Family in ancient Rus'. Marriage and family in ancient Rus'
Morals of Ancient Rus' (XI-XIII centuries): behavior, family, upbringing of children, education
Behavior, like clothing, in the ancient Russian public consciousness was of a symbolic nature. The "quality" of a person, his place in the social organization largely depended on the characteristics of his behavior. At the same time, an inverse relationship took place - each person should behave in accordance with his condition (age, social status, etc.). In "Bee" we read on this occasion: "Hate three, my soul, and vilely disgust their belly: the old whore, the rich deceitful, the wretched hupava [proud]." The interest of an old Russian person in the question of "what is good and what is bad" reveals itself in the popularity of which moralizing plots in translated and original literature used, in the tension with which church hierarchs discussed this issue in connection with problems of confessional discipline, in an effort to streamline personal life with the help of princely charters, etc.
Life observations, as well as ideas gleaned from books, often took the form of concise manuals, collections of rules for every day, addressed, as a rule, to a certain son (understood literally or spiritually), whose duty was to listen and continue to do so according to what was written. The oldest works of this kind known in Rus' are contained in the Izbornik of 1076, compiled from excerpts from translated works subjected to significant processing. I.U. Budovnits, who was surprised that such a valuable source was ignored by B.A. Romanov, "although he could have taken from it many interesting touches that depict the life and customs of Kievan Rus in the second half of the 11th century." Apparently, the Izborniks, like the Izbornik of 1076, were quite widespread and served as a reference book for a wide range of readers. Almost literal coincidences of the text indicate that Daniil Zatochnik could be familiar with the Izbornik or similar izborniks. The notion that Prince Svyatoslav Yaroslavich was the customer and owner of the manuscript is not based on anything. The name of Svyatoslav in the Izbornik of 1076 indicates only the time of the manuscript's creation. The democratic environment of the book is also evidenced by its simple external design: small size, modest decorations, low-quality parchment and ink. According to I.U. Budovnits, the recommendations of the Izbornik were intended mainly for rich and noble readers who had a rich house with youths, "boldness" (access, approach) to the authorities, in whose capacity it was to help "orphans", etc. At the same time, many articles were addressed to the slaves and the poor, “giving them completely different instructions.” Since, according to the views of I.U. Budovnits himself, it is impossible to imagine slaves reading books, he constructs a very strange, in our opinion, mise en scene: The Izbornik of 1076 is read aloud to the slaves by the owners of a rich house! Moreover, they reread the chapters three times, as recommended at the very beginning. This seems unlikely. in view of a certain average reader, the compiler of the Izbornik (who is believed to be the author of some texts at the same time) selected material with the expectation that every person is rich in relation to some and poor in relation to others. In a society with unfinished social stratification, when there are many transitional states between the very rich and the very poor, this was a natural situation. Get rid of the desire for wealth ("love of money"), "show meekness, patience, humility and peacefulness, do not become embittered, do not condemn others, do not succumb to bad influence, be obedient and work, work endlessly", according to the general thought of Izbornik, the duty is not at all only "beggars", according to I.U. Budovnits, but any person who wants to be a faithful Christian.
At the end of the next, XII century, a translation was made of the Byzantine collection of sayings, instructions, historical anecdotes of the moral content "Melissa", i.e. "Bee". Under this name, he entered the Old Russian literature. It includes quotations from the Holy Scriptures, sayings of the Church Fathers and ancient sages. Judging by how widely the texts of "The Bee" were used in the original works, the ideas, prescriptions, and norms contained in it found a wide response in the ancient Russian public consciousness.
The importance of the question "how to behave" for a medieval person is visible in the popularity of such a genre as "teaching". The experience of life and reflection was poured, as a rule, into a collection of instructions to the next generation or to those whom the author considered himself entitled to teach. Prayer pervades all ancient Russian literature. Even those works that cannot be classified as "teachings" often bear some of their characteristic features. The chronicles are moralizing, the epistles are moralizing, the lives of the saints are permeated with a moralizing tone, the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon is built as a teaching of the Vladimir-Suzdal Bishop Simon, addressed to the Pechora monk Polycarp, who, in turn, began to instruct Abbot Akindin.
The main goal of ethical quests in Ancient Rus' is to subordinate one's life as completely as possible to Christian norms and build it in such a way that, in the end, one reaches the kingdom of God. Decent behavior is given the highest religious sanction. It is characteristic that a high moral level is closely linked precisely with right behavior, and not with internal foundations, as is customary for modern man. The boundaries between ethics and etiquette in the medieval mind practically do not exist. The main question of ancient Russian ethics is not so much "what to do?" as "how?". In this regard, following good examples is of particular importance. In "The Word of a certain father to his son, a soul-beneficial word" (Izbornik 1076) it says: "Accept those habits and judge them by their deeds, take the path of idosh and some way of tekosha." To facilitate self-education, the father advises the son to look in the city in which he lives for some God-fearing person "and tomou with all the strength of the slouchyashtya." If such a person is found, there is nothing to grieve about - he will already be the key to the kingdom of heaven. You need to stick to this person with both soul and body, watch how he sits, how he eats, find out all his habits, and most of all pay attention to his words - "do not let a single word of him graze on the ground."
Behavior rules. Politeness. It is necessary to follow certain rules in everyday communication. A God-fearing (and therefore "decent") person behaves accordingly. He is lofty in mind, but walks with bowed head; his thoughts are "in heaven", but he keeps his eyes down; "Ousta is silenced," but his heart cries out to God; he walks quietly, but is quick of mind; does not listen to anything bad, but only holy words. Do not be ashamed to bow to "everyone, szdanomou in the image of God", i.e. to every person. Honors elders. He meets his peers with peace, and the younger ones with love. In the section "St. Basil how to be human" Izbornik contains instructions for cultural behavior at the table: it is supposed to eat without talking and in moderation. A person in general should talk a little, and think more. In case of need, "answer with quietness. Do not dare to be a word, nor argue with people." In the popular translation of the Tale of Akira the Wise, we read an interesting proverb on this subject: "If houses were built with a cry, then a donkey would erect two houses with its roar in a day." Laughter was condemned on every occasion; this does not mean that it is impossible to laugh at all, it is only necessary "not to fall into a laugh soon, to be alive." According to ancient Russian ideas, a person who laughs and talks a lot cannot be smart. Cursing is not allowed. The charter of Yaroslav establishes the rate of fines for insulting the wives of various categories of the population: "if anyone calls someone else's whore wife ...". In the Izbornik of 1076, the rules of behavior with superiors were not left out. The general meaning of the instructions on this subject is that in dealing with the strong, it is necessary to exercise caution, expressed in reasonable obedience and respect. It is better not to quarrel with the strong. The Izbornik has a special section on how to behave in communication with those who are higher on the social ladder - "On the rank of the strong" i.e. about what to do if the strong one calls to him. It is necessary to maintain a certain middle line of behavior: "When a strong one calls on you, then do not back down; and if he calls on you more, then do not attack, but do not reject yourself." At the same time, you can’t completely move away, you need to stand “not far away” so that you are not forgotten. You can’t behave with a strong familiar, as if with an equal: “Among the nobles, do not be equal,” and it’s better not to believe everything he says. moreover, learn from this to fear God. "The prince is supposed to obey in good conscience. Here is no longer a cold calculation of one's own interests, but sincere obedience.
Greed and money-grubbing are incompatible with the image of a good person. The moral norms of property ownership are repeatedly repeated in the Izbornik. There, the father advises his son to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter a traveler, visit the sick, not be lazy, go to the dungeon - "see their misfortune, and breathe."
Acquaintance. Friends. It is necessary to be careful in choosing acquaintances: "do not bring every person into your house: watch out for the villain," advises Izbornik. However, even a non-obvious villain may turn out to be an inappropriate company. It is important to see the secret enemy in time and not get close to him. It is also better not to associate with people richer than yourself or poorer.
Despite the wary attitude towards people shown by Izbornik, friendship was, of course, well known to ancient Russian society. Strong and sincere friendship was thought of as akin to brotherly relations. It is not for nothing that in the "Bee" friendship and brotherhood are mentioned in one section "On brotherly love and friendship." The heroes of Russian epics are in the brotherhood of the cross. Obviously, in life, friends "do not spill water" "consolidated their friendship with the cross brotherhood. Evidence of this we find in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. "There are two men from the great city of that, a friend to themselves, John and Sergius Sia, who came to the church of God-named and saw light, holy, on the icon of the most beautiful Mother of God, and into the spiritual brotherhood of the priest. "Entry into the spiritual brotherhood here, as can be seen from the further narration, is not a joint tonsure as a monk, but a twin brotherhood of the cross. Inseparable friends came across among the monks. This is Eugarius the deacon and Tit-pop. "The name of love is great and not hypocritical, as if everyone marvels at their unity of mind and immeasurable love". Having at its core the idea of brotherly love, the meaning of which has already been discussed, friendly ties were perceived as something sacred and unconditionally positive. The Devil plots unfeigned friendship. It was he who sowed the unexpected enmity between Eugarius and Titus. And now they are already avoiding each other. When Titus goes with the censer, Eugari runs away from the incense, and if he does not run away, then Titus purposely does not incense on his former friend. This went on for quite some time. Attempts to reconcile friends ended in failure. But one day Titus fell ill and nevertheless wanted to make peace with Eugar before his death. However, Eugarius did not even think of reconciling: "I want to have forgiveness with him in no way: neither in this age, nor in the future," he said, and transferred the enmity even to another world. But as soon as he uttered this phrase, he immediately fell dead, and quite already dying Titus jumped up, as if nothing had happened, and told those around him that all the time while the brethren persuaded Evgar to make peace, he saw an unmerciful angel holding in fire spear in hand. As soon as it became obvious that there would be no reconciliation, the angel struck the culprit to death. Betrayal became the theme of the mentioned story about John and Sergius. Only here the cause of betrayal of friendship is known - the love of money. John fell ill and left his five-year-old son Zacharias in the care of a friend and spiritual brother. Together with the son of a friend, Sergius received gold and silver - an impressive amount. He was supposed to give it to Zacharias when he grew up. However, when the time came to return the money to the pupil, Sergius was overcome by greed, and he declared that he had not received any gold and silver, that the late John, out of his madness, gave all the money to God, to the poor and the poor, and he had nothing. Zakhary begged to give at least a part, but Sergius persisted. And then Zachary asked Sergius to swear in the Pechersk church in front of the miraculous icon of the Virgin. As soon as the perjurer tried to do this, he was seized with horror, he saw the merciless angel already familiar to us, demons. This time it ended less badly. Sergius confessed to everything and returned the stolen goods. In Ancient Rus', not only the value of friendship was realized, but all the difficulties associated with it. To provide guidance for overcoming them were called recommendations "Bees". Many sayings have become well-known proverbs. “If you build a shadow against the face of your friend, then get bogged down in it with your own foot. Do not leave the ancient friend; the new one will not be like him.<...>Everything new is better - both loans and ports, but friendship is old," etc.
