,

a

autumn

growing

striking

very

fthe of

have September

g

faces

psychic

ne

and u,s 1 a 1

threefield

so

in earth

f

d

century

tion

e

i

commented

1

on

spir’t,

in

REGIME

as

to

has

him the

of

ompels

efficient

nothing

institutions.

spilling Fm

&rope

o.

to

which

th it

the

a

w

arable

can n

ofmachinery,

ti

and of

and

age,

comes

year

the

accustomed

period in

get

little

season

R

e

phenomenon,

rk

ncr

r

al France

,

thought

push

steady

peasant

ag

be

one

si

ninet

its

n,torotr

fast,

winter

there

February.

much

ice

techniques

who routine

ne

ort

were

are

to

sh

shortened

months

ia

method

suddenness

over arian

suitable

n

to

the

on

of

breaks

do

in

Great

work

11

followed

everishly,

entu

had

eriods

and

was

done

The

life.

highly

we

set

e

the

Russia idleness. t

floes

to

through

the

r

cherish

specialj

himself

and

eighteen

find

political

abandon

aside

aversion

to

as

into

Michael oftjlj

and

time

extreme

time

century

Russian

This

muzg

On

quickly

on

banks.

camot

down- further

of

saw

in

find

it

con-

such

that

time

calls

by

and

this

the

the

the the the

the

No

for for

for

re

to

in

is

a

irba’s

The

products from

Ihey were

scribcd

cabbages

cholera

In Rus

tnt

yiel

cau

Europe.

there,

e

aiae

tur) ofblack

the

the household

of

was 5cr

so

its

collected

tilling

pened, dom

both

dom

ha had

hours

ap

at

St

Peasants

n

A

the

finger

little

h

en

diet

orthern

e

ia

concerned

slept

furnished A

meat

to

astmg

rm

essential 4h

the

taut

ron space.

t

s

ac time

i it

i

concurrently.

The

partly

gardn

the

a

in

ed

that

to

on

it

be

margin

epidemic

bread,

The requires

was

day

cage

peasant

included.

ipal

and

was

in and

the

I

i

on

oats bread

0

lived landlord’s

the

p

completed

in

went as

but serf

I

ems

et

se

on

the

As

tch

and the

nd

acrid potato

because

earthen

were

hjch

winter

the

i given

not

the

plots

cucumbers

to

next

and

8305

eral

them

;

could

Wednesdays 1 me

the

from

in

in

for

a

one

nineteenth

ofmtensity

before

into

R

consumed

central

more

the

Tea

soil,

log

rule,

unusual

winter

their accompanying

not

and

staple

issian

wheat,

experimentation

The

year.

attached

to

seeks

caused

undisturbed

came

false

as

sparingly

strips

crop

Landlords

all

cabins

not

the

stoves

peasant

it

made

bee

its hard

uncommon.

mu

no

monotonous

allowing

attention

die

is

national

foods

regions,

cultivation

fields schedule

harvest

step,

peasa

ofthe

rye,

each late

more

which,

daytime

for

the

chimneys me

.

h

all

THE

called

which

centur on

as

in

and for

They

to

as

peasants

diet

with

latter

Aigust

the

rock a

popt derived to

kind

the

to

it

Russian

one

their

sensitive

its

fi’ few

sometimes

Fridays,

to

them

PEASANTRY

‘43 sown.

the

Russia

than

drink

s

plough

next

izb,y

the

latter

the

occupied

were average

e

because

and

adher

a carry here

,

lar

‘n The

of

grown

days

that

but

pnds.

(1875).

principal

of with

were

table

houses,

shen

(singular,

duties

introduction

the

the

to

rye

from

to

only

their

to

taboos The

isuall

was

peasant.

and

of

healthy.

any

rapidity

one

to

on

lost,

till

as

and

have

nnl 3

nts

winter,

bread,

constructed,

most

and

which

three

mostly

the To required

the

as

the

well The

agricultural

in

his

own

kvas,

animals,

he

did

their

change

WheaL is

the

and

plant

were

much sprii

to

benche

the

to

not

the

own

climate, spring owed

izba)

Orthodox

onerous

aten

pounds

coincidence

not

as

at

In

peasants

I with

work

went

constituted

a

per

own.

for he

nm

oftened

surprised

night.

so g

during

the

of

o

the

beverage

work,

as is

. associated

become

crop

faced

serfs

n

alteQ his

(Plates export

th

milk

rent

as

harvest

which

the

a

into and round

teenth

bstain w

and

nineteenth

When

spring

ofbread

features

and

season

quarter

k

master

Work

and

grew

rking

as

church

He

ss

three to

Of

the

potato

and

little

\ th

the

the

3-4,

to

at

ofa

an

ulti

partly

field

the

the

the

attend

not

made

had

had century

oats

east

getables

this

prospect

crop.

western

the

with

peasant reached

making

allowed

mainly

its impor routine

smoke

so

more.

major

of

of

major

a

6—8.)

‘u 1

clock,

most

only

pre

to to

work

ated

day,

into

cen

hap

as

con-

the

by-

serf-

and

rye

be-

it,

of

In

be

do

to

to

I

FL I RUSSIA UNDER THE OLD REGIME drifted into the huts. Each izba had its ‘Red’ or ‘Beautiful’ corner (krasnyiugolok),where hung at least one ikon, that of the patron saint, most commonly St Nicholas. No guest spoke until he had made obei ance to the icon and crossed himself Hygienic provisions were rudj.. mentary. Each village had a bathhou e (bania), copied from the Finnish qama. (k’late o ) Peasants ‘ is ted it every Saturday afternoon to wash and put on fresh linen. The rest of the ieek they went unwashed. The everyday clothing was simple. Poorer peasants wore a combina tion ofSlavic and Finnic dress. consisting ofa long linen shirt, tied at the waist, and linen trousers, with boots made of bark or felt, all of home manufacture. Those who could afford to buy their clothing, tended to wards oriental fashion. In the winter, the peasant wore a sheepskin coat called tulup The women tied on their heads a kerchief, probably a legacy of the v ii Tne C eat Russi3n illage as bi fit on a Unei r plan . a wide, unpaved 0 d wa flnked ,n both s1d’ by cottage with 11the mdi’idual veget able plots Fai m land surro inded th xillage. Jndi idual farmsteads located in the midst of fields were mainl3 a southern phenomenon.

We now come to serfdom, which, with the joint family and commune, Tas one of the three basic peasant institutions under the old regime. To begin with, some statistics. It would be a serious mistake to think that before iB6i the majority of Russians were serfs. The census of 1858—9,the last taken before Emancipetion, showed that the Empire had a population of 6o million. Of this number i million were free men : dvoriane, clergy, burghers. independent farmers, Cossacks and so forth. The remaining 48 million divided themselves almost equally be- tween two categories of rural inhabitants . state peasants (gosudarstvennye krest’iane), who, although bound to the land, were not serfs, and pro- prietary peasants (pomeshchch’ikrest’iane), living on privately owned land and personally bonded. The latter, who were serfs in the proper sense of the word, constituted 377 per cent of the empire’s population I’ (22,500,000 persons) . As Map 3I indicates, the highest concentration of serfdom occurred in two regions ; the central provinces the cradle of the Muscovite state, where serfdom had originated, and the western pro- BLACK EA vmces, acquired in the partitions of Poland. In these two areas, more than halfofthe population consisted ofserfs. In a few provinces the pro- portion of serfs rose to nearly 70 per cent. The farther one moved away from the central less and western provinces, the serfdom one encoun 200 0km 600 * The communist regime has made interesting use for its own purposes of such peasant Percentageofthetotal symbols. Krasnyi, which to the peasant meant both ‘beautiful’ and ‘red’ has become the populationconsistrnq ofproprietaryserfs, emblem of the regime and its favourite adjective. The coincidence between words the Inthecase ofthe Moscow ‘bol’shak’ — and Bolshevism in both instances the source of authority — is self-evident. and St Petersburg provinces, 5O0 3O 5O-7O% the population ofthe captat I 44 cities has been discounted

life,

number climate

in sively

measure did

tinction

and to

freemen.

organs Domains

situation

time, official, state

communes. whether

severely

workers. proportion

thc paying free. villages

they on

habiting

déclassé individual holdings

tax

nucleus

the its tered.

eighteenth unknown.

‘black

Until

Within

the

the

The

behalfoflandlords,

service

so

goernrnent

but

the than

second

They

disposed

peasants,

state

to

with

central

landlord

peasants’,

state

of

the In

dvoriane,

here

black not

of

the

must against without

the

corresponds

consisted

these

;

central

Although

limiting

that

charging

the

proprietary

selfgovernment.

sundry

personnel.

could

peasants

required

labour most

ofRussia’s farmers

peasants

century

The

to

half

beginning

black

peasantry

are

category

region

be

earth

Nicholas

of

had

accumulate

who

exclusively

such

in

Russia,

whom

it

bane of

inscribe

made

of

authorization

the

non-Russians,

Because

services

earth

commerce

of

as

much the

they it

unattached

the until

RUSSIA

in

belt

:

licence

the

were

ofthe

majority

to

that

inhabitants

if

with

peasants

Both

merchants

peasants.

of

the

ofproprietary

middle

was

state

of

between

they

the i

sixteenth

there

and

belt, did

in

borderlands,

then

instituted the

themselves

effect.

the

they

given

or

forest

they

much

taiga.

the

the

or made

these division

UNDER

fee,

From

peasants

not

the

did.

state

corvée.

the

nineteenth

had

was

in primarily

ofwhom

of

normally

south

administration

from

and

neither

of

to

At

nomads

hold

peasants title They

among

zone,

surplus.

the

as

groups

Activity

It

main

state

up

century. of

I

then

peasant’s

held

officials.

any

no 46

THE

in

this

well

has

indeed

between

in

The

crown

of eighteent”

and

peasants,

to

were

secularized

title

the

recourse.

especially

were

including

the

area

of

a

paid their

on, land the

been

time,

their them as

OLD

allow

ofSiberia

by

had

variety

distribution

It

century,

southeast.

