1. Lenin, V. I., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 55 vols. (Moscow, 1958—65), 17 : 275 Google Scholar. Lenin considered the commune an economic anachronism but one with redeeming features. His views on the commune are traced by Danilov, V. P., “K voprosu o kharaktere i znachenii krest'ianskoi pozemel'noi obshchiny v Rossii,” Probletny sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi istorii Rossii : Sbornik statei (Moscow, 1971), pp. 341–59 Google Scholar

2. Trapeznikov, S. P., Leninism i agrarno-kresfianskii vopros, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1967), 1 : 372.Google Scholar

3. Ministerstvo Vnutrennikh Del, Tsentral'nyi statisticheskii komitet, Statistika setnlevladeniia 1905 g. : Svod dannykh po 50 guberniiam Evropeiskoi Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1907), p. 175.

4. Krest'ianskaia sel'sko-khosiaistvenriaia entsiklopediia, vol. 2-3 : Ekonomika i blagoustroistva derevni (Moscow and Leningrad, 1925), p. 324.

5. Oganovsky, N. P., Revoliutsiia naoborot (Rosrushenie obshchiny) (Petrograd, 1917), p. 99 Google Scholar; Dubrovsky, S. M., Stolypinskaia reforma (Leningrad, 1925), p. 108 Google Scholar; Liashchenko, P. I., Istoriia russkogo narodnogo khoziaistva (Moscow and Leningrad, 1927), p. Leningrad Google Scholar; Trapeznikov, Leninism, 1 : 203.

6. Pershin, P. N., Agrarnaia revoliutsiia v Rossii, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1966), 1 : 98–99.Google Scholar

7. Florinsky, Michael T., The End of the Russian Empire (New Haven, 1931), p. 1931 Google Scholar; Florinsky uses the phrase quoted to describe the appraisals of others; his own opinion was qualified. See also Bilimovich, Alexander D., “The Land Settlement in Russia and the War,” Russian Agriculture During the War (New Haven, 1930), pp. 342–43 Google Scholar; Pavlovsky, George P., Agricultural Russia on the Eve of the Revolution (New York, 1968; first pub. 1930), pp. 134–35Google Scholar; Naum, Jasny, The Socialised Agriculture of the USSR (Stanford, 1949), pp. 141–42 Google Scholar.

8. Geroid, Robinson, Rural Russia Under the Old Rigime (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967; first pub. 1932), pp. 215–16.Google Scholar

9. For example, Richard, Charques, The Twilight of Imperial Russia (London, 1965; first pub. 1958), pp. 178–79Google Scholar; Maurice, Dobb, Soviet Economic Development Since 1917 (New York, 1966), p. 1966 Google Scholar; Laue, Theodore Von, Why Lenin? Why Stalin? (Philadelphia and New York, 1964), p. 72 Google Scholar; Lazar Volin, “Agrarian Individualism in the Soviet Union : Its Rise and Decline,” Part 1, Agricultural History, January 1938, p. 18. Volin later modified his position; see A Century of Russian Agriculture (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. 105.

10. Treadgold, Donald W., The Great Siberian Migration (Princeton, 1957), p. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The same conclusion was reached by V. A. Kosinsky in an unpublished manuscript now in the Hoover archives, “Russkaia agrarnaia revoliutsiia,” pp. 547-48.

11. Tsentral'noe statisticheskoe upravlenie, Trudy, 8, pt. 1 : Statisticheskii eshegodnik 1918-1920 gg. (Moscow, 1921), pp. 284-332; 8, pt. 5 : Statisticheskii eshegodnik 1922 i 1923 gg. (Moscow, 1924), p. 181.

12. Statistika semlevladeniia 1905 g., pp. 174-75.

13. TsSK, Statisticheskii eshegodnik 1915, sec. 6 : 1.

14. Karpov, N. I., Agrarnaia politika Stolypina (Leningrad, 1925)Google Scholar, fold-out table p. 203; Dubrovsky, S. M., Stolypinskaia semel'naia reforma (Moscow, 1963), p. 581 Google Scholar. Most writers agree that peasants were pressured to leave the commune, though some feel that the degree of compulsion has been exaggerated. For peasant complaints reported in a Free Economic Society survey see Chernyshev, I. V., Obshchina posle 9 noiabria 1906 g. (Petrograd, 1917)Google Scholar, passim.

