What human qualities are important for an ancient Russian person. The ideal of man in ancient Russian literature and in modern society

The originality of ancient Russian literature in the depiction of the hero, unlike the Russian classics familiar to us, also characterizes its features. It does not contain familiar images, as in the literature of the 19th and 20th centuries. The medieval writer had his own artistic vision of man and special ways of depicting him.

The reproduction of a person in ancient literature, as in modern literature, depends on the style and genre of the work. But, unlike new literature, genres and styles in ancient literature are also unique. Without understanding them, it is impossible to imagine the artistic originality of the monuments of Ancient Rus'.

Academician D.S. Likhachev defined the literary styles of Ancient Rus': the style of monumental historicism (XI-XIII centuries), the epic style in literature (XI-XIII centuries), the expressive-emotional style (late XIV-XV centuries), the style of psychological pacification (XV centuries). 1 He examined the artistic vision of man in ancient literature. In accordance with his judgments, we present the material.

In relation to styles and genres, the hero is reproduced in the monuments of ancient literature, ideals are formed and created. The monumental style of the 11th-13th centuries is presented in chronicles, military stories and stories about princely crimes. The image of the ideal hero was associated with the feudal structure and with the range of social concepts, with ideas about the honor, rights and duty of the feudal lord, with his duties to the state.

The prince was the ideal hero in the chronicles. It was created by the chronicler in “monumental grandeur”, as in the mosaics and frescoes of the 11th-13th centuries. The chronicler was interested in the official image of the prince, his significant actions as a historical figure, but his human qualities remained outside of attention.

The ideal image of a hero was created in accordance with certain canons 2: the dignity and virtues of the prince were listed, which were supposed to evoke worship (mighty, independent, handsome in face, brave, skilled in military affairs, courageous, destroyer of enemies, guardian of the state).

The pomp and solemnity characteristic of the monumental style distinguished the narrative of the ideal hero. D.S. Likhachev writes: “Both in literature and in painting we are undoubtedly facing monumental art. This is an art capable of embodying the heroism of the individual, the concepts of honor, glory, the power of the prince, class differences in the position of people” 3.

The prince is presented in an aura of power and glory. This statesman and warrior. Fearlessness in battle and contempt for death are one of the traits of an ideal hero. He is ahead of his army, fearlessly rushes into battle and goes out to duel with the enemy. The prince in the chronicle personifies the power and dignity of the country. The ideal of the prince in the literature of the 11th-13th centuries expressed the patriotic feelings of the chronicler, embodied the love for the fatherland, for the Russian land. The prince serves Rus' and is ready to die for it. He is called upon to guard the Russian land, as the chronicles write, “to lay down his head for the peasants and for the Russian land, to work for his fatherland.” Patriotism was not only a duty, but also a conviction of the Russian princes; the characters were historical figures, and not a fruit fiction author.

In such works of ancient Russian literature as lives, asceticism, the feat of serving the fatherland, the holiness and “blessedness” of the lives of Russian saints are glorified. Their images combined an example of selflessness, passionate service to an idea, and expressed the folk ideals of the spiritual beauty of the Russian person (Theodosius of Pechersk, Sergius of Radonezh, etc.). In the stories about saints, their greatness, their ideality is conveyed against an expressive-emotional background, which creates the expressive-emotional style of literature of the late XIV-XV centuries. This is especially evident in hagiographic literature, which elevates the life of a saint to a high feat, to an ideal. In ancient literature the saint is called a “soldier of Christ.” He is an ascetic, the main thing about him is his feat, which he performs as a warrior. For example, Epiphanius the Wise calls Stephen of Perm “courageous brave,” i.e. hero. The image of Sergius of Radonezh is sublime and heroic.

In the literature of the 11th-13th centuries, an epic style is also evident in the depiction of heroes. It is especially noticeable in those works that are associated with oral folk art. As in folklore, the characters in the chronicle and the story are characterized “by one major act” (“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu”). Both in the “Word” and in the “Tale” - a collective hero, folk hero- defender of the homeland. He is distinguished by strength and courage. The authors also transfer the exploits of his squad onto him (Bui-Tur Vsevolod, Svyatoslav, Evpatiy Kolovrat). The image of a hero unites with his squad and grows into a hero - this is a collective image.

Ancient literature created heroic characters of women. These are images of wives, mothers accompanying their loved ones on military campaigns and battles with enemies, widows mourning the dead. Vladimir Monomakh writes with love and warmth about the widow of his murdered son, like a dove on a dry tree. The image of the wife of the Ryazan prince Fyodor Eupraxia, who threw herself from the wall along with her infant (“The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu”), is beautiful.

The ideal of a woman in Ancient Rus', expressed in service to loved ones, love for the homeland, contempt for the enemy, is embodied in chronicles, military stories, and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” The image of Yaroslavna, faithful, loving woman, created in the song and folklore tradition.

Hymn of loyalty and love, moral ideal ancient literature are presented in the image of the wise maiden Fevronia (“The Tale of Peter and Fevronia of Murom”). Here, “psychological tranquility” and emotional contemplation of the author are manifested, drawing the image of a Russian woman. The heroine is a high moral ideal, the life-giving power of her love cannot separate Fevronia from her chosen one even in death.

In the democratic literature of the 17th century (everyday, satirical stories) the discovery of human personality occurs. At this time, the hero and his image change dramatically. The literature of previous centuries did not know a fictional hero. All the characters in the works were historical (princes, priests, saints). They existed in Russian history. Now appears in literature a common person: a peasant, a peasant, a merchant's son, who broke with his family and set out in search of his place. These are fictional characters, unknown, unremarkable, unrelated to the history of life in Russia, but close to the reader. The hero has become nameless, this especially applies to heroes from a democratic environment. In the works they are called: “poor”, “rich”, “peasant son”, “maiden”, “certain merchant”.

The hero of democratic literature differs from the ideal hero of the 11th-13th centuries. He does not occupy any official position: neither a prince nor an official church official. The artistic means of depicting him are different: the hero is reduced, everyday. He is deprived of everything that elevated the characters in the literature of the 11th-13th centuries. This is a person suffering from cold, hunger, and social injustice. In contrast to the ceremonial clothes of the monumental images of the princes, he is dressed in a “tavern gunka”. He has lost contact with family and friends, lost in poverty, deprived of parental blessing - a degraded person, and yet, according to the author, in need of sympathy. “For the first time in Russian literature, the inner life man, the fate of fallen man was depicted with such drama” 4 . And in this appeal to the theme of the “little man” the beginning of the beginnings of Russian literature, its humanistic character, is revealed. The depiction of a common man in the literature of the 17th century meant the “death of the medieval normative ideal” and the gradual emergence of literature towards a new way of depicting the hero, based on reality. 5

The halo of martyrdom, service to an idea, the image of a “martyr for the faith” again rises in the literature of the 17th century in “The Life of Archpriest Avvakum.” The literature of Ancient Rus' again rose to monumentalism, to universal human and world themes, but on a completely different basis. The power of the individual in itself, outside of official status, the power of a person deprived of everything, thrown into an earthen pit, a person whose tongue has been cut out, who is deprived of the opportunity to write and communicate with the outside world, whose body is rotting, who is eaten by lice, who faces the most terrible torture and death at the stake - this power appeared in the works of Avvakum with stunning force and completely eclipsed the external omnipotence of the official position of the feudal lords. 6

This is how the image of the hero of ancient literature undergoes changes and artistic methods his images.

CREATION

SCHOOL ESSAYS

Portrayal of a hero in ancient Russian literature

"The first historical works allow people to realize themselves in historical process, think about your role in world history, understand the roots of modern events and your responsibility to the future."
Academician D. S. Likhachev

Old Russian literature, which includes epics, fairy tales, lives of saints and (later) stories, is not just a cultural monument. This unique opportunity acquaintance with life, everyday life, the spiritual world and moral principles of our distant ancestors, a kind of bridge connecting modernity and antiquity.
So, what is he like, the ancient Russian hero of literature?

The first thing that should be noted is that the depiction of man in general in ancient Russian literature is very peculiar. The author deliberately avoids precision, certainty, and detail that indicate a specific character. Professional activity or belonging to a certain social category determines personality. If we have a monk in front of us, his monastic qualities are important, if a prince - princely, if a hero - heroic. The life of the saints is depicted specifically outside of time and space, being a standard of ethical standards.
The character of the hero of the story is revealed through a description of his actions (deeds, exploits). The author does not pay attention to the reasons that prompted the hero to this or that action; the motivation remains behind the scenes.
The Old Russian hero is an integral and uncompromising personality who lives by the principle: “I see the goal, I don’t notice the obstacles, I believe in myself.” His image seems to be carved out of a granite monolith; his actions are based on unshakable confidence in the rightness of his cause. His activities are aimed at the good native land, for the benefit of fellow citizens. The epic hero, for example, is a collective image of the defender of the Motherland, albeit endowed with certain supernatural abilities, a model of civil behavior.
Whoever the hero is, he is courageous, honest, kind, generous, devoted to his homeland and people, never seeks his own benefit, an Orthodox Christian. This is a strong, proud and unusually stubborn man. Obviously, this fantastic stubbornness, so superbly described by N.V. Gogol in the story “Taras Bulba,” allows a person to achieve the task he has defined for himself. For example, St. Sergius of Radonezh flatly refuses to become a metropolitan, Fevronia, despite her social status, becomes a princess, Ilya of Muromets not only defends Kyiv, but in his own way destroys the enemies of the Russian land.
A characteristic feature of the hero of ancient Russian literature is the absence of chauvinism, a humane attitude towards people different nationalities. Despite all the patriotism, there is no aggressiveness. Thus, in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” the fight against the Polovtsians is seen as the defense of the Russian people from unexpected predatory raids. In the epic "The Tale of Walking Kyiv heroes to Constantinople" "...they release the young Tugarin to Constantinople and teach him to conjure so that they will not come to Rus' for centuries."
Saint Sergius of Radonezh, blessing Prince Dmitry for the battle with Mamai, says: “Go against the barbarians, rejecting great doubt, and God will help you. You will defeat your enemies and return healthy to your fatherland.”
Female images of ancient Russian literature convey creativity, the warmth of the family hearth, love and fidelity. These are unusually subtle and intelligent representatives of the fair half of humanity, who know how to achieve their goals not by force, but by reason.
The man of ancient Rus' is inextricably linked with the nature around him. And even if in ancient Russian literature there is no description of the landscape in the usual to modern man understanding of this word, but the presence of living, animated forests and fields, rivers and lakes, flowers and herbs, animals and birds create the impression of an inextricable connection between people and the living world around them.
The description of nature is most clearly expressed in “The Lay...”, where natural phenomena and the animal world empathize with the hero:
"...The night has passed, and the bloody dawns
They announce disaster in the morning.
A cloud is moving in from the sea
For four princely tents....."
In all other works, the landscape is drawn extremely poorly, sometimes there is almost no landscape at all.
However, St. Sergius seeks solitude among virgin forests, and Fevronia turns tree stumps into large trees with branches and foliage.