who

late

the

of

to

manufacturers

required

ranks

To

from

monarchy

they

paying

is

Otherwise

estates

of

existence ;

not

peasant

rent

the

land

the

noted been

REGIME

land too,

for

Tatars,

regular

it

the

of i

fulfilled

agriculture

that

them

8305

century

their

forest

It land

were,

of

ofurban

those

allowed

this

is

state

nor

monastic

by Siberia,

the

inhabitants

when

and

bound

and

disparate

rent,

is,

that

was and

to

doubtful,

a

were

households, speculators

reason

ranks

ofthe

performed

Finnic

which

authorities

had

serfs

was

estates,

pay zone

Ministry

living

peasants. central

their

for

they

allowed

the

to the

to

it

and

and

to

to

tradesmen

distributed

in

the

proper,

added

all

a

issue serfdom

shifted

remedy

came

in

two

soil

and

that

remnant

higher

obligations were

leave

they

the

peoples

near

Russia

groups,

those

industrial

to

Asia

purposes, including

the

extorting however,

and

of

in

to

decrees

sustain

land

At

a

moved

church

labour

to

forced

a

tilled, in

north

Mos

quite

large

large a

State

deci

form their ;

high

who

join

soul

and

dis

this

this

wag

the

lay

th

i

by

j

to

of

far

culture,

onl

in

down

sit

north or

lord

to

estates

mo pro

of

income

voted

and

that,

and preferr

inch

of

villages

the

and

land

living

Russia with vast

famous

tract

There operative

prostitutes

their

themselves

share

the the

COW,

In

the

turn

e emancipation, Because

as

a

ation.

in

inces

was

fir

great

rich

cerf

commune

themselves

ter

country

the

the

land

left

to sums

and

utmost

was

second

to

remained

for

earnings

away

of

the

with

over

were

t

the tax

between

other

d

where

state was

northern the

less manufacturers,

wHch

peasants

half

south

to rent,

private

Here

take

were

variety

to

at

i associations

nineteenth,

agriculture

of

greater which

i

in

their

the

out

from

middle

one numerous

interested an

‘6

his

halfofthe put

reliability.

in

service.

serfs

of

money,

the

over

but

the

in

acres,

on

and

serf

the

association

estate to

went

search

disposal,

farmers as

25

the

hundred

own

67’7

which

their clients

of

their

provinces

could

cities,

meant

from

obrok;

entire

they

their labourers,

was

the

and

manufacthrers

fertility

class,

commodities,

south-east,

nineteenth

over

compared

The

to

devices,

in

per

called

with

The

in

viIlages. arteli

management

serfs

of

the

neighbouring

no

eighteenth

they

run in

32

for

In

of

landlords.

his

the and

serf

because

high

it.

imposed

income,

here

cent to

average

or

name

longer

inducement

of

the

more

per

the

example, offered

THE

serfs

their

of

into

north

Unless

on

arteli

full-time

of were

population

divided

or

fewer bank

rents.

peasants

corvée kind

the

of

cent masons

i

proprietary

rent

to

peddling.

century

84os,

In

thousands

for

the only. PEASANTRY

147

his

organization’s

the

tilled

headed

(singular,

born

brought

working

in

86

land

came

century,

soil

messengers

a

very

Rent-paying

some

male

a we

of

northern oftheir soil

Masters

growing

(obrok).

the

were

the

villages

proprietary

fixed

manufacture.

tended

in

They

acres

all

to and

encouraged

and

the

shall

knew

allotment

rich, being was

in

the

iirtuall

localities,

guise

profits

serfs.

by

intensity

male

Many

small

serfs

ofrubles

rent

in land.

carpenters.

artel’)

to

but

northern

peasants

in

estates,

continued

engaged

cotton

north-eastern

discuss

Experience

of

or

market

to

best

the

landlords

factories

pay

less

whose

of

the

peasants

The

who

it

affluent

and

to

be

returns,

among

guarantee,

serfs

rent of Such

landlord

which

serfs

became

to

productive

per

how

itinerant

the

black

it

the

confined

fabrics,

landlords

The Thus

the

a

move

northern in turned

monopolize.

in

for

faced

members

in

Russia

year.

a

male soul

often

in

serfs peasants

to

to

the

or

the

One

cab

curtailed kind

their

serf

the

worked

food

process

were

landlords

earth

demonstrated

be

seven

there

raise

pronounced

mines,

into

here

tax

south,

provinces

chapter

a

a

leased

On

over

soul farmhands,

production

drivers

formed

of

apparently

merchants

attached

to

of

numerous

produce.

branch

the

members.

different

regularly

to

serf

and

belt.

the

the

handled

money;

smaller

arose

private

tended

the

central

roamed

on

began

in

part

settle

land-

agri

hiring

in

their

here

most

city had

their

con-

the

eve

de

and

so

co

of in

of

of to

lived

I

( The

After

warm-water

western mastery

result

pomestie

exports

Russian

on studies pro owning Landlords accounted

ning the What which cent interested experimenting

entrenched The possible, But mately 70

of tive mmt the tht English

about Ideally

I

Voronezh,

on

orthern

8505,

*

To

the

Because

the

tni

per

habit impoi

matter

on

.“

the

inducement

ided

of

most

had

Russia

the

begin

of

was

properties

which

ar

the

prevailing

the

Industrial

provinces

the

The

two

have

of

cent

men

norm

and

the

peasants.

over

Europe.

Kursk

these

a

incIudin

was

of

of

questions

tance

by

imprOVeQ

onerous

peasant

had

in

serfs

wheat

black

the

in

dispassionatelY.

for

the

land

asking

thirds

with,

mythology,

had

application German

ports

John

is

rents

it

of

as

a

the

not

the

was

relative

of

Saratov

condition with

developments

(Vladimir

grea

three-quarters

in

so

of

is

yet

landlords

the

decisively

grew

worked

earth

view

Once

the

grown northern

better

Revolution

cultivatmg

a repugnant

it

south

Enough

tilled

form

not

of

Clapham,

in

were

C RUSSIA

.

than

various

scientific

plantation.

low

must

profitab

the

been

pr

country’s

and

south

relation

the

model,

stronger

ofthe

legally

belt

po

T

of

on

Britain

who

began

in

living

to

Kharko built

under

the

of

in

large?

of

serf

er,

be

ton

UNDER

carried corvée

is

beaten

lity

were

behalf

know human

shores

Russian

The

became

the

combinations

owned

this

IarosIal

serfand

known,

cattle

to

stressed

was

introducing

‘what

a

Industrial

to of

fixed,

has

population,

of

of

from

yet

standards

corvée

now

cereals,

great

I

The

modern

how

south

farming

best

repealed

any

on

the standard

rgc

I

nothing the

o

was

a

the

of

revealed

THE

of

48

with

out

breeding.

labour.

rent

might

er

and

correspondng

farms

regional

A

Russia’s

serfs?

which

institution, to the

mistake

long?

however,

gwdanc’

his

the

that

economic

a

Ottoman

country’s

mesiachina

was

of

great

in

thousand

concerning

OLD

rationalize

the

Kostroma)

while

landlord,

man

condition.

than

the

the

Russia

Black

Revolution

clover

of

be

her

than

of

a

This were

divided

to how

opening

In grain

that

south

REGIME

serf

variety

English rest,

the

called

of

granary, division

rent

Such

tnat

the

Corn

even

in

serfs

the

iB6o,

figure

Empire

little.

north, confusing

Sea,

is

often 2

historian,

policy,

on

manufactured

it

was

only

and

not

rose

representing

s’ich

çp.

could

should one

the

and

he

in

sncial

proprietors

their

In

northern

living

the

corvee

now

offoreign

of

was

Odessa

Laws

In

onlj

not

i

two

turnip

the

can

sharply.

ithstanding

of

from

The

other

9

of

which

problems

orkers.

how

alternatives

labour

statistical

group

1859,

and

come

dbOVC).

37

e

labour

be

black

estates

to

those

a

halves,

consequencel

hardly

Russian

standards

who

23

per

Ctflt

idea

(barshchina).

slave

(i

cast

representa

the

for

in

shipped established

as

crops,

and

earth

provinces

produce4

846),

to

cent.

four

or

markets,

were

no

approxi

No

f

The

services.

subjects

himself,

stressed ;

*

goods.

of

doubts

on

o

the

is

begin-

move

SUI3flSC

one in

and judge

sense,

typic other

region

welI

such

men

serf

that

and

was

serb per less

net

the

the

the

to

of

of

a

Russian

requests single

ing

ness.

his

Take

where.

money

prises

and

landlord

ruin”us

the

The

Jews

In

the of

abuses,

textiles

thhik

ban

How

Read

fortunate

Petersburg

that

chev’s

identification

western

commOflplace

authors

both.

features

between

tPetersburg

had

slavery

political

In

gentleman

university dom

legality.

Russia,

behaviour

Foni

diversity

English

A

by

His

soul

the

m

a

in

word

working

much

he

that seen

traveller

toe

look

.

whatever

ofMr

people

with

not all

on

and

The

.

izin,

(except

book,

entrepreneurship

can

.

Eleventh

having

tax

raised

thought. in

complaints

than Histoiy

Violations (e.g.

there

conscience

ii

the

serfdom

in

It

of

in

worker

crimes,

repulsive

at

enters

e

of

think

who

the

abolitionist

slavery

is Smith

seems

and

Russian,

of

which

Alexander

to his

the

are

under

one

that

Pushkin

journeys

that

industry

absence

paid

is

was

in

Moscow

in

set

Leipzig

means

and

Caribbean

nothing

native

ofthe

[late

Russian

speech

speaking

into

of the

hand, ...

but

the

which

Book

ofthe

or

But

there

the

and

rejected

oppression,

by

and

the

are

Egyptian

of

is

the

from

the

neighbourhood

and

agreements

occurrences

in

spirit

Settlements

obrok, English

he

ofmarriage

intensifies at

the wrote

from

even

?

land,

(i

everywhere

condition

and slavery

following

sometimes

is

French Radishchev,

in

like of

the

needles

is literature

the

peasant

Nothing

chooses.

