OthershavemadesimilarinquiriesintotheeconomichistoryofmedievalGermany，andtheirstudieshaveinducedsomeFrenchauthors，andamongthemM。Dareste，warmlytoopposetheoriginalbutone-sidedtheoryofFusteldeCoulanges。
BeforepassingtothedirectstudyofthedevelopmentoftheRussianvillagecommunity，ImustrecognisethefactthatthelongandsometimesviolentstruggleoftheearlySlavophilsonbehalfofthespontaneousoriginofthemir，hasbeenproductiveofthebestresultstothestudyofagrariancommunisminRussia。
Acomparisonbetweenthemodernconstitutionofthemirandthatdescribedinoldchartersprovesthewidelydifferentcharacterofthetwo，whilethedifferencesbetweenthemsupportthetheoryofanaturalevolutionofthecommunity，anevolutionnotyetcompletedinmorethanonepartoftheEmpire。ThedifferencewhichwetracebetweenthepastandthepresentoftheRussiancommunearethesamewhichweseeexistingbetweenthevariousmodernformsofitinourownday。Thestudy，therefore，oftheseformsandoftheirnaturaltransformationmaybeofgreathelptowardsunderstandingthetrueoriginandgrowthofthesystem。Theopportunity——Imayevensaythenecessity——ofsuchastudyisthemoreapparentonaccountofthelackofmediaevaldocumentsconcerningtheearlyconstitutionofthemir。
Oursourcesofinformationarelimitedindeed；forseveralcenturies，downtotheendofthefifteenth，theyarealmostentirelywanting，andtheyonlybegintobeatallabundantduringthelastthreehundredyears。Itisonly，therefore，byasurveyofthemodernevolutionofvillageownershipinsomeremotepartsofRussiathatwecangetanideaofthevarioustransformationswhichthecommunehashadtoundergobeforeitreacheditspresentcondition。
ThevastnessoftheareaandthefactthatcertainpartsofRussiaremainedforcenturiesunpeopled，partlyonaccountoftheirphysicalcondition，partlyowingtotheirinsecurity，due，asitwas，totheperiodicalinvasionsoftheTartars，explain，toagreatextent，whythecharacterofthecommunevariessomuchthroughouttheland。Itsgrowthhasbeenstoppedinoneplaceatanearlystage，inanotherplaceatalaterstage，ofitsdevelopment。Wecantracethesestagesinsomecasesbychartersandbylegalandjudicialdocuments，inothersbythetransformationofthecommuneintohigherandmoreelaborateforms。ItisonlybythestudyofthesedocumentsandtheseformsthattheRussianhistoriancanhopetobeabletodescribethegradualdevelopmentoftheagrariancommunismofhiscountry。Wewillnowconsiderthechiefresultswhichtheapplicationofthismethodhasproduced。
InthelastlectureitwasshownthattheearliestmodeoflandtenureinRussiawastheholdingitinanundividedstatebythemembersofahousecommunity。ThiskindofafamilycommunismismentionedinthePravdaofJaroslavattheendoftheeleventhcentury，andcontinuedtoexistinthenorthandsouthofthecountrydowntotheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies。Thechiefcharacteristicofthisholdingconsistedinthefactthat，thoughthelandremainedundividedandlayopenasithaddoneforcenturiesbefore，everymemberofthehousehold，nevertheless，wasthepossessorofashareinthevariousfieldsbelongingtothefamily。Theseshareswerenotequal，butvariedaccordingtorightsofinheritanceappertainingtoeachoftheholders。Shouldthebrothersandnephewsdecideonlivingseparately，theywouldabandontheoldsystemofusingincommontheproduceoftheearlyharvest，anddividetheareaofthearablelandinunequa1shares，proportionedtotherightsofinheritancepossessedbyeachmemberofthehousehold。Theextentoftheshareswasnotfixed。Thesoilvariedinfertility，andalltheshareholdersalikeappreciatedtheadvantagesofvicinity；eachpartner，therefore，receivedtherighttoenjoyacertainportionineachofthefieldspossessedbythevillage。
Theseportionswerenotstrictlydefined，but，asarule，representedthehalf，third，fourth，eighth，andsoon，ofthefieldaccordingtotheheritagewhichwasacknowledgedtobelongtoeachpartner。
Letussupposethecaseofonecommune，thefamilyconsistingofthreebrotherslivingandtwonephews，thesonsofafourthbrotherdeceased。Theshareofeachofthebrotherswouldbeone-fourthpartofeachofthedifferentfieldsinthevillage，whilstthatofthenephewswouldnotexceedaneighth。Eachpartnerhavingarighttosellhisidealportion，orapartofit，toastranger，aswellastoarelative，thevillagewouldsoonbecomeoccupiedbyneighboursowningthemostunequalportionsinfield。Theseneighbourswouldmaintaintheobligationswhichcommonpossessionisapttoestablish；themeadowsforthegreaterpartofthetimewouldbekeptundivided，subjecthereandtheretoayearlydistributionaccordingtothewantsofeachhomestead；butthesewantsbeingasarulethesame，thecustomwouldprevailofdividingthemintoequalpartsforthepurposeofmowing。
Thepastureandforestlandwouldalsoremainsubjecttoacommunityofownership，andwouldsometimesbelongtoseveralneighbouringvillages，whichinthatcasewouldconstitutealargerarea，similartotheGerman\"mark，\"andknownunderthenameof\"volost。\"Eachoftheinhabitantsofthe\"volost\"wouldbeallowedanunlimiteduseoftheundividedarea，itbeingtooextensivetobeeasilyexhausted。Itwould，however，beanerrortosupposethatthisgeneralandunlimitedenjoymentoftheundividedmarkwasbuttheresultofthatfreedomwhichallpossessedastounoccupiedground（theresnullius），forapersonwhowasnotaninhabitantofthevillageorvillagesconstitutingthemarkor\"volost，\"wouldhavenorighttoenjoyitspasturesandforestlands。Thatthiswasthecaseisprovedbythefactthatnoonemightdigapieceofgroundbelongingtotheforestunlessthediggingwereauthorisedbythewholecommunityofshareholders。Sucharightofprohibitioncouldnothavebeenenjoyedunlessthecommunitywastheownerofthe\"mark。\"
