Life and everyday life of Russian people of the 16th century in "Domostroy" from the user. Peculiarities in the behavior of the Russian boyars of the 16th-17th centuries. Instructions from father to son
“Domostroy” of the 16th century taught: “Call the poor and the needy, the sorrowful, and strange strangers into your home and, according to your strength, feed and water them.” At a time when charity was a private “sacred” matter in Rus', kings and queens carried it out in the form of alms and feedings. Historians I.E. Zabelin, G.K. Kotoshikhin write about huge alms given by royalty to church officials and beggars flocking to monasteries and palaces. Alms were distributed in connection with holidays, as well as significant events in the life and death of kings and queens.
“Before the onset of Lent, Russian tsars gave out abundant alms during Cheese Week, and then went to monasteries to say goodbye to the elders and gave them alms, and they said about the queen that she went. Kings and queens often made trips to monasteries; Along the roads where the royal train, assembled with purely Asian luxury, was traveling, the beggars got out and lay down, and passing alms were given to the beggars, couchettes, decrepit old men and all sorts of wretched and poor people.<…>By the time of the tsar’s arrival, many beggars flocked to the monastery, and the tsars distributed generous alms to the beggars and the monastery brethren” (Pryzhov).
“The king and queen go through almshouses and prisons and give alms; in the same way, they give the poor and wretched people a ruble and a half ruble and a menshi per person. And that money is spent in the thousands” (Kotoshikhin).
Interesting are the descriptions of royal charity written by Grigory Karpovich Kotoshikhin. He served as an ordinary official of the Ambassadorial Prikaz. While participating in negotiations with the Swedes, he informed the Swedes of secret information. After participating in the campaign for negotiations with the Poles, he defected to Sweden, took a new name in the manner of the Polish [Selitsky], abandoned Orthodoxy and adopted Protestantism, entered the Swedish service in the state archives and wrote an essay [a certain analytical review] about Rus' during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich ; in 1667 he was executed for the drunken murder of the owner of the house in which he lived. Having ended his life ingloriously, G. Kotoshikhin left, however, interesting descriptions social reality 17th century as evidence of a contemporary of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. He described in detail the government structure, traditions, procedures for weddings, funerals, etc. among royal persons. The level of expenses for the ceremony is striking, as well as the negative consequences of poverty, which was integrated into these rituals:
“Then when the king is buried, people of every rank give wax candles, twisted and simple, to see them off - and at that time more than 10 berkovesk of those candles will be consumed. Yes, at the same time, money is given from the royal treasury, for the burial, by the authorities, and by the priest and the deacon... And at the same time, in all the Prikazes, having made a lot of money, they wrap it in papers for a ruble and a half and a half and a half, and Having taken the clerks to the square, they distribute alms to the poor and wretched and to people of all ranks, by hand; also in the monastery, elders and monks, and in almshouses, they distribute rubles to each person in 5 and 3 and 2 and one, depending on the person; and in all cities, monks, priests, and beggars are given funeral money and alms, in half and in a third against Moscow. Also, in Moscow and in the cities, all kinds of thieves, for the sake of the Tsar’s death, are released from prison without punishment.
Woe then to the people who were at that burial, because the burial takes place at night, and there are many people, from Moscow and visitors from cities and districts; But Moscow people are not of a God-fearing nature; men and women are robbed of their clothes in the streets and killed to death; and he found out the days when the king’s burial took place, dead people More than a hundred people were killed and stabbed to death. And when the death of the Tsar lasts 40 days, they are called Sorochiny, and then the authorities, the Tsarina and the Tsarevichs, and the boyars, attend mass in the same church and perform the funeral service for the Tsar; and then on the authorities, and on the boyars, and on the priests, in the royal house there is a table, and in the monasteries the monks are fed by their neighbors, and they give alms in half against burial. And money will be spent for the royal burial, in Moscow and in the cities, close to what will come from the state treasury for a year.”
They practiced “feeding” - the so-called “tables”. “These tables - a remnant of ancient clan customs of treating one's neighbors, the poor belonging to the clan, and strangers (strangers) on holidays - were subsequently arranged for purely religious purposes. There were tables in large monasteries and among patriarchs. ... They fed the poor with grains from these meals. ...Finally, there were often royal tables for the boyars and clergy; The poor and wretched were invited to the tables. So in 1678, the patriarch fed 2,500 beggars” (Pryzhov). Since ancient times, the church has taught: “Whenever you hold a feast, you call the brethren, the clan, and the nobles... Call most of all the poor brethren, as many as are able in strength.”
P.K. Kotoshikhin wrote: “The same custom on other days is tables for the tables for solicitors for the Moscow nobles, and for guests, and for hundreds of elders, and for city elected townspeople;... Priests and deacons, and servants of cathedral churches and others are fed in the royal court for more than one day, while others are given food and drink in the Houses; Yes, they are given money that they prayed to God for their state health, 10 and 5 rubles and mensha, and the least is half a ruble, depending on the churches, how the annual royal salary goes to whom. And the royal letters are sent to the cities, the priests and deacons of the cathedral and other churches are ordered to give money to prayer services, against the Moscow ones, to the floors, from Gorodets revenues. Yes, from Moscow, stewards, solicitors, and residents are sent to the cities of the monastery with alms and prayer money, and to feed the scoops - and they give money at 5 rubles and 4 and 3 and 2 and per ruble and half a ruble and less to a person for the monk, depending on the person, a towel and 2 scarves each; And they, on the other hand, bless those people with images and give them, from the monastery treasury, whatever happens to be theirs.”
According to the research of I. Pryzhov, in the 17th century, beggars, holy fools and the like ate and drank most of the royal reserves. The royals did not just feed the poor - they had godly conversations with them, taking them to their chambers for conversations. They were treated to the best food and drinks. “According to folk legends, Prince Vladimir’s wife treated them to overseas wines; in her chambers the beggars drank, ate, and had fun. The same thing happened in the 17th century. At Marfa Matveevna’s, for example, at the wake of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, 300 beggars were fed in five days... At Praskovya Feodorovna’s, 300 people were also fed in 5 days for Tsar Ivan Alekseevich. Tatyana Mikhailovna has 220 people in 9 days. Evdokia Alekseevna and her sisters have 350 people in 7 days.” Having great wealth, the royal people, and after them the boyars and others, saving themselves through charity, in fact, stimulated the development of beggary in Rus'.
Poor blasphemers interfered with the performance of Orthodox rites and church services. Alexey Mikhailovich, “compassionate and pious,” “devout pilgrim,” was very poor-loving. On Christmas Eve, early in the morning, he went secretly to prisons and almshouses, distributing generous alms there; He made the same alms on the streets to the poor and wretched. Historian V.O. Klyuchevsky writes about him this way: “He loved people and wished them all the best, because he did not want them to upset his quiet personal joys with their grief and complaints... he was little inclined to defend or carry out anything , like struggling with anything for a long time.” Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in 1649, the “Cathedral Code” was adopted (valid until 1832!), in which there is a provision for public collection of funds for the ransom of prisoners: by demonstrating deanery in every possible way, Alexei Mikhailovich followed the good tradition of Russian rulers to ransom their compatriots. The ransom procedure was similar to that which existed under Ivan the Terrible, according to the principle of distributing “general alms” to all “plows”. A ransom “tariff” was established depending on the social status of the captives and a special general tax - “Polonian money”. Alexei Mikhailovich’s personal charity, however, could in no way compensate for the evil that happened during his reign - the split in the Russian Orthodox Church, the schism of the entire people on those who accepted the reform, Nikonians, and those who later began to be called Old Believers. Huge layers of the population of Rus' were subjected to such cruel persecution under Alexei Mikhailovich, and there was such a groan on the Russian soil from the bloody “reform”, similar to genocide, that discussing the charity of the Quiet One would look absurd. The introduction of chaos into matters of faith and the loss of customary ethical guidelines led to the spread of a superficial attitude towards religion and hypocrisy.
