Lieven D. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume 2: Imperial Russia, 1689-1917
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Russian society, law and economy
in 1719–24, which was levied at a single rate on all males of the lower orders,
of which the peasantry was by far the largest part. The poll tax lasted until
the 1880s. In addition, the state demanded men for its armed forces. Levies
of conscripts were raised from the lower orders for short-term service in
wartime in the seventeenth century. Peter the Great reformed and intensified
the obligation by introducing annual levies for lifetime service from 1705.The
term of service was reduced to twenty-five years in 1793, and levies were not
always raised in peacetime. Nevertheless, conscription was a heavy burden on
the peasantry. Between 1720 and 1867 over 7 million men were conscripted, the
overwhelming majority of whom were peasants.
2
The burden was reduced
by the military service reform of 1874. It is important to note that peasant
communities were held jointly responsible for all their obligations to their
landowners and the state. If some peasants or households failed to fulfil their
share, then their neighbours were expected to make up the shortfall. Joint
responsibility had its origins in pre-Petrine Russia and lasted until 1903.
Peasants did not passively accept their subordinate and exploited status, but
sought to reduce the burdens imposed on them by a variety of forms of protest.
Nevertheless, the level of exploitation by landowners and the state combined
was very high. From the early eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century, it is
likely that Russian peasants were compelled to hand over around half of the
product of their labour. State peasants may have had slightly lower burdens
than serfs. In both the earlier and later periods, peasants’ total obligations were
lower. Levels of exploitation also varied in the short term and were highest dur-
ing Imperial Russia’s frequent wars. In addition, there were regional variations:
peasants’ obligations were higher in the central than outlying regions.
3
The
peasantry’s relationship with the state and nobles was a reciprocal one. In
return for their obligations, peasants received access to allotments of land, and
some assistance in times of dearth. The balance of exchange was uneven, how-
ever, and peasants’ obligations far outweighed what they received in return.
A further influence on the ways peasants organised their lives was the
environment. From the point of view of peasant agriculture, the important
variables were soil fertility, heat and moisture. Forest soils, which were not very
fertile, predominated in northern and north-central Russia. In the forested-
steppe and open-steppe regions of south-central and south-eastern Russia,
2 See L. G. Beskrovnyi, Russkaiaarmiia i flot v XVIII veke (Moscow:Voennoe izd. Ministerstva
oborony SSSR, 1958), pp. 26–9, 33–7, 294–7; L. G. Beskrovnyi, Russkaia armiia i flot v XIX
veke (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), pp. 71–9, 86.
3 See D. Moon, The Russian Peasantry, 1600–1930 (London and New York: Addison Wesley
Longman, 1999), pp. 87–8, 115.
372
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Peasants and agriculture
however, the soil was very fertile black earth (chernozem). To the north and
north-east, the winters were long and harsh, leaving a short growing season
of only four to five months. The growing season was longer to the south and
south-east as the winters were shorter and milder. Theavailablemoisture,how-
ever, decreased from the north-west to the south-east, and the steppe regions
suffered from periodic droughts. Thus, and this was of crucial importance for
peasant agriculture, adequate and reliable heat and moisture coincided with
fertile soils only on the forest-steppe of south-central Russia (the Central Black
Earth and Mid-Volga regions), where they created very good conditions for
farming. Peasants in much of the rest of Russia had to struggle with poor soil,
long winters and the threat of untimely frosts, or with fertile soil, low rainfall
and prospect of drought.
Many historians have stressed the impact of the environment on the Russian
peasantry, in particular on the majority who, into the nineteenth century, lived
in north-central and northern Russia. A recent study, which followed in the
‘environmental-determinist’ tradition of nineteenth-century historians such as
Solov’ev and Kliuchevskii, argued that due to the ‘perfidious role of our step-
mother nature’ the peasants of the non-black earth regions were condemned
to backbreaking labour in their struggle to extract a meagre living from the
land. It was further argued that the ‘low surplus product’ of agriculture in such
conditions gave rise to ‘compensatory mechanisms of survival’, in particular
the village commune, serfdom and the autocracy, and also caused the late
development of capitalism and industry in Russia.
