No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2017
The uniquely Russian form of primary social organization in the countryside known as the peasant household dates from the earliest history of the Slavic peoples. Although some details of its origin have been disputed by scholars, there is no doubt that family households existed during the Kievan period of Russian history, having evolved from an earlier form of clan organization. Commonly uniting three generations of a family under one roof, the household was governed by customary law, which held that its members comprised a joint subject of ownership rights and a joint object of legal obligations. The household was represented by its head, whose authority, however, was circumscribed by the other members, who contributed their labor and earnings to the “common kettle” and took their meals from the “common bowl.“ In short, the household was both a large family and a sort of labor co-operative.
1 See 
(St. Petersburg, 1905), Vol. I; 
(Moscow, 1884), I, 53-67; 
(St. Petersburg, 1905), I, 36-38;
Kovalevsky, Maxime [sic], Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia (London, 1891), pp. 47–53;Google Scholar Φ. 
134 (1867), 1-19;
Vernadsky, George, Kievan Russia (New Haven, 1948), pp. 131-35.Google Scholar
2 The Senate acted as a Supreme Court in prerevolutionary Russia.
3
(St. Petersburg, 1914), pp. 356-60; B. Φ. 
(St. Petersburg, 1888), pp. 305-7.
4
III (1899), 70-73.
5 Ibid., pp. 73-79.
6 Ibid., p. 81.
7
3rd collection, VI, No. 3578 (March 18, 1886), Arts. 5 and 6.
8 O. 
(Moscow, 1914), p. 191.
9
Ibid., p. 197; 
(St. Petersburg, 1909), pp. 70-71.
10 It was actually referred to as a legal person in a decision of November 23, 1892. However, this had no legal basis and on December 19, 1897, the Senate merely declared itself in favor of recognizing the household as a legal person. Ibid., p. 60; 
(Moscow, 1906), p. 190.
11 For example, one tradition which was quite widespread stood in direct contradiction to the theory of family ownership. As a rule, the women in a household did not take part in the partitioning of household property but possessed their own private property consisting of their dowry and part of their personal earnings. These belongings, which commonly included some livestock and kitchen utensils, were passed down by a mother to her daughters and were entirely excluded from household ownership. Kovalevsky, Modern Customs …, p. 59; 
pp. 7-8; 
p. 89. This practice has continued down to the present day and is still referred to as a “law” in some parts of Soviet Russia. See infra, note 73.
12 Some of the proponents of the family basis of the household were S. V. Pakhman (whose study of Russian customary law is the classic work in the field), A. F. Meiendorf, V. F. Mukhin, and E. I. Yakushin. The “artel theory” was supported by F. L. Barykov, Aleksandra Efimenko, N. V. Kalachov, P. A. Matveev, and M. G. Orshanskii.
13 XayKe, pp. 199-201; Kovalevsky, Modern Customs…, pp. 55-59; Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Russia (New York, 1905), p. 84.
14
p. 70. This measure, which was designed to ensure the prompt payment of taxes, was abolished in 1903 for all cases except nonpayment of redemption dues on land. The village administration kept a list of all heads, which was regarded as legal evidence of their position. XayKe, pp. 201-5; 
p. 87.
15 In 1890, the Senate ruled that women could be heads of households if this was in accordance with local custom. XayKe, p. 200.
16 A peasant could not leave in any case if his household was in debt. p. 25.
17 However, in special cases the Land Captains were allowed to issue passports over the objection of the head. Their decision could be appealed to the provincial administration. XayKe, pp. 197-98.
18 See supra, note 4.
19
p. 69.
20 Kacco, pp. 189-90; 
pp. 99-101.
21
Ibid., pp. 101-3; p. 70.
22 Kacco, p. 189; Xayice, p. 196.
23
p. 66; pp. 107-9.
24
Ibid., 109-10; In 1900, the Senate also made it clear that the household did not inherit the private debts of its head alter his death. p. 60.
25
p. 305.
26 Kacco, p- 189; p. 77.
27
pp. 38-41.
28 Xayne, pp. 223-31.
29
(Moscow, 1919), p. 122.
30 This legislation applied only to households in repartitional communes, which comprised the vast majority. See supra, note 7.
31 The household could be partitioned without the head's consent only if it could be proved that he was guilty of either dissipation or immoral conduct. Ibid.
32
3rd collection, XXVI, No. 28392 (October 5, 1906).
33 Ibid., XXVI, No. 28528 (November 9, 1906).
34 Ibid., XXX, No. 33743 (June 14, 1910).
35 Xayice, pp. 218, 230-31; 
p . 360.
36 See infra, note 73; 
No. 10, 1922, p p . 6-7.
37 The first instructions on land distribution state that all citizens have a right to use land who desire to work it by themselves or “with the help of their family.” A later decree of March 11, 1919, is even more explicit. Art. 128 states: “The head of a household who has received or who can receive a land allotment, has a right to a garden plot at the place of his residence.” 
No. 1, Art. 3 (1917); Nos. 39-40, Art. 384 (1919); hereafter cited as 
38
candidate's dissertation (Moscow, 1939), p p. 87-89.