Family. The Izbornik also pays attention to family relations. "For it is not a small almsgiving hedgehog at home, without skarbia and without sighing, and without weeping to create." You should take care of your wife. True, we are talking about a positive ideal - a wife "moudry and good" - "for her grace is more than gold", "if the wife is sincere, then do not cast her out." It is very difficult to find such a companion: "You cannot find a wife of wisdom. You will find truth in wives." But he who has found a husband is blessed. His days will be doubled. "A good wife is a crown to her husband and carelessness." And there are also "evil wives", the image of which is very popular in ancient Russian literature. The source of this image is, of course, the Byzantine tradition: there are also arguments about "evil wives" in the Bible, in the word of Ephraim the Syrian. Nevertheless, judging by how deeply the ideas about female "imperfections" entered the original literature, this ideas was fully accepted by the ancient Russian public consciousness. This was especially clearly manifested in the "Word" "by Daniil Zatochnik. Life itself, obviously, provided material for the existence and development of the literary image. The negative ideal turns out to be written out in much more detail than the positive one. Izbornik compares an evil wife with a lion, "Bee" - with a lion and a snake, Daniil the Sharpener with a lion, and with a snake, and also with a brown ox. Moreover, in the image of the Sharpener, the ox is better: he does not speak and does not plot evil. "Evil Wife" is a real fiend. In "The Word" she can be both beautiful and "evil" in the same way, in "Prayer" - an evil wife is both ugly and old at the same time. the negative qualities of the negative ideal are as follows: absurdity, disobedience to her husband and priest, coquetry - Daniel, both in the "Word" and in the "Prayer", finds an evil wife behind a mirror, which causes an attack of caustic sarcasm in him, which he splashes out with the words: "do not dishonor in the mirror but look into the scab; For a wife, more maliciously, she won’t take it into the mirror, but won’t fall into great sadness, rising to the absurdity of her face. roukoyu that otseciyu from your own flesh, "advises the Izbornik of 1076. At the same time, in the ancient Russian moralizing writings of the 11th - 13th centuries, unlike the late Domostroy, nowhere is there a recommendation to beat a wife, no matter how bad she may be As shown by N.L. Pushkareva, a woman in the society of Ancient Russia occupied a rather high position. Her legal and property status was not belittled, but on a number of points it turned out to be equal to that of men. Nevertheless, ancient Russian society and the social psychology that dominated it were still "male". This can be seen, if only from the fact that all existing discussions about family life are conducted from the position of men and are addressed to the male reader.
For quite a long time, traditions of polygamy were kept in Rus'. Vladimir I, as you know, had five "led", i.e. official wives, and, according to the annalistic account, a total of 800 concubines. Yaroslav Osmomysl (end of the 12th century!) has two: the official "princess", whose name is not indicated in the annals, and the "parallel" Nastaska. The presence of several "spouses" was not a privilege of princes and nobility. "Large Truth" provides for a situation where his "children" together with their mother take part in the division of the property of a deceased person. They are not entitled to a share in the inheritance - a slave, obviously, is a concubine, and the main rights are on the side of the "main", married wife. Nevertheless, a kind of compensation is nevertheless provided for her - freedom with children. According to B.A. Romanov, polygamy as an ordinary reality also appears in the Charter of Vsevolod. Strictly speaking, it is possible that in the fragment indicated by the researcher, it is still not about the distribution of inheritance among numerous wives, but between their children: wife and fourth in class..." etc. However, other sources, in particular the Charter of Yaroslav, give reason to assert that the second, third and fourth wife could appear in a person not in connection with the death of another spouse or with an official divorce, but at the same time. "Although he can marry another wife, but he will not dissolve with the old one ...", "If anyone has two wives to lead ...". In both cases, the Charter prescribes the "second" wife to "go to the church house" and live with the old one. But in a situation where even the church wedding itself was by no means the rule, the decrees of the Charter, most likely, were not strictly and everywhere implemented.
It is unlikely that ancient Russian polygamy among ordinary husbands should be presented in the manner of the East as the content of harems. We have no evidence that the wives were united within the same house, one household and lived in some kind of "female half", appearing on the orders of the master (this can only be imagined in relation to Vladimir, whose concubines were concentrated in country residences). Rather, they were "parallel" "families, like Osmomysl's. Or a family man who lived in a big house, in addition to his legal wife, quite openly started a concubine among the servants: this concubine was much lower than his wife, but also had a certain official status that made her a subject of law It is possible, as mentioned, a situation where a man, without divorcing his first, legal wife, started a second family, a third, etc., thereby becoming a polygamist. to put up with polygamy and overcome this ancient tradition. It was impossible to take rigorous positions - this threatened to lose the flock and fall out of the established social practice. We had to adapt. In the famous "Question" Kirik asks Niphon what to do with a family man who, in addition to contains more secret or explicit concubines. Nifont replies that a person must be punished with a fine and nothing more. Divorce, in his opinion, is inappropriate in this situation, although, of course, such a situation is "not good" regardless of whether the concubines are explicit or secret. The general direction of the church's policy on this issue was to encourage spiritual children to formalize their marriages with a church wedding, but at the same time, the ministers of the church themselves had the duty to ensure that only a single marriage received the church blessing, because, despite the custom, among clergy there was an idea that polygamy - "shame". Metropolitan John (d. 1089) ordered such people to be punished by refusing to take communion. Such a measure could hardly immediately stop the phenomenon in the bud, but it was quite capable of shaping public opinion in a vein favorable for the establishment of church monogamy.
In addition to polygamy, the family life of the population of Ancient Rus' posed a number of problems for the church and the state, which the authorities, in fulfillment of their leading function, had to resolve. The Charter of Yaroslav gives us a wide panorama of everyday troubles. The spouses steal from each other, then they fight. In a family brawl, the law is on the side of the man - liability is provided only for the wife who beat her husband (3 hryvnias). Another wife may come across "a sorceress, a nauznitsa, or a sorcerer, or a green one" - in this case, the husband is asked to punish her himself, "in her own way", but not to drive her away. Domestic in various combinations indulge in fornication - this is also subject to church judgment. One of the spouses may become seriously ill, and then the healthy one cannot be allowed to leave the patient. A special article is divorce. The Code of Divorce Law in Yaroslav's Charter was borrowed from a Byzantine source with local Russian additions. It provides for divorce only through the fault of the wife. Oddly enough, the first of these reasons is a crime not against marriage, but against power, i.e. political crime - failure to report on the impending conspiracy against the state in the person of the "king" or prince. It is interesting that the wife should not inform about the impending conspiracy anywhere, but to her husband. The remaining five reasons can be divided into two large groups. Firstly, when the behavior of the wife is such that her moral character is doubtful: either she was directly caught with the "fornicator", or constant absences, uncontrolled communication with strangers and attending games make the presence of a secret fornicator quite probable. Secondly, when the wife plots against the person and property of the husband.
Izbornik 1076 contains recommendations for the delicate treatment of slaves and mercenaries. They are placed among the teachings concerning family members, just between the wife and the children. Slaves should be treated as gently as possible. "Do not embitter the slave, do it in truth; nor the hired hand, do it to the soul of his own." Moreover, it is recommended to love the "slave of wisdom" and, paradoxically, not to deprive him of his freedom. In relation to the poor, it is supposed to behave correctly: "Do not offend the soul of the hungry and do not anger the man in his poverty" (it is noteworthy that the poor person is called here respectfully "husband"). It is hardly, of course, worth the conclusion that the slaves in life were really treated as gently as the Izbornik advises. Russkaya Pravda shows that the relationship between a serf and a serf-owner was by no means always cloudless. But the very fact of having such a recommendation and placing an article on slaves in the section on family relations speaks volumes.
Children. Upbringing. According to the interpretation proposed by the French scientist Philippe Aries, the Middle Ages are generally characterized by the absence of an idea of childhood as a special period in a person's life. According to academician D.S. Likhachev, a similar situation existed in Russia: “For the chronicler there is no“ psychology of age ”. loving the truth, watching the miserable..." etc. A similar attitude can also be traced in hagiographic literature. Maybe that's why the attitude towards children preached by the Izbornik of 1076 is quite severe. It comes from the idea of the primordial sinfulness of human nature. early age "to tame", break his character and subordinate to the parental will. "If you are a child, then punish you, and bend them from their ownness." It should be noted that such a view of education was very widespread in ancient Russian literature. In "The Tale about Akir the Wise" in that part of it, where the wise Akir instructs his nephew Anadan, contains a recommendation in the same spirit: "Son, if you do not refrain from beating your son, for sons are wounded, then like water rises on grapes ... Son for you won’t die from a wound, if you neglect him, bring some other blame on you. Tame your child from childhood, if you don’t tame him, then his former days will grow old. "Thus, the alternative is as follows: either a person beats a child, or, otherwise, it is considered that he is not engaged in education. Neglect of education is not approved , because it can have sad consequences for the parent himself.
Apparently, book recommendations in matters of education turned out to be very vital. "The Life of Theodosius of the Caves" is a work in which, like nowhere else, the problem of "fathers and children" in its ancient Russian incarnation found expression. The history of the relationship between mother and son contained in it suggests that the approaches to the methods of pedagogical influence that existed in real practice were very close to those that we read about in the Izbornik or in the story about Akira the Wise. It is difficult to say whether they were inspired by literary examples or arose independently. The upbringing method of the mother of the monk most of all resembles precisely the actions of a tamer. A loving parent, seeing that the child does not comply with generally accepted norms of behavior, begins to "bow down" to her son: she beats him until she herself is exhausted, shackles him, locks him in the house. However, like the wise Akir from the translated story, Mother Theodosius did not achieve her goal with her efforts. The son continued to behave according to his understanding. The severity of education does not mean the absence of love. The severity of the mother of St. Theodosius are explained in the Life precisely by strong love: "loving more and more more than ineh, and for that reason you can't stand it without him." Moreover, the care of children in Ancient Rus' was very developed. Parents, according to existing ideas, were responsible for arranging the personal life of their children. The charter of Yaroslav provided for the responsibility of parents for the unmarriedness of their daughter: "Already the girl sits down ...", unknown to Byzantine law. For all that, when arranging the marriage affairs of offspring, it was impossible not to reckon with their opinion: “Even a girl cannot be desired to marry, but her father and mother will give by force, and what to do over herself - the father and mother to the bishop in wine, and pay the history of the imma. So is the lad." The law protected not only the negative ("do not desire") will, but also the positive one: "Even a girl will desire to marry, but the father and mother will not give, but what to do, the bishop is in the fault of the father and mother. So is the boy." From the articles cited, it is clear how great parental power over children was, if the only real way to resist it was suicide. Parents had to show a certain spiritual sensitivity in its use, not to drive the child to despair.
Education. An important area of upbringing, the contact of the generation of fathers with the younger generation, was education. The ideas about the general illiteracy of the population of Ancient Rus', which found their highest expression in "Essays on the History of Russian Culture" by P.I. The attention of the author of the "Essays" was concentrated on the realities of the 15th-16th centuries, which obscured from him the reality of an earlier time.