4
The relationship between
peasants and the environment, however, was not just one way. Peasants also
had an impact on the environment. Over the centuries, they chopped down or
burned enormous swathes of forest and cleared vast areas of steppe grasses to
prepare land for cultivation. The destruction of the natural vegetation cover
exacerbated the problem of soil erosion and, it was believed by some scien-
tists, led to climate change, making the rainfall in the steppe regions even less
reliable.
5
A third factor influencing the ways of life of the Russian peasantry was
the size and growth of the peasant population. The numbers of peasants
grew considerably over the whole period, especially from the middle of the
eighteenth century, and most quickly in the last decades of Imperial Russia.
Inside the borders of the Russian state of the middle of the seventeenth century,
4 L.V. Milov, Velikorusskii pakhar’ i osobennosti rossiiskogo istoricheskogo protsessa (Moscow:
Rosspen, 1998).
5 A.V. Dulov, Geograficheskaia sreda i istoriia Rossii: konets XV–seredina XIX v. (Moscow:
Nauka, 1983), esp. pp. 50–87, 164–83.
373
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Russian society, law and economy
the peasant population, both male and female, grew from around 9 million
in 1678 to over 20 million in 1795, 32 million in 1857 and, most dramatically, to
over 90 million by 1914–17. This was a result of natural increase, not territorial
expansion or immigration. The growth of the peasant population of Imperial
Russia as a whole was even greater due to the annexation of large territories
to the west inhabited by Ukrainian, Belorussian and Baltic peasants. The total
population of the expanding empire, 80–90 per cent of whom were peasants,
increased from around 11 million in 1678 to almost 172 million in 1917.
6
The natural increase in the peasant population was a direct result of prac-
tices, in particular near-universal and early marriage, which were encouraged
by peasant households and communities in order to promote high birth-rates.
Peasants did this for a number of reasons. One of the most important was the
need to compensate for the very high death-rates, especially infant and child-
hood mortality, so that they could ensure new generations of labourers for
their households and villages. Noble landowners also encouraged high fertility
to increase the numbers of serfs they owned.
7
A further reason to promote
high birth-rates was the abundance of land, relative to the population, that
was available for cultivation in much of Russia until at least the late eighteenth
century, but thereafter only in more outlying regions. Parallel to population
growth was peasant migration. For the most part, peasants seem to have pre-
ferred to increase agricultural production to feed their growing numbers by
extensification, i.e. bringing new land into cultivation, rather than intensifying
production by adopting new methods. The main direction of migration from
the early seventeenth century was south and south-east from the non-black-
earth regions of north-central Russia to the more fertile, black-earth regions of
the forest-steppe and, from the middle of the eighteenth century, to the open
steppe. Peasants in time largely displaced the nomadic pastoralists who had
lived on the steppe for millennia. In addition, growing numbers of peasants
moved east, across the Ural mountains, to Siberia and, from the late nine-
teenth century, to parts of Central Asia and the Far East. From the middle of
the nineteenth century, moreover, peasants moved in increasing numbers to
the empire’s growing cities. Migration to outlying areas throughout the period
6 See Moon, Russian Peasantry, p. 21; Ia. E. Vodarskii, Naselenie Rossii v kontse XVII–nachale
XVIII veka (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), p. 192; V. M. Kabuzan, ‘O dostovernosti ucheta nase-
leniia Rossii (1858–1917 gg.)’, in Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoi istorii 1981 g. (Moscow:
Nauka, 1982), p. 115.
7 P. Czap, ‘Marriage and the Peasant Joint Family in the Era of Serfdom’, in D. L. Ransel
(ed.), The Family in Imperial Russia (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978), pp. 103–23;
B. N. Mironov, ‘Traditsionnoe demograficheskoe povedenie krest’ian v XIX–nachale XX
v.’ in A.G. Vishnevskii (ed.), Brachnost’, rozhdaemost’, smertnost’ v Rossii i v SSSR (Moscow:
Statistika, 1977), pp. 83–105.
374
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Peasants and agriculture
and to urban areas towards the end siphoned off only part of the growth in the
peasant population. The ever-increasing numbers of peasants in the central
regions put ever more pressure on the land.
