Introduction
Old Russian society is a typically male, patriarchal civilization in which women occupy a subordinate position and are subject to constant oppression and oppression. In Europe it is difficult to find a country where, even in the 18th-19th centuries, beating a wife by a husband would be considered normal and the women themselves would see this as proof of marital love. In Russia, this is confirmed not only by the testimony of foreigners, but also by the research of Russian ethnographers.
At the same time, Russian women have always played a prominent role not only in the family, but also in the political and cultural life of Ancient Rus'. Suffice it to recall the Grand Duchess Olga, the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise, one of whom, Anna, became famous as the French queen, the wife of Vasily I, the Grand Duchess of Moscow Sofya Vitovtovna, the Novgorod mayor Martha Boretskaya, who led the fight of Novgorod against Moscow, Princess Sophia, a whole series of empresses of the 18th century , Princess Dashkova and others. woman family russian marriage
Women are rarely mentioned in chronicles. For example, in Tales of Bygone Years messages related to the fair sex are five times less than men's . Women are considered by the chronicler primarily as predicate men (as well as children). That is why in Rus', before marriage, a girl was often called by her father, but not as a patronymic, but in a possessive form: Volodymerya , and after marriage - by husband (in the same as in the first case possessive , proprietary form; Wed turnover: husband wife , i.e. belonging to the husband).
Relevance of the topic. There are many points of view on this issue, since the position of women in Ancient Rus' has long been of interest to scientists from both scientific and practical points of view, but there was no comprehensive answer, so we decided to once again touch on this topic in our work .
Object of study: the system of social relations in which the woman of Ancient Rus' in the 9th-15th centuries. acts as a subject.
Subject of research: the situation of women.
Purpose of the study: analysis of the situation of women in Ancient Rus'.
Based on the goal, we set ourselves the following tasks:
study all sources related to the topic we are considering, including monographic works, articles in periodicals and on the Internet;
consider the position of women in history;
analyze the private life of noble women;
analyze the position of women in society from the point of view of law;
consider the position of a woman, girl, girl in the family;
study the position of women in and outside of marriage.
Structure of the work: introduction, two chapters consisting of 6 paragraphs, conclusion, list of references.
woman family russian
Chapter 1. Life of a Russian woman in society
1 Position of women in history
Everyone has their own idea of the place and role of women in the history of Ancient Rus'. And ideas can be very different. Some people picture in their imagination a “temple recluse,” while others, recalling Princess Olga or the Novgorod mayor Marfa Boretskaya, see quite socially active and bright personalities. The question of how it really was and what the role of women was in the 9th-15th centuries. very important in itself and for representing social, political and cultural history these six centuries.
In the first millennium AD, the Eastern Slavs formed customs, that is, stable rules of behavior. Gradually, some customs began to be enforced by tribal bodies and communities and acquired the qualities of customary law. Some of the norms of customary law were enshrined in written state legislation, revealing greater vitality; some were modified or prohibited by law. Some elements of customary law in the sphere of regulation of the legal status of women were preserved among the peasantry until the 19th century.
The position of women in Ancient Rus' from the 9th to the 15th centuries. in addition to legal customs, it was regulated by both secular regulations and norms of church law. Secular monuments allow us to speak with greater certainty about socio-economic aspects, while church monuments more clearly characterize the norms of morality, ethics, and the specifics of attitudes towards women on the part of society, family, state and church.
Although a woman, no matter how humiliated she is, always retains power over a man. She draws this power: firstly, from the passions of the man himself, and secondly, from the upbringing of the younger generation, which, during the period of formation and formation of character, was under the influence of women.
It is these two circumstances that give a woman power over society, albeit not purposefully, but the woman is still not the last person in the society of that time.
A man had to take care of honor, duty and thought, that is, his sphere of activity was civil society, while a woman dominated the family and social life, inspiring her with morality, feeling, love, modesty, giving her decency, grace and beauty
You don’t have to look far for examples, if you step back, not for long, from the history of Ancient Rus', then in any other history: be it the history of Rome, the Ancient East or Athens, where women also had no rights, were locked up and removed from power (“visually”), they invisibly ruled the world.
The East humiliated a woman to a thing that serves to satisfy the sensuality of her master - a man. The East covered the woman's face with a veil, locked her in a harem, surrounded her with eunuchs; but she, an impersonal being in public opinion and law, - in the real life of the harem she was either Semiramis, then Cleopatra, or Roxana, and determined the fate of the eastern kingdoms. And in Athens, who else but a woman raised such minds as: Socrates, Pericles or Alcibiades.
