Monthly Archives: January 2014

Observations on Rus Society

Posted on by

Having looked at the Правда Русская (Pravda Russkaia) and compared it to Iaroslav’s Statute I think that the change in the documents can tell us a lot about life in early Rus as well as the different roles that men and women played in their society. In my opinion the biggest change between the two legal codes is the shift in importance from material possessions to family as well as sexual values. In the Pravda Russkaia most of the laws are jumbled around with little regard for organization, however the central theme seems to be property and its value; however, in Iaroslav’s statute we can see Christian values starting to emerge as there are many laws pertaining to marriage and adultery in particular. These include rules about when and how people can get divorced as well as several clauses that talk about incest or sexual relations with other non Christians, actions which were both condemned.

Another aspect of this document that I think is important to look at is the role of women in Rus society. Generally when looking through history I expect to find women having very little power as compared to men. However, in Iaroslav’s Statue I saw several things that led me to believe that women held some power in early Rus. One law in particular that comes to mind is…

“if a girl does not wish to marry,[and] then the father and mother give her [in marriage] by force, and if the girl causes [harm] to herself, than the father and mother are guilty before the Metropolitan, and they are to pay the losses. Likewise with a young man [who does not wish to marry].”

Not only does this law seem to protect women from marriages they may not want, it also does something that I think is equally important. In the end of the clause it says that this practice is the same with both males and females who do not wish to marry. This leads me to believe that the people of Rus may have valued female contribution more than other societies of the time.

Lastly I also noticed that there was nothing in this legal code regarding homosexuality. I found it interesting that nothing was said, as this seems to be a very consistent topic in so dubbed “Christian nations”. The absence of this subject leads me to wonder whether or not this issue was important in Rus society or if it was a social taboo that was intentionally not included.

Foggy History

Posted on by

As a historian in a relatively new field, Mary Jo Maynes’ work reiterates the notions discussed in Stearn and Mintz although with a feminist angle. Maynes narrows her focus down to the history of females, but again (and more importantly), discreetly points to the lack of direct (children’s) historical evidence in this newly developing history. Maynes directly notes this when she writes, “life stories provide a unique perspective on the intersection of individual, collective, institutional, and societal evolution as captured in narratives” (119). This points to the haze surrounding the history of childhood because children aren’t generally known to write narratives about their early lives. Maynes’ piece as a whole compliments Mintz’s work because both works shed light on the marginalized position of the discipline that is the history of childhood.

Pascoe’s and Wilson’s works focus on impacts on children are in severely impact their respective histories, and thus the historiography of the history of children. Generally speaking, both works focus on interactions with children versus first-person documentation. For example, Pascoe delves into the history of children in relation to welfare institutions. Her delving contributes to the notion that it is incredibly difficult to find a base for teaching children’s history because most histories are written from experiences or from viewing documents that are either written or drawn. In Wilson’s work, examining Aries, this same notion of lack of sources (on children’s history) is present. In his evaluation, Wilson preaches the same idea (through Aries) – the only real children’s historical evidence we have is from the top down. Aries implied that ‘apprenticeship was universal’ in his work, and this is pertinent to children’s history because since an apprenticeship involves the interaction between adults and children.

Similar to Maynes, Davin also focuses on the history of female children in her work. Davin also alludes to the lack of sources present to study the history of childhood, delving into how poverty affects the history of childhood. Rhodes’ work was very compelling to read as she focuses her work on the period of time that is childhood rather than the historical process of documenting the history of childhood. Rhodes makes the point that, for the most part, people have a general idea of what ‘childhood’ is supposed to be. Rhodes writes, “As a society then, we tend to both idealize and mythologize children and childhood” (Rhodes 121). Everybody’s life is different, and thus, everybody’s childhoods are different, despite a common perception of childhood. Because the ‘relics’ and ‘artifacts’ would be objects that were given to children, and even if these objects were made by children – there is only so much the said child-worker would be able to divulge about the artifact that supposedly possesses information about the said child’s childhood. It’s confusing. The biggest question I have honestly is why are people putting so much time into forming a history of childhood? Is it the challenge of the history and historiography of childhood that is appealing to the historian? How much do children reflect adults?