III. RUSSIAN QUEENS
- Royal weddings
- Wives of Ivan the Terrible
- Queen's Court
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the fact that already in the 10th century. (since the time of Olga) Rus' recognized and, one might say, recognized the activities of a female ruler; there were no such examples in Russian history until the 18th century. For many centuries, the Russian woman was almost always in the shadow of a man. Perhaps it is for this reason that today we have to talk about the scarcity of sources that would help to create a clear picture of the life, way of life and morals of women in Rus'.
If we turn to East Slavic mythology, then already there we can find some contradictions regarding women and attitudes towards her. So, not only the well-being of girls’ destinies, but also the fertility of the earth and a good harvest were associated with Mokosh, the only female deity in the pagan pantheon. “Mother is the damp earth” is a constant epithet of the highest feminine principle. On the other hand, few female images associated with wet, dark, bad, that is, they are correlated with the manifestation of negative qualities (for example, mermaids who lured passers-by with their singing, who could fall into the water and drown).
In one of the ancient teachings the following review of the fair sex is given: “What is a wife? The net is made to deceive people in power with a bright face and high eyes, playing with their feet, killing deeds. Many would be deposed by the woundedness, and yet many are seduced by the kindness of women, and from this love is very much inflamed... What is a wife? the cover of the saints, the serpent’s chamber, the devil’s reverence, the colorless disease, the evil-doing evil, the temptation to those who are being saved, the hopeless malice, the demonic merchant.”
Numerous memoirs of foreigners who appear in Rus' from the end of the 15th century tell about a woman and her position in Russian society. But many researchers believe that statements about the higher position of a Western European woman compared to a “Muscovite backyard worker” had a certain role to play the biased views of foreign travelers whose goal was to contrast their “developed” and “cultural” country with barbaric Rus'.
In domestic and foreign historiography, there is a point of view that in the “history of Russian women” of the Middle Ages there is a significant milestone - the 16th century, after which a “regressive period” begins in the social status of Russian women. Its emergence is preceded, according to N. Kollman, by the emergence of a “terem system”. She believes that seclusion was a consequence of “strengthening the tsarist autocracy and the boyar elite,” as it allowed them to “control the political connections of large clans and families” (limit the circle of acquaintances, marry in accordance with the objectives of dynastic and political connections, etc. .) . 1 Most of our contemporaries have norms of behavior, family foundations, and morality in the 16th-17th centuries. associated with such a concept as “Domostroy”.
“Domostroy” is home economics, a collection of useful advice and teachings in the spirit of Christian morality. As for family relations, “Domostroy” instructs the head of the family to punish children and his wife in case of disobedience: it was not recommended to beat a wife with a stick or fist “either in the ear or in the vision, so that she does not become deaf or blind, but only for great and terrible things.” disobedience... politely beat his shirt with a whip..." . Moreover, “not to beat in front of people, to teach in private.” 2 So how and how did Russian women live during the period of seclusion and the dominance of the rules of “Domostroy”?
Fathers kept their daughters strict. Before marriage, the man had to be unknown to the girls. Mothers or nannies (in rich families) taught girls sewing and various household chores. The more noble the family, the more strictness was present in the upbringing.
If in peasant life a woman was under the yoke of hard work, if, like a workhorse, everything that was more difficult was loaded onto her, then at least she was not kept locked up.
In the families of nobles, the girls, buried in their towers, not daring to show themselves in the light, without the hope of loving anyone, remained day and night and always in prayer and washed their faces with tears. When marrying off a girl, they did not ask about her wishes. She herself did not know who she was marrying; she had not seen her fiancé before marriage. Having become a wife, she did not dare to leave the house anywhere without her husband’s permission, even if she went to church, and then she was obliged to ask questions.
According to the laws of decency, it was considered reprehensible to have a conversation with a woman on the street. In Moscow, notes one traveler, no one will humiliate himself to bend the knee before a woman and burn incense before her. 1 A woman was not given the right to freely meet according to her heart and disposition, and if some kind of treatment was allowed with those with whom her husband wanted to allow it, but even then she was bound by instructions and comments: what to say, what to keep silent about, what to ask, what not to hear .
It happened that the husband assigned “spies” to his wife from servants and slaves, and they, wanting to please the owner, often interpreted everything to him in a different direction. It often happened that a husband, at the behest of his beloved slave, beat his wife out of mere suspicion. Especially for such cases, the husband hung a whip, exclusively for his wife, and was called a fool. For an insignificant crime, the head of the family pulled his wife by the hair, stripped her naked and whipped her like a fool until she bled - this was called teaching his wife. Sometimes rods were used instead of a whip, and the wife was flogged like a small child.
Accustomed to slavery, which they were destined to endure from the cradle to the grave, Russian women had no idea about the possibility of having other rights, and believed that they, in fact, were born to be beaten by their husbands, and the beatings themselves were a sign love.
Foreigners told the following interesting anecdote, which passed from mouth to mouth in various variations. Some Italian married a Russian and lived with her for several years peacefully and harmoniously, never beating her or scolding her. One day she says to him: “Why don’t you love me?” “I love you,” the husband said and kissed her. “You haven’t proven this to me in any way,” said the wife. “How can I prove it to you?” - he asked. The wife answered: “You have never hit me.” “I didn’t know this,” said the husband, “but if beatings are needed to prove my love to you, then that won’t be the case.” Soon after that, he beat her with a whip and actually noticed that after that his wife became more kind and helpful to him. He beat her another time, so that after that she lay in bed for some time, but, however, did not murmur or complain. Finally, for the third time he beat her with a club so hard that she died a few days later. Her relatives filed a complaint against her husband; but the judges, who learned all the circumstances of the case, said that she herself was to blame for her death; the husband did not know that beatings mean love among Russians, and wanted to prove that he loves more than all Russians; He not only beat his wife out of love, but also killed her to death. 1 Women said: “He who loves someone beats him; if a husband doesn’t beat him, it means he doesn’t love him,” “Don’t trust a horse in the field, but don’t trust your wife in the wild.” The last proverb shows that bondage was considered the property of a female being. 2 In domestic life, a woman did not have any power, even in housekeeping. She did not dare to send anything as a gift to others, nor to accept from another; she did not even dare to eat or drink without her husband’s permission.
A mother was rarely allowed to have influence over her children, starting with the fact that it was considered indecent for a noble woman to breastfeed her children, who were therefore given to wet nurses. Subsequently, the mother had less supervision over the children than the nannies and clerks, who raised the master's children under the authority of the father of the family.
The position of the wife was always worse if she did not have children, but it became extremely terrible when the husband, having become bored with her, took a mistress on his side. There was no end to the nagging, brawls, and beatings; Often in this case, the husband beat his wife to death and remained without punishment, because the wife died slowly, and it could not be said that he killed her, and beating her, even ten times a day, was not considered a bad thing. It happened that the husband thus forced his wife to join the monastery. The unfortunate woman, in order to avoid beatings, decided on voluntary imprisonment, especially since in the monastery she had more freedom than her husband. If the wife was stubborn, the husband could hire two or three false witnesses who accused her of adultery, and then the wife was forcibly locked in a monastery.
