These portions were not strictly defined； but； as a rule；
represented the half； third； fourth； eighth； and so on； of the
field according to the heritage which was acknowledged to belong
to each partner。
Let us suppose the case of one commune； the family consisting
of three brothers living and two nephews； the sons of a fourth
brother deceased。 The share of each of the brothers would be
one…fourth part of each of the different fields in the village；
whilst that of the nephews would not exceed an eighth。 Each
partner having a right to sell his ideal portion； or a part of
it； to a stranger； as well as to a relative； the village would
soon become occupied by neighbours owning the most unequal
portions in field。 These neighbours would maintain the
obligations which common possession is apt to establish； the
meadows for the greater part of the time would be kept undivided；
subject here and there to a yearly distribution according to the
wants of each homestead； but these wants being as a rule the
same； the custom would prevail of dividing them into equal parts
for the purpose of mowing。
The pasture and forest land would also remain subject to a
community of ownership； and would sometimes belong to several
neighbouring villages； which in that case would constitute a
larger area； similar to the German 〃mark；〃 and known under the
name of 〃volost。〃 Each of the inhabitants of the 〃volost〃 would
be allowed an unlimited use of the undivided area； it being too
extensive to be easily exhausted。 It would； however； be an error
to suppose that this general and unlimited enjoyment of the
undivided mark was but the result of that freedom which all
possessed as to unoccupied ground （the res nullius）； for a person
who was not an inhabitant of the village or villages constituting
the mark or 〃volost；〃 would have no right to enjoy its pastures
and forest lands。 That this was the case is proved by the fact
that no one might dig a piece of ground belonging to the forest
unless the digging were authorised by the whole community of
shareholders。 Such a right of prohibition could not have been
enjoyed unless the community was the owner of the 〃mark。〃
The natural evolution of agrarian communism did not go
further than this in the northern parts of Russia。 It went
further； however； in the south in those vast and fertile
steppes which lie on the eastern and western banks of Dnieper；
and which for centuries constituted a part of Poland。 The recent
researches of Professor Louchizky have brought to light the
following facts； which were quite unknown and some of which were
directly contradicted by former historians。 Undivided households
and their immediate successors； villages； composed of sharers in
the same ground； were in the beginning well known on the eastern
bank of the Dnieper。 The undivided 〃mark；〃 on which every
homestead had the right to take fuel and to pasture its cattle；
is known in this region under the name of lands belonging to the
〃gromada；〃 or commune。 They are sometimes called also common or
village lands。 The colonists who； during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries； crossed the river in order to occuPy the
free steppes in the modern Government of Tchernigov； migrated in
companies； organised on the model of undivided or partly divided
households。 These companies were called 〃skladchina；〃 from the
verb 〃skladivat；〃 which means to put something in common。 The
area on which the colonisation took place was so boundless that
each homestead was allowed to sow yearly as much ground as it was
able to till。 When the harvest was once reaped the land was
abandoned； and a new piece occupied for agricultural purposes。
You can easily see that this was a proceeding similar to that of
the ancient Germans； of which Tacitus says： 〃Arva per annos
mutant et superest ager。〃
I need not tell you that as long as the population was small
enough to allow of a yearly change of soil for cultivation；
redistribution was never thought of； no mention is ever made of
the run…rig system which characterises the modern village
community。 But as it is impossible that shares should be equal
without recourse to some such method； we must not look for
equality under the conditions just stated。 Even in the eighteenth
century； when the growth of population had diminished the area of
arable land； periodical redistribution remained unknown。 If some
amount of equality was； nevertheless； secured； it was due to the
control which the commune began to exert over its members。
Private appropriation of soil was no longer allowed； except on
the condition of its being made at certain fixed periods； and
under the supervision of the authorities。 Twice a year； in autumn
and in spring； the whole commune； with its cattle and its
agricultural implements； went out into the open field。 At the
command of the village…elder； the head of each homestead
proceeded to trace with his own plough the limits of the ground
he intended to sow； and no one was allowed to extend his
cultivation beyond the limits thus settled。 By…and…by the right
