Peasant Marriage in Nineteenth-Century Russia

Peasant Marriage in Nineteenth-Century Russia Alexandre AVDEEV*, Alain BLUM** and Irina TROITSKAIA*

The great historical syntheses concerning European family models present Russia as the most typical example of the eastern model of universal marriage. Very little is known, however, about the manner in which this result was obtained in practice, nor what effect historical and social changes had on marriage timing and frequency. In this article Alexandre AVDEEV, Alain BLUM and Irina TROITSKAIA use parish registers and taxation lists to reconstitute the evolution of marriage during the nineteenth century in three rural villages near Moscow. They describe the functioning of the marriage market and the influence of serfdom. Tying peasants to a landowner and his land, this system forced those wishing to marry to do so within their community of origin. With the abolition of serfdom in 1861, this onerous constraint disappeared and the recruitment area for spouses expanded. Before and after 1861, however, marriage remained subject to the patriarchal rules of rural communities. Wives generally went to live with their husband’s family, and contributed to its wealth. The fact that marriage was not linked to the need to amass a patrimony beforehand partly explains its early and universal nature.

Contemporary representations of Russian marriage during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often draw on the analytic syntheses of European marriage developed many years ago by John Hajnal (1) and Peter Laslett (2). For them, Russian marriage, early and universal, was the purest illustration of marriage in eastern Europe, associated by Laslett with the * Centre for the Study of Population Problems, Moscow State University ** Institut national d’Études Démographiques, Paris. Translated by Heather Juby. This article is based on the findings from a project supported by the Institut national d’études démographiques and by an INTAS programme entitled Economy and Demography of the Peasant Family in Russia in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (project INTAS 2000-00586). (1) John Hajnal, “European marriage patterns in perspective”, in David Glass and D.E.C. Eversley (eds.), Population in History, London, 1965, pp. 101-143; John Hajnal, “Two kinds of pre-industrial household formation systems”, in Richard Wall (ed.), Family Forms in Historic Europe, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 65-104. (2) Peter Laslett and Richard Wall (eds.), Household and Family in Past Time, Cambridge, 1972; Peter Laslett,“Characteristics of the western family considered over time”, in Peter Laslett (ed.), Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations, Cambridge, 1977. Population-E 2004, 59(6),

2

A. AVDEEV, A. BLUM, I. TROITSKAIA

stem family model. By the mid-nineteenth century, Frédéric Le Play had already uncovered a complex family model in the Ural which in his opinion represented the archetype of a golden age of the family that had disappeared elsewhere in Europe ( 3 ) . Nineteenth-century writers often underlined the complexity of the Russian family. Beyond this theoretical framework, however, few studies have explored in detail the accuracy of this model and its rationale, and still less its functioning. Viewed as an extreme model, it was considered to be rigid and unaffected by economic or social fluctuations, even though Stephen Hoch recently demonstrated that Russian mortality during the nineteenth century was sensitive to the external shocks and hazards of an agrarian economy (4). Only a few studies have approached the demography of the Russian family using individual data and a monographic approach (5) . Another line of work has considered the Russian peasant family within its socio-political context and shown how serfdom influenced its functioning (6) . In general, however, such research barely touches upon the direct relation with the demographic dynamics that this system imposes. The Russian family is part of a specific institutional and social framework that changed radically in the middle of the nineteenth century. The constraints surrounding and shaping family formation are very different from those observed in western Europe, and part of them disappeared suddenly in 1861 with the abolition of serfdom. The period studied here, from 1815 to 1918, enables us to explore the consequences of a radical transformation in the social conditions and institutional controls that peasants experienced. The availability of data sources further justifies the choice of the period. Marriage provides one of the most obvious opportunities to express these constraints. It also makes it possible to study their actual form by contrasting the period preceding the abolition of serfdom with the one following it. Before 1861, the mobility of peasant serfs was severely restricted, and this, for example, narrowly limited the recruitment area for potential spouses. The landowner’s control over the choice of the spouse was important, and marriage was enclosed within three circles of constraints. The Czar and the Church defined the first circle, essentially a legal one operating throughout the Empire; the landowner created the second ring of restrictions by setting up a set of rules and monitoring his estate; finally, the rural community and the family head formed the third circle. (3) Frédéric Le Play, Les ouvriers européens, Vol. II, pp. 47-69, Tours, A. Mame, 1879. (4) Steven L. Hoch, “Famine, disease and mortality patterns in the parish of Borshevka,

Russia, 1830-1912”, Population Studies, Vol. 52, 3, 1998, pp. 357-368. (5) Peter Czap, “Marriage and the peasant joint family in the era of serfdom”, in David L. Ransel (ed.), The Family in Imperial Russia. New Lines of Historical Research, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago, London, 1978, pp. 103-123; Peter Czap, “‘A large family: the peasant’s greatest wealth’: Serf household in Mishino, Russia, 1814-1858”, in Richard Wall (ed.), Family Forms in Historic Europe, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 105-151; Steven L. Hoch. Serfdom and Social Control in Russia. Petrovskoe, a Village in Tambov, Chicago University Press, 1986. (6) Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1961.

PEASANT MARRIAGE IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY RUSSIA

3

Russia’s complex context during the nineteenth century is thus ideal for studying the effect of strong institutional and social constraints on a practice — in this case, marriage. This article analyses marital behaviour among Count Sheremetev’s serfs before 1861 in three Russian villages belonging to the count’s estate near Moscow. It explores the period preceding the abolition of serfdom, and the first transformations following reform. The twentieth century will not be discussed here, although our data allow for future research into the consequences of the upheavals triggered by the First World War and, later, by the revolution and the civil war.

1. The study population Our study focuses on three villages in the Moscow region, Vyhino, Joulebino and Viazovki, which today form part of south-east Moscow. Before serfdom was abolished, these villages were part of the Vyhino estate (7) ( vochina ), belonging to the Counts Sheremetev, one of the Russian Empire’s wealthiest and most powerful families. Their parish registers are available from 1815 onwards, with few gaps (for sources, see Box 1 in the Appendix (8) ). Birth, marriage and death certificates were recorded in two parishes, covering the three villages studied: the church of the Resurrection in the village of Veshniaki, and the church of the Adoration of the Holy Cross in the village of Kouskovo. The revisions (taxation counts) for this period — from the 6th, carried out in 1811 to the 10th and last, in 1858 — have also been preserved. In addition to individuals registered on the revision lists (Table 1 and Box 1), the villages also included a few free peasants, essentially former soldiers freed upon their discharge from the TABLE 1.– POPULATION REGISTERED IN THE VILLAGES OF THE VYHINO ESTATE DURING THE FIRST HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Revision 6th (September 1811) 7th (March 1816) 8th (April 1834) 9th (October 1850) 10th (May 1858)

Men

Women(a)

Total

622 509 674 664 696

– 542 710 753 777

– 1 ,051 1, 384 1 ,417 1 ,473

(a) As a result of the Senate’s decree of 28 February 1761, women had to be registered in all revisions, i.e. from the third revision onwards. Women never appeared, however, in the summary tables. For reasons unknown, the imperial decree of 18 May 1811 authorising the 6th revision requires only men to be registered. Sources: Revisions.

(7) The vochina is a collection of lands and of peasants bound to these lands, inherited through the direct patrilineal line, belonging to a single landowner and managed by a single administrator. In the rest of the article, we systematically translate this term by “estate”. The Counts Sheremetev possessed a large number of vochinas. (8) The appendix gives a detailed description of these sources and, particularly, of any gaps in them.