In general, we understand the language in which ancient Russian works of literature were written, because, although it is ancient, it is still Russian!
There are certainly outdated words there (guni - outerwear, eliko - only, monk - monk, adamant - diamond, span - measure of length, incense - incense), the meaning of which is difficult to guess right away, but in the context of the work one can understand their meaning (prayer - worship, zegzitsa - cuckoo). Old Russian literature uses very bright, lively and figurative language. There is a lot of dialogic speech, and colloquial vocabulary is used accordingly, making these works unusually folk. In ancient Russian literature there are many epithets (silver shores, pearly soul) and comparisons (galloped like an ermine, swam like a white goldeneye, flew like a falcon, ran like a wolf like a cuckoo, calls to the Jurassic). Literary works are melodious, musical and unhurried due to large quantity vowels and sonorous sounds.
It is worth mentioning that the author does not use such an important thing as a portrait, without which we cannot imagine modern literature. Perhaps in those days the idea of ​​a particular hero was general, and there was no need to describe his appearance, since it (the idea) was unspoken.
Also, a means of artistic expression is epic hyperbolization and idealization.
The technique of hyperbolization is widely used in epics; the capabilities of many heroes and objects are exaggerated, enlivening and emphasizing events. (For example, the description of Idol Skoropeevich in “The Heroic Word”:
"And he is tall, not according to custom,
Between his eyes the arrow goes well,
Between his shoulders there is a large fathom,
His eyes are like bowls
And his head is like a beer cauldron.)
The technique of idealization is a method of artistic generalization that allows the author to create an image based on his ideas about what he should be (saints are ideal, family values ​​are unshakable).
All elements of the composition (Prologue => Plot of action => Development of action => Climax => Denouement => Epilogue) are present only in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, and in epics, stories and lives there is no prologue, and the starting point of the action is the plot.
The spiritual values ​​defended by the heroes of ancient Russian literature are still relevant today, almost a thousand years later. National independence, cohesion and unity of the nation, family values, Christian values ​​(= universal human values) are close and understandable to every citizen of Russia. The connection of times is obvious.
The first moral works, socio-political works, clarify social norms behavior, allow for the wider dissemination of the idea of ​​everyone’s responsibility for the fate of the people and the country, and foster patriotism and at the same time respect for other peoples.
The richness of the Russian language is the result of almost a thousand years of development of Russian literature.
In Ancient Rus' there was beauty of moral depth, moral subtlety and at the same time moral power.
To become familiar with ancient Russian literature is great happiness and great joy.

Bibliography:
B.A. Rybakov "World of History" 1984
D.S. Likhachev "Anthology of Old Russian Literature"

national character, Great Russian, ancient Russian people.

The article examines and analyzes the features of the national character of the Old Russian people. Based on the study of scientific literature on this topic, factors influencing the formation of the national character of Old Russian people were also identified and answers to the following questions were obtained: a) What are the features of the Russian national character? b) What factors had the main influence on the formation of the national character traits of Old Russian people? c) How did Europeans see Russians?

Article text:

“National character is something so elusive, so vague and indefinite, that only with great difficulty can it be placed as the basis of distinction” (1:6). The category of national character includes the most diverse manifestations of the material and spiritual life of the people. However, when it is necessary to explain what is common that distinguishes representatives of one nation from another, they resort to the terms “national” or “ethnic” characteristics, “national mentality”, “national” character. This suggests that the semantic cell for this concept is present in the minds of every people. (8). D.S. Likhachev put it perfectly on this matter: “National characteristics are a reliable fact. There are no unique features that are unique to to this people, only for this nation, only for this country. It's all about some of their totality and the crystalline unique structure of these national and national features. To deny the existence of a national character, national individuality means to make the world of peoples very boring and gray.” (8).

National character is what connects an individual with his culture. “The “society within us,” which exists in the form of reactions of the same type for people of the same culture to familiar situations in the form of feelings and states, is our national character.” As a person grows up, he consciously (and unconsciously) assimilates the values ​​of his culture, psychological and behavioral characteristics that are typical and most characteristic of people belonging to this culture. At the everyday level, national character is usually associated with the painting of the French, the neatness of the Germans, and the mysterious Russian soul.

Like any people, the Russian national character is an indefinable phenomenon. Essentially, the character of a people is, first of all, its merits, the continuation of which can be disadvantages. Much has been said on the topic of the mysterious inconsistency of the Russian people, but, as a rule, this topic is mythologized. Some character traits of the Russian people are often exaggerated when trying to explain many cataclysms. Russian history. But some real contradictions in the Russian character reflect the relationship between innate qualities and Orthodox upbringing.

The character of the ancient Russian people was formed as a result of the influence of various factors - these, in our opinion, are geographical conditions, Byzantine and Scandinavian cultural influence.

During the early Middle Ages Byzantine Empire, the heiress and successor of Greek culture and the state-legal organization of the Roman Empire, was the most cultural, the most powerful and the most economically developed European state. It is quite natural that its influence was decisive over a fairly large period of Russian history. But the main influence of Byzantium on the Slavic world was carried out through its Christianization. Penetrating gradually into the soul and life of Russian society, Christianity, with its teachings about love and mercy, produced a profound moral change. The change primarily affected the princely family itself, or rather its best representatives. It also served as the ideological basis for the unification of the Slavic tribes into a single Russian state. The spiritual direction in the development of Russian culture received significant advantages over the state one.

The ancient Greek historian Herodotus argued that the development of the people and the course of historical events are subject to natural conditions. The same idea was shared by prominent Russian historians Solovyov and Klyuchevsky. The conditions in which the Russian people were formed were unique. Not a single people in the world has developed under such difficult conditions and created a great state. (7). That's why he's different from others European peoples. He is neither better nor worse, he is different. Greek and Roman sources, speaking about the ancient Slavs, ranked them among the developed peoples, because our ancestors built houses, led a sedentary lifestyle and fought on foot. The Greeks, connoisseurs of beauty, admired the slenderness of the Slavs, their strength and dexterity. The Slavs paid attention to the strength of the body, but they could appear in public dirty and torn. Appearance didn't matter to them. They disdained luxury; they often simply buried jewelry captured in the war in the ground. The Tale of Bygone Years mentions an incident when Prince Svyatoslav received Greek ambassadors. He despised gold and gladly accepted weapons. Seeing this, the Greeks did not dare to fight such a prince and agreed to pay tribute (7).

In battle, the ancient Slavs were brave and persistent. The number of enemies did not matter to them; they continued to fight even in a hopeless situation. Once captured, they bravely endured the torment. These qualities were very highly valued at that time, and the ancient Slavs were willingly accepted military service. They could be found even among the Vikings. Their cruelty in war was also noted. At the same time, they treated the slaves very well. Slaves ate with their masters at the same table, a period of slavery was set, after this period the slave received freedom and could live among his former owners. (7).

Our ancestors were distinguished by exceptional hospitality. The guest was sacred for the ancient Slavs. To insult a guest meant to insult the entire tribe. In the Slavic lands there were practically no robbers, and among the Slavs there was no theft, but if, due to poverty, a person could not receive a guest well, then he could even commit theft. The morals of our ancestors allowed this. Traders loved to visit Slavic lands. They noted the chastity of Slavic wives and the devotion of Slavic husbands. The Slavs did not know how to read and write, but they knew counting. They divided the year into 12 months, and called a century a century. They loved music and took instruments with them to war. Bagpipes, whistles, pipes and harps have long been known to our ancestors. The Slavs loved fist fighting, wrestling, and running. Various crafts were developed among the Slavs. (7).

The Greeks admired the ability of the ancient Slavs to endure the hardships that nature presented to them. They could go without food for a long time, find food where no one else could, hide in swamps, rivers, and forests. They bravely endured cold, heat, and bad weather. These were our ancestors who lived in the Dnieper region, and from whom the Russian land came.

Genetically, Russian people are endowed with an emotional, passionate, indomitable nature, a sharp mind, endurance, firmness - everything that the East Slavic tribes needed to survive in harsh historical conditions. Ancient Rus', with its forests, swamps and swamps, presented the settler at every step with thousands of small dangers, unforeseen difficulties and troubles, among which he had to find himself and with which he constantly had to fight. This taught the Russian to vigilantly monitor nature, look both ways, walk, looking around and feeling the soil, not to venture into the water without looking for a ford, developed in him resourcefulness in minor difficulties and dangers, as well as the habit of patiently struggling with adversity and deprivation. In Europe there is no people less spoiled, accustomed to expect less from nature and fate, and more resilient (9).

Amazing powers of observation are revealed in ancient Russian folk signs. Here all the characteristic, often elusive phenomena of the annual turnover of Russian nature are captured, its various climatic and economic accidents are noted, and the entire annual routine of the peasant economy is outlined. All seasons of the year, every month, almost every day of the month appear here with special aptly outlined climatic and economic physiognomies, and in these observations, often obtained at the cost of bitter experience, both the observed nature and the observer himself were clearly reflected. Here he observes his surroundings and reflects on himself. The signs of the ancient Russian man include his meteorology, his economic textbook, and his everyday autobiography. In them he was completely reflected with his life and outlook, with his mind and heart. In them he reflects, and observes, and rejoices, and grieves, and he himself laughs at his own sorrows and joys. (9).

The folk signs of ancient Russian people are capricious, just as the nature of ancient Rus' reflected in them is capricious. She often laughs at his most cautious calculations, and the waywardness of the climate and soil deceives his most modest expectations. Having become accustomed to these deceptions, he often chooses the most hopeless and imprudent solution, contrasting the whim of nature with the whim of his own courage. This tendency to play with luck is the Russian maybe. The ancient Russian man is sure of one thing - we must cherish a clear summer working day. Nature allows him little convenient time for agricultural work, and short summer can still be shortened by untimely unexpected bad weather. This forces the Russian peasant to rush, to work hard in order to do a lot in a short time and get out of the field just in time, and then remain idle throughout the fall and winter. So he got used to excessive short-term strain on his strength, got used to working quickly, and then resting during the forced autumn and winter idleness. No people in Europe are capable of such intense labor for a short time, but nowhere in Europe is there such an unaccustomed attitude to even, measured, constant work as in Ancient Rus'. On the other hand, the properties of the region determined the order of settlement (9).

Life in remote, secluded villages with a lack of communication, naturally, could not accustom the Great Russian to act in large alliances, friendly masses. The man did not work in an open field, in front of everyone, like an inhabitant of southern Rus': he fought with nature alone, in the depths of the forest with an ax in his hand. It was silent, menial work on external nature, on a forest or wild field, and not on oneself and society, not on one’s feelings and relationships with people. That’s why he works better alone, when no one is looking at him, and has difficulty getting used to working together together. He is generally reserved and cautious, even timid, always on his own mind, uncommunicative, better with himself than in public, better at the beginning of a business, when he is not yet confident in himself and in success, and worse at the end, when he has already achieved some success and will attract attention: self-doubt excites his strength, and success drops them. It is easier for him to overcome an obstacle, danger, failure, than to withstand success with tact and dignity; It’s easier to do great things than to get used to the idea of ​​your greatness. He belongs to that type of smart people who become stupid from the recognition of their intelligence (9).

