RUSSIAN PEASANTRY

Evening Star, Issue 19764, 14 January 1928, Page 11

RUSSIAN PEASANTRY

AH HISTORICAL SKETCH BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION [Written by Fanny Schjiehmann, for the ‘Evening Star.’] The Russian peasant is a Sphinx, To the centuries of oppression lie turned his secretive face, the patient masque o) docility and humility. In olden days th. peasant used to say: “We are dark people (ignorant people), we know nothing, but this is how wo reason, • What the Tsar commands, that should be done.’ " In the time of emancipation and later he distinguished himself through incurable distrust. In the days of revolution he set his teeth, like a beast, on the landlord’* .estate and grasped it. In the present time he opposes tho Government through stubborn will and in dependence He says: “If they (the Communists) ordered us to elect a horse in the village Soviet, we should be compelled to do it.” There is something in him that made the Russian cultivated nun see in him greatness, originality, character, and individuality, and salute and kneel before his “armiak” and “ tnlup ” —the peasants’ sheepskin. There is something dark and savage in him that made tho others completely despair of his humanity. Though a freeman of today, he still shows the serf of yesterday.

At an early period the peasants found themselves considered as freemen, but in an inferior, despised condition as regards tho men of wax They were caned “little men” —“Mujiki ” —or else “half men,” in opposition to tho warriors, called “ men ’’ The “ little inau’s ” task was to provide the men’s livelihood, to nicWate for them lands, which the Sovereign granted his servants as salary or their maintenance. But they were not attached cither to the master they served or to the soil they cultivated As their masters they had the right of free service as well as of free passage. Under the last of the Rurokcvitcli counts tho peasants exercised ttiis right only once a year, on tho 20th November, the Feast of St. Ge >rge. There came a time when the peasant, in the interest of tho State, was deprived of thi»i right, but tie never lest tho memory of the privilege that was taken from him. That was a time when landlords wrangled for meiij to free themselves from taxes tho “ little men ” stole their own persons from tho landlords and escaped to the Volga, Don, Kama, and Siberia to share there the free life of the Cossacks. From them was taken the right of free passage, and they themselves were made a fixture to tho land by the Tsar Boris Godunoff, and later by the Tsars of the seventeenth century. From that time down to Alexander 11. the mujik remained tied down to the soil. Ho became a serf. Tho bondage _of the glebe gradually became heavier and heavier, until it degenerated into a sort of slavery. When at tho end of the sixteenth century in the greater part of Europe the bonds of serfdom fell off they were made fast in Russia. The whole of the local administration, local justice as well as the police duties, were given to the landlords, who were considered the agents of the State.

Tho various grades and forms of bondage can bo reduced to two types; the labor dues, “ Barsh-tcbina,” and the dues in money, “the Obrok.” The Barsbtcbina, at the time of Paul 1., in, 1797, provided that the peasants worked for three days in tho week for the landlord. Tho other half of the week they .attended to tho land, which was given them by the master. This land the peasants kept undivided between them. They kept, it in common. The transformation of the labor dues into an annual payment in money was a great improvement, By the payment of “obrok ” the peasant temporarily ransomed his personal liberty and could leave his landlord’s estate to ply a craft in the town. They were, however, liable to be called back to tne plough at any moment by a word from the master The great bulk of the peasants was divided in two classes, equal in number, but separate and distinct. On one side were the “ Crown peasants,” settled on the demesnes of the State, considered free, though they wore attached to the soil and were serfs of the Emperor of the State. On the other side were the private peasants or serfs. The “Crown peasants,” who were on the “ obrok ” system, enjoyed two advantages: The dues they paid were fixed and very moderate, and they were not--exposed to change of masters, variable in their humor and ways of doing business. Alexander I. created from them the class of free husbandmen. The system of serfdom in Russia preserved to the end a certain kind of benignity, something paternal, patriarchal. The peasants looked on tho landlord not always as on a tyrant, but often as on a protector, a defender, and a father, “ batinshka.” Serfdom

may have to command to-morrow.” It seemed to her that the old soldier’s maxim was far more sensible; “He who does not learn to obey will never be fit to command.” But, of course, there were right and wrong ways of teaching obedience and seif-control. “ I approve of the young people of the present day,” continued the speaker. “1 don’t say that I approve of all they do, but I like their independence, and I admire their capability and their courage. Often from the lips of middle-aged people we hear the phrase, ‘ I can’t think what young people are about nowadays.’ Well I never want to say that. 1 deplore the fact that there is a want of thrift, too great a love of excitement, and perhaps more selfishness. X deplore the amount of, juvenile crime, and the tendency to regard life as an opportunity for having a good time, and nothing else. But when I meet these tilings I feel more inclined to say, ‘ What are the parents about?’ ” Another rule dealt with the necessity for parental control over the literature and amusements of children. This was of tremendous importance. She knew that most mothers were busy people and could not always be running after their older children, but . league mothers should know where their children were, and should not send them to the pictures without knowing the type' of him that was being shown In conclusion, Lady Alice Fergusson said that all kinds of women were wanted as members. Grandmothers would be welcome because of the experience they possessed, old mothers and young mothers were needed, married wofmen without children were wanted, and the league would welcome unmarried professional women as associate members. She understood that there was a membership of about fifty in Dunedin, but was pleased to see that the new Balclutha branch was only the first of many throughout Otago. Lady Fergusson was accorded a very attentive hearing, and at the conclusion of the address a hearty vote of thanks to the speaker, proposed _ by Mrs Aslin, was carried by acclamation. Mrs- Fulton also spoke, and assured the league of the co-operation of the Church of England Mothers’ Union. During the afternoon several enjoyable musical items were given by Mesdames M'Laren and Vollcr (songs), Mrs M'Arthur (violin solo), and Mrs H. C. Campbell (pianoforte solo).

