a man by the number of acres of which he was in possession, but by the number of "souls" he owned. It was against the traditions of the Russian nobility to occupy themselves with commercial enterprises, but such as did exist depended entirely upon serf labor.

The labor of the serfs was, therefore, the primary source of the nobleman's income. Government and nobility were practically identical. The Tsar was the first and the wealthiest noble

All officials from the highest to the lowest, with the exception of petty scribes, non-commissioned officers, etc., were noblemen. All the organs of state were, therefore, in the hands of the serf-owning class. But on February 19, 1861, we are told, the Russian government abolished serfdom, and bestowed upon the freed peasant land allotments. It looked like an extraordinary act of class-generosity, but there is one circumstance that disturbs this idyll.

The Russian peasantry refused the abolition offered them. "Freedom" had to be introduced with the help of the military. In the official "Short History of the Activity of the Department of Interior for the 25 years, 1855-1880," we read that in the first two years after the publication of the Abolition Act, from February 19, 1861, to February 19, 1863, the Department of Interior had to suppress more than 1100 agrarian riots. Only serious cases are registered here. As a matter of fact there was trouble on almost every estate.

The final arrangements between landlord and peasant could take place either by mutual agreement on the part of both contracting parties, or upon the one-sided demand of the landlord. The "mutual agreement" as a matter of fact, under existing circumstances, amounted to successful pressure brought to bear on the peasant by the landlord and the local administration. The one-sided demand of the landlord was the last resort against the desperate and extreme stubbornness of the peasant. Up to January 1, 1877, 61,784 abolition contracts between peasantcommunes and landlords were made, of which 21,598 (35%) were arranged by "mutual agreement," and 40,186 (65%) upon demand of the respective landlords.1

1 See Simkhovitch, Die Feldgeneinschaft in Russland, Jena 1898, p. 253.

Such was the attitude of the peasant body toward the “freedom" granted them.

II.

The fall of Sebastopol was similar in its effect upon Russia to the debâcle on the fields of Manchuria. The Crimean campaign was, like any war, a test of efficiency, and it became clear to every Russian patriot that the nation must strike out on a new path or sink to the level of an Oriental power. A poor, backward, agricultural country, whose economy was based on serfdom, where justice was sold to the highest bidder, where the officialdom was proverbially corrupt,-how could such a country line up with its powerful, civilized, industrially developed neighbors? It was clear that no real reform was possible in Russia so long as serfdom existed; the abolition of serfdom became therefore the first care of Alexander II.

There was also another reason for undertaking this reform. Russia has had two great peasant wars; one in the 17th century under the leadership of Ryazin, the other in the 18th century under Pugatchoff. Both were fearful jacqueries. No quarter was given to landlords or officials. The latter of these wars was of such magnitude, that at one time it looked as if the government of Catherine II would be unable to cope with it. They were both quenched in blood. But the menace continued and the government could not close its eyes to the fact that it was resting upon a volcano. The peasantry reminded the government of its existence only too often. In the reign of Nicholas I the government had to deal with not less than 556 agrarian riots. And, notwithstanding the extreme severity with which such movements were treated, they did not seem to subside. Thus we know of

Tsar Alexander II, as early as March, 1856, in his address to the nobility of Moscow, said: "It is better to abolish serfdom 1 Semevski, Krestianski Vopros v Rossii, vol. ii, p. 571-605.

from above, than wait until it abolishes itself from below."

But

Alexander II wanted the abolition of serfdom to take place without damaging the nobility. In opening the sessions of the Council of the Empire on January 28, 1861, he made the following statement:

"In my travels through Russia, in receiving the nobles, I have pointed out my attitude towards the problem that interests us all. I have said everywhere, that the reform can not take place without some sacrifices on their part, but that I shall endeavor to make such sacrifices as little burdensome as possible for them. I expect, gentlemen, that in considering the draft now before the Council of the Empire, you will become convinced that everything possible was done to safeguard the interests of the nobility."

