The Peasant Commune and the Stolypin Reforms: Peasant Attitudes, 1906–14

  • David A. J. Macey

Abstract

It has usually been argued that the Stolypin Reforms represented the old regime’s, and specifically the landed nobility’s, final attempt to save itself from revolutionary destruction.1 As such, the Reforms have been seen primarily as defending the sacred and holy right of private (that is, noble) property by extending that right to the peasantry. As one report filed by three members of the central administration who had returned from a preliminary trip inspecting the land-organisation commissions candidly noted, at least one of the ‘red threads’ guiding the government’s activity was that ‘a transfer of noble [kul’turnyi] land to the peasants on the same principles as 1861 would be equivalent to the destruction of the state’.2 As a consequence, when the Reforms were first adopted most commentators, whether of the Left or Right, tended to denounce them as an act of political coercion.3 This opposition continued throughout the Reforms’ implementation as critics pointed to the peasant disorders associated with the Reforms and the government’s use of ‘influence’, mandatory procedures, and even ‘force’ to implement them.4 In addition, critics cited Stolypin’s famous statement about a‘wager on the strong’ (which was intended primarily as propaganda to win legislative support for the Reforms) and claimed that the Reforms favoured rich peasants at the expense of the poor.5 Thus, it was widely concluded, and historians have tended to support this judgement, the Reforms were a failure, in large measure because the peasants themselves clearly opposed them.6 For many, the final proof of this thesis came with the resurgence of the commune during and after 1917, which, it is often argued, demonstrated the peasantry’s ultimate preference for the communal system of organisation and way of life.7

Keywords

Burning Europe Expense Defend Dispatch 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    G. T. Robinson, Rural Russia under the Old Regime: A History of the Landlord-Peasant World and a Prologue to the Peasant Revolution of 1917 (Berkeley, 1932), pp. 169–242; S. M. Dubrovskii, Stolypinskaia zemel’naia reforma. Iz istorii sel’skogo khoziaistva i krest’ianstva Rossii v nachale XX veka (M., 1963), pp. 5–129; L. Volin, A Century of Russian Agriculture: From Alexander II to Khrushchev (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. 105; S. M. Sidel’nikov, Agrarnaia politika samoderzhaviia v period imperializma (M. 1980); R. T. Manning, The Crisis of the Old Order in Russia: Gentry and Government (Princeton, 1982), pp. 205–92; D. Atkinson, The End of the Russian Land Commune, 1905–1930 (Stanford, 1983), pp. 41–113.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsentral’nyi Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv SSSR, Leningrad (TsGIA SSSR), f. 1291, op. 31 (1907), d. 115, 1. 6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For example, A. Leont’ev, ‘Razrushenie obshchiny i obschchei semeinoi sobstvennosti. (Ukaz 9 noiabria 1906 goda)’, Russkoe Bogatstvo, 1906, no. 11, part 2, 181–90; A. A. Peshekhonov, ‘Ukaz 9 noiabria o vydelenii iz obshchiny’, Trudy Vol’nago Ekonomicheskago Obshchestva, 1906, no. 2, part 6, pp. 5–9. In addition, see the responses of the Second Duma’s Agrarian Commission: Obzor deiatel’nosti komissii i otdelov (St P., 1907), pp. 69–87, 453–98; and Trudy vtorago s′ezd upolnomochennykh dvorianskikh obshchestv 31 gubernii 14–18 noiabria 1906 (St P., 1906).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For example, A. S. Posnikov, Politika razrusheniia v agrarnom voprose. Zakon 9-go noiabria 1906 g.’, Vestnik Evropy, 1908, no. 5, pp. 243–67; Posnikov, ‘Zakon 14-go Iiunia’, Vestnik Evropy, 1910, no. 9, pp. 239–47; A. A. Kaufman, ‘Ukaz 9 noiabria 1906 goda’, Russkaia Mysl’,1908, no. 1, part 2, pp. 158–75; A. A. Manuilov, Noveishee zakonodatel’stvo o zemel’noi obshchine. Ego kharakteristika i rezultaty’, Vestnik Evropy, 1912, no. 9, pp. 243–67; N. Oganovskii, ‘Pervye itogi “velikoi reformy”’, Russkoe Bogatstvo, 1911, no. 10, part 1, pp. 124–62; 1910, no. 11, part 1, pp. 67–98.