HOPE FOR THE RUSSIAN PEASANTRY 595 



its immediate object the formation of a class of small proprietors who 

 would be loyal to the state, moved by gratitude for the property rights 

 granted them and the desire to retain those rights. Even small prop- 

 erty owners are in general on the side of law and order and against that 

 anarchy which destroys real wealth. Doubtless, also, the government 

 felt that so long as the peasants held land in community ownership they 

 would act as communities in other matters; and when it came to an 

 expression of grievances it could more easily deal with individuals 

 than groups. 



It may be questioned whether the mere transition from communal 

 to private ownership held in itself any salvation for the starving 

 peasantry. If the land remained split up into tiny parcels, it was a 

 matter of little moment whether the title lay with a group or with an 

 individual. About 18 per cent, of the mujiJcs already owned their land 

 in perpetuity. Exact statistics dealing with the subject are lacking, but 

 it would seem that these were for the most part no more prosperous 

 than their communistic neighbors. Some of them had so little land 

 that they were of necessity very poor. Having been offered in 1861 

 their choice between a certain number of dessiatines at a fixed price and 

 one fourth of this amount as a gift they had chosen the latter alternative. 

 Others had bought their shares from the community but received them 

 for the most part in such small parcels that they could not be worked 

 to advantage. Private ownership, therefore, where known, did not 

 always wear an alluring garb. In many places it was wholly unknown. 

 Communal ownership, on the other hand, was an old institution, gen- 

 erally prevalent and deeply ingrained in the people. They saw in it 

 safety for themselves and for their posterity. So long as the village 

 continued to own the soil there was a bit for every man and for his sons 

 and grandsons. 



In the light of these considerations it is not strange that the great 

 bulk of peasants were not inclined to take advantage of the new law. There 

 were, however, two classes to whom it appealed. One was captured by 

 the clause which provided that the family whose holding was larger than 

 it would be, were a redistribution made now, might buy, at the price 

 attached to this land in 1861, the difference between what it held and 

 what it would receive in the event of a redistribution. Land having 

 trebled in value during the last half century, such a family would of 

 course profit greatly by a purchase on these terms. The other class was 

 made up of those peasants who held parcels of land as members of a 

 community but who had taken up their abode in some city or industrial 

 center. Such were glad to receive their parcels in private ownership 

 because they could then sell them. Aside from these two classes, there 

 were of course some mujil's who seized this opportunity of getting com- 

 pact farms, which, being their own, they could work as they pleased in 



