Vous consultezPeasant Marriage in Nineteenth-Century Russia

1 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 Blumand Irina Troitskaiause 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.

2 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] [1] John Hajnal, “European marriage patterns in perspective”,...
suite and Peter Laslett[2] [2] Peter Laslett and Richard Wall (eds. ), Household and Family...
suite. For them, Russian marriage, early and universal, was the purest illustration of marriage in eastern Europe, associated by Laslett with the 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] [3] Frédéric Le Play, Les ouvriers européens, Vol. II, pp.  47-69,...
suite. 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] [4] Steven L. Hoch, “Famine, disease and mortality patterns...
suite. Only a few studies have approached the demography of the Russian family using individual data and a monographic approach[5] [5] Peter Czap, “Marriage and the peasant joint family in...
suite. Another line of work has considered the Russian peasant family within its socio-political context and shown how serfdom influenced its functioning[6] [6] Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to...
suite. In general, however, such research barely touches upon the direct relation with the demographic dynamics that this system imposes.

3 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.

4 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.

5 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

6 Our study focuses on three villages in the Moscow region, Vykhino, Zhulebino and Viazovki, which today form part of south-east Moscow. Before serfdom was abolished, these villages were part of the Vykhino estate[7] [7] The vochina is a collection of lands and of peasants bound...
suite (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 and the Appendix[8] [8] The appendix gives a detailed description of these sources...
suite). Birth, marriage and death certificates were recorded in two parishes, covering the three villages studied: the church of the Resurrection in the village of Vishniaki, and the church of the Adoration of the Holy Cross in the village of Kuskovo. 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 army[9] [9] The duration of service in the imperial army changed several...
suite and soldiers’ wives. They appear occasionally in the parish registers and the confession registers, but not in the revisions.

Table 1 - Population registered in the villages of the Vykhino estate during the first half of the nineteenth century

7 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). 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.

Table 2 - Social status of newly married and deceased men on the Vykhino estate, 1815-1861 and 1862-1899

2 - The constraints of serfdom and of the patrilocal model

8 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:

9

10 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 authorization:

11

12 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.

13 The authorizations 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 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] [15] RGIA, f. 1088 op. 15, d. 462, l. 32 ...
suite”.

14 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. The patrilocal character of marriage[17] [17] The couple’s place of residence is always that of the...
suite 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 Vykhino estate’s registered population (1815-1861)

15 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 Vykhino 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] [18] Prohibitions of marriage between kindred extended to the...
suite, 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.

Women’s marriage migrations, Vykhino estate (1815-1861)

Women’s marriage migrations, Vykhino estate (1815-1861)

Table 4 - Population of the villages on the Vykhino estate, and number of marriages between 1815 and 1861 by the wife’s geographical origin

16 Moreover, women from outside the estate did not come from far away. Two-thirds of them had been living in Moscow, close to 15 kilometres away, or in surrounding villages also belonging to Count Sheremetev (Table 5).

Table 5 - Geographical origin of wives from outside the Vykhino estate (1815-1861)

17 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 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 the same time maximizing the proportion of persons finding a spouse—that is, while assuring universal marriage.

18 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 set to change, were relaxed during the decade, although we cannot yet conclude on this point. Nevertheless, the substantial and almost immediate[19] [19] Unfortunately, during the period of reform, there are gaps...
suite 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.

Proportion of newly married men and women born on the Vykhino estate (1815-1915)

Proportion of newly married men and women born on the Vykhino estate (1815-1915)

19 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.

3 - Universal marriage

20 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.

21 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] [20] With the exception of inhabitants of the Caucasus, where...
suite. Russian marriage legislation also applied restrictions to marriage at an old age[21] [21] Persons over the age of sixty years wishing to marry had...
suite. These rules were strictly adhered to, but are obviously not sufficient to accurately describe actual matrimonial practices.

22 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 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.