4


army (9) and soldiers’ wives. They appear occasionally in the parish registers and the confession registers, but not in the revisions. Box 1 Russian sources for historical demography Three sources are particularly appropriate for reconstituting and analysing demographic processes in Russian villages, especially for the villages’ Orthodox population(10). Their exact form is described in the article’s appendix. — Parish registers (births, marriages and deaths) or metricheskie knigi. According to the instructions specifying the manner to fill in the baptismal registers for the Empire’s Orthodox population, the registration of the new-born was compulsory, whether or not they had been baptised, and whether or not they died before baptism. The date of birth as well as the date of baptism had to be indicated. — Revision lists or revizskie skazki. Ten taxation counts were carried out between 1719 (1st revision) and 1858 (10th revision), the first of which was ordered by Peter I. Especially from the third revision, carried out between 1762 and 1764, all taxpayers and their families were registered; for the villages observed here, this means the peasantserfs and all relatives living in the household of which they were head. The revisions provide a wealth of information on demographic behaviour, geographic mobility, social class and family structure(11). They provide the list of inhabitants, classified by household and indicating the relationship between members of the same household, at two points in time — at the revision itself, and at the preceding one. In addition, they report on the fate (event, and year of the event) of those who were present at the previous revision but not at the current one (death, flight, draft into the army, etc.), as well as on any new events (births, in-migration) occurring between the two revisions (for all individuals still present at the current revision). We thus have in hand most of the elements necessary for a precise reconstitution of demographic processes between two revisions. — Finally, the confession registers, or ispovednye vedomosti, established every year by the parish priests, provide data on household structure(12) in the villages. They make up for the absence of revisions after the abolition of serfdom and cover a wider population than the revisions before 1861. In addition, the image of household structure they provide is also closer to that perceived by the people; the structure suggested by revisions was reflecting a fiscal reality rather than a lived one. They are also certainly the most complete source; in addition to the whole Orthodox population they contain several old believers, tradesmen, and some craftsmen (who are all registered outside the villages studied). These are left out in the present article that focuses on marriage.

The vast majority of the study population is made up of peasant-serfs before 1861, and of free peasants after the reform. Marriage and death certificates provide an image of the population’s composition (Table 2). (9) The duration of service in the imperial army changed several times between 1699 and 1874. Until 1793, soldiers enlisted for life; between 1793 and 1851, service lasted 25 years, and between 1851 and 1874, it was reduced to 15 years. In peacetime, 5 to 7 men aged 15 to 35 were recruited for every 1,000 taxable men; in wartime, this rose to 70 recruits for every 1,000 taxable men. In 1874, recruitment reform led to the creation of compulsory draft, affecting all men as they reached the age of twenty. Lots were drawn for 20% of them, and the other 80% went into the reserve. The duration of service was 15 years, with six years of active service, and nine in the reserve. (10) For the history of the decrees and other decisions leading to the creation of these sources, see A. Avdeev, A. Blum and I. Troitskaia, “Démographie historique de la Russie”, Histoire & Mesure, 1993, VIII-1/2, pp. 163-180. (11) This source was first used to estimate mortality, and is presented in Alain Blum and Irina Troitskaia, “Mortality in Russia during the 18th and 19th centuries. Local assessments based on the Revizii”, Population: An English Selection, 9, 1997, pp. 123-146. (12) Often different from those in the revisions. We will not deal with this issue in the present article, however.

Newly married 1815-1861 1862-1899 Number % Number % Serf tied to the estate (before 1861) or peasant (after 1861) Peasant belonging to the Czar’s family Temporarily obligated peasant (who has not yet purchased his land after reform) State peasant Destitute, in the Church’s care Craftsman Servant Cossack Tradesman Peasant owner Bourgeois Physician Soldier (includes reserve soldier, reserve corporal, soldier on leave) Non-commissioned officer (including in the reserve or on leave) Total

Deceased 1815-1861 1862-1899 Number % Number %

468

96.1

342

78.6

1,419 3

93.4 0.2

1

0.2

5 1

1.1 0.2

1

0.2

1 9 37 1 6 1 5

0.1 0.6 2.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3

1 7 1 66 11 435

0.2 1.6 0.2 15.2 2.5 100.0

14 22 1 1,519

1 5

0.2 1.0

2

0.4

4

0.8

5 1 487

1.0 0.2 100.0

1,264

92.2

1

0.1

0.9

1 1 19

0.1 0.1 1.4

1.4 0.1 100.0

74 11 1,371

5.4 0.8 100.0


TABLE 2.– SOCIAL STATUS OF NEWLY MARRIED AND DECEASED MEN ON THE VYHINO ESTATE, 1815-1861 AND 1862-1899

Sources: révisions et registres paroissiaux.

5

6


Before 1861, the population is divided into two distinct groups: individuals registered on revision lists (i.e. peasant-serfs) who pay taxes on the estate, on the one hand, and, on the other, freemen or those attached to other estates (workers from another village of the same landowner, tradesmen or bourgeois, etc.). Although the latter are not registered on the estate’s revisions, they are regarded as belonging to the parish.

2. The constraints of serfdom and of the patrilocal model Before the abolition of serfdom, marriages were conditioned by the self-enclosed nature of the estate; they were also patrilocal without exception. Marrying an individual from outside the estate was subject to strict rules imposed by the serf ’s owner. Thus, in a 1764 directive on the management of the Count Sheremetev’s estates, point 21 deals with the employment of workers from elsewhere: “While [peasants not belonging to the estate] are present on the estate, it is not permitted to offer them a peasant girl in marriage, and my peasants are strictly forbidden to wed a widow or young girl from outside the estate”(13).

The 1812 directives for intendants, particularly the paragraphs dealing with marriage to men and women from outside the estate, are less severe, and require above all that a number of rules be observed when applying for authorisation: “All peasants wishing to marry a widow foreign to the estate, a soldier’s wife or a maiden must without exception and in advance obtain the soldier’s wife’s official emancipation letter, and the most authentic proof of their husband’s death, from the estate administration. And when such documents have been provided and appear authentic, the central administration will give them permission to marry; in the opposite case, however, they should not marry. A peasant wishing to give his daughter, a relative or an adopted child in marriage outside the estate should apply to the administration beforehand, and should present it with all the information collected and confirmed by the rural community, while stating to which husband the maiden is given” (14) .

The ban on outside marriage was especially strict for men, as women joining the husband’s household contributed to the estate’s wealth, whereas those who remained unmarried in their parent’s home constituted a burden. The authorisations found in the Sheremetev archives for the year 1851 essentially involve daughters of poor peasants, whom the rural community allowed to depart without paying the discharge fee (see Box 2). Every request had to be submitted to the rural community’s assembly, composed of family heads, before being presented to the Count. Although this may be seen as the rural community’s strategy for getting rid of destitute girls, it should also be viewed as expressing its desire to avoid keeping unmarried women in the village, both because they were not a source (13) Quoted from K.N. Chtchepetov, Krepostnoe pravo v vottchinah Cheremetevyh ( Serfdom in the Estate of the Counts Sheremetev), Moscow, 1947, p. 272. (14) RGIA, f.1088 op.15, d.1, l.33-34.


7

of wealth and because of the moral risk they presented. This is underlined by Article 50 of the 1811 instructions for intendants, in which the estate owner expresses his impatience by observing that young women do not marry early enough, and that “having reached adult age, they fall into loose behaviour […] and end up withdrawing from the marriage market (15)”. Box 2 A few examples of authorisations granted for marriage with an individual from outside the estate (16)

Folio 28-38 Natalia Vasileva Spesivtseva, 19 years old, from the village of Joulebino, daughter of the widow Avdotia Spesivtseva, who is not sought after on the estate. The suitor, crown peasant Filipp Ivanov Boldine, of the village of Pankov, is available by mutual consent […]. Features: 19 years old, medium height, light red hair and eyebrows, grey eyes, regular nose and mouth, round chin, unblemished face. Verdict of the rural community (mir ): There is no impediment to an outside marriage, the widow Avdotia Spesivtseva not being in a position to pay the release money since her deceased husband left her with six young children and “she raises them all alone in great poverty through her own labour […] In return for the prompt payment of her tax contribution (obrok) and the other charges, for our part we grant her freedom”. Resolution of the Moscow House: Prepare a letter of emancipation without collecting the normal fee, recover only the paper cost of one silver rouble 75 kopeks.