It must be that every nation is naturally destined to perceive from the surrounding world, as well as from the destinies experienced, and to transform into its character not just any, but only certain impressions, and from here comes the diversity of national patterns, or types, just as unequal light sensitivity produces variety of colors. In accordance with this, the people look at their surroundings and what they experience from a certain angle, reflecting both in their consciousness with a certain refraction. The nature of the country is probably not without participation in the degree and direction of this refraction.

The inability to calculate in advance, figure out a plan of action in advance and go straight to the intended goal was noticeably reflected in the mentality of the ancient Russian man, in the manner of his thinking. Everyday irregularities and accidents taught him to discuss the path traveled more than to think about the future, to look back more than to look forward. In the fight against unexpected snowstorms and thaws, with unforeseen August frosts and January slush, he became more cautious than prudent, learned to notice consequences more than set goals, and cultivated the ability to sum up the art of making estimates. This skill is what we call hindsight. The saying that a Russian man is strong in hindsight belongs to him by right. But hindsight is not the same as hindsight. With his habit of hesitating and maneuvering between the unevenness of the path and the accidents of life, he often gives the impression of insincerity. Rusich often thinks in two ways, and this seems like double-mindedness. He always goes towards a direct goal, although often not well thought out.

After all, “you can’t break through a wall with your forehead,” and “only crows fly straight,” say Russian proverbs. Nature and fate led the Russian in such a way that they taught him to take a roundabout route to the straight road. He thinks and acts the way he walks. “It seems that you can come up with a crooked and more tortuous Russian country road? It was as if a snake had slithered through. But try to go straighter: you will only get lost and end up on the same winding path” (3:28). This is how the action of nature affected the economic life and character of ancient Russian man.

During the era of Kievan Rus, compared to later times, Russians had better houses and food. Without a doubt, in those days the average Russian person ate more meat than the peasant in Tsarist Russia. As a result, the Russian people seem to have been healthier and fitter than their nineteenth-century descendants. Despite the growth of cities, they were not yet as overpopulated as in our time. On the other hand, the medicine of that time, and not only in Rus', was unable to cope with epidemics, and when they arose, people were helpless and viewed them as a sign of the wrath of God. For common illnesses, people expected help either from learned doctors or, especially in rural areas, from healers and wise men.

However, the basics of hygiene were supported more by common sense and folk tradition than witchcraft or science. Here one cannot fail to note another important feature of the ancient Russian national character - cleanliness. Elementary cleanliness of the body was achieved by regular use of steam baths, at least in the northern part of Rus', where a bathhouse was a mandatory part of every estate. In the south, the steam bath was less popular, but nevertheless widespread. The Tale of Bygone Years contains a characteristic story about the legendary journey of the Apostle Andrew to Novgorod. “Believe it or not,” he says, “I saw the land of the Slovenes, and while I was among them, I observed their wooden baths. They heat them until very hot, then undress and, having anointed themselves with alum, take fresh rods and whip their bodies with them. In fact, they whip themselves so violently that they remain barely alive. Then they douse themselves with cold water and come to their senses. They can do this every day, and, in fact, voluntarily subject themselves to such torture" (1:326).

And so, we examined the features of the national Russian character within the framework of this article and made the following conclusions:

Not a single people in the world developed in such difficult conditions and did not create a great state, which is why the ancient Russian people differed from other European peoples: exceptional hospitality, the ability to endure cold, heat, bad weather, regularity, courage and originality. The ideology of the Great Russians became common to all peoples inhabiting this great state, and began to be called the “mysterious Russian soul.”

Literature.

1. Vernadsky V.G. Kievan Rus. M.: Publishing house. Agraf. 2004 – 448p.

2. Kasyanova K. On the Russian national character. - M.: Institute of National Economic Model, 1994 - 267 p.

3. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. Op. in 9 vols. Part 1. M., 1987.

4. Levchenko, M.V., Essays on the history of Russian-Byzantine relations / M.V. Levchenko Essays on the history of Russian-Byzantine relations. M., 1956

Even such an abstract, abstract characteristic as a quantitative assessment of anything had a rather pronounced value significance for ancient Russian people.

Everything said in the previous lecture makes it possible, at least in general terms, to reconstruct those general ideas and attitudes that determined the behavior of ancient Russian people, forced him to act this way and not otherwise. Based on data from sources, we will try to restore and describe the main ones.

Since a person simultaneously exists, so to speak, in three hypostases - as a living, rational and social being, the material is presented in three sections: nature, man and society. Of course, such a structure is largely arbitrary, so many issues overlap. I hope this will not make it difficult to perceive further lecture material, and maybe even allow us to create a fairly comprehensive image of the system of spiritual values ​​of the people of Ancient Rus'.

Nature

It seems that our vision of the surrounding reality is the only possible and completely “natural”. It seems immediate to us. In fact, it is mediated by many categories that are present in our consciousness in an implicit form and are so familiar that we simply do not notice them. And the less noticeable they are, the more power they have over a person’s perception, the more it depends on them what image of the surrounding world seems normal to him. And the less they are accessible to awareness both by the bearer of these concepts and images and by an outsider. And yet, let us try, as far as possible, to look into the “inner” world of man in Ancient Rus', to see the nature around him at least approximately as he himself saw it.

Quantity and number.

Even such an abstract, abstract characteristic as a quantitative assessment of anything had a rather pronounced meaning for ancient Russian people. value value. The idea of ​​the sacred properties of number was widespread and was realized in the most different areas human activity. Numbers and numerical relations, as shown by the works of a number of researchers (V.M. Kirillin, V.N. Toporov, D. Petkanova, etc.), had, in addition to practical significance, also a sivolico-theological meaning. They reflected the essence of the highest unknowable truth and acted as a sacred means of understanding the world around us.

In this regard, in ancient Russian literary works, numbers performed not only documentary and factual functions (when they determined the real quantity of something), but could also be filled with symbolic (as literary scholars say tropic) content. In this case, they first of all conveyed sacred information and stated the divine meaning of the events taking place. You can also find numbers in ancient Russian literary sources that performed mixed functions, oriented simultaneously both to the phenomena of earthly life and to their ideal, divine prototypes.

This perception of quantity was based on the symbolism of numbers, well developed in the ancient world.

Thus, to the Christian tradition t_r_o_y_k_a was considered “complete and perfect number”(Augustine the Blessed); it was the number of the divine Trinity and the number of the soul constructed in its image; she was also a symbol of everything spiritual. In the earliest monuments, three appears as a typically epic number. Ch_e_t_v_e_r_k_a was considered a symbol of the world and material things, signifying static integrity, an ideally stable structure. S_e_m_e_r_k_a - the number of a person, signifying his harmonious attitude to the world; it symbolized the sensual expression of the universal order, and was also a sign highest degree knowledge of the divine secret, achievement of spiritual perfection. In addition, it was used as a symbol of eternal rest. D_e_s_ya_t_k_a symbolized harmony and beauty. It was considered as the most perfect cosmic number. At the same time, the alchemists used it to designate matter. The number twelve was associated in Christianity with the idea of ​​perfection and symbolized renewed humanity (apparently through the Old Testament tradition in which it was associated with the people of God). In addition, it denoted the earthly and heavenly Church. The number s_o_r_o_k was typically biblical. In Christian practice, it was associated with the idea of ​​cleansing from sins and hope. They symbolized prayer and preparation for a new life.

The author was often more interested not in the real dimensions of the object being described, but in its symbolic connection - through numbers expressing its dimensions or proportions - with some sacred image, say, the Temple of Solomon (20x60x120) or Noah's Ark (50x300x30), etc. This is especially important to consider when the source contains “round” numbers. According to the fair remark of D. Petkanova,

“There was no blind faith in round numbers in medieval literature, they were not perceived as documentary numbers, they had to be considered as conditional or approximate, sometimes they could be close to the truth, but in no case were they historically accurate.”

The symbolic interpretation of numbers (numerology) had a wide scope of application, since most of the letters of the Slavic alphabet, borrowed from Greek alphabet could perform the functions of numbers. Consequently, almost every word had a quantitative expression, since it could be considered as the sum of the “digits” of which it consisted. It is enough to recall the already mentioned equation of the “Latins” with 666 - the number of the apocalyptic Beast (Antichrist).

The specificity of the perception of the world by one or another ethnic group, one or another culture, one or another civilization is manifested primarily in the peculiarities of the perception of space and time.

The image of space is an integral part of a holistic picture of the world. Objectively existing space is subjectively experienced and perceived by people, and in different historical eras in different countries in different ways. The Middle Ages, both Western European and domestic, tended to endow space with religious and ethical features. Jerusalem was considered the center of the Earth - literally and figuratively - and the Temple of the Lord was considered the center of Jerusalem. The “Navel of the Earth” was surrounded by “righteous” and “sinful” countries. Some of them were “closer” to heaven, others to hell; some - to the heavenly world, others - to the earthly one; some - to the sky, others - to the earth. Moreover, this sacred topography could change from time to time depending on the righteousness or sinfulness of the population of a particular land. At the same time, the spiritual center of the world could also move. The “New Jerusalem” could find a very concrete embodiment, theoretically, in any city that took upon itself the care of universal salvation. In practice, it became - for the reasons already mentioned - a city that claimed to be the center of the “Russian” land.

This idea also explains the extremely high authority of Alexander Nevsky in Russian culture. Political activity The prince was aimed at subjugating North-Eastern and North-Western Rus' to the Golden Horde. But his uncompromising opposition to the Catholic world and the defense of the ideals of Orthodoxy from the “Istians” made him a hero who took the entire Orthodox world under his protection.

At the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, after the fall of Constantinople under the blows of the Ottoman Empire, the theory of “Moscow - the third Rome” was formed on the basis of these ideas. The talk was about moving the world Orthodox center to the capital of the Moscow kingdom. The young unified state, which arose on the ruins of the Western Ulus of the Great Mongol Empire, was perceived as the last stronghold of the right faith: “two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, and there will not be a fourth.” It is important to note that in this phrase the logical emphasis shifts from the theme of exclusivity (“the third stands”) to the problem of high responsibility (“the fourth does not exist”) of the Russian state. The consolidation of this idea was embodied in the crowning of the Moscow sovereign, the organization of the urban space of the capital, the construction of the stunning Church of the Intercession on the Moat (St. Basil's) and, finally, in the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is significant that, according to the testimony of foreigners who visited Moscow at the end of the 16th century - early XVII centuries, residents called the central part of the city Constantinople, and the Church of the Intercession - Jerusalem.