of retaining these private parcels of ground was extended to a
period of three years； at the end of which they returned to the
commune； and a new appropriation of the arable area was ordered
to be made。
Hitherto I have spoken of the mode in which land was enjoyed
so far as it applied to arable land alone。 Let us now say a word
about the meadows； forest land； and pastures。 The first were
owned on conditions similar to those first mentioned。 At the end
of May a day was fixed when all the villagers were assembled for
the hay harvest。 Each householder marked with a scythe the limits
of the meadow he intended to mow。 It was the duty of the
village…elders to see that these limits were strictly observed。
Forests and pastures were so abundant that no measuring was
needed to regulate their use。 Non…division and common enjoyment
remained the general rule； several villages very often possessing
equal rights to take fuel and to pasture cattle in the same
forests and wastes。
Whilst this was the state of things on the banks of the
Dnieper； a similar evolution took place on those of the Don。 An
area； even larger than that of the south…western steppes in the
middle of the sixteenth century； awaited the arrival of those
Great Russian colonists； who founded the so…called Territory of
the Don…Cossacks。 For a while the ground was declared to be the
common property of the whole community； and each family was
allowed to sow and mow wherever it liked； but by…and…by large
villages called 〃stanitza〃 were formed； and the first division of
the ground took place。 Each village received its own area of
arable and meadow ground； pasture and waste land remained the
common property of the whole people； or； as it was said； of the
whole 〃army。〃
The unlimited right of private homesteads to appropriate as
much soil as each required was scrupulously maintained by these
stanitzas； a fact which in the end produced great inequality in
the distribution of the land。 This inequality was established in
favour of a minority of families out of which the elders of the
people were regularly chosen； but as those who were possessed of
but small parcels of land formed the majority； various economic
arrangements were regularly made at the village folkmotes where
this majority was all powerful； redistributions of land in order
to equalise the shares were very often prescribed and the system
of run…rig tenure made its first appearance。 This took place
almost in our own time； some few stanitzas continuing even now to
maintain their ancient privilege of private appropriation。
I might continue my survey of the beginnings of the modern
system of village communities by a description of the economic
arrangements still in use among the Cossacks of the Terek or of
the Oural； but if I did so； I should only have to repeat the same
facts； and that in order to deduce the following conclusions。
That the modern system of periodical redistribution of land in
equal shares was quite unknown when colonisation first began； but
that this did not prevent a peculiar kind of agrarian communism；
the foundations of which are to be traced in the internal
constitution of the undivided household； and that this form of
social existence was known to Russia at the beginning of her
history； and was diffused all over her empire； as may be seen
from the frequent occurrence in medieval documents of terms like
〃the hearth；〃 〃the fire〃 （pechische； ognische）。
All the districts we have passed in review had one thing in
common； serfdom was almost unknown to them。 The peasants of
Archangel for instance were always named 〃svoiezemzi；〃 which
means independent possessors of the soil。 Social distinctions
remained almost unknown to the Little Russians down to the end of
the eighteenth century when Catherine the Second introduced
amongst them the notions of a feudal nobility and serfdom。 The
Cossacks of the Don remained free up to the time of Nicholas。 I
am； therefore； right in saying that agrarian communism is not the
direct result of serfdom； since it has been shown to exist in
regions where serfdom was unknown。
A careful study of old Russian documents does not add much to
the strength of this argument。 The illiterate peasants could not
consign to writing the economic arrangements they entered into；
and in this fact lies the true reason why； out of the various
categories into which the Russian peasantry was divided during
the middle ages； none is less familiar to us than the free
villager； the occupier of the so…called 〃black hundreds〃 （chernia
sotni）。 The commune was completely independent in matters of
internal concern； there was no need for the government or for
judicial charters to meddle in its system of land tenure。 What
information we can gather from them of the external organisation
of the volost or commune proves however the prevalence of a
communistic and democratic mode of existence。 The assembly of the
people； the folkmote； called in the South Western provinces of
Russia the 〃veche；〃 more often 〃the copa；〃 was formed of all the
house…elders of a volost。 It possessed the ri