Folio 39-46 Anisia Fedorova Priahina, of the village of Joulebino, 20 years old, is not sought in marriage on the estate because of her poverty. The suitor is from the Moscow district and province, from the estate of State Councillor and Knight Nicolas Andreevich Divov, from the village of Marousina, peasant Gavrilo Mihaïlov Sorokin. Features: Medium height, dark red hair and eyebrows, grey eyes, regular nose and mouth, round chin, pale complexion. Distinguishing feature: A small wart beneath the right eye close to the nose. Rural community’s decision: There is no impediment to an outside marriage, is not in a position to pay the emancipation fee because of her poverty.

Folio 54-61 Natalia Mihaïlova Sezemova, of the village of Vyhino, 17 years old, no suitor from the estate in view. The suitor is Egor Fedorov Tysterskov, 30 years, from the village of Kosine, registered as a state peasant. Rural community’s verdict: There is no impediment to an outside marriage, but because of acceptable circumstances, payment should be made for emancipation. However, her father Mihail Sezemov is alone and since the household was split over twenty years ago, he holds two tiagla; his family is made up of 10 souls, provides much labour, is of good conduct, and pays its charges punctually. Free his daughter without paying the corresponding money.

(15) RGIA, (16) RGIA,

f.1088 op.15, d.462, l. 32 f.1088 op.15, d. 462 “0 vypuske v postoronnee zamujestvo iz Vyhinskoï vottchiny v 1851 godu” (“Departures from the Vihyno estate during the year 1851 for reasons of marriage”).

8


Close to four marriages in five concluded before 1861 involved a man and a woman attached to the estate — that is to say, recorded on the revisions (Table 3). The vast majority of other marriages were between a man attached to the estate and a woman coming from outside the three villages. Marriage’s patrilocal character (17) was thus entirely respected. Before 1861, for the three villages taken together, we found only one case of a man moving to his wife’s place of residence. For their part, men were allowed to seek a wife outside the estate if they were unable to find one within it. In such cases, the women generally came from another estate belonging to the same landowner. TABLE 3.– DISTRIBUTION OF MARRIAGES ACCORDING TO WHETHER SPOUSES ARE PART OF THE VYHINO ESTATE’S REGISTERED POPULATION (1815-1861) Spouses’ origins

Number of marriages

Distribution (in % of all marriages)

Both spouses attached to the estate Only one spouse attached to the estate Of whom: —the man —the woman Neither spouse attached to the estate Woman’s attachment not identifiable Total

443 107

78 19

93 14 17 4 571

16 2 3 1 100

Sources: Marriage registers.

The severity of these constraints did not imply the absence of mobility, but the possibility for marital migration outside the estate was limited to women. On the other hand, a woman was free to move around between villages belonging to the same estate, and this type of migration is important within the Vyhino estate (Figure 1). Residual migration from other estates is not negligible, and acts as a remedy for demographic imbalance, as will be shown later. The many kinship links between inhabitants of these villages, coupled with very strict kinship prohibitions regarding biological kin, relations by marriage and spiritual kin (18), made it essential to recruit wives from elsewhere. The proportion of marriages in which the wife comes from another village is thus closely associated with the village population numbers (Table 4). In the smallest village, Viazovki, almost 85% of marriages involve a woman from outside the village. Moreover, women from outside the estate did not come from far away. Two-thirds of them had been living in Moscow, close to fifteen kilometres away, or in surrounding villages also belonging to Count Sheremetev (Table 5).

(17) The couple’s place of residence is always that of the husband’s father. (18) Prohibitions of marriage between kindred extended to the 7th degree

for biological kinship; they also applied to relations by marriage and to spiritual kin (godfather and godmothers, in the descending line).


9 Ined 047 05

ext A = 14

AA = 50 Joulebino

CA = 8

AB = 41

AC = 17

BA = 36

CB = 37

CC = 18

BB = 175

Viazovki

Vyhino

BC = 61 ext C = 21

ext B = 58

Figure 1.– Women’s marriage migrations, Vyhino Estate (1815-1861) AA, BB, CC: lThe wife belongs to the registered population and lives in the same village as her husband (A: Joulebino; B: Vyhino; C: Viazovki). AB, BA, AC, CA, CB, BC: The wife belongs to the registered population and lives in another village, but on the same estate. extA, extB, extC: The wife is not part of the registered population. Sources: Revisions and marriages registers.

TABLE 4.– POPULATION OF THE VILLAGES ON THE VYHINO ESTATE, AND NUMBER OF MARRIAGES BETWEEN 1815 AND 1861 BY THE WIFE’S GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN

Village

Vyhino Joulebino Viazovki Total

7th revision (1816)

Population at each revision 8th revision 9th revision 10th revision (1834) (1850) (1858)

M

W

M

W

M

W

M

W

255 155 99 509

289 167 86 542

339 202 133 674

362 220 128 710

398 141 125 664

454 169 130 753

418 147 131 696

476 166 135 777

Number of marriages Wife from Wife from the another village inside or outside village the estate 175 50 18 243

136 58 99 293

Sources: Revisions and marriage registers.

This first analysis suggests that the only justification for a peasant seeking a wife outside the estate is the absence of a suitable wife in the three villages. Minimum mobility is the rule, with each village trying to keep its women; when the search proved fruitless, departures or arrivals

10

A. AVDEEV, A. BLUM, I. TROITSKAIA TABLE 5.– GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN OF WIVES FROM OUTSIDE THE VYHINO ESTATE (1815-1861) Wife’s origin

Moscow Surrounding villages Other district within the government of Moscow Other government Not indicated or not identified Total

Number of marriages

Distribution (in %)

17 41

18.3 44.1

19 3 13 93

20.4 3.2 14.0 100.0


occur to ensure universal marriage. Are these exchanges? Does the landowner or the rural community have an influence on this process? At present, we do not have the answer. Nonetheless, the operating model appears to be one minimizing the flows of moves between villages while at t h e s a m e t i m e m a x i m i z i n g t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f p e r s o n s fi n d i n g a spouse — that is, while assuring universal marriage. This does not mean that behaviour was unchanging throughout the century, nor even during the half-century before serfdom was abolished. The proportion of women coming from outside the estate actually started to rise at the onset of the decade preceding the reform. This increase is hardly noticeable, and is probably due to the growing difficulty of finding a wife on the estate, as we show later. It is also possible that rules and restrictions, which peasants already knew were to change, were relaxed during the decade, although we cannot yet conclude on this point. Nevertheless, the substantial, and almost immediate (19) , increase in the search for wives outside the estate after the reform clearly demonstrates the restrictive aspects of serfdom. Although marriage retained its patrilocal character, with most men continuing to bring their wives to live with them, from that point on their spouses came from elsewhere. By the end of the century, only 40% had been born in one of the three villages of the estate (Figure 2). They came chiefly from neighbouring villages in the Moscow district, in keeping with the classic model of rural mobility. These two trends show that, over and above the restrictions associated with serfdom, the patrilocal nature of peasant families was rooted in strong cultural values. In contrast, the recruitment of wives within the estate essentially reflected external constraints imposed on the individuals, since matrimonial mobility increased as soon as these constraints were relaxed.

(19) Unfortunately, during the period of reform, there are gaps in the marriages registers of the three villages under study, and this makes it impossible to measure the speed of the reform’s impact.


100

11

Percentage

Ined 048 05

Men 80

60

Women 40

20 1815

1835

1855

1875

1895

1915 Year

Figure 2.– Proportion of newly married men and women born on the Vyhino estate (1815-1915) Sources: Marriage registers.

3. Universal marriage The peasants’ marital status, as observed in the various revisions, corroborates the hypothesis that marital behaviour can be partially explained by the requirement of universal marriage, among men in particular. These sources provide the marital status of registered persons, as each married woman or widow is designated as “wife of”, “mother of” or “widow of”. A woman described as “daughter of”, sister of”, “grand-daughter of” or “niece of” is one who has never been married. It is impossible to determine the precise marital status from some descriptors (“aunt of”, for example), but such cases are very rare and can often be resolved using other sources. For men, the presence of a wife or children at the time of a revision supplies an answer. In the opposite case, marital status can only be deduced by checking earlier or later revisions or the parish registers. The first restrictions on age at marriage are those imposed by canon law. Until 1830, the minimum age at marriage was fixed at 13 years for women and 15 years for men; after 1830, it was raised to 16 and 18 years respectively (20) . Russian marriage legislation also applied restrictions to marriage at an old age (21). These rules were strictly adhered to, but are obviously not sufficient to accurately describe actual matrimonial practices. (20) With the exception of inhabitants of the Caucasus, where the ages were not altered. (21) Persons over the age of sixty years wishing to marry had to acquire a dispensation, and

marriage over the age of eighty was forbidden. Finally, the Church was against marriages between spouses with too wide an age gap.