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See, for example, P. P. Maslov, ‘Novye pomeshchiki’, Novaia Zhizn’, 1912, no. 5; G. Alekseev, ‘Ocherki novoi agrarnoi politiki. (Primenenie zakona 9 noiabria v praktike derevenskoi zhizni)’, Sovremennyi Mir, 1911, no. 4, pp. 193–221; 1911, no. 8, pp. 239–60; 1911, no. 9, pp. 203–39; B. Chernenkov, Prinuditel’noe razrushenie obshchiny i “initsiativa naseleniia”’, Zavety, 1912, no. 1, part 2, pp. 98–116; I. Konovalov, Ocherki sovremennoi derevni. Zapiski agitatora (St P., 1913).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cf. G. A. Gerasimenko, ‘Protivodeistvie krest’ian Stolypinskoi agrarnoi politike’, Istoriia SSSR, 1984, no. 3, pp. 128–40; Dubrovskii, Stolypinskaia zemel’naia reforma; A. M. Anfimov, Rossiiskaia derevnia v gody pervoi mirovoi voiny (M., 1961), pp. 70–84; S. M. Sidel’nikov, comp., Agrarnaia reforma Stolypina (Uchebnoe posobie) (M., 1973); M. S. Simonova, ‘Ekonomicheskie itogi Stolypinskoi agrarnoi politiki v tsentral’no-chernozemnykh guberniiakh’, Istoricheskie Zapiski, 63 (1958), pp. 31–81; Manning, Crisis of the Old Order, pp. 356–71; J. Pallot, ‘The Geography of Enclosure in Pre-Revolutionary European Russia - Tver, Tula and Samara Provinces’, PhD dissertation, University of London, 1977; F. S. Los’ and O. G. Mikhailiuk, Klasova borot’ba v ukrains’komu seli (Kiev, 1976), pp. 193–219; L. P. Lipinskii, Stolypinskaia agrarnaia reforma v Belorussii (Minsk, 1978); L. P. Lipinskii and E. P. Luk’ianov, Krest’ianskoe dvizhenie v Belorussii v period mezhdu dvumia revoliutsiiami (iiun’1907-fevral’1917g.) (Minsk, 1964); A. I. Il‘ina, ‘K voprosu o bor‘be krest‘ian protiv Stolypinskogo “zemleustroistva” i kulatskikh khutorov‘, Uchenye Zapiski Sterlitamakskogo Pedagogicheskogo Instituta, 4 (1961), pp. 157–74.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. R. Kachorovskii, ‘Vykhody iz obshchiny (Obshchaia kharakteristika)’, Zapiski instituta izucheniia Rossii, 1(1925), pp. 99–101; M. Lewin, ‘Customary Law and Russian Rural Society in the Post-Reform Era’, The Russian Review, 44, no. 1 (1985) 9–12; T. Shanin, The Awkward Class. Sociology of Peasantry in a Developing Society: Russia 1910–1925 (Oxford, 1972), pp. 145–61; S. M. Dubrovskii, Sel‘skoe khoziaistvo i krest’ianstvo Rossii v period imperializma (M., 1975), pp. 168–95; V. P. Danilov, ’The Commune in the Life of the Soviet Countryside before Collectivisation’, chapter 17 of the present volume; and see O. Figes, ‘The Russian Peasant Community in the Agrarian Revolution, 1917–18’, chapter 14 of the present volume; Atkinson, Russian Land Commune, pp. 149–85; G. Yaney, The Urge to Mobilize: Agrarian Reform in Russia, 1861–1930 (Urbana, 1982), pp. 468–76.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    In addition to works cited in the previous footnote, see for example M. S. Simonova, ‘Mobilizatsiia krest’ianskoi nadel’noi zemli v period Stolypinskoi agrarnoi reformy’, in Materialy po istorii sel’skogo khoziaistva i krest’ianstva SSSR, 5 (1962), pp. 398–458.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See A. Moritsch, ‘Neuere Literatur zur Stolypinschen Agrarreform’, Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 24 (1976), pp. 230–49.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. M. Anfimov, Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie i klassovaia bor’ba krest’ian evropeiskoi Rossii. 1881–1904 gg. (M., 1984) especially chapter 3; cf. H.-D. Lowe, ‘Differentiation in Russian Peasant Society: Causes and Trends, 1880–1905’, chapter 11 of the present volume. In general, see A. M. Anfimov, Krest’ianskoe khoziaistvo Evropeiskoi Rossii, 1881–1904 (M., 1980), pp. 35–97; Dubrovskii, Sel’skoe khoziaistvo i krest’ianstvo, pp. 71–132; and the papers in this volume by M. Lewin, J. Channon, J. Pallot, C. Worobec, D. Shaw, R. Bideleux, and C. Frierson.