Since the preceding chapter was written, fresh light has been cast on the history of the Russian village group by the work of M. Kovalevsky, _Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia_ (London, 1891). According to M. Kovalevsky, the view that the peasants retained their personal liberty until the decrees of Boris Godounoff at the end of the sixteenth century deprived them of freedom of migration, is now generally abandoned by Russian scholars (pp. 210-211); and it is recognised that long before that date serfdom of a character similar to that of western Europe was in existence, over, at any rate, a considerable area of the Empire. Still more significant is another fact on which M. Kovalevsky lays great stress. It is commonly asserted, or implied, that the custom of periodical re-division of the lands of the _mir_ is a survival from ancient usage, and forms a transitional stage between common and individual ownership (_e.g._, Maine, _Ancient Law_, pp. 267-270). But M. Kovalevsky assures us that the practice is quite modern; that it dates no further back than last century; and that it was due chiefly to Peter the Great’s imposition of a capitation tax (pp. 93-97). M. Kovalevsky is none the less a strenuous supporter of the village community theory; and he is indignant with M. Fustel for “endorsing an opinion,” that of M. Tchitcherin, “which has already been refuted” by M. Beliaiev. Unfortunately he does not cite any of the facts on which M. Beliaiev relied. He himself allows that but scanty evidence can be found in old Russian documents in support of the theory (pp. 74, 82); and bases his own argument rather on what has taken place in recent centuries, from the sixteenth down to our own day, when outlying territories have been colonized by immigrants. But this is a dangerous method of proof when used by itself; it would lead, for instance, to the conclusion that because the early communities in New England were not subject to manorial lords, there had never been manorial lords in England. And even in the cases he describes, “the unlimited right of private homesteads to appropriate as much soil as each required was scrupulously maintained” (p. 80)--which is very different from the Mark of Maurer. [1] Earle, _Land Charters_, p. xlv. [2] Cf. Southbydyk in _Boldon Book_, Domesday, iv. 568; and Nasse’s remarks (_Agricultural Community_, p. 46) as to cases of purchase in Mecklenburg. [3] See Maitland, _Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_, Introduction; and also in _Engl. Hist. Rev._, 1888, p. 568; Blakesley, in _Law Quarterly Rev._, 1889, p. 113. [4] Abundant instances in Earle, _Land Charters_; cf. Fustel de Coulanges, _L’Alleu_, p. 377. [5] See Fustel de Coulanges, _L’Alleu_, ch. vi.