The bulk of the knowledge necessary for life (literacy and work skills), apparently, was taught to children by their parents. It is this state of affairs that suggests the Charter of Vsevolod, which recorded the priest's son, who cannot read and write, as an outcast. It was obviously considered normal that a father-priest would teach his son the basics of his "craft". If the educational needs of the student exceeded the level of the parents' abilities, he was given an apprenticeship. So, for example, Theodosius of the Pechersk, still small at that time, was given by his parents at his own request "for the teaching of divine books to one from the teacher." Apprenticeship was the main form of education in Rus' not only in the 11th-13th centuries, but also later. Even in the XVII - early XVIII century. foreigners invited for various needs, in addition to performing work, were entrusted with the duty to train Russian people assigned to them to master the skill. European enlightenment took its first steps on Russian soil in the form of apprenticeship, traditional for ancient Russian culture.
In some cases, when it was necessary for the needs of the state, education became under the auspices of the princely power. Vladimir after baptism "begin to catch oh deliberate children and give start to book learning." Yaroslav in 1037 "supplying priests and giving them a lesson from his estate, ordering them to teach people." In Novgorod, he collected 300 priestly children and sent them to study books. V.N. Tatishchev reports that in 1086, Princess Anna Vsevolodovna gathered 300 young girls at the Andreevsky Monastery in Kiev and taught them writing, crafts, singing, "sewing", etc. Often these news are interpreted as evidence of the organization of educational institutions in Ancient Rus' - "schools". For this, however, there is no reason. The facts are clearly not enough to speak of the existence of schools as permanent educational institutions that functioned stably for quite a long time and are independent organizational structures like Western European universities. A more careful reading of the available sources shows that they are not talking about the establishment of institutionalized educational institutions, but all about the same, typical ancient Russian apprenticeship, organized and financed by the state to meet the need for educated people. The prince forcibly gave a certain number of children "to book learning" (as it is directly said "to give a start to education") and paid for teachers ("giving them a lesson on his behalf").
As shown by B.D. Grekov, there were different levels of education: the basis - elementary literacy, and the form of higher education - "book learning". "It is quite clear that "book teaching" is not simple literacy, but systematic school teaching." One cannot but agree with the opinion of B.D. Grekov that higher education in Ancient Rus' was characterized by systematic character. Only not in the form of school teaching (because we don't know anything about "schools"). The nature of the education of people who were considered "philosophers", i.e. wise men - Metropolitan Hilarion, Kliment Smolyatich, Cyril of Turov, authors of the annals and nameless teachings, makes us think that, in fact, it consisted in studying the available complex of literature - theological and secular. Hence the special attitude to the book, which is one of the fundamental, characteristic features of Russian culture from antiquity to the present. The student had to learn to understand and interpret the scriptures, memorize something, understand the liturgical canon, be able to sing, and in terms of worldview become a pious and convinced Christian. Higher education in Old Russian is acquisition of erudition under the guidance of a mentor , who taught, first of all, to comprehend the hidden meaning of what was written and developed the ability to interpret the surrounding reality through the prism of Christian ideology. Significantly different from modern ideas about the goals of good education. In the public mind XI - XIII centuries. the value of knowledge as such was very small. The monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nikita, who later became the bishop of Novgorod, went into seclusion and began to read divine books instead of prayers. In this matter, he was very successful - he remembered almost the entire Bible by heart. However, oddly enough, this seemingly charitable deed was incited by an unclean one. And as soon as his brothers in the monastery, the venerable fathers, cast the demon out of him, he lost all his knowledge, which, as a result, is represented in the "Paterik" by the devil's temptation. Presbyter Thomas, with whom Klim Smolyatich argues in his "Epistle", obviously held the same views. Foma "convicted" Klim of being, in modern terms, "very smart." The Metropolitan, not without irony, replies that, God is my witness, he did not at all set himself the goal of tempting him "of prudence, but as if just writing," yes and the letter that caused such a negative reaction was not addressed to him, but to the prince.However, Klim himself is far from asserting the independent significance of the works of Homer, Aristotle and Plato, in which Thomas accused him of referring.From the reasoning of Klim Smolyatich, it becomes clear that that broad erudition, "philosophy", is necessary for a person, first of all, for the deepest understanding of Divine Scripture. The ultimate goal of education of a higher order according to ancient Russian standards is not so much the acquisition of knowledge, but the acquisition of the skill of understanding, interpreting the facts of life and Holy Books, the Christian worldview. aimed at developing philosophical thinking along the lines of exegesis inherent in the entire European Middle Ages.It was to help in the development of this skill, to direct it in the right direction, that a teacher-mentor was needed. Examples of education of this kind are given by Klim Smolyatich himself. What does he care, - he writes, - before the biblical characters - Jacob and his two wives, "like tacos to honor, but not to seek in spirit"? Another thing, if you understand and understand that the wives, Leah and Rachel, symbolize two peoples - the Israelites and the Gentiles. "Leah, then, in the image of the Israeli people", "Rachel - people like the tongue", etc. Another example of wisdom is given to us by the “philosopher, Bishop of Belgorod”, who wrote the “Instruction” against drunkenness. He interprets a common everyday phenomenon in relation to the Kingdom of God; a drunk person turns from a simply unpleasant subject into a servant of Satan. The line of reasoning is interesting: the drunkard gets drunk on honey, it seems to serve him; honey is created by human hands, therefore, the drunkard does not serve the Creator, but the creature, thus becoming like the pagans who worship idols, which means that he serves the devil. The list of examples could go on.
The role of a woman-mother in ancient Rus'
The upbringing of children was carried out mainly by women. Churches at that time demanded from women that they bring up in their babies, first of all, respect for elders, obedience, and also patience. In addition, the children had to listen to their mother in everything and not argue with her.
If we talk about an ordinary peasant family, then it had a large number of everyday features. At that time, the family was a single social body. Family and generic characteristics were dominant. Historians say that at that time it was difficult to do anything without a full-fledged family. For example, without a close-knit family, it was almost impossible to have a full-fledged household, reproduce a clan, etc. People who did not have a family were considered outside of religion. Among the most important features of a family in ancient Rus' were collective property, as well as a common household.
The head of the family and his wife 
The head of the family was exclusively the oldest man, who was called big. Among the main functions of such a person, one can single out the management of the economic activities of the family, as well as the competent disposal of the labor force of all family members. In addition, the heads of families followed the social and religious morality of their relatives. Also of great importance was the wooden architecture of ancient Rus', which was given special attention.
The father-household in Ancient Rus' is the real bearer of power, as well as the guardian of the religious cult. In addition, the foreman of the family is the representative of his relatives at the village meeting. Of course, the oldest man was not only the head, but also the main worker. If we talk about the material well-being of the family, then it directly depended on the skills of the head of the family, as well as on his practical skills.
The eldest woman in such families, who was called the "big woman", was in charge of all household chores. More precisely, such women were in charge of family reserves, kept family money, and also kept order very carefully, which was quite welcomed. Also, the main woman was engaged in the distribution of all housework among family members. If, however, the main man left for a long time to work, then his functions as head were taken over by an older woman. Also, the "bolshukhs" were engaged in livestock, land work. By the way, agriculture in ancient Rus' significantly influenced the well-being of the family. It is worth noting that without the knowledge of the older woman, the head of the family could not sell the cattle.
The value of the eldest son and his wife in family life
After the big road and the big road, it was the eldest son who enjoyed the greatest authority. Such a family member had to be addressed exclusively by his first name and patronymic. The eldest sons helped the heads of their families in almost everything. For example, they went to fairs together, sold bread, bought all the necessary goods for their families, and so on. The mother-in-law's assistant was the wife of the eldest son. It is worth noting that this situation could be called one of the most difficult, both morally and physically.
| http://bestohota.ru/ |
As you can see, the life of ancient Rus' was quite interesting, and in many respects differed from modern canons. We can confidently conclude that the family in Ancient Rus' is a friendly and well-coordinated team of relatives, each of whom had his own characteristic duties.
Video: Museum of the Old Russian Family in Plyos
Read also:
It is no secret that for quite a long period of time Rus' and Byzantium were in close relationship. It is worth noting that it is difficult to imagine the formation of the ancient Russian state without any clashes with such a great state as Byzantium. In general, Byzantium and ancient Rus'
The Old Russian state arose in Eastern Europe. It is worth noting that this state was quite powerful and influential. During its existence, the ancient Russian state conquered a large number of lands. Those who are interested in history know that there are two main theories
Kievan Rus is the largest state of the European Middle Ages. It is worth noting that the Russian land as a whole existed only in the period from the 9th to the 10th century. In this article, we will consider what the social structure of ancient Rus' was like. It is worth noting that in
After the death of Yaroslav the Wise, who was one of the most talented princes of the ancient Russian state, significant changes began to take place in the country, both in political and economic life. In this article we will consider the main reasons for the fragmentation of the ancient Russian state.
It's no secret that writing plays an important role in a person's life. In other words, writing can be called the engine of human culture, and indeed it is. It is worth noting that it was the letter that made it possible for people to use a fairly large stock of knowledge that
A person who studies modern Russian at school does not even think about the fact that this is far from the language that was called “Russian” in Ancient Rus'. Experts say that today the Belarusian language is really closest to the Old Russian language. Of course, this topic is enough
Today it is not uncommon to hear calls to "back to tradition" in regard to morality and marriage. This is often justified by biblical principles and truly Russian traditions.
And how did women really live in Rus' in the era of early Christianity and before it?
The position of women in ancient Rus': from paganism to Christianity
Women in the pagan period enjoyed more influence in the community than in the era of Christianity.
The status of a woman in the pagan period was different than in the days of Orthodoxy.
Polytheism was characterized by the fact that female deities occupied an equally important niche among the Slavic pantheon than male ones. There was no talk of gender equality, but women in this period enjoyed more influence in the community than in the era of Christianity.
A woman in pagan times was a special creature to men, endowed with mysterious power. Mysterious female rituals, on the one hand, evoked a respectful attitude towards them on the part of men, on the other hand, fear and hostility, which intensified with the advent of Christianity.
Pagan customs were preserved, partially transformed into Orthodox ones, but the attitude towards women only worsened in the direction of arbitrariness.
"A woman was created for a man, and not a man for a woman" - this idea was often heard under the arches of the Christian churches of Byzantium, starting from the 4th century, having migrated to Orthodoxy, which, despite the resistance of convinced pagans, was successfully introduced in most of the territory Ancient Rus' X-XI centuries.
Such a postulate, implanted by the church, caused mutual distrust of the sexes. The idea of marriage for mutual love for most young people was not even on the agenda - marriage was concluded at the behest of their parents.
Orthodoxy was successfully introduced in most of the territory of Ancient Rus' in the 10th-11th centuries.
In family relationships, hostility towards a partner or outright indifference was often present. Husbands did not value their wives, but wives did not value their husbands too much either.
In order for the bride not to harm the groom with her girlish charms, a ceremony of “washing away beauty” was performed before the wedding, in other words, getting rid of the action of protective rituals, allegorically called “beauty”.
Mutual distrust gave rise to disregard for each other and jealousy on the part of the husband, sometimes expressed in harsh forms.
Men, showing cruelty towards their wife, at the same time feared reciprocal revenge in the form of deceit, intrigue, adultery or the use of poison.
Assault was commonplace and justified by society. “Teach” (beat) the wife was the husband’s duty. “Beats means loves” - this saying has been going on since those times.
