Population (english edition)
I.N.E.D
I.S.B.N.sans
200 pages
p. 721 à 764
doi: en cours
Veille sur la revue
Veille sur l'auteur
I.N.E.D
I.S.B.N.sans
200 pages
p. 721 à 764
doi: en cours
Veille sur la revue
Veille sur l'auteur
Vous consultez
Volume 59 2004/6
Peasant Marriage in Nineteenth-Century Russia
Alexandre Avdeev [*] Alain Blum [**] 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, Irina Troitskaia [*]
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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, 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] (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]). 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] 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
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 peasant-serfs 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 reflected 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). 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
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 authorization:
“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 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]”.
Box 2. A few examples of authorizations granted for marriage with an individual from outside the estate
[16]
Folio 28-38
Natalia Vasileva Spesivtseva, 19 years old, from the village of Zhulebino, daughter of the widow Avdotia Spesivtseva, who is not sought after on the estate. The suitor, crown peasant Filipp Ivanov Boldin, 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 Priakhina, of the village of Zhulebino, 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 Marusina, peasant Gavrilo Mikhailov 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 Mikhailova Sezemova, of the village of Vykhino, 17 years old, no suitor from the estate in view. The suitor is Egor Fedorov Tysterskov, 30 years old, from the village of Kosin, 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 Mikhail 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.
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] 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)
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], 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.
Figure 1
Women’s marriage migrations, Vykhino estate (1815-1861)
AA, BB, CC: The wife belongs to the registered population and lives in the same village as her husband (A: Zhulebino; B: Vykhino; 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 marriage registers.
Table 4
Population of the villages on the Vykhino estate, and number of marriages between 1815 and 1861 by the wife’s geographical origin
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)
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.
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] 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.
Figure 2
Proportion of newly married men and women born on the Vykhino estate (1815-1915)
Sources: Marriage registers.
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
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.
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.
Figure 3
Proportion of married or ever-married persons, by age and sex, Vykhino estate, 1816-1858
Note: The numbers used to calculate proportions are moving averages over 5 years of age.
Sources: Revisions (aggregate data).
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, Vykhino estate (1815-1861)
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 marriage was 53 years for men and 45 years for women; in only seven cases was the husband over the age of 50.
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 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].
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)
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).
Figure 4
Mean age at first marriage among peasants living on the Vykhino estate (1840-1914)
Sources: Marriage registers.
Figure 5
Mean age at marriage and at first birth among male peasants living on the Vykhino estate
Sources: Birth and marriage registers.
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
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
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 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
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
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 Vykhino estate (second marriages only)
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)
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
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].
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).
Figure 6
Periods during which marriages were forbidden in the Orthodox calendar
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
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).
Figure 7
Marriage seasonality on the Vykhino estate, by period
Sources: Marriage registers.
Figure 8
Proportion of first marriages in January and July on the Vykhino estate, by period
Sources: Marriage registers.
Conclusion
Working with individual and nominal data sources has provided a better understanding of how peasants were inserted into a series of circles of constraints that guided marriage choices without determining them.
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 very difficult to obtain in the rural community.
The 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 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 industrialization, 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.
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 first priority of the Russian marriage model was to ensure early and universal marriage, leaving social strategies little leeway for guiding marital choice.
APPENDIX
Sources
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.
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.
Gaps in parish registers during the period 1815-1918
Extracts from parish registers, revision lists and confession lists are reproduced below.
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 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.
II. Parish registers of the church of the resurrection in Vishniaki, 1823
a. Birth certificates
Year 1823, first section on births
b. Marriage certificates
Year 1823, second section on marriages
c. Death certificates
Year 1823, third section on deaths
III. Confession list for the church of the resurrection at Vishniaki (15 September 1849)
15 September 1849
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.
…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.
Acknowledgments
We thank two referees and the editorial board of Population, whose detailed and pertinent comments helped improve this article.
NOTES
[*]
Centre for the Study of Population Problems, Moscow State University
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).
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.
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.
