The Russian village community, as has been stated above, was a compound integer of which the unit was the communistic household. The individualistic tendency of the economic evolution after the emancipation did not fail to affect this cell of archaic communism. The dissolution of the compound family became the evil of the day within the village, and the most warmly discussed topic both in literature and in administrative circles. The peasantist regarded the decline of the “pillars”[94] of Archaic communism with the deepest regret. “O tempora, o mores!” clamored the bureaucrat, indignant at the spirit of “disobedience to the elder” which was permeating the village. Of greater importance, perhaps, was the perfectly justified apprehension as to whether the dissolution of the peasant family might not have an injurious effect upon the taxpaying power of the household. It might be questioned by individualists whether the peasant, as a human being, was necessarily to be guided in his domestic life solely by regard for the public purse, but from the standpoint of Russian public law, such objections do not hold water. To use an analogy, the stock farmer, when mating his animals, does not take in consideration the possible condition of their mutual affection, his object being solely the maintenance and improvement of the breed. Is not the wise ruler the shepherd of his human flock? Thus about 1885[95] a law was passed forbidding the “self-willed” division of the compound family without due authorization by the village assembly, whose resolutions are subject to the control of the officers of the State.
This new dictate of paternalism has certainly caused much annoyance in the village, and it must unquestionably have failed in achieving the desired end. The matter has been excellently elucidated by Mr. Gleb Oospensky, one of Russia’s foremost writers, as well as by Mrs. Epheemenko and Prof. Engelhardt.
So long as the occupations of all the members of the family were identical, the tie of co-operation bound them closely together. The income of the family, due to their collective labor, constituted accordingly their collective property. The authority of the “major” of the household was respected on the ground of his greater experience, which comes with age, as well as of his administrative ability.[96] When altered circumstances forced the family to look for its income to a variety of sources, the basis of the ancient household received a fatal shock. The carpenter who worked all through the summer in some far distant town was no longer an active member of the agricultural co-operative circle. On the other hand, his income being greater than that of his elder brother who was still employed as a farm laborer in the neighborhood, the spirit of individualism revolted against the old communistic rule. The age-long despotism of the elder over the younger members of the family became unendurable. The women, who had to suffer most, were the champions in this “fight for individuality.”[97] The head of the family could oppose no moral authority to this spirit of “disregard of age,” inasmuch as, with all his agricultural experience, he had nothing to say in industry. Thus the growing economic differentiation within the family made its dissolution into separate couples unavoidable.
This presentation of the case, made as the result of individual observation, was fully proved by the figures subsequently collected by the statisticians.
This is the comparative membership per household before, and a quarter of a century after, the emancipation, and the distribution of the peasantry according to the membership of the several families:
| I. To one family upon an average. | Gubernia of Ryazañ. | Gubernia of Voronezh. | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ranenburg. | Dankoff. | Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitzk. | |||||||||
| 1858 | 1882 | Decrease. | 1858 | 1882 | Decrease. | 1858 | 1887 | Decrease. | 1858 | 1887 | Decrease. | |
| Total membership | 9.7 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 9.7 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 10.3 | 7.3 | 3.0 | 11.4 | 7.8 | 3.6 |
| Male workers[98] | 2.2 | 1.5 | .. | 2.2 | 1.5 | .. | 2.1 | 1.7 | .. | 2.6 | 1.8 | .. |
| II. Classification of the families to-day (1887). | Gubernia of Voronezh. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitzk. | Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitzk. | |||
| Per cent. | Per cent. | Average membership. | Average membership. | |||
| Without adult workers. | 5 | 4 | 3.0 | 3.9 | ||
| Having 1 adult worker. | 46 | } 76 | 44 | } 76 | 5.4 | 5.7 |
| ”2”workers. | 30 | 32 | 7.8 | 8.1 | ||
| ”3 or more adult workers. | 19 | 20 | 12.2 | 12.3 | ||
| II (continued). Classification of the families to-day (1882). | Gubernia of Ryazañ. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ranenburg, per cent. | Dankoff, per cent. | |||
| Without adult workers | 7 | 7 | ||
| Having 1 adult worker | 42 | } 74 | 43 | } 74 |
| ”from 1-2 adult workers inclusive | 32 | 31 | ||
| ””2-3””” | 13 | } 19 | 13 | } 19 |
| ”above 3”” ” | 6 | 6 | ||
In 1858 the average family had from two to three adult male workers above the age of 18, while in 1882 it had only from one to two male workers. This shows that before the emancipation the compound family, consisting either of the father and his married sons, or of married brothers, was the rule. To-day the typical family is represented either by a young couple with little children, or by the father and his boys below 18, who are counted only as “half-workers,” or finally by the father and one of his adult sons. In all, the family has decreased by from three to four persons. It points out plainly that separation of the younger couple from the old stock is already an accomplished fact.[99] That this individualistic tendency develops as outside jobs gain in importance in the household economy is shown by the following figures: