XOTICES RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY IN GENERAL 83 



That is to say two thirds. It is therefore permissible to claim that 

 the aga ought to be satisfied even if after the proposed division of his ciflic 

 land not the whole two thirds of its area, to which he would have a right 

 according to the preceding calculation, but a slightly less extent were as- 

 signed to him, say three fiths of the total area. The author states that the 

 aga would be inclined to relinquish this small part of his rights in conside- 

 ration of the special advantage he would derive from the division of his ciflic 

 land. He would indeed be enabled by the division, which would make him 

 a free proprietor, to emanicipate himself from the numerous annoj'ances 

 and difficulties which are often enough caused by the kmeti of Bosnia and 

 Herzegovina. 



To give an idea of them it is enough to say that a kmet who is ill dis- 

 posed to his aga can wrong him in a very simple way, b^^ neglecting, for 

 instance, the ordinary tilth of a larger or smaller part of the ciflic holding and 

 employing it as pastureland for the raising of live stock. The cause of the loss 

 which the aga thereby incurs is the fact that the latter has the right to take 

 one sixth of the crops of the land entrusted to his kmet but has no part what- 

 ever in the profits of land left as pasturage or in the profits of keeping live 

 stock. And this is not the only method by which the kmet can cause annoy- 

 ance. In such cases the law certainly gives the right to take out a penal ac- 

 tion against the kmet but in practice this expedient is too little efficacious 

 for the aga to count upon its success. It is clear therefore that the author 

 is logically justified in prophesying that the agas will receive the new agra- 

 rian reform he proposes with favour. 



Another of his statements is justified also, the statement that every aga 

 ought to be inclined to agree to the assignment to himself in free proprietor- 

 ship of only three fifths of the total area of his ciflic land, instead of the two 

 thirds to which he would actually have a right when the aforesaid division 

 of the holding was made. 



We must add that an identical double prophecy can be made in the case 

 of the kmeti. To prove this statement the author employs an argument 

 like that used in the case of the agas. 



We have already had occasion to note that the kmet has a right to two 

 thirds of the value of the products of a ciflic holding, after the amount of 

 the tithe has been subtracted from such value. The profits accruing to 

 the kmet from a holding of 60 dunum are therefore expressed by the 

 following formula : 



(3) (600-60) 2/3 = 360 crowns. 



Let us now suppose that a holding of only 40 dunum is ceded to the 

 kmet in full ownersliip The profits he will derive from it are expressed by 

 the following formula : 



(4) (400-40) X 360 crowns. 



In other words, it may be deduced from formulae (3) and (4) that when 

 a given holding is divided two thirds of its total area will accrue to the kmet. 



