towards liberation by practical considerations. "It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait until it is abolished from below"—the words of the tsar liberator to the Moscow nobles remind us of Catherine, and ring truer than the reference to Turgenev.
§ 27.
THE favourable results of the liberation of the peasantry were not immediately apparent either to the peasants or to the landowners. The poet Nekrasov used the image of a tightly stretched chain, which snapped under the tension, one end striking the lord and the other the mužik. Both for lord and for peasant, liberation was effected without intermediate stages, and a considerable time had to pass before the peasant accustomed to service and the lord accustomed to command could adapt themselves to new conditions. Moreover, the first economic and financial consequences were in many cases unfortunate for both parties. All such liberations have involved a certain period of disorder and confusion, which has invariably been turned to account by speculators of every kind. Not until a shorter or longer time has elapsed do we find that the ideals and plans for which the reform was brought about are to a certain extent realised.
Thus did it happen in Russia. If we are to appreciate the essential nature of the Russian liberation we must remember first of all that the position of the serfs was not everywhere identical throughout the wide areas of Russian agricultural land. The status of the serfs was very variously regulated, and there were many degrees of serfdom. Speaking generally, there existed the two main categories previously described, but on closer analysis these may be subdivided into as many as twenty varieties. The peasant owed the landowner either personal service and labour (barščina) or else paid him yearly dues (obrok). Work and dues varied according to the locality and the circumstances of the time. The obrok was from twenty to fifty crowns; in some places there existed "half-peasants," as they were termed, who paid their lords only half the dues; and there were other variations. Obrok was paid either in kind or in money. In addition to the dues to his lord, the peasant had to pay local and national taxes (poll tax).
Noteworthy was the difference between crown peasants or state peasants and the peasants on private estates. In
