|
Kanischev V.,
Mizis Yu. (Tambov State University, Russia )
"A Study of Family Structure, Tambov case, 1811-1859".
The
sources allow to study Russian family structure from the beginning of the
19th c. The census registers are the basic source. They usually
contained data only on male peasants, lower town middle class (meschane),
merchants of the 3d guild as those people were poll-tax payers. The female
part of families was registered from 1816 (the 7th census). The
7th-the 10th censuses papers listed all members
of each poll-tax family in a separate settlement or of any owner
(for serfs) with notes on a head of the family and on relationship of the
other family members for the time of the previous census plus notes
on any changes for the time of the current census (deaths,
migrations, army recruiting). These materials allow to calculate the
number of family members and the types of families according to an estate,
a settlement or an owner.
Table 1. Average Number of Family Members, 1816
| Place |
1816 |
1959 |
| M.Pupki (state peasants) |
8.3 |
4.1 |
| Rasskazovo |
7.0 (serfs) |
5.1 (all) |
| Bailovka (serfs) |
|
9.4 |
| Town of Morshansk |
4,8 (meschane) |
14.4
(all) |
Villages in early 19th c. preserved extended families,
while mechane tended to have families of smaller size which were
structured differently - like a family embraced only parents with their
children.
Table
2. Types of Families, Rasskazovo (using S.Hoch typology) (%)
|
Types
|
Plant peas.
|
State peasants
|
Serfs |
|
1816
|
1858 |
1834
|
1850
|
1858
|
1816
|
1834
|
1858
|
|
1.1. Single widowers
|
1
|
1
|
2.5
|
|
|
1
|
6
|
|
|
1.2. Singles (unknown marital status)
|
4
|
2
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
5
|
|
2.1. Single consanguinites (brothers/sisters) |
|
|
6
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2.2. Other relatives living together |
2
|
4
|
2.5
|
|
|
2
|
|
7
|
|
3.1. Couples
|
2
|
3
|
2.5
|
|
|
2
|
|
2
|
|
3.2. Couples with children
|
11
|
17
|
11
|
14
|
6
|
18
|
|
5
|
|
3.3. Widowers with children
|
31
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
2
|
|
3.4. Widows with children
|
1
|
5
|
2.5
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3.5. Soldiers, wives with children
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
4.1. Couples with children and widowed parents
|
6
|
10
|
|
5
|
11
|
4
|
19
|
9
|
|
4.2. Couples with children and nephews/ nieces
|
|
|
|
3
|
3
|
0.5
|
|
2
|
|
4.3. Couples with children and unmarried brothers/sisters
|
6
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
4
|
|
4.4. Combinations of the named combinations
|
2
|
8
|
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
|
7
|
|
5.1. Couples with married and unmarried children
|
3
|
14
|
14
|
14
|
|
8
|
|
9
|
|
5.2. Couples with married and unmarried children and
grandchildren
|
6
|
21
|
20
|
24
|
46
|
28
|
37
|
32
|
|
5.3. Couples with married and unmarried children and nephews
|
5
|
1
|
6
|
|
11
|
3
|
13
|
|
|
5.4. Families of brothers/sisters with married and
unmarried children
|
17
|
8
|
26
|
32
|
17
|
11
|
6
|
7
|
|
5.5. Other types of extended families
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
5
|
3
|
4.5
|
13
|
9
|
Table 3. Types of Families, Morshansk(using
S.Hoch typology)(%)
|
Types
|
Merchant
|
Meschane
|
|
1833
|
1850
|
1816
|
1850
|
|
1.1. Single widowers
|
1
|
5.5
|
2
|
7
|
|
1.2. Singles (unknown marital status)
|
3
|
4
|
7
|
27
|
|
2.1. Single consanguinites (brothers/sisters)
|
1
|
|
2
|
5
|
|
2.2. Other relatives living together |
|
1.5
|
1
|
2
|
|
3.1. Couples
|
4
|
1.5
|
9
|
11
|
|
3.2. Couples with children
|
28
|
20
|
38
|
23.5
|
|
3.3. Widowers with children
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
3.4. Widows with children
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
|
3.5. Soldiers, wives with children
|
6
|
2
|
0.5
|
|
|
4.1. Couples with children and widowed parents
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
7
|
3
|
|
4.2. Couples with children and nephews/ nieces
|
6
|
1.5
|
0.5
|
|
|
4.3. Couples with children and unmarried brothers/sisters
|
6
|
4
|
1
|
0.5
|
|
4.4. Combinations of the named combinations
|
19
|
21
|
9
|
7
|
|
5.1. Couples with married and unmarried children
|
1
|
|
3
|
1
|
|
5.2. Couples with married and unmarried children and
grandchildren
|
7
|
10.5
|
9
|
2
|
|
5.3. Couples with married and unmarried children and nephews
|
15
|
18
|
0.5
|
|
|
5.4. Families of brothers/sisters with
married
and unmarried children |
|
|
3.5
|
2
|
|
5.5. Other types of extended families
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
The main source shortage of the census
registers was of that a separate household was listed as a family so it
formally could have been an
extended family but in fact it was divided into several independent ones.
In pre-reform Russia the
authorities and the landlords hampered family partition, but we still
guess whether those bans were really kept to.
The census registers often note children or even one child as
independent household members. In fact those were usually orphans, being
the formal remnants of the families disintegrated between the two censuses,
so they could hardly exist independently. Someone must have taken care of
them.
To trace the real family structure one should use some other types
of sources containing the necessary data. Here we have the confessional
lists. For the present we put in and analysed
data on serf families who had confessed in one of Rasskazovo parish
in 1811. We also have the 1816 census data on the same families to compare
these two sources. The lists of confession demonstrate the large groups of
relatives which are also known from the church writings. The families at
confession (8,3 members av.) came out larger than the census ones (7,0
members av.) and they were more patriarchal having had their heads 16
years older (58 v 42).
M.Pupki
Rasskazovo
Rasskazovo
Types
census of 1816
census of 1816
conf.lists of 1811
1.1. 0,7
0,9
1.2. 2,9
2,7
2.1. 1,8
2,8
2.2. 1,1
2,2
3.1. 1,5
2,5
3.2. 24,3
17,5
13,6
3.3. 2,2
1,7
3.4. 0,4
2,8
3.5. 0,4
4.1. 2,6
4,4
5,8
4.2. 0,7
0,4
4.3. 2,4
4.4. 4,4
5,3
3,3
4.5. Vague relations
3,3
5.1. 8,4
7,1
5.2.
18,0
27,1
42,2
5.3. 2,8
1,9
5.4. 8,8
10,5
22,0
5.5. 30,1
4,5
0,7
The peasant families structure in M.Pupki and
Rasskazovo displayed the predominance of extended 3- and 4-generation
families. A great share of ”other types” (with distant relatives) in
M.Pupki suggests the presence of serfs listed as relatives in the state
peasant families. The comparison of census registers and confessional
lists for Rasskazovo displayed an absence of single children at confession
supporting an idea that there were no such categories in real life.
It is also obvious that consanguinites at confession
were not necessarily a common household. Almost a half of one and the same
families listed in the census registers had almost the same structure
registered at confession. Some people had been born or died between the
year of confession and the year of census that caused some slight
differences. Another half of one and the same families displayed a more
extended structure at confession on brother- and sisterhood.
The census families were not larger than real ones, moreover, those
who confessed were the traditional families of consanguinites (conscious
about) realising their kinship, but having had a half of them leading
their independent households.
|