Sometimes the wife, a spirited woman by nature, responded to her husband’s beatings with abuse, often indecent. There were examples of wives poisoning their husbands. True, a severe punishment awaited them for this: the criminals were buried alive in the ground, leaving their heads outside, and kept in this position until death, they were not allowed to eat or drink, and the guards stood by them, not allowing anyone to feed the woman. Passers-by were allowed to throw money, but this money was used for a coffin for a condemned woman or for candles for propitiation God's Wrath to her sinful soul. The death penalty could be replaced with eternal imprisonment. N. Kostomarov gives a description of one case when two women were kept neck-deep in the ground for three days for poisoning their husbands, but since they asked to enter the monastery, they were dug up and sent to the monastery, with orders to keep them separately in solitude and in shackles.
Some wives took revenge for themselves with denunciations. The fact is that the voice of a woman (like the voice of anyone, including a slave) was accepted when it came to malicious intent against a person in the royal house or the theft of the royal treasury.
Foreigners tell a remarkable event: the wife of one boyar, out of spite towards her husband who beat her, reported that he knew how to cure gout, from which the king was then suffering; and although the boyar assured and swore that he did not know this at all, he was tortured and promised the death penalty if he did not find a cure for the sovereign. In desperation, he picked some herbs and made a bath out of them for the king; By chance, the king felt better after that, and the doctor was flogged again because he, knowing it, did not want to talk. The wife took hers. 1 From all of the above we can draw some conclusions. Firstly, from childhood the girl was prepared for the fact that from the power of her father she would pass under the power of her husband. Secondly, in any relationship, a woman was considered a being lower than a man. Thirdly, it had virtually no civil or economic rights.
In the XVI-XVII centuries. impulses of all gaiety among the upper classes were subordinated to the rules of church order. And during the holidays, the most revered of which were Christmas and Easter, girls and women were allowed some “liberties.”
In peasant life, in addition to church ones, there were also festivals associated with certain agricultural periods.
In the summer, on holidays, girls and women danced in circles and, as a rule, gathered for this near villages. Russian dances were monotonous: they consisted of the girls, standing in one place, stamping their feet, spinning, diverging and coming together, clapping their hands, turning their backs, leaning their hands on their sides, waving an embroidered scarf around their heads, moving their heads in different directions, winked their eyebrows. All these movements were made to the sounds of one instrument.
IN high society dancing was generally considered indecent. According to church views, dancing, especially for women, was considered a soul-destroying sin. “Oh, evil damned dance (says one moralist), oh, wicked wives, multi-turning dance! Dancing is the wife of the adulterer the devil, the wife of hell, the bride of Satan; For those who love to dance and dishonor John the Baptist are creating an unquenchable fire with Herod and a never-ending worm to condemn!” Even looking at dancing was considered reprehensible: “Do not watch the dancing and other demonic games of all kinds of evil and charming, lest you be deceived by seeing and listening to all the games of demons; Such essence will be called Satan’s mistresses.” 1 The favorite pastime of the female gender in all classes was swings and boards. The swing was built as follows: a board was attached to a rope, people sat on it, and others swung with ropes. Women of ordinary rank, townspeople and peasants, rocked in the streets, noble women - in courtyards and gardens. Swinging on the boards happened like this: two women stood on the edges of a log or board, bouncing, pumping each other up. There were girls and women swinging on a wheel.
Winter entertainment was skating on ice: they made wooden horseshoes with narrow iron strips.
According to Russian concepts of the 16th-17th centuries. The beauty of a woman consisted of thickness and corpulence. A slender woman was not considered beautiful. In order to gain weight, representatives of the fairer sex drank vodka on an empty stomach. According to Kostomarov, Russians loved women with long ears, so some of them stretched out their ears on purpose. Russian women loved to blush and whiten themselves: “Women, beautiful in themselves, whitened and blushed to the point that they completely changed the expression of their faces and looked like painted dolls. In addition, they painted their necks and arms with white, red, blue, and brown paints; they dyed eyelashes and eyebrows and in the most ugly way - they inked the light, whitened the black. Even those women who were good-looking and realized that they were good without various extraneous embellishments had to whiten and blush so as not to be ridiculed. Under Mikhail Fedorovich, one Russian noblewoman, Princess Cherkasskaya, beautiful in appearance, did not want to blush, so the society of that time mocked her; the custom was so strong; and yet the church did not justify him, and in 1661 the Metropolitan of Novgorod forbade allowing whitewashed women into the church.” 2 Basics women's suit still consisted of a long shirt, over which they put on a summer jacket with long wide sleeves (these sleeves were called caps). Depending on the social status the wrists of the shirt sleeves and caps, as well as the hem of the flyer, could be embroidered either with simple threads or ribbons, or with gold and pearls. The colors of the pilots were different. Mention is made of azure, green, yellow, but most often red.
Along the clothing, on the front side, a slit was made, which was buttoned up to the throat, because decency required that a woman’s chest be buttoned as tightly as possible.
Women's opashen was sewn, as a rule, from cloth of red flowers; the sleeves were toe-length, but below the shoulder there were armholes through which the arms could easily pass, and the rest of the sleeve hung.
On special occasions, women wore a rich robe, called a podvolok, in addition to their usual attire. It was made of silk material and was used only by noblewomen.
Among outerwear, fur coats were common, which, depending on the cut, were called odnoryadok, okhabney, feryaz.
As a rule, clothes were cut and sewn at home, since it was considered a shame for a good family to give clothes away. Usually, at the slightest opportunity, the husband did not skimp on dressing up his wife.
Women loved to decorate their heads and at the same time cover their hair (married women). According to the concepts of the 16th-17th centuries, it was considered both a shame and a sin for a married woman to leave her hair on display. The woman was afraid that any member of the family, excluding her husband, would see her hair. It should be noted that for this there were a sufficient number of headdresses: volosniks, popodubrusniks, ubruss, kikis, kokoshniks.
Both women and girls wore earrings. As soon as the girl began to walk, her mother pierced her ears and stuck earrings or rings into them. The most common shape of earrings was oblong. Poor women wore copper earrings, while more prosperous women wore silver and gold-plated earrings. As for the rich, they preferred gold earrings decorated with diamonds and other stones.
Women wore sleeves or bracelets on their hands, and rings and rings on their fingers. The neck of a woman or girl was decorated with many crosses and icons.
III. RUSSIAN QUEENS
- Royal weddings
Almost all Russian weddings took place the same way, and there were no fundamental differences in the customs and procedures of their holding in different social strata. The only difference, perhaps, was the scale of the wedding feasts. Since much more is known about royal weddings than about common people, this issue was not touched upon in the previous chapter.
Russian girls got married very early, at 13-14 years old.
Royal weddings began with a viewing of the girls. From different places girls boyar families collected, and the king chose the one he liked.
Ivan the Terrible ordered the princes and boyars to bring the daughters of their girls. In the Novgorod region, landowners from all settlements had to take their daughters to the governor, and the governor was obliged to present them to the tsar upon request. This was the duty of the fathers, and whoever was guilty of disobedience was subject to disgrace and even execution.
At the second wedding of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the girls were gathered in the house of Artamon Sergeevich Matveev, and the Tsar looked at them through the window from a secret room. He chose three and ordered trusted women to examine their mental and physical virtues. And then from these three I chose Natalya Kirillovna. The direct choice of the future wife took place personally. This was typical only for royal weddings (popularly, the bride and groom could see each other only at the wedding. Before that, only the groom’s relatives saw the girl). The king approached his chosen one and gave her a fly (handkerchief) embroidered with gold and a ring with precious stones.
