The dwelling-house, izba , with the land on which it stands, and the garden attached to it, form a private, hereditaryproperty. The owner, however, may not sell it to a person who is a stranger to the mir , without the consent of theinhabitants of the village, who have always a right of pre-emption. When a family dies out this private property returns to thecommon stock: and a family, on leaving the village, has for six months a right of removing the house, or rather the materials,which being only wood are easily carried away.
In the village communities of all countries, especially in the German mark, a similar custom exists. It admits of easyexplanation. The commune is not merely an administrative unit: it is rather a patriarchal association, an extension of thefamily, in which the ties are so close, and the joint responsibility so strict, that a stranger cannot be admitted without theconsent of the majority. Even at the present day in Switzerland, the freedom of a commune is not obtained by mereresidence; it can only be acquired by purchase or grant with the consent of the body of freemen. In the middle ages it wasthe same everywhere. In the Russian commune there is, then, no landed property completely absolute: that which exists isstill subject to the trammels of the eminent domain residing in the community.
The Russian village is composed of a number of houses constructed of beams laid one on another, like the American log-house or Swiss châlet . The gable facing the street is ornamented with a balcony; and the roof, which projects, is decoratedwith ornaments in carved wood. The dwellings never stand alone in the middle of the fields belonging to them, as inFlanders, England, Holland, and in all the countries where the soil has for centuries been divided into hereditary patrimonies.
The name of the Russian village, derevnia , has the same root as the German dorf , the Scandinavian trup , the Anglo-Saxon thorp , and the French troupe , troupeau . It signifies, as M. Julius Faucher remarks, union, aggregation, with a view to mutualprotection. (3) Men, in primitive ages, have to group together for common resistance against the attacks of enemies and beastsof prey, as well as to cultivate the soil by the association of hands and the cooperation of individual forces.
To effect the partition, surveyors, appointed by the commune, proceed to the measurement and estimation of the variousparcels of land, and to the formation of lots. According to the account of M. de Haxthausen, in certain localities they makeuse of consecrated rods or wands, of unequal length; the shorter ones being reserved for the lands of better quality, so thatthe lot may be smaller in proportion to its fertility.
All the arable land of the commune is divided into three concentric zones, which extend round the village; and these threezones are again divided into three fields according to the triennial arrangement of crops. More regard is paid to proximitythan to fertility, as this varies very little in the same district in Russia. The zones nearest the village are alone manured, everythree, six, or nine years, in the sandy region; while in the region of the black soil the use of manure is unknown. Each zone isdivided into narrow strips, from 5 to 10 metres broad, and from 200 to 800 metres long. Several parcels are combined, carebeing taken that there should be at least one in each zone and in each division of the rotation. Portions are thus formed,which are distributed by lot among the co-partners.
All the inhabitants, including women and children, assist at the drawing of lots, on which depends the determination of theparcel of ground, which each has to cultivate until the next period of partition. The drawing gives rise to but few complaints,because the shares, being composed of several small parcels, the values of which compensate one another, are for the mostpart equal. If any one can shew he is injured, he receives an additional portion, taken from the land remainingunappropriated.
Formerly the peasants held the forest and pasture in common, certain services being reserved for the lord. The meadowswere divided into lots every year and each family mowed its own parcel, or else the whole was mown in common and thehay divided. The act of emancipation of 1861 assigned exclusive ownership of the meadow and forest to the lord, contraryto the ancient law, as originally they belonged to the mir . It is an injustice, and an error in an economic point of view. If theancient communities are preserved; everything essential to their commodious existence should be granted them. They shouldseek their model in Switzerland, in the villages where the system of Allmends procures for the usufructuaries "pasturage,forest, and field," -- Weide , Wald und Feld . The forest being assigned to the lord, the peasants are made dependent on him,and the results of emancipation are, in a measure, nullified. The system of collective property can only bear its full fruit,when it is applied in its integrity and the cultivators are free citizens completely independent.
On the lands of the Crown, where there is no want of space, the mir generally holds in reserve a portion of the land, that itmay always have some for the new households that are formed; meanwhile these unallotted parcels are let for rent. By thismeans the necessity of a new partition is rendered less frequent.
On the Crown domains, the division is carried out according to the number of souls. A certain number of dessiatines (4) isfixed on for each member, doucha , and every father of a family obtains as many of these parts as he has individuals subjectto him.