A husband who did not follow the generally accepted stereotype of the "wife's teaching" was condemned as a person who does not care about his soul, about his home. It was during these centuries that the proverb came into use: "Who spares the rod, he destroys the child." The style of the attitude of husbands towards their wives was similar to the style of attitude towards small, unreasonable children, who must be constantly instructed on the true path.
Mysterious women's rituals evoked a respectful attitude from men during pagan times. On the other hand, fear and hostility, which intensified with the advent of Christianity.
The wedding ritual of those times is indicative here: the bride's father hit her with a whip at the moment of handing over to the groom, after which he passed the whip to the newlywed, thus power over the woman symbolically passed from father to husband.
Violence against the personality of a woman turned into her hidden resistance to her husband. The typical means of revenge was treason. Sometimes, in a fit of despair, under the influence of alcohol, a woman gave herself to the first person she met.
Before the arrival of Christianity in Rus', divorces of spouses who were disappointed in each other were not rare, in this case the girl went to her parents' house, taking her dowry. Spouses, remaining married, could simply live separately.
In family relationships, hostility towards a partner or outright indifference was often present.
In Orthodoxy, marriage has become more difficult to dissolve. The options for women were to run away, go to a richer and nobler man who had more power, slander her husband before those in power, and other unsightly measures, up to the poisoning of a spouse or murder.
Men did not remain in debt: disgusted wives were exiled to monasteries, deprived of their lives. Ivan the Terrible, for example, sent 2 wives to the monastery, and 3 of his wives died (one died just 2 weeks after the wedding).
A commoner could even "drunk" his wife. A wife could also be mortgaged by borrowing money. The one who received her on bail could use the woman at his own discretion.
The duties of husband and wife were fundamentally different: the woman was in charge of the internal space, the man was in charge of the external.
Men were more often engaged in some kind of business away from home: work in the field, on corvee, hunting, trade, duties of a combatant. Women gave birth and raised children, kept the household in order, were engaged in needlework, cared for livestock.
In the absence of a husband, the eldest of the women in the family (bolshakha) acquired power over all members of the family, including the younger men in status. This situation is similar to the current position of the eldest wife in, where families also live like an old Russian family, all together in one house: parents, sons, their wives and children.
In the Cossack life, there were completely different relationships between spouses than in the countryside: the Cossacks took women with them on campaigns. Cossack women were more lively and independent than residents of other Russian territories.
Love in ancient Rus'
Love in folklore is a forbidden fruit.
In written sources, mentions of love are rare.
More often the theme of love sounds in Russian folklore, but love is always a forbidden fruit, it is not love between spouses. Love in the songs is described positively, while family life is dreary and unattractive.
Sexuality was not mentioned at all. The fact is that the written sources that have survived to this day were created by monks, who were the main literate stratum of those times. That is why love and the expressions accompanying it are mentioned only in common speech and folklore sources.
In a few written references, carnal love appears in a negative guise, as a sin: lust, fornication. This is a continuation of the biblical, Christian foundations.
Although the law condemned the possession of more than one wife after the adoption of Christianity, in practice the line between the first wife and concubines (mistresses) was only formal.
The fornication of unmarried youths was condemned, but they were not denied communion, unless they sinned with their husband's wife.
Among the Slavic pagans, love was a divine phenomenon, feigned: it was sent by the gods, like a disease. The feeling of love was perceived as a mental illness. Just as the gods send thunderstorms and rain, they also bring love and the heat of desire to the consciousness of man.
Since it was a superficial and magical phenomenon, it was believed that it could be caused by the use of potions and slander.
According to the church, which mixed Byzantine and Slavic ideas, love (lustful feeling) had to be fought like a disease. A woman, as the source of this feeling, was considered an instrument of the tempter-devil. It was not the man who was to blame for his desire to possess the woman, but she herself was guilty, causing an impure feeling of lust. The man, succumbing to her charms, suffered, in the eyes of the church, defeat in the fight against her magical power.
Christian tradition has taken this view from the story of Adam and Eve the temptress. A woman was credited with demonic, magical power because of the attraction she evoked in men.
If a love desire came from a woman, then it was also portrayed as unclean, sinful. A wife who came from a strange family was always considered hostile and her fidelity was doubtful. It was believed that a woman was more prone to the sin of voluptuousness. That is why the man had to keep her in line.
Did Russian women have rights
The female part of the population of Ancient Rus' had few rights.
The female part of the population of Ancient Rus' had minimal rights. Only sons had the opportunity to inherit property. Daughters who did not have time to marry while their father was alive, after his death, found themselves in the maintenance of the community or were forced to beg - a situation reminiscent of the position of the widows of India.
In the pre-Christian era, love marriages were possible if the groom kidnapped his beloved (remember similar rituals among other peoples). The kidnapping of the bride from the Slavs was usually carried out by prior agreement with the girl. However, Christianity gradually put an end to this tradition, because, in the case of a non-church marriage, the priest was deprived of his due reward for performing the wedding ceremony.
At the same time, the kidnapped girl became the property of her husband. At the conclusion of an agreement between the parents, a deal took place between the girl's family and the groom's clan, which somewhat limited the power of the husband. The bride received the right to her dowry, which became her property.
Christianity imposed a ban on bigamy, which had previously been common in Rus'. This tradition was associated with Slavic beliefs in two goddesses - "children", who, inextricably linked with the god Rod, were revered as the ancestors of the Slavs.
In the wedding ceremony, even in those days when Christianity became the dominant religion in the country, many pagan rites were preserved, which were ahead of the wedding in importance. Therefore, the priest did not occupy the most honorable place during the solemn meal at the feast dedicated to the marriage, more often he was pushed to the far end of the table.
Dancing and dancing at a wedding is a pagan ritual. The wedding procedure did not provide for them. The daring wedding fun is an echo of pre-Christian pagan traditions.
Such a crime as causing death to a woman was punished differently. For the wife of a smerd, the husband could either take revenge, or the owner, whose servant she was, could receive compensation for damages for her death through the court.
Punishment for sexual violence against women depended on the social status of the victim.
For the murder of a woman of a princely or boyar family, the court offered her relatives a choice between revenge and the payment of "vira" - a kind of compensation for damage - in the amount of 20 hryvnias. This amount was very significant, so often the injured party chose to pay the fine. The murder of a man was estimated twice as high - 40 hryvnia.
Punishment for sexual violence against women depended on the social status of the victim. Punishment was imposed for the rape of a well-born girl. For violence against a servant, the owner could receive compensation as for damage to property, if the culprit belonged to another master. The master's violence against his own servants was habitual. With regard to violence that occurred within the possession between smerds, measures were taken at the discretion of the owner.
The right of the first night was used by the owners, although it was not officially mentioned anywhere. The owner took the opportunity to take the maiden first. Until the 19th century, the owners of large estates created entire harems of serf girls.
The attitude of Orthodoxy towards women was emphatically derogatory. This was characteristic of Christian philosophy: the exaltation of the spirit and the opposition of the flesh to it. Despite the fact that the Mother of God, dearly revered in Rus', was a woman, the fair sex could not stand comparison with their heavenly patroness, they were severely called the vessel of the devil.
Perhaps that is why among the Russian pantheon of martyrs and martyrs up to the 18th century, out of more than 300 names, there were only 26 female names. Most of them belonged to noble families, or were the wives of recognized saints.
Legal foundations and traditions of family life in Ancient Rus'
Family life in ancient Rus' was subject to strict traditions.
Family life in ancient Rus' was subject to strict traditions that remained unchanged for a long time.
A family (genus) consisting of many relatives in the male line living under one roof was a ubiquitous phenomenon.
In such a family, together with aging parents, their sons and grandchildren lived with their families. The girls after the wedding went to another family, to another clan. Marriage unions were forbidden between members of the clan.
Sometimes adult sons, for various reasons, separated from their kind and formed new families, which consisted of a husband, wife and their young children.
The Orthodox Church took control of family life itself, and its beginning - the marriage ceremony, declaring it a sacred sacrament. However, at first, in the XI century, only representatives of the nobility resorted to it, and then, rather, in order to maintain status than religious beliefs.
The common people preferred to do without the help of priests in this matter, since they did not see the point in church weddings, because Russian wedding traditions were self-sufficient and were not just fun entertainment.
Despite efforts aimed at eradicating non-church marriages, the church court had to recognize them as legal when resolving litigations relating to family issues: divorce and division of property. Children born in marriages not consecrated by the church also had the right to inherit on a par with married marriages.
In the ancient Russian legislation of the XI century, represented by the "Charter of Prince Yaroslav", there are a number of normative acts relating to family and marriage. Even collusion between matchmakers was a regulated phenomenon.
For example, the groom's refusal to marry after the matchmaking took place was considered an insult to the bride and required substantial compensation. Moreover, the amount levied in favor of the metropolitan was twice as large as in favor of the offended side.
The church limited the possibility of remarriage, there should have been no more than two.
By the 12th century, the influence of the church on family life became more tangible: marriages between relatives up to the sixth generation were prohibited, polygamy practically disappeared in the Kievan and Pereyaslavl principalities, bride kidnapping became only a game element of the wedding ceremony.
The norms of marriageable age were established, only boys who had reached the age of 15 and 13-14-year-old girls could enter into marriage. True, this rule was not always respected in reality, and marriages of younger teenagers were not uncommon.
Also illegal were marriages between people with a big difference in age, elderly people (at that time already 35-year-olds were considered old women).
Family unions between noble men and women of the lower class were not considered legal from the point of view of the church and were not recognized. Peasant women and slave women were essentially concubines in a relationship with a noble man, having no legal status or legal protection either for themselves or for children.
According to the provisions of the “Large Truth” (a transcription of the “Charter of Prince Yaroslav”, made in the XII century), the marriage of a free citizen of ancient Russian society with a servant, as well as the reverse option, when an enslaved person became a husband, led to the enslavement of a free citizen or citizen.
Thus, in reality, a free man could not marry a slave (servant): this would make him a slave himself. The same thing happened if the woman was free and the man was in bondage.
Slaves of different masters did not have the opportunity to get married, unless the owners agreed to sell one of them into the possession of the other, so that both spouses belonged to the same master, which, in the conditions of the disdainful attitude of the masters towards the slaves, was an extremely rare occurrence. Therefore, in fact, serfs could only count on marriage with someone from the smerds of the same master, usually from the same village.
Class unequal alliances were impossible. Yes, the master did not need to marry his servant, she could be used anyway.
The church limited the possibility of remarriage, there should have been no more than two. The third wedding for a long time was illegal both for the bride and groom, and for the priest who performed the sacrament, even if he did not know about previous marriages.
To give a daughter in marriage was the duty of the parents, the non-fulfillment of which was punished the higher, the more noble the girl was.
The reasons why family life was interrupted (widowhood) did not matter in this case. Later, according to the following editions of the legal norms from the XIV-XV centuries, the legislation showed some indulgence to young people who were early widowed in the first two marriages and did not have time to have children, in the form of permission for the third.
Children born from the third and subsequent marriages in these times began to have the right to inheritance.
The "Charter of Prince Yaroslav" (which appeared around the turn of the 11th-12th centuries) provided for the obligations of parents to their children, according to which the offspring should be financially secure and arranged in family life.