The chosen royal bride was taken to the palace, dressed in luxurious clothes (Natalya Kirillovna’s dress, when she was taken to the courtyard, was so embroidered with pearls that her legs hurt from its weight), and was named princess.
The first bride of Alexei Mikhailovich fainted when she first appeared before the Tsar, as the cord was pulled too tightly on her. The girl's entire family was accused of wanting to end the royal family by giving him a sick girl as a wife.
But until her marriage, she lived in complete alienation from the king. Before the wedding, the king could only see the bride once.
On the eve of the wedding, a feast was announced. The king sat with the bride at the same table (the queen's face was covered) and all the guests brought them gifts. If we talk about simple weddings, then such feasts were replaced by festivities at the bride and groom separately.
During the wedding preparations, the tsar-groom gathered in one of the chambers, the queen in the other. First, the queen went to the Faceted Chamber, the priest marked the place where she sat. Nearby, in the place of the groom, some noble boyar was seated. When all this was arranged, they sent the king to let him know about it. The tsar first sent the betrothed father, who hit the future empress with his forehead and sat down. Having arrived in the chamber, the tsar approached his place, and the boyar sitting next to the bride was lifted by the hands and taken away (in common weddings, the person sitting next to the bride had to be given a ransom).
The wedding took place after mass. After the wedding, the bride was unveiled and the priest read a sermon to the newlyweds: in it, he usually instructed them to go to church often, obey their confessors, and observe fasts and holidays. The wife, as a sign of obedience, fell at her husband’s feet and touched his boot with her forehead.
The queen went to her chambers, and the king toured his possessions in the area. After returning, the king invited his wife and guests to the table.
The royal wedding celebrations lasted for several days. On the second day, the prince's table was arranged, on the third - the queen's table.
2. The wives of Ivan the Terrible Everywhere men rule men, and we, who rule all husbands, are controlled by our wives Cato the Elder “Domostroy” was written during the reign of Ivan IV. His government was accompanied by monstrous terror. Were the necessary standards of behavior observed by the king and his wives?
S. Gorsky in his work “The Wives of Ivan the Terrible” comes to the conclusion that all changes in the tsar’s mood, and therefore changes in politics, depended on marital status Ivan the Terrible and from the one to whom he was married during a given period of time.
As you know, Ivan IV was officially married three times, and the church did not recognize two of his marriages.
The first wife of the seventeen-year-old tsar was Anastasia Zakharyina. The Zakharyins’ family was not noble, but Anastasia captivated Ivan with her beauty. The hawthorns, gathered from all over the kingdom, smiling coquettishly, tried in one way or another to attract the tsar’s attention, and he chose Zakharyina, whose modesty evoked mocking smiles. 1 People nicknamed Anastasia Zakharyina “Merciful” because during the fire in Moscow she helped the population with everything she could. With her husband's permission, she gave away almost all her jewelry.
The first two years of a fourteen-year marriage could be called happy: the tsar stopped his cruel games, a Rada was introduced in government administration. But after some time, Ivan the Terrible grew tired of family life and he continued his bachelor ways.
After the death of Anastasia, who bore him two sons, Ivan IV did not grieve for long and after a couple of weeks he organized a luxurious feast. A wave of executions swept across the country again.
Less than a year later, the new empress Maria Temryukovna (daughter of the Circassian prince Temryuk) was introduced to the Russian people. This queen was the complete opposite of good Anastasia. Growing up among Caucasus mountains, accustomed to hunting and danger, she longed for a stormy life. The quiet, dark life did not satisfy her. Maria willingly appeared in the solo chamber, attended bear-baitings with delight, and even, to the horror of the boyars, watched public executions from the heights of the Kremlin walls. Not only did she not restrain Ivan the Terrible from bloody reprisals, but she herself pushed him to commit them. The old adviser and favorite of the tsar, boyar Adashev, dared to notice to the tsar that it was not proper for the Moscow queen to attend the fun and climb the fortress walls. The next day, Alexey Adashev was sent into exile (he was accused of malicious intent against the queen).
In order to bind the king more tightly to her, Mary indulged his inclinations towards debauchery. She surrounded herself with beautiful girls and herself pointed them out to the king.
As S. Gorsky notes, the oprichnina in Rus' arose precisely at this time.
For 9 years, the king became tired of Maria, and besides, he suspected her of conspiracy, so he was not upset by her death.
The boyars, seeing the desolation of the country, decided to persuade the king to enter into a new marriage. Past experience showed that marriage had a certain influence on Ivan the Terrible. The king willingly agreed to enter into a new marriage. A traditional show of girls was announced. Marfa Saburova is the name of the new chosen one. Two weeks after the wedding, Martha died. Her death sincerely saddened Ivan IV. The king spent two weeks in solitude, during which time he became noticeably older and haggard.
A year later, Ivan the Terrible announced his intention to marry for the fourth time.
In order for the marriage to be approved by the church, he swore that Marfa Saburova never became his real wife and died a virgin.
The bishops had to admit the strange marriage of the tsar with Anna Koltovskaya. She was in many respects similar to Maria Temryukovna. Anna knew how to keep her sovereign busy, and he spent whole days in the queen’s palace, where there were always crowds of beautiful girls, ready at any moment to dance and entertain the king.
Anna led a systematic struggle against the oprichnina. She got married at 18. According to the concepts of that time, she was already “overdone.” John chose her only because her whole figure exuded passion. But deep down in her soul she harbored a deep hatred for the king. Anna once loved, but her chosen one, Prince Vorotynsky, somehow did not please Prince Vyazemsky and was tortured. Anna, using her influence on the tsar, slowly but surely destroyed the oprichnina. In one year, during which John was under the influence of his wife, all the leaders of the oprichnina were executed or exiled. 1 But Anna herself also faced a difficult fate. She was placed in one of the monastery crypts, where she lived for another 54 years.
After Anna, the king had two more wives, whom the church did not recognize. One of them was executed, and the second managed to survive her sovereign.
3. Courtyard of the Queen Courtyard of the Queen in the 16th-17th centuries. consisted only of women, with the exception of a few pages, no older than 10 years. The first place here belonged to the boyar, who took care of the treasury and looked after the bed. In second place was Kravchinya, who watched over all the courtyard personnel. She managed an extensive staff of craftswomen, gave orders to the bed-maids and took turns sleeping with them in the queen’s bedchamber. She also accompanied the empress during her rare trips. In such cases, the bed-maids turned into Amazons and accompanied the queen’s carriage on horseback.
The largest and brightest room in the part of the palace reserved for the empress was the work room. There were light rooms adjacent to it. They accommodated up to fifty women who sewed linen - seamstresses, and embroidered with gold - gold seamstresses.
The queen and her entourage, as a rule, did not have the right to leave the women's half of the palace. Only during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, known for his gentle character, did his sisters, Tatyana and Anna, dare to ask the sovereign about this. It should be noted that the boyars constantly expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that the tsar allowed many liberties to his lively sisters.
The queens also dined in their own half with the children and without the king. After dinner, silence fell in the queen's chambers, as she went to bed. In general, in Rus' not sleeping after lunch was considered heresy.
IV. CONCLUSION Throughout the XVI-XVII centuries. The position of women has remained virtually unchanged, although during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich there were some relaxations in relation to women. However, for the most part, women continued to be in their chambers, not involved in public affairs, without the opportunity to take initiative in anything.
It should also be noted that the “liberation” of women was blocked by the boyars.