2 Legal status of women in ancient Rus'
Old Russian Feudal Law is characterized by the following features: it is fist law, i.e. the right of the politically and economically powerful; it is a right-privilege of the ruling class and its individual layers within the feudal class in comparison with the right of the working population. As mentioned earlier, women were not particularly prominent in feudal law; moreover, they legal status was very limited, which predetermined them legal protection. However, this does not mean that women were excluded from participation in government affairs. A striking example is Princess Olga, daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, granddaughter of Vladimir Monomakh.
Olga (circa 890-969) became the first Christian Kyiv princess. Having become the wife of the first Grand Duke of Kyiv Igor (912-945), after his death she ruled until their son Svyatoslav came of age. The custom of blood feud, which existed in the early Middle Ages, forced Olga to punish her husband’s killers. Olga combined extraordinary intelligence, energy and rare qualities as a statesman. For the first time, she created a system of governing the principality, waged a successful fight against the neighboring tribe of the Drevlyans, who often threatened her state, and also sought to expand Rus'’s ties with the strongest powers of that time - Byzantium and the Ottonian Empire. Olga, in fact, carried out the first financial reform in the history of Rus', establishing a fixed amount of tribute, the procedure for collecting it and their systematicity.
The participation of grand duchesses in state affairs was a tradition. For example, without the signature of Anna, who acted on behalf of the Byzantine clergy, the Charter as a document would not be valid. Anna Romanovna, the sister of the Byzantine emperor, became the wife of the Kyiv prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich in 988 and lived on Russian soil for more than 20 years.
The appearance of documents from a later time (15th century) was impossible without the participation and signatures of the princesses. For example, in the Charter of the Novgorod Prince Vsevolod on church courts, the name of “Princess Vsevolozha” was on a par with the elders and sotskys, the most influential persons in Novgorod of the 15th centuries.
The participation of princesses in legislative and executive activities is an indicator of the high level of development of the state, legal, social and cultural systems of Ancient Rus'.
The chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years" tells about the sister of Yaroslav Vladimirovich (Yaroslav the Wise) - Predslava, an active participant in the struggle for his accession to the Kiev throne in 1015-1019.
The daughter of Yaroslav the Wise - Anna Yaroslavna (about 1024 - not earlier than 1075) in the middle of the century (1049-1060) married King Henry of France. She was the ruler of France, during the childhood of her son Philip, Anna, knowing Latin (the official language of that time), had the privilege of putting her signature on documents of national importance, which was a unique phenomenon for the French royal court of the century.
The goals of expanding and strengthening international contacts of Rus' were served by the marriages of the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise: Elizabeth with the Norwegian Prince Harold, and after his death with the Danish Prince, and Anastasia Yaroslavna with the Hungarian King Andrew in 1046.
The granddaughter of Yaroslav the Wise, daughter of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vsevolod Yaroslavich Anna Vsevolodovna founded in 1086 the first school for girls known in the history of Rus' (at the Kiev St. Andrew's Monastery).
Often at this time, women of the princely class or those who had clergy (for example, abbess) became the founders of monastery schools. The Kyiv, Novgorod, and Ipatiev Chronicles, reflecting the history of Russian lands from the middle of the century, mention the names of many princesses and boyars who took part in the political life of individual principalities and ruled individually.
During the period of isolation of the Russian principalities, princesses and boyars quite often participated in internal political conflicts, princely feuds, discord and conspiracies of any boyar groups. At the same time, noble women contributed to the advancement of those individuals who pursued a policy of strengthening the principalities.
The Horde yoke changed the general picture of the social and legal status of women in the Russian appanage principalities. Russian chronicles of the mid-century make almost no mention of women's participation in political life. The wives and daughters of Russian princes are presented as objects of violence, capture, and captivity. But even during this period, one can cite as an example the wife of Dmitry Donskoy - the Suzdal princess Evdokia, who played a big role in the history of the Moscow principality.
Outstanding women - Grand Duchess Sofya Fominichna of Moscow (Zoya Paleolog), Grand Duchess of Tver Elena Stefanovna, Ryazan Princess Anna Vasilievna showed herself in political life and struggle, both in the Russian principalities and abroad.
It should be noted that only women of the privileged class showed themselves in the political, diplomatic and cultural fields. These women are full-fledged rulers in their principality or fiefdom; owners of personal seals, symbolizing their power in principalities and kingdoms; regents, guardians. Women of the privileged class were distinguished in Rus' high level education and culture at that time, which allowed them to take part in government affairs and management activities.
The fact that women entered the political arena (like Olga, the successor to her husband’s power at the head of the principality) concerned only the highest echelons of society and was an exception to the rule. A significant proportion of women did not participate in political life. Political activity was, as a rule, the prerogative of men.