ThenaturalevolutionofagrariancommunismdidnotgofurtherthanthisinthenorthernpartsofRussia。Itwentfurther，however，inthesouth——inthosevastandfertilesteppeswhichlieontheeasternandwesternbanksofDnieper，andwhichforcenturiesconstitutedapartofPoland。TherecentresearchesofProfessorLouchizkyhavebroughttolightthefollowingfacts，whichwerequiteunknownandsomeofwhichweredirectlycontradictedbyformerhistorians。Undividedhouseholdsandtheirimmediatesuccessors，villages，composedofsharersinthesameground，wereinthebeginningwellknownontheeasternbankoftheDnieper。Theundivided\"mark，\"onwhicheveryhomesteadhadtherighttotakefuelandtopastureitscattle，isknowninthisregionunderthenameoflandsbelongingtothe\"gromada，\"orcommune。Theyaresometimescalledalsocommonorvillagelands。Thecolonistswho，duringthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，crossedtheriverinordertooccuPythefreesteppesinthemodernGovernmentofTchernigov，migratedincompanies，organisedonthemodelofundividedorpartlydividedhouseholds。Thesecompanieswerecalled\"skladchina，\"fromtheverb\"skladivat，\"whichmeanstoputsomethingincommon。Theareaonwhichthecolonisationtookplacewassoboundlessthateachhomesteadwasallowedtosowyearlyasmuchgroundasitwasabletotill。Whentheharvestwasoncereapedthelandwasabandoned，andanewpieceoccupiedforagriculturalpurposes。
YoucaneasilyseethatthiswasaproceedingsimilartothatoftheancientGermans，ofwhichTacitussays：——\"Arvaperannosmutantetsuperestager。\"
Ineednottellyouthataslongasthepopulationwassmallenoughtoallowofayearlychangeofsoilforcultivation，redistributionwasneverthoughtof；nomentionisevermadeoftherun-rigsystemwhichcharacterisesthemodernvillagecommunity。Butasitisimpossiblethatsharesshouldbeequalwithoutrecoursetosomesuchmethod，wemustnotlookforequalityundertheconditionsjuststated。Evenintheeighteenthcentury，whenthegrowthofpopulationhaddiminishedtheareaofarableland，periodicalredistributionremainedunknown。Ifsomeamountofequalitywas，nevertheless，secured，itwasduetothecontrolwhichthecommunebegantoexertoveritsmembers。
Privateappropriationofsoilwasnolongerallowed，exceptontheconditionofitsbeingmadeatcertainfixedperiods，andunderthesupervisionoftheauthorities。Twiceayear，inautumnandinspring，thewholecommune，withitscattleanditsagriculturalimplements，wentoutintotheopenfield。Atthecommandofthevillage-elder，theheadofeachhomesteadproceededtotracewithhisownploughthelimitsofthegroundheintendedtosow，andnoonewasallowedtoextendhiscultivationbeyondthelimitsthussettled。By-and-bytherightofretainingtheseprivateparcelsofgroundwasextendedtoaperiodofthreeyears，attheendofwhichtheyreturnedtothecommune，andanewappropriationofthearableareawasorderedtobemade。
HithertoIhavespokenofthemodeinwhichlandwasenjoyedsofarasitappliedtoarablelandalone。Letusnowsayawordaboutthemeadows，forestland，andpastures。Thefirstwereownedonconditionssimilartothosefirstmentioned。AttheendofMayadaywasfixedwhenallthevillagerswereassembledforthehayharvest。Eachhouseholdermarkedwithascythethelimitsofthemeadowheintendedtomow。Itwasthedutyofthevillage-elderstoseethattheselimitswerestrictlyobserved。
Forestsandpasturesweresoabundantthatnomeasuringwasneededtoregulatetheiruse。Non-divisionandcommonenjoymentremainedthegeneralrule，severalvillagesveryoftenpossessingequalrightstotakefuelandtopasturecattleinthesameforestsandwastes。
WhilstthiswasthestateofthingsonthebanksoftheDnieper，asimilarevolutiontookplaceonthoseoftheDon。Anarea，evenlargerthanthatofthesouth-westernsteppesinthemiddleofthesixteenthcentury，awaitedthearrivalofthoseGreatRussiancolonists，whofoundedtheso-calledTerritoryoftheDon-Cossacks。Forawhilethegroundwasdeclaredtobethecommonpropertyofthewholecommunity，andeachfamilywasallowedtosowandmowwhereveritliked，butby-and-bylargevillagescalled\"stanitza\"wereformed，andthefirstdivisionofthegroundtookplace。Eachvillagereceiveditsownareaofarableandmeadowground；pastureandwastelandremainedthecommonpropertyofthewholepeople，or，asitwassaid，ofthewhole\"army。\"
Theunlimitedrightofprivatehomesteadstoappropriateasmuchsoilaseachrequiredwasscrupulouslymaintainedbythesestanitzas，afactwhichintheendproducedgreatinequalityinthedistributionoftheland。Thisinequalitywasestablishedinfavourofaminorityoffamiliesoutofwhichtheeldersofthepeoplewereregularlychosen；butasthosewhowerepossessedofbutsmallparcelsoflandformedthemajority，variouseconomicarrangementswereregularlymadeatthevillagefolkmoteswherethismajoritywasallpowerful；redistributionsoflandinordertoequalisetheshareswereveryoftenprescribedandthesystemofrun-rigtenuremadeitsfirstappearance。Thistookplacealmostinourowntime，somefewstanitzascontinuingevennowtomaintaintheirancientprivilegeofprivateappropriation。
ImightcontinuemysurveyofthebeginningsofthemodernsystemofvillagecommunitiesbyadescriptionoftheeconomicarrangementsstillinuseamongtheCossacksoftheTerekoroftheOural，butifIdidso，Ishouldonlyhavetorepeatthesamefacts，andthatinordertodeducethefollowingconclusions。
Thatthemodernsystemofperiodicalredistributionoflandinequalshareswasquiteunknownwhencolonisationfirstbegan，butthatthisdidnotpreventapeculiarkindofagrariancommunism，thefoundationsofwhicharetobetracedintheinternalconstitutionoftheundividedhousehold；andthatthisformofsocialexistencewasknowntoRussiaatthebeginningofherhistory，andwasdiffusedalloverherempire，asmaybeseenfromthefrequentoccurrenceinmedievaldocumentsoftermslike\"thehearth，\"\"thefire\"（pechische，ognische）。
Allthedistrictswehavepassedinreviewhadonethingincommon；serfdomwasalmostunknowntothem。ThepeasantsofArchangelforinstancewerealwaysnamed\"svoiezemzi，\"whichmeansindependentpossessorsofthesoil。SocialdistinctionsremainedalmostunknowntotheLittleRussiansdowntotheendoftheeighteenthcenturywhenCatherinetheSecondintroducedamongstthemthenotionsofafeudalnobilityandserfdom。TheCossacksoftheDonremainedfreeuptothetimeofNicholas。I
am，therefore，rightinsayingthatagrariancommunismisnotthedirectresultofserfdom，sinceithasbeenshowntoexistinregionswhereserfdomwasunknown。