790)

least

there

he

of

no

well

mir

this

the

ofwestern

which

eighteenth

it. what

French one

by

the

is

THE

when

leaves

creature

The

lashes

a

iactory

;

were

everywhere incomprehensible

known.

Obligations

two

farmer,

work

it

ofMr

i

parody

the

keener

was

construction

end

:

and

and

7705,

with

which

I

ofthe

appalling

need

entered

is

The

passage

PEASANTRY

49

travels allusions

rights)

of

Radishchev

serfdom

numerous

it

corvée

call

there

centuries

among

of

Not

implicitly

of Commerce

stimulates

Jackson

workers read

there

up

him,

in

the

peasant

His

culture,

century

an

be

I

Moscoi*

Russia

Russian

observers.

un

called

take

believe

the

to

at

a two

said

the

following

understood,

which impressionable

agility

are

badaut

Abbé

You occurs:

is

trace

poverty

the

is

the

to

all

world

was

of

place

set

;

;

thousand

mainstream

And

altogether

a

old.

engages your of

to

of

crimes serfdom

3ourney

peasant

the

will turned

the

peasant

first

this

drawn

travelled

and

sufferings

we

harrowing

connected

by

of

Raynal’s

in the

[an

and

his

the

indeed

more

note

within

slavish Having

greed

While

Egyptian

on

never

hair

to

law;

are

full

Europeans

in

St

boldness

idler

decades,

other,

dexterity

are

be

everyone

the

in

from

which

the

kilometres Petersburg,

to

that

by

seems

in

talking

bloom,

will

unfortunate not

were

true

the

in

of

whatever

find

dreadful

!

get

or

the

degradation

other, Philosophical

his

studying

ofRussian

What

young

analogy stressing

ignorant

all

owners).

France

read

with

very

description

stand

Moscow

loaferj

obrok

pyramids,

it

.,.

and

to

Journey

the

among

strict

common

in

this

are

written

whenever

about

fulfils

him

the

onerous.

cold

You

the

Radish- what

to

analogy

clever-

on

amaz

Russian

are

every-

enter-

where

is

:

limits

writes

into

Indies.

earn

facile

at

more

than

you of

The those

to

end.

the

bar-

from

will

not

his

not and

the

in

and

a

of by the

St he

to

of

a

t

t

•1

ri

I I occupation For quarter as their tradition, the th The tion first and agent. Although, , master fact And t the have will Russian dence. cow contempt happened Fven ent. nted zba. f wned utloo I nd nder here ake As fe his Th asant As a defi peasants prie them, fields in is never sentence settlement, an he law instance to most previously These families his This army family. I Pushkin a ne In that th the tn ‘ only But sknnotes, ushkrn nec I to sign in have did o own serflived strictly lato?i these th for crt tearing o does see slave, serfdom hi important under reism the di to legally of his of th 5 ofluxur) p ch the such so living d what have I Tue l of a a to tl iug south The egard judgernent of y s een not capacities throughout sant ice hired hip Russian noted, land landlords ofC death. e mag e forbade The itt chos his a the a Ia h away in rec a speaking, quarters. is cxi known a meant calamity a e q fact e’he RUSSIA for responsibilities si foreign. his c 11 nd of pomeshchik ‘, steward. supervision t dowed in inlike o eilauthority terial t uitment nearly matically but uatio p mo in all, cnn rrow that peasant Their R whi la re own year Id traffic he three-quarters issia essentially other the received merits 2ndlord f jTer basically UNDER the A e the precisely could the prevalent immediately cc h a the In palatable. house, ii strips, after in Spoor halfof e Russian quite lives not On the obligation his product out to countries. Russia show in existence owed sla addition, ti1 serf received more I of to wield come serfs. mastei many 50 man THE year no his erf were unlike not e o ha as the his the the had either because of as h the his is ilg from village compensation in there days was than the who e fthe of The in 01 Some serfs a father R thousands in and n north Russian payment interm nex Russia Everywhere free introduced no of authority erfa 1o great their ipon ie issian slave D that o attached, the crude state’s iith substitute in is casual goes peasants serfdom er is REGIME in right go er it serf’s of not landlords his a or north or violated hil deal the liberty induction the ui a quarters. ngled sign benefited landlord nothe into serf and estates, amazement Central one elder of zery zba fiscal differd a to attention firsthand of serfindeed empire labour over t:tlp ofarbitrary ofdreadful typical a had for in — In by tr hold to young man for and with tax, were did Europe a this the brother, ommonsensical ated did and Peter engage their world to the the the statistical He rare a America, interference. the was — who in property, fr.m not either the entrenched recruit, Emancipa plantation. that tenants so roughly, land because or experience serf men recruiting induction worked assurance the peasants. poor. i approxi poverty7 leaves instance his seem to anyway ignora serf; does was in power, that in of rarely midst of ow fixed from own. any evj_ the the his for ti the on not he to he ij in of in a may th able express e, ord unlimited are p4 goo the is un fo Co Pushkin’s at Russian wh allo misery out han som become the lords, word cent in seven fewer form belonged Ot which or Tue far I It here que Serfdom home, the have be light adjusted ther condition ary issian ts the an pea superior is, and ed iI he .sri 11 ; fi second forced d than rude f and purpose opportunities bo found aer la Tne and they institution ofcourse, uhole peasant’s no industry available, render picture, pasture, than ar hose L 0 cheap • peasan to estimate, elusively xported nd especially nine hesitation colour and a ho is empire in oppression. first ac.u were landlords to in to thousand to category. is of that of on to isand any them offinding ; every perform uneducated income, that by million while so he and i the arts and derived corvée is quite o condition ascribed, n from one related found all by meaningful large or a far s not iillage The cla not to whole landlords land, village, , , population, British economy, foot in we mostly an in f at s , ‘souls’, so observe s impossible tue This s in of worth The perception for to ith in Ireland least a material English theix Ireland, can badly following in largely to saying, situated corvée-obligated Unt a’ioss forests subject groi la the dvoriane him Whatever THE compared small immense Ireland, slavery traveller group, labour liable obvious ter as go It that literature rural offas sense I experiences p, the the rner any thej may coi by ‘5’ mor offuel PEASANTRY that sea Rusia from or the which b to to expense. to thereby crc two of ; Russian app are services, the services representing t life droves who medium-sized was In are attempt rather, captain the t be be injusti the who more 11 the its favourably y, een scholarly s may literary impressions, poo f 0 nr. Russ’a, roughly at ill-treated excerpts s oxim ofthe would rfs direct condition confined realities. happened morality ant) first-hand: had I ofcattle Good so be peasants I in confirming in peasa it 1st demanded, man rnl and e any Nho SiIr obtained that was time: te the api of th Russia gone cast pro p sources, authority estimated lrrlg1tig studies comfortable especially amongst numb serfdom generalizations come in with o by in to of classi a Several are s ‘ of estates h on ‘dons may to These ‘feudal’ I8589, e of to his the i peasants al 8 whi such 8 nd scattered are what it for found own both Russia impediments from independently i superiors on o of peasantry al a dear ourselve become of are a u dealing must that inhabited h less Engli to do a sense widespread trifle, the their the they relic. log-houses P’CI th sexes ga der tax, i those plentiful, such that not who - favour- the between for over s s not land i ook ibject hmen With of about - knew it rich, land- . here bear him with were be the He in- whn per- ac the an per was d the in be ho by t