A reflection of such sentiments were subsequently sent strange (for our contemporary reader), but symptomatic words, which in “The Tale of Magmet-Saltan” Ivan Peresvetov put into the mouths of Orthodox Greeks arguing with the “Latins”:

“We have a kingdom in waves and a king in waves, the blessed Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, and in that kingdom there is great God’s mercy and the banner of God, holy miracle workers, like the first, - such is the mercy of God from them, like from the first.”

Their opponents “agree” with them: “That is the truth.” They supposedly saw for themselves that “God’s mercy is great in that land.”

“Everything good that was with you has passed through the grace of Christ to us in Moscow.”

“We once had a pious king, but now he doesn’t. And to that place the Lord God raised up a pious king in Moscow.”

No less indicative are the assurances of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich addressed to the Greek merchants:

“I accepted the obligation that if God wills, I will sacrifice my army, treasury and even my blood for their [Greeks’] deliverance.”

To which the Greeks, calling the king “pillar of faith”, “helper in the Vedas”, “liberator”, ask him

“take... the highest throne of the great Tsar Constantine, your great-grandfather, so that the pious people and Orthodox Christians will free from wicked hands, from fierce beasts that eat mercilessly.”

Nikon's church reforms led to the most difficult crisis in the spiritual life of Rus', which entailed a conflict between the spiritual and secular rulers. As a result, the ideas of the “third Rome” as the secular center of the “Holy Roman Empire” and the “new Jerusalem” as the spiritual center of the Orthodox world turned out to be divided. The construction of the New Jerusalem Monastery, the symbolism of the name of which was continued in the place where it was built (meridian of Jerusalem), and in the appearance of the monastery temple (created on the model of the Jerusalem Temple of the Lord), emphasized what happened.

The final point in the sacred perception of geographical space was set by Peter I, who moved the secular capital of Russia to the north, to St. Petersburg, while Moscow continued to remain the capital of the Russian Orthodox Church. It should probably be emphasized that the construction of the new capital began with the foundation of the Church of St. Apostles Peter and Paul. Let me remind you that it was the appearance in Constantinople of the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul marked its transformation into the capital of the Roman Empire, and the construction of the Cathedral of the Apostles Peter and Paul by Clovis on the left bank of the Seine is perceived by researchers, in particular, S. Lebec, as evidence

“his thoughtful policy, the policy of a man who took seriously the recent recognition of him by the emperor and intended to surround himself, his family, and his power with an aura of holiness.”

The perception of not only the “geographical” world as a whole, but also individual cardinal directions was also associated with value characteristics. Thus, in Rus' there was a fairly widespread attitude towards the south as the “God’s chosen” side of the world. For example, in the Old Russian translation of “The Jewish War” by Josephus, a fragrant south wind blows over the place of the afterlife of blessed souls; In the Russian church, there has long been a chorus to stichera called “God from the South.”

The mention of the “spirit of the south” in “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev” may be approximately the same attitude. It undoubtedly had a primarily symbolic meaning for the medieval author and reader.

According to the Legend, at the height of the battle, the Tatar regiments greatly pushed back the Russians. Prince Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovskoy, watching with pain the death of the “Orthodox army,” invites Governor Bobrok to immediately join the battle. Bobrok dissuades the prince from hasty actions, urging him to wait for “the time like” in which “the grace of God will be.” It is interesting that Bobrok accurately names the hour when “like time” comes - “the eighth hour” (the eighth hour of the day, according to the ancient Russian clock counting system). It was then, as Volynets predicted, that “the spirit of the south pulled them behind them.”

This is where

“sing Volynets: “...The hour has come, and the time is drawing near..., for the power of the Holy Spirit helps us””,

From this, by the way, in the well-founded opinion of V.N. Rudakov, it follows that the entry of the ambush regiment into battle was not connected with the real events of the Battle of Kulikovo. Bobrok Volynsky, if you follow the logic of the author of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev,” did not at all choose the moment when the Tatars would expose their flank to the Russians (as L.G. Beskrovny assumed), or when the sun would stop shining in the eyes of the Russian regiments (as A. N. Kirpichnikov). The most widespread opinion in historical literature, that an experienced commander expected a change in the direction of the wind from headwind to tailwind, is also not confirmed. The fact is that the “southern spirit” mentioned in the “Tale” could under no circumstances be a companion for Dmitry Donskoy’s comrades-in-arms (and, therefore, help them). Russian regiments on the Kulikovo Field advanced from north to south. Consequently, the south wind could only blow in their faces, hindering their advance. At the same time, any confusion in the author’s use of geographical terms is completely excluded. The creator of “The Tale” was completely free to navigate the geographical space. He accurately indicated: Mamai is moving towards Rus' from the east, the Danube River is in the west, etc.

Another similar example could be the “testimony” of the robber Foma Katsibeev. “God has revealed to him... a great vision”: “from the east” a cloud (the Horde) appeared, “like some plukki going to the west.” “Two young men came from the midday country (i.e. from the south)” (meaning Boris and Gleb), who helped the Russian regiments defeat the enemy.

For ancient Russian people, not only the countries of the world had value content, but also the concepts of top and bottom, right and left sides (with a positive and negative sign in both cases, respectively).

Let us explain how this was manifested in the sources using a specific example.

On Saturday night from June 29 to 30, 1174, Andrei Bogolyubsky was killed in his chambers. The so-called “Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky” contains a detailed account of the last hours of the life of the Grand Duke of Vladimir. Here, in particular, it was mentioned how at the end of the tragedy the leader of the murderers, Pyotr Kuchkovich, cut off Andrei’s “right” hand, which allegedly led to the death of the prince. However, when studying the remains of Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1934, doctors discovered that it was not his right hand that was cut off (it was not damaged at all), but his left hand. Experts suggested that there was a mistake in the story or that the chronicler used this part as an artistic device “to thicken the colors and enhance the effect.” At the same time, undoubtedly, the author of “The Tale” knew which hand the killers cut off. The miniature of the Radzivilov Chronicle, illustrating the story of the death of Andrei Yuryevich, depicts a woman standing next to the defeated prince and holding a severed hand - namely the left one, not the right one.

What made the chronicler “deviate from the truth” (in our sense of the word)?

The Gospel of Matthew says:

“And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you.” (Italics are mine. - I.D.)

How could the right hand “seduce” Andrei? The answer can be found in the Apocalypse. People who worship the Antichrist

“The mark will be placed on the right hand.” (Italics are mine. - I.D.)

with the name of the “beast” or the number of its name. At the same time, the description of the “beast” itself, seen by John the Theologian, is very remarkable - it was close to the description in the chronicle of Andrei Bogolyubsky himself. The “Beast” has great power, his head

“as if mortally wounded; but this mortal wound was healed”

(Andrei was wounded in the head by the killers, but after they left he began to call for help and even tried to hide from his pursuers under the stairs). His mouth speaks "proudly and blasphemously"

“and it was given to him to make war with the saints and overcome them; and authority was given to him over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.”

He “has the wound of the sword and lives.” The description of the “beast” ends with the maxim:

“He who kills with the sword must himself be killed with the sword.”

It was not without reason that before the murder, Andrei’s servant, the housekeeper Anbal, stole from the prince a sword that belonged to St. Boris.

One way or another, the cutting off of Andrei Bogolyubsky’s right hand (according to the Tale) can well be considered as a condemnation of him, if not as the Antichrist himself, then, in any case, as his servant. This is also due to the fact that, according to the author of the Tale, Andrei “washed his sins with the blood of a martyr” (Italics mine. - I.D.), i.e. the martyr's end seemed to atone for the sins (and, apparently, considerable ones!) of the prince.

As we see, the mention of “specific” spatial details in descriptions of events could and did perform a slightly different function in ancient Russian literature than in modern artistic culture. And this happened in connection with a fundamentally different value orientation ancient Russian spiritual culture.

The above examples, among other things, show that in medieval perception space was not separated from time, forming a kind of space-time continuum, which in scientific literature is usually called a chronotope.

Time, like space, in the consciousness of ancient Russian people was endowed with moral and ethical value. Almost any calendar date was considered by him in the context of its real or symbolic content. This can be judged even by the frequency of certain calendar references. Thus, in “The Tale of Bygone Years” Monday and Tuesday are mentioned only once, Wednesday - twice, Thursday - three times, Friday - five times, Saturday - 9, and Sunday (“week”) - as many as 17! Naturally, this speaks not so much about “love” or, on the contrary, dislike for certain days, but about their “filling” with events that interested the chronicler and his readers. For example, the foundation and lighting of churches and the transfer of relics were usually carried out on Saturdays and Sundays.

Contrary to the theory of probability (and modern common sense), events are unevenly distributed in relation to individual numbers of months. For example, in the Pskov I Chronicle there are calendar dates (January 5, February 2, July 20, August 1 and 18, September 1, October 1 and 26), which account for 6 to 8 events throughout the chronicle text. At the same time, a number of dates (January 3, 8, 19 and 25, February 1, 8, and 14, etc.) are not mentioned at all by the compilers of the code. Such “oddities” of dates are explained by the value attitude of ancient Russian scribes to them.

For example, battles usually took place on Fridays. Mentions of battles were so often associated with the word “heel” (Friday) that one of the apparently not very educated researchers of the last century even decided that this word denoted the battle order of the Russian troops. In his opinion, it resembled the Roman numeral V. The matter then ended in embarrassment. However, the mythical “order of battle” nevertheless penetrated into fiction and even into the film “Primordial Rus'”. By the way, N.M. Karamzin dated the Battle of Kalka to 1224 precisely because in that year May 31 (mentioned in the chronicles as the calendar date of the battle) fell on a Friday.

How deeply the symbolic content of dates was perceived in Ancient Rus' is shown by the following example. In “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” following the description of a solar eclipse observed by the army of the Novgorod-Seversk prince while crossing the Don, the following text follows:

“The prince’s mind fell asleep of lust, and pity was a sign for him to tempt the great Don. “I want,” he said, “to break the end of the Polovtsian field with you, Russians; I want to lay on my head, but I would like to drink the helmet of the Don.”

Its meaning will not be completely clear if you do not take into account that the eclipse occurred on May 1, St. Prophet Jeremiah. In the prophecy of Jeremiah there are words that echo in meaning the “speech” of Igor:

“And now why do you go to Egypt to drink water from the Nile? And why do you go to Assyria to drink water from its river?”

They contain a reproach to Igor, and, one might say, a “scenario” for the subsequent tragic events. Igor, however, ignored the prophetic warning, which he himself indirectly quoted, and was punished accordingly.

As for calendar dates, their frequent mention or, conversely, the desire to avoid such mention, was primarily associated with whether a given number was considered lucky or not. As already mentioned, in Ancient Rus' there was a huge number of apocryphal “false” (forbidden) books - various “Lunniks”, “Gromovniki”, “Astrology”, treatises “On the Chikhir star, what is it worth”, “On the evil days of the moon”, “On lunar flow”, “Rafli’s Books”, etc., which described in detail the “qualities” of calendar dates and gave recommendations: is it possible to “open the blood” (one of the main methods of treatment) on this day or, say, start some kind of or it’s a matter of how the fate of a child born on this day will turn out, etc.