AcarefulstudyofoldRussiandocumentsdoesnotaddmuchtothestrengthofthisargument。Theilliteratepeasantscouldnotconsigntowritingtheeconomicarrangementstheyenteredinto，andinthisfactliesthetruereasonwhy，outofthevariouscategoriesintowhichtheRussianpeasantrywasdividedduringthemiddleages，noneislessfamiliartousthanthefreevillager，theoccupieroftheso-called\"blackhundreds\"（cherniasotni）。Thecommunewascompletelyindependentinmattersofinternalconcern，therewasnoneedforthegovernmentorforjudicialcharterstomeddleinitssystemoflandtenure。Whatinformationwecangatherfromthemoftheexternalorganisationofthevolostorcommuneproveshowevertheprevalenceofacommunisticanddemocraticmodeofexistence。Theassemblyofthepeople，thefolkmote，calledintheSouthWesternprovincesofRussiathe\"veche，\"moreoften\"thecopa，\"wasformedofallthehouse-eldersofavolost。Itpossessedtherightofmakinglocalbye-laws；ofchoosingtheeldersofthecommuneor\"starostas\"；
ofdistributingamongitsmembersthedirecttaxeswhichthegovernmentimposedonagricultureandonthedifferentindustriesofthenation（sochiipromisli）。Personswerealsochosenbythecommunetoassistthejudgesintheexerciseoftheirduties，playingnthisoccasionthepartreservedinmedievalGermanytotheso-calledSchoffenandinoldSwedentothe\"nemd。\"*
Astotherelationinwhichthevoloststoodtothegroundthatitoccupied，thissubjectispartlyillustratedbythefollowingfacts。
Wepossessasmallnumberofprivatechartersandjudicialrecords，belongingtothefifteenthandthesixteenthcenturies，fromwhichwemaysee，thatthetrueownerofthesoilwaspartlythevillageandpartlythe\"volost，\"orassociationofvillagers。
TogiveyouaninstanceofwhatIamsaying，Iwillcitetheprecisetextofsomeofthesecharters。
In1555alawsuitbeganbetweenasquire（votchinnik）calledNefedievandthepeasantsofeighteenvillagesallbelongingtothevolostofAlmesch。Thequestionwhichthejudgeshadtodecide，waswhethersomepasturesbelongedtothevolostortothesquire。Witnessesnamedbyeachpartyfromamongtheoldestinhabitantsofthelocalitydeclaredthatthepeasantsweretherealpossessorsofthegroundindispute，andthattheirownershipwentbacktoaperiodbeyondthememoryofman，andthejudgedecidedthattheclaimsofthesquirewerenullandvoid。
Inthecasejustmentionedwefindourselvesinpresenceofasortofundividedmark，composed，likethatofGermany，ofacertainnumberofvillagespossessinglandsincommon。Theselandsarepastures。Otherchartersofthesameperiodshowuscasesinwhichtheundividedareaofthemarkorvolostwascomposedofforestground。Expressionslikethefollowingarefrequentinthedocumentsjustmentioned：\"Theforestbelongstothecommune（selo）andthevillagesincommon（vopsche），or\"this\"pieceofforestgroundhasbeengiventomebythevolost（themark），theelder，andthepeasants。\"
Noonehadtherighttocleartheforestorreclaimthewastelandlyingwithinthelimitsofavolost，unlessauthorisedtodosobytheeldersandtheassemblyofpeasants。Thisfactappearsclearlyinthefollowinginstance：in1524，threepersonsfoundsomesaltwellsontheshoresofDvinainthemidstofadarkforest。TheyaddressedapetitiontotheGovernmentaskingtoberecognizedasthelegalpossessorsoftheplace，andtheysupportedtheirdemandbythefollowingargument：\"Notoneofthesurroundingmarksorvolostshasanyappurtenancesintheplace。\"
Haditbeenotherwise，hadthewellsbeensituatedontheappurtenancesofavolost，noprivatepersoncouldhavemadethedemandjustmentioned。Themarksorvolostsjealouslywatchedovertheintegrityoftheirboundaries，andthatfromtheearliesttimes。Inthe\"LivesoftheSaints，\"thoseearlymonumentsofourwrittenliterature，complaintissometimesmadeofpeasantsdoingtheirbesttogetridofahermit，establishedinaneighbouringforest，\"because，\"saysthehagiographer，\"theyfearedhewouldassigntosomemonasteryapartofthegroundtheyowned。\"*
Thechartersgive，asIhavealreadysaid，verylittleinformationabouttheinternalarrangementsofthevolostandvillage；allweknowisthatthesettlementswereveryfarfromresemblingthoselargeassemblagesofpeoplewhichareknowninourdaysunderthenameof\"slobodi。\"Asarulethe\"derevnia\"orvillagecontainedfewhearths，andthevillageswerescatteredoverthewholeareaofthevolost。Thewastesandforestswereusedincommon，whilethemeadowsandarablefieldsbecametheobjectofprivateappropriation。Noequalityofsharesseemtohaveexisted，thechartersconstantlymentioningthe\"bestmen，\"
\"themenofwealth，\"（jitiiliudi）sidebysidewiththe\"smallermen\"（molodschii）。Somefewseemtohavehadevennopartatallinthepossessionsofthesoil，beingknownunderthenameofpodsousediorpodsousedki，whichmeanslivingundertheauthorityofaneighbourorvillager（sosed）。Thesepersonswereregularlyemployedasagriculturallabourers。Somefew，theso-called\"bobili，\"werepossessedofsmallparcelsofland，resemblinginthatthecottariiofDomesdayBook。Theagriculturalareaownedbyeachhomesteadwasknownbythenameof\"jrebii，\"whichmeansalot，andthesensewhichmenofthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturiesattachedtothistermisrevealedtousbyanoldRussiantranslationofsomepartsoftheByzantinecodes，theProchironandtheEclogue。ThistranslationincertainpointsappearstobeakindofadaptationofGreeklegislationtotheconditionsoftheRussianpeople。Oneoftheparagraphsoftheseso-called\"BooksoftheLaw\"（ZakonniiKnigi，chap。xii）containsthefollowingsentence：\"Ifadivisionoflandshalltakeplacebywhichsomepersonshallinjuretheinterestofothersintheirplots（jrebii）thedivisionmustnotbemaintained。\"*
Thejrebiibeingaplotoflandenjoyedbyasinglehouseholdoutoftheagriculturalareaofthemark，aplotwhichneednotnecessarilybeequaltothoseoftheneighbours，wearerightinsayingthatthevillagecommunityofthefreepeasantsofMuscovywaslikethatoftheCossacksoftheDnieper。ThislikenessistoacertainextentobscuredbythefinancialarrangementswhichtheMuscovitevolostenteredintoinordertosecuretheyearlypaymentofthelandtax，thesearrangements，aswellasthetaxitself，beingquiteunknowntoLittleRussiancommunes。