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See, for example, A. A. Klopov, Kratkii ocherk moikh vpechatlenii o khode agrarnykh rabot...(St P., 1910); A. A. Kofod, Russkoe zemleustroistvo, 2nd edn (St P., 1914); C. A. Koefoed, My Share in the Stolypin Reforms (Odense, 1985); S. Bel’skii, Novaia zemledel’cheskaia Rossiia (Ocherki zemleustroistva), 2nd edn (St P.-M., 191?); V. P. Drozdov, Okolo zemli. Ocherki po zemleus-troistvu (M., 1909); A. I. Faresov, Golosa zemli; ocherki s natury. lubiliaru svetloi zhizni L. N. Tolstomu (St P., 1909); the various writings of B. Iurevskii: Chto dostignuto zemleustroistvom (St P., 1912); Pravitel’stvo i zemlia (St P., 1912); Zemleustroistvo v 1913 g. (St P., 1914); S. N. Syromiatnikov and B. V. Iurevskii, Zemleustroitel’nyi smotr. Zemel’nyi vopros v Rossii. Obsledovanie sovremennogo sostoianiia khutorskikh khoziaistv, 2nd edn (St P., 1913); V. V. Kiriakov (V. Vel’skii), Vybytie na khutora: zemleustroiteli i narod (Kartinki zemleustroistva) (M., 1912); A. P. Maidanik, Kratkii sravnitel’nyi ocherk otrubnykh, khutorskikh, kolonistskikh i cherezpolosnykh khoziaistv (Kiev, 1909); Otchet upravliaiushchego mezhevoi chast’iu po poezdke dlia osmotra zemleustroitel’nykh rabot v nekotorykh guberniiakh, iiul’-avgust 1909 (St P., 1910); K. Paskhalov and S. Shrapov, Zemleustroenie ili zemlerazorenie (po povodu zakona 9.XI.06 goda) (M., n. d); A. Grigorov, 0 sel’skoi obshchine (Tambov, 1907). In addition, the following archival sources have proved useful: TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1, dd. 584, 590; op. 1(1907), d. 1696; op. 1 (1908), dd. 681, 1717; op. 1 (1909), dd. 113, 117; op. 1 (1910), dd. 148, 149, 153, 173; op. 1(1914), dd. 271, 494, 547, 884; op. 1(1915), d. 591; f.1291, op. 122 (1906), d. 89; op. 122 (1907), d. 72; op. 120 (1909), d. 95; op. 120 (1908), d. 94; op. 120 (1912), dd. 24–32; op. 120 (1914), d. 9; op. 120 (1911), d. 59; op. 121 (1914), d. 52; op. 31 (1908), dd. 3, 7, 54;, op. 31 (1909), d. 65; op. 31 (1907), dd. 109, 115; op. 50 (1911), dd. 82, 99, 323; op. 126 (1915), d. 74; op.63 (1907), d. 25; and Tsentral’nyi Gos. Istoricheskii Arkhiv Oktiabrskoi Revoliutsii, Moscow (TsGA OR), f. 102, op. 101–4. The journals Izvestiia Zemskago Otdela, Zemleustroistvo i Zemlepol’zovanie, Vestnik Sel’skago Kho-ziaistva, and Zemskoe Delo have also proved extremely valuable.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. R. Mintslov, Debri zhizni; dnevnik 1910–1915 gg. (Berlin, 193?); M. Z. Nikonov-Smorodin, Pozemel’no-khoziaistvennoe ustroistvo krest’ianskoi Rossii (Sofia, 1939); V. Polivanov, ‘Zapiski zemskago nachal’nika’, Russkaia Mysl’, 1917, no. 3–4, pp. 102–29; 1917, no. 5–6, pp. 53–75; 1917, no. 7–8, pp. 59–89; 1917, no. 9–10, pp. 17–46; G. Severtsov-Pogilov, Kak pereshla derevnia na khutorskoe khoziaistvo (M., 1913); S. A. Shpilev, Pravda o russkoi derevne (n. p., n. d.); A. N. Naumov, Iz utselevshikh vospominanii, 1868–1917, 2 vols (New York, 1954); and the following funds in the Russian Archive, Columbia University: F. V. fon Shlippe, V. A. Kosinskii, N. N. Kisel’-Zagorianskii.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See, for example, the book and articles by S. T. Semenov: Dvadtsat’piat’let v derevne (Petrograd, 1917); ‘Legko li u nas vydeliat’sia iz obshchiny?’, Soyremennik, 1911, no. 5, 252–89; ‘Novye khoziaeva’, Sovremennik, 1913, no. 10, pp. 265–88; ‘Obnovlenie chernozema’, Russkaia Mysl’, 1917, no. 2, pp. 1–25; 1917, no. 3–4, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. I. Shidlovskii,comp., Zemel’nye zakhvaty i mezhevoe delo (St P., 1904); D. S. Fleksor, comp., Okhrana sel’skokhoziaistvennoi sobstvennosti (St P., 1904); A. A. Leont’ev, ‘Mezhevyia nuzhdy derevni’ in Nuzhdy derevni po rabotam komitetov o nuzhdakh sel’skokhoziaistvennoi promyshlennosti. Sbornik statei, vol. 1 (St P., 1904), pp. 234–86; Anfimov, Krest’ianskoe khoziaistvo, pp. 78–80.