12


Estimates of the proportion of married or ever-married persons by age, based on cross-sectional data from revision lists are not perfect (Figure 3), and a reconstitution by cohort would be more appropriate. The 100

Percentage

Ined 049 05

80

Ever-married

Married

60

40

Men

20

0 15

100

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Percentage

60 Age

Ined 050 05

Ever-married 80

60

Married

40

Women

20

0 15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60 Age

Figure 3.– Proportion of married or ever-married persons, by age and sex, Vyhino estate, 1816-1858 Note: The numbers used to calculate proportions are moving averages over 5 years of age. Sources: Revisions (aggregate data).


13

lines do not rise consistently, both because of the random effect of low numbers, and because of cohort effects. A shortage of men after the Napoleonic Wars, for example, directly influences the marriage of the corresponding female birth cohorts. In addition, Figure 3 was constructed by combining data from different revisions (from the 7th to the 10th). Estimates at any given age, therefore, include observations from very different generations. The results are nonetheless sufficiently clear to show that permanent celibacy was below 5% among both men and women. By the age of 25 years, approximately 90% of men and women were already married.

4. Age at marriage A number of sources can be used to obtain distributions of age at marriage. From 1838 onwards, following the 1835 law making it compulsory to record the age of newly-weds, marriage certificates included age at marriage. Combining birth and marriage certificates produces an even more precise age, but cannot be done for the whole period. The oldest birth certificates date back to 1815, and the corresponding marriage cohorts are formed starting in the second half of the 1830s. Finally, revisions provide the greatest number of indicators, making it possible to identify the age of spouses for marriages between 1815 and 1838. On the whole, the results are close, especially for first marriages (Table 6). Although the revisions provide less precise results, they are nonetheless usable and make it possible to have a complete series from the beginning of the century. TABLE 6.– MEAN AGE AT MARRIAGE ACCORDING TO VARIOUS SOURCES, VYHINO ESTATE (1815-1861) Marriage certificates

All marriages Men Women First marriages Men Women

Revisions

Birth and marriage certificates Number Age of cases

Number of cases

Age

Number of cases

Age

326 317

24.2 (± 7.2) 20.6 (± 4.5)

538 495

23.6 (± 6.9) 19.8 (± 4.1)

275 264

22.6 (± 3.5) 20.4 (± 3.2)

267 296

21.9 (± 3.8) 19.9 (± 3.4)

444 467

21.4 (± 4.1) 19.3 (± 3.1)

256 256

22.1 (± 2.8) 20.1 (± 2.6)

Note: Standard deviation in brackets. Sources: Parish registers and revisions.

Between 1815 and 1861, average age at first marriage fluctuates between 20 years and 22.9 years for men, and 19.3 years and 20.7 years for women, depending on the period (22). The highest observed age at mar(22) According to the 1897 census, among the rural population, the average age at first marriage was 21.5 years for women and 23.3 years for men. A century later, in 1989, it amounted to 20.6 and 22.2 years respectively.

14


riage was 53 years for men and 45 years for women; in only seven cases was the husband over the age of fifty. In western European societies, wives are almost always younger than husbands; Russian observers also highlighted this in the case of Russia (23). Texts from the first half of the 19th century nonetheless mention a few instances of peasant marriages where the wife was older than her husband, and the contemporary view is that these instances were not isolated ones (24) . Recent research appears to support this view. Peter Czap, studying the village of Mishino in Prince N.S. Gagarine’s estate west of the Riazan government, notes that the mean age at first marriage was slightly higher for women than men between 1814 and 1831. He also points out that men’s mean age at marriage was higher in the following period, between 1830 and 1850 (25). To explain this “anomaly” observed after 1814 onwards, Czap incriminates the decrease in the number of available young men because of the draft following the military campaign of 1812; he does not explain, however, why this situation continued until 1829. Nor does he give any indication of the extent of the draft during the years 1812-1815, although a comparison of the 1811 and 1815 revisions would have given information on this point (26). Although men are older than their wives in the majority of first marriages on the Vyhino estate, those in which women are the same age or older than their husband are also relatively common (Table 7). TABLE 7.– AGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPOUSES ON THE VYHINO ESTATE (FIRST MARRIAGES, 1830-1861) Age difference Husband younger than wife Husband same age as wife Husband older than wife: by 1 to 4 years by 5 to 9 years by 10 to 14 years by 15 years or more

Number of cases

Proportion of all marriages (%)

Average difference

57 41

18 13

2.82 (± 1.89) 0

117 65 17 19

37 21 5 6

2.42 (± 1.03) 6.31 (± 1.32) 12.24 (± 1.52) 20.00 (± 5.51)

Sources: Marriage registers. (23) S.V. Pahman, Obytchnoe grajdanskoe pravo v Rossii. Iuriditcheskie otcherki (Common Law in Russia, Legal Essay), tome 2, 1877, p. 38. (24) Iu. Lotman, Puchkin. Biografiia pisatelia. Stat’i i zametki 1960-1990. « Evgeniï Onegin ». Komentarii (Pouchkine. Biographie de l’écrivain. Articles et notes 1960-1990, « Eugène Onégine »), 1997, pp. 618-619. (25) P. Czap, « Marriage and the peasant joint family in the era of serfdom », in David L. Ransel (ed.), The Family in Imperial Russia. New Lines of Historical Research, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago, London, 1978, p. 113. (26) In a later work, P. Czap considers such marriages to be rare, and only random events, brought on by rural economic conditions: P.Czap, « ‘A large family: the peasant's greatest wealth’: Serf household in Mishino, Russia, 1814-1858 », in R. Wall (ed.), Family Forms in Historic Europe, Cambridge 1983, p. 120; on this subject, see also Mark Tolts and Anatoly Vichnevskij, Evoliutsiia bratchnosti i rojdaemosti v sovetskiï period (Evolution of marriage and fertility during the Soviet period), in Leonid Rybakovski (ed.), Naselenie SSSR za 70 let (The Population of the USSR during the Last 70 years), Moscow, 1981, p. 79.


15

These key characteristics do not indicate a rigid marriage model, however. Trends through time confirm what we observed on the basis of marital migration. The uninterrupted rise in the mean age at marriage until the late 1850s (Figure 4), for women as well as men, appears to reflect constraints in the marriage market that made it more difficult to select a partner, as a result both of the extent of kinship prohibitions and of the restrictions on marital mobility. In fact, from the moment restrictions on internal recruitment relaxed a little, at the start of the 1850s, age at marriage fell rapidly. The reform sustained this fall by opening up the possibility of choosing one’s spouse (particularly one’s wife) from elsewhere, as shown earlier. The lack of data for the decade following abolition means that we are unfortunately unable to follow the evolution of age at marriage during that period. An approximate estimation of fathers’ age at first birth, however, makes it possible to confirm the link between reform and the rapid drop in age at marriage (Figure 5). In contrast, developments starting in the mid-1870s and gaining strength at the end of the century, seem to reflect a relatively profound transformation of marriage patterns, with a much wider age gap between spouses, as men’s age at marriage increased while that of women stayed much lower. It is still too early to say whether this was due to imbalances in the marriage market or to changes in marital practices, either as a result of the constraints being lifted, of changes in rural organisation during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, or of the start of industrialization in the Moscow region. Our view, however, is that demographic constraints are not responsible, given the degree to which the system appears to stabilize at the turn of the twentieth century. At any rate, these changes confirm the extent to which serfdom modified behaviour through coercion, and show that behaviour reflected neither traditions nor socially anchored representations.