TheMuscoviteadministrationformerlyempoweredthevoloststodistributethetaxesimposedonthevillages，accordingtothequantityofcultivatedlandtogetherwiththecommonstheretoannexed，possessedbythem。Thesumtobepaidbytheinhabitantsofeachsubdivisionofthemarkwasthendividedamongthevarioushouseholdsaccordingtotheextentoftheirpossessions。
Theunitoftaxationwasthelandofaplough。Imeantheamountoflandwhichoneplough。workingthewholeday，couldturnup。
Thisunitwasknownbythenameof\"socha。\"Somehomesteadsownedtwo，three，ormoreofthese，buttherewereotherswhoheldonlyaportionofthisunit，justasinmediaevalEnglandtherewerehouseholdsowningentirevirgates，orthehalforthirdpartofavirgate，andinGermanytherewereholdersof\"mansiplenietmansidimidii，\"\"ganzeundhalbeHufen。\"Asserfdomwasunknownandnomutualresponsibilityinmattersoftaxationboundthepeasanttothesoilheoccupied，undividedhouseholdsveryoftenquittedtheirdwellingsinordertosettleinsomeneighbouringcountry，onlandsstillfreeofoccupation，oronthoseliberallyaccordedtonew-comersbytheirprivateowners，onconditionofasmallpayment。
Theabandonedgroundreturnedeachtimetothevolost，whichalwaystookmeasurestofindsomenewoccupierwhomightrelievethemarkfromtheincreaseoftaxationproducedbythedepartureofthepreviousoccupier。Instancesofsuchnewoccupationareregularlyreportedinthefollowingterms：\"Allthepeasantsofthevolosthaveallowedsuchandsuchpersonstosettleonthelots（jrebii）leftfreebythedepartureofsuchandsuchpersons。Themir（thiswordmeansthewholecommunityofshareholders）hasconcededthislotto——\"（herefollowsthename）。Thesharesofeachparticularhouseholdhavingnodistinctlimits，weareinducedtothinkthatthepossessionofalot，orjrebii，concedednootherrightthanthatofhavingadistinctshareintheopenfieldsofthevillage。Eachhouseholdpossessedlargerorsmallerstripsofgroundinthedifferentfieldscontainedinthevillagearea，andalsohadtherighttomowadistinctportionofthevillagemeadow，whiletheenjoymentofthewasteandoftheforestlandwasfreetoalltheinhabitantsofthevolost，andnorulesdeterminedpreciselytheusewhicheachhouseholderwasallowedtomakeofit。
YoumayseefromwhatIhavesaidthattherunrigsystemandequalityofshareswereaslittleknowntothevillagecommunitiesofOldRussia，andspeciallyofMuscovy，astothoseofmedievalGermanyorEngland。Nobetterknownwasthecorrespondencewhich，accordingtoMrSeebohm，existedinmedievalEnglandbetweenthequantityofgroundownedbyeachhouseholdandthepartittookintheordinarylabourofagriculture。Tillageperformedbyfamiliespossessingincommona\"carruca，\"orsortofploughworkedwiththreeorfourpairsofoxen，wasquiteunknowntomyforefathers，whowereinthehabitofcultivatingthegroundwithsmallploughs，drawnveryoftenbyasinglehorse，afactnoticedintheepicpoems，andparticularlyintheballad，thechiefheroofwhichisasimplepeasant，MicoulaSelianinovich。Thesamemodeoftillage，Imayadd，isstillinuseamongthepeasantsofGreatRussia，wherethegroundisnotnearlysoheavyasistheblacksoilofourSouthernprovinces。Theonlythingthatdependedupontenureoflandwastaxation，thehouseholderpayingalargerorsmallerproportionofthelandtax，accordingtothenumberofploughlandssownbyhisseed。
ThisisalmostallweknowofthefreeMuscovitevillagecommunity。Ourinformationisfullerastotheeconomicarrangementsofthosedependentcommunes，whichwereestablishedonthepossessionsofthehigherclergyandthemonasteries。
AccordingtoProfessorGorchacov，towhomweareindebtedforaverycircumstantialdescriptionoftheinnerlifeofthesebodies，eachmanorregularlycontained，nexttothedemesneland，alargeareaoccupiedbythedependenthouseholds。Eachofthesehouseholdswasobligedtoperformagriculturallabourontheareabelongingtothelandlord，andinreturnpossessedtherighttoashareintheautumnandspringfields，ownedincommonbythecustomarytenantsofthemanor。Theexistenceofthesetwofieldsmaybetraced，atleastinthecentralGovernmentsofRussia，asfarbackasthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury，astheyarementionedinacharterissuedintheyear1511。Thepeasantshad，beforetheendofthatcentury，therightoffreeremoval，thelandquittedbyapeasanthouseholdreturningtothecommunityofthevillagers。*Besidesthefeudallord，thestatealsohadaclaimonthecommunityintheshapeofalandtax，whichthevillageassemblywasitselfauthorisedtocollect。Theareaheldbythevillagewasaccordinglydividedintoploughs（sochi），andsmallerdivisionscalledviti，whichcorrespondedtoadistinctpartoftheworkofaplough。TomakethesefinancialarrangementsclearertoanEnglishpublic，Iwillsaythatthecustomarylandofthevillagewasdividedintohidesandvirgates。Thequantityoflandcontainedineachvirgatevariedfromonevillagetoanother，butthevirgatesofthesamevillagewereequal；inthatrespectthemanorofmediaevalEnglandpresentsthegreatestsimilitudetothatofmediaevalRussia。
Bothhavethisalsoincommon，thateachhouseholdwastaxedaccordingtotheamountofarablelanditowned。Onehouseholdpaidforone\"vit，\"orvirgate，anotherfortwo，athirdforhalfavirgate，andsoon。Thevitorvirgate，justasinEngland，wasnotanumberoffieldssurroundedbydistinctboundaries，butaunionofidealsharesinthedifferentfieldsofthevillage。InthelandsofthemonasteryofConstantine，forinstance，thevitwas，atleastduringthefirstpartofthesixteenthcentury，equaltotherightofoccupyingfivedesiatinesineachofthethreefieldsofthemanor，adesiatinebeingequaltotwoacres。
Firstintroducedinordertosecureanequaldistributionofstatetaxation，thesystemofhidesandvirgatesbecamelateronthebasisofthelevyanddistributionoffeudaldues。Instancesfrequentlyoccurinsixteenthcenturychartersofthelabourperformedbyeachofthehouseholdsbeingindirectratiotothenumberofvirgates，orviti，initspossession。Undersuchconditions，noequalitycouldexistastotheamountofgroundpossessedbyeachvillager。Thisequalitywasnotdemandedbyanybodyonaccountoftheabundanceoflandandthefacilityofremoval。Thepeasantwhothoughthimselfaggrievedcouldseekbettertermsonsomeneighbouringmanor；removalswerefrequent，andthecommunewasalwaysbusyseekingforpersonswhomightwishtobecomeoccupiersofthevacantgroundofanabandonedvirgate。