39 The Bolsheviks regarded the partitioning of large estates as a reactionary measure and favored the organization of the peasantry into large communal farms. The Social Revolutionaries, who still had some influence just after the Revolution, stood for the equality of land tenure and were generally on the side of peasant custom. Lenin himself admitted that equality of landholding was not a Bolshevik idea and that the peasants should be “helped” to overcome their “petty-bourgeois” traditions. 
(Moscow, 1936), pp. 113-20.
40 The discussions on the household held up the drafting process considerably. Numerous amendments were offered during the final vote on October 30, 1922. 
(Moscow, 1922); 
candidate's dissertation (Moscow, 1954).
41
(Leningrad, 1926); 
No. 10, 1924, p. 20.
42
(Gorki, 1928), p. 31; И. IИ. 
(Moscow-Leningrad, 1929), pp. 292-93.
43 See Civil Code of the RSFSR (1922), Arts. 61-65.
44
(Moscow, 1926), p. 15; 
p. 287; 
(Moscow-Leningrad, 1926), p. 110. In single-family households, custom usually required that the members turn over all their outside earnings to the family; however, in some villages near cities, only one-half of each member's earnings were paid into the “family kettle.” 
No. 1, 1927, p. 194.
45
No. 43, 1922, p. 5; ibid., No. 18, 1925, p. 499.
46 This provision aroused violent objections and it was changed by Art. 56 of the Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship in 1926, to cover only the individual member's share of household property. 
No. 48-49, 1925, p. 1486.
47 This rule was later extended to cover ordinary civil suits in criminal cases. It represented in effect a compulsory partition of household property. However, the person responsible could not be expelled from the household as a result. 
[A Commentary] (Moscow, 1927), p. 101. Article 271 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR of 1923 contained a list of household property which was not subject to distraint.
48 B. 
(Leningrad, 1925), p. 129.
49 However, at first this did not cover relatives who were capable of work. 
p. 37-46, 87-89; 
No. 1, 1941, pp. 53-54.
50
No. 6, 1925, pp. 132-33.
51
p. 54.
52
(Leningrad, 1926), pp. 5-6; 
p. 99.
53 Before this decision was made, some jurists were of the opinion that household property should escheat to the state upon the death of the last member. 
p. 31; 
No. 19-20, 1924, pp. 453-54.
54
pp. 41-42.
55 Land Code of the RSFSR, Art. 69.
56 CeMeHOB, 
p. 186.
57
Ibid., pp. 185-91; A. 
No. 2,1927, pp. 106-15.
58
No. 27, 1927, p. 819; 
(Moscow, 1925), pp. 232, 252, 258. In seeking to protect the poorer households, the Soviet government unwittingly provided incentives for partitions. Allotments of land, credit, timber, etc., were by household while the tax structure also favored the smaller households. Many households partitioned merely to obtain more of these benefits. 
No. 35, 1928, pp. 954-55; ibid., No. 17, 1922, p. 4; 
No. 8,1924, pp. 2-3; ibid., No. 18,1926, pp. 4-5.
59
60 Land Code of the RSFSR, Arts. 85-89.
61
p. 300.
62
pp. 459-64. This right had been vaguely defined previously on the basis of Article 74 of the Land Code of the RSFSR, which provided for the division of movable property if the household could not be partitioned. Ibid., p. 103; 
pp. 14-15.
63 The courts had jurisdiction only if the partition did not concern land. The Land Commissions had jurisdiction in all cases where land was to be divided, even if only the division of the household property was contested. In 1924, it was ruled that once a case had been brought to a Land Commission, it could not be transferred to a court. The Land Commissions were very unpopular among the peasants and were almost abolished in 1925. 
[handbook for worker in a Land Commission] (Moscow-Leningrad, 1926); C. Π. 
No. 20,1927, p. 18; ibid., No. 24,1927, pp. 7-8.
64
p. 462; 
No. 14-15, 1922, pp. 11-12; ibid., No. 34, 1928, p . 933.
65 ibid., No. 17, 1922, pp.3-4; ibid., No. 24-25, 1922, pp. 11-12. In 1927, the village Soviets were instructed to assist the Land Commissions in deciding land cases; ibid., No. 29, 1927, p. 899.
66
candidate's dissertation (Moscow, 1951), pp. 70-71; 
No. 3, 1928, pp. 12-13; B. B., 
candidate's dissertation (Leningrad, 1948), p. 86. The Model Charter of an Agricultural Artel of 1930 neglected the household entirely. 
CCCP, No. 24, Art. 255 (1930); hereafter cited as 
67
68
No. 11, Art. 82 (1935).
69 This fact was impressed on the author in reading letters which collective farmers wrote to the Smolensk Regional Party Committee in 1936. These may be found in the Smolensk Archive, files WKP 197 and WKP 355. They are partially described in Fainsod, Merle, Smolensk Under Soviet Rule (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), pp. 378–408.Google Scholar
70
pp. 122-45; 
C. l. u n.,, No. 7, 1947, pp. 10-13. For the theory of the household as a legal person see 
1948).