was in Russia not based on a conquest, as in the Baltic provinces, or on difference of race as in America. The serfs in Russia, like the landlords, were of the same blood. But the system of serfdom worked harm in the endharm to the country, harm to the bondsman, harm to tho master himself; it was not.only a violence done to the human conscience, but an economic evil. So little did serfdom produce. So terrible ’ was the depreciation of labor, that to be well off the “ Pomiesh-tchik ” had to have hundreds of “souls.” Often he had only the semblance of proprietorship,’ the sums loaned to him by the State on human capital were usually squandered in dissipations and hospitalities, and at the moment of emancipation twothirds of the serfs were found to ho mortgaged in the lombards. Several limes the peasants rose to the cry of liberty under the leadership nf Stenka Razin and Pugatchoff. The Russian .novelists and other writers became the apostles and prophets of emancipation. The first step was made by Alexander 1.. who gave to the serfs of the Baltic provinces their personal liberty, without, however,' providing them with land. Alexander 11. was the great liberator of serfs. In the manifesto of February 19. 1861, the serfs got liberty. They were to have the perennial use of their dwelling, with the enclosed appurtenances and land, which used to be reserved for their support in the time of serfdom. Rut this land they had to redeem from tho owners, who were made to give it up to them. The large class of the serfs, who were employed in domestic service and personal attendance on their masters, received only personal liberty. They later swelled the ranks of the urban proletariate! The average land, allotted to the peasant, rose to seven dessiatinas in tho poor North district to ten in tho steppes of the South, and went down to two in the rich Small Russian black-mould region. Tho dessiattina is eoual to about two and three-quarter acres.

Then came the “ Redemption Act,” which freed the peasants from all dues and obligations towards their formal masters. Tho State, whenever requested, advanced to the freed men the necessary sum, four-fifths of the total, calculated at the capitalisation rate of the dues, with which each given piece piece of land was burdened. Tho amount, which the State undertook to clear in the tenants’ name, had to be handed over in cash to the landlords. The advances made by the Government were to he reimbursed in the course of forty-nine years at 6 per cent. The 6 tier cent, covered the interest and extinguished the debt. Unfortunately this great measure was carried out unevenly in tho various provinces. Landlords and peasants were far from showing everywhere the same zeal in settling accounts, and often the redemption due was higher than the real value of tho soil. Tho right to demand redemption belonged exclusively to the master. Alexander TIT. made redemption obligatory, reduced its dues, and revised the direct taxation. Yet the manifesto of February 19 had caused a feeling of disappointment among the peasants. The expectations aroused in the masses by the very word “emancipation,” the longings of centuries were too visionary not to shrink and pale before reality. The liberated peasant forgot easily tho ills of serfdom—tho unpaid, compulsory due—Ho saw only the present charges and the vanishing of his dream, which would place the land within the reach of nil ll> was m>■ plia*« ol transition; he had not yet thrown off the faults bequeathed to him by servitude, and ho has. added to those certain other faults which often accompany liberty. Self-abasement, duplicity, thriftlesness, laziness,’ drunkenness, and domestic brutality, improvidence flowed from the old source of serfdom.

In spite of these faults, in spite of several centuries of servitude, tho liberated peasant became conscious of his rights, and was ready to defend them against everything and everybody. He awoke to a consciousness of his own personality and of bis rights as a freeman. But not always did he show a clear perception of bis duties and freedom. He had no respect for agree raonts. The obligation imposed by i contract did not accord with the idea tho Mujik made himself of liberty. His unreliability often became one of the «ares of the rural life. He still thought himself entitled to make US' 1 of the privileges he had us a serf. When he needs timber he cuts some in his master’s forest, or if a cow or a horse was hurt ho went to his former master, to whom ho bore no ill-feeling of any kind and asked for another. The form of land tenure remained as in times of serfdom, collective The lots purchased from the landlords were not distributed, but became the undivided property of the commune. The peasant usually owned only his cabin, “Izba,” and the small adjoining enclosure, “ usadba.” As to the rest, he in reality had only the usufruct of the lot he was paying for. Emancipated, free, he was still bound by undivided property and by tax solidarity. (To be Continued.)