IshallproceednofurtherinthestudyofthesocialarrangementsoftheRussianmanorbecausetheyappeartobe，sofarastheownershipoflandisconcerned，verylikethoseofafreevillage。ThisisnotsurprisingtoonewhoknowsthesmalldifferencewhichexistsbetweenthearrangementsofaGermanmanor，orHof，andthoseofafreecommune，orDorf-gemeinde。Theproprietorwastoowellpleasedtoseehisyearlyrevenueguaranteedbytheunpaidserviceofthevilleins，tomeddlewiththeirinternalarrangements。Thevilleinswereaccordinglyallowedtochoosetheirownexecutiveofficers，tohavetheirelders，their\"goodmen，\"orjudicialassistants，andtoapportiontaxesandarrangethelandownershipattheirregularmeetings，orfolkmotes。Suchbeingthecase，IseenoreasonwhytheagrariancommunismpractisedbytheRussianpeasantryshouldbemuchaffectedbytheirloosedependenceuponthelandlord，atleast，beforethetimewhenserfdomwascompletelyestablishedandthepeasantwaspreventedfromremovingfromthemanor。
ThegeneralcharacteristicoftheoldRussiancommunitymaybegiveninfewwords：itwasakindofownership，basedontheideathatthetrueproprietorofthelandwasnoneotherthanthecommune。Therightsofthecommunetothesoiloccupiedbytheindividualhouseholdsappearsintheindivisibilityofthewasteandforestlands，andinthefactthatvacantsharesareregularlydisposedofbythecommune，andthatnobodyisallowedtooccupyapieceofgroundlyingwithinthelimitsofthevillagecommon，unlessheisauthorisedbythelocalauthorities。
Arablelandandmeadowsare，asarule，inthehandsofprivatehouseholds，whichpaytaxesandperformmanoriallabourindirectproportiontotheamountoflandtheyown。Thisownershipdoesnotsupposetheexistenceofcertainlimitswhichnobodyisallowedtoinfringe。Itimpliesonlytherighttohaveadefiniteshareinthethreefields，whichconstitutetheagriculturalareaofthevillage。Thesharesarenotequal，butdifferindirectproportiontothepaymentswhichthehouseholdiscalledupontomake，partlytotheState，andpartlytothelordofthemanor。
Periodicalredistributionsareunknown，andnomentionismadeoftherun-rigsystemofsomemodernEnglishandIrishmanors。
Thusconstituted，theoldRussianvillagecommunityappearstobeverylikethatofmedievalEnglandwithitssystemofopenfields，itshidesandvirgates。ItmaybealsocomparedtotheGermanmark，sofarasthemarkiscomposedofasetofvillagessubdividedintounitspartlyfinancial，partlyterritorial，calledHufen，andsecuringtotheirprivateholders，liketheEnglishvirgates，therighttohaveadistinctshareinthearablefieldsandinthemeadowsofthevillage。
Nowthatweareawareofthepeculiarfeaturesofthemedievalvillagecommunity，letusascertainthereasonswhichhaveproducedacompleterevolutioninitsinteriororganisationbytheintroductionoftheprincipleofequaldivisionofthesoilamongitsindividualmembers，andthesystemofperiodicalallotmentsofgroundinordertosecurethisequality。
Twofactsseemtohavecontributedtothisresult；thefirstwastheincreaseofpopulation，which，aswehavealreadyshownintheinstanceofLittleRussiancommunes，soonerorlaterinducesthemajorityofpersonsholdingsmallsharestoforcetheresttoproceedtoaredistributionofthesoil。Theotherfactisthereplacingoftheland-taxbyasortofcapitationtax，andtheintroductionoftheprincipleofmutualresponsibility，inmattersoftaxation。Thefirstofthesecauses，increaseofpopulation，remainedinoperativeaslongasthepeasantretainedthelibertyofremovingfreelyfromoneplacetoanother。Muchgroundwaslyingwaste。Landownershadnootherthoughtthanhowtoinducenewcoloniststosettleonit；withthisendinviewtheyregularlyfreedthemfromalltaxesforaperiodofthreeyears。Thoseofthevillagers，whothoughtthemselvessacrificedtotheinterestsoftheirneighbourscould，therefore，easilyfindthelandtheywantedandthatunderveryfavourableconditions。Theyhadonlytoleavethevillagetheyinhabitedandseekfornewhomes，eitheronthestillunoccupiedsteppesoronthemanorspossessedbythecrown，thechurch，orthelandedaristocracy。
Suchwasnolongerthecasewhenserfdombecameageneralrule，andtherightoffreemigrationwasrefusedtothepeasant。
Thishappenedduringtheperiodwhichextendsfromtheendofthesixteenthtothatoftheseventeenthcentury。TwodecadeslaterfollowedthegreatchangeinmattersoftaxationwhenPetertheGreatabolishedtheland-tax，andintroducedthecapitation-tax。
Thishappenedintheyear1719。Mutualresponsibilityofpersonsbelongingtothesamevillagewasintroduced，andbothlandlordsandpeasantswereallowedtotakepreventivemeasuresagainstthosewhomightseektoescapetheobligationofpayingthepersonaltaxbywithdrawingfromtheirhabitations。
Whenthisrevolutionwasaccomplishedandeachhouseholdbegantobetaxed，notaccordingtothequantityoflanditowned，butaccordingtothenumberofpersonsattributedtoitinthetaxationreturns，thegrossestinjusticewouldnecessarilyariseifthesoilremainedinthehandsofitsthenholders。
Complaintswerethereforemade，andpetitionsaddressed，inwhichtheolddivisionofthevillageareawasdeclaredtobeobnoxious，andanequalityofshareswasdemandedasanecessaryconditionfortheregularfulfilmentbyeachvillageofitsfinancialobligationstowardstheState。AninstanceofsucharequestisthatpresentedbythepeasantsofthevillageofPetrovskintheyear1725，inwhichtheyasktohaveanequalshareoflandallottedtoeachmemberofthecommune，allotherkindsofallotmentbeingcontrarytojustice。Similardemandsmusthavebeenmaderepeatedlybeforethemembersofthelegislativecommission，convenedbyCatherinetheSecond，receivedorderstoprotestagainsttherequirementsofthosewhowantedallthelandofavillagetobedistributedinequalsharesaccordingtothenumberofsouls，notwithstandingthattheselandshadbeenfertilisedbytheworkandprivateindustryofthefirstsettlers。*