But despite this, the royal wives, being at a distance from government administration, could, if they wished, influence the opinion of their husband-sovereign.
Considering that during the period under review, all spheres of private and public life were in one way or another connected with church teachings, women were not burdened by their position and took everything for granted.
One of the reasons that in Rus', already from the 18th century, women left the mansions can be considered the appearance of foreigners, which began precisely from the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
- Kostomarov N. Home life and customs of the Great Russian people. - M., 1993.
- Pushkareva N. L. Women Ancient Rus'. - M., 1989.
- Woman in the ancient world / Sat. articles. - M., 1995.
- Larington K. Women in legends and myths. - M., 1998.
- Gorsky S. Wives of Ivan the Terrible. - Dnepropetrovsk, 1990.
- Valishevsky K. Ivan the Terrible. - M., 1989.
- Zabylin M. Russian people, their customs, rituals, legends, superstitions and poetry. - Simferopol, 1992.
- Reader on the history of Russia / In 4 volumes, vol. 1. Comp. I. V. Babich et al. - M., 1994.
N. Kostomarov
Holidays were a time of departure from the normal routine of daily life and were accompanied by various customs ingrained in home life. Pious people generally considered it decent to mark the holiday time with deeds of piety and Christian charity. Going to church for the established worship service was the first need; in addition, the owners invited the clergy to their place and served prayer services in the house, and considered it their duty to feed the poor and give alms. Thus, the kings established meals for the poor in their own mansions and, having fed them, distributed money from their own hands, went to almshouses, visited prisons and gave alms to prisoners. Such charitable trips took place especially before major holidays: before Easter and Christmas, also at Maslenitsa; but they were also performed on other feasts of the Lord and the Mother of God. This custom was observed everywhere by noble gentlemen and wealthy people in general. To feed the greedy, to give water to the greedy, to clothe the naked, to visit the sick, to go into prison and wash their feet - according to the expression of the times, constituted the most godly way of spending holidays and Sundays. There were examples that for such charitable deeds, kings were promoted to ranks, as if for service. Holidays were considered the most decent time for feasts […]. Russian legislation helped the church, which forbade carrying out everyday labors during holiday times; prohibited judging and sitting in orders on major holidays and Sundays, except, however, for important, necessary state affairs; trading people had to stop their activities on the eve of Sundays and holidays three hours before the evening; and even on weekdays, on the occasion of temple holidays and religious processions, it was forbidden to work and trade until the end of the service; but these rules were poorly implemented, and despite strict subordination to church forms in life, despite the fact that the Russians even considered time nothing other than holidays, to the amazement of foreigners, they traded and worked on Sundays and on the master's holidays. But the common people found that nothing could honor the holiday better than by drinking; the larger the holiday, the lower the revelry, the more income was collected into the treasury in taverns and club yards - even during the service, drunkards were already crowding around the drinking houses: “Whoever is happy about the holiday is drunk until dawn,” the people said and say Great Russian […]
Everything that is currently expressed in evenings, theaters, picnics, etc., in the old days was expressed in feasts. Feasts were an ordinary form of social bringing together of people. Whether the church celebrated its triumph, whether the family rejoiced or saw off its fellow member from the earthly world, or whether Russia shared the royal joy and glory of victory - the feast was an expression of gaiety. The kings enjoyed the feast; The peasants also enjoyed the feast. The desire to maintain a good opinion of people about themselves prompted every decent owner to make a feast and invite good friends to his place. […]
Distinctive feature There was a Russian feast - an extraordinary variety of foods and an abundance of drinks. The host boasted that he had a lot of everything at the feast - the guest was a thick refectory! He tried to get the guests drunk, if possible, before driving them home unconscious; and whoever is little nice upsets the owner. “He doesn’t drink, doesn’t eat,” they said about such people, “he doesn’t want to do us a favor!” It was necessary to drink with a full throat, and not sip, as chickens do. Whoever drank willingly showed that he loved the owner. Women, who at the same time feasted with the hostess, also had to yield to the hostess's treats to the point that they were taken home unconscious. The next day the hostess sent to find out about the guest’s health. “Thank you for the treat,” the guest answered in this case, “I had so much fun yesterday that I don’t know how I got home!” But on the other hand, it was considered shameful to soon become drunk. The feast was, in a way, a war between the host and the guests. The owner wanted to get the guest drunk at all costs; the guests did not give in and only out of politeness had to admit themselves defeated after a stubborn defense. Some, not wanting to drink, to please the owner, pretended to be drunk at the end of dinner, so that they would no longer be forced, so as not to actually become drunk. Sometimes it happened at riotous feasts that they were forced to drink, even by beatings. […]
The Russian people have long been famous for their love of drinking. Vladimir also said a significant expression: “Drink joy to Russia: we cannot exist without it!” The Russians attached some heroic significance to drunkenness. In ancient songs, the valor of a hero was measured by his ability to outdrink others and drink an incredible amount of wine. Joy, love, and benevolence found expression in wine. If the superior wanted to show his favor to the inferior, he gave him something to drink, and he did not dare to refuse: there were cases when a noble person, for fun, gave water to a simple person, and he, not daring to refuse, drank to the point that he fell unconscious and even died . Noble boyars did not consider it reprehensible to get drunk to the point of losing consciousness - and with the danger of losing their lives. The royal ambassadors who traveled abroad amazed foreigners with their excesses. One Russian ambassador to Sweden, in 1608, immortalized himself in the eyes of foreigners by drinking strong wine and dying from it. How the Russian people in general were greedy for wine can be proven by the following historical event: during a riot in Moscow, when Pleshcheev, Chistov and Trakhaniotov were killed, a fire broke out. Very soon he reached the main tavern... people rushed there in a crowd; everyone was in a hurry to scoop up the wine with their hats and boots; everyone wanted to drink free wine; they forgot the rebellion; they forgot to put out the fire; the people lay dead drunk and thus the rebellion ceased, and most of the capital turned to ashes. Until the time when Boris, by introducing taverns, made drunkenness an article of state income, the desire to drink among the Russian people had not yet reached such an amazing volume as it later did. The common people rarely drank: they were allowed to brew beer, mash and honey and go out only on holidays; but when wine began to be sold from the treasury, when the epithet of kings was attached to the word “tavern,” drunkenness became a universal quality. Pathetic drunkards multiplied, drinking themselves to the last thread. An eyewitness tells how a drunkard entered the tavern and drank away his caftan, came out in his shirt and, having met a friend, came back again, drank his underwear and left the Tsar's tavern completely naked, but cheerful, in good spirits, singing songs and saying strong words to the Germans who decided to do remark to him. These cases were frequent in Moscow, in cities, and in villages - everywhere one could see people lying unconscious in the mud or in the snow. Thieves and swindlers robbed them, and often after that they froze in the winter. In Moscow, during Maslenitsa and Christmastide, dozens of frozen drunkards were brought to the Zemsky Prikaz every morning. yu…sch
It happened that people of decent origin, that is, nobles and boyar children, got so drunk that they squandered their estates and drank themselves naked. From such and such fellows a special class of drunkards was formed, called tavern yarygs. These daredevils had neither a stake nor a yard. They lived in universal contempt and wandered around the world begging for alms; They almost always crowded around the taverns and in the taverns, humiliatingly begging those who came for a glass of wine, for Christ’s sake. Ready for any crime, they formed a gang of thieves and robbers on occasion. In folk songs and stories they are presented as tempters of young, inexperienced people. […]
The clergy not only did not differ in sobriety, but also outdid other classes in their disposition towards wine. At weddings, the clergy got so drunk that they had to be supported.