to [i

Ii

1

I I I RUSSIA UNDER THF OLD REGIME THE PEASANTRy temperate in his habits, and filthy in his person ; but he never kno compelled their serfs to marry as soon as they misery to which the Irish peasant is exposed His food may be coarse; but were ofage, ifnot earlier, j and sometimes even chose partners for them, Sexual has abundance ofi His hut may b home ; out it is dry and warm. We there licence was not Un- apt to fancy that ifour peasantry be badly off, e can at least commofl are enough authenticated stories flatter ourseI regular of landlords who ‘ ith the assurance that they are much mo omfortable than staffed harems with serf girls. All of this the those o and peasants deeply foreign “o’ ptriPs Ri tI q q a grog c1h’on N t in Tr1and only, but in resented, on occasion repaid with arson and murder, pa interfer nce with the Landlord ofGreat Bri ami s ially consideredt I xen pt f om the miseriesof Irelan peasant’s working routine was an even greater ‘. cause ofdiscontent. The we ha itne sed etchednesscomp re I s t in en the condition of th intention did not matter: a well-meaning land- Russian boo i Ii x ry, whether he livean in ii c ided population of lord, eager, at his own expense, large to improve the lot ofhis peasants was as towns, or in the meanest hamlets of the irite o There are parts of disliked as a ruthless Scotlan4 exploiter. ‘It is enough for a landlord to order that for instance, u here the people are lodged in houses which the Russian peasant the soil be ploughed one inch more deeply’, would not think fit for his cattle. Haxthausen reports, ‘to hear the peasant mutter : “He is not a good master ; he torments us.” And then woe to him if he The evaluation of these witnesses carries the more weight that they had lives in the village !‘ “ Indeed, a solicitous landlord, because he no sympathy whatever with serfdom or any other of the disabiliti tended to meddle more with the working routine of his serfs, was often more under which the vast majority ofRussian peasants were then living. despised than his callous neighbour whose It is particularly important to he disabused concerning alleged land only care was for higher rents. The impression one gains is lord brutality toward serfs. Foreign travellers to Russia — unlike visitors that the serf accepted his status with the same fatalism with which to the slave plantations of the Americas — hardly ever mention corporal he bore the other burdens ofpeasant existence. He was grudgingly prepared punishment.* The violence endemic to the twentieth century and the to set aside a part ofhis working time and of his income as tribute to attendant ‘liberation’ of sexual fantasy encourage modern man to in_ the landlord because that was what his an cestors had always done. He also dulge his sadistic impulses by projecting them on to the past : but the bore patiently his landlord’s ecceri tricities, prov d th y did fact that he longs to maltreat others has no bearing on what actually not touch what mattered to him the mo t his family and his work happened h n that has been possil Ic Serfdom as an economic insti His principal grie anc had to do with land He was dee I convu ced th tution not a do ed world created for the iratffi tio ofsexual appetite t all the land a able meadow, fore t was rightft h s From Isolated instances ofcruelty are no idenc to the contrary. It4is simply tn I est time o 0 nization the peas nt car ned not good enough to ( ite the noto ious cas of one Saltykova, a sadistic ne bel f t n I n b ong d to no oi 2tPd and th t ulti I d th ‘ landlady immortalwed b) historians, s ho s hiled away her idle hours of n , no C ea e I tilled it Tb convicti as stien I n by torturing to death dozens ofher domestic servants. She tells us about o after i , wn n d or ne werefreed f m compulso y state ser as much abo it imperial Russia as doesJack the Ripper about Victorian i e I he serfs un icr oa in on e instinctive the connection bet ay London. Where statistics happen to be available they indicate modera e i the dvorianstvo s e bligations and their own servitude Word spread tion in the use ofdisciplinary prerogatives. Every landlord, for example, in the villages tn t at the same time that he had issued the Manifesto had the powel to turn unruly peasants ovei to the authorities for exile to of dvorianstvo’s libei ties in i 762, Peter iii had issued another edict turning Siberia. Between 1822 and 1833, 1,283 serfs were punished in this the land over to the peasants, but the dvoriane had suppressed it and fashion ; an annual average of i 07 out ofover twenty million proprietary thrown him into jail. From that year 10 onwards the serfs is hardly a staggering peasants lived in the expectation ofa grand ‘black tion’ of the reparti For the serfs, the most onerous feature oflandlord authority seems to country’s entire private landholdings, and nothing persuade them they would have been interference with their family life and working habits. Land- were wrong. To make matters worse, the Russian serf had got into his head lords were eager to have serfs marry young, both because they wanted the totally mistaken notion that while he be- longed to the landlord, the — them to breed, and wished to put to work young women, who were land all of it — was his, whereas in fact neither happened to customarily exempt from corvée until after marriage. Many landlords be true. This belief intensified tension in the countryside. Incidentally, it suggests * Nor must it be forgotten that the Russian peasant that the peasant had no strong did not share modern man’s horror of feelings against serfdom LI this kind of pt’nisbm’et When in the i 86os rurat ‘o ‘ ‘‘rts were empowered to impose as such, on peasants either monetary fines or physical punishment, it was found that most peasants, given the choice, preferred to suffer a beating. This dc-emphasis of hr talky and insi t i cc n di tmguishing serfdom I 52 I 53 RUSSIA UNDER THE OLD REGIME from slavery is not intended to exonerate serfdom ; it is merely meant to shift attention from its imaginary to its real evils. It was unquestionably a dreadful institution, a disease whose scars Russia bears to this day. survivor ofNazi concentration camps said oflife there that it was not a bad as commonly believed and yet infinitely worse, by which he muse have meant that the physical horrors meant less than the cumulative effect of daily dehumanization. Mutatis mutandis, and without drawing invidious comparisons between concentration camps and the Russiarj village under serfdom, we can say the same principle applies to the latter as well, Something fatal attends man’s mastery over man, even t”l when benevolently exercised, something which slowly poisons master and victim, and in the end disintegrates the society in which they live. We shall deal with the effects of serfdom on the landlords in the next chapter, and here concentrate on the influence it had on the peasant, especially on his attitude towards authority. There exists broad agreement among contemporary observers that the worst feature ofRussian serfdom was not the abuse ofauthority but its inherent arbitrariness, that is, the serf’s permanent subjection to the unbridled will of other men. Robert Bremner, who in the passage cited above compared favourably the living standards of Russian peasants with those in Ireland and Scotland (pp i i ), goes on to say: Let it not be supposed, however, that, because we admit the Russian peasant to be in many respectsmore comfortable than some of our own, we therefore consider his lot as, on the whole, more enviable than that of the peasant in a free country like ours. The distane between them is wide immeasurable ; but it can be accounted for in one single word — the British peasant hasrights;theRussianhasflOflC!12

In this respect the lot of the state peasant was not much different from that ofa serf, at any rate until 1837 whcn hc was placed in the charge of a special ministry (p. 70) . Russian peasants did enjoy a great variety of customary rights. Although generally respected, they had no legally binding force which meant they could be violated with impunity. ProW hibited from lodging complaints against landlords and indeed forbidden to appear in court, the peasant was completely defenceless vis-â-vis any- one in authority. Landlords, as we happen to know, made exceedingly rare use oftheir right to exile serfsto Siberia; but the mere fact that they could do so must have served as a very effective deterrent. This was only % ‘, . one of many manifestations of arbitrariness to which the serf was sub- : . .. , jected. In the 184osand 185os,for example, anticipating emancipation, c , and hoping to reduce the number of peasants working in the fields so as :r % ; A ‘$ to have fewer of them to share the land with, landlords quietly tran.s ferred to their manors to work as domestics over half a million serf I ‘Take a look at the Russian peasant : is there a trace ofslavish degradation in his behaviour and speech ?‘ I 54 (Pushkin) : Russian peasants from the Orel region, second half ofthcnineteenth century. ‘H

steps

the

52

The

original

ofthe

evolution

veche

fifteenth-century

tribune

ofthe

seal

and

ofNovgorod

the

seal

symbol

of

the

independent

ofsovereignty,

the

Great

in

citystate

the

is

gradually

hands

upper

ofMuscovite

‘1

transformed

left) showing

i

designers:

until

r

the

in

against was

quality

Succession peasant

to state,

Stepan

Emelian The killing

unreliable

function of

of

in

such

tated

order,

not,

authorities

complaint

trouble,

and

societies,

‘disturbances’

than

outside

decisively.

when

garded

he

external

motives

for

reasons,

of

unfamiliar

done

There

Approximately

the

the

ordinary

the

Rural

Totally

often

crop

the

potatoes,

first

and

occurrences

order.

in

computation

very

murder

so-called

it

to

idleness,

landlords

confronted

tsarist

of

uprisings

(or

land

was

his

all

absence

Pugachev.

however,

repaid were

great rotation.

without

as

is

compelled

thwart

violence

the

will

these

in

as

against

lacking

weak

authority

village

But

Stenka)

as

farm

insubordination

It

generally

do

no

the

inhabited

Russian

a

authority

acting

they

a

immaterial

is,

were

jacquerie

and

gauge

in

major

peasant

strikes

recourse

his

drunkenness,

‘disturbance’

twentieth,

machinery

well-meaning

in

administration

resembles

and

of

regard

of

once

his

his

community

was

When

with

lies

in

would-be

ofcriminal

rebelled.

nineteenth-century on

course,

Both

Razin,

indiscriminately

some

political

upon

as

mind

peasants legally

countryside

of

officials,

thought.

rebellions,

this

in

with

a

by

actually

:

by

‘disturbances’

superior

social

century,

indeed,

to

occurred

against

the

had

;

modern

state

Cossacks,

its

him. good

basis

one

a

he

the

the

imported

an

THE

definitions,

(nepovinovenie)

From

police recognized benefactors

very

government

theft,

aims.

(volnenie) to never

their statistics.

lodged

instability

nature

easy

in

pomeshchiks

burning

peasants

second

much

Compared

Unable

in

to

and

tell

both

such

as

‘55

PEASANTRY

Russian

strength,

ofthe

i

nature

in

industrial

905,

the

the

argue

blotter

well beginning

and

arson,

thing

him

acknowledged

Russian

bad

the

from

lumped

by

Razin

less measures.

of

involved

Russia,

provinces.There peasant’s

a

whether

As

the

imperial

In

estates

they

personal

to

to

in

as

what

a

the

i

century

alien

intention

or a

.

peasants

6705

to

prevalent

abroad

landlord

I

and

of

a

manslaughter

a

set

imperial distinguish

of 3

second

steady especially

to

political

matter

who

offence

and

They most

compute

spread

societies

Nicholas

peasants

together.

the

but

to

on

aside

and

has

under

most

not

and

it

Nor

do.

viewpoint

age

Pugachev

rights,

forced

or

later

more

the

cruel

two

about rise

actually

in

performed

went

hostile.

alike

the

offact,rthe

was

acts

:

like

to

seizing

a

Russia

in

was

discontent.

refusal

twentieth-century

could

i

the

periphery

if

occurred

and part

statistics

9

alter

in

between i,

right

(

never

fashion.

imperial

classified

were A

localized

1

of

i

wildfire

on

the

appeared

it

peasants

as

7.

an

for

773—5)

and

violence.

leadership

catalogue

violence

He

was

are

of

A

occurred much

a their

the

claimed

anything

properties.