Forthereasonsjustmentioned，aredistributionofthelandwasmadeatleasteverytimetheGovernmentreviseditstaxationreturns；suchrevisionoccurringeverynineteenthyear。Itwasfeltnecessarytoestablishadirectrelationbetweenthenumberofpersonslivinginahousehold，andtheamountoflandpossessedbythehousehold，andthefact，thattheactualnumberofsuchpersonsdidnotcorrespondtothoseenumeratedinthetaxationreturns，evenafterthelapseofafewyears，ledsomecommunestohaverecoursetomorefrequentdivisions。Itisinthiswaythatwemayexplainhowitwasbroughtabout，thatredistributionscametobemadeeverysixthoreveneverythirdyear。Wehearofnoyearlydistributionbecausethethreefieldsystem，stillprevailinginRussia，requiredatleastathreeyears’rotationofthecrops。Itwasnotalwaysthecountrypeoplewhotooktheinitiativeinanequalre-allotmentofthesoilaccordingtothenumberofpersonstaxed。MrZabelinhasbroughtforwardinstances，inwhichsuchallotmentsweremadeontheinitiativeofthelordofthemanor，andMrSchimanovhasproducedacuriouscase，inwhichsuchre-allotmentwasmadebythedirectorderofaprovincialGovernor，whothoughtthatjusticerequiredthatthenumberofshares，ownedbyeachhousehold，shouldcorrespondtothenumberofsoulscomposingit。
ThishappenednotlongeragothanthesecondhalfoftheseventeenthcenturyintheGovernmentofKharkov，whereinequalityofshareshadbeenuptothattimethegeneralrule。
Itisonlybyageneralagreementbetweenthepeopleandtheauthoritiesthatwecanexplaintherapidexpansionofthepresentsystem。Wedonotfindanytraceofsuchredistributionsbeforetheendoftheseventeenthcentury，whentheboroughofSchouiabegantomakenewallotmentsofgroundeverytenyears。*
HavingnowfinishedwiththepasthistoryoftheRussianvillagecommune，weshallproceedtothestudyofitsmodernarrangements。Thesehaveformedthesubjectofverycuriousinvestigations，whichhavebeencarriedonduringthelastfewyearsbyanumberofyoungRussianeconomists，employedbytheelectivecouncilsor\"zemstva\"ofourprovinces。Theirworkwillprobablybeasvaluabletocominggenerations，asthatperformedinEnglandacenturyagobyMessrsSinclairandMarshall，orasthat，whichinourowndayisstillgoingoninIndiaundertheenlightenedsupervisionoftheIndianSettlementCommissioners。I
shallmakefreeuseoftherichmaterial，whichtheseskilfulanduntiringworkershaveaccumulated，inordertopresenttoyouapictureoftheprevailingsystem，themirorvillagecommunityofto-day。
Accordingtothelawofemancipationpromulgatedthe19thFebruary1861，thepeasantrycontinuetopossessanorganisationquitedistinctfromthatoftheotherclassesofsociety。Theancient\"volost\"（ormark）ispreservedorratherrevived，andthevillagesare，astheywerecenturiesago，theadministrativeunitsofwhichitisformed。Thevolostandthevillagehavealiketheirelectedauthorities，therightofelectionbeingbasedonakindofuniversalsuffrage，exercisedbyallthegrown-upmenofthecommunity。But，differinginthisfromtheFrench\"commune，\"andthesectionscomposingit，theRussianvolostandvillageaccordnorightofsuffragetopersonsbelongingtoanyothersocialpositionthanthatofpeasant（krestianine，aword，thefirstmeaningofwhichwasChristian）。
Amerchantoranoblemanmayresideforyearsinavillage；hewillnottherebyacquireanyrighttomeddlewithitsinternaladministration。Toexplainthereasonofsuchananomaly，wemustkeepinviewthecircumstancesunderwhichthelawof1861waspromulgated。itschiefpurposewastoliberatetheserfsfromtheirdependenceonthelandedaristocracy。Thesquire，the\"pomeschick，\"wastheenemyagainstwhomtheyhadtofight，anditwasfearedthathecouldeasilyregaintheinfluence，whichhadlastedforcenturies，ifheandthepersonsinhisservicewereallowedtohaveavoteincommunalconcerns。Itwasthereforetopreventapracticalrestorationoffeudalpower，thattheupperclassesweredebarredfromallinterferenceinvillagematters。Butthelegislatorsforgotthedangers，whicharisefromtheartificialisolationofanill-educatedclass，bothforitselfandfortheotherordersofsociety。Iknownocountry，inwhichtheenlightenedclasseshavesolittleopportunityofexercisingthatmoralinfluence，withoutwhichnosocialprogresscanbereallyachieved。Notonlythesquire，beheanoblemanoramerchant，butalsotheparishpriest（thepope），areexcludedbylawfromtherighttovoteinthevillageassembly。Questionsconcerningpublicinstructionandpublichealtharedailydiscussedandsettledbyilliteratemen，veryoftentotheinjuryofthecommunity，withoutanyreferencetothewishesandintentionsofthemoreenlightenedinhabitants，whoseinterferenceinsuchcaseswouldbeconsideredadirectinfringementofthelaw。Thisiscertainlyagreatwrong；awrongwhichisclearlyseen，bothbysocietyandbyGovernment。TheabsenteeismofthehigherclassesandtheirdislikeofthatcountrylifewhichissofamiliarinEngland，certainlyfindsitschiefrootinwhatImaycallthe\"privilegiumodiosum\"whichisattachedtothestatus。Ontheotherhand，theordinarypeasant，leftwithoutthatnaturalcontrolandguidancewhichtheenlightenedclassesarecalledupontoexercisetowardsthemoreignorant，isnaturallyledtolookforprotectionandhelptothoseofhisownrankwhohavesucceededinsecuringforthemselvesacertainamountofmaterialwealth。Thisclassofrichpeasants，knownunderthenameof\"koulaks，\"whichmeansamanknowinghowtokeepmoneyinhisownhands，isasarulenobettereducatedandfarmoreselfishandimmoralthantherestofthecountrypeople。Thedisintegratinginfluence，whichsuchaclassexercises，hasbeenrightlyrecognisedinthenicknamewithwhichthepeasantryhavedubbeditsmembers，Imeanthatof\"miroied。\"or\"eatersofthemir\"itistosuchspeculatorsandmonopoliststhatthepeopleareabandoned；itmaybeinthesecrethopeofrenderingimpossibleanygoodunderstandingbetweenthemandthehigherclassesofthenation。Fornodoubt，suchanunderstandingmightbecomeaseriousobstacleinthewayoftheall-powerfulbureaucracy，whichrulesoverthemasseswiththatinsolenceandharshnesswhichareusuallyonlymetwithintherelationsofconquerorstoaconquerednation。Insteadofgivingthehigherclassestheirshareintheaffairsofthevillage，theGovernmenthaslatelyincreasedthenumberofadministrativeoppressors，byinstitutinganewoffice，thatof\"Commanderofthedistrict。\"Thisofficeistobeexclusivelyfilledbymembersofthehereditarynobility。Withnoothercontroloverthem，thanthatoftheGovernoroftheprovince，thesenewly-createdofficersarecalledupontoexerciseaboundlessauthority，bothexecutiveandjudicial，overthevillagesintheirdistrict。Thereisnojudicialappealagainsttheirdoings，fortheyareatoncepoliceofficersmakingtheirownby-laws，andmagistratesauthorisedtodecidequestionsoftheinfringementofthesesameby-laws；theyareeventheexecutionersoftheirownsentences，fortherightoffloggingonthespot，wherethemisdemeanourhasbeencommitted，isopenlyrecognisedasbelongingtothem。