In order to put limits on frantic drunkenness in taverns, the government, instead, established mug courts where they sold wine in proportions no smaller than mugs, but this did not help. Drunkards flocked to the circle courtyards in droves and drank there all day long. Other drink hunters bought not only mugs, but buckets, and sold them secretly in their taverns.
Most of all, the refuge of the most notorious scoundrels were secret taverns or ropats. Back in the 15th and 16th centuries, this name meant dens of drunkenness, debauchery and all kinds of disorder. The keepers and keepers of such establishments received wine from government establishments or smoked it secretly at home and sold it secretly. Along with wine in taverns there were games, corrupt women and tobacco. No matter how strictly the maintenance of the inn was pursued, it was so profitable that many decided to take it on, saying: the profits received from this are so great that they also reward the whip, which could always be expected as soon as the authorities learn about the existence of the inn .
Essay on the home life and morals of the Great Russian people in the 15th and 17th centuries. St. Petersburg, I860. pp. 149-150, 129-133, 136-138.
Miniature: L. Solomatkin. Dance
“Domostroy” is, perhaps, the most complete set of norms that have come down to us that regulated social life in medieval Rus'. And by what rules did the Russians live before his appearance?
Paganism and Byzantium
For quite a long time, Rus' was a closed Slavic state, whose life was regulated by pagan customs. Thus, kidnapping of brides without their consent and polygamy were practiced. With education Kievan Rus and the adoption of Christianity family relationships began to be regulated by church statutes. For example, the Charter of Prince Yaroslav the Wise contains a ban on forced marriage.
Byzantine canon law (Nomocanon) was also introduced and cultivated, according to which monogamy was established. Marriages could henceforth only take place in the church. After marriage, husband and wife had unequal rights, and divorce was difficult.
After translation into Russian, Nomocanon received the name “The Helmsman’s Book” (XI century). It included additions made by Russian princes. Some of its provisions were also included in the “Russian Truth” of Yaroslav the Wise.
The first detailed set of rules of behavior known to us was given in the “Instruction” of Vladimir Monomakh (XII century). The codes of law of 1497 and 1550 paid little attention to family law. In this area, until the era of Ivan the Terrible, church canons, enshrined in Byzantine legislation, continued to operate.
Church, family, state
In the first half of the 16th century, “A book called Domostroy was published, containing useful information, teaching and instruction for every Christian - husband, wife, children, servants, and maidservants.” Its composition is attributed to the educator, confessor and associate of Ivan the Terrible, Archpriest Sylvester, but many historians, in particular S. M. Solovyov, I. S. Nekrasov, A. S. Orlov, D. V. Kolesov, believe that the text of “Domostroi” "was born in the 15th century in Veliky Novgorod during the Novgorod Republic and was the fruit of collective creativity. Sylvester only rewrote the text.
This work, consisting of 67 chapters, gave instructions and teachings on how “every Christian should lead his life in good deeds, in purity and in repentance." It covered almost all aspects of people's lives. It contained instructions on how one should relate to the Church, authorities, and how to behave in the family.
For modern man“Domostroy” is associated mainly with the oppression of women in the family, but this is not entirely true. The purpose of establishing “Domostroevsky” traditions was not the oppression of women, but the protection of her rights.
Not everything in the families before Domostroy was rosy. If among the ancient Slavs marriages were still performed for love, then with the advent of Christianity this became rare: usually they married and gave in marriage by parental agreement, and the bride and groom could have a large age difference.
From now on, with the permission of the Church, marriage could only be entered into three times. For example, five of Ivan the Terrible’s eight marriages can be considered invalid.
If from the 10th to the 13th centuries women in Rus' enjoyed relative freedom, then according to Domostroi, women’s rights were significantly limited. Before marriage, the girl was supposed to be subordinate to her father; after the wedding, she became the “property” of her husband. She was instructed to raise children and keep order in the house. True, she was assigned material rights - to a dowry, to the property of her deceased spouse. Previously, a woman who was left an orphan or a widow, according to the law, did not receive any property from her relatives and was forced to beg, or she had to be supported by the community.
By the way, before Domostroy, women in Rus' were beaten to death, but in this work this action was still regulated. Thus, it was recommended to beat wives only for serious offenses and without witnesses.
For many centuries Rus' was fragmented into separate principalities. Exactly to XVI century it developed as a centralized state headed by an autocratic tsar. This idea was also consolidated in Domostroi, even at the level of the patriarchal family, headed by the owner and master.
What has Domostroy changed?
Thus, “Domostroy,” on the one hand, consolidated the norms and traditions already established in Rus', determined by the advent of Orthodoxy, and on the other hand, it streamlined what needed it.
Of course, in our time, many Domostroevsky prescriptions no longer have a place in life. But in those distant times, this document was a necessary regulator that contributed to the formation of a new type of state system.
Russian beauties and Domostroy.
S. Solomko. Russian beauty
In foreign historical works, a stable cliche has developed about the pitiful fate of women in pre-Petrine Rus'. However, domestic liberal authors also worked hard to create this stamp. Kostomarov lamented that “the Russian woman was a constant slave from birth to death.” She was kept locked up, her husbands beat their wives with whips, rods, and clubs. On what are such statements based? It turns out there aren't that many sources. One of them is an Austrian diplomat of the 16th century. Herberstein. His mission to Moscow failed, and he left evil and caustic memories of our country (even the Jesuit Possevino, after visiting Russia, noted that Herberstein lied a lot). Among other negative things, he described how Russian women are constantly locked up, “spinning and twisting threads,” and are not allowed to do anything else.
But the most famous document on which the evidence is based is “Domostroy”. The title of this popular book of the 16th century even became abusive and was placed somewhere next to “Black Hundreds” and “obscurantism.” Although in reality “Domostroy” is a complete and quite good encyclopedia of economic life. This was typical for all medieval literature; books were expensive, and the buyer wanted “everything” in a particular area of knowledge to be collected in one book. “Domostroy” is precisely an attempt to unite “everything.” How to pray correctly, how to maintain a house, how to build relationships between family members, owners and workers, how to receive guests, care for livestock, how to prepare fish, mushrooms, cabbage, how to make kvass, honey, beer, recipes for hundreds of dishes are given. And all this is united by the concept of “home” as a single organism. A healthy body will lead to a good life; if something is wrong in the house, things will go awry.
But throughout various works - scientific, journalistic, artistic - the same quotation from Domostroi wanders: “And the husband sees that his wife is in trouble... and for disobedience... having taken off his shirt and whip, he politely beats him, holding his hands, looking at the fault " It would seem that everything is clear here! What barbarity! Cruelty is not only allowed, but also prescribed, elevated to mandatory practice! Stop... Don't rush to conclusions. In fact, we have before us one of the most blatant examples of historical falsification. The text is indeed taken from Domostroi, but... pay attention to the ellipses. It's not just individual words that are missing. Several paragraphs are missing!
Let’s take the original text of “Domostroy” and see what is broken off by the first ellipsis: “If the husband saw that his wife and the servants were in trouble, he would be able to instruct his wife and teach him with useful advice.” Do you think the original and the quotation have the same meaning? Or was it mutilated beyond recognition? As for the teachings about flogging, they do not apply to the wife at all: “But if the servant does not heed the word of his wife or son or daughter, and does not do what his husband, father or mother teaches him, then flog him, depending on his fault.” And it is explained how to punish servants: “When punishing with a whip, beat carefully, and reasonably, and painfully, and scaryly, and healthyly, if the guilt is great. For disobedience or negligence, taking off your shirt, lashing them with a whip, holding your hands and looking guilty..."
