The relations between the Head of the Household and the other members depended on custom and personal character, and they consequently varied greatly in different families.  If the Big One was an intelligent man, of decided, energetic character, like my friend Ivan, there was probably perfect discipline in the household, except perhaps in the matter of female tongues, which do not readily submit to the authority even of their owners; but very often it happened that the Big One was not thoroughly well fitted for his post, and in that case endless quarrels and bickerings inevitably took place.  Those quarrels were generally caused and fomented by the female members of the family—­a fact which will not seem strange if we try to realise how difficult it must be for several sisters-in-law to live together, with their children and a mother-in-law, within the narrow limits of a peasant’s household.  The complaints of the young bride, who finds that her mother-in-law puts all the hard work on her shoulders, form a favourite motive in the popular poetry.

The house, with its appurtenances, the cattle, the agricultural implements, the grain and other products, the money gained from the sale of these products—­in a word, the house and nearly everything it contained—­were the joint property of the family.  Hence nothing was bought or sold by any member—­not even by the Big One himself, unless he possessed an unusual amount of authority—­without the express or tacit consent of the other grown-up males, and all the money that was earned was put into the common purse.  When one of the sons left home to work elsewhere, he was expected to bring or send home all his earnings, except what he required for food, lodgings, and other necessary expenses; and if he understood the word “necessary” in too lax a sense, he had to listen to very plain-spoken reproaches when he returned.  During his absence, which might last for a whole year or several years, his wife and children remained in the house as before, and the money which he earned could be devoted to the payment of the family taxes.

The peasant household of the old type is thus a primitive labour association, of which the members have all things in common, and it is not a little remarkable that the peasant conceives it as such rather than as a family.  This is shown by the customary terminology, for the Head of the Household is not called by any word corresponding to Paterfamilias, but is termed, as I have said, Khozain, or Administrator—­a word that is applied equally to a farmer, a shopkeeper or the head of an industrial undertaking, and does not at all convey the idea of blood-relationship.  It is likewise shown by what takes place when a household is broken up.  On such occasions the degree of blood-relationship is not taken into consideration in the distribution of the property.  All the adult male members share equally.  Illegitimate and adopted sons, if they have contributed their share