Marrying a daughter was the responsibility of the parents, the failure to comply with which was punished the higher the nobler the girl was: “If a girl from the great boyars does not marry, parents pay the metropolitan 5 hryvnias of gold, and lesser boyars - a hryvnia of gold, and deliberate people - 12 hryvnias of silver, and a simple child - a hryvnia of silver. This money went to the church treasury.
Such harsh sanctions forced parents to rush into marriage and marriage. The opinion of the children was not particularly asked.
Forced marriage was widespread. As a result, women sometimes decided to commit suicide if the marriage was hateful. In this case, the parents were also punished: “If the girl does not want to get married, and the father and mother are handed over by force, and she does something to herself, the father and mother answer to the metropolitan.”
At the death of her parents, the care of an unmarried sister (marriage, providing a dowry) fell on her brothers, who were obliged to give her what they could as a dowry. Daughters did not receive inheritance if there were sons in the family.
The man in the Old Russian family was the main earner. The woman was mainly engaged in household affairs and children. Many children were born, but most of them did not live to adolescence.
They tried to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy with the help of healers (“potions”), although such actions were considered a sin. Losing a child as a result of work was not considered a sin and no penance was imposed for this.
In old age, children looked after their parents. The society did not provide assistance to the elderly.
A woman in the event of a divorce or the death of her husband had the right only to her dowry, with which she came to the groom's house.
In pagan tradition, premarital sexual relations were considered normal. But with the rooting of Christian traditions, the birth of an illegitimate child became like a stigma for a woman. She could only go to a monastery, marriage was no longer possible for her. The blame for the birth of an illegitimate child was placed on the woman. Not only unmarried girls, but also widows were subjected to the same punishment.
The main owner of the family property was a man. A woman in the event of a divorce or the death of her husband had the right only to her dowry, with which she came to the groom's house. The presence of this property allowed her to remarry.
After her death, the dowry was inherited only by the woman's own children. The size of the dowry varied depending on the social status of its mistress; the princess could have a whole city in her possession.
Relations between spouses were regulated by law. He obliged each of them to take care of each other during illness, it was illegal to leave a sick spouse.
In family matters, decisions rested with the husband. The husband represented the interests of his wife in relations with society. He had the right to punish her, and the husband was automatically right in any cases, he was also free to choose punishment.
Beating someone else's wife was not allowed, in this case the man was punished by the church authorities. It was possible and necessary to punish his wife. The husband's decision regarding his wife was law.
The relationship of the spouses was submitted to a third-party court only when considering divorce cases.
The list of grounds for divorce was short. The main reasons: cheating on her husband and the case when the husband was physically unable to perform marital duties. Such options were listed in the Novgorod rules of the 12th century.
In family matters, decisions rested with the husband: beating his wife and children was not only his right, but his duty.
The possibility of divorce was also considered in the event that relations in the family were completely unbearable, for example, if the husband drank away his wife's property - but in this case, penance was imposed.
The adultery of a man was also repaid by the performance of penance. Only the contact of a husband with someone else's wife was considered treason. The infidelity of the husband was not a reason for divorce, although from the 12th-13th centuries, the betrayal of the wife became a valid reason for the dissolution of the marriage, if there were witnesses to her misconduct. Even simply communicating with strangers outside the home was considered a threat to the husband's honor and could lead to divorce.
Also, the husband had the right to demand a divorce if the wife tried to encroach on his life or rob him, or became an accomplice in such actions.
Later editions of legal documents made it possible for the wife to also demand a divorce if the husband accused her of treason without evidence, that is, he had no witnesses, or if he tried to kill her.
Marriage, not only consecrated, but also unmarried, they tried to save both the authorities and the church. The dissolution of a church marriage cost twice as much - 12 hryvnia, unmarried - 6 hryvnia. At that time it was a lot of money.
Legislation in the 11th century provided for liability for illegal divorces and marriages. A man who left his first wife and entered into an unauthorized marriage with his second, as a result of a court decision, had to return to his lawful wife, pay her a certain amount in the form of compensation for the offense and not forget about the penalty to the metropolitan.
If the wife left for another man, her new, illegitimate husband was responsible for this offense: he had to pay the “sale”, in other words, a fine, to the church authorities. A sinning woman was placed in a church house to atone for her unrighteous deed.
But the men, both the first and the second (after the corresponding penance), could subsequently improve their personal lives by creating a new family with the approval of the church.
What awaited the children after the divorce of their parents is not mentioned anywhere, the legislation did not deal with the decision of their fate. When a wife was exiled to a monastery, as well as at her death, the children could stay with her husband's family, under the supervision of aunts and grandmothers.
It is noteworthy that in Ancient Rus' of the 11th century the word “orphan” meant a free peasant (peasant woman), and not at all a child left without parents. Parents had great power over their children, they could even give them to slaves. For the death of a child, the father was sentenced to a year in prison and a fine. For the murder of parents, children were sentenced to death. Children were not allowed to complain about their parents.
The position of women in Rus' during the period of autocracy
The sixteenth century was a time of turbulent changes in Rus'. The country was ruled at that time by a well-born offspring, who became famous as Tsar Ivan the Terrible. The new Grand Duke became ruler at the age of 3, and king at 16.
The title "Tsar" is important here, because he was indeed the first to be officially given this title. "Terrible", because his reign was marked by such trials for the Russian people, which even he, the eternal worker and sufferer, seemed terrible.
It was from the message of Tsar Ivan the Terrible that a class-representative monarchy arose, a transitional form on the way to absolutism. The goal was worthy - the exaltation of the royal throne and the country as a whole in front of other states of Europe and the East (the territory of Rus' increased under the leadership of Ivan the Terrible by 2 times). To control new territories and suppress attempts to oppose the increasingly absolute power of the tsar, internal terror, the oprichnina, was used.
The reign of Ivan the Terrible was marked by terrible trials for the Russian people.
But the legal basis of the desired changes did not correspond to the goals: the law was unable to cope with the rudeness of morals. No one, neither the common people, nor the nobility, nor the guardsmen themselves felt safe.
Only under the watchful eye of the authorities was the semblance of order observed. As soon as the boss was unable to notice the violations, everyone strove to grab what they could. “Why not steal, if there is no one to appease,” says a Russian proverb, modern to the era of Grozny.
“Theft” referred to any offense, including murder and rebellion. The one who was stronger was right. In society, there was a struggle between custom and decree: time-honored traditions contradicted innovations. Lawlessness and intimidation became result of the mosaic law.
It was during this era that the famous book "Domostroy" became popular. It was a lesson addressed to his son and contained advice for all occasions, especially family life, as well as a serious moral message, closely intertwined with Christian commandments about humility and mercy, nobility and a sober lifestyle.
The original version dates back to the end of the 15th century. Subsequently, the book was improved by Archpriest Sylvester, the mentor of Tsar Ivan the Terrible himself. The commandments of this work at first found a response in the soul of the young autocrat. But after the death of his first wife Anastasia, with whom he lived for more than 13 years, the king changed. The ruler of all Rus', according to separate sources, boasted of the presence of hundreds of concubines, only he had at least 6 official wives.
After "Domostroy" in the Russian-speaking social culture, no such attempt was made to regulate the comprehensive circle of responsibility in everyday life, especially family life. Of the documents of the new time, only the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism” can be compared with it. The similarity lies in the fact that the ideals of "Domostroy", as well as the principles of the moral code of the builder of communism, for the most part, remained calls, and not the real norm of people's lives.
Philosophy of "Domostroy"
Instead of cruel punishments, Domostroy offered to instruct women with rods, neatly and without witnesses. Instead of the usual slander and denunciations, we find calls not to spread rumors and not to listen to the slanderers.
According to this teaching, humility should be combined with firmness of convictions, diligence and diligence - with generosity to guests, the church, orphans and the poor. Talkativeness, laziness, extravagance, bad habits, connivance towards the weaknesses of others were strictly condemned.
First of all, this applied to wives, who, according to the book, should be silent, hardworking and faithful executors of the will of their husband. Their communication with household servants should be limited to guidelines, it is not recommended to communicate with strangers at all, and especially with friends, “grandmothers-accomplices”, conversations and gossip that distract the wife from her immediate duties, which, from the point of view of Domostroy, are very harmful . Unemployment and freedom are portrayed as evil, and submission as good.
"Domostroy" was popular during the 16th-17th centuries; with the advent of Peter the Great, they began to treat him with irony.
The hierarchical position on the stairs determines the degree of freedom and control. A high position imposes an obligation to make decisions and control their implementation. Subordinates may not think about plans, their task is unquestioning obedience. The young woman is at the bottom of the family hierarchy, below her only small children.
The king is responsible for the country, the husband for the family and their misdeeds. That is why the superior has the duty to punish subordinates, including for disobedience.
A compromise approach was expected only from the female side: the wife deliberately loses all her rights and freedoms in exchange for the privilege of being protected by the authority of her husband. The husband, in turn, has full control over his wife, being responsible for her to society (as in Ancient Rus').
The word "married" in this regard is significant: the wife was precisely "behind" her husband, did not function without his permission.
"Domostroy" was very popular during the XVI-XVII centuries, however, with the advent of Peter the Great, they began to treat it with irony and derision.
Terem - girl's dungeon
Shame awaited the family that married the daughter of the “not pure”: in order to avoid this, the girl was in a tower.
According to the customs of the times of Domostroy, a noble bride must be innocent before her wedding. This quality of the girl was the main requirement for her, in addition to property or household.
Shame awaited the family that married their daughter “not pure”. Preventive measures in this case were simple and unpretentious: the girl was in a tower. Depending on the well-being of the family to which it belonged, and in this case we are talking about representatives of noble families, it could be a whole turret in a house-terem typical of that time, or one, or maybe several light rooms.
Maximum isolation was created: of the men, only the father or the priest had the right to enter. The girl was accompanied by her relatives, children, maids, nannies. Their whole life consisted of chatting, reading prayers, sewing and embroidering a dowry.
The wealth and high-born position of the girl reduced the likelihood of marriage, because it was not easy to find an equal groom. Such domestic confinement could be lifelong. Other options for leaving the tower were as follows: marry at least someone or go to a monastery.
However, the life of a high-born married woman differed little from the life of a bride - the same loneliness in anticipation of her husband. If these women left the tower, then either for a walk behind a high garden fence, or for a ride in a carriage with curtains drawn and a mass of accompanying nannies.
All these rules did not apply to women of simple origin, since the family needed their work.
By the end of the XVII century, the rules regarding noble women began to soften. For example, Natalya Naryshkina, the wife of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, was allowed to ride in a carriage, flaunting her face.
The life of a girl in a tower consisted of chatting, reading prayers, sewing and embroidering a dowry.
Russian wedding customs
Before the wedding, the noble bride and groom often did not see each other.
Wedding traditions in Rus' were strict and consistent, deviations from them were impossible. Therefore - the parents agreed to marry their children, agreed with each other on property issues - there will be a feast.
It does not matter that the offspring are not yet aware of parental plans for their fate, it does not matter that the girl is still playing with dolls, and the boy has just been put on a horse - the main thing is that the party is profitable.