71
(Moscow, 1946), p. 163; A. A. PycKOi, 
p. 42.
72 Suggestions range from all to none. One author has suggested that the membership of t h e head of t h e household in t h e collective farm is t h e decisive criterion, while another has put forth the idea that a collective-farm household can be recognized as such only if it receives its “basic income” from the collective farm. 
73 Based on personal observations and interviews by the author during the spring of 1960, while visiting the collective farms “Vladimir Il'ich” in the Moscow oblast and “Krasnyi putylovits” in the Kaliningrad oblast.
74 However, by a decree of March 6, 1956, the norms of the Model Charter were deprived of their legal force and each collective farm was to create new norms in its own charter. 
(Moscow, 1958).
75 In Soviet law the word “private” has been replaced by the word “personal.” Therefore, “personal ownership” is in fact “private ownership.“
76
pp. 146-60.
77
No. 14, 1932, p. 32 [Decree of Supreme Court of RSFSR].
78 Cited in 
candidate's dissertation (Moscow, 1954), pp. 134-36.
79
pp. 330-31. Some Soviet jurists, however, have argued against the recognition of common property in the household. 
pp. 144-46.
80
No. 39, Art. 243 (1934); ibid., No. 11, Art. 33 (1947). The 1934 law stipulated that household property could be arrested only if it increased as a result of the “plundering.“
81 This is based on a 1939 Circular of the Ministry of Justice. 
No. 7, 1943, pp. 30-31. From 1930 to 1945 the entire household was made responsible for the payment of support to a child; however, since then the responsibility has again been restricted to the individual member's share of household property. See Vladimir Gsovski, Soviet Civil Law (Ann Arbor, 1949), I, 778; 
No. 12, 1945, p p . 36-37.
82
No. 3, 1939, pp. 86-87.
83
(Moscow, 1955), pp. 29-30; 
No. 3, 1952, pp. 42-44.
84 The number of households has decreased from over twenty-five million in 1928 to less than nineteen million in 1958, despite the increase in Soviet territory. 
(Moscow, 1960), p. 349. The average membership per household was about 4.5 in 1929. Postwar figures for two collective farms, one in the Moscow oblast and one in the Tambov oblast, show an average membership of 3.2. 
CCCP (Moscow-Leningrad, 1932), pp. 401 ff.;
Krader, Lawrence, “Recent Studies of the Russian Peasant,“
American Anthropologist, V (1956), 718.Google Scholar See also
Inkeles, Alex, Bauer, Raymond, The Soviet Citizen (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 214-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85 See supra, note 73. The number of partition cases examined by people's courts fell from 168,291 in 1930, to 29,828 in 1933. However, some of this decline was due to the transfer of jurisdiction to the village social courts in 1930. 
No. 2, 1937, p. 17.
86 Rules for these “separations” were elaborated in a Decree of the Supreme Court of the USSR of July 29, 1943, which strongly emphasized the labor criterion and economic expediency in determining shares. 
(Moscow, 1946), Art. 204.
87 The village social courts, which were created in 1930, were given jurisdiction over partitions. They were designed to reduce the work load on the people's courts and to educate the peasant masses in the spirit of the new laws on collectivization. Chairmen were appointed by the village soviet and people's assessors were theoretically elected by the village assembly. There was no right of appeal and hearings were public. These courts were sharply criticized for their violation of court procedure and ignorance of law. They were abolished in the early fifties. 
Art. 531 (1930); ibid., Art. 145 (1931); ibid., Art. 180 (1932); ibid., Art. 355 (1932); ibid., Art. 503 (1932); 
PP. 189-93.
88 An Edict of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on July 8, 1944, stipulated that only registered marriages created legal rights of marriage. At first the courts used this to deny; the right of partition to wives who had entered the household of their husband but whose marriage was not registered. Later, however, such wives came to be legally regarded as outsiders working in the household (priimaki), who had full rights to a share of household property. 
No. 4, 1948, p. 24; ibid., VII (1947), 20-21; ibid., I (1955), 36-37; ibid., I (1955), 38-39.
89 Some courts, however, still deny the right of partition to elderly members on the basis of the 1927 Circular. 
1958), p. 42. In addition, there are often local residence requirements on the right to a partition. See supra, note 73.
90
pp. 46-49.
91
Ibid., p. 50; 
No. 9, 1958, pp. 113-14.
92
(Moscow, 1959), I, 100, 102. In 1950, Khrushchev proposed the creation of over 50,000 new “agricultural cities” in the countryside. The plan was to move the peasants out of their households into large communal dwellings and to allow them to receive new garden plots outside the village. On March 5, 1951, this plan was criticized in 
April 25, 1950, and March 5, 1951.
93 Based on conversations with Soviet collective farmers during the spring of 1960.
94
(Moscow, 1958); 
(Moscow, 1959), see esp. chapter on the household, pp. 129-42; 
No. 8, 1956, pp. 128-31; 
No. 2, 1955, pp. 42-48; 
No. 1, 1955, pp. 3-9; 
No. 9, 1956, pp. 73-79.
95 The author was informed in Moscow that the date of the Congress is a “state secret.“