5. A distinctive marriage model The general view is that the age gap between spouses is determined by a socially privileged difference amounting to a type of norm. Thus, the older a man is when he marries, the older his spouse will be. Russian marriage before the reform, however, follows a very different model. Taking first marriages, whatever the husband’s age at marriage, the average age of his wife is the same, around 19 years (Table 8). It is almost the same from the wife’s perspective. Before 1861, whatever her age at marriage, the husband’s average age at marriage scarcely changes. However, the opening of the recruitment areas for spouses modified the pattern for wives, revealing a more complex competition between never-married men and widowers as well as a diversification of marriage strategies.

16

24

A. AVDEEV, A. BLUM, I. TROITSKAIA Age

Ined 051 05

23

22

Men

21

20

Women 19

18 1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910 Year

Figure 4.– Mean age at first marriage among peasants living on the Vyhino estate (1840-1914) Sources: Marriage registers.

26

Age

Ined 052 05

25

24

1st birth

23

22

1st marriage

21

20 1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910 Year

Figure 5.– Mean age at marriage and at first birth among male peasants living on the Vyhino estate Sources: Birth and marriage registers.

1815-1861 Mean age of wife (number of marriages) 1862-1899 Mean age of wife (number of marriages)

1815-1861 Mean age of husband (number of marriages) 1862-1899 Mean age of husband (number of marriages)

Husband’s age (1st marriages) 20 21 22

16

17

18

19

*

*

19.0 (26)

19.1 (35)

*

*

19.3 (27)

18.8 (44)

23

24

25

19.8 (50)

19.5 (38)

19.3 (31)

19.3 (30)

19.8 (25)

*

19.6 (54)

19.5 (54)

19.7 (69)

20.6 (35)

20.2 (17)

20.5 (34)

22

23

24

25

Wife’s age (1st marriages) 20 21

16

17

18

19

22.7 (21)

22.2 (41)

22.5 (44)

22.7 (50)

21.7 (57)

21.7 (18)

23.6 (24)

22.1 (15)

*

*

20.7 (20)

22.1 (52)

21.7 (65)

22.3 (80)

22.3 (71)

23.2 (42)

24.1 (43)

25.8 (26)

26.1 (17)

*


TABLE 8.– MEAN AGE OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES AT FIRST MARRIAGE, AS A FUNCTION OF THEIR SPOUSE’S AGE AT MARRIAGE ON THE VYHINO ESTATE

* Too few or no cases. Number of marriages in brackets. Sources: Birth and marriage registers.

17

18


The marked preference for young ages is clear, and leads to what can be termed a model of waiting-time periods (27) . Whatever their age, men compete on the marriage market and select wives according to a preference based not on age difference, but on absolute age—the youngest possible within the legal limits. The same goes for wives. Each year, unmarried individuals appear to choose among a group of potential partners, in accordance not with their own age, but with availability. According to this model, men’s higher age at first marriage simply follows from their later entry onto the marriage market, as the minimum age at marriage is higher for men than for women. Relating age differences to the geographic origins of each spouse clarifies the mechanism at work. Men who look for a wife outside the estate, and who have therefore received authorisation, are in fact older than those who find one in the village, and the wife they find outside is herself a little older (Table 9). TABLE 9.– MEAN AGE OF THE SPOUSES BY WIFE’S GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN (MAN’S FIRST MARRIAGE), VYHINO ESTATE Wife’s origin

Number Number of Average age Average age of marriages marriages where of husband of wife where the man’s the woman’s age (standard deviation) (standard deviation) age is known is known 1815-1861

Same village Same estate Outside the estate

21.2 (± 3.2) 20.8 (± 3.0) 22.2 (± 4.4)

19.9 (± 3.2) 19.5 (± 2.3) 20.2 (± 4.2)


21.7 (± 2.5) 21.4 (± 2.8) 22.0 (± 3.2)

19.6 (± 2.4) 19.0 (± 2.1) 20.2 (± 3.2)


22.9 (± 3.0) 23.4 (± 2.8) 22.5 (± 2.7)

19.8 (± 4.1) 18.8 (± 2.1) 19.6 (± 2.3)

205 174 73

107 101 49

125 90 152

122 88 140

82 39 136

82 39 134

1862-1899

1900-1913

Sources: Birth and marriage registers.

Thus, in order to deal with the impossibility of making a completely closed marriage market function, men are allowed to go and choose a wife outside the estate. Before the reform, this was not a common practice but an extreme solution to the restrictions. Looking for a wife outside the village (or estate) appeared to be a last resort, when finding one within the village (or estate) had proved impossible. Once the restrictions on mobility hade been lifted, there appears to be a narrowing of the difference between the mean age of wives from the village and from outside the estate. (27) The model of waiting-time periods is traditionally called upon to explain the age at marriage distribution, but basing the explanation on different premises. See Manual X: Indirect Techniques for Demographic Estimation. New York, United Nations, 1984, p. 11.


19

6. Widowers and never-married men competing on the marriage market Remarriage was a common event, particularly among men. Of the 578 marriages recorded in the parish registers during the period 18151861, 487 were first marriages for men (84%) and 548 for women (95%). Between 1862 and 1899, the proportions are identical (of 503 marriages, 428 or 85% were first marriages for men and 474 or 94% for women). Remarriage took place very soon after widowhood, especially for men, as the average interval between widowhood and remarriage was markedly less than one year, and as 60% of male remarriages occurred less than six months after widowhood (Table 10). Finally, not a single divorce was observed in the study population during the entire century (28). TABLE 10.– INTERVAL SEPARATING WIDOWHOOD AND REMARRIAGE ON THE VYHINO ESTATE (SECOND MARRIAGES ONLY) Interval between the death of a spouse and remarriage Less than one month 1 to 3 months 3 to 6 months 6 to 12 months 1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years More than 3 years Total Average interval (months)

Second marriages Men Women Number % Number % 4 26 25 16 13 5 2 91

4 29 27 18 14 6 2 100 9.1

1 2 2 1 1 6 1 14

7 14 14 7 7 44 7 100 20.7

Note: Only includes remarriages for which the dates of widowhood and remarriage are known. Sources: Marriage registers.

Never-married men rarely married widows. Never-married women, on the other hand, married widowers more frequently — a direct consequence of more systematic remarriage among widowers than widows (Table 11).

(28) In the period studied here, the Orthodox Church allowed divorce for reasons strictly defined by law, usually after authorisation from the Holy Synod (the supreme religious body in Czarist Russia). The following grounds were accepted: —Condemnation of one of the spouses to lose all rights and exile in forced labour for life. To divorce in such a situation, it was not obligatory to apply to the Holy Synod, as the representative of the diocese (eparhiâ) could grant permission; —adultery; —physical incapacity to live as a couple, noted after three or more years of life together, as long as this incapacity was a natural one and had not begun during the course of the marriage. —absence of one spouse absent during more than five years; —decision of the spouses to enter monastic life. In the Veshniaki parish registers during the period 1815-1918, a single case of divorce is recorded; the divorcee is a Russian Army colonel, and the grounds for divorce are not specified. As there was no specific register for divorces, this record was entered in the part of the register assigned for marriages.

20

A. AVDEEV, A. BLUM, I. TROITSKAIA TABLE 11.– MARRIAGE ORDER FOR SPOUSES ON THE VYHINO ESTATE (1815-1913) Marriage order for men

1st marriage Remarriage Total

1st marriage

Marriage order for women Remarriage 1815-1861

Total

478 70 548

9 21 30

487 91 578

1862-1899 1st marriage Remarriage Total

421 53 474

7 22 29

428 75 503

1900-1913 1st marriage Remarriage Total

273 38 311

5 19 24

278 57 335


Furthermore, throughout the period 1815-1913, the mean age of wives is higher when the husband has already been married (23.7 years if he remarries compared with 19.9 years for a first marriage). The difference remains important even if the wife is on her first marriage: the mean age at marriage of single women marrying a once-married man is 21.2 years. This shows that widowers are at a relative disadvantage compared with never-married men on the marriage market. Moreover, whatever the period, widowers look for a wife outside the village more often than nevermarried men do (Table 12). As already indicated, outside recruitment certainly became more important after 1861; it remained higher for widowers than for single men.