Yet it is obvious that Alexander II, more than any of those that were at work on the abolition law, was anxious to improve the economic situation of the peasantry. Doing their utmost, then, so to frame the law as to safeguard the interests of the landlords, they did not consider that out in the country, far from the influences of the capital, considerations of state would not count; that the desire of every landlord would be rather to gain than to lose by the new law; that in the actual execution and practical realization of the law in all the technical adjustments of it, the peasantry would be at the mercy of the landlord class supported by the local administration. Many things were not foreseen, many things could not be foreseen. Who, for instance, could foresee that gentlemen of honor, who in adjusting their relations with the peasantry refused to be crooked and who lived up to the dictates of their consciences, would be regarded by the local administration as dangerous elements, and would be exiled from the community? Because such was the argument of the administration,-these actions of individual noblemen made their neighbors' peasants envious and dissatisfied. This attitude of the administration has not yet become a thing of the past. From a Russian newspaper of July 6, 1906, we see that the Governor of the Province of Saratoff had inquired in Petersburg what was to be done with a certain noble landlord named Minkh, who had peacefully adjusted difficulties between himself and the neighboring peasants, and

1 Ivanyoukoff, Padenie Krepostnago prava v Rossii, St. Petersburg, 1882, p. 401.

had failed to call out the mounted police and the Cossacks, when the peasants presented their demands.1

Before we point out the effects of the abolition act, it is perhaps well to say a few words about the character of Russian serfdom. Serfs were property, christened, baptized property. The relations of the masters towards their serfs naturally differed. Some masters were cruel, some kind. But the kindest landlord would have been just as much astonished to hear that his serfs were human beings with sensitive personalities like himself, as your country neighbors would be did you see fit to tell them that their farm horses and cows have immortal souls.

Here is an illustration:

"Why is it, General, that the number of "souls" on your estate increases so slowly? You probably do not look after their marriages.'

"A few days later the general ordered that a list of all the inhabitants of his village should be brought him. He picked out from this list the names of the boys who had attained the age of eighteen and of the girls just past sixteen,-these being the legal ages for marriage in Russia. Then he wrote, 'John to marry Anna, Paul to marry Parashka', and so on. The weddings, he added, must take place in ten days, the next Sunday but one."2

So much for the personal relations. The economic relations can be characterized not as an "expropriation" of the peasant lands, but as an "appropriation" of the peasant labor. There were two systems of serf economy. One was that of the "obrok," the other that of the "barshchina." The former was typical on state domains, the latter being the prevailing form on the private estates.

"Misl," N. 4.

P. Kropotkin, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, London, 1899, v. i, p. 59–60. In the first few chapters of Prince Kropotkin's remarkable autobiography the reader will find an admirable description of the "good old times." Russian literature is very rich in such descriptive material relating to serfdom. Unfortunately very few of such books have been translated into English. However, the reader can find excellent descriptions in Turgenieff's "Memoirs of a Hunter," and in the autobiography of the famous Russian woman-mathematician-Sonia Kovalevskiboth translated into English.

"Obrok" on the state domains meant but a tax or rent imposed upon the peasantry for the use of the land. On private estates if the landlord let peasants go on "obrok" he gave them all his land, but exacted from them all he possibly could, leaving the peasants that minimum without which their continued existence and that of the farm stock would have been impossible. But as a rule, the landlord preferred the "obrok" system only in so-called industrial regions, where the peasantry occupied itself with some sort of domestic industry as well as agriculture. In such cases the "obrok" collected by the landlord exceeded, of course, the agricultural income of the peasantry.

The prevailing system of economy on the private estates was the "barshchina." Under this system the landlord would divide his land into two parts. One part, just large enough to insure the minimum of subsistence for them, was left to his peasants. The major part was reserved for the landlord. The peasant, as a rule, worked three days on the master's fields, and three on the peasant fields.

In the eighteenth century, when all noblemen were obliged to serve the state, the "obrok" system prevailed on private estates. Let us suppose you are such a landlord and own one hundred souls (i.e., male serfs) and, let us say, 2500 acres of land. Since your serfs are on the "obrok" system, you will see to it that every serf family has a land allotment, and since you are dividing among them all your land the allotment will be 25 acres per male serf. Some years later you will find that your serf population has increased. You own 125 souls. Your land, however, has no natural tendency to increase. The 25 additional souls you can not sell, the law prohibits the sale of souls without land. You, therefore, as a matter of course, order your peasants to provide the 25 additional souls with land. In other words, you order a redivision of your land, alloting to each of your male serfs not 25 but 20 acres. The same thing you will do if your peasants are working on the "barshchina" system. If you divide your land so as to leave one part of it for the subsistence of your serfs, the other for your own use, unless you are an exception, you will not be likely to decrease your own field because the serf population has increased. If you should