8
In order to support their growing numbers, cope with the environmental
conditions and meet the demands of the state and landowners, Russia’s peas-
ants, sometimes in collaboration with landowners or the state authorities,
developed practices and customs to ensure their subsistence and livelihoods
in the present and the foreseeable future. The following discussion will con-
sider, in turn, the peasantry’s ways of life in: central Russia in the hundred
years prior to the late seventeenth century; central Russia between the late
seventeenth and late nineteenth centuries; the outlying regions over this sec-
ond period; and Russia as a whole in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.
∗∗∗
Peasants in much of central Russia in the first period engaged in a variety
of economic activities that were suitable for the environment of the non-
black earth regions of north-central Russia where the majority still lived. The
mainstay of the peasant economy was arable farming. The main crops were
rye and oats: cereals that could grow in the forest soils and were hardy enough
to survive all but the most extreme fluctuations in the climate. Peasants began
to adopt the three-field system of crop rotation in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, but many still used two-field rotations or long-fallow systems, such
as ‘slash and burn’ farming in the vast forests. Half the land farmed under two-
field rotations was left uncultivated each year to allow it to recover its fertility.
In long-fallow systems, fields were cleared and cultivated for a few years before
being abandoned for longer periods. Peasants thus made very extensive use
of land which, due to the relatively low population, was still in abundance in
central Russia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Extensive systems
of farming the forested and later steppe lands of the outlying regions, where
population densities remained low, were widespread in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. The harvests achieved by peasant-farmers in central
Russia in the earlier period fluctuated dramatically. In bad years, for example
1601–3, cold, wet summers and frosts in the late spring and early autumn
destroyed the crops, leading to famine. At the other extreme, grain sown in
the ashes of trees which had been ‘slashed and burned’ could yield bumper
harvests for a year or two. On average, however, harvests returned about
three times the amount of seed sown. As well as arable farming, peasants kept
8 See Moon, ‘Peasant Migration’.
375
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Russian society, law and economy
livestock, which they grazed on pastures and in the woods in the summer, and
fed on hay and oats over the long winters. Rearing animals required around ten
times as much land to produce the same quantity of food, measured in calories,
as growing grain. Owing to the relatively low population densities, it played a
large part in the peasant economy in central Russia before the late seventeenth
century and in more outlying regions in later centuries. Peasantssupplemented
their diets by hunting game and gathering nuts, berries and mushrooms in the
foreststhat surrounded their villages. Peasantswere also involved in small-scale
handicraft production, especially items made from wood, and in trade. But,
the peasant economy in this early period was largely self-sufficient, and geared
towards subsistence and meeting unavoidable obligations to landowners and
the state.
9
The basic unit of the peasant economy, and indeed peasant life as a whole,
was the household. Investigations into tax registers have suggested that many
peasant households in central Russia prior to the middle of the seventeenth
century were small in size, typically five or six members, and simple in struc-
ture, i.e. they were nuclear families. This was because most sons left their
parents’ households and set up on their own when or shortly after they mar-
ried. From the point of view of analysing household structures, the important
point is that the typical pattern for household divisions was that sons left
their natal households before the deaths of their fathers. Most young women
left their parents’ households to live with their husbands when they married.
Almost all peasants married, moreover, and most did so in their late teens or
very early twenties. As a result of these practices, there were large propor-
tions of small, simple households.
10
Not all historians agree that small, simple
households were prevalent in Russia in this period. Private deeds and legisla-
tive documents indicate that there were also larger households with more
complex structures.
11
To the extent that small, simple households did prevail,
it suggests either that heads of households could see no reason to prevent
their adult children from breaking away, or that they lacked the means to keep
young adults under their control in their households. There were similar cus-
toms regarding marriage and household divisions in many outlying regions,
for example Siberia, throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth
9 See R. E. F. Smith, Peasant Farming in Muscovy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1977).
10 V. A. Aleksandrov, Obychnoe pravo krepostnoi derevni Rossii: XVIII–nachalo XIX v. (Moscow:
Nauka, 1984), pp. 50–3; A. L. Shapiro (ed.), Agrarnaia istoriia Severo-Zapada Rossii XVII
veka (Leningrad: Nauka, 1989), p. 56.
11 L. V. Danilova, Sel’skaia obshchina v srednevekovoi Rusi (Moscow: Nauka, 1994), pp. 262–3.
376
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Peasants and agriculture
centuries, and consequently many small, simple households. There were also
some larger households.