Itisnotdifficulttoforeseetheeffectwhichtheintroductionofthesenewofficerswillhaveonthelifeofthepeople。Havingbeenhithertotaughttolookontheneighbouringsquireasastranger，theywillnowcometoconsiderhimastheirnaturalenemy。
ButletusgobacktothestudyoftheadministrativeorganisationoftheRussianmir。
Everyvillageisauthorisedtohaveitspopularassembly。
Thisfolkmoteistheregularheirofthe\"vechas\"and\"koupas\"
stillpreserved，aswehaveseen，inthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，amongtheSouth-WesterncommunesofRussia，and，whatisnotlesscurious，alsobythemanorialsystemduringthesamecenturies。WhenIsaythatalltheadultmembersofthevillagearecalledupontovoteatthesepopularassemblies，ImeanthatthisisthecaseinthemajorityofRussianvillages，inwhichtheinhabitantsarelikewisepartnersinthecommonlandsofthevillage。Itisnotthecaseintheyearlyincreasingnumberofvillages，inwhichthenew-comersareonlypermittedtoresideinthecommune，butarepreventedfromsharinginthebenefitwhichthecommunederivesfromitspropertyinland。InGermanyandSwitzerland，wherecenturiesagonew-comers，knownunderthenameof\"Beisaszen\"or\"Hintersaszen，\"\"domicilies，\"\"manants，\"etc。，wereallowedtosettlesidebysidewiththeproprietorsofthecommonland（thegemeingutorallmend），twokindsofpopularassembliesareknown。
Theoneiscomposedofalltheadultinhabitantswithoutdistinction；theotherofthosewhohaveashareinthecommonland。Thefirstassemblymakesby-laws，choosesofficers，andpassesmeasureswhichconcernthecommongood。Thesecondadministersthelandsofthevillage，appointsthoseentrustedwiththecareofthem，anddistributestotheseveralpartnerstheirsharesinthecommons。ThelawsofsomeSwisscantons，therefore，establishadifferencebetweenthe\"politischeGemeinde，\"orcommune，composedofallthemaleinhabitants，andthe\"burgerlicheGemeinde，\"towhichallthesharersinthecommonland，maleandfemalealike，belong。NowthisdifferenceisunknowninRussia，wherepoliticalrightsareexclusivelyexercisedbythoseinhabitantswhoareatthesametimesharersinthecommonland。
Theofficertowhomtheassemblyentruststheadministrationofthevillageiscalledthevillageelder。WefindthesameofficerintheoldRussiancommunes，bothintheso-called\"blackhundreds\"inotherwords，inthevillagesinhabitedbyfree-commoners——andalsoonthelandsofmanoriallords。
Monasticcharters，amongotherdocuments，veryfrequentlymentiontheelectionoftheseofficers，whoaresometimescalled，especiallyintheSouth-Westerncommunes，\"bourgmistr\"——anameevidentlyderivedfromtheGermanburgermeister，andshowing，toacertainextent，theinfluenceexercisedbyGermanmunicipallawonthelocalorganisationofLithuaniaandLittleRussia。
Itisthevillageelder，thestarosta，whorepresentsthecommuneinitsrelationswiththedistrictandprovincialauthorities。Itishewhocollectsthetaxes，exercisessomesupervisionoverthewayinwhichthecommunekeepsinrepairtheroadsandpubicbuildings；seesthatthelawconcerningobligatoryfireinsuranceisobeyed，andcarriesintoeffectthevariousadministrativeenactmentswhichthepoliceauthoritiesandthelocalassembliesofthezemstvoareveryliberalincreating。Butthemostimportantfunctionsofthecommune，thatofapportioningpersonaltaxationandmakingperiodicalassessmentsofcommonland，areperformedbythepopularassemblyormir。Two-thirdsofthewholenumberofvotersareempoweredtodecidewhetherthepropertimehascomeornotforanewgeneralallotment。Thesamemajorityisalsorequiredwheneverthedivisionofthecommonlandintoprivatepropertyhastobedecidedon。
Neithertheassemblynorthevillageelderhasanyjudicialauthority；butthevillageelderexercises，toacertainextent，thefunctionsofapublicnotary，forhegiveslegalvaliditytoprivatedocumentsanddeedsbyaffixingtothemthevillageseal。
Aregulartribunal，akindofcourtleet，isformedbytheelectivejudgesofthevolost。Thisinstitutionisaninnovationintroducedbytheemancipationlaw，atleastsofarasitassigns，nottothevillage，buttothelargerterritorialdistrict，thevolost，thesolerightofgivingjudicialdecisionsincivilsuitsandinmisdemeanoursamongpersonsbelongingtothepeasantclass。Thepeculiarfeatureofthistribunalis，thatitisnotboundtofollowtheprescriptionsoflaw，butthoseofcustom。
Russia，sofarasIknow，istheonlyEuropeancountry，inwhichasortof\"personalitaslegum\"isstillacknowledged，thepeasantssubmittingtoonecomplexcodeoflegalrules，andthehigherclassestoanother。WhatisnolesscharacteristicisthefactthatthecustomarylawoftheRussianpeasantisalonethegenuineRussianlaw——thelawthatisfoundinourancientcodes（suchasthePravdaofJaroslav，inthejudicialchartersofNovgorodandPscov，inthestatuteofLithuania，andinthecodesofIvantheThirdandofIvantheTerrible）；whistthevolumesX
andXV（so-called）ofthegeneralcollectionoflaws（sothecivilandcriminalcodesaredesignatedinRussia）areacompoundpartlyofRussian，partlyofFrench，partlyofcanon，Byzantineorevenso-callednaturallaw。
TheonlywaytogetridofthisdualisminmattersoflegislationwouldbetocodifythecustomarylawofRussia，introducingintoitthechangesrequiredbythesocialdevelopmentthathasbeenalreadyachievedbythehigherclasses。
Butsuchdoesnotseemtobetheopinionofthebureaucrats，towhomhasbeenintrustedthedifficulttaskofpreparingthetextofanewcivilandcriminalcode。ThebooksandpamphletspublishedbythesemodernSolonsexpressanoppositeviewandwouldseemtojustifythesuppositionthatthedoublelawwillbescrupulouslypreserved，probablywiththeobjectofperpetuatingthemisunderstandingwhichalreadyexistsbetweenthelowerandhigherclassesofRussiansociety。
