small payment。
The abandoned ground returned each time to the volost； which
always took measures to find some new occupier who might relieve
the mark from the increase of taxation produced by the departure
of the previous occupier。 Instances of such new occupation are
regularly reported in the following terms： 〃All the peasants of
the volost have allowed such and such persons to settle on the
lots （jrebii） left free by the departure of such and such
persons。 The mir （this word means the whole community of
shareholders） has conceded this lot to 〃 （here follows the
name）。 The shares of each particular household having no distinct
limits； we are induced to think that the possession of a lot； or
jrebii； conceded no other right than that of having a distinct
share in the open fields of the village。 Each household possessed
larger or smaller strips of ground in the different fields
contained in the village area； and also had the right to mow a
distinct portion of the village meadow； while the enjoyment of
the waste and of the forest land was free to all the inhabitants
of the volost； and no rules determined precisely the use which
each householder was allowed to make of it。
You may see from what I have said that the runrig system and
equality of shares were as little known to the village
communities of Old Russia； and specially of Muscovy； as to those
of medieval Germany or England。 No better known was the
correspondence which； according to Mr Seebohm； existed in
medieval England between the quantity of ground owned by each
household and the part it took in the ordinary labour of
agriculture。 Tillage performed by families possessing in common a
〃carruca；〃 or sort of plough worked with three or four pairs of
oxen； was quite unknown to my forefathers； who were in the habit
of cultivating the ground with small ploughs； drawn very often by
a single horse； a fact noticed in the epic poems； and
particularly in the ballad； the chief hero of which is a simple
peasant； Micoula Selianinovich。 The same mode of tillage； I may
add； is still in use among the peasants of Great Russia； where
the ground is not nearly so heavy as is the black soil of our
Southern provinces。 The only thing that depended upon tenure of
land was taxation； the householder paying a larger or smaller
proportion of the land tax； according to the number of plough
lands sown by his seed。
This is almost all we know of the free Muscovite village
community。 Our information is fuller as to the economic
arrangements of those dependent communes； which were established
on the possessions of the higher clergy and the monasteries。
According to Professor Gorchacov； to whom we are indebted for a
very circumstantial description of the inner life of these
bodies； each manor regularly contained； next to the demesne land；
a large area occupied by the dependent households。 Each of these
households was obliged to perform agricultural labour on the area
belonging to the landlord； and in return possessed the right to a
share in the autumn and spring fields； owned in common by the
customary tenants of the manor。 The existence of these two fields
may be traced； at least in the central Governments of Russia； as
far back as the beginning of the sixteenth century； as they are
mentioned in a charter issued in the year 1511。 The peasants had；
before the end of that century； the right of free removal； the
land quitted by a peasant household returning to the community of
the villagers。* Besides the feudal lord； the state also had a
claim on the community in the shape of a land tax； which the
village assembly was itself authorised to collect。 The area held
by the village was accordingly divided into ploughs （sochi）； and
smaller divisions called viti； which corresponded to a distinct
part of the work of a plough。 To make these financial
arrangements clearer to an English public； I will say that the
customary land of the village was divided into hides and
virgates。 The quantity of land contained in each virgate varied
from one village to another； but the virgates of the same village
were equal； in that respect the manor of mediaeval England
presents the greatest similitude to that of mediaeval Russia。
Both have this also in common； that each household was taxed
according to the amount of arable land it owned。 One household
paid for one 〃vit；〃 or virgate； another for two； a third for half
a virgate； and so on。 The vit or virgate； just as in England； was
not a number of fields surrounded by distinct boundaries； but a
union of ideal shares in the different fields of the village。 In
the lands of the monastery of Constantine； for instance； the vit
was； at least during the first part of the sixteenth century；
equal to the right of occupying five desiatines in each of the
three fields of the manor； a desiatine being equal to two acres。
First introduced in order to secure an equal distribution of
state taxation； the system of hides and virgates became later on
the basis of the levy and distribution of feudal dues。 Instances
frequently occur in sixteenth century charters of the labour
performed by each of the households being in direct ratio to the
number of virgates； or viti； in its possession。 Under such
conditions； no equality could exist as to the amount of ground
possessed by each villager。 This equality was not demanded by
anybody on account of the abundance of land and the facility of
removal。 The peasant who thought himself aggrieved could seek
better terms on some neighbouring manor； removals were frequent；
and the commune was always busy seeking for persons who might
wish to become occupiers of the vacant ground of an abandoned
virgate。
I shall proceed no further in the study of the social
arrangements of the Russian manor because they appear to be； so
far as the ownership of land is concerned； very like those of a
free village。 This is not surprising to one who knows the small
difference which exists between the arrangements of a German
manor； or Hof； and those of a free commune； or Dorf…gemeinde。 The
proprietor was too well pleased to see his yearly revenue
guaranteed by the unpaid service of the villeins； to meddle with
their internal arrangements。 The villeins were accordingly
allowed to choose their own executive officers； to have their
elders； their 〃good men；〃 or judicial assistants； and to
apportion taxes and arrange the land ownership at their regular
meetings； or folkmotes。 Such being the case； I see no reason why
the agrarian communism practised by the Russian peasantry should
be much affected by their loose dependence upon the landlord； at
least； before the time when serfdom was completely established
and the peasant was prevented from removing from the manor。
The general characteristic of the old Russian community may
be given in few words： it was a kind of ownership； based on the
idea that the true proprietor of the land was none other than the
commune。 The rights of the commune to the soil occupied by the
individual households appears in the indivisibility of the waste
and forest lands； and in the fact that vacant shares are
regularly disposed of by the commune； and that nobody is allowed
to occupy a piece of ground lying within the limits of the
village common； unless he is authorised by the local authorities。
Arable land and meadows are； as a rule； in the hands of private
households； which pay taxes and perform manorial labour in direct
proportion to the amount of land they own。 This ownership does
not suppose the existence of certain limits which nobody is
allowed to infringe。 It implies only the right to have a definite
share in the three fields； which constitute the agricultural area
of the village。 The shares are not equal； but differ in direct
proportion to the payments which the household is called upon to
make； partly to the State； and partly to the lord of the manor。
Periodical redistributions are unknown； and no mention is made of
the run…rig system of some modern English and Irish manors。
Thus constituted； the old Russian village community appears
to be very like that of medieval England with its system of open
fields； its hides and virgates。 It may be also compared to the
German mark； so far as the mark is composed of a set of villages
subdivided into units partly financial； partly territorial；
called Hufen； and securing to their private holders； like the
English virgates； the right to have a distinct share in the
arable fields and in the meadows of the village。
Now that we are aware of the peculiar features of the
medieval village community； let us ascertain the reasons which
have produced a complete revolution in its interior organisation
by the introduction of the principle of equal division of the
soil among its individual members； and the system of periodical
allotments of ground in order to secure this equality。
Two facts seem to have contributed to this result； the first
was the increase of population； which； as we have already shown
in the instance of Little Russian communes； sooner or later
induces the majority of persons holding small shares to force the
rest to proceed to a redistribution of the soil。