ABSTRACT
The solving of a number of problems at community meetings depended on the reputation of the peasant. The otherwise latent mechanism of public opinion appeared in blatant form during discussions of the misdeeds of community members at the meeting. Thus, when appointing a ward for an orphan, the question of the moral character of a candidate was raised. The choice of the ward depended entirely on the community. "The community collective [mir] has the right to remove from the wardship not only close relatives, but even a mother, when a mother or relatives are 'unreliable' or 'worthless' people," wrote a correspondent from Viazemsk uezd, for example. 75 The same appraisal by the community can be found in a report from Poshekhonsk uezd: a if there is a close relative, but "he is an unreliable person," another person may be appointed ward "by order of the community and the volost' authorities." 76 Poor peasants were chosen as wards at the rural gathering "if the community was sure of their incorruptible honor," reports an informant from Vologodsk uezd. 77 V. V. Tenishev, summarizing the information about wardship sent to his agency from various provinces, noted the importance in the eyes of the community of the moral character of the persons selected as guardians. A. A. Lebedeva found that the community exercised control over the behavior of the guardian among Russian peasants of the eastern Baikal area. 78
