Stones on the Prairie: Acculturation in Texas

Property among Elite Women in 17th-Century Russia

Rude & Barbarous Kingdom Revisited: Essays in Russian History and Culture in Honor of Robert O. Crummey. Chester S. L. Dunning, Russell E. Martin, and Daniel Rowland, eds. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2008, 427–40.       Property among Elite Women in 17th-Century Russia Daniel H. Kaiser In  his  landmark  study  of  the  17th-­‐‑century  Russian  elite,  Robert  Crummey  ob-­‐‑ served  that  the  families  of  the  boyar  elite  were  organized  around  men  whose   ancestors  had  founded  patrilines  and  begun  the  accumulation  of  properties   with  which  to  sustain  these  lineages.  But  despite  this  orientation,  he  contin-­‐‑ ued,  women  played  an  important  part  in  Muscovite  society  and  politics.  As   mothers,  women  might  aim  to  emulate  the  fecundity  of  the  spouses  of  Aleksei   Mikhailovich,  regularly  generating  children  in  an  age  of  high  mortality  and   thereby  guaranteeing  the  survival  of  the  lineage.  Secondly,  as  links  to  other   clans,   women   “formed   the   cement   that   held   the   Russian   high   nobility   to-­‐‑ gether,”  establishing  bonds  among  families  anxious  either  to  scale  the  social   ladder  or  to  hold  onto  advantageous  positions  already  gained.  Contributions   like  these,  however,  rarely  found  their  way  into  official  sources,  with  the  re-­‐‑ sult  that  few  women  appear  in  this  narrative  of  elite  political  power;  their  part   in  the  complicated  politics  of  the  age  seems  screened  from  view,  reduced  to   the  private  rather  than  public  sphere.1     Subsequently   several   scholars   have   attempted   to   identify   and   articulate   the  precise  contributions  that  elite  women  made  to  Muscovite  politics.  Nancy   Kollmann,  for  example,  argued  that,  although       Women’s  roles  in  Muscovite  politics  and  society  …  were  not  publicly   acknowledged,  …  women  were  nevertheless  significant.  Their  seclu-­‐‑ sion  enhanced  their  value  as  brides  and  mothers,  and  their  ability  to   forge  bonds  between  families  allowed  kin  groups  to  function  as  units   in   political   life.   Their   friendships   with   other   women   gave   them   the   opportunity   to   influence   marriage   making   and   to   supplement   male   communication   networks.   Women,   however   secluded,   were   inte-­‐‑ grated  into  the  life  of  the  elite.2     This  insight  derived  from  Edward  Keenan’s  claim  that  in  early  modern  Russia   “the  politics  of  betrothals  and  marriages  was  in  fact  the  politics  of  power  in                                                                                                                             1  Robert   O.   Crummey,   Aristocrats   and   Servitors:   The   Boyar   Elite   in   Russia   1613–1698   (Princeton,  NJ:  Princeton  University  Press,  1983),  65–81,  here  75.   2  Nancy  Shields  Kollmann,  “The  Seclusion  of  Elite  Muscovite  Women,”  Russian  His-­‐‑ tory/Histoire  russe  vol.  10,  pt.  2  (1983):  186.   428 DANIEL H. KAISER the   Kremlin.”3   In   tracing   weddings   of   the   sovereigns,   Russell   Martin   has   shown  exactly  how  marrying  into  the  royal  house  depended  upon  calculation   and   court   politics.   But   doing   so   did   not   mean   that   the   women   themselves   were  important  actors;  instead,  these  brides  emerge  as  stand-­‐‑ins  for  the  patri-­‐‑ lines  from  which  they  sprang.  As  Keenan  famously  put  it,  “it  was  the  broth-­‐‑ ers,  uncles,  and  fathers  of  the  lucky  brides  who  formed  the  innermost  circle  of   power.”4   Isolde   Thyrêt,   however,   attempted   to   expose   the   contributions   of   elite   women  themselves,  decoding  the  symbolic  and  ritual  world  of  the  Kremlin.   Employing  both  literary  and  artistic  texts,  Thyrêt  persuasively  demonstrated   that  elite  women  deeply  and  powerfully  influenced  Muscovite  politics,  even   if   their   roles   were   rarely   made   explicit   in   conventional   political   evidence.5   Nada  Boškovska,  too,  was  not  content  to  think  of  women  as  mere  pawns  in   men’s  games.  She  aimed  to  explode  the  myth  that  “noble  ladies  were  held  like   prisoners   …   [who]   whiled   their   time   away   with   sewing   and   embroidering,   and  were  not  even  allowed  to  manage  their  own  household,  which  was  run   by  stewards.”  Dissenting  vigorously  from  this  caricature,  Boškovska  affirmed   women’s  “full  legal  capacity,”  and  cited  instances  in  which  women  contracted   debts,  owned,  managed,  and  alienated  large  bodies  of  land.  In  this  reading  of   the  evidence,  women  in  Muscovy—and  not  only  elite  women—exercised  con-­‐‑ siderable  power  independent  of  their  fathers,  brothers,  and  husbands.6  In  her   study  of  honor,  Nancy  Kollmann  makes  the  same  point,  noting  the  apparent   disconnect  between  the  expression  of  patriarchal  prejudice  and  the  reality  of   women’s  real  power:  “Patriarchy  existed  as  a  cultural  code  affirming  men’s   psychological   sense   of   superiority,   regardless   of   its   economic   or   social   instrumentality.”7   I   myself   have   argued   that,   although   it   would   be   unfair   to   characterize   Muscovite  women  as  brutalized  victims,  they  were  nevertheless  far  from  free   agents.   In   particular,   even   though   there   was   evidence   for   change   over   the   course   of   the   century,   17th-­‐‑century   statutes   severely   constrained   women’s   right  to  landed  property  in  order  to  assuage  the  interests  of  patrilines...