In addition, there were clear church calendar regulations, mostly of a prohibitive nature. The most well known are the food and behavioral prohibitions associated with fasts: multi-day fasts - Great (seven weeks before Easter), Petrine or Apostolic fasts (from six weeks to seven days - depending on the date of Easter), Dormition or Lady fasts (from August 1 to 15 ), Christmas or Filippov (forty-day - from November 14 to December 24), as well as one-day - on Wednesdays and Fridays (except for the weeks of Easter, Trinity, Yuletide, the tax collector and the Pharisee, cheese), on the Feast of the Exaltation (September 14), day The beheading of John the Baptist (August 29) and on the eve of the Epiphany (January 5). In addition, there were other restrictions. Let's say, marriages were not celebrated on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, on the days of the twelve, temple and great holidays, as well as during all multi-day fasts, Christmastide (from December 25 to January 7), Maslenitsa, cheese week, Easter, on the days of the Beheading John the Baptist and the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

A further system of regulating sexual relations was developed, filled with various prohibitions and limiting sexual relations to approximately 100 days a year. For example, in Ancient Rus', apparently, it was the practice of parish priests to condemn parents who conceived a child on Friday, Saturday or Sunday:

“The child will be either a thief, or a robber, or a fornicator, or a trembler.”

Annual (chronographic) dates also had symbolic and ethical content. More often, however, this applied to multi-year periods. But there were year numbers that occupied the thoughts of our ancestors in themselves. First of all, we are talking about the date that was very intensely expected in Ancient Rus', as, indeed, throughout the Christian world, the “end of time” - the second coming of Christ, followed by the inexorable Last Judgment. The “Holy Scripture” repeatedly emphasizes that the date of the end of the world is in the power of God. Neither people nor angels can know her. Nevertheless, many medieval “promuzki” tried to calculate it, relying either on the prophecy of Daniel, then on the 3rd book of Ezra, then on the “Gospel of Matthew”, then on the “Apocalypse”, or on some apocryphal works, not accepted by the Christian canon.

Undoubtedly, the most common “potential” date for the end of the world in Rus' was considered 7000 from the Creation of the world. This point of view was based on the biblical book of Genesis, according to which the world was created in six days, and on the seventh day God rested from his work. This calculation was made based on the Old and New Testaments, where it is repeatedly mentioned that one divine day is equal to a thousand “normal” years:

“In Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday when it is past.”

“With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

At the end of the seventh thousand-year “day” the “kingdom of glory” is to come. It was customary to divide even the history of mankind into “six days”: from the creation of Adam to the flood, from the flood to Abraham, from Abraham to David, from David to the Babylonian captivity, from the captivity to the Nativity of Christ and, finally, from Christmas to the Last Judgment. This tradition was reflected in many literary monuments of Ancient Rus', including the Tale of Bygone Years.

There were, however, other points of view on the possible date of the Last Judgment. Thus, the first Slavic complete Bible (named after the Novgorod archbishop who translated all the canonical books “ Holy Scripture” in 1499, Gennadievskaya) concludes with the following reasoning:

“And after the renunciation that was spoken [implying the release of the devil before the end of the world “for a short time”] let us think: The evangelist said that the devil was bound for a thousand years. How soon would it be possible to bind him? From the entry into hell of our Lord Jesus Christ in the year five thousand, five hundred and thirty-three, and also until the year six thousand, five hundred and thirty-three, a thousand years will be completed. And so Satan will abandon himself according to the righteous judgment of God and deceive the world until the time told to him, which is three and a half years, and then there will be an end. Amen.".

It follows from this that after 6537 from the Creation of the world (apparently 1037 AD), the expectation of the end of the world acquired special tension in Rus'. Let me remind you that it was precisely at this moment that the already mentioned construction of the Church of St. by Yaroslav the Wise in Kyiv was timed. Sophia and the Golden Gate, the monasteries of St. George and Irina, pronouncing the Word about Law and Grace, as well as the creation of the so-called “Ancient Chronicle Code”. According to the “Revelation of Methodius of Patara,” the years in which the 9th indictment fell were considered equally “favorable” for the onset of the end of the world.

In addition, in Russian literature there was a huge number of descriptions of various signs that should have directly foreshadowed the approach of the “last” time. Some of them also had a calendar form. Let's say it was believed that the end of the world would come in the year when Easter falls on the Annunciation (March 25). It is no coincidence that such coincidences were carefully calculated and recorded. Let us remember, by the way, that it was precisely this coincidence (although not entirely accurate: March 25, 1038 fell on Holy Saturday, when the “Word” was read) that Metropolitan Hilarion encountered when he wrote “The Sermon on Law and Grace.”

Since the end of time did not come at any of the “designated” dates, society experienced a colossal ideological crisis. Disappointment in the never-coming “Kingdom of Glory” led to significant changes in the system of existential values ​​and became the mental basis of the ideological and political upheavals that our country experienced in the 16th and early 17th centuries.

In particular, the horrors of the oprichnina were to some extent explained as follows: Ivan the Terrible, until a certain moment, could not imagine that he would stand at the Last Judgment next to his victims. Moreover, he assumed the role of representative of God's court on earth. The justice of the punishments “generously” distributed to them was affirmed by the thought that God punishes sinners not only in the underworld, but also on earth, not only after death, but also during life.

“I confess and we know that not only there is torment, even for those who live evil, who transgress the commandments of God, but here too, God’s righteous wrath, for their evil deeds, they drink the cup of the Lord’s wrath and punish the tormentor with manifold punishments; after the departure of this light, the bitterest condemnation is acceptable...”

The sovereign considered his power to be an instrument of such just retribution on behalf of God. In a letter to Kurbsky, he wrote about the need to condemn villains and traitors to torture and death, referring to the authority of the Apostle Jude, who ordered to save people “by fear” (Jude 1. 22-23). Following tradition, the king confirmed his thought with other quotations from the Holy Scriptures, including the words of the Apostle Paul:

“If anyone is unlawfully tortured, that is, not for faith, he will not be crowned.”

Space and time did not exist for the people of the Middle Ages on their own; they were inseparable from the land on which man lived. Accordingly, it also acquired value content and became meaningful.

The “created world” as a whole was perceived by our ancestors, primarily symbolically. The worldview of the inhabitants of Ancient Rus' was based on, in relatively later language, “silent theology.” That is why in Rus' we do not find theological treatises of the Western European type. The Orthodox believer sought to comprehend divine revelation not through scholastic reasoning or observation, not with reason or “external gaze,” like, say, a Catholic, but with “inner eyes.” The essence of the world cannot be understood. It is comprehended only by “immersion” in veracious texts and canonical images, approved by the authority of the church fathers and enshrined in tradition. That is why the hesychasm of George Palamas found such distribution here.

In Ancient Rus' we do not encounter images that strive for illusoryness or photographic accuracy of rendering external features of the visible world, like Western European painting. In Russia until the end of the 17th century. In both painting and literature, the icon dominated - a special figurative perception and reflection of the world. Everything here was strictly regulated: plot, composition, even color. That is why, at first glance, ancient Russian icons are so “similar” to each other. But it’s worth taking a closer look at them - after all, they are designed for a person to look at them during daily prayer for several hours - and we will see how different they are in their inner world, mood, feelings, laid down by nameless artists of the past. In addition, each element of the icon - from the character’s gesture to the absence of some mandatory details - carries a number of meanings. But in order to penetrate them, you must master the language in which the ancient Russian “icon” (in the broad sense of the word) speaks to the viewer. This is best expressed in “open” texts, which directly explain to the reader what is meant by each specific image. Let's give a few examples.

This is how some animals and birds were described in Ancient Rus'.

“Physiologist* and about the lion. Three natures imate lion. Whenever a lioness gives birth to death and blindly gives birth [to a cub], she sits and watches until the third day. After three days a lion will come and blow in his nostrils and will come to life. The same is true of the faithful pagans [converted pagans]. Formerly baptisms are dead, but after baptism they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

Second nature lvovo. When he sleeps, his eyes watch. This is also our Lord’s speech to the Jews, as if: “I sleep, but My divine eyes and my heart are vigilant.”

And the third nature is lvovo: when the lioness runs away, she covers her feet with her tail. May the fisherman not be able to find any trace of him. So, too, man, when you do alms, your left hand does not sense what your right hand is doing, so that the devil does not forbid the work of your thoughts.”

“About the tawny owl [pelican]. The tawny owl is a child-loving bird. The wife [female] pecks at the ribs of her chick. And he [the male] comes from his feeding place [with food]. They peck their ribs, and the flowing blood revives the chick.

So our Lord led the way from the Jews [Jews] with a copy of his rib. Blood and water came out. And revive the universe, that is, the dead. By sharing and speaking this the prophet said that we were like the tawny owl of the desert.”

Already from the given examples it is clear that in the system of traditional folk ideas about the world around us, animals simultaneously appear as natural objects, and as a type of mythological characters. In the book tradition there are almost no descriptions of “real” animals; even in “natural science” treatises the fabulous element predominates. It seems that the authors did not seek to convey any specific information about real animals, but tried to form in the reader some ideas about their symbolic essence. These ideas are based on the traditions of different cultures recorded in written sources.

Animal symbols are not “doubles” of their real prototypes. The indispensable presence of fantasy in stories about animals led to the fact that the described animal could bear the name of an animal or bird well known to the reader, but differ sharply from it in its properties. From the prototype character, often only his verbal shell (name) remained. At the same time, the image usually did not correlate with a set of characteristics corresponding to the given name and forming the image of the animal in everyday consciousness, which once again confirms the isolation of two systems of knowledge about nature from each other: “book” and “practical”.

Within this description of the animal, the following distribution of real and fantastic properties can be noted. Often an object is described according to its biological nature; Such texts are most likely based on practical observations. For example:

“Oh foxes. The physiologist talks about foxes having a flattering belly. If one becomes hungry, wanting food, and does not find bokhma [he will not find anything at all], he looks for a vezha [outbuilding] or a spittoon [a barn where straw or chaff is stored] and lies down, as a sign of drawing the soul within himself, and as if he had died to lie down. And if the bird thought it had died, it would sit on it and begin to peck at it. Then you’ll jump up quickly, grab it and take it down.”

The story about the woodpecker is based on a description of the woodpecker’s ability to chisel trees with its beak; in the description of the cuckoo, the emphasis is on this bird’s habit of laying eggs in other people’s nests; The amazing skill of the beaver in building a dwelling, and the swallow in constructing its nest, is noted.