The History of Childhood: An Overview

Posted on by

Maynes, Mintz and Stearns give overviews of the study of children as historical “agents” throughout the modern practice of “doing” history. Maynes and Mintz both draw parallels to the beginnings of studying gender in history, particularly the “agency” of women. Both authors note that the introduction of both age and gender into the process of history reveals problem areas in the traditional historical process. Maynes emphasizes the need to look at personal stories to “rethink” the agency of children in history, with which I fully agree, but will personal stories be enough evidence to support future claims? Mintz claims that age is a more fluid category than gender, and this is evidenced in Stearns piece on the evolution of childhood. Would Mintz argue that this makes age more difficult to study than gender? Or does its fluidity provide more material to study? I was fascinated by the passage in Stearns article when he outlines areas that have been impacted by the notion of “happiness” in childhood, particularly how childhood depression is a result of high expectations on the part of both children and adults.

The highlights of the disagreement and errors riddling the historiography of childhood most obviously link the pieces of Wilson and Pascoe. Pascoe covers a much larger chunk of historiography, only briefly glazing over the work of Aries, whereas Wilson spends the entire article poking holes in Aries seminary work. Pascoe points out that not only will the oral re-telling of a childhood be romanticized by adults, but the material goods that historians could use as evidence are also heavily influenced by the adults in a child’s life—to me, this underscores just how tricky this area of history is. It makes me wonder: should more effort be put into studying the history of childhood, or of children? Which will yield more results? Wilson uses the phrase “content of sources” vs. “attitude of time” to sum up his argument against Aries piece, asserting that any Aries uses his sources incorrectly and therefore his argument is unsound. As a new historian, this really hit home for me because I am always hyper-aware of bias and the need to analyze a source in the context of that time period. By the end of Wilsons piece I was questioning what, exactly, did Aries do to contribute to this field?

Davin laments the fact that sources in late 19th C early 20th C London tend to come from the “ruling” class, and therefore is riddled with the bias of such privileged citizens. This echoes so many of the authors we have read on the frustration that comes from lack of veritable, infallible sources. It makes me want to ask the question: will there ever be enough evidence to cause a breakthrough in this field? The “jigsaw” approach seems like a creative short-term solution to a problem that may never go away. I’m also very curious about the implications of the transition between child worker and child scholar. Rhodes draws parallels between that transition and a new emphasis on discipline, but the evidence supporting that seemed shaky to me. These authors pose a lot of questions, such as how the definitions of love, nurturing and protection have evolved over time, but offer little insight into the answers.

Escaping the “Adult Gaze”

Posted on by

Maynes, Mintz, and Stearns

The first three readings seem to collectively address how contemporary society has been able to shape how childhood and its’ history is looked at. Maynes begins emphasizing the importance of first-hand life stories and accounts in the history of childhood (and in her case women, too). So few sources actually come from children that it leaves their stories up to be subjectively told. Maynes then leads nicely into the Mintz reading by describing how the forming of one’s identity is “rooted” in childhood. In one of the most eye-opening passages of the three articles, Maynes quotes Kath Weston in regards to gender on page 21:”Talk to someone in the United States about gender for more than twenty minutes and you’re likely to walk away with a childhood story.” This quote complements the Mintz reading nicely because Mintz essentially compares and contrasts age and gender as categories of history. What is masculine or feminine? What should a child’s responsibilities entail at a certain age? The answers to these questions are culturally and socially constructed and defined–simply unnatural as Mintz argues. Stearns finally delves into one of these norms that have been built up by society over the years–“the innocent child” and the idea that all children should be happy. Is this notion of happiness the lone and most construed aspect of childhood? No; Stearns concludes that parents being morally obligated to make their child’s childhood one of happiness is “only one among many factors shaping childhood in recent decades, and a challenge for further analysis is to figure out how it interacts with other influences.” Most of said influences being formed not by the children of the time period, but by the culture engulfing them.

Wilson and Pascoe

Wilson and Pascoe set out to critique the past historiography on children and childhood. Wilson specifically dealing with Philippe Aries and Pascoe centering on the more recent work on the children of Australia. The biggest problem Wilson has with Aries is his “present centeredness” approach, “the condition of viewing the past exclusively from the point of view of the present.” Through all his scrutiny, Wilson does not condemn Aries, but simply states that his argument is not false, but falsely conceived. After all, Wilson and Pascoe seem to agree, Aries book was essentially the first stage in the study of a new field. Wilson’s views on Aries’ “present-centeredness” poses a question. Isn’t every single human being naturally present-centered in some capacity? I understand where Wilson is coming from, but no matter what he writes, he did in fact write in the present.