I’m not arguing here whether it’s right or wrong to flog a servant if, say, he steals (maybe it would be more correct to send him straight to the gallows, as they did in England?) I just want to note that obvious fraud was introduced in relation to wives. Writers and journalists who copy quotes from each other with ellipses may not know this. But didn’t historians of the 19th century read the full text of Domostroi? who put the crippled quote into circulation? We couldn't help but read. Therefore, the forgery was committed deliberately. By the way, some translators also allow additional falsifications. For example, instead of “taking off his shirt,” as in the original, they write “raising his shirt” - to stick the quote to a woman, not a man. And the reader won’t notice, he’ll swallow it! Will anyone really begin to study the original text in Church Slavonic and compare it with the translation?
By the way, the true relationship between husbands and wives, or between lovers, accepted in Rus', is not difficult to see from other sources. There are plenty of them preserved. Listen folk songs, read epics. Or "The Tale of St. Peter and Fevronia" - it was written in the same years as "Domostroy". Where will you find cruelty, rudeness, barbarism there? Of course, the love of the patron saints of family and marriage or the love of fairy-tale, epic heroes was an ideal. But this was the very ideal that our ancestors strived for and strived for.
And Russian women have never been downtrodden and timid. One can recall at least the talented ruler of the vast state of St. Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duchess Olga. You can also remember the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, Anna, who was married to the French king Henry I. She turned out to be the most educated person in France, fluent in several languages. Documents have been preserved that show her neat signature in Latin, and next to it there is a cross - the “signature” of her illiterate husband. It was Anna who, for the first time in France, introduced social receptions into the custom and began to go hunting with the ladies. Before her, French women sat at home, at their hoops or idle chatter with servants.
Russian princesses showed themselves in the role of queens of the Scandinavian countries, Hungary, and Poland. The granddaughter of Vladimir Monomakh Dobrodeya-Eupraxia amazed even Byzantium with her learning - most cultural country that era. She was an excellent doctor, knew how to treat with herbs, and wrote medical works. Her treatise “Alimma” (“Ointments”) has been preserved. For her time, the princess had the deepest knowledge. The book contains sections on general human hygiene, hygiene of marriage, pregnancy, child care, rules of nutrition, diet, external and internal diseases, recommendations for treatment with ointments, massage techniques. Surely Dobrodeya-Eupraxia was not the only such specialist. In her homeland she had mentors, and the mentors had other students.
While humiliating Russians and slandering them, foreign authors for some reason do not pay attention to their own past. After all, ideas about the Western gallant attitude towards ladies developed only in the 19th century. from fiction novels Dumas, Walter Scott, etc. In reality, the “knightly” was not enough. Luther taught that “a wife must work tirelessly for her husband and obey him in everything.” The popular book “On Wicked Women” stated that “the donkey, the woman, and the nut need to be hit.” The famous German poet Reimer von Zvetten recommended that men “take a baton and pull the wife across the back, and harder, with all her strength, so that she feels her master.” And the British writer Swift reasoned that the female sex is a cross between a human and a monkey.
In France, Italy, Germany, even nobles openly sold beautiful daughters to kings, princes, and aristocrats for money. Such transactions were not considered shameful, but extremely profitable. After all, the mistress of a high-ranking official opened paths to a career and enrichment for her family, she was showered with gifts. But they could easily give it to another owner, resell it, lose it at cards, or beat it up. English king Henry VIII, in fits of bad mood, beat his favorites so much that they were “out of action” for several weeks. He sent two annoying wives to the chopping block. And the norms of gallantry did not apply to commoners at all. They were treated like objects to be used. By the way, Kostomarov, condemning domestic customs, referred to a certain Italian - who himself beat a Russian woman to death, which he boasted about abroad. But is this evidence of Russian morals? Rather, about the morals of Italians.
In Rus', women enjoyed much greater freedoms than is commonly believed. The law protected her rights. Insulting women was punishable by twice the fine as insulting men. They had full ownership of movable and immovable property and managed their own dowry. Widows managed the household with minor children. If there were no sons in the family, daughters acted as heirs. Women made deals and went to court. Among them there were many literate people; even commoners exchanged Novgorod birch bark notes. In Kievan Rus there were special schools for girls. And in the 17th century. the well-known archpriest Avvakum angrily attacked a certain girl Evdokia, who began to study grammar and rhetoric.
But Russian representatives of the fair sex also knew how to wield weapons. There are repeated references to how they defended the walls of cities together with men. They even took part in court battles. In general, in such cases, it was allowed to hire a fighter in his place, but the Pskov Charter of Judgment stipulated: “And the wives will award the field to the wives, and the hireling from the wives will not be on either side.” If a duel between a woman and a man is awarded, please put up a mercenary, but if it’s with a woman, you can’t. Dress yourself in armor, go out on horseback or on foot, take swords, spears, axes and hack as much as you like. Obviously, the law also had a cunning background. Two women will quarrel, pay the fighters, and one of them will die or be injured because of a trifling quarrel. But they themselves will not take risks over trifles, they will make peace.
Well, now let’s try to understand the “generally accepted” evidence of the home confinement of Russian women. During the era of Muscovite Rus', 90% of the population were peasants. So think about it - could they keep their wives under lock and key? And who will work in the field, in the garden, and take care of the cattle? This concept clearly does not fit with peasant women. Maybe only townswomen were kept locked up? No, it doesn’t add up again. In addition to the mentioned Herberstein, memories of our country were left by dozens of foreigners who visited it in different times. They describe crowds of women mixed with men at various holidays, celebrations, and services. They talk about saleswomen and customers crowding the bazaars. Czech Tanner noted: “It’s especially nice to look at the goods or trade of Muscovite women flocking there. Whether they are carrying linen, thread, shirts or rings for sale, or whether they are crowding around to yawn with nothing to do, they raise such a cry that a newcomer will probably wonder if the city is on fire.”
Muscovites worked in workshops, in shops, hundreds of them washed clothes near the bridges over the Moscow River. Bathing at the Blessing of the Waters was described - many women plunged into the ice holes together with men, this spectacle always attracted foreigners. Almost all foreign guests who came to our country considered it their duty to describe Russian baths. There weren’t any in Europe; baths were considered exotic, so people went there to look at the naked women. They excitedly recounted to their readers how they, steamed, jumped out into the snow or into the river. But... what about seclusion?
We can only assume that only noblewomen were imprisoned at home... No. They simply had no time to chill! In those days, nobles left for service every year. Sometimes from spring to late autumn, sometimes absent for several years. And who was in charge of the estates in their absence? Wives, mothers. This can be confirmed, for example, by “The Tale of Juliania Osoryina,” written in the 17th century. son of the heroine. He told how his father served in Astrakhan, and his mother ran a household. The court physician Collins described the family of the steward Miloslavsky, who served in the Pushkarsky order. He reported that they lived very poorly, and Miloslavsky’s daughter Maria, the future queen, was forced to pick mushrooms in the forest and sell them at the market.
As for the representatives of the highest nobility, princesses and boyars, they also took care of their husbands’ households, estates and trades. They did not remain aloof from political and spiritual life. Marfa Boretskaya actually headed the government of Novgorod. Morozova ruled the schismatic opposition. But most of the boyars themselves were in the court service. They were in charge of the tsar's wardrobe and occupied important positions as mothers and nannies for the sovereign's children. And the queen had her own large courtyard. She was served by boyars and noblewomen; her staff consisted of clerks-clerks, Russian and foreign doctors, and children's teachers.