12
Most peasant households were grouped in villages. Village communities
organised themselves to manage relations between their members and with
the outside world. In this period, village communes in central Russia did
not generally hold their arable land in common, as became widespread in
the later period, but it was held by individual households. When heads of
households died, all their property, including the land, was divided up between
their heirs. Male heirs usually took precedence, but widows and daughters
could inherit property. The customs of household land tenure and partible
inheritance, and the possibility of women inheriting property, persisted in
many outlying regions well into the nineteenth century. There seems to have
been a connection between the practice of holding land in household tenure
and the relatively low levels of exploitation and population density in central
Russia in the earlier period and in outlying regions in the subsequent two
centuries.
A fourth aspect of the strategies peasants adopted was occasional acts
of protest against the landowners and state authorities who oppressed and
exploited them. Some peasants who engaged in protest in the central regions
before the late seventeenth century were prepared to use extreme methods,
including mass violence. Some, moreover, seem to have had radical objectives.
Peasants fled in large numbers from the central regions, where serfdom was
developing and the control and demands of the state were increasing, to seek
better and freer lives in the borderlands, where serfdom was absent and state
control limited. Many fugitives joined the Cossack communities that lived
along and beyond the southern frontier. From the late seventeenth and early
eighteenth centuries, however, large-scale peasant flight continued only from
peripheral parts of the central regions and from outlying regions further from
the centre of noble and state power. There was a religious dimension to some
peasant flight. Peasants who rejected the reforms of the Russian Orthodox
Church of the 1650s–60s, and became known as Old Believers, sought refuge
from persecution in outlying regions.
13
Some peasants resorted to more active
forms of protest. Russian peasants took part in four great revolts in the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries. Many of the rebels articulated their aims by
12 N. A. Minenko, Russkaia krest’ianskaia sem’ia v Zapadnoi Sibiri (XVIII–pervoi poloviny XIX
veka) (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1979).
13 See T. I. Smirnova, ‘Pobegi krest’ian nakanune vystupleniia S.T. Razina’, VI (1956), no.
6: 129–31; N. V. Kozlova, Pobegi krest’ian v Rossii v pervoi treti XVIII veka (Moscow: Izd.
MGU, 1983).
377
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Russian society, law and economy
claiming to support a ‘good’ tsar or a pretender, who claimed to be on the side
of the oppressed and exploited.
14
The revolts began in outlying areas among
Cossack communities and also involved townspeople and non-Russians. Each
successive revolt, however, began further from the centre of Russia, and rebel
activities were increasingly restricted to outlying regions. In 1606–7 the rebels
led by Bolotnikov (among whom there were few peasants) reached Moscow,
but this was the last time the old capital was threatened by a revolt from outside
the city. There were peasant uprisings and mass murder of noble landowners
in the mid-Volga region, 400 miles east of Moscow, during final stages of the
Razin and Pugachev revolts in 1670–1 and 1773–4. The Don Cossack rebellion
led by Bulavin in 1707–8 sparked off some peasant revolts in adjoining parts of
southern Russia, but was mostly a Cossack affair. Old Believers who lived in
outlying regions figured among the rebels under Razin, Bulavin and Pugachev.
Ukrainian peasants also joined with Cossacks in massive revolts in 1648 and
1768. All the revolts, especially that lead by Pugachev, provoked considerable
alarm and panic among the nobility and state authorities, but all were put down
by military force and mass repression. By the end of the seventeenth century,
and certainly after the suppression of the Pugachev revolt, most peasants in
central Russia recognised the futility of mass violence.
15
The practices and customs employed by peasants in the central regions in
the period prior to the late seventeenth century were developed in the contexts
of population densities and levels of exploitation that were lower than those
in much of central Russia in the subsequent two centuries, and in the envi-
ronment of the non-black-earth forested regions where most Russian peasants
lived. Some of these practices and customs continued in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries in more outlying regions, where population densities and
levels of exploitation remained relatively low.