15. One limited study showed that 40 percent of the households replying to an inquiry on motivation in this type of group conversion had opposed the change and another 6 percent simply “went along” with the majority. See Mozzhukhin, I. V., Zemleustroistvo v Bogoroditskom uesde Tul'skoi gubernii (Moscow, 1917), p. 158.Google Scholar

16. K. R., Kachorovsky, “The Russian Land Commune in History and Today,” Slavonic and East European Review, 7 (1929) : 565–76.Google Scholar

17. Statisticheskii spravochnik po agrarnomu voprosu, pt. 1, ed. N. P. Oganovsky and A. V. Chaianov (Moscow, 1917), pp. 26-27; Lositsky, A. E., K voprosy ob izuchenii stepeni i form raspadeniia obshchiny (Moscow, 1916), p. 8 Google Scholar. No adequate record of communal redistributions had been kept, and the official estimate has been challenged. In any case, general redistributions were far less common than partial redistributions, and the absence of the former did not necessarily indicate an end of communal practices. Lositsky estimated (p. 53) that half a million of the peasants in the communes considered as nonredistributional had already appropriated their land before June 1910.

18. A. A. Manuilov, “Noveishee zakonodatel'stvo o zemel'noi obshchine,” Vestnik Evropy, November 1912, p. 248.

19. Pershin, P. N., Uchastkovoe semlepol'sovanie v Rossii (Moscow, 1922), p. 8 Google Scholar; an additional 300, 000 were formed on lands of the Peasant Land Bank. Allotment lands were those turned over to the peasantry for redemption at the time of Emancipation; an unknown number of the 1.3 million consolidations generally described as “on allotment land” actually included nonallotment land, though apparently only a small quantity. See Kofod, A. A., Russkoe semleustroistvo, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1914), p. 109.Google Scholar

20. Sovet s“ezdov predstavitelei promyshlennosti i torgovli, Statisticheskii eshegodnik na 1913 god (St. Petersburg, 1913), p. 17. Text (p. 13) indicates that data here were taken from Glavnoe upravlenie zemleustroistva i zemledeliia, Obsor deiatel'nosti semleustroitel'nykh komissii sa 1907^-1911 gg.

21. TsSK, Statisticheskii eshegodnik 1915, sec. 6 : 1.

22. Oganovsky, Revoliutsiia naoborot, p. 99; Dubrovsky, Stolypinskaia setnel'naia reforma, p. 205.

23. Liashchenko, in both his earlier work (p. 492), where Dubrovsky is cited, and in his Istoriia narodnogo khoziaistva SSSR, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (Leningrad, 1952-56), 2 : 265, speaks of 24 percent of the “general number of households in the forty provinces of European Russia” rather than of communal households. Similar usage appears in Coquin, Francois-Xavier, La Revolution russe (Paris, 1962), p. 11 Google Scholar, and in Alexandre, Michelson, L'essor econotnique de la Russie avant la guerre de 1914 (Paris, 1965), p. 149 Google Scholar. Communal households listed for the provinces (without Stavropol) in 1905 numbered 9.1 million, and the total number of peasant households in these provinces was 10.6 million.

24. Oganovsky, Revoliutsiia naoborot, p. 99.

25. Manuilov, “Noveishee zakonodatel'stvo,” p. 252.

26. Under the law of May 29, 1911, allotment land undergoing reorganization with a household's privately owned land could be reclassified as private property under certain conditions.

27. Dubrovsky and Liashchenko, both of whom referred in earlier works to the 41 percent figure as “impressive,” were to drop it in later accounts; yet it still finds currency elsewhere.

28. The figure 10, 176, 100 is used by Dubrovsky in the 1963 edition of his work, p. 205, in a table for which an archival reference is supplied (TsGIAL, fond 1291, op. 121, 1916 g., d. 75, 1. 4). The same number, however, appears in the 1926 edition, p. 108, in a similar table taken from Oganovsky (Revolintsiia naoborot, p. 99). Oganovsky does not cite a source for the figure, but his text indicates that he may have used a number for communal households that applied to 1912 (given as 10, 167, 100, possibly with a transposed digit), although his table was said to show the dissolution of the commune by May 1, 1915. The figure for 1912 tallies closely with an estimate calculated by Lositsky (Raspadeniia obshchiny, pp. 40-41) for the number of households at the end of 1912 deriving from prereform communal households. The fact that Oganovsky has used Lositsky's estimates elsewhere strengthens the possibility that this is the ultimate source of the figure.