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. M. Anfimov, Zemel’naia arenda v Rossii v nachale XX v. (M., 1961); Anfimov, Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie i klassovaia bor’ba krest’ian, pp. 143–55; Dubrovskii, Sel’skoe khoziaistvo i krest’ianstvo, pp. 133–67.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See for example A. V. Shapkarin (ed.), Krest’ianskoe dvizhenie v Rossii. liun’1907 g.-iiul’1914 g. Sbornik dokumentov (M.-Leningrad, 1966), pp. 122, 185.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shapkarin, Krest’ianskoe dvizhenie, pp. 172–7, pp. 428–9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    The literature on this subject is too large even to hint at. In addition to the other papers published in this volume, see A. A. Rittikh, Zavisimost’krest’ian ot obshchiny i mira (St P., 1903); Rittikh, comp., Krest’ianskoe zemlepol’zova- nie (St P., 1903); K. R. Kachorovskii, Russkaia obshchina. Vozmozhno zhelatel’no li ee sokhranenie i razvitie? 2nd edn (M., 1906); S. G. Pushkarev, Krest’ianskaia pozemel’no-peredel’naia obshchina v Rossii (Newtonville, Mass., 1976); B. Mironov, ‘The Russian Peasant Commune After the Reforms of the 1860s’, Slavic Review, 44, no. 3 (1985), pp. 438–67.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See the paper by O. Crisp, ‘Peasant Property Rights in Land After 1861’, presented to the Conference on the Peasant Commune in Russia, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, London, July 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cf. Køfød’s remarks in Russkoe zemleustroistvo, p. 135.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Bel’skii, Novaia zemledel’cheskaia Rossiia, pp. 114–15.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cf. T. Shanin’s remarks at the Conference on the Peasant Commune in Russia.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Even the evidence collected by the commune’s supporters gave evidence of this. See the discussion in Rittikh, Zavisimost’, pp. 3–53.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anfimov, Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie i klassovaia bor’ba krest’ian, pp. 96–100; N. K. Brzheskii, Nedoimochnost’i krugovaia poruka sel’skikh obshchestv. Istoriko-kriticheskii obzor deistvuiushchago zakondatel’stva, v sviazi s praktikoiu krest’ianskago podatnago dela (St P., 1987).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. P. Lokhtin, Bezzemel’nyi proletariat v Rossii. Opyt opredeleniia kolichestva bezzemel’nago proletariata, sozdannago sushchestvuiushchimi sposobamikrest’ianskago zemlevladeniia (St P., 1905); cf. N. K. Brzheskii, Obshchinnyi byt i khoziaistvennaia neobezpechennost’krest’ian (St P., 1899).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The following is based on my Government and Peasant in Russia, 1861–1906. The Pre-History of the Stolypin Reforms (DeKalb, 1987).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    I refer specifically to the counter-reforms of the 1880s and 1890s that sought to regulate peasant repartitions and family divisions.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koefoed, My Share, pp. 129–30.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See, for example, the original Nakaz to the land-organisation commissions issued on 19 September 1906 (N. T. Volkov, Sbornik polozhenii o sel’skom sostoianii, sostoiashchii iz piati chastei (M., 1910), pp. 429–500), the temporary regulations of 15 October 1908 (ibid., pp. 374–9) and 19 March 1909 (ibid., pp. 525–35), and the regulations of 19 June 1910 (Izvestiia Zemskago Otdela, 1910 no. 6–7, pp. 236–42). All the reform legislation and subsequent explanations and administrative regulations are conveniently collected in Zemleustroistvo. Sbornik zakonov i rasporiazhenii, 7 vols (St P.. 1914).