They then set fire to the surrounding forest, and cultivated the soil until it was exhausted; then they migrated further. Inconsequence of this nomadic cultivation a great number of small hamlets were formed, which were not subject to the rulesof the mark . The necessity of periodic partition did not make itself felt, until the population was permanently fixed andbecome so large as to make the system of intermittent cultivation insufficient. This explains how the lot of each family, the Utschastok , was at first the subject of a life ownership, or even of hereditary ownership, and how partition was onlyintroduced at a later period. Exactly the same process is being carried on, even at the present day, among the Cossacks.
In the fourteenth century, we find the wolost , with its council of elders, comprising several villages ( selo ), each with theirchief ( golovi ), their " centenier " ( sofskie ), and their elders ( starostis ). In the sixteenth century, the communes still, enjoygreat independence. The code of 1497, and that of 1550, recognize and protect their privileges in the face of the nobles andthe representatives of the prince. Soon after, however, under John IV, and still more under his successor Feodor, the taxesbecome excessive, and, in order to check emigration, a ukase of 1592 attaches the peasants to the soil, and in return grantsthem a right in the soil which they cultivate. The ancient communal system differed, in some respects, from that which is inforce at the present day. Every member of the commune obtained as much land as he could cultivate. This portion was called Udel , Utschastok , and also Sherebi , a word corresponding to the Loosgüter , the lots, and recalling the drawing by lot. Thewhole of a peasant's property, with the right of enjoyment attached to it, was the Dwor . The Dwor comprised the house andgarden, or orchard ( usadba ), the cultivated land ( obsha ), of an average extent of 9 to 15 dessiatines , the meadows, thepasturage, the wood, the marsh, and the river for fishing. It was precisely the German Bauergut , or Hube . There washowever some difference between the Germanic and Russian mark . The latter remained more democratic; -- the right to alot of land being recognized in every one, even in the strangers, who could be adopted into the families without difficulty.
Among the Germans the mere inhabitants, Beisassen , were excluded from the partition; and at a very early period somefamilies had usurped a larger share, while others had allowed their right to perish. In the middle ages the Germanic mark,with the large village in the centre, was a fixed organization, closed and, so to speak, crystallized; while in Russia the Werw ,with its immense extent of uncultivated land, its widely scattered houses, and its cultivators always extending the area oftheir nomadic cultivation, was still in process of formation. (14) The Russian commune was based on the same principles asthat of the Germans and other nations, but external circumstances, and particularly the more primitive system of cultivation,modified their practical application. Even now, in the steppes of the South, the agrarian organization has hardly advanced tothe point which it had reached in Germany in the days of Tacitus. Mr Mackenzie Wallace has observed a custom there whichwas in force in Germany at the most remote period. When the boundaries are traced between two neighbouring marks,children are brought to assist at the operation, and smartly beaten, that, the fact being impressed on their memory, they maybe able to give evidence on the matter all their lives. In the fourteenth and fifteenth century, when the increase of populationmade it necessary to keep the soil in permanent cultivation by the triennial arrangement of crops, the compulsory rotation, or Flurzwang , became general. The idea that the land of the commune belonged to all the inhabitants collectively was part ofthe juristic instinct of the people; but, originally, there was no necessity for the application of the principle, because everyfamily could cultivate as much of the steppe, or forest, as it required. We can thus grasp the very important phase ineconomic progress and in the evolution of landed property, where periodic partition is preceded by the free power ofoccupation, the clan's right of eminent domain being however never lost sight of. The transformation is going on even in ourown day. In the colonies established in this century on the steppes in New Russia, there was at first the system of freeoccupation: every one took as much land and meadow as he required: but as the population increased disputes arose, to putan end to which periodic partition was introduced, and became general in the provinces of Kerson, Tauride, Woronesh, andSsamara.
The same was also the case among the Don Cossacks. Originally every one might cut down timber, cultivate land, ordepasture cattle at will; and all the territory was the undivided property of the whole nation. Subsequently the territory hadto be divided among the Stanitsas . The domain of each Stanitsa , called jart , was subject to the right of free occupation. Thepopulation, however, increasing, it was necessary to have recourse to periodic partition, which was finally regulated in 1835.