29. The higher rate would amount to stating that since one household which had departed from a five-household commune constituted one-quarter of the remaining four, then 25 percent had departed.

30. Since only percentages were provided, it is necessary to return to the 1905 statistics for absolute numbers to determine the procedure. No allowance was made for communal households in Stavropol, but its 44, 000 appropriations were included with separations (as in the calculation yielding the 24 percent). The rate of separation drops slightly for the thirty-nine comparable provinces when Stavropol is omitted.

31. TsSK, Statisticheskii eshegodnik 1915, sec. 1 : 58.

32. Failure to provide for growth was shading statistical reports within just a few years, for example Rubakin, N. A.'s Rossiia v tsifrakh (St. Petersburg, 1912), p. 167.Google Scholar

33. Predvaritel'nye itogi Vserossiiskoi sel'skokhosiaistvennoi perepisi 1916 goda, pt. 1 : Evropeiskaia Rossiia (Petrograd, 1916), pp. 462-624. The census covered rural households “of peasant type” (see pp. xxxiii-xxxiv). Grodno, Kovno, and Kurland were not included.

34. Kofod, Russkoe zemleustroistvo, p. 22. In one sample covering some 17, 000 households on allotment land, 323 households had split after consolidation into 752 households; another 429 had divided before consolidation; see Glavnoe upravlenie zemleustroistva i zemledeliia, Zemleustroennye khosiaistva (Petrograd, 1915), p. 15. For the economic consequences see part 8.

35. The overall increase in households in the six comparable noncommunal provinces was 22.5 percent as compared with 29 percent in the remaining provinces, but because the data on western households were incomplete in both 1905 and 1916 the rate here can be only suggestive.

36. If there were still 10.2 million households in communes in the forty provinces in 1915, there should be added to these 400, 000 in the Don Region and Arkhangelsk. The total of 10.6 million communal households would have amounted to 67 percent of all households in the fifty provinces. As noted, however, the 102 million figure is highly uncertain.

37. Statistkheskii spravochnik, pp. 26-27.

38. Pershin, Uchastkovoe semlepol'sovcmie, pp. 50-51.

39. In 1905 the peasantry, through individual or group purchases, owned almost 25 million desiatins of private land (about one-fourth of all private land). This included 3.7 million desiatins owned by communes. By 1915 peasant nonallotment holdings had increased by 9.6 million desiatins, and the total area of land held by the peasantry was approximately 173 million desiatins.

40. See the comments of I. D. Koval'chenko and N. B. Selunskaia in Istoriia SSSR, 1971, no. 5, p. 211, and Koval'chenko's observations in Istoriia SSSR, 1973, no. 2, p. 72.

41. About 7 percent of the land included under consolidations actually remained in communal usage. See Pershin, Uchastkovoe semlepol'sovanie, pp. 50-51. This was primarily pasture and meadow, most difficult to individualize because of the short supply and the expense of conversion to stall-keeping.

42. Anfimov, A. M., Krupnoe pomeshchich'e khosiaistvo Evropeiskoi Rossii (Moscow, 1969)Google Scholar; Leopold, Haimson, “The Problem of Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905-1917,” Slavic Review, 23, no. 4 (December 1964) : 619–42, and 24, no. 1 (March 1965) : 1–22.Google Scholar

43. Haimson, “Problem of Social Stability,” pp. 634-36. The effects of the 1910 legislation are particularly noted here. The four-year economic revival period witnessed an urban population growth of close to 500, 000 precisely when the bulk of the 500, 000 certifications were issued, yet most of the 2 million appropriations had been completed before 1910. Land-sale statistics are frequently used as evidence of proletarianization, but contrary conclusions have been drawn from them. Cf. M. S. Simonova, “Mobilizatsiia krest'ianskoi nadel'noi zemli v period Stolypinskoi agrarnoi reformy,” Materials po istoru sel'skogo khoziaistva » krest'ianstva SSSR, vol. 5 (Moscow, 1962), and Kosinsky, V. A., Osnovnye tendentsii v mobilisatsii semel'noi sobstvennosti i ikh sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie faktory (Prague, 1925)Google Scholar