Pascoe has different causes for concern with the historiography of children. He mentions the lack of sources authored by children themselves; a theme eminent throughout our entire week’s readings. He also describes the tendency amongst adult authors to romanticize children, and even get sentimental in their writing. All adults, historians included, tend to look back on childhood happily, and it hinders their writing. What solution, if any, does Pascoe recommend? He proposes “that we can enrich our historical research by borrowing insights from other disciplines,” chiefly material culture, archaeology, folklore, geography, and oral history. Pascoe writes my favorite quote in the reading when stating the utilization of these outside, yet similar, disciplines will lead to “the recovery of children from the scrapheap of the past.”

Davin and Rhodes

Davin and Rhodes provide a nice conclusion for this week’s readings. They both discuss useful sources for the study of childhood, but each author emphasizes a different variety. Davin delves into concrete sources–four in specific. These sources are school records, voices of authority (the privileged), voices of the working class, and her “jigsaw strategy.” Her jigsaw strategy kind of ties in with the Pascoe reading in that the jigsaw strategy pieces together clues from different sources, casting “a wide net.” This allows for the “steady accumulation of snippets, anecdotes, references, and examples; the piling up of details, which allows closer understanding.”

Rhodes is similar in that she emphasizes the importance of examining all varieties of sources. The difference is that for Rhodes, the sources she is referring to are experiences. Like many of the authors we we have just read, Rhodes believes that the history of childhood and the role of children in society are “too often defined by perceptions of adults.” She proposes that we, as historians, “explore the range of experiences and environments in which the child operated and engaged with in the adult world.” What I found most interesting is Rhodes’ opinions on photographs as sources. Though she admits their importance, one cannot rely that heavily on them because they are often under “adult gaze.” Photos are rarely, if at all, taken by children themselves, which reinforces the fact that the history of childhood is too often seen through the eyes of adults. I do believe that Rhodes is on to something, but I also believe studying experiences has its’ limitations. I’m sure that one would be able to find some first hand accounts, but wouldn’t that pool of sources be fairly limited? Even when analyzing these first hand accounts, wouldn’t many of the risks associated with other more subjective sources still remain? A blend between the strategies presented by both Davin and Rhodes–and all of the seven authors for that matter–is what is necessary to have any shot at recovering the history of childhood.

Olympe de Gouge: Declaration of the Rights of Women, 1791

Posted on by

Olympe de Gouge tests the Declaration of the Rights of Man with her own Declaration of the Rights of Woman. She questions what benefits woman gained from the Revolution. When “man” became free from the Revolution, he turned injustice onto woman. Woman were treated as though inferior, French legislators taking the position that there was nothing in common between men and women. De Gouge encourages women to stand up against this false superiority and unite to gain the rights women deserve. De Gouge brings up the contradiction that a married woman can have bastard children who and they will still benefit from their father’s wealth and also their name. However, if a woman is unmarried, her children cannot receive any of their father’s wealth nor their name. She also realizes that men will have to deal with this matter and women have to wait for that to happen. She proposes that in the meantime women prepare for this “through national education, the restoration of morals, and conjugal conventions”.

De Gouge wrote up and “Form for a Social Contract Between Man and Woman”. In it, she writes that man and woman should unite for common preferences such as pooling wealth together instead of man carrying all the wealth and controlling what happens with it. The idea of a woman sharing a man’s wealth and having just as much control over it as man, being able to reserve the right to hand it down to their children or choose to pass it on to someone who they thought deserving, is a revolutionary idea. Another such revolutionary idea of de Gouge’s is that there be a law forcing man to pay, or leave money for, a widow and her children.

At the end of her “contract”, de Gouge suggests that making laws that favor women equally to men will improve the French government, and make it stronger. “prejudice fails, morals are purified, and nature regains all her rights”.

Declaring a Revolutionary War

Posted on by

Declaration of Independence of the United States

While the celebrated document asserts the fledgling nation’s independence, it is additionally a list of grievances the colonizers have concerning the Crown and associated British government. Considering the varied atrocities committed by British troops and officials in the run-up to the war (Boston Massacre, various taxes, and weakening the citizens’ collective voice over time, among a whole host of other things), the revolutionary leaders, i.e., Founding Fathers, took advantage of the Declaration of Independence to effectively declare war as well on the British troops garrisoned in America. The language in the text suggests this. “It is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” “…as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce…” In these two quotes from the text the signatories vocalize both their desire for the Crown to recognize their independence and their willingness to wage war should the British not recognize America’s independence.