Thevolosthasnoassemblyofitsown，butithasitschiefinthepersonofanelectedelder\"starschina，\"towhomthevillageeldersaresubjectinallmattersconcerningthecollectionoftaxesandthecarryingintoeffectoflawsandby-laws。
ThelittleIhaveheresaidabouttheorganisationofthevillagecommunitywillanswertheendIhaveinviewofplacingclearlybeforeyoutheeconomicarrangementsmadebythevillageinreferencetothecommonlands。Therelationinwhichthevillagestandstothemisnotthatofproprietor。TheybelongaccordingtolawtotheStatealone。Inthosevillageswhichareoccupiedbytheso-called\"State-peasants，\"thatistheheirsoftheserfslatelybelongingtothe\"publicdomains，\"nomeanshavebeenadoptedtoallowofthepeasantbecomingeveninfuturetheproprietorofthesoil。Such，however，isnotthecaseinthosecommunes，whichhavebeenestablishedonlandslatelybelongingtothenobility。AssoonasthepeasantsoneachestatehavepaidbackthemoneyadvancedbytheStatetofacilitatetheacquisitionofthelandwhichtheproprietorwasforcedtogiveuptothem，theybecomethelegalproprietorsofthesoiltheynowoccupy。Thispaymentmaybemadebythewholecommuneorbytheseparatehouseholdswhichbelongtoit。Fivemillionsofroubleshadbeenalreadydevotedtothispurposeuptotheyear1881；laterstatisticsarestillwanting。Eachtimethatthepaymentismadebyaseparatehousehold，commonpropertyisofcoursesupersededbyprivatepropertyandthisenactmentisrightlyconsideredbyRussianpublicistsasprejudicialtothefurthermaintenanceofagrariancommunism。*
Thecommuneexercisesitsproprietaryrightsindifferentways。Itkeepsthewaste-landandforestsundivided，andmakesperiodicalallotmentsofarableandmeadowland。itwasmostprejudicialtothewelfareofthepeasantsthattheobligatoryexpropriationof1861didnotextendtoapartatleastofthewaste-landofthemanor，heldpreviouslytothatdateincommonbythemanoriallordandhisserfs。WemustacknowledgethatinthisrespectthegovernmentoftheoldFrenchmonarchy，thatofLouisXIIIandofLouisXIV，showedafargreaterknowledgeoftheeconomicwantsoftheagriculturalclasses。Theso-called\"triages\"securedtothepeasantstherightofexclusiveenjoymenttoatleastathirdofthemanorialwastesandwoods。
NothingwhichcorrespondstothosetriageshasbeenestablishedinRussia。Theresultofthiscanbeseenintheneedwhichthepeasantisunderofdiminishingyearbyyearthenumberofhiscattle，aconditionofthingswhichhasalreadyre-actedonthestateofagriculture。Inthosecaseswherethevillagehashadnoaccesstothewasteland，ithasbeenobligedtocarveoutofitsarablegroundaspecialfieldtoserveasacommonpasture。Butthiscanonlybedonewheretheallotmentsmadeoutofthemanoriallandareoflargeextent。Inthegreaternumberofvillagestheyhavenotamountedtomorethanthreedessiatinesahead，andthecommonershavebeenforcedtocontentthemselveseitherwithsendingtheircattleontothe\"Lammas\"lands，thatis，thearablelandafterharvest，orwithrentingsomepasturegroundfromaneighbouringsquire。
Asfortheforests，allotmentsoutof。themwererarelymade，atleastinourSouthernprovinceswherewoodsarescarce，andthepeasantisquitedependentforhisfuelonthesquire，whotakesadvantageofthisfact，andsecurestheregularperformanceofagriculturallabouronhisowndomainsinreturnforpermissiontousethedeadwoodwhichwouldotherwiselieunused。
Inthenorthernprovincesallotmentswerefrequentlymadeofforests，andweresometimestreatedas\"assartlands。\"Imakeuseofatermwhichisprobablyquitefamiliartoyou，asitisfrequentlytobemetwithinEnglishdocumentsevenofthefirstpartofthepresentcentury。ButforthosewhoarenotawareofitsmeaningIwilladdthefollowingexplanation。Whenpopulationbecamedense，thevillageallowednewhomesteadstobeestablishedinthemiddleoftheforestthetreeswereburneddown，therootsseldombeingremoved，andtheploughbegantoworkinaregionwhichhadhithertobeenaccessibleonlytotheaxe。TheareathusclearedforatimepaidnothingtotheState；
butafterafewyears，threeasarule，itwasannexedtothenumberofcommonlandswhichwereburdenedbypersonaltaxes。Theownersoftheseclearedlandsreceivednoallotmentsoutofthecommonfields，buttheyregularlypaidtotheGovernmentasmuchasthecommonersofthesamevillage。
Wemustnowturnourattentiontothewayinwhichthearablelandandthemeadowsareused。Equalitybeingthechiefaimofthemembersofthevillagecommunity，itsarablefieldsareasaruleverynumerous。Thecommonerstakeintoaccountboththedifferencesinthefertilityofthesoilandthecomparativeadvantagesofitssituation。Landwhichiseithermountainousordistantfromthevillageisnotlikelytoproducethesamerevenue，ortobesoeasilycultivatedasanequalareatoit；
theblacksoilisfarmorefruitfulthanthesandyortheclayeysoil。Thecommunity，therefore，hasagreatnumberof\"shots\"or\"furlongs，\"*andineachoftheseshotseveryhouseholderreceivesanumberofstripsequaltothenumberofthetaxedpersonsinhishousehold。Youcaneasilyimaginehowscatteredandintermixedarethepossessionsofeachhomestead。Incaseswherethereisnogreatdifferenceinthefertilityofthesoil，andtheshotsareconsequentlynotverynumerous，thecommunitysometimesadoptsadifferentmethod。Thewholenumberofcommonersisdividedinto\"tythings，\"ordecenas，andthefieldsaredividedintoasmanypartsastherearetythings。Eachtything，ordecena，thenmakesthedivisionforitself。Lotsaredrawntodecidetheorderinwhichthestripsmustbedistributedamongthetythingsandsubdividedamongthepersonscomposingthem。*Owingtothealmostuniversalpreva1enceofthethree-fieldsystem，thenumberofshotsneverfallsbelowthree。
There-allotmentofsharesisoftwokinds，partialandgeneral。Thefirstsupposestheincreaseordiminutionofthenumberofstripsassignedtoahousehold，consequentonanaugmentationordecreaseofthenumberofpersonscomposingit。
Thesecondisequivalenttoacompletechangeinthedistributionof。arablelandamongthecommoners。Ittakesplaceatfixedperiods，theshortestofwhichisthreeyears，thatbeingthetimeneededforacompleterotationofcropsundertheexistingthreefields’system；andthelongestnineteenormoreyears——