Young marriageable age was a typical phenomenon in Russia, especially in noble families, where the marriage of children was a means to extract economic or political benefits.
A lot of time could pass between the engagement and the wedding, the children had time to grow up, but the property agreements remained in force. Such traditions contributed to the isolation of each of the social strata, misalliances at that time were extremely rare.
Before the wedding, the noble bride and groom often did not see each other, personal acquaintance between the spouses was not necessary, and, even more so, they did not dare to object to the decision of their fate. For the first time, the young man could see the face of his betrothed only during the ceremony, where he could not change anything.
Peter I introduced many changes to the marriage system.
At the wedding, the girl was hidden from head to toe under a rich outfit. No wonder the etymological meaning of the word "bride" is "unknown".
The veil and veils from the bride were removed at the wedding feast.
The wedding night was a time of discovery, and not always pleasant, but there was no going back. The girlish “fortune-telling” about the future betrothed was an attempt by teenage girls to somehow find out their future fate, because they had little opportunity to influence it.
Peter I logically assumed that in such families there is little chance for the appearance of full-fledged descendants, and this is a direct loss for the state. He began active actions against the traditional Russian system of marriages.
In particular, in 1700-1702. It was legally approved that a minimum of 6 weeks should elapse between betrothal and marriage. During this time, young people had the right to change their decision regarding marriage.
Later, in 1722, Tsar Peter went even further in this direction, forbidding marriages in the church, if one of the newlyweds was against the wedding.
However, Peter, for reasons of high politics, himself changed his own convictions and forced Tsarevich Alexei to marry a girl from a German royal family. She belonged to a different faith, Protestant, which very much turned Alexei away from her, who, thanks to his mother's upbringing, was committed to Russian Orthodox traditions.
Fearing the wrath of his father, the son fulfilled his will, and this marriage gave rise to a long (for two centuries) custom of choosing spouses of German blood for representatives of the Romanov family.
Peter I forbade marriages in the church if one of the newlyweds was against the wedding.
Representatives of the lower classes had a much easier attitude towards creating a family. Girls from serfs, servants, urban commoners were not abstracted from society, like noble beauties. They were lively, sociable, although they were also affected by moral attitudes accepted in society and supported by the church.
The communication of commoner girls with the opposite sex was free, this led to their joint work, attending church. In the temple, men and women were on opposite sides, but they could see each other. As a result, marriages of mutual sympathy were common among serfs, especially those who lived on large or distant estates.
The serfs serving at the house were in a worse position, since the owner created families among the servants, based on his own interests, which rarely coincided with the personal sympathies of the forced people.
The saddest situation was when love arose between young people from the estates of different owners. In the 17th century, it was possible for a serf to move to another estate, but for this he needed to redeem himself, the amount was high, but everything depended on the goodwill of the owner, who was not interested in losing labor.
Tsar Peter I, with the help of the same decree of 1722, took into account the possibility of marriage of his own free will, even for peasants, including serfs. But the Senate unanimously opposed such an innovation, which threatened their material well-being.
And, despite the fact that the decree was put into effect, it did not ease the fate of the serfs either under Peter or in subsequent years, which is confirmed by the situation described by Turgenev in the story “Mumu” in 1854, where a maid is married to an unloved person.
Have there been divorces?
Divorces took place in Rus'.
As already mentioned above, divorces in Rus' took place due to the infidelity of one of the spouses, the refusal to live together, when one of the spouses was condemned. Women as a result of divorces often ended up in a monastery.
Peter I also changed this, imperfect, in his opinion, legislation, with the help of a decree of the Synod of 1723. Women who caused a divorce, and, therefore, turned out to be guilty from the point of view of the church, were sent to a workhouse instead of a monastery, where they brought benefits, in contrast to staying in a monastery.
Men were no less likely than women to file for divorce. In the case of a positive decision, the wife was obliged to leave her husband's house along with her dowry, however, the husbands sometimes did not give the wife's property, they threatened her. The only salvation for women was the same monastery.
There is a well-known example of the noble Saltykov family, where the divorce case, after many years of litigation, ended with a refusal to dissolve the marriage, despite the confirmed cruel attitude towards the woman on the part of her husband.
The wife, as a result of the refusal received at her request, had to go to the monastery, since she had nothing to live on.
Peter himself did not escape the temptation to sell his wife Evdokia, who was disgusted with him, under the monastery vaults, moreover, she had to take tonsure there out of her own desire.
Later, by decree of Peter, forcibly tonsured women were allowed to return to secular life and were given permission to remarry. In the case of the departure of the wife to the monastery, the marriage with her now continued to be considered valid, the property of the woman was inaccessible to the husband. As a result of these innovations, well-born men stopped exiling their wives to the monastery with the same frequency.
In the event of a divorce, the wife left her husband's house along with her dowry, however, sometimes husbands did not want to give it away.
Women's rights throughout XVI– XVIIIcenturies
In the XVI-XVII centuries, the property was at the complete disposal of noble women.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, women's rights changed.
The property was now at the complete disposal of noble women. They had the opportunity to bequeath their fortune to anyone, the husband was not the unconditional heir to his wife. After the death of her husband, the widow disposed of his property, acted as the guardian of the children.
The estate for a noble woman was an opportunity to prove herself a sovereign ruler. Women from the upper classes were recognized as witnesses in court.
The social position of women belonging to the lower strata of society differed from the status of the nobility. Serf peasant women were so powerless that even their clothes and other things were the property of the master or mistress. Women of the lower class could testify in the judiciary only if the proceedings were against a person of the same social category.
XVI-XVII centuries for the enslaved population of Russia became the apogee of servitude. Their completely dependent position on the owners was confirmed by law and strictly controlled. They were to be sold as pets. In the 18th century, in the markets in large cities of the country, for example, in St. Petersburg, there were shopping arcades where serfs were presented for sale.
Serfs were sold individually and by families, with a price tag attached to their foreheads. The prices were different, but even the strongest, youngest and healthiest serf was valued cheaper than a thoroughbred horse.
With the development of state structures, the duty of landlords and nobles became service for the benefit of the state, most often military. The payment for the service was the estates given to them for temporary use for the period of service.
Since the 18th century, a man answered with his head for the death of a woman.
In the event of the death of an employee, the lands with the serfs living on it were returned to the state, and the widow had to leave her familiar place, often she was left without housing and livelihoods. A monastery was a frequent way out in such a difficult situation. However, younger women could again find a husband, provide for their children.
Judicial legislation was still more severe towards women. For the murder of her own spouse, the wife was always punished by execution, regardless of the reason for such an act. For example, in the 16th century, the murderer of a spouse was buried in the ground alive up to their shoulders. This method was used until the beginning of the reign of Peter I, who canceled a similar medieval relic.
A man in similar situations until the 18th century was not severely punished, only Peter the Great corrected this injustice, and now a man answered for the death of a woman with his head. At the same time, the laws in relation to children also changed, before the father had the right to do with his offspring as he pleases, but now the death of a child was also punishable by execution.
Shortly after the adoption of this law, it was applied to the maid of honor Mary Hamilton, who had a love affair with the emperor. A woman, having given birth to a child from Peter, killed him. Despite numerous requests for leniency, the woman was executed on the main charge: infanticide.
For a long time, from pagan times to the reforms of Peter the Great, the position of women changed, sometimes drastically, from quite free under paganism to completely disenfranchised, "terem" in the period of the 16th-17th centuries. With the coming to power of the Romanov dynasty, the legal situation regarding women again underwent changes, the towers began to become a thing of the past.
The era of Emperor Peter in a revolutionary way turned the life of a Russian woman in accordance with the changes that the country experienced in all social spheres under the leadership of the reformer tsar - in a Western manner.
Share this articleFamily values and life in Ancient Rus'
(Slide No. 1) Each person, in addition to a place in society, nationality, property and financial status, from the moment of birth until the end of life, has such a characteristic as family and marital status.
What do you think a family is?
(Slide number 2) A family is a group of relatives living together (husband, wife, parents and children).
(Slide number 3) In 1993, the United Nations established the International Day of the Family, which is celebrated on May 15th.
(Slide number 4) And since 2008, Russia has also celebrated the Day of Family, Love, Fidelity in memory of Saints Peter and Fevronia - the patrons of family happiness. This holiday is celebrated on July 8th.
(Slide number 5) Chamomile has become a symbol of the All-Russian Day of Family, Love and Fidelity.
What was the family like in ancient times and is it much different from the modern one? We will try to find out about this by making a trip to the old days.
(Slide number 6) In the VIII-IX centuries. families in Rus' consisted of a husband, wife (sometimes their relatives) and children. Related families were united into a clan, headed by elders.
The concept of "marriage" comes from the old Russian word "brachiti", meaning "select, choose."
(Slide number 7) In the XI-XIII centuries. a number of norms of family and marriage law were reflected in the princely codes - the Brief and Long editions of Russkaya Pravda, in chronicles, in parchment and birch bark letters.
(Slide number 8) In the old days, marriage was performed both by agreement of older relatives, and by "kidnapping" (theft) of the bride. It is interesting that this archaic method did not disappear without a trace, but has come down to our times in the form of a rite.
(Slide number 9) Marriage in Rus' was treated as a sentence of fate that cannot be changed. Marriage was a lottery, and not every couple managed to win.
(Slide number 10) Old Russian people did not know love in our view. And what kind of love can there be when the bride and groom saw each other for the first time just before the wedding, and got married at a tender age (the age of marriage was 12-13 years for girls and 15 for boys).
(Slide number 11) Therefore, the tale about the Frog Princess is not a fairy tale at all, but a real true story. Someone really got the wife of the princess, someone - "frogs". No one could check who exactly the groom would lead to the crown. Even the parents who made the decision that it was time for their son to get married. Of course, no one asked his consent. In those days, they chose not so much the bride as the family with whom they would like to intermarry. They sent matchmakers. Native brides could accept or reject the proposal. And only in the case of a positive answer, the groom's mother got the opportunity (and even then not always) to look at the bride once.
(Slide number 12) Of course, wealthy grooms could achieve the right to see the bride at least once. But it is difficult to imagine how many troubles fell upon them if the marriage was upset through their fault. Seeing a girl and not marrying her was considered an insult, so much so that they could easily go to jail for him.
Only the Russian Tsar had the right to see his betrothed before marriage.
(Slide number 13) The conditions for marriage were quite difficult. Marriages between relatives were forbidden. The Church refused to marry people who were relatives even in the sixth generation, that is, marriages between second cousins were not allowed.
The wedding was preceded by an engagement, an agreement; she was accompanied by a meal at the bride's parents, and obligatory dishes were a loaf pie and cheese.
(Slide number 14) According to the legal norms that existed in Rus' after the adoption of Christianity, no more than two marriages could be entered into. Even the death of one of the spouses in the second marriage did not give the survivor the right to enter into a third marriage.
(Slide No. 15) With the adoption of Christianity in Rus', the tribal structure was replaced by a patriarchal family, its traditions and foundations remained practically unchanged until the 18th century.
Families in Rus' were large.