Sometimes a real object was endowed with only fictitious properties. In this case, the connection between the character and the real animal was preserved only in the name. This is how, say, the relationship between the name “beaver” and the description of the “Indian” beaver, from whose entrails musk is extracted, was formed, as well as some kind of beast of prey(possibly a tiger or wolverine; in any case, in the miniatures he was depicted as striped and with huge claws). “Ox” could mean not only the domestic animal bos bubalis, but also the “Indian” ox, which, afraid of losing even one hair from its tail, stands motionless if its tail gets caught in a tree, as well as a mythical sea predator. In addition, it was believed that in India there are huge oxen (between whose horns a person can sit), oxen with three horns and three legs, and, finally, “stock oxen”, whose long horns do not allow them to move forward. Salamander is the name of a lizard, as well as a poisonous snake and an animal the size of a dog that can extinguish fire.

So, depending on the semantic content, the same animal name could mean either a real animal or a fantasy character. A set of properties that, from the point of view modern reader, have no basis in reality, often correlated with the names of animals from distant countries and determined the medieval reader’s ideas about them. Thus, in the “Physiologist” it was said about the elephant that in order to give birth to offspring, it needed the mandrake root, and, having fallen, it could not get up, since there were no joints in its knees. It was also said here that panfir (panther, leopard) has the ability to sleep for three days, and on the fourth day to lure other animals to itself with its fragrance and voice. Velbudopardus (giraffe) was thought to be a cross between a pard (lynx) and a camel.

The most widespread descriptions were those in which the animal was endowed with both real and fictitious characteristics. Thus, in addition to the raven’s predilection for carrion and the custom of these birds to form mating pairs, ancient Russian descriptions included the story that the raven does not drink water in the month of July. Because he was punished by God for neglecting his chicks, as well as evidence that a raven can “revive” boiled eggs with the help of a herb known to him alone. It was believed that the bird Erodius (seagull) was able to distinguish Christians who knew the Greek language from people of “other tribes.” There was a story that the Erodius (otter) kills a sleeping crocodile, reaching through its open mouth to its entrails. When enough true description the habits of a dolphin (it comes to the aid of people drowning in the sea, etc.) the author of such a treatise could call it a zelfin bird, and an ancient miniature depicts a pair of dolphins (two dolphins) saving St. Basil the New, in the form of two... dogs.

The coincidence of characters that arose as a result of the redistribution of characteristics was eliminated by assigning one of them (most often the one in whose description fabulous properties predominated, or it correlated with a “foreign”, exotic region - India, Ethiopia, Arabia, etc.) unusual (foreign language ) name. This seemed to eliminate the possible inconsistency of any properties of the object with the usual set of features, united under “its own”, familiar name. Thus, the “Indian” beaver also bore the name “myskous” (musk, mus, mus).”

It should be borne in mind that the free application of attributes to the character’s name played an important role in the symbolic interpretation of its properties. The most authoritative specialist in the field of studying the symbolism of animals in ancient Russian literature O.V. Belova notes cases when a set of characteristics completely passed from one name to another, and an object bearing a name that took on someone else’s characteristics received a new property. Thus, having first found themselves united in their characteristics, the hyena and the bear subsequently “exchanged” their names. In ancient Russian alphabet books, the word owena, along with the meaning “a wild beast imitating a human voice”, “a mythical poisonous beast with human face, entwined with snakes”, “feline beast” has the meaning “bear, she-bear”.

From the point of view of medieval books, such descriptions were not examples of pure fiction. Any “natural science” information was taken for granted, being supported by authoritative sources.

“Whether there is truth or falsehood, one does not know. But you found this in books and were forced to write it here. The same is true for animals, and for birds, and for trees, and for grass, and for fish, and for stones.”

The compiler of one of the alphabet books notes. For a book “scientific” description of animals, the real-unreal attribute is not decisive.

The names of animals were regarded as originally given by Divine Providence. The article “On naming names for cattle and beasts and creeping things” tells:

“In the days of the first-created man Adam, the Lord God sat on the earth to visit her and all his creation that he himself had created. And the Lord called all the livestock of the earth and all the birds that soar, and brought them before the face of Adam and set them with him, and called the name of all. And Adam called the names of all the livestock of the earth, and beasts, and birds, and fish, and creeping things, and bugs [insects].”

Moreover, these names were given so successfully and so accurately reflected the essence of all creatures that God did not consider it possible to change them even after the fall of the first people.

All animals and all their properties, real and fictitious, are considered by ancient Russian scribes from the point of view of the secret moralizing meaning contained in them. The symbolism of animals provided abundant material for medieval moralists. In “The Physiologist” and similar monuments, everyone, be it a supernatural creature (unicorn, centaur, phoenix), an exotic animal from distant countries (elephant, lion) or a well-known creature (fox, hedgehog, partridge, beaver) is amazing. All “hodeshti and leteshti” creatures appear in their hidden function, accessible only to spiritual insight. Each animal means something, and there can be several meanings, often opposite ones. These symbols can be classified as “dissimilar images”: they are based not on obvious similarities, but on difficult-to-explain, traditionally fixed semantic identities. The idea of ​​external similarity is alien to them.

Published based on the book “How Rus' Was Baptized” (Moscow, 1989)

Internet source:

http://www.mubiu.ru/ogd/ISTORIA/5/Liter/end. htm

The family was the center of human life in Ancient Rus'. The extensive and detailed terminology of kinship relationships is one of the best confirmations of this. Unfortunately, written sources cover this aspect of the spiritual life of our ancestors very sparingly. However, even indirect data allows us to draw quite interesting conclusions.

Apparently, the most significant connections were considered, firstly, between brothers and, secondly, between parents and children. The “depth” of ancestral memory rarely went beyond these two generations of relatives. It is not without reason that the nouns “brother” and “brothers” are used more often than any other words by chroniclers. Thus, in “The Tale of Bygone Years” they occur 219 times (i.e., on average, 4.6 mentions for every thousand words of text; for comparison: the most used noun in “The Tale” “summer” - found 412 times - gives 8, 8 mentions for every 1000 words, and the next most frequently used - “son” - was found 172 times, correspondingly 3.7 mentions). In general, children were of little interest to the chronicler. Words denoting the younger generation (“youth,” “child,” “child”) are found ten times less often in The Tale of Bygone Years than nouns referring to adult men. Male related terminology makes up a little less than a third of the entire complex of chronicle nouns, despite the fact that in general “related” vocabulary makes up 39.4% of all nouns used by the chronicler. It should also be noted that older generation(father-mother; husband-wife) occupies a subordinate position in the chronicle compared to the younger one (son-daughter; brothers-sisters; children-children): 353 and 481 mentions, respectively. Moreover, the problem of “fathers and sons” in the Russian Middle Ages took the form of a problem of “sons and parents”: the relationship between sons, on the one hand, and parents (father, mother), on the other, gives 355 mentions.

Approximately the same trends can be traced in the material of East Slavic anthroponymy, when analyzing the proper names that people bore in Ancient Rus'. These include personal names, nicknames, nicknames, patronymics and surnames.

Personal names

Personal names are names that are assigned to people at birth and by which they are known in society. In ancient Rus', canonical and non-canonical names were distinguished.

A canonical name is the “true”, “real” name of a person, enshrined in the traditions of the Christian religion. In domestic sources, canonical names usually include Orthodox names taken from the church calendar, where the names of canonized saints are listed by month and day of their memory (the so-called calendar, or hagiographic names). In the early stages of the development of feudal society, as a rule, only godparents (baptismal, church), monastic, (monastic) and schematic names were canonical.

The godname was given to a person at baptism. It was usually chosen by the priest from the church calendar in accordance with the name of the saint whose memory was celebrated on the person's birthday or baptism. There are also other motives for assigning a person a particular name.

The baptismal name is rarely mentioned in early sources, usually only in reports of the death of a given person or in texts written after his death. Perhaps this was due to superstitious ideas about the need to hide the “true” name, which connected a person with a heavenly patron, patron, guardian angel, in order to protect its bearer from “damage”, “evil eye”.

In Ancient Rus' it was popular to designate the baptismal names and patronymics of customers of icons and works small plastic surgery And jewelry, owners of pendant seals (up to the 15th century) by depicting saints on these objects that are directly related to family patronage (the namesake, say, of the owner or customer, or his father, etc.). Thanks to the images of patronal saints, when compared with genealogical data, the baptismal names and patronymics of the owners of ancient Russian seals can be restored and many artistic works of ancient Rus' can be attributed.

An indirect basis for restoring the baptismal name of the prince may be a certificate of the construction of a church or monastery, since among the princes there was a custom to build church buildings in the name of their holy patrons. Thus, the construction of the Church of St. by Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich. Andrei, under whom the monastery was founded by his daughter Yanka, is considered by V.L. Yanin as an indirect confirmation of the baptismal name Andrei belonging to this prince. And the message from the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 882 about the construction of the Church of St. on Askold’s grave. Nikola gave reason to some scientists to assume that Askold was a Christian and bore the baptismal name Nikola. For similar reasons, Yaroslav the Wise is credited with the founding of the Yuryev, or St. George, monastery three miles from Novgorod.

It is important to emphasize that in Rus' there was a custom of giving children names (both pagan and baptismal) in honor of their grandfather or grandmother, which emphasized (especially before the appearance of surnames) their belonging to a given family. Based on this custom, V.A. Kuchkin suggested that Vladimir Monomakh's sister's name was not Catherine, as recorded in the Laurentian Chronicle, but Irina (a reading preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle). The researcher justified his choice by the fact that the name of Vladimir Vsevolodovich’s daughter most likely repeated the baptismal name of Vsevolod’s mother, Princess Irina, the second wife of Yaroslav the Wise.

Sometimes members of the same clan can trace a certain connection between the pagan and baptismal names traditional for a given family. So, for example, the Chernigov princes were characterized by a combination of the Christian name Nikola, which was extremely rare for the princely environment (St. Nicholas of Myra was revered in Rus' almost on a par with Christ) with the pagan name Svyatoslav.

Until the second half of the 15th century. In the overwhelming majority of cases, baptismal names can be established only for representatives of the feudal elite - princes, members of their families and boyars. The bulk of the population of that time - peasants, artisans, traders - usually preferred non-calendar, pagan names. Consequently, the mention of a baptismal name in the source (or, conversely, its absence - although with less justification) can be considered as a sign that indirectly indicates a person’s social affiliation.

The monastic name was the second canonical name that a person received when he was tonsured a monk. It replaced his former worldly name. Usually, the tonsured person received the name of the saint whose memory was celebrated on the day of tonsure, or a calendar name that began with the same letter as the Minsk name of the monk or nun. Thus, the Novgorod I Chronicle mentions the boyar Proksha Malyshevits, who took the name Porfiry at tonsure, the monk Varlaam, in the world the boyar Vyacheslav Prokshinich, the Novgorodian Mikhalko, who took tonsure under the name Mitrofan, and others.

The schematic name was given to the monk at the “third baptism” (acceptance of the great schema) instead of his monastic name. It was also given to the Moscow kings and boyars, many of whom, according to tradition, accepted the schema before their death (which ensured their inclusion in the angelic rank). Often schema-monks, and sometimes monks, were given rare calendar names that were rarely used in the world as baptismal names (Sakerdon, Melchizedek, Akepsia; Synklitikia, Golindukha, Christodoula, etc.) Such names can also be considered as an additional basis for determining their social status carriers.