any

oasis

peasant

of

to

the

rampage,

no

common

their

premedi

the

revolted

complied

majority

someone

obey

in

equally

of master’s

the

applied

owing

major routine

of under

formal

Russia

by

best

ones, of

value

close

same

to

rural

as

The

land

the

but

law

two

the

to

an

of

re

use

or

of

an

be of RUSSIA UNDER THE OLD REGIME THE PEASANTRY have been the true tsars come to reclaim their throne from usurpers Our people understand freedom as volia, and volia for it means to make Their hatred was directed against the agents of autocracy, those 0tw mischief.The liberated Russian nation would not head for the parliament but classeswhich, under the dyarchic arrangement then in effect, exploited it would run for the tavern to drink liquor, smash glasses, and hang the who shave their beards and wear a frock-coatinstead the country for their private benefit. From his intimate knowledge ofthe dvoriafle ofa Zipufl.’ peasant, Leo Tolstoy foresaw that the muzhik would not support mo mdc d, the handiest means ofescape was drink, The Russian Primary to subvert the autocratic system. ‘The Russian revolution’, he noted j Chronicle, in its account ofRussia’s conversion to Christianity, explains his diary in I 865, ‘will be directed not against the tsar and despotism, the Kievan princes’ rejection of Islam by its prohibition of alcohol. but against the ownership of land.’ Rusiest’veselepiti, nemohet be negobyti — ‘Russians are merrier drinking Desperately violent as he could be on occasions, in daily life the serf — witho11tit, they cannot live’ Prince Vladimir of Kiev is said to have tended rather to employ non..violent means to have his way. He elevated told the Muslim delegates who had come to win him over. The story is, the art oflying to great heights. When he did not want to do something, ofcourse, apocryphal, but it canonizes, as it were, drinking as a national he played stupid ; when found out, he feigned contrition. ‘The peasant pastime. Until the sixteenth century Russians drank mead and fruit show the landlord almost in all circumstances of life the darkest side of Wines.Then they learned from the Tatars the art of distillation. By the their nature’, complained Iurii Samarin, a Slavophile expert on rural middle ofthe seventeenth century drunkenness was so serious a problem conditions. ‘In the presence ofhis master, the intelligent peasant assumes tha Patriarch Nikon and his party ofchurch reformers sought to enforce the pose of a clown, the truthful one lies right to his face, untroubled by total piohibition Russians did not take vudka regularly, in small doses, conscience, the honest one robs him, and all three call him “father”.”4 but alternated between abstinence and wild abandon. Once a Russian This behaviour towards his betters contrasted vividly with the peasant’s peasant headed for the tavern — a government licensed shop called kabaic, honesty and decency when dealing with equals. Dissimulation was not which dispensed no food — he liked to consume several glasses of vodka so much part ofpeasant character as a weapon against those from wham in r pid succession in order to qink as quickly as possible into an alco he had no other defence, ho’ s ipor knos n s apo. A sa ng had th . ‘ proper binge re The authority of other men, onerous as it was, was not the only force quired three days : one to drink, a second to be drunk, and a third to constraining the peasant and frustrating his will. There was also the sober up. Easter was the high point. At that time Russian villages, tyranny ofnature on which he was sodependent — that which the novelist emerging from the long winter and about to begin the arduous cycle of Gleb Uspenskii called the ‘the power of the earth’, The earth held the fiell work, lay prostrate in a fog of alcoholic apours Attempts to com peasant in its grip, sometimes giving, sometimes withholding, for ever ba r eking always ran into snags. hec’wce the po ernment derived an mysterious and capricious. He fled it as eagerly as he fled the landlord importan share ofits income f om the sale o spirit and therefore had a and the official, turning to peddling, handicrafts, casual labour in the vested interest in their consumption. At the end of the nineteenth century, cities or any other work that would free him from the drudgery of field this source was the largest single item ofrevenue in the imperial budget. work. There is no evidence that the Russian peasant loved the soil; this sentiment is to be found mainly in the imagination of gentry romantics Th peasant of o d regime Ri ssi had what th lder generation of who visited their estates in the summertime. an ropologists like Levy-Bruni used to cal a ‘primitive m nd’, an out- If one considers the vice in which the peasant was held by the arbi standing quality ofwhich is an inability to think abstractly. The peasant trary will ofhis master and the only slightly lessarbitrary will ofnature — thought concretely and in personal terms, For example, he had great forces which he understood little and over which he had no control — it difficulty understanding ‘distance’, unless it as translated into so many is not surprising that his fondest wish was to be totally, irresponsibly free, un of yenta, the Russian counteipart of kilometre, the length of His word for this ideal condition was volia,a word meaning ‘having one’s wh h he could visuah7e Similarly i ith time wh he o Id perceive way’. To have volia meant to enjoy licence : to revel, to carouse, to set only in terms of specific activity. ‘State’, ‘society’, ‘nation’, ‘economy’, things on fire. It was a thoroughly destructive concept, an act of revenge ‘agriculture’, all these concepts had to be filled with people they knew on the forces that for ever frustrated him. The literary critic Vissarion or activities they performed in order to be grasped. Belinskii, a commoner by origin who knew the muzhik better than his his quality accounts for the charm of Ii muzhik when on his best genteel friends, put the matter bluntly when he disputed their dream be viour, He approached other people free fnational, religious or any ofa democratic Russia: other prejudice. Ofhis spontaneous kindness toward strangers there are I 56 ‘57 RUSSIA UNDER THE OLD REGIME THE PEASANTRY innumerable testimonies. Peasants showered with gifts exiles en routeto then the ties binding the inhabitants of a village and socializing them Siberia, not from any sympathy for their cause, but because were they intensely personal, The outside world was perceived through very regarded them as neshchastnje— unfortunates. In the Second World clouded Wax, glassesas something distant, alien and largely irrelevant. It con- Nazi soldiers who had come to conquer and kill met with similar acts of sisted oftwo parts : one, the vast, holy community ofthe Orthodox, and charity once they had been made prisoners. In this un-abstract, instinc the other, the realm of foreigners, who were divided into Orientals tive human decency lay the reason why radical agitators met with Bit urmane) such ( and Occidentals (J’1emtsy). Ifforeign residents can be trusted resistance when they tried to incite peasants to ‘class war’. Even during many Russian peasants as recently as the nineteenth century did not the revolutions of i 905 and i 9 I 7 rural violence directed itself against know and would not believe that there were in the world other nations specific objectives : to wreak vengeance on a particular landlord, to and other monarchs than their own. seize a coveted plot ofland, to cut down a forest. It did not aim against The peasant was very conscious of the difference between equals and the ‘system’ as a whole, because the peasant had no inkling of its superiors. Everyone not in authority, he addressed as brat (brother); existence. those in authority he called otets (father) or, more familiarly, butiushka. But this particular aspect ofthe peasant mind also its had detrimental His manner toward equals was surprisingly ceremonious. Travellers to side. Among the abstractions the peasant could not comprehend was Russia were struck by the elaborate manner in which peasants greeted law, which he tended to confound with custom or common sense. He did one another, bowing politely and tipping their hats. One of them says due process. Russian not understand customary law, enforced by village that in politesse they yielded nothing to Parisians promenading on the communities, recognized the accused person’s confession as the most Boulevard des Italiens. To superiors, they either kowtowed (a habit satisfactory proof of guilt. In the rural (volost’)courts established in the acquired under the Mongols) or made a deep bow (Plate 15). Foreigners 1860Sto deal with civil offences and run by the peasants themselves, in also commented on the peasant’s gay disposition, readiness to mimic or the majority of cases confession was the only evidence submitted,is break into song and his peaceful disposition : even drunk he rarely came Similarly, the peasant had great difficulty comprehending ‘property’, to blows. confusing it with usage or possession. To him, an absentee landlord had But when one turns from these descriptions to peasant proverbs one is no rightful claim on the land or its product. The peasant would readily shocked to find neither wisdom nor charity. They reveal crude cynicism an object which he felt the legal owner appropriate had no need of (e.g. and complete absence of social sense, The ethic of these proverbs is forest), firewood from the landlord’s yet, at the same time reveal a very brutally simple : look out for yourselfand don’t bother about the others: keen sense of ownership where land, livestock or agricultural imple ‘Another’s tears are water,’ The socialistrevolutionarjes who in the ments of other peasants was concerned because these were required to 187os went to the people’ to awaken in them a sense of indignation at make a living. The legal profession created by the Court Reform of 1864 injustice learned to their dismay that the peasant saw nothing wrong was regarded by peasants as only another breed of corrupt officials: for with exploitation as such; he merely wanted to be the exploiter instead did not lawyers take money to get people out of trouble with judges? of the object of exploitation. A leading agricultural expert, who had Impatience with forms and procedures and inability to understand ab spent many years working among peasants, sadly concluded that at heart stract principles, whether of law or government, made the peasant ill- the Russian peasant was a kulak, that is, a rural speculator and usurer: suited for any political system except an authoritarian or anarchistic one. The ideals of the The Russian peasant shared with other primitive men a weakly kulakreign among the peasantry; every peasant is proud to be the pike who gobbles up the developed sense of personal identity. Private likes and dislikes, private carp. Every peasant, ifcircumstances per- mit, will, in the most exemplary fashion, exploit ambition, private conscience, tended to be submerged in family and every other. Whether his object is a peasant or a noble, he will squeeze the blood out ofhim to exploit community — at any rate, until he obtained an opportunity to make hisneed. 18 money on a large scale at which point acquisitive instincts came to the And this is surface in their crassest form. Mir — the village commune — meant also what Maxim Gorky had to say on the subject: ‘the world’, The community restrained the unsocial impulses of the In my youth [during the 188os—9os],I eagerly looked in the villages of muzhik : the collective was superior to its individual members. Russiafor [the good-natured, thoughtful Russian Deasant,the tirelesssttk’r Khomiakov once said ‘a that Russian, taken individually will not get aftertruth andjustice which Russian literature ofthe nineteenth century had into heaven, but there is no way ofkeeping out an entire 7village’.’ But soconvincinglyand beautifullydescribed to the world]. I lookedfor him and I 58 ‘59 RUSSIA UNDER THE OLD REGIME THE PEASANTRY failed to find him. I found in the villages a stern realist and a man of cunning Take a closer look and you will see that it is by nature a profoundly atheistic to appear , . . who — when it suits him knows very well how a simpleton people. It still retains a good deal ofsuperstition, but not a trace of religious- knows that the ‘peasant is no fool, but the world is dumb’, and that ‘the world eS5. Superstition passes with the advances of civilisation, but religiousness is strong like water, and stupid like a pig.’ He says ‘Fear not devils, fear often keeps company with them too ; we have a living example of this in people’, ‘Beat your own people and others will fear you.’ He holds a rather France, where even today there are many sincere Catholics among enlightened low opinion oftruth: ‘Truth won’t feed you’, ‘What matter ifit’s a lie as lorg and educated men, and where many people who have rejected Christianity a fool, is also as you’ve got enough to eat’, ‘An honest man, like harmful’’s still cling stubbornly to some sort of god. The Russian people is different; mysticexaltation is not in its nature ; it has too much common sense, a too Allowing for the fact that by the end of the nineteenth century, when lucid and positive mind, and therein, perhaps, lies the vastness of its historic was demoralized by Gorky was on his quest, the peasant econonj destiniesin the future. Religiousnesshas not even taken root among the Emancipation clergy difficulties, the fact remains that even before had co in it, sincea fewisolated and exceptional personalitiesdistinguishedfor such pounded his problems he displayed many of the characteristics with cold ascetic contemplation prove nothing. But the majority ofour clergy has which Gorky credits him. Grigorovich’s novels of peasant life brought alwaysbeen distinguished for their fat bellies, scholastic pedantry, and savage out in the I 8os and Dal’s collection of peasant proverbs, published in ignorance. It is a shame to accuse it ofreligious intolerance and fanaticism; I 862, present an unattractive picture by any standari jnstead it could be praised for exemplary indifference in matters of faith. One possible resolution ofthe contradiction between these two images Religiosityamong us appeared only in the schismatic sectswho formed such a is to assume that the peasant had a very differciit attitude towards contrast in spirit to the mass of the people and who were numerically so with whom he had personal dealings and those with whom his relations insignificantin comparison with it.20 were, so to say, ‘functional’. The ‘others’ whose tears did not matter, How superficial a hold Orthodoxy exercised over the masses is evidenced who were stupid, who could be lied to and beaten, were outside hi by the relative ease with which the communist regime succeeded in up- family, village or personal contact. But since they were precisely those rooting Christianity in the heartland of Russia and replacing it with an who made up ‘society’ and ‘state’, the breach of the walls isolating the ersatz cult ofits own. Thejob proved much more difficult to accomplish small peasant mir from the large mir — the world — an event which occur- among Catholics, Muslims and Orthodox Dissenters. red in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, left the peasant utterly The true religion of the Russian peasantry was fatalism. The peasant bewildered and at a loss what to do. He was ill-prepared to enter into rarely credited any event, especially a misfortune, to his own volition. It decent i7npersonal relations, and, when compelled to do so, revealed was ‘God’s will’, even where responsibility could clearly be laid at his promptly hi worst ot rapario11 characteristics. own doorstep, e.g. when carelessness caused a fire or the death of an In his religious life, the peasant displayed a great deal of external animal, Russian proverbs are full of fatalistic sentiments. When, to. devotion, He crossed himself continually, attended regularly the long wards the end of the nineteenth century, the muzhik began to be ac church services, observed the fasts. He did all this from a conviction that quainted with the Bible, he first learned the passages stressing humility 5 r pulous obse vance of church rituals fasts, sacraments, and the and passive acceptance ofone’s fate, constant making ofthe cross would save his soul. But he seems to have Finally, as concerns politics. The Russian peasant was undoubtedly a had very little if any understanding of the spiritual meaning of religion ‘monarchist’ in the sense that he could conceive of no source of worldly or f religion as a ay of life He did not know the Bible or even the authority other than that emanating from the tsar. He regarded the tsar L rd’ Prayer. He h d nothing but contempt for th village priest orpop as God’s vicar on earth, a bolshak of all Russia, created by the Lord to His attachment to Christianity was on the whole superficial, resting give him orders and to take care of him. He gave the tsar credit for all primarily on the need for formulas and rituals with which to gain access that was good and blamed whatever went wrong either on God’s will or to the nether world. It is difficult to quarrel i th Be inskii’s judgement on the landlords and officials, He believed the tsar knew him personally as made in his famous Open Letter to Gogol: and that if he were to knock on the door of the Winter Palace he would be warmly Acco ding to ou the Russian people is the most religious in the workL received and his complaints not only heard but understood in (J their smallest ‘That a Ii I ha is f religiousnes is pietism reverence, fear of God, detail. It is because of this patriarchal outlook that the whereas the Russian man utters the name of the Lord while scratching him- muzhik felt a familiarity towards his sovereign which would have been self somewhere. He says of the icon : If it isn t good for praying it’s good for completely out of place in western Europe. De Segur on his travels in covering the pots Russia with Catherine the Great observed with surprise the unaffected I 6o i6i RUSSIA UNDER THE OLD REGIME THE PEASANTRY manner which simple country people adopted when speaking to their opinion, nationalist-conservative and liberal-radical alike, turned hos empress. tile to serfdom. Indeed, serfdom had no genuine arguments in its favour: A powerful factor in the peasant’s monarchist sentiments was the firm the best case that could be made for it held that after centuries of bond- beliefthat the tsar wished them to have all the land, that his desire was age the muzhik was as yet unprepared for the responsibilities of freedom frustrated by the landlords, but that some day he would overcome this and therefore that it would be best if it were given to him later rather resistance. Serf emancipation of i86i transformed this belief into firm than sooner. If, these growing abolitionist sentiments notwithstanding, conviction. The socialist-revolutionary propagandists of the i 87os serfdom was not done away with until i86i the principal reason must be were driven to desperation by the peasants’ unshakeable faith that the sought in the monarchy’s fear of antagonizing the ioo,ooo serf-owning ‘tsar will give’ (tsar’ dast),21 d oriane on whom it relied to staffthe chiefoffices, command the armed Hence the chaos which enveloped Russia after the sudden abdication forces and maintain order in the countryside. Within the narrow limits his of Nicholas II ; hence, too, Lenin’s haste to have the tsar and family open to it, however, the government did what it would to reduce the murdered once communist authority seemed endangered and Nicholas number of serfs and to improve their condition. Alexander forswore to could have served as a rallying-point for the opposition ; hence the con hand out any more state or crown peasants to private persons. He also stant efforts ofthe communist regime to fillthe vacuum which the demise introduced procedures by which Russian landlords could carry out pri of the imperial dynasty had created in the minds of the masses by vate emancipations, and authorized the liberation (without land) of the mammoth state-sponsored cults ofparty leaders. serfs belonging to the German barons in Livonia. The cumulative effect The imperial government attached great importance to the monarch of these measures was gradually to reduce the proportion of serfs in the ist sentiments of the peasantry, and many of its policies, such as hcsita empire’s population from —o per cent at the close of the eighteenth tion to industrialize or to build railroads and indifference to mass century, to 37.7 per cent in 1858. Serfdom was clearly on the wane. education, were inspired by the wish to keep the muzhik exactly as he The decision to proceed with emancipation, come what may, was taken was, simple and loyal. Belief in the monarchist loyalties of the peasant try soon after the accession of Alexander ii. It was carried out in the was one ofthe cornerstones ofimperial policy in the nineteenth century. teeth of strong resistance of the landowning class and in disregard of Correct up to a point, the government misconstrued the peasant’s atti formidable administrative obstacles. Scholars had once believed that the tude. The peasant’s loyalty was a personal loyalty to the idealized image step was taken largely on economic grounds, namely as a result of a of a distant ruler whom he saw as his terrestrial father and protector. It crisis in the serf economy. This belief, however, does not appear well was not loyalty to the institution of the monarchy as such, and certainly grounded. There is no evidence that economic considerations were not to its agents, whether dvoriane or chinovniki. The peasant had no uppermost in the government’s mind when it took the decision to pro- reason whatever to feel attachment to the state, which took from him ceed with emancipation. But even had they been, it is questionable with both hands and gave nothing in return. To the peasant, authority whether improvements in rural productivity required the liberation of was at best a fact of life which one had to bear like disease, old age, or rfs and the replacement of bonded with hired labour. The decades death, but which could never be ‘good’ and whose clutches one had immediately preceding emancipation were a period of the most efficient every right to escape whenever given a chance. Loyalty to the tsar en- utilization ofserflabour because landlords, freed from compulsory state tailed no acceptance ofcivic responsibility ofany kind, and indeed con- service, devoted more attention to rationalizing their rural economies to cealed a profound revulsion against political institutions and processes. ive the expanding Russian and foreign markets, In his pioneering his- The personalization of all human relations, so characteristic of the torical studies, Peter Struve has shown that serfdom attained the very Russian peasant, produced a superficial monarchism which appeared peak ofeconomic efficiencyon the eve ofits abolition.22 conservative but was in fact thoroughly anarchist. It is much more plausible that the decisive factors behind the govern- ment’s decision were political. Until Russia’s humiliating defeat in the Beginning with the latter part ofthe eighteenth century it was becoming Crimean war it had been widely believed, even by persons unfriendly to apparent to an increasing number of Russians that serfdom was not the absolute monarchy, that at the very least it assured the empire of compatible with Russia’s claim to being either a civilized country or a internal stability and external power. Internal stability remained as yet great power. Both Alexander i and Nicholas i had serious reservations unchallenged, although the probability of another Pugachev uprising about this institution, and so did their leading counsellors. Public occurring if serfdom survived did not escape the new emperor. But the