French writings leading to the eventual revolution

Similarly, the French used various essays as well as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen to make their revolutionary intentions clear. In “What is the Third Estate”, Abbe Sieyes points out the pervasiveness of the French government and nobility (which Louis XVI often manipulated to advance his own agenda) and reflects that it should be the right of the citizens who live under an undesirable government to simply rebel, for it can be detrimental to both the economy and the morale of the citizens. In the Decree upon the National Assembly and in conjunction with the Tennis Court Oath, deputies of the Third Estate (henceforth the National Assembly) asserted its power which was to be independent of the royalty and nobility of France. Finally, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen does belligerent language appear. Until this point the French Crown was considered sovereign and unchallengeable, but the third declared right sought to undo this: “The Nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; no can any individual, or any body of men, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it.” This is a challenge to the royalty and nobility who were seen by many as not having earned their sovereign powers (hence Sieyes’s essay). Additionally, the twelfth right denounces abuse of power given by citizens to a government’s officials, which can also be viewed as a challenge to the crown. The third right challenges the validity of the Crown’s powers, and the twelfth challenges the abuse of that power that is itself invalid. Although the hostility is less evident in the French essays than in the American Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man also intends to attain sovereignty over the monarchy. The French Revolution began shortly thereafter, the fact of which backs the original theory that it was a declaration of a revolutionary war.

Revolutionaries in France and America

Posted on by

De Gouge was a playwright and a political activist in 18th century France. In her “Declaration of the Rights of Women,” she addresses the unscrupulous oppression under which women have endured and the prejudice that have surrounding prejudice implemented by their male counterparts. De Gouge renounces the male-written law not only in the private sphere but also in the public sphere by stating that “our French legislators have long ensnared by political practices now out of date.” She requests women to question what they have gained from the revolution and asks them to acknowledge all that they have been denied. De Gouge suggests several ways in which women (who are willing to do so) can free themselves from the chains society has imposed on them. She states that women can be “prepared through national education, the restoration of morals, and conjugal conventions.” Her idea of an effective social contract between men and women would include communal wealth and the passing down of family wealth to the respective kin. De Gouge calls for a “fraternal union” for her belief that it will consequently “produce at the end a perfect harmony.” Most importantly, de Gouge offers the social contract as a way to elevate the latent souls of women and to have them conjoined with those of man. She acknowledges that upon writing this document, she will encounter vehement opposition, mostly by “hypocrites, prudes, and the clergy.” De Gouge contract is intricate and comprehensive but her message is simple: once prejudice is exterminated, morals are sanctified, and nature returns to its original state, man and woman can enjoy equal privileges and freedom.

 

Similarly to the way to de Gouge condemns the ways in which man has utilized societal norms to sustain the oppression of women, the Declaration of Independence denounces the tyrannical politics of Great Britain. This document outlines specific ways in which the people have been denied their natural rights and freedom, along with the ways in which the British governors have failed to serve for the public good. The document states “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” and whenever these natural rights are denied, it is the “right of the people to alter or abolish it” and to implement a new form of government, and one that offers the most democratic way of life to ensure that all citizens are provided with security and equality.

 

While both documents were derived from different authors and places, each text was created to inform and inspire those who were denied their freedom to form unity and regain their natural rights.

Rights, Revolutions, and Revolutionaries in America and France

Posted on by

Throughout history, declarations have been written in order to make a society aware of the problems it faces, frequently appearing in times of rapid change and revolution. In her Declaration of the Rights of Women, Olympe de Gouge, a prominent female revolutionary in the late 18th century, argues that women deserve to share equality with men in matters concerning government, society, marriage, and all other areas of life.  De Gouge wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Women in response to the Rights of Man, challenging its suggestion that men are superior to women. Writing in a passionate, defiant tone, she addresses French women, intending to gain supporters and enlighten women of the injustices that are perpetually being posed against them by men and the French government. De Gouge criticizes the authority that reigns France, and insists that women should be equal to men in order to facilitate a “happy government”. She argues that with equality among men and women will come the purification of morals and a stronger government.