7. Seasonality of marriage: Religious constraints Marriage has always been strongly subjected to a monthly and weekly periodicity. In addition to religious interdictions and strictly seasonal constraints linked to agricultural work, there are also marked social preferences for certain periods. In the rural Catholic or Protestant populations of the Ancien Régime, this seasonality bore the strong imprint of religious prohibitions. This did not mean, however, that behaviour was strictly determined by religious constraints, for these seasonal influences were transformed the moment civil registration replaced religious records (29).

(29) Jacques Houdaille clearly demonstrates this when he compares the seasonality of marriage before and after the French Revolution. See Jacques Houdaille, “Un indicateur de pratique religieuse: la célébration saisonnière des mariages avant, pendant et après la révolution française (1740-1829)”, Population, 33(2), 1978, pp. 365-380.

Geographic origin of wife

1st marriage Number %

Order of the husband’s marriage Remarriage Number % 1815-1861

Same village Same estate Outside the estate Total

213 180 74 467

46 38 16 100

29 31 24 84


128 92 152 372

34 25 41 100

22 10 36 68


82 39 136 257

32 15 53 100

13 8 33 54

Total Number

%

34 37 29 100

242 211 98 551

44 38 18 100

32 15 53 100

150 102 188 440

34 23 43 100

24 15 61 100

95 47 169 311

31 15 54 100

1862-1899


TABLE 12.– GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN OF THE WIFE BY ORDER OF THE HUSBAND’S MARRIAGE, VYHINO ESTATE

1900-1913


21

22


Religious interdictions were even more numerous in the Orthodox religion, as it was virtually impossible to marry during close to nine out of twelve months. Marriages were forbidden during periods of fasting, i.e. between 16 and 21 weeks per year, on the eve of, and during, important religious festivals, as well as during Easter week and for two weeks after Christmas (Figure 6).

7th January

Marriages forbidden Beginning of Lent

15th November

8th day after Easter

14th August 8th day after Pentecost

1st August 28th June

Ined 053 05

Figure 6.– Periods during which marriages were forbidden in the Orthodox calendar

TABLE 13.– DISTRIBUTION OF MARRIAGES BY DAY OF THE WEEK ON THE VYHINO ESTATE Day of the week

Number of marriages recorded As % of the total 1815-1861 1862-1899 1900-1913 1815-1861 1862-1899 1900-1913

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total Sources: Marriage registers.

98 5 46 9 69 13 340 580

79 0 55 2 52 10 314 512

30 1 40 0 37 1 164 273

17 1 8 1 12 2 59 100

15 0 11 0 10 2 61 100

11 0 15 0 14 0 60 100


23

Clearly, these prohibitions were rigorously observed. During the 47 years prior to 1861, we found no trace of a single marriage taking place during the long fast between the beginning of Lent and the 8th day after Easter. In addition to these prohibitions, it was also impossible to marry on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays; these restrictions were just as strictly observed with only just over 5% of marriages celebrated on these days (Table 13). The combination of these interdictions and the agricultural cycle thus accounts for the observed seasonality, with four out of five marriages celebrated during the months of January, February, October and November (Figure 7). The pattern is stable before the reform (from 1815 to 1839, 49% of marriages occurred in January and February, and from 1840 to 1861, 44% occurred during these two months). It changed somewhat after 1861, when July suddenly became a popular month for weddings, at the expense of January (Figure 8). 4.0

Pour 1 mariage en moyenne par mois

Ined 054 05

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0

1862-1899 1.5

1900-1914 1.0

1800-1861

0.5 0.0 Jan.

Feb.

March

April

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec. Month

Figure 7.– Marriage seasonality on the Vyhino estate, by period Sources: Marriage registers.

Conclusion Working with individual and nominal data sources has allowed a better understanding of how peasants were inserted into a series of circles of constraints that guided marriage choices without determining them.

24


50

Percentage

Ined 055 05

40

January 30

20

July

10

9 -1

-1 19

05

95 18

-1 85 18

90

89

9

9 88

87 18

75

-1

86 18

65

-1

-1 55

9

9

9 85

9 18

45

-1

84

9 18

18

35

-1

83

9 82 -1 25 18

18

15

-1

81

9

0

Period

Figure 8.– Proportion of first marriages in January and July on the Vyhino estate, by period Sources: Marriage registers.

A set of rules imposed by imperial and canon law draws a first ring of constraints: minimum (and maximum) age at marriage, kinship prohibitions — extending to the 7th degree for biological relatives, but also applied to relatives by marriage and to spiritual kin (for the latter through the descending line) —, numerous periods of the year during which marriage was not permitted, these periods being more frequent than in other Christian denominations. These rules could not be broken, as their observance was verified at the time of marriage registration. Certain prohibitions could only be circumvented formally by dispensations which were verThe landowner defined the second circle of constraints. Before 1861, he took care to keep his serfs, and thus to avoid marriages that might bring about the departure of one of them. The law offered a set of guarantees, by putting strong limits on mobility. The third circle was created by the rural community and the family head, operating within a traditional patriarchal system and exercising a strong control over the choice of the spouse. The economic and social functions of peasant marriage responded to a completely different logic in Russian villages than in the villages of western Europe. First of all, the rules here were patriarchal and virilocal, or even patrilocal (30). In the vast majority of cases, wives came to live in their husband’s home, within the (30) In other words, the couple will live in the husband’s village, and usually in the family of the husband’s father.


25

extended family (31). The relationship between marriage and the creation of a patrimony, an influential factor in the Malthusian regulatory framework in France or England during the eighteenth century, did not exist in Russia. As some late nineteenth-century agronomists have shown, the mechanism of regular redistribution of land modified the association between household size and household wealth (32) . The arrival of a wife, and eventually of her children, increased the household’s wealth and was therefore not conditional on assets having been acquired beforehand. Although the reforms resulting in the abolition of serfdom in 1861 lifted part of these constraints, especially those inhibiting mobility, the religious restrictions remained intact until 1918. For its part, the rural community’s role was reinforced to some extent after the abolition of serfdom, as it became the main agency for the regulation of behaviour and the expression of social constraints. The father also continued to play a pivotal role. The patrilocal nature of marriage was unaffected, testifying to its deep cultural roots. Nonetheless, the mobility made possible by the abolition of serfdom, and reinforced by the country’s industrialisation, weakened traditional social constraints. This study suggests that the peasants’ limited freedom of choice faced institutional constraints imposed by serfdom. Once removed, they opened the way for a different behaviour. Thus, practices that might appear to be socially determined were only partly so, since they changed in response to modifications in the nature of the circles within which peasants were inserted. This descriptive analysis has its limits, however, and we need to uncover the marriage models that will better explain how this market works. It is especially difficult to identify a space within which a mate could be chosen, beyond that imposed by the existing limits. It is equally difficult to understand the extent of possible choices open to the peasant, and the precise mechanisms that allowed for almost universal marriage. Finally, the present research does not make it possible to identify the role potentially played by social stratification within the nineteenth-century rural serf society, to which different strategies might correspond. Earlier research suggested the absence of strong stratification, and led us to think that prohibitions were almost exclusively based on the depth of the kinship relationship (33) . Only an appropriate model could demonstrate such a hypothesis, and it is still to be confirmed. (31) For further details on family structure, see Steven L. Hoch, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia. Petrovskoe, a Village in Tambov, Chicago University Press, 1986; Alexandre Avdeev, Alain Blum and Irina Troitskaia, “Family, marriage and social control in Russia. Three villages in the Moscow region”, in M. Neven and C. Carpon (eds.), Family Structures, Demography and Population. A Comparison of Societies in Asia and Europe, University of Liège, 2000. (32) In particular, Aleksandr V. Chaianov, The Theory of Peasant Economy, Homewood, Ill., 1966, American Economic Association. (33) Alain Blum, Irina Troitskaia and Alexandre Avdeev, “Family, marriage and social control in Russia – three villages in Moscow region”, paper presented at the AAASS conference, Boca Raton, September 1998.