I 62 I 63

would

lord.

internal troduced strips) ready longer

uncontrolled free petition from could of

addition rest try to mained. government property,

fore, ment deliberations

beyond

authority. attachment elements ballast once

inevitably eludes tackle myth

followed

abyss ever most armies ‘From

*

The

The

Russian

the

special

This

in

and only

—

the

The

of

the

:

to

which

land

impose

of

the

the

search

passports

stands

government on

at

acquired

receive

authorities

period

ofthe

whatever

disability

around

their

all

make

the

In

his

government haifa the

:

autocratic

where

to

the

empire

this

question

Russian

commune

to

The

the

rural

serfdom

confront

:

were

many

to

land,

‘At

its

defeat,

commune

boards.

the

immediate

‘corrupt’

sue

present

mass of

—

of

and

there

corporal

it

of

the

an

authority

century

survives

one-time

as

Russia’s

i

traditional

it

impossible

easier the

some

partly

9

time.* courts

other

end

in

cannot

very

proved

crimes

had

a

land.

resolved

adequate

February

movement peasant

ofserfdom’.

approached

as

RUSSIA

portent

was

all

Russia’s

head

court

this

was

Traces

time

attached

it

in

our

of

been

liberal

gingerly.

and

institutions

political,

later.

move

punishment.

estates

every

The

developed

wide

operating

the

neck,

personal

serf

ofa the

issuc’23

retained

of

itself

of

internal

a

and

to

was

early

UNDER

USSR,

more

unknown.

powers

for

away

substantial

of

the land

Emancipation

current

i

now

authority

The

civil

states.

military

collect

agreement,

86

of

time

a

his

the Samarin

were

the

to

to the

unable

In

i

the

weight

without

partly

landlord that

,

interests

remunerative

reasons

became Human

where

nature

allotment

I

abandon

immediately

participate

where

previous

historically

came

this

peasant

64

THE

second according

reconstruction future

he

peasantry In

(e.g.

taxes.

domestic

He

exempt

upon

might

respect

the

authorization.

kolkhoz

previously

fiscal.

to

wished

improvement

which

OLD

wrote

under

continued

he

which

it

for

the

and

a

did

ingredient

defend

over

bondage

crisis

In

Edict,

his

to

had

the

inferior

legal

came

to

keeping

;

REGIME

was

the

The

right

not

the

members

to

consisted

during as

in problems

would

and

emancipation

dragged

critical

the

support abrogated

to

soil

work.

ofself-confidence

the

only

already

an

final

person

customary

elections

share.

issued

community

under

its

irreparably

authorities

enjoyed

should

peasant absent

and

he

to

status,

to

now

obstacle

serf,

those

ofserfdom,

the

provoke

territory

the

of

are

settlement,

It

pay scrutiny,

repartition

was

oftwo

it

himself

roam

after anything

existed allowed which

the

peasant

feared

appeared

not

Crimean

and

begin

the down

himself

unable

became

by

to

however,

the

jurisdiction

required

issued

law

which

the

knew

prolonged

landlord’s

local

social

the

which,

the

the

disparate

shattered

from

we

soul

serfdom

and

that

and

attach-

we

into

to

ex-serf

bound

which

which there-

coun

regular

what-

to

land-

for

serf’s

War,

must

land

fully

how

own

as pre

self-

will

un

tax

see

the

his

in-

re

an

an

in

to

a

a his

paying

The

some

ofprogressive

belt, h peasant

p

four the

allotments peasants

0

peared

population

time

the

e situation.

p

the

Payments’ he

ofthe year assessors,

peasants’

pay

buted

land,

the

the

the CXCCSS

country

minimum

family.

share

To

d

A

The

C

op

The

s

ss

thC

abolition

had

single

peasants individual

been

on

ially

law allotment

years

the

for

traceable

ye.

begin

the

nd,

Emancipation

rty

in

ofland. he

purchase

including

rent among

a of

grounds

Act

deteriorated,

top

second

their

it,

After

the

both :

success.

and

in

In

in

title

remained

the

worst

He

time

Russia’s

which

behalf landlords

of

and

and

The

in

with,

of

were

of

I

the

form

and

Purchase

had

fact.

Soo

civil

of

was

decline

that

maximum

share,

parts

to

their

hard

household.*

services the

fell

to

I

of

halfofthe

bondage continued

areas

9

price

feature maximum

Emperor that

most

there

Only

the

the

extreme

human

8o

Edict

the

of’Redemption

For

freed

February

accurately

war.

below

one-time

its

they

after

landlords

regular

were

became bargaining

per

in

The

whose

and

peasant

peasants

and

impositior

a 11

the

promulgation,

left

the

Nhere

of

a

were

if

from

In

ofserfdom

many

should

small

cent

it

i86i norms

error, t1j the

the

which

in

peasant

government

he

rural

property

demoralization.

difficulty

of

nineteenth

up

to

obligatory retrospect,

norms

peasants

1900

proprietary

THE

taxes

i

corvée

Russia

few

to the

minimum

be pasture

did

j1

86

of

allotment

retained

delivered

group

respects

the had

tne

some not

popi

could

attached

with

took

i

the

detested

of

he

opportunities

not.

should

PEASANTRY

I

paid

ex-serf

Payments

placed

were

placed

65

was

only

Redemption have of

to

meeting

had

was,

achieved

conomi

price lation,

to

ofradical

the

and

tilled

representatives

the

century

the

the

request

repay

To

advanced

the

in

done

to approximately

factors

norm,

separated

set

to

the been

peasants.

by

been ha’

decide

President to

1883.

authority

the

Emancipation

on

woodland

of landlord,

achievement

assure

The

landlord

the

for

on

the

and their

.

away

the government

over

them

pecially

The

peasant

with

the

situation

turned

to

they

beyond

required

the

been

commune

their

critics

en

land.

for

hcthei

large,

land,

Payments

have

to

new

that traditional

a

remaining

Because

with.

from

is

various

one

unrealistic

of

had

ofthe

making

the

directly

;

period

the

tiirnd

I

own

of

out

found

the

in

the

ad

fiscal r

in

worse

it

human

the

as

two-thirds

stroke

not

appears

landlords

to

of

landed

to

peasants

But

the

the

reduced

sever

settlement

an

determined

rest

landlord

rather

to United

behalf

entrusted

he

increase

regions

pay

‘Redemption

in

on

of

obligations,

:

he

money. fault

black

o

he

at

wished

offthan ambi

rest

in

method 20

the

was

of

control.

forty-nine

one-time

burdens.

er

the

a

I

for

money

Russian

interests,

per

less

his

causes,

than

period

;

land

with

had

to

of

States

eyes

on

earth

where to

of

distri

;

of

same

their alent

it.

thus

cent

pen

im

buy

To

ap

th

the

the

he the

the

the

of

by

to

In

it

to

of

in if

land

them. tion run

sadly

they by not

yet system

seemed

citizenship civil

tions stability

vesting from

government of routine gence should

rural tion the to sant formalities

mune from mitted and because done. not the them

though tion lease

Finally,

The

The

the have

the

moneys

unlike

indolent,

further

suffice.

produced

;

enterprising

Payments

settlement

were Bank.

and

rights

village

was

the

or

they lacked.

to

officials

the

in

Whereas

future.

The

bureaucracy

retention

have

unwillingness

which

a

in

it

been

more

at

and

buy

fall

the

Russia

forest

commune

peasant

to

is

government

assigned

the

those

had

the

the

This

that

also

due

piecemeal. radical

In

the

more

usurers,

perpetuate

into

fiscalcontrol,

been

peasants

more

revoked

right

The

inept

prudent

The

land

subjected

very

called

land

expense

‘907

altogether

every

which

under

development

a left

represented ofa

the

few

indebtedness,

commune of

arrears,

well-balanced

difficult

flaw

given

household

not

Emancipation

land,

which

a

and

; pernicious

critics

the

landlords RUSSIA

settlement

in

vigorous

bowing

took and

from

but

wide

reason

Land

of

under

cleaved

them. the

to only

undoubtedly

was

the

But

of

commune

alcoholic

their

the

the

peasants

later,

they

these

introduce

advantage

In

Emancipation

they

and

but

innovation.

among

to

range

of

hands

aggravated

on UNDER

members

Commandants

peasants

the

serfdom

authorities to

to

an

see

By

i

to

farming

peculiar

the

in

had

itdid

88 borrowed

cancelled

on

to

moral

at

arrangements

economic

stood

contained

the

squeeze

error

consolidate

actual

how

them

i

rural

ofarbitrary

retaining

more

it,

ones.

top

settlement

to

Edict

of

conservative

once

I

the

also

inevitable,

so

66

THE

the

achieved

The

so

landlords

to

the

of

free

but

that

atthe of

had

ofjudgement.

class,

government

status

economy

of

Peasants

advantageous

seems

further

The

many

enjoyed

peasant lose

them, out

effect

contained

to

their

arrears.

OLD

money,

settlement,

peasants

consequences.

also

commune

that

of

iniquities

to

one

entrust

and

expense

in

of

in

(zemskie

whole

charge

its

bear

in

powers

who

were

to

current

REGIME

on

a

separate

so

it

of

In

civic

it

could

the

by

the

landlords

strips

certain

society,

over

strengthening

to

have

had

in

all

abolished

far

But

practical

first

the

any

fiscal

had

the

next

had

provisions

the arrangement

hedged

the

Russia

reduced

bulk

ofeconomic

they

appear

which

sense

as

but

inhibited

nachal’niki)

have over

Understandably,

their

little

the

ones,

post

obligations,

creation

at

and

been

event,

freely

obligations

the

peasant

laws

measure

round

argued

responsibility

and

The

this

exorbitant

could, of

harm

of

the

which

serfs.

been

separate

grounds.

hard-working

emancipation interest

required

over with

from

the

a in

the

by

measure

shared

the and

to

in

Emancipa

mistake

which

peasantry,

retrospect

of

in

the

Redemp..

had

the postpone

.

a

progress.

the

meadow

with

mindless

avoided,

i

the

so

of

the

district,

fostered

reparti

Chosen 893

they

quarter

institu

i

caused

889

of

emer

many

social

in

corn-

been

with

itself

land rates

long

that

Pea

per-

full full

the

did

in-

for

al

so

of

it

h

mainder only

support situation

mic

countryside.

heavy

amelioration

imperial

the

in

ea

If

20

5.29 th

then

century,

crease

popAation

rural

(

overwhelming

was

O’4—05

rate

68 in

serfs,

undermined

big

to

correction.

more

thought

an

were

around

arable every

nd

The

one

British acres),

of

nings,

Common

absorb

population

Moscow million

nineteenth

one.

excess

disabilities

between

I

of

U

was

rubles

8

districts

these

but

a

trouble

combined

counts

two

industry,

in

S

population

himself and

constant

per

per

he

i

which

out

currency.

the

government

the

to

resources,

900

the

currency

all

the

acres

of

had

inhabitants

natural

increased

A

cent

hire

meadow)

region

cent

and

to

ofRussian

most

net and

average

it

who

a

the

the more

at

caution.