Over time, canonical names gradually replaced non-canonical ones in everyday life and began to be used as the only name of a person. At the same time, they often took a non-canonical form in pronunciation and spelling. At the same time, a whole series of pagan, non-calendar names of secular and religious figures of the Russian Middle Ages, canonized Orthodox Church, moved into the category of calendar names (for example, Gleb, Boris, Vladimir, Olga, etc.). Their use as canonical names could only take place after the canonization of a given saint.

In some cases, the canonical name gave an idea of ​​the religion of its bearer, since many calendar names of the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christian churches differ from each other in form, and the days of remembrance of the same saints are often celebrated on different days.

A non-canonical (secular) name was usually not associated with religious traditions. It was the second, optional name of a secular person. In Ancient Rus', the secular name, as a rule, served as the main name, since it was more famous and common than the godfather name. First, this is a non-calendar, pre-Christian name, not associated with the name of any saint. As a rule, it had an “internal” meaning and was supposed to endow its bearer with some useful qualities in life. Later, in the same capacity, along with pagan ones, they begin to be used christian names, usually in their folk, colloquial, non-canonical form, for example, Mikola and Mikula instead of the canonical form Nikolai, Mikita instead of Nikita, Gyurgi instead of George, Nefed instead of Methodius, Nero instead of Miron, Upolon instead of Apollo, Theodosius instead of Theodosius, Ophimia instead of Euphemia, Ovdokia or Avdotya instead of Evdokiya, etc. The replacement of pagan names with Christian ones was especially active among princes and boyars.

Sources often use diminutive or disparaging derogatory (pejorative) forms of non-canonical names. It is quite difficult to reconstruct the full form of the name from them. This is especially difficult to do when it comes to homophonic (coincident in pronunciation and spelling) forms of different names. In such cases, an incomplete (ellipsed) name can correspond to two or more full ones. For example, the name Elka could be formed both from the name Elisha, and from the name Elpidifor, or Elizar, and perhaps from the non-calendar name El; Zinka - from the name Zinovy ​​or Zeno; the abbreviated Alyosha could correspond to both Alexey and Alexander; Mitka - Dmitry and Nikita, etc. At the same time, the source may contain various variant forms of one name (allonyms). Let's say such names as Stekhno, Stensha, Stepsha are non-canonical variant forms of one name - Stepan.

Nicknames

Nicknames, unlike names, always reflect not desirable, but real properties and qualities, territorial or ethnic origin, the place of residence of their bearers and thus designate the special meaning that these properties and qualities had for others. Nicknames could be given to people at different periods of their lives and were known to a fairly limited circle of people.

Nicknames should be distinguished from pagan Old Russian names. However, this distinction is not always easy to establish. This is due, in particular, to the custom of giving children names derived from ethnonyms, names of animals, plants, fabrics and other objects, “protective” names. Apparently, he wrote about such nicknames at the beginning of the 17th century. English traveler Richard James in his dictionary-diary:

“(Nickname), a nickname given by the mother along with the name of the godfather, and this is the name they [Russians] are usually called.”

Many of these names sound offensive and therefore can be perceived by modern people as nicknames. For example, even among the nobles of the 16th century. there are names Chudin, Kozarin, Rusin, Cheremisin, Mare, Shevlyaga (Nag), Stallion, Cat, Goat, Beast, Cow, Woodpecker, Grass, Sedge, Radish, Zhito, Cabbage, Velvet, Aksamit, Izmaragd, Shovel, Chobot, Vetoshka , Ignorant, Unsettled, Bad, Malice, Uninvited, Unloving, Thief and even Frozen (Snotty) Face, etc. Many of these nicknames existed in individual families for several generations, thereby emphasizing a person’s belonging to a given clan. They were often used in official documents along with non-calendar names.

An important clarifying part of a person’s name in Rus' was and remains o_t_ch_e_s_t_v_o (patronymic nickname), usually used together with personal names and formed on behalf of the father. The patronymic directly indicated the origin and family ties of the person. Along with the names traditional for a given family, it was one of the most important “external” indicators of a person’s belonging to a particular clan (at least, before the advent of surnames).

At the same time, in the old days in Rus', the patronymic also indirectly indicated a person’s social affiliation, since it was considered an honorary name. If representatives of the highest feudal aristocracy were called by the so-called full patronymic ending in -vich, then the middle classes used less honorable forms of patronymic nicknames - p_o_l_u_o_t_ch_e_s_t_v_a_m_i, ending in -ov, -ev, -in, and the lower ones generally did without patronymics.

Surnames

First names, patronymics and nicknames have been known since ancient times, but surnames appeared in Rus' quite late. Surnames are inherited official names that indicate a person’s belonging to a particular family. As we have already noted, for several centuries, “ancestral memory” in Rus' made do with two generations of relatives: fathers and children. This was reflected in the increased (compared to other kinship terms) frequency of mentions of brothers, on the one hand, and fathers and mothers, which were not realized by the author of the source. This is also confirmed by the fact that naming a person with his father’s nickname as a family nickname was considered quite sufficient, and therefore the so-called grandfatherhoods (personal nicknames formed on behalf of the grandfather) were used extremely rarely. Now (apparently with the development of private land ownership) a more “deep” genealogy was required, recorded in generic nicknames common to all family members. They appeared only in the 15th-16th centuries, and even then at first only among the feudal lords.

Particular attention should be paid to female non-canonical names. They are almost unknown to us. This alone is an important indicator of the attitude towards women in ancient Rus'. There are even a number of names that cannot be clearly classified as female or male. In particular, we are talking about the names: Gostyata, found in a Novgorod birch bark document of the 14th century. (N9); Uncles (author of graffito No. 8 in Novgorod Sofia), Omrosiya (author of Novgorod birch bark letter No. 59, trans. Half of the 14th century), etc. If these are female names, then we receive indisputable evidence of a fairly high level of education of ancient Russian women and their struggle for their rights (mentioned Novgorod birch bark document No. 9).

The position of a woman.

Women are rarely mentioned in chronicles. For example, in “The Tale of Bygone Years” there are five times fewer messages related to the fair sex than “male” ones. Women are considered by the chronicler primarily as a “predicate” of a man (as are children). That is why in Rus', before marriage, a girl was often called by her father, but not in the form of a patronymic, but in the possessive form: “Volodimerya,” and after marriage - by her husband (in the same way as in the first case, “possessive,” “ possessive" form; cf. turnover: "husband's wife", i.e. "belonging to the husband"). Perhaps the only exception to the rule was the mention of the wife of Prince Igor Novgorod-Seversky in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - Yaroslavna. By the way, this served A.A. Zimin as one of the arguments to justify the late dating of the Lay. A quotation from “worldly parables” given by Daniil Zatochnik (12th century) speaks very eloquently about the position of a woman in the family:

“Not a bird among the birds is an owl; nor in the beast the hedgehog beast; neither fish in fishes cancer; neither cattle in cattle goats; neither a serf to a serf, who works for a serf; neither is the husband among husbands who listens to his wife.”

The despotic orders that became widespread in ancient Russian society did not bypass the family. The head of the family, the husband, was a slave in relation to the sovereign, but a sovereign in his own home. All household members, not to mention servants and slaves in literally words were under his complete control. First of all, this applied to the female half of the house. It is believed that in ancient Rus', before marriage, a girl from a well-born family, as a rule, did not have the right to leave the boundaries of her parents’ estate. Her parents were looking for a husband for her, and she usually did not see him before the wedding.

After the wedding, her new “owner” became her husband, and sometimes (in particular, if he was young - this happened often) his father-in-law. A woman could go outside her new home, not excluding visiting church, only with her husband’s permission. Only under his control and with his permission could she meet anyone, have conversations with strangers, and the content of these conversations was also controlled. Even at home, a woman had no right to eat or drink secretly from her husband, or to give or receive gifts to anyone.

In Russian peasant families, the share of female labor has always been unusually large. Often a woman even had to take up a plow. At the same time, the labor of daughters-in-law, whose position in the family was especially difficult, was especially widely used.

The duties of the husband and father included “teaching” the family, which consisted of systematic beatings to which the children and wife were to be subjected. It was believed that a man who does not beat his wife “does not build his house” and “does not take care of his soul,” and will be “destroyed” both “in this age and in the future.” Only in the 16th century. society tried to somehow protect the woman and limit the arbitrariness of her husband. Thus, “Domostroy” advised beating your wife “not in front of people, to teach in private” and “not to be angry” at the same time. It was recommended “for any fault” [because of little things] “not to beat by sight, not to hit in the heart with a fist, not to kick, not to hit with a staff, not to hit with any iron or wood.”

Such “restrictions” had to be introduced at least on a recommendatory basis, since in everyday life, apparently, husbands were not particularly constrained in their means when “explaining” with their wives. No wonder it was immediately explained that those who

“It hits so much from the heart or from the torment, there are many stories from this: blindness and deafness, and a dislocated arm and leg, and a finger, and headaches, and dental disease, and among pregnant wives [that means they were beaten too!] and children, damage occurs in womb."

That is why the advice was given to beat your wife not for every, but only for serious offense, and not with anything or any way, but

“Take off your shirt, beat me politely [gently!] with a whip, holding your hands”: “and reasonable, and painful, and scary, and healthy”!

At the same time, it should be noted that in pre-Mongol Rus' a woman had a number of rights. She could become the heir to her father's property (before getting married). The highest fines were paid by those guilty of “beating” (rape) and insulting women with “disgraceful words.” A slave who lived with the master as a wife became free after the death of the master. The appearance of such legal norms in ancient Russian legislation testified to the widespread occurrence of such cases. The existence of entire harems among influential persons is recorded not only in pre-Christian Rus' (for example, among Vladimir Svyatoslavich), but also at a much later time. Thus, according to the testimony of one Englishman, one of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich’s close associates poisoned his wife because she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that her husband kept many mistresses at home. At the same time, in some cases a woman, apparently, could become a real despot in the family. It is difficult, of course, to say what influenced the views of the authors and editors of the popular “Prayers” and “Words” in Ancient Rus', attributed to a certain Daniil Zatochnik - childhood impressions of the relationship between father and mother or their own bitter family experience, but in these works a woman does not look at all as defenseless and lacking in rights as it might seem from the above. Let's listen to what Daniel says.

“Or say, prince: marry a rich father-in-law; drink that and eat that. It’s better to be sick with shaking; shaking, shake, he will let go, but the evil wife dries to death... Fornication in fornication, whoever takes advantage of evil is the wife of the profit, or the father-in-law, of the rich. It would be better for me to see an ox in my house than for an evil wife... It would be better for me to weld iron than to be with an evil wife. A woman who is evil is like a comb [combed place]: it itches here, it hurts here.”

Isn’t it true that the preference (even if only in jest) for the hardest craft - iron smelting - over life with an “evil” wife says something?