26


Marriage in nineteenth-century rural Russia nonetheless appears to have a function and meaning that differ radically from those of rural French or English society during the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. The Russian marriage model’s first priority was to ensure early and universal marriage, leaving social strategies little leeway for guiding marital choice.

Acknowledgments. We thank two referees and the editorial board of Population, whose detailed and pertinent comments helped improve this article.


27

Appendix: sources The copies of the parish registers and confession lists are kept in the city of Moscow’s Historical Archives of the city of Moscow, in collection 203. The revision lists are kept in the same archives, in collection 51. The revisions provide information on 3,035 inhabitants of the Vyhino estate, registered from the 6th to the 10th revisions. In addition, parish registers from the two parishes covering the Vyhino population enabled us to create a data bank containing 9,977 birth certificates, 1,446 marriage certificates and 7,469 death certificates. There are several gaps in these registers, however, specified in the table below. GAPS IN PARISH REGISTERS DURING THE PERIOD 1815-1918

Birth certificates Death certificates Marriage certificates

Parish of the Resurrection (Veshniaki)

Parish of the Adoration of the Holy Cross (Kouskovo)*

1871, 1887-1888 1863-1871, 1887-1888 1863-1871, 1887-1888

1824-1829 1824-1829 1824-1829

* After 1861, it became increasingly rare to record demographic events in the parish of Kouskovo (1 or 2 certificates per year on average).

Extracts from parish registers, revision lists and confession lists are reproduced below.

28


I. Register of the 9th revision (26 October 1850)

Register of the revision of the twenty-sixth October of the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty, of the men and women, peasants or servants, from the villages of Vyhino, Joulebino and Viazovki, of the estate located in the district and government of Moscow, of Count Dmitri Nikolaevich Sheremetev, State Councillor and Knight, chamberlain of his Imperial Majesty.


29

30


Revision register 26 October 1850, government and district of Moscow, village of Vyhino Present at the Among preceding Present Families Male sex those, has revision or today departed arrived since When, No. Servants Age Age precisely 1

Nikolaï Andreev Bogtemirov

58

74

The son of Nikolaï Andreev, Mihaïl

20

36

The son of Mihaïl Nikolaev, Mitrofan, newborn The second son of Nikolaï, Rafail The third ---------------, Serafim 2

Mihaïlo Nikitin Strahov

7 19

35

2 weeks

16

27

43

The son of Mihaïlo Nikitin 1. Dmitri 2. Nikolaï 3

Vasili Ivanov Bulanov The son of Vasili Ivanov, Guri

12

} newborn

8

36

52

newborn

4

Total number of men ------- 10


31

32


Revision register 26 October 1850, government and district of Moscow, village of Vyhino Temporarily Families Female sex Present absent No. Servants Since when Age 1

2

3

The wife of Nikolaï Andreev, Maria Grigorieva

55

The daughter of said Nikolaï Andreev, Nastasia

18

The wife of Mihaïl Nikolaev, Tatiana Kondratieva

27

The wife of Mihaïl Nikitin, Agrafena Zaharova

36

The daughters of said Mihaïl, Avdotia

16

Ekaterina

14

The wife of Vasili Ivanov, Tatiana Vasilieva

40

The daughter of said Vasili, Maria

2 Total number of women ------- 8


33

34


II. Parish registers of the Church of the Resurrection in Veshniaki, 1823 a) Birth certificates Year 1823, first section on births No.

Date of birth

Month

January

1

2

From the estate of His Excellence Count Dmitri Nikolaevitch Sheremetev, of the village of Vyhino, is born to the peasant Petr Andreev a daughter Tatiana, baptised

2

2

From the estate of Count Nikolaï Petrovitch Roumiantsev, of the village of Troitskoe, is born to the peasant Alexandre Dmitriev, worker living in the village of Vyhino, a son Ivan

3

3

From the Muscovite bourgeois of the Sretenskaia suburb, Iuda Ivanov, living and working in the village of Julebino, is born a daughter Maria

The godfather, peasant Andreï Ivanov from the same estate of the village of Vyhino, and godmother, Vassa Stepanova, wife of peasant Ivan Vasiliev of the village of Joulebino, were at the baptism. The prayer was said by the archpriest(a) Alekseï Grigoriev and his sexton. The godfather, peasant Stepan Fedorov of this same estate of Count Roumiantsev, of the village of Kojuhov, and godmother Irina Alekseeva, wife of peasant Gregori Denisov from the same estate and the same village, were at the baptism. The prayer was said and the baptism celebrated by the archpriest Alekseï Grigoriev and the parish clergy. The godfather, peasant Fedor Fedorov of the village of Julebino, and godmother, the maiden Praskovia Mihaïlova, daughter of the peasant Mihaïl Petrov of the same village of Joulebino, were at the baptism. The prayer was said and the baptism celebrated by the archpriest Alekseï Grigoriev and the parish clergy.

Date of baptism The same day 6

The same day

(a)

Of whom, who is born

Godparents

This refers to the priest who oversees all the parishes of the diocese.


35

36


b) Marriage certificates Year 1823, second section on marriages No.

Whose wedding precisely

Date of wedding

Who were the guarantors

Month

21

January

1

Was married from the estate of His Excellence Count Dmitri Nikolaevich Sheremetev of the village of Vyhino, the peasant Pavel Vasiliev, in his first marriage; he took as wife the maiden Evdokia from the same village, daughter of peasant Vasili Semenov.

2

Was married from the village of Vyhino peasant Ivan Ivanov, son of Svistov [a family name], in his first marriage; he took as wife the maiden Maria Ivanova, from the same village, a peasant’s daughter.

28

3

Was married from the village of Vyhino the peasant Ivan Timofeev, in his first marriage; he took as wife the maiden Ksenia Andreeva, from the same village, a peasant’s daughter.

28

On whom we duly made enquiries, and who were vouched for, from the above-mentioned estate of the same village, by peasant Petr Petrov Sezemov, Ivan Ivanov Dolgov and the groom’s brother Semen Vasiliev Sokulev, and from the bride’s side, from the same estate and village, peasant Ivan Grigoriev Kapitanov, Stefan Kapitanov and Aleksandr Klimov. This marriage was celebrated by the archpriest Alekseï Grigoriev and the parish clergy. On whom we duly made enquiries, and who were vouched for, from the village of Vyhino, by peasant Iakov Dmitriev, Ivan Ivanov Kapitanov and Fedor Ivanov, and from the bride’s side, from the same village, Ivan Grigoriev, Nikita Mihaïlov Kartashev and, from the village of Viazovki, peasant Ivan Ivanov Slovohotnoï. This marriage was celebrated by the archpriest Alekseï Grigoriev and the parish clergy. On whom we duly made enquiries, and who were vouched for, from the above-mentioned estate of the village of Vyhino, by Ivan Grigoriev Kalugin, Timofeï Ivanov and Ivan Ivanov, and from the bride’s side, from the same village, the peasants Vasili Timofeev, Semen Ivanov and, from the village of Viazovki, Ivan Timofeev. This marriage was celebrated by the archpriest Alekseï Grigoriev and the parish clergy.


37

38


c) Death certificates Year 1823, third section on deaths Age (in years) Female

Who exactly is the deceased

Male

Female

Male

Date of death

N°

Who took What their illness Where are confession caused they buried and gave death communion

Month of January 1

From the village of Vyhino has died the infant Nathalia, daughter of peasant Alekseï Ivanov

3

20

Died a Christian death in repentance Marfa Petrova, of the village of Viazovki, wife of peasant Nikolaï Vasiliev, at the age of

51

Consumption

20

6 month

2

3 month

From the estate of His Excellence Count Dmitri Nikolaevich Sheremetev of the village of Vyhino, has died the infant Pelageia, daughter of peasant Guerasim Gavrilov

Buried on the 4th. The burial mass was celebrated by archpriest Alekseï Grigoriev and the parish clergy. Buried the 22nd in the public cemetery. The burial mass was celebrated by archpriest Alekseï Grigoriev and the parish clergy. Buried the 22nd in the public cemetery. The burial mass was celebrated by archpriest Alekseï Grigoriev and the parish clergy.