∗∗∗
The ways of life of the peasants of central Russia began slowly to change,
leading to the emergence of new customs and practices that persisted until
the late nineteenth century and beyond. Between the late sixteenth and early
eighteenth centuries, peasants altered or replaced the practices and customs
14 See M. Perrie, ‘Popular Monarchism: The Myth of the Ruler from Ivan the Terrible to
Stalin’, in G. Hosking and R. Service (eds), Reinterpreting Russia (London: Arnold, 1999),
pp. 156–69.
15 See P. Avrich, Russian Rebels, 1600–1800 (New York: Norton, 1972); M. Khodarkovsky,
‘The Stepan Razin Uprising: Was it a “Peasant War”?’, JfGO, 42 (1994): 1–19;M.Raeff,
‘Pugachev’s Rebellion’, in R. Forster and J. P. Greene (eds.), Preconditions of Revolution in
Early Modern Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1970), pp. 169–202;V.A.Markina
and V. V. Krizhanovskaia, ‘Krest’iane Pravoberezhnoi Ukraine v bor’be za zemliu i voliu
(vtoraia polovina XVII–XVIII v.)’, VI (1992), no.1: 156–60.
378
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Peasants and agriculture
that had been used by previous generations to ensure their subsistence and
livelihoods. This was the period when many peasants in central Russia adopted
the practices of farming using the three-field crop rotation, living in large,
complex households, and holding their land in communal and repartitional
land tenure.Most peasants, moreover, resorted only to limited forms of protest.
It seems likely that peasants in central Russia developed and adopted these
practices in response to the growing restrictions and demands made on them
as a result of the development of serfdom and the state’s increasing demands,
which Peter the Great consolidated into the poll tax and regular levies of
conscripts in the early eighteenth century. The increase in exploitation was
most marked in central Russia where landowner and state control over the
peasants was greatest. From the middle of the eighteenth century, moreover,
the growing peasant population began to put pressure on the land in the central
regions. As before, the natural environment influenced the strategies peasants
devised. Regional variations became more pronounced as ever larger numbers
of peasants migrated to the fertile black-earth regions of south-central Russia.
Agriculture, especially growing grain, remained the mainstay of the peas-
ant economy in much of central Russia throughout the period between the
late seventeenth and late nineteenth centuries. Already prior to the late sev-
enteenth century, peasants in the central regions had begun to adopt the
three-field system of crop rotation. In the ‘textbook’ version of the system, the
arable land around a village was divided into three fields. Peasants sowed a
winter grain, usually rye, in the first field, a spring crop, often oats or wheat, in
the second field, and left the third field fallow to recover its fertility. The next
year, the crops were rotated, thus the first field was sown with spring grain
and so on in a three-year cycle of winter crop, spring crop, fallow in each field.
In comparison with the two-field and long-fallow systems it supplanted, the
three-field system made more intensive use of the land. It was adopted to make
the land more productive partly in response to increased demands on peasants.
Indeed, landowners sometimes initiated the transition to the three-field system
to enable their peasants to produce more to meet higher obligations. The new
system was introduced also partly as a reaction to the pressure of population
increase that rendered more extensive and less productive systems obsolete.
16
The spread of the ‘textbook’ three-field system may have been exaggerated. It
16 See R. A. French, ‘The Introduction of the Three-Field Agricultural System’, in J. H.
Bater and R. A. French (eds.), Studies in Russian Historical Geography, 2 vols. (London:
Academic Press, 1983), vol. I, pp. 65–81; M. Confino, Syst
`
emes agraires et progr
`
es agricole:
l’assolement triennal en Russie aux XVIIIe–XIXe si
`
ecles (Paris and The Hague: Mouton, 1969),
pp. 59–88.
379
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Russian society, law and economy
is likely that it coexisted with older two-field and long-fallow systems in parts
of central Russia into the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In
the forested regions of north-central Russia, many peasants practised a com-
bination of the three-field and long-fallow systems. Fields were periodically
left fallow not for one year, which was insufficient to allow the forest soil to
recover its fertility, but for several years. The abandoned fields were replaced in
the crop rotation with new fields cleared from the forests, which still existed in
large enough quantities in the vicinity of many villages into the late eighteenth
century. In the fertile black-earth regions of south-central Russia, where the
main problem for arable farmers was the struggle with weeds rather than soil
exhaustion, some peasants practised a four-field rotation: virgin land, spring
grain, winter grain, short or long fallow.