However, a woman gained real freedom only after the death of her husband. Widows were highly respected in society. In addition, they became full-fledged mistresses of the house. In fact, from the moment of the death of the spouse, the role of head of the family passed to them.

In general, the wife had full responsibility for running the household and raising children. younger age. Teenage boys were then handed over to “uncles” for training and education (in the early period, actually uncles on the maternal side - uys, who were considered the closest male relatives, since the problem of establishing paternity, apparently, could not always be solved).

Parents and children.

The despotic order that reigned in the family could not but affect the position of the children in it. The spirit of slavery, “covered with false holiness patriarchal relations” (N.I. Kostomarov), dominated the relationship between children and parents in Ancient Rus'.

The subordinate position of the child and adolescent in the family is perhaps best confirmed by the fact that in the overwhelming majority of terms denoting socially unequal segments of the population, they initially referred specifically to the younger members of the family or clan. Thus, the word “man” was formed from the noun “husband” (“an adult free, independent person” and at the same time “spouse”) with the addition of the diminutive suffix -ik (literally “little husband”). “Otrok” (“child, teenager, youth” and “junior warrior”, and also, at the same time, “servant, slave, worker”) literally meant “non-speaking”, i.e. “not having the right to speak, the right to vote in the life of the clan or tribe.” “Kholop” (“enslaved, unfree person”) is associated with the word “lad” - “little boy, boy, guy” and, perhaps, came from the root *chol-, from which the Old Russian adjective “holost, unmarried” arose, i.e. e. “unmarried, celibate, incapable of sexual activity” (by the way, this is why “Russkaya Pravda” uses another word “robe” to designate dependent women). “Chelyady” (slaves, slaves, servants) originally, apparently, referred to the younger members of the clan, family (cf. Proto-Slavic *cel'adь - “herd, clan”, related to the Irish clan - “offspring, clan, clan”, and Olonets “servants” - “children, boys”, as well as Bulgarian “servants” - “offspring, clan, children”). Finally, the word “man” means “a person in the service of someone; someone’s servant” came, according to most modern etymologists, from a combination of two stems, one of which was related to the just discussed Proto-Slavic root *cel- (“clan, clan, tribe”), and the second to the Lithuanian word vaikas - “child , cub, descendant, boy” and Latvian vaiks - “boy, young man”.

To what has been said, we can add that in ancient Russian miniatures and icons beards were depicted only on people over 30 years old. However, this rule applied only to the privileged classes. Representatives of the urban and especially rural “lower classes”, regardless of age, were depicted as beardless. From here it is clear why, for example, in “Russkaya Pravda” for “tracking” a beard or mustache, an incredibly high, in the opinion of the reader of the late 20th century, fine was imposed - 12 hryvnia (the same as for a stolen beaver and only three times less than the fine for killing a free one). person). The persistent mention that St. Boris “has a small beard and a mustache (but there is one!) - he’s still young.” The absence of a beard served as evidence of a person’s incompetence or inferiority, while pulling out a beard was an insult to honor and dignity.

The constant shortage of labor led to very ugly phenomena in peasant life in Rus'. The hunger for labor penetrated into the very way of life of the peasant family. Therefore, children from the very early age used in various jobs. However, since they were clearly inferior workers, parents often married their sons at the age of 8-9 to adult women, wanting to get an extra worker. Naturally, the position of a young wife who came to her husband’s family under such conditions could hardly really differ in any significant way from the position of a slave. It was ugly family relationships, giving rise to such phenomena as daughter-in-law, etc.

Beating children for “educational” purposes was considered the norm. Moreover, the authors of many ancient Russian instructions, including the famous “Domostroy,” recommended doing this systematically:

“Punish [punish] your son from his youth, and he will give you rest in your old age and give beauty to your soul; and do not weaken when beating a child: if you beat him with a rod, he will not die, but he will be healthy. You beat him in the body, but deliver his soul from death... Loving your son, increase his wounds, and then rejoice over him, execute your son from his youth and rejoice over him with courage... Do not laugh at him, playing games: if you weaken yourself in a small way, you will suffer more [you will suffer] in sorrow... And you will not give him power in his youth, but crush his ribs, he will grow stronger, and, having become bitter, will not obey you and will cause you annoyance and illness of the soul , and vanity of home, destruction of property, and reproach from neighbors, and laughter before enemies, payment [fine] before the authorities, and the annoyance of evil.”

The norms of attitude towards children, declared in the 16th century, were in effect half a thousand years before the lines just quoted were written. The mother of Theodosius of Pechersk, as the author of his “Life” repeatedly emphasized, tried to influence her son using precisely these methods. Each of his offenses, be it an attempt to engage in a task unusual for a person of his class, or secretly wearing chains to “depress the flesh,” or escaping from home with pilgrims to the Holy Land, was punished with extraordinary, in the opinion of a person at the end of the 20th century, cruelty. The mother beat her son (even with her feet) until she literally fell from fatigue, put him in shackles, etc.

Marriage and sexual relations.

IN medieval society“Depression of the flesh” was of particular value. Christianity directly connects the idea of ​​the flesh with the idea of ​​sin. The development of the “anti-corporeal” concept, found already among the apostles, follows the path of “diabolization” of the body as a container of vices, a source of sin. The doctrine of original sin, which actually consisted of pride, over time acquired an increasingly distinct anti-sexual orientation.

In parallel with this, in official religious attitudes there was an all-out exaltation of virginity. However, a girl’s preservation of “purity” before marriage, apparently, was initially valued only by the top of society. Among the “simple people,” according to numerous sources, premarital sexual relations in Rus' were looked upon condescendingly. In particular, until the 17th century. society was quite tolerant of girls visiting spring and summer “games”, which provided the opportunity for pre- and extramarital sexual contacts:

“When this very holiday comes, not all of the city will take up the tambourines and sniffles... And with all sorts of inappropriate Sotonin games of splashing and splashing. For wives and girls, the head is swaying and their lips are hostile to the cry, all the nasty songs, their wobbling with their groans, their feet jumping and trampling. Here there is a great fall as a man and a youth, nor a woman's and girl's vacillation. In the same way, lawless defilement is also given to married wives right there...”

Naturally, the participation of girls in such “games” led - and, apparently, often - to “corruption of virginity.” Nevertheless, even according to church laws, this could not serve as an obstacle to marriage (the only exceptions were marriages with representatives of the princely family and priests). In the village, premarital sexual contacts between both boys and girls were considered almost the norm.

Experts note that ancient Russian society recognized the girl’s right to freely choose a sexual partner. This is evidenced not only by the long-term persistence in Christian Rus' of the custom of marriage by “abduction,” by abducting the bride by prior agreement with her. Church law even provided for the responsibility of the parents, who forbade the girl to marry of her choice if she “does something to herself.” Indirectly, the right of free sexual choice of girls is evidenced by the rather severe punishments of rapists. “He who molested a girl with excess” had to marry her. In case of refusal, the culprit was excommunicated from the church or punished by four years of fasting. Perhaps even more curious is that twice as much punishment was expected in the 15th-16th centuries. those who persuaded a girl to have sex with “cunning”, promising to marry her: the deceiver was threatened with a nine-year penance (religious punishment). Finally, the church ordered to continue to consider the raped girl a girl (though, provided that she resisted the rapist and screamed, but there was no one who could come to the rescue). A slave raped by her master received complete freedom along with her children.

The basis of the new, Christian, sexual morality was the renunciation of pleasures and bodily joys. The biggest victim of the new ethics was marriage, which, although perceived as a lesser evil than debauchery, was still marked with the mark of sinfulness.

In Ancient Rus', the only meaning and justification for sexual life was seen in procreation. All forms of sexuality that pursued goals other than procreation were considered not only immoral, but also unnatural. In the “Question of Kirikov” (XII century) they were assessed “like the sin of Sodom.” The emphasis on sexual abstinence and moderation was supported by religious and ethical arguments about the sinfulness and baseness of “carnal life.” Christian morality condemned not only lust, but also individual love, since it supposedly interfered with the fulfillment of the duties of piety. It may seem that in such an atmosphere sex and marriage were doomed to extinction. However, the gap between the instructions of the church and everyday everyday practice was very great. That is why ancient Russian sources pay special attention to issues of sex.

According to the Questioning, spouses were required to avoid sexual contact during fasting. Nevertheless, this restriction was apparently violated quite often. No wonder Kirik was worried about the question:

“Is it worthy to give him communion even during Great Lent to have sex with his wife?”

Bishop Nifont of Novgorod, to whom he addressed, despite his indignation at such violations

“Do you teach Qi, speaking, to abstain from wives during fasting? It’s your sin!”

was forced to make concessions:

“Even if they cannot [abstain], both in the first week and in the last.”

Apparently, even the clergy understood that it was impossible to achieve unconditional compliance with such instructions.

Singles “on the Great Day [Easter] who maintained a purely great fast” were allowed to receive communion despite the fact that they “sometimes sinned.” True, first it was necessary to find out with whom they “sinned.” It was believed that fornication with a “man's wife” was a greater evil than with an unmarried woman. The possibility of forgiveness for such sins was provided for. At the same time, the norms of behavior for men were softer than for women. The offender most often faced only an appropriate reprimand, while the woman was subject to rather severe punishments. Sexual prohibitions established for women may not have applied to the stronger sex at all.

Spouses, in addition, were instructed to avoid cohabitation on Sundays, as well as on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, before communion and immediately after it, since “on these days a spiritual sacrifice is offered to the Lord.” Let us also remember that parents were forbidden to conceive a child on Sunday, Saturday and Friday. For violation of this prohibition, parents were entitled to penance of “two summers.” Such prohibitions were based on apocryphal literature (in particular, the so-called “Commandments of the Holy Fathers” and “Thin Nomocanunians”), so many priests did not consider them obligatory.

Even an “unclean” dream could be worthy of punishment. However, in this case, it was necessary to carefully determine whether the person who saw the shameful dream was susceptible to lust for his own flesh (if he dreamed of a woman he knew) or whether he was tempted by Satan. In the first case, he was not allowed to receive communion, but in the second, he was simply obliged to receive communion.

“For otherwise the tempter [the devil] will not stop attacking him at the time when he should partake.”

This also applied to the priest:

“If a plague [an “unclean” dream] comes from the devil in the night, is it worthy to serve at dinner, having rinsed yourself and taken a prayer? - If, in a speech, you were diligent with the thought of your wife, then you will not be worthy; If... you want to tempt someone, even if you leave the church [without] service, then serve rinsed off.”

Interestingly, woman was seen as a greater evil than the devil, since natural carnal desire and the erotic dreams associated with it were declared unclean and unworthy of the priesthood (or a person in general), while the same dreams caused by supposed diabolical influences deserved forgiveness.

It is worth paying attention to the fact that the compulsory marriage established by the Orthodox Church for the white clergy brought the priest closer to his flock in everyday life. And the life of a married clergyman “raised essentially the same questions that the priest then had to solve in relation to his “children”” (B.A. Romanov)