Month of February 4

7

78

Old age

Died a Christian death in repentance the widow Ustinia Mihaïlova, peasant’s wife, from the village of Vyhino, at the age of

Buried the 9th in the public cemetery. The burial mass was celebrated by archpriest Alekseï Grigoriev and the parish clergy.


39

40


III. Confession list for the Church of the Resurrection at Veshnyaki (15 September 1849) 15 September 1849 Register of the district of Moscow of the deciatine of Vyhino of His Excellence Count Dmitri Nikolaevich Sheremetev of the village of Vishniaki of the Church of the Resurrection of the priest Petr Semenov with the parish clergy serving in this church, of the persons of this parish of the status given below, where is indicated with reference to each name if they came to confession and communion during the Great Lent, or if they came only to confession but not to communion, or if they did not confess.

Indication of the action

Years since birth

125 417 — — 418 — 419 — 420 421

— Dimitri Vasiliev 488 His wife Vassa Stepanova 489 Their children: Praskovia Fedor 490 His wife Daria Andreeva Pavel 491 His wife Elena Alekseeva Their children: Andreï Mihail

55

126 422 — 423 424 425 — — 426 427 — —

— 492 — — — 493 494 — — 495 496

49

Fedor Matveev His wife Elena Petrova Their children: Vasili Ivan Fedor Tatiana Widow Katerina Alekseeva Her children: Ivan Vasiliev Petr Vasiliev His wife Uliana Alekseeva Their daughter Tatiana

Female sex

Male sex

Female sex

Male sex

House or household

No. Personnes

Who went to Who went confession to confesbut not to sion and communion, communion and for what sins

56 18

Went Went Went

23

Did not go Did not go Did not go

23 34 28

Went Went

36

Went Went Went Went

7 4

Did not go

12 11 7 4 53 20 31

Did not go Did not go Went

25 5

Did not go

127 428 Ivan Gavrilov 44 — 497 His wife Avdotia Andreeva 41 Went — 498 Their children : Anna 15 Went 429 Fedor 14 Went From the same estate the peasants of the village of Joulebino 128 430 — Ivan Iakovlev — 499 Widow Efrosinia Vasilieva 431 — Her children: Dmitri Danilov — 500 Pelageia Danilova

71

129 432 — Iakov Ivanov — 501 His wife Fekla Stepanova 433 — Their son Ivan

31

130

—

502 Widow Daria Ivanova

Who did not go to confession

Did not go Did not go Did not go

43 14 10

Did not go

Went Went

33

Did not go

4 75

Went

42


Total in the parish of this Confes- Confession church, inhabitants of Ortho- sion and without dox faith commu- communion nion M

F

Members of the clergy

9

7

Soldiers

1

3

4

6

9

20

M

F

Number of persons Did not confess Because of abToo sence or Through young other im- negligence pediments M

F

M

F

2

3

3

1

M

F

1

Total

M

F

Both sexes

9

8

17

3

6

9

8

9

17

9

20

Civil service Tradesmen, bourgeois, craftsmen or other urbanites Servants Peasants

Total

1

2

29

274 397

4

89

98 202 163

569 658

1227

297 433

4

90 101 207 167

598 701

1299

In addition, old believers

3

10

13

Total 601 711 1312 This parish comprises 172 households … With respect to what has been written above, in our parish of the Resurrection, no households have been omitted or concealed and in the registered households, apart from the above-mentioned persons no others have been hidden and those who are recorded in this register as having confessed or taking communion have truly confessed and taken communion, and those recorded as having confessed and not taken communion have truly confessed and not taken communion, and those recorded as not having confessed have truly not confessed, and there are no old believers who oppose the Holy Church other than the ones mentioned above. If one of our statements appears false or hidden, we will be sanctioned not only by losing our position but we will also be punished by the civil tribunal. This extract was signed by the hand of Petr Semenov, priest of the village of Vishniaki. This extract was signed by Aleksandr Nikitin, deacon of the village of Vishniaki. This extract was signed by Dmitri Ivanov, sexton of the village of Vishniaki. This extract was signed by Dmitri Vasiliev, sexton of the village of Vishniaki.


43

44 AVDEEV Alexandre, BLUM Alain, TROITSKAIA Irina.– Peasant Marriage in Nineteenth-Century Russia During the nineteenth century, the Russian family existed within a particular institutional and social context, very different from that of Western Europe. The constraints surrounding and shaping family formation, and especially marriage, were very strong and diverse in nature. They arose jointly from serfdom and the landowner’s power associated with it, from kinship prohibitions and religious interdictions, and from the power held by the rural community. One of these elements disappeared abruptly in 1861, with the abolition of serfdom, which had imposed severe limitations on the possibility of choosing a spouse outside the landowner’s estate. Using information contained in the revision lists (taxation counts) and parish registers, this article analyses marriage practices among Count Sheremetev’s peasant serfs before 1861, as well as the first transformations following reform, in three Russian villages near Moscow belonging to this Count’s estate. Although the abolition of serfdom led in particular to an increase in marital migrations, other characteristics such as marriage’s patrilocal nature remained unchanged, testifying to the deep cultural roots of particular marriage practices. AVDEEV Alexandre, BLUM Alain, TROITSKAIA Irina.– Le mariage paysan russe au XIXe siècle Au XIXe siècle, la famille russe est insérée dans un cadre institutionnel et social spécifique, très différent de celui observé en Europe occidentale. Les contraintes qui encadrent et modèlent la formation des familles, et notamment le mariage, sont très fortes et de nature diverse : elles relèvent à la fois du servage et du pouvoir du propriétaire foncier qui lui est associé, des interdits de parenté et des interdits religieux, et du contrôle exercé par la communauté rurale. Une partie d’entre elles disparaît brutalement en 1861, avec l’abolition du servage, qui limitait très fortement la possibilité de choisir son conjoint à l’extérieur du domaine du propriétaire foncier. À partir des informations contenues dans les révisions (dénombrements fiscaux) et les registres paroissiaux, cet article analyse les pratiques matrimoniales des paysans serfs du comte Cheremetev avant 1861, dans trois villages russes proches de Moscou appartenant au domaine de ce comte, et les premières transformations postérieures à la réforme. Si l’abolition du servage conduit notamment à une augmentation des migrations matrimoniales, d’autres spécificités comme le caractère patrilocal du mariage perdurent, témoignant d’un ancrage anthropologique profond de certaines pratiques matrimoniales. AVDEEV Alexandre, BLUM Alain, TROITSKAIA Irina.– El matrimonio rural ruso en el siglo XIX Durante el siglo XIX, la familia rusa formaba parte de un marco institucional y social específico, muy distinto del observado en Europa Occidental. Las fuerzas que enmarcaban y modelaban la formación de familias, y en particular el matrimonio, eran importantes y diversas: provenían a la vez del vasallaje y del terrateniente bajo el dominio del cual vivían, de las normas de parentesco y de las normas religiosas así como del control que ejercía la comunidad rural. Parte de estas restricciones desapareció repentinamente en 1861, con la abolición del vasallaje, que restringía fuertemente la posibilidad de escoger un cónyuge fuera del dominio del terrateniente. A través de los datos contenidos en las revisiones (enumeraciones fiscales) y en los registros parroquiales, este artículo analiza las pautas matrimoniales de los campesinos siervos del conde Cheremetev antes de 1861 en tres pueblos rusos cercanos a Moscú bajo el dominio del conde, y las primeras transformaciones posteriores a la reforma. Si bien la abolición del vasallaje condujo a un aumento de las migraciones matrimoniales, ciertas características tales como el carácter parroquial del matrimonio perduraron, lo cual revela el fuerte arraigo antropológico de ciertas prácticas matrimoniales.

Alain BLUM, Institut National d’Études Démographiques, 133 boulevard Davout, 75980 Paris cedex 20, France, Tel: 33 (0)1 56 06 21 25, Fax: 33 (0)1 56 06 21 99, e-mail: [email protected]