The wives of the sovereigns were in charge of palace villages and volosts, received reports from managers, and counted income. They also had their own possessions, lands, industrial enterprises. Collins wrote that under Alexei Mikhailovich, factories for processing hemp and flax were built for his wife Maria, seven miles from Moscow. They “are in great order, very extensive, and will provide work for all the poor in the state.” The queens were widely involved in charity work and had the right to pardon criminals. Often they themselves, without their husbands, went to monasteries and churches, on pilgrimages. They were accompanied by a retinue of 5-6 thousand noble ladies.
Margeret and Guldenstern noted that during the trip to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, “many women” rode behind the queen, and “they sat on horses like men.” Fletcher also writes that boyars often rode horses. Well, after a sedentary sedentary retreat, try riding in the saddle from Moscow to Sergiev Posad! What will happen to you? It turns out that the noble ladies trained somewhere and rode horses. Obviously, in their villages. And if, while living in the capital, boyar daughters or wives spent a significant part of their time in their own courtyard, then it is necessary to take into account what the boyar courtyards were like! These were entire towns, their population consisted of 3-4 thousand people of servants and servants. They have their own gardens, ponds, baths, and dozens of buildings. Agree, spending time in such a courtyard is by no means equivalent to a dreary conclusion in a “mansion”.
However, Herberstein’s mention that Russian women “spin and twist threads” is to some extent close to the truth. Every girl learned needlework. A peasant woman or a craftsman's wife covered the family. But the wives and daughters of the nobility, of course, did not pore over the tailoring and shirts. Some examples of their work have reached us - magnificent embroideries. Basically, they were made for the church. Shrouds, shrouds, covers, air, banners, even entire embroidered iconostases. So what do we see? Women deal with complex economic issues, in free time create works the highest art- and this is called enslavement?
Some restrictions did exist. In Rus', balls and feasts with the participation of women were not accepted. The owner could introduce his wife to the guests as a special honor. She will come out, give them a glass each and leave. At holidays, at weddings, women gathered in a separate room - men in another. “Domostroy” did not recommend intoxicating drinks for the “fair half” at all. But foreigners who had the opportunity to communicate closely with Russian ladies admired their upbringing and manners.
The German Airman described that they appear before the guests “with very serious faces, but not dissatisfied or sour, but combined with friendliness; and you will never see such a lady laughing, much less with those cutesy and ridiculous antics with which women in our countries try to show their social pleasantness. They do not change their facial expression by twitching their heads, biting their lips or rolling their eyes, as German women do. They do not rush around like will-o'-the-wisps, but always maintain sedateness, and if they want to greet or thank someone, they straighten up in a graceful manner and slowly apply right hand on the left chest to the heart and immediately lower it seriously and slowly, so that both arms hang on either side of the body and just as ceremoniously return to their previous position. As a result, they come across as noble individuals.”
Our distant great-great-grandmothers loved and knew how to dress up. Comfortable and beautiful sundresses, flyers, fur coats, and hats with fur trim were sewn. All this was decorated with intricate patterns, festive costumes - with pearls and beads. Fashionistas sported shoes with very high heels and adopted the custom of painting their nails from the Tatars - by the way, both of these were new in the West and were described as curiosities. Russian jewelers made amazing earrings, bracelets, and necklaces. Airman noted: “According to their custom, they adorn themselves beyond measure with pearls and jewelry, which constantly hang from their ears on gold rings, and they also wear precious rings on their fingers.” The girls did complex, sophisticated hairstyles - they even wove pearls and gold threads into their braids and decorated them with silk tassels.
And morals, in general, were quite free. As at all times, women were drawn to joy and fun. They loved to dance and swing on swings. The girls and the boys outside the outskirts gathered to dance in round dances, sing lively ditties, frolic in young games, and in winter go ice skating and sledding down the mountain. Each holiday had its own customs. At the Assumption there were “dozhinkas,” at Christmas there were carols, at Maslenitsa there were pancakes, storming of snow fortresses, and brides and grooms and young spouses raced dashingly in troikas. As at all times, people wanted family happiness. In Ustyug in 1630, they announced a recruitment of 150 girls who wanted to go to Siberia “to get married” - there were not enough wives for the Cossacks and Streltsy. The required quantity was collected instantly, and we drove across all of Russia!
However, Russian women were not alien to ordinary female weaknesses, so what could we do without it? Let's say that during the next fire in Moscow they began to find out the cause - it turned out that the widow Ulyana Ivanova left the stove unlit, went out for a minute to see her neighbor, sexton Timofey Golosov, and stayed too long, chatting at a party. She scratched her tongue until they shouted that her house was on fire. Probably, such a widow could live in any country and in any era.
Olearius describes an incident in Astrakhan. The Germans here also decided to look at the Russian bathers and went for a walk to the baths. Four girls jumped out of the steam room and splashed in the Volga. A German soldier decided to take a dip with them. They started splashing around as a joke, but one went too deep and began to sink. The friends called out to the soldier, and he pulled out the pullet. All four surrounded the German, showering him with kisses of gratitude. Something doesn’t look too much like “enslavement.” Obviously, the girls themselves staged the “accident” in order to get to know each other better.
Ambassador Foscarino boasted how several Moscow women found themselves in the arms of Italians - out of curiosity, they wanted to compare them with their compatriots. Olearius and Tanner mentioned that there were also girls of easy virtue in Moscow. They hung around Lobnoye Mesto under the guise of canvas saleswomen, but identified themselves by holding a turquoise ring in their lips. It’s very convenient - if an outfit of archers appears, hide the ring in your mouth. Although it did not reach the point of general debauchery, as in France or Italy. Moreover, the situation turned out to be paradoxical in many ways. In most European countries, medieval draconian laws were preserved; fornication was punishable by death. But no one remembered these laws, debauchery flourished openly. There were no such laws in Russia. Only the Church dealt with issues of morality. But moral foundations remained much stronger than in the West.
Of course, “advice and love” reigned in not every family. Sometimes adultery happened - it was a sin, and confessors prescribed repentance and penance. But if the husband offended his wife, she could also find protection in the church - the priest would sort it out and bring the head of the family to reason. In such cases, the “world” - the village, suburban, craft community - also intervened. And communities in Rus' were strong, they could turn to the authorities, governors, and the tsar himself. For example, we have heard a public complaint against the townsman Korob, who “drinks and indulges in outrageous carousing, plays grain and cards, beats his wife and tortures him illegally...” The community asked to appease the hooligan or even evict him.
And Russian women themselves were by no means defenseless hothouse creatures; they knew how to stand up for themselves. In the folk “Parable of the Old Husband and the Young Maiden” (17th century), a rich nobleman betroths a beauty against her wishes - he forces her parents to marry. But the girl lists in advance the arsenal of means with which she will torment him - from treating him with dry crusts and undercooked moss to beatings “on the birch mug, the unpricked butt, the roast neck, bream quickies, pike teeth.” Indeed, it also happened that it was not the wife who suffered from her husband, but the husband who suffered from his wife. So, the nobleman Nikifor Skoryatin twice turned to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself! He complained that Pelageya’s wife beat him, pulled his beard and threatened him with an ax. He asked for protection or permission to divorce.
Of course, I give this example not as a positive example and not as an excuse for quarrelsome women. But he also confirms how untenable the “generally accepted” stereotype about downtrodden and unhappy Russian women, who spent their whole lives sitting behind locked doors and moaning from beatings, is.
Valery Shambarov