17
Peasants in central Russia between the late seventeenth and late nineteenth
centuries engaged in other economic activities. Most kept some livestock
for meat and dairy produce, as well as draught power to pull their ploughs
and to produce manure for fertiliser. The livestock kept by Russian peas-
ants tended to be small and thin. In comparison with Russian cattle, one
observer noted, English cows ‘looked like elephants’.
18
But, animal husbandry
declined in importance relative to arable farming in the central regions as more
land was ploughed up to grow grain to feed the rising population. Peasants
continued to hunt and gather in the forests and grow vegetables and other
crops in their household plots. Non-agricultural activities, such as forestry,
handicraft production, trade, and migrant labour, became more important
as sources of income for peasant households. From the middle of the eigh-
teenth century, a degree of regional specialisation developed between the non-
black-earth forested regions, where peasants devoted increasing resources to
non-agricultural activities, and the fertile black-earth regions, where agricul-
ture predominated. This, in turn, led to an expansion in interregional trade.
Production for sale became a more important, if still secondary, motive for
peasants’ economic ventures in the vicinity of urban centres or transport
arteries such as rivers. The growth in the market created more opportunities
for peasants to make a living, or to supplement farming, by trade and wage
labour.
19
17 Milov, Velikorusskii pakhar’,pp.17–27.
18 A. K. Smith, ‘Peasant Agriculture in Pre-Reform Kostroma and Kazan’ Provinces’, RH,
26 (1999): 410.
19 See V. A. Fedorov, Pomeshchich’i krest’iane tsentral’no-promyshlennogo raiona Rossii: kontsa
XVIII–pervoi poloviny XIX v. (Moscow: Izd. MGU, 1974); K. Gestwa, Proto-Industrialisierung
in Russland: Wirtschaft, Herrschaft und Kultur in Ivanovo und Pavlovo, 1741–1932 (G
¨
ottingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1999).
380
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Peasants and agriculture
Despite the development of opportunities for market-orientated produc-
tion for peasants in some areas, most Russian peasants seem generally to have
been disinclined to maximise their production and incomes, or to adopt new
methods of tilling the land. Many were averse to the drudgery of the extra
labour entailed, because of the limited opportunities in many areas to sell
surplus produce at the market, and the likelihood that most of any increases
in production would be taken away from them in increased obligations by the
state and landowners. For many peasants, producing enough food to subsist by
relying on tried-and-trusted methods was more important than experiment-
ing with new crops or agricultural techniques, which may have been more
productive but may also have been more risky. Reducing risk was also one
of the reasons why peasants engaged in different types of farming, and in
both agricultural and non-agricultural activities. If one part of a household’s
activities failed, it could be compensated for by others.
It is usuallyarguedthat peasant agriculturein Russia was not very productive
due to the low level oftechnology employed bypeasants and the environmental
conditions in whichtheyfarmed. Varioussources,including figuresreported by
many provincial governors in the late eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth
centuries, suggest that peasants in the central regions harvested around three
or three-and-a-half times as much grain as they sowed.
20
There is evidence,
however, for example data collected by the Free Economic Society and the
records of some noble estates, that some peasants attained higher average
yields, around five and six times the seed, especially in the fertile black-earth
regions of the forest-steppe in south-central Russia.
21
Average yields conceal the
main trend, which was considerable year-to-year fluctuations caused largely
by the vagaries of the climate. There were periodic bad harvests in parts of
central Russia between the late seventeenth and late nineteenth centuries.
The needs of the peasant economy, in particular agriculture, influenced
the practices and customs peasants adopted in their households and village
communities to manage their labour and land. Peasant households continued
to farm their land individually, even after their villages began to hold their
arable land in common, and household heads sought to ensure that they had
a sufficient numbers of labourers under their roofs to support their mem-
bers. As in the earlier period, household heads insisted on near-universal and
early marriage to ensure high birth rates. From the late seventeenth century,
20 Milov, Velikorusskii pakhar’,pp.162–89.
21 See N. L. Rubinshtein, Sel’skoe khoziaistvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v. (Moscow:
Gospolitizdat, 1957), pp. 353–63; S. L. Hoch, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia, Petrovskoe,
a Village in Tambov (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1986), pp. 28–36.
381