(Slide No. 16) The main source of the family's existence was the labor of a man (military, handicraft, peasant), and the upbringing of "children" was traditionally a female sphere of activity: it was fitting for them to "correct the children's temper", "keep their children". The head of the family belonged to the husband, the breadwinner. He resolved all issues related to the interaction of the family with the outside world.
(Slide number 17) The main function of the husband was to manage the economic activities of the family. He disposed of the labor of its adult members, mainly men, made all the necessary household expenses, and supervised the household way of life of the family. The father-household was the real bearer of power and the guardian of the religious cult, followed the social and religious morality of family members.
(Slide No. 18) The male householder had exclusive, traditionally consecrated power over all family members. This power was a real personification of power, religiously consecrated, including the centuries-old experience of ancestors and personal, life and work experience. The material well-being of the family depended entirely on the household budget and practical skills of the head of the family, his skills and diligence.
(Slide No. 19) The eldest woman in the family, the wife of the head of the family, was in charge of household chores. She, as a rule, was in charge of family reserves, kept family money, kept order in the house, and distributed work among women. The wife was an adviser to her husband in everything, and in household matters she had a certain primacy, which all men considered. In the event of a long absence of her husband, for example, when he went to work, she took over the management of the entire household, including field work.
(Slide number 20) The essence of the intra-family hierarchy was determined by the resigned subordination of the younger members of the family to the elders, wives to husbands, children to parents. The eldest son enjoyed the greatest authority in the family. He was the first to stand out among other sons. He was always addressed only by his first name and patronymic. The son helped his father in household affairs. He went to the fair, sold bread, bought goods necessary for the family. The father gave him money, for which the son reported to his father. The wife of the eldest son was the first assistant to the mother-in-law and was considered the main among other daughters-in-law. Among women, the situation of the younger daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law (“youth”) was the most difficult. If the mother-in-law or one of the elders offended the younger daughter-in-law, then the husband, himself at the bottom of the social ladder, could not protect his wife, but only comforted her.
(Slide number 21) Let's digress a bit and guess riddles about the family.
Mother-in-law and son-in-law, husband and wife, grandmother and granddaughter, mother and daughter, and daughter and father were walking. How many were there? (Total four)
Shurin's nephew as a brother-in-law? (Son) (The brother-in-law is the wife's brother).
Two mothers, two daughters, and a grandmother and granddaughter, and there are three of them in total. (mother, daughter and granddaughter)
(Slide number 22)
Three people are walking: one father - mother's children, and among themselves - not brothers.
My father's son, but not my brother. (I myself)
Who was called mother in the 19th century? (The nurse. Mother was called mother, and the nurse was called mother).
(Slide number 23) Russian families lived in huts. The word "hut" (as well as its synonyms "izba", "istba", "hut", "source", "firebox") has been used in Russian chronicles since the most ancient times. The connection of this term with the verbs "to drown", "to drown" is obvious. Indeed, it always denotes a heated building
(Slide number 24) Russians preferred to cut huts from pine, spruce, larch. These trees with long, even trunks fit well into the frame, tightly adjoining each other, retained the internal heat well, and did not rot for a long time.
The construction of the house was accompanied by many rituals. The beginning of construction was marked by the ritual of sacrificing a chicken, a ram. It was held during the laying of the first crown of the hut.
(Slide No. 25) Under the logs of the first crown, the window pillow, the mother was laid money, wool, grain - symbols of wealth and family warmth, incense - a symbol of the holiness of the house. The completion of construction was marked by a rich treat for all those involved in the work.
(Slide No. 26) On the frames in the houses they pulled a pack bag of fish (where the pack caviar comes from) - such a window was called a pack window. Also used was a bull bladder, mica (such windows were called mica windows), oiled cloth. Until the 18th century, glass windows (glass windows) were rarely used.
(Slide No. 27) In peasant houses, as a rule, there were one or two, less often three living quarters connected by a passage. The most typical for Russia was a house consisting of a warm room heated by a stove and a vestibule. The canopy was used for household needs and as a kind of vestibule between the cold of the street and the warmth of the hut.
(Slide No. 28) In the houses of wealthy peasants, in addition to the hut itself, heated by a Russian stove, there was another, summer, front room - the upper room, which was also used in everyday life in large families. In this case, the upper room was heated by a Dutch oven.
(Slide number 29) The stove played a major role in the interior of the Russian dwelling throughout all stages of its existence. No wonder the room where the Russian stove stood was called "hut, firebox."
The stove was the second most important "holiness center" in the house - after the red, God's corner - and maybe even the first.
(Slide number 30) All significant events of family life were noted in the red corner. Here, both everyday meals and festive feasts were held at the table, the action of many calendar rituals took place.
They tried to keep the red corner clean and smartly decorated. The very name "red" means "beautiful", "good", "light". It was cleaned with embroidered towels, popular prints, postcards. The most beautiful household utensils were placed on the shelves near the red corner, the most valuable papers and objects were stored.
(Slide number 31) Let's digress a little and guess the riddles about the Russian hut and the decoration of the hut.
Two brothers look
but they don't fit together. (Floor and ceiling.)
Bakes pancakes,
That shows
Dreams. (Russian oven).
To everyone who comes and goes
gives a hand (Door handle).
(Slide number 32)
Twisted, bound, impaled,
And dances up the mountain. (Broom.)
They go to the hut - cry,
From the hut they go - they jump. (buckets on the yoke)
Not a bull, but butting
(Slide number 33)
Not eating, but enough food
What grabs, gives,
He walks into the corner. (Grip)
Four legs, two ears
One nose and belly. (Samovar.)
Why do they drink tea (At the table).
(Slide No. 34) The hierarchical structure of the family was clearly manifested, for example, in the way family members were seated at the table. Each family member knew his place at the table. The owner of the house sat under the images during a family meal. His eldest son was located on the right hand of his father, the second son - on the left, the third - next to his older brother. Children under marriageable age were seated on a bench running from the front corner along the facade. Women ate while sitting on side benches or stools. Violating the once established order in the house was not supposed to be unless absolutely necessary. The person who violated them could be severely punished.
(Slide No. 35) It also happened that adults ate first, then children; while the women stood behind their husbands and sipped from behind their backs. They ate from the same bowl with wooden spoons. The meat was taken after the father-in-law gave instructions - he would hit with a spoon. They sat at the table decorously, “you laugh, then the father-in-law will hit his forehead with a spoon.”
(Slide No. 36) The basis of the table of ancient Russians was bread, flour products and grain dishes. Housewives baked pancakes and rye pies, cooked flour jelly. Not a single solemn event in the family was complete without delicious dough products. Kurniki were baked for weddings, pancakes and pies were baked for Maslenitsa. The fillings of the pies were very different - fish, meat, poultry, mushrooms, berries, cottage cheese, vegetables, fruits and even cereals. A dear guest was greeted with a loaf and salt. The loaf was placed in the center of the table at any feast.
(Slide number 37) Also indispensable on the Russian table - porridge. Buckwheat, barley, barley, millet, oatmeal, oatmeal ... Porridge in Rus' served as an object of worship and a symbol of home well-being. Even the wedding feast itself was called porridge in the old days.
(Slide No. 38) Vegetables - cabbage, turnips, radishes, peas, cucumbers - were either eaten raw, or salted, steamed, boiled or baked, and separately from one another.
(Slide number 39) Milk and meat until the 17th century. ate very infrequently. Meat was cooked in cabbage soup or gruel until the 16th century. almost never fried. Milk was drunk raw, stewed or sour; cottage cheese and sour cream were obtained from sour milk, and the production of cream and butter remained almost unknown until the 16th century.
(Slide number 40) Honey and berries in ancient Russian cuisine were not only sweets in themselves, but also the basis on which syrups and jams were created. And, being mixed with flour and butter, with flour and eggs, honey and berries became the basis of the Russian national sweet product - gingerbread.
(Slide number 41) In the medieval period, most of the Russian national drinks also developed: honey, hops, kvass, sidera. Beer appears around 1284. In the 40-70s of the XV century. Russian vodka appears in Russia. It was made from rye grain.
(Slide number 42) In the XVI-beginning of the XVII centuries. Old Russian cuisine included such “oriental” dishes as noodles and dumplings, borrowed respectively from the Asian peoples, but now becoming traditional Russian dishes.
By guessing riddles and food.
Separately - I'm not so tasty,
But in food - everyone needs it. (Salt).
May break
Can be cooked
If you want -
can turn into a bird. (Egg).
Not snow
And always white.
Even though it flows
Not water. (Milk).
They beat me with sticks
press me with stones,
keep me in a fiery cave,
cut me with knives.
Why are they killing me like this?
For what they love. (Bread).
Tolstovat, forsist
I put on three hundred shirts,
And one leg. (Cabbage).
Famous lines from the poem by N.A. Nekrasov “Who should live well in Rus' ...”: they sound like this: “Eat, Vanya, there’s no milk ...”
What do you think, what kind of dish is tyurya?
(Tyurya - bread crumble in kvass or salt water).
In the poem "Dead Souls" N.V. Gogol Chichikov drank a bottle of cabbage soup. Do you think the writer messed something up?
(No. Sour cabbage soup - a drink - effervescent kvass, which fermented so that it could only be kept in a very dark bottle).
(Slide No. 43) According to the unwritten laws of that time, it was believed that after the death of the father, the right of seniority passes to the mother and children, even adults, should not get out of the "mother's will" (that is, leave her guardianship).
(Slide No. 44) In an Old Russian family, along with raising children, the mother taught the children the basics of science and literacy. As evidenced by Novgorod birch bark letters, even among the artisans there were many literate city dwellers. In low-income families, literacy and the basics of arithmetic were passed on to children only through their parents, and above all through their mother. From the 11th century, both boys and girls began to be taught to read and write in wealthy families. In princely families, at the age of three, the son was put on a horse, and at twelve, they were sent to manage volosts and cities along with a mentor.
(Slide number 45) Training in all women's work also began from early childhood, and at the age of five or six, girls already helped adults around the house, nursed younger children. In upbringing, reasonable strictness was required from parents - “do not embitter by punishing a child”, affection and kindness.
(Slide No. 46) In the ancient Russian families described in chronicles, the main black family microclimate was kindness, attention, care. The truth, worked out by centuries of folk wisdom, was brought to us by "Bees" - collections of sayings and proverbs of "teaching" content, which were practically desktop books of our ancestors: "What honors you bring to your parents, such you tea from your children in old age ...".
(Slide No. 47) Not only parental responsibilities were imposed on medieval spouses, but also responsibilities for mutual care and maintenance of each other.
(Slide No. 48) Neither the husband nor the wife had the right to leave each other if one of them was seriously ill. Under no circumstances were they given the right to leave a life partner, to divorce him.
(Slide number 49) Church teachings demanded from children and respect for the father and mother. Neglect and oblivion of the memory of parents: “packs mocking the father and reproaching old age matter ...” (if he mocks the father and reproaches the mother with her old age ...) were sharply condemned.