Chapter 2. The private life of a woman in Ancient Rus'
1 Position of women in the princely family
From a review of the distribution of princely volosts, it is clear what an important share of them the princes usually gave to their wives. This rich endowment corresponded to the strong moral and political influence that was ceded to them according to the spiritual wills of their husbands. Kalita in her will orders her princess and her smaller children to her eldest son Semyon, who should, according to God, be her mourner. Here the testator does not prescribe to his sons, other than care, any responsibilities regarding his wife, because this wife, Princess Ulyana, was their stepmother. To what extent the stepmother and her children were then alien to the children from their first wife is evidenced by the fact that Kalita’s son, John II, calls his stepmother only Princess Ulyana; he does not call her daughter sister; this explains to us the ancient relationship of the sons and grandsons of Mstislav the Great to his son from another wife, Vladimir Mstislavich, macheshich. The relationship of sons to their mothers is determined differently according to the prince’s spiritual wills: Donskoy orders his children to the princess. “And you, my children,” he says, “live together, and obey your mother in everything; If one of my sons dies, then my princess will divide him with the inheritance of the rest of my sons: whoever gives what, that is it, and my children will not leave her will. God will give me a son, and my princess will divide him, taking parts from his big brothers. If one of my sons loses the fatherland with which I blessed him, then my princess will divide my sons from their inheritance; and you, my children, listen to your mother. If God takes away my son, Prince Vasily, then his inheritance will go to that son of mine who will be under him, and my princess will share the inheritance of the latter with my sons; and you, my children, listen to your mother: whatever he gives to whom, that is his. And I ordered my children to my princess; and you, my children, obey your mother in everything, do not act against her will in anything. And if my son does not obey his mother, he will not have my blessing.”
The agreement between Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich and his brothers begins like this: “By the word and blessing of Pasha’s mother Avdotya.” In his agreement with his brother Yuri, Vasily introduces the following condition: “And we should keep our mother in swearing and honor.” Vasily Dimitrievich orders his son to keep his mother in honor and swearing, like God did; in another will he obliges the son to honor his mother in the same way as he honored his father. Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov gives his wife the right to finally judge disputes between his sons, orders the latter to honor and obey their mother. Vasily the Dark also orders his sons the same. Regarding the widowed princesses and their daughters, in the will of Vladimir Andreevich we find the following order: “If God takes away one of my sons and he is left with a wife who will not marry, then let her and her children sit in her husband’s estate, when dies, then the inheritance goes to her son, my grandson; If a daughter remains, then my children will all marry their brother and daughter, and they will all share their brother’s inheritance equally. If she has no children at all, then even then let my daughter-in-law sit in her husband’s inheritance until death and remember our soul, and my children, until her death, do not intercede in their brother’s inheritance in any way.”
The volosts left to the princesses were divided into those that they did not have the right to dispose of in their wills, and those that they could dispose of arbitrarily; the latter were called oprichnina. But in addition, in the Moscow principality there were such volosts that were constantly in the possession of the princesses and were assigned to their maintenance; these volosts were called the prince's vulgar. Regarding them, Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich makes the following order in his will: “As for the princess’s vulgar villages, they belong to her, she knows them until my son gets married, after which she must give them to the princess of my son, her daughter-in-law, those villages that have long belonged to the princesses.”
In all these volosts the princess was the complete ruler. Dimitri Donskoy gives this order in this regard: “To what places the Svoboda volostels judged those liberties under me, to the same places they judge my princesses and volostels. If in those volosts, settlements and villages that I took from the inheritance of my sons and gave to my princess, one of the orphans (peasants) happens to complain about the volostels, then my princess will sort out the matter (do justice), but my children will not stand up." Vladimir Andreevich ordered this: “My children do not give their bailiffs to the Mytniks and customs officers of Gorodets and do not judge them: my princess judges them, their Mytniks and customs officers.”
The clergy, in the name of religion, supported all these relationships between sons and mothers, as they were defined in the spiritual wills of the princes. Metropolitan Jonah wrote to the princes who were taking away from their mother the volosts that belonged to her according to her father’s will: “Children! Your mother hit me with her brow at you, and my daughter complains about you that you took away from her the volosts that your father gave her as an oprichnina, so that she would have something to live on, and gave you special inheritances. And it is you, children, who are doing an ungodly thing, to your spiritual destruction, both here and in the next century... I bless you, so that you will finish off your mother with your forehead, ask her for forgiveness, give her the usual honor, obey her in to everyone, and not offended, let her know hers, and you yours, with the blessing of your father. Write to us how you deal with your mother: and we will pray to God for you, out of our holy duty and out of your pure repentance. If you again begin to anger and insult your mother, then there is nothing to do, I myself, fearing God and according to my priestly duty, will send for my son, for your ruler, and for many other priests, and having looked with them at the divine rules, talked and having judged, we will place on you the spiritual burden of the church, our own and other priests’ unblessing.”