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    See, for example, Krivoshein’s speech in Stenograficheskie Otchety Gosudar-stvennoi Dumy, Tretii sozyv, sessiia 2 (hereafter GDSO), November 10, 1908, col. 1030, where he points this out.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    To the chagrin of the administrators in St Petersburg, for whom speed was of the essence this often dragged out for two years or more.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Both factors were of constant concern to the government as can be seen in almost any issue of lzvestiia Zemskago Otdela during this period.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    See, for example, Izvestiia Zemskago Otdela, 1908, no. 6, 304–5; 1910, no. 3, pp. 119–20.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    First put forth by P. A. Stolypin’s brother, A. A. Stolypin, an Octobrist and Chairman of the Russian Grain Society. A. A. Koefoed, K voprosu o prakticheskom obuchenii krest’ian sel’skomu khoziaistvu (St P., 1912).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See, for example, Izvestiia Zemskago Otdela, 1908, no. 5, on. 271–2.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alekseev, ‘Ocherki novoi agrarnoi politiki’, 4, p. 206.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    The Free Economic Society listed 134 reviews of such items to the end of 1911: ‘Sbornik retsenzii populiarnykh izdanii po sel’skomu khoziaistvu’, Trudy Vol’nago Ekonomicheskago Obshchestva, 1912, no. 2, parts 5–6, pp. 1–52; 1913, no. 1, part 1, pp. 53–115.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. K. Drezen (ed.), Tsarizm v bor’be s revoliutsiei 1905–07 gg. Sbornik statei (m., 1936), pp. 127–8; Dubrovskii, Stolypinskaia zemel’naia reforma, pp. 162–88; Yaney, Urge to Mobilize, pp. 274–81.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 1291, op. 122, d. 89 (1906), 1. 1–3; Koefoed, My Share, pp. 106–8.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    See, for example, the Interior Ministry’s Circular of 21 January 1909, Izvestiia Zemskago Otdela, 1909, no. 1, p. 12.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1(1910), d. 153, 1. 172.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1 (1909), d. 117, 1. 2 ob.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 1291, op. 31 (1907), d. 115, 1. 6; A. Lositskii, ‘Raspadenie obshchiny’, Trudy Vol’nago Ekonomicheskago Obshchestva, 1912, no. 1–2, v.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    GDSO, 1, col. 1036.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Polivanov, ‘Zapiska zemskago nachal’nika’, Russkaia Mysl’, 1917, no. 7–8, p. 82.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    See, for example, Izvestiia Zemskago Otdela, 1908 no. 1, pp. 19–22; 1908, no. 2, pp. 100–2; 1908, no. 3, p. 184; 1908, no. 7–8, pp. 344–5; 1908, no. 9, pp. 378–9; 1908, no. 12, pp. 463–4; 1909, no. 2, p. 35; 1910, no. 3, p. 122; Kratkii ocherk deiatel’nosti zemleustroitel’nykh uchrezhdenii za pervoe desiatiletie, 1906–1916 (n.p., n.d.), pp. 12–14; Volkov, Sbornikpolozhenii, p. 535; D. A. J.Macey, ’Bureaucratic Solutions to the Peasant Problem: Before and After Stolypin’, in R. C. Elwood (ed.), Russian and Eastern European History: Selected Papers from the Second World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies (Berkeley. 1984). pp. 84–7; Yanev, Urge to Mobilize, chapter 8.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Koefoed, My Share, pp. 111–15, 121–6; A. A. Koefoed, ‘Vnutrinadel’noe zemleustroistvo’, Trudy Vol’nago Ekonomicheskago Obshchestva, 1909 no. 1, parts 1–2, 53; Lykoshin’s 24 April 1909 speech in GDSO, 3 col. 2902; cf. Yaney, Urge to Mobilize, chapter 9.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    See Volkov, Sbornik polozhenii, pp. 525–33.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    See A. I. Lykoshin’s report in Trudy s’ezd nepremennykh chlenov gubernskikh prisutstvii i zemleustroitel’nykh kommisii. 