(Slide No. 50) The teachings that we find in the texts of church collections echo the evidence of some civil acts and annals, which also characterize the relationship between parents and children in ancient Russian families. Prince Konstantin Vsevolodovich (beginning of the 13th century), whose “Instruction on “children” has come down to us in the presentation of the famous historian of the 18th century V.N. contentment, so as not to suffer a lack ... "
(Slide No. 51) The role of the wise influence of the father and mother was repeatedly emphasized by chroniclers when describing many significant deeds in the life of princes and boyars - the main characters in the chronicles. So, for example, Anna, the wife of the Grand Duke Vsevolod Yaroslavich, convinces her son, Vladimir Vsevolodovich, to stop the petty struggle with Svyatopolk Izyaslavich (XI century); Grand Duchess Maria Yaroslavna blessed her son Ivan III to fight Khan Akhmat in 1480, and, as is known, the result was the overthrow of the Horde yoke in Rus'.
In the ancient Russian moralizing writings of the 11th - 13th centuries, in contrast to the late "Domostroy", nowhere is there a recommendation to beat a wife, no matter how bad she may be. A woman in the society of Ancient Rus' occupied a rather high position. Her legal and property status was not belittled, but on a number of points it turned out to be equal to that of men.
(Slide No. 52) Thus, mutual respect between family members, equality of father and mother, husband and wife in many matters - everyday, everyday and property law - has a long tradition in Russian history. And the socio-political activity of women in our country, which has so clearly manifested itself in the newest era, is by no means the fruit of superficial "Europeanism", but has deep historical roots.
(Slide No. 53) According to scientists, before the Second World War, the patriarchal family prevailed in Russia, which is characterized by the predominance of a man in the house and the subordination of all other family members to him. In the post-war years, from the late 40s to the 80s, the child-centric family became dominant, in which great importance is attached to the well-being of children and the preservation of marriage in the interests of children. More recently, in recent decades, a married family has emerged in which equal relations dominate, the stability of marriage depends on the desires and quality of relations between spouses. The economic independence of women, the increase in their social status inevitably presupposes a different type of partnership - a partnership.
(Slide number 54) The main part of a person's life passes in the family. Most people have a family. Usually in the family there is a mother, father, children, older members of the family - grandparents. A person who does not have a family feels lonely: there is no one to take care of him, no one will take care of him either.
The family unites people who are blood relatives (mother and children, sister and brother) or close people (husband and wife, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law). Family members have a common household, they all live in the same house or apartment, they have common incomes and expenses. Together they raise children, spend their free time. Such features distinguish the family team from other teams, for example, the labor team.
(Slide No. 55) The most important thing that distinguishes a family from other groups is the feeling of love and affection between its members. It is not for nothing that they say, “What is the treasure when the family is in harmony”, or “Love and advice, there is no grief”, or “the whole family is together, and the soul is in place”.
Family in Ancient Rus'
On family relations among the Eastern Slavs and Russ of the 8th - 1st half of the 13th centuries.
Ivan Razumov
© Ivan Razumov, 2016
ISBN 978-5-4483-2051-4
Created with the intelligent publishing system Ridero
Introduction
The family is the main element of society, the atom through which the complex essence of social relations is revealed. A person spends his whole life within the framework of the family: first - parental, then - his own. It is the study of the relationship between a man and a woman within the framework of a family team that makes it possible to feel the real spirit of the era, to trace the true picture of the life of the masses of the population. The study of the topic of family and marriage is a necessary condition for a full understanding of the features of a particular historical period.
In our work, we will focus on the period preceding the invasion of the Mongol-Tatar troops into Rus'. Among other things, this time is also interesting for the researcher because it was then that two forms of religion began to fight for influence among the masses - paganism and Christianity. Their struggle, which lasted for centuries, led to the establishment of dual faith, which left its mark on the nature of family relations in Ancient Rus'.
The theme of family and marriage in the works of historians of the Russian Empire, the USSR and the Russian Federation was presented rather poorly, preference was given first to legal, then to economic and socio-political issues. For the first time, the problem of the family in Ancient Rus' in the pagan period of the existence of the state (in terms of personal relations between spouses) was touched upon by N. M. Karamzin1. Initially, researchers were mainly interested in the legal aspects of family life. The historical and legal analysis of the institutions of marriage and the family is contained in the works of M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov and V.I. Sergeevich2. Issues related to the forms of marriage, personal and property relations of spouses (N.I. Khlebnikov, O. Lange, D.Ya. Samokvasov, V.I. Sinaisky3 and others), inheritance (A.N. Popov, I. Gaube, P.P. Tsitovich4), the legal status of a woman, divorce (N. Lazovsky, A.I. Zagorovsky5). But all these works had an important drawback: marriage and the family were considered exclusively through the prism of legal relations, and the source base of research was limited mainly to legal documents.
Since the middle of the 19th century, the works of professional historians have appeared (the works of M. Moroshkin, A. Smirnov, D. Dubakin and a number of other authors are published6), which, relying on a wider source base, affect many aspects of marriage and family relations and created a vivid picture of family life in Rus'. Researchers, considering the life and customs in Ancient Rus', come to the conclusion that the ancient Russian woman has broad personal rights and freedoms, and attempt to reconstruct the marriage rites of the Eastern Slavs.
A significant advantage of all these works is going beyond the boundaries of the history of law and expanding the range of issues studied. At the same time, there are also disadvantages, among which is an uncritical attitude to sources. In addition, pre-revolutionary historical thought did not always clearly distinguish between the period of existence of Ancient (Kievan) Rus and the emerging Russian state. Therefore, one can often find the application of the concept of "Ancient Rus'" to the era of the XV - XVI centuries, and, accordingly, a description of the features of the family structure of a later time. At the same time, most authors relied mainly on ethnographic data, and written sources for historians of the 19th - early 20th centuries. limited to the Tale of Bygone Years, the statutes of the princes, the editions of Russkaya Pravda, and a number of other monuments (Russian and, in part, Byzantine law).
After 1917, interest in the problems of the Russian mentality disappeared for a long time, replaced by the study of political and economic history. At the end of the 30s of the 20th century, a number of works on the problems of family and marriage appeared (for example, by E.A. Rydzevskaya, S.Ya. Wolfson), but they cannot claim to be generalizing works on the pre-Mongolian period in the history of Ancient Russia7. In addition, E.A. Rydzevskaya is a specialist in Scandinavia, and her research can only be used to make some analogies and comparative analysis.
During the Soviet period, the work of various researchers periodically raises the issue of the typology of the Old Russian family, the time and duration of the transition from large patriarchal to small individual families8, and examines the personal and property status of women and children in Russia.9. S. Bakhrushin and V.Yu. Leshchenko10 noted the persistence of pagan survivals in family and marriage relations and the struggle of the church against them.
But the most complete study of the problem of family and marriage relations and the daily life of the population of the Old Russian state is the work of B.A. Romanov “People and Mores of Ancient Rus'”11. In it, the researcher tried to reconstruct the inner life of the family in pre-Mongolian Rus' on the basis, mainly, of church monuments - the "Messages" and "Teachings" of the clergy. In addition, he relied on the data of Russkaya Pravda and the statutes of the princes, as well as on some literary monuments (The Life of Theodosius of the Caves, The Word by Daniil Zatochnik, etc.). B.A. Romanov explored the problems of establishing a monogamous family and the role of the church in this process, raising children in an ordinary old Russian family and the joint life of spouses, the causes of family breakdown and its consequences. All this makes his work, as already noted, the most complete and valuable for subsequent research. However, there are a number of shortcomings in this work. Firstly, the source base is not fully covered: in addition to those used by B.A. Romanov, other evidence is currently available to study the problem of marriage and family in Ancient Rus': data from Eastern, Byzantine and Scandinavian authors about the population of Eastern Europe, as well as a special type of sources characterizing the situation among the masses of the population - letters on birch bark. The latter could not be used by B.A. Romanov, since they were discovered relatively recently. In addition to written sources, a certain idea of the social structure of the East Slavic tribes can also be drawn up on the basis of archaeological data, which B.A. Romanov also does not have.
In the last quarter of the 20th century and in the 2000s, a number of works by Russian historians were published on various issues of marital relations and the position of individual family members. For example, in two editions of her book "Women of Ancient Rus'"12 N.L. Pushkareva traced the position of women in the family and society from the Old Russian period to the 18th century. In addition to her, the issues of the position of the Old Russian woman, relations between spouses, the upbringing of children, as well as other, until recently, “forbidden” topics (for example, sexual relations in and out of marriage) were also touched upon by other authors13. Articles appeared on certain issues of interest to us14, as in the 19th century, interest is being revived in assessing the legal status of family members, the evolution of forms of marriage, and the regulation of marriage and family relations15. The subject of the family in the period of interest to us is also touched upon by the collective monograph “Russians: History and Ethnography”16, however, 3.5 pages out of 750 are allocated there to cover all issues related to family relations in the pre-Mongolian period. But in general, in recent years one can note a significant expansion of the source base (due to archeological data and birch bark letters), the rejection of the ideologization of history, and greater attention to the influence of socio-economic factors on the course of history.
Obviously, interest in the problem of family and marriage relations in Ancient Rus', especially in the spiritual and personal (love, sex, etc.) component, is growing. Nevertheless, the issue is far from exhausted: a generalizing work covering the full range of issues and the most accessible range of sources on the history of the Old Russian family has not yet appeared. Moreover, the family of the pre-Mongolian period often continues to be regarded as a passing stage to a later chronological period.
Against this background, I would like to note the work of S.V. Omelyanchuk on the study of family relations in the Old Russian state. In her dissertation17, the researcher, relying on a significant range of sources, among which are annalistic, epistolary (birch bark letters, ancient Russian inscriptions on the walls of the Hagia Sophia in Kiev), legal (monuments of ancient Russian secular and canon law, Byzantine codes), canonical (Bible, church - educational literature, ancient Russian letters and messages of canonical content), literary (ecclesiastical and secular), as well as translated foreign sources, conducts a comprehensive analysis of the formation and development of marriage and family relations in Ancient Russia in the 9th - 13th centuries, as well as the moral- moral and legal norms. Of course, we are not ready to agree with all the conclusions of the author. For example, the author distinguishes four types of family in Ancient Rus' - large or patriarchal; small, consisting of parents and their unmarried children; undivided, which is a short-term association of several small families related by kinship, in a crisis situation; extended, resulting from the unification of a small family and individual relatives from other broken families. In our opinion, undivided and extended (in the terminology of S.V. Omelyanchuk) families are artificial associations that existed for a short time and were formed under the influence of certain, often negative, circumstances, and for this reason alone they cannot claim the status of a full-fledged family team. Rather, here we can talk about the remnants of a large family, when, due to some kind of adversity, relatives gathered “under the wing” of the stronger of them, pursuing one goal - survival. The conclusion of the researcher about the existence of two varieties of the marriage union is also disputable - polygamous, inherent mainly in the ancient Russian nobility, and monogamous, which prevailed among the lower strata. As we will see when analyzing the sources, polygamy quite flourished both among the top of society and among the ordinary masses of the population who sought to imitate it (the same can be said about monogamy). In addition, the absence of archaeological data in the list of used sources of data from archaeological research can be attributed to the shortcomings of the work. And, nevertheless, at the moment, in our opinion, the work of S.V. Omelyanchuk is the most complete generalizing study of family relations in pre-Mongolian Rus', covering a wide range of issues: from family typology to personal and property relations between indirect relatives.