Similarly, the American Declaration of Independence appeals to the British monarchy, stating that the king has failed to comply with the necessities of the rights of the people. The same nature of defiance as seen in the Declaration of the Rights of Women is present in the Declaration of Independence, as both are created in opposition to authority the government has placed upon them.

In his document on the third estate, Sieyes also criticizes the state of the government, arguing that the Third Estate does not possess enough power and more responsibilities should be entrusted to it. The First and Second Estates should be eliminated, suggests Sieyes. If not that, all three estates should at least be under equal representation and common laws.

In both the French and American revolutions, the people of the country respond to injustices placed upon them by their ruling monarchies. Both countries successfully overthrow their monarchies, freeing themselves of inequities. Revolutionaries of both countries sought freedom from their imposing governments, liberating their countries and earning their natural rights through the power of discourse.

 

The French and American Declaration

Posted on by

The French and American Revolutions are two of the most famous revolutionary movements in the history of mankind.  The revolutions are very similar, mainly in the writing that led up to revolution.  The United States’ “Declaration of Independence” and the French’s “What is the Third Estate”, “Decree Upon the National Assembly”, “Tennis Court Oath”, and “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” all outline very similar grievances that the people are rising against.

In the “Declaration of Independence” the Continental Congress wrote “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  In the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” the French wrote “The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible right of man; and these rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression.”  The common theme in those two quotes is the word Liberty, which is “the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely” (Dictionary.com).  While the Patriots and the French had smaller grievances, specific to their situation, Liberty is the most overarching one.  Both groups felt underrepresented by their controlling body, the English monarchy for the Americans and the French monarchy for the French.  Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès wrote his “What is the Third Estate” after the American Revolution but it applies to what was happening in the colonies as much as it did to what was happening in France.  Sieyès wrote “1) What is the Third Estate?  Everything.  2) What has it been until now in the political order?  Nothing.  3) What does it want to be?  Something.”  Both the American colonists and the French citizens wanted recognition from their controlling government but more importantly they wanted the rights they felt they deserved.

The colonists way of gaining “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” was to declare independence from Britain.  They wrote in the Declaration of Independence “these United Colonies are, and of Right out to be Free and Independent States.”  The French offered up a similar solution, however their monarch was not an ocean away.  The “Third Estate” formed the “National Assembly”, which consisted of “at least ninety-six per cent of the nation.”  The “National Assembly” wrote in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” that they had “resolved to set forth in solemn declaration, these natural, imprescriptible, and inalienable right; that this declaration being constantly present to the minds of the members of the body social” effectively declaring their own independence from the monarchy.

While the American and French revolution happened an ocean away and began about 13 years apart they followed the same track in action and writing.

 

 

On the Kievan Economy

Posted on by

The nature of the economy in the Kievan state reflected the geographical diversity of the region.  Indeed, some of the sources on the economy are derived from the commentary of outsiders, such as the Byzantine Constantine Porphyrogenitus, reflecting the wide space of influence exerted by the merchant-prince of Kiev.  The foundation of the trade system was tribute, which moved furs, wax, honey, and slaves throughout the state from north to south.  Tribute, besides being an effective means of gathering money and subordinating rival merchants, reflected the importance of trade because it was designed to protect Kiev’s commercial interests from rivals.  Economic rivals were clearly an area of concern for the Kievan princes because trade and foreign policy were connected, and Russo-Byzantine peace treaties included provisions that aided Russian commerce.   With the exception of importing amber from the Vikings, the Rus moved raw materials outside of the state and received manufactured and luxury goods from their trade partners.

The other facet of the Kievan economy was agriculture.  The emergence of the agricultural theory is based on linguistic data on agricultural terms, spiritual beliefs surrounding nature, archaeological discoveries, and written sources.  Agriculture differed between the south and the north because of the diversity between the steppe and dense forests, and forest agriculture evolved into a two and three field perlog system that increased the importance of livestock.  Archaeology shows advancements in soil cultivation and technology preceding the primary chronicle.  The idea of private property is a contested issue among scholars of Kiev, with some believing it emerged in the 11th century and others thinking it may have been in place before.  This is an interesting question to consider in tandem with the law code’s penalties for moving field boundaries.  Does this suggest there was direct individual control over the land to use it at will or does it suggest the princes were the only ones with the authority to administrate land holdings?