10–23 lanvaria, 1909 g. (St P., 1909), pp. 244–85.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    See, for example, A. A. Klopov’s report of 10 October 1909 in TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1(1909), d. 117, l. 2 ob.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    The Statute on Land-Organisation is in A. A. Znosko-Borovskii (ed.), Polo-zhenie o zemleustroistve, s zakonodatel’nymi motivami i raz′iasneniami (St P., 1912); Koefoed, Russkoe zemleustroistvo, passim. Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    See A. V. Krivoshein’s confidential letter to the provincial governors of 2 March 1910 in TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1 (1910), d. 153, ll. 1–3. Cf. Ia. Ia. Litvinov’s 26 Aug. 1909 report in ibid., ll. 64–106, especially ll. 77–8; and Krivoshein’s 17 May 1911 speech to a conference on land-organisation, Izves-tiia zemskago otdela, 1911, no. 5, 220–2. Mandatory procedures could, of course, be invoked both in the interests of the individual peasant and the commune as a whole.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ibid., ll. 176–7.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ibid., l. 1 ob.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Koefoed, My Share, pp. 127, 137.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Koefoed, My Share, p. 121; Lykoshin, in his 24 April 1909 speech in GDSO, 3, col. 2901; Volkov, Sbornik polozhenii, pp. 525–33.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    See Litvinov’s report of 26 August 1909 in TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1(1910), d. 153, l. 86. In addition to archival sources already cited see the accounts of peasant disorders linked to land reorganisation which tend to support this judgement in Shapkarin, Krest’ianskoe dvizhenie, passim.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    See, for example, lzvestiia Zemskago Otdela, 1911, no. 5, 233–6; 1911, no. 6–7, pp. 324–31.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    O. Auhagen, Kritika russkoi zemel’noi reformy (St P., 1914), p. 23.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1 (1910), d. 153, ll. 121 ob.-122.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    See, for example, the late 1906 report of three officials, including Litvinov, in TsGIA SSSR, f. 1291, op. 31 (1907), d. 115, ll. 5–15; and Lykoshin’s 15 January 1909 report to the Congress of Permanent Members, Trudy (1909), pp. 244–85.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mintslov, Debri zhizni, p. 57.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Revision souls were those peasants or their direct descendants who had been recorded in the last census (revision) conducted in 1858, just prior to the Emancipation of the serfs in 1861.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    See the discussion in Rittikh, Zavisimost’, pp. 27–36; Kachorovskii, Russkaia obshchina, passim; also see the papers of C. Worobec and C. Frierson in the present volume. The stimulus for the increase in repartitions as well as in family divisions seems to have been the coming of age of a new generation of peasants, born since the last census, who now demanded their share of the communal land. However, in many areas they met resistance from their ‘fathers’, who, having paid redemption payments on an individual basis for the past twenty years or so, seem to have felt that their allotment was now their personal property rather than simply a temporary share of the commune’s land. Cf. Trudy (1909), pp. 275–6.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Anfimov, Krest’ianskoe khoziaistvo, p. 97.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    See, for example, Prince A. A. Shcherbatov’s 20 September 1914 report in TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1 (1914), d. 271, l. 25; and the 1910 report of N. D. Chaplin, head of the Surveying Department, in TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1 (1910), d. 149, 1. 