Proportion of married or ever-married persons, by age and sex, Vykhino estate, 1816-1858

Proportion of married or ever-married persons, by age and sex, Vykhino estate, 1816-1858

4 - Age at marriage

23 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.

24 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, Vykhino estate (1815-1861)

25 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] [22] According to the 1897 census, among the rural population,...
suite. The highest observed age at marriage was 53 years for men and 45 years for women; in only seven cases was the husband over the age of 50.

26 In western European societies, wives are almost always younger than husbands; Russian observers also highlighted this in the case of Russia[23] [23] S. V. Pakhman, Obychnoe grazhdanskoe pravo v Rossii. Iuridicheskie...
suite. 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] [24] Iu. Lotman, Pushkin. Biografiia pisatelia. Stat’i i zametki...
suite. 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] [25] P. Czap, « Marriage and the peasant joint family in...
suite. To explain this “anomaly” observed from 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] [26] In a later work, P. Czap considers such marriages to be...
suite.

27 Although men are older than their wives in the majority of first marriages on the Vykhino 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 vykhino estate (first marriages, 1830-1861)

28 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).

Mean age at first marriage among peasants living on the Vykhino estate (1840-1914)

Mean age at first marriage among peasants living on the Vykhino estate (1840-1914)

Mean age at marriage and at first birth among male peasants living on the Vykhino estate

Mean age at marriage and at first birth among male peasants living on the Vykhino estate

29 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 organization 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

30 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.

Table 8 - Mean age of husbands and wives at first marriage, as a function of their Spouse’s age at marriage on the Vykhino estate

31 The marked preference for young ages is clear, and leads to what can be termed a model of waiting-time periods[27] [27] The model of waiting-time periods is traditionally called...
suite. 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.

32 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 authorization, 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 spouses by wife’s geographical origin (man’s first marriage), Vykhino estate

33 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 had 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.

6 - Widowers and never-married men competing on the marriage market

34 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] [28] In the period studied here, the Orthodox Church allowed...
suite

Table 10 - Interval separating widowhood and remarriage on the Vykhino estate (second marriages only)

35 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).

Table 11 - Marriage order for spouses on the Vykhino Estate (1815-1913)

36 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 large 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 never-married men do (Table 12). As already indicated, outside recruitment certainly became more important after 1861; it remained higher for widowers than for single men.

Table 12 - Geographical origin of the wife by order of the husband’s marriage, Vykhino estate

7 - Seasonality of marriage: Religious constraints

37 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 as soon as civil registration replaced religious records[29] [29] Jacques Houdaille clearly demonstrates this when he compares...
suite.

38 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).

Periods during which marriages were forbidden in the Orthodox calendar

Periods during which marriages were forbidden in the Orthodox calendar

39 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).

Table 13 - Distribution of marriages by day of the week on the Vykhino estate

40 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).

Marriage seasonality on the Vykhino estate, by period

Marriage seasonality on the Vykhino estate, by period

Proportion of first marriages in January and July on the Vykhino estate, by period

Proportion of first marriages in January and July on the Vykhino estate, by period

Sources

49 The copies of the parish registers and confession lists are kept in the Historical Archives of the city of Moscow, in collection 203. The revision lists are kept in the same archives, in collection 51.

50 The revisions provide information on 3,035 inhabitants of the Vykhino estate, registered from the 6th to the 10th revisions. In addition, parish registers from the two parishes covering the Vykhino 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.

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

Register of the 9th revision (26 October 1850)

52 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 Vykhino, Zhulebino 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.

Parish registers of the church of the resurrection in Vishniaki, 1823

a

Birth certificates

53 Year 1823, first section on births

[a] [a] This refers to the priest who oversees all the parishes...
suite

No Date of birth Of whom, who is born Date of baptism Godparents Month January 1 2 From the estate of His Excellence Count Dmitri Nikolaevich Sheremetev, of the village of Vykhino, is born to the peasant Petr Andreev a daughter Tatiana, baptized The same day The godfather, peasant Andrei Ivanov from the same estate of the village of Vykhino, and godmother, Vassa Stepanova, wife of peasant Ivan Vasiliev of the village of Zhulebino, were at the baptism. The prayer was said by the archpriest(a) Aleksei Grigoriev and his sexton. 2 2 From the estate of Count Nikolai Petrovich Rumiantsev, of the village of Troitskoe, is born to the peasant Alexandre Dmitriev, worker living in the village of Vykhino, a son Ivan 6 The godfather, peasant Stepan Fedorov of this same estate of Count Rumiantsev, of the village of Koiukhov, 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 Aleksei Grigoriev and the parish clergy. 3 3 From the Muscovite bourgeois of the Sretenskaia suburb, Iuda Ivanov, living and working in the village of Zhulebino, is born a daughter Maria The same day The godfather, peasant Fedor Fedorov of the village of Zhulebino, and godmother, the maiden Praskovia Mihailova, daughter of the peasant Mihail Petrov of the same village of Zhulebino, were at the baptism. The prayer was said and the baptism celebrated by the archpriest Aleksei Grigoriev and the parish clergy.

b

Marriage certificates

54 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 Vykhino, the peasant Pavel Vasiliev, in his first marriage; he took as wife the maiden Evdokia from the same village, daughter of peasant Vasili Semenov. On whom we duly made enquiries, and who were vouched for, from above mentioned estate of the 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 Aleksei Grigoriev and the parish clergy. 2 Was married from the village of Vykhino 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 On whom we duly made enquiries, and who were vouched for, from the village of Vykhino, by peasant Iakov Dmitriev, Ivan Ivanov Kapitanov and Fedor Ivanov, and from the bride’s side, from the same village, Ivan Grigoriev, Nikita Mihailov Kartashev and, from the village of Viazovki, peasant Ivan Ivanov Slovokhotnoi. This marriage was celebrated by the archpriest Aleksei Grigoriev and the parish clergy. 3 Was married from the village of Vykhino 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 village of Vykhino, by Ivan Grigoriev Kalugin, Timofei 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 Aleksei Grigoriev and the parish clergy.

c

Death certificates

55 Year 1823, third section on deaths

N° Date of death Who exactly is the deceased Age (in years) What illness caused death Who took their confession and gave communion Where are they buried Male Female Month of January 1 From the estate of His Excellence Count Dmitri Nikolaevich Sheremetev of the village of Vykhino, has died the infant Pelageia, daughter of peasant Gerasim Gavrilov 3 months Buried on the 4th. The burial mass was celebrated by archpriest Aleksei Grigoriev and the parish clergy. 2 20 From the village of Vykhino has died the infant Natalia, daughter of peasant Aleksei Ivanov 6 months Buried the 22nd in the public cemetery. The burial mass was celebrated by archpriest Aleksei Grigoriev and the parish clergy. 3 20 Died a Christian death in repentance Marfa Petrova, of the village of Viazovki, wife of peasant Nikolai Vasiliev, at the age of 51 Consumption Buried the 22nd in the public cemetery. The burial mass was celebrated by archpriest Aleksei Grigoriev and the parish clergy. Month of February 4 7 Died a Christian death in repentance the widow Ustinia Mihailova, peasant’s wife, from the village of Vykhino, at the age of 78 Old age Buried the 9th in the public cemetery. The burial mass was celebrated by archpriest Aleksei Grigoriev and the parish clergy.

Confession list for the church of the resurrection at Vishniaki (15 September 1849)

56 15 September 1849

57 Register of the district of Moscow of the deciatine of Vykhino 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.

58 …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.

59 This extract was signed by the hand of Petr Semenov, priest of the village of Vishniaki.

60 This extract was signed by Aleksandr Nikitin, deacon of the village of Vishniaki.

61 This extract was signed by Dmitri Ivanov, sexton of the village of Vishniaki.

62 This extract was signed by Dmitri Vasiliev, sexton of the village of Vishniaki.