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: +-----------------+---------------------------------------+ | | Gubernia of Ryazañ. | |I. To one family +-------------------+-------------------+ | upon an average.| Ranenburg. | Dankoff. | | +----+----+---------+----+----+---------+ | |1858|1882|Decrease.|1858|1882|Decrease.| +-----------------+----+----+---------+----+----+---------+ |Total membership | 9.7| 6.4| 3.3 | 9.7| 6.4| 3.3 | |Male workers[98] | 2.2| 1.5| .. | 2.2| 1.5| .. | +-----------------+----+----+---------+----+----+---------+ | | Gubernia of Voronezh. | |I. To one family +-------------------+-------------------+ | upon an average.| Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitzk. | | +----+----+---------+----+----+---------+ | |1858|1887|Decrease.|1858|1887|Decrease.| +-----------------+----+----+---------+----+----+---------+ |Total membership |10.3| 7.3| 3.0 |11.4| 7.8| 3.6 | |Male workers[98] | 2.1| 1.7| .. | 2.6| 1.8| .. | +-----------------+----+----+---------+----+----+---------+