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.
[3]Frédéric Le Play, Les ouvriers européens, Vol. II, pp. 47-69, Tours, A. Mame, 1879.
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.
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.
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.
Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1961.
[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.
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.
The appendix gives a detailed description of these sources and, particularly, of any gaps in them.
[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 20. Lots were drawn for 20% of them, and the other 80% went into the reserve. The duration of service was 15 years, with 6 years of active service, and 9 in the reserve.
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 20. Lots were drawn for 20% of them, and the other 80% went into the reserve. The duration of service was 15 years, with 6 years of active service, and 9 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.
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.
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.
Often different from those in the revisions. We will not deal with this issue in the present article, however.
[13]Quoted from K.N. Shchepetov, Krepostnoe pravo v votchinakh Sheremetevyh (Serfdom in the Estate of the Counts Sheremetev), Moscow, 1947, p. 272.
Quoted from K.N. Shchepetov, Krepostnoe pravo v votchinakh Sheremetevyh (Serfdom in the Estate of the Counts Sheremetev), Moscow, 1947, p. 272.
[14]RGIA, f.1088 op.15, d.1, l.33-34.
RGIA, f.1088 op.15, d.1, l.33-34.
[15]RGIA, f.1088 op.15, d.462, l. 32
RGIA, f.1088 op.15, d.462, l. 32
[16]RGIA, 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”).
RGIA, 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”).
[17]The couple’s place of residence is always that of the husband’s father.
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).
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).
[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.
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.
[20]With the exception of inhabitants of the Caucasus, where the ages were not altered.
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 opposed to marriages between spouses with too wide an age gap.
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 opposed to marriages between spouses with too wide an age gap.
[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 was 20.6 and 22.2 years respectively.
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 was 20.6 and 22.2 years respectively.
[23]S.V. Pakhman, Obychnoe grazhdanskoe pravo v Rossii. Iuridicheskie ocherki (Common Law in Russia, Legal Essay), volume 2, 1877, p. 38.
S.V. Pakhman, Obychnoe grazhdanskoe pravo v Rossii. Iuridicheskie ocherki (Common Law in Russia, Legal Essay), volume 2, 1877, p. 38.
[24]Iu. Lotman, Pushkin. Biografiia pisatelia. Stat’i i zametki 1960-1990. « Evgenii Onegin ». Komentarii (Pushkin. Biography of the author. Articles and notes 1960-1990, “Eugene Onegin”), 1997, pp. 618-619.
Iu. Lotman, Pushkin. Biografiia pisatelia. Stat’i i zametki 1960-1990. « Evgenii Onegin ». Komentarii (Pushkin. Biography of the author. Articles and notes 1960-1990, “Eugene Onegin”), 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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
[28]In the period studied here, the Orthodox Church allowed divorce for reasons strictly defined by law, usually after authorization from the Holy Synod (the supreme religious body in Czarist Russia). The following grounds were accepted:
In the Vishniaki 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.
In the period studied here, the Orthodox Church allowed divorce for reasons strictly defined by law, usually after authorization from the Holy Synod (the supreme religious body in Czarist Russia). The following grounds were accepted:- one of the spouses sentenced to loss of 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 (eparkhiia) 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 for more than five years;
- decision of the spouses to enter monastic life.
[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.
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.
[30]In other words, the couple lives in the husband’s village, and usually in the family of the husband’s father.
In other words, the couple lives in the husband’s village, and usually in the family of the husband’s father.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
[a]This refers to the priest who oversees all the parishes of the diocese.
This refers to the priest who oversees all the parishes of the diocese.
© Cairn 2007
Vie privée |
Conditions d’utilisation |
Conditions générales de vente
À propos | Éditeurs | Bibliothèques | Aide à la navigation | Plan du site | Raccourcis
À propos | Éditeurs | Bibliothèques | Aide à la navigation | Plan du site | Raccourcis
Retour en haut de page
Ici s'achve le contenu de la page, la suite ne concerne que les attributs d'affichage