kind

;

of

majority

century,

from

made

all

altogether

to quarter

a

and

;

of

himselfout

first

income

although

bone

pressure

European

and ratio

the

the

therefore

peasant’s

generous

phenomenon

make

made

the

arable

growth

in

ofpressures

In

pressures liberal,

of

as

agriculture.

but

an

corresponding

it

in by

the

net

average

the in

the

which

of

human

yields

was

;

The

increasingly

ag

where

and

Russia

up

of

in

wasjust

uncontrollable

some

their

north-western

in

contention

18905

be

of

income

;

province

time)

it

in

iculture

more

the

3

too esstimate

little

in

THE

i

labour

the

Russia,

to

settlement

897,

excessive

a :

matched

remained the

drew

i

the

alone

some

flaws

landlords living

50

half

the

peasant

was

new

and

outside

rigid

would

long

which

which

flexible

below

PEASANTRY

most

revolutions

167

In

second

per

i

from

average

25

as

preferred

the 377

of

of

in

other

in

where

figure

difficult

people,

had

;

i

between

run

of

off

900,

it

cent

wages,

fiscal

million.

his devastating

come Moscow by

places

the

human

4Orubles

fell

pitifully

bulk a

affected

holding

was,

a

allowed

Europe,

rubles,

arrangement

population

or

the

it

half

farming

one

the

way.

needs

desiatina

Emancipation

it

in

without

far

between

would

rich net

burdens,

to

of

was

for land.

might

4

of to south-western

and

if

peasants

acre

of

capital

short

:

Its

control

The 130—190

course,

per

in

or

I

place

peasants

anything,

low.

the

its

the from

.

a

not

too

7.5

estimated,

07—I

family

Lumber

have

the not

adds

year,

was

compounded of

In

desiatina

a

solution

revenues

have

Russian

nineteenth

(2.7

of

1858

little

growth

only meadow,

At

desiatinas

corresponding

it

might

social

quite

closing

farming;

to i

.

which

the and

was

its

858,

I

been

to

in

rubles

or

s the

as

acres)

per settlement

invest

prevented

net

and

scope

needs.24

railways

it

the

sudden

and

too

landlords.

a

$2.00

born

Europe

and

have

he

readiest Russia

turn

peasant

his

better

was

created

labourer,

income

cent.

in

decade

from

($20.00).

(L13-_2o

in

one-time

1897

covered

carefully

firewood

century

outside

the

of

the

for

econo

in (about

annual

caused

in

about

Russia

of

in

spurt

land

The

and

The

able

had

was

the the

self-

re

end

the

was

the

the

the

the

in-

at

to

in

of a

century

rtlated

proclivities.

over was

The

I agrarian

boishak

kin

thc. not produ

holds,

split

development,

authority

supplementary

ducts, could

utensils

development

household

would

traditionally

till them

aggravated

a than

The

enough state leaving

arable all various

communally) serf, or

900

rate.

As

Finally,

The

else

village.

of

only

the

but

the

problem

d to

up In

Russian

by

can

and

for

This not

this

be

tivity Thus

was

diffi(

pic

northern

to

the

The

land

solution

described or

I

preferred

unclaimed

waned

services

their

only

did putting

crisis 905,

lease

purchase

theirs

ofth

t

be

crown

hardware

compete

land

industries.

peasants

was

the

largely

as

ulties.

their

peasants’

The

not

until

at

The earned

peasant

peasants

readily

of

was 40—45

sullen

common

the as

i

land

income

decidedly

and

rural

6o

before

landlord

;

was

the

modern

want

to

muzhik,

peasant more

it

owned,

in

plight,

dissolution

as

p

not

not,

I

million

it

on

take

unfolded

land

on either

RUSSIA

the

with and

and he

time

naturally asants produced

million

either

was

The

a

seen,

knew

crisis

lease

to

belief

This

to

long land

residing

advantageous

large

e(onomi(

he

as

properties

land

latter

to

live

hostile, till

mechanical

because

work

suffered

and

in

whom

it

utterly

a

entire

when

was

is

in

desiatinas,

accommodate

regressive apparently to for

UNDER

there

forest

source

weakened

under

no

it

addition,

was

in

often

towards under

portion of

away

of

quality

offidal

peasants.)

either

event,

deprived

gay

in

nothing.

jointly

an

other

in

the cultivable

foreigners

rural

the

exacerbated

cottages

Crisis

exhausted

they

European

I was

from

or

imminent

thought,

the

and

68

and

of

from

joint the

THE

on

peasant

way

over

soil

he

of

industries.

the

step

or income

terms. and

153

plough,

economy

with

an

no

enhanced often

knew

same

broke

good

an

a

of his reverted

OLD

landlords

price

Still,

family.

end unsuitable

sharecrop

a

of

during

important

them

from

easy

it

leased

million

additional

land

at

population

supplementary

mre them.

Russia

augmenting

by

than

refused

national

roofwith

Some

this

natured,

the of REGIME

stood

up

began

they

with

by

and

the

industrial

solution

had

was

the

in

The

As

the

the

to

another

into

to

end

shortage

to

desiatinas,

a

The

and

did

point

held

there

of

private

be

soon

basis

nineteenth

in machine-made

the

been

to

peasant’s

enmeshed

long for

spontaneous

pay

to

stabilizing

crude

handicap.

‘black

them

of

individual

travellers

their

the

growing

not

greatest

state

buy

authority

dry

status

outright

cultivation;

to

the

ofview

as

his

simply

or

for

lifted

winter competition.

20—25

case,

have

of

income

the the hands.

cloth,

parents

land

in

preferred

up

food

repartition’

and

eighteenth

that

but

land

anarchist

of return

in

century, peasants

personal

with

at

Russian

yet

force

need

enough.

around

of was

milljo

He

months

(mostly

offered

turn a

house-

supply

nearly

of

which

inter-

so

shoes,

social

;

rural

semj

from

(The

they

prorn

and

nor

had

the fast

i

the

the

for

in

of

to

it

large,

stored vale

manors.

arabic

what

abdicated, never

the possession

nearly

peasants Russia

quences

of

also

ment peasant

mission to

government

Disappointed

took priating

the

peasantry

soon

lage,

jug

craCy

constitutional and

down

jug

blies situation

Union the

i905,

outside

The

peasants

consolidate

This

situation

muzhiks

to

of

set

winter

by

forests,

a

the

as

to held

now productive

after

possessed

alternated for

On

land

state

events

the belated

90 ofLiberation

so

outright

ugly

to demand

the

aside movement

ofthese

what

Peasant world, first

25

(i.e.

ripe

the

sale, ;

per

doing

appropriated in

went

set Winter there

troops

;

with

from

authority

snow

of

issued

this

mood,

harvesting

was

the

once

of

revolution

Far

those

to they

for in up

cent

arrangement.

their

agrarian and, i

i measures on

904—5

before. created

created

was

grip

the the

time help

905 a

brought the

violence

violence.

about

concessions

estates,

individual

had

had

Eastern

Palace,

had constitution.

again

an

through the

of

who exacerbating

of

holdings

commune’s

launched

no leased

gave

overpopulated

ofwinter,

edict

for

they

them

fired melted

such

course,

so

rampage,

by

force When

large

reform.

crops

had

the

two-thirds

did at

went

long

the It

were

under

the front

in

the

the

It

concentrated

on on

THE

passport

was

land

land.

the

impression

purchase

farmsteads

In

left not

village

needed

with

left peasants i

sums

and

and

coveted,

9

the

an

cities once

sown

9

indeed liberal

on

in

the

had

November

The

control against

I

on

Redemption

beginning

undone. failure

PEASANTRY

use

looting

the

7

to

open included,

I

peaceful

February

They

the

the

leave

brutal 69 was

to

confusion

the

restrain

again

of

to

to

were

black

control

by government

hired

peasants’ only

finance

gratifying.

land

ice intelligentsia

rampage,

await

campaign

a

namely

explode.

the

crest

it

; (

directed

to

the

others,

sense also

I and

the

on

the

The

906—7)

was

shows

some

thrown

on

looting

act

earth

labour) procession

i

cultivated

from of

Japanese

cutting

they

906

them. was

i

commune

of

commune’s

the

burning

the

owned

which

Payments

9

the

not

object

ofpower

as

instinctive

the the

i

this

outward

This

appropriating

which

7

of

abolished.

coming

provinces.

In

the

this

rivers

primarily ofmeetings

landlords. a

had whose

resettlement

averse

into

and

Nicholas iandlord’siand.

In

strength.

twentieth

stabilizing

owned

rural down

i

ensued,

which

government

now

9

nine-tenths

signal

the

time estates

ofworkers had

i

at

burning

allowed

turmoil.

land

such

6,

without had

were

forces

sign

ofthe

to

authority

spring

revolution

was

their

hostility

self-employed

state

to

in

to

some

The

was through

against Money

II

broken, the

as

The

In

and

in

and

of

temporize,

European

abolished.

century

no

complete force,

suddenly

eastward

were

they

thaw.

peasants

produce

and

January

disposal

country

weaken-

The

govern-

given

bureau-

of

private

its

march-

kind

longer

under-

appro

conse

of

assem

to Once

i

over

per-

had

pri

was

9

the

tied

the

vii-

the

(of the

the

the As

I

in

of

7 a

or peasant

the direction,

development whom

anarchism

his

which

In

France.

party

inadequately

the

the

it

in

had

rode

end,

dissolution

and

Russia

first

viewed

of

to

finally,

delayed

the

a

power.

that

reformed

conservative

RUSSIA

Russian

as

ofthe

anchor

becoming

its

reform,

staunchest

UNDER

peasant

state

monarchy

ofstability

then

rural

‘7°

overt,

down,

THE

army

influenced

supporter.

estate

generated

OLD

was

At

which

was

no

in

destroyed REGIME

an

he point

Russia.

it

Conditions

aspect)

had

chaos

in

in an

been

by

history

Latent

overly

that

which

in

the

aborted

Lenin

Germany

cautious

brought

was

peasant

peasant

and

the t1