2 Position of women in the family
However, the family was not spared by the despotic orders that became widespread in ancient Russian society. 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, in the literal sense of the word, were under his complete subordination. 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 “educating” 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 care about his soul” and will be “ruined.” Only in the 16th century. society tried to somehow protect the woman and limit the arbitrariness of her husband. So, “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 that “for any crime” (because of little things) “do not beat by sight, do not hit in the heart with a fist, or a kick, or a staff, or 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. It is not for nothing that it was immediately explained that those who “beat like this from the heart or from the torment have many stories from this: blindness and deafness, and a dislocated arm and leg, and a finger, and headaches, and dental disease, and for pregnant wives (that means They beat them too!) and in children the damage occurs in the womb."
That is why the advice was given to beat a wife not for every, but only for a serious offense, and not with anything or at random, but “on your shirt, beat it politely (gently!) with a whip, holding your hands.”
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.
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 maintaining household for raising children younger age. Teenage boys were then handed over to “uncles” for training and education (in early period, really guys like maternal line- uyam, who were considered the closest male relatives, since the problem of establishing paternity, apparently, could not always be solved).
3 Marriage
There were several forms of “matchmaking” preceding marriage in Ancient Rus'.
These are also archaic forms of marriage such as “kidnapping”, but in its pure form this did not last long - and was later carried out with the agreement of the parties. Another form of marriage is “bringing marriage” with contractual elements - here little depended on the woman’s decision - this was mainly decided by relatives and parents. The question is raised whether “wife buying” existed in Ancient Rus', or whether it was rather interpreted as a ransom for the bride or her dowry.
Elements of the traditional ritual of consolidating family ties have been transformed over several centuries into pre-wedding and wedding ceremonies, typical for a wedding consecrated by the church. By legitimizing wedding marriage, the church acted as a regulator in resolving matrimonial matters: church laws established certain punishments for forced or untimely marriage, for moral insult caused by the groom’s possible refusal of the bride, or for failure to comply with other conditions necessary for marriage, which ultimately served the woman’s interests. The legalization by various sources of various reasons for divorce, the right to which women of different classes had, also testifies to the fairly high legal status of women of that time. However, it was the Christian church that sought to establish women’s line of behavior in obedience and subordination, and therefore it did not interfere with the “inclusion” of “civil” elements such as marriage contracts into the sacred sacrament.
To enter into a wedding in Rus', many conditions were required. One of them was the age of marriage: 13-14 years. True, it was often not observed: Princess Verkhuslava Vsevolodovna, when she was married off, “was younger than eight. years..." Ivan III Vasilyevich, through the efforts of the Tver prince Boris Alexandrovich, was, in the language of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", "entangled by the red maiden" even earlier - five years. However, such cases were rare, such marriages pursued political goals, and the bride and groom were handed over to breadwinners after the wedding.
An obstacle to marriage was class and social differences: a peasant woman or servant, at best, was considered a “minor,” that is, a second wife, a concubine, with whom the feudal lord “got under the law,” that is, united contrary to church regulations. The common people did not know polygamy; this phenomenon, without becoming widespread and dominant in Rus', nevertheless embraced some of the upper strata of the ruling class. Among the princes who had second wives, and with them side families, was Svyatoslav Igorevich, his son, Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, about whom the Tale of Bygone Years says that he was “defeated by lust” and had children from five wives and countless concubines . Concubines and “slave children” adopted by the feudal lord often received the status of free people after the death of their master - this fact was legislated by “Russkaya Pravda”, a legal document of the 12th century.
Situations often occurred when a free person (and even a representative of the privileged class), who fell in love with a dependent woman, was forced to either renounce his claims to her (for concubinage was strictly persecuted by the church), or lost his high social status, agreeing to become a slave in the name of marriage or stink.
Undoubtedly, marriage between dependent people took place with the permission of their masters, feudal lords. However, it is noteworthy that, despite many restrictions and barbaric customs, ancient Russian serf-owners did not use the right of the feudal lord’s “first wedding night” in relation to the newlywed from his servants, his servants. This relic of group marriage was replaced by monetary compensation by Princess Olga. Thus, in an excerpt from the chronicle cited by V.N. Tatishchev, under the year 945 it is written: “Olga ordered the groom to take a black kuna,” that is, instead of a bride, the groom in Ancient Rus' brought the feudal lord a gift - sable fur (“black kuna”) or just money. It was forbidden to marry people of other faiths, as well as with persons close not only by blood, but also by nature (you cannot marry your husband’s brother, you cannot marry the sister of your deceased wife, etc.).
Preservation of virginity before marriage was not considered in the law as a condition for its conclusion. Church law required preservation of virginity only from future wives of members of the clergy; from “worldly” people he only prescribed the collection of a monetary penalty “if she married uncleanly.” After all, the