62. For other opponents, see Koefoed, ‘Vnutrinadel’noe zemleustroistvo’, p. 47.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    See T. Shanin, The Roots of Otherness: Russia’s Turn of Century, vol. 1, Russia as a‘Developing Society’ (London, 1985), pp. 156–8.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bel’skii, Novaia zemledel’cheskaia Rossiia, p. 117. See the discussion of renting in Anfimov, Krest’ianskoe khoziaistvo, pp. 107–20.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bel’skii, Novaia zemledel’cheskaia Rossiia, pp. 187–95.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mintslov, Debri zhizni, p. 149.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    See especially Bel’skii, Novaia zemledel’cheskaia Rossiia, passim; Drozdov, Okolo zemli, pp. 28–32.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bel’skii, Novaia zemledel’cheskaia Rossiia, pp. 94. 178.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1(1914), d. 884, l. 13; V. Iur’evskii, Chto dostignuto zemleustroistvom (St P., 1912), pp. 26–30.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1 (1910), d. 153, l. 92.Google Scholar
  75. Trudy (1909), p. 267.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Shapkarin, Krest’ianskoe dvizhenie, pp. 406–7, 462.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ibid., pp. 285, 348, 351, 354–5.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Trudy (1909), pp. 250–1.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1(1909), d. 117, 12 ob.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Alekseev, ‘Ocherki novoi agrarnoi politiki’, 4, pp. 193–221; Mintslov, Debri zhizni, pp. 59–61, 149–51, 268–9; Trudy Vol’nago Ekonomicheskago Ob-shchestvo, 1909, 1, parts 1–2, 46; Sidel’nikov, Agrarnaia reforma Stolypina, p. 201; TsGIA, f. 408, op. 1(1908), d. 1717; op. 1 (1913), d. 1799; op. 1(1910), d. 153; f. 1291, op. 31 (1907), d. 115, 11.5–15; op. 31 (1908), dd. 3, 54; op. 63 (1907), dd. 25, 41; op. 120 (1909), dd. 33, 95; op. 120 (1911), dd. 53, 59; and the inspectors’ reports reprinted in the various issues of Izvestiia Zemskago Otdela beginning in 1908.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Shapkarin Krest’ianskoe dvizhenie, p. 23.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ibid., pp. 167, 228, 287.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mintslov, Debri zhizni, p. 57.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ibid., p. 268.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 1291, op. 31 (1907), d. 115, ll. 16–17ob.; op. 30 (1906), d. 71, ll. 12–14; f. 408, op. 1(1906), d. 38, l. 40; Russkiia Vedomosti, 161 (23 June 1906) 5; GDSO, Vtorago sozyva, vol. 1, p. 113; Trudy s′ezd nepremennykh chlenov gubernskikh prisutstvii 24/X-1/X1/07 (St P., 1908), p. 4.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1(1910), d. 149, ll. 72,78.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1 (1914), d. 884, 1. 5; Bel’skii, Novaia zemledel’cheskaia Rossiia, pp. 85–6.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    TsGIA SSSR, f. 408, op. 1 (1910), d. 117, 11. 125–6.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    It is true however that individual government officials, including Stolypin, have been reported as supporting this thesis. See Koefoed, Mv Share n. 111.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Trudy, pp. 275–6; cf. M. Tugan-Baranovskii, Zemel’naia reforma: ocherk divizheniia v nol’zu zemel’noi reformv i prakticheckie vyvody tSt P 19n51 n 1 d5. Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    I. V. Chernyshev, Krest’iane ob obshchine nakanune 9 noiabria 1906. K voprosu ob obshchine (St P., 1911) and Obshchina posle 9 noiabria 1906 po ankete Vol’nago Ekonomicheskago Obshchestva, 2 vols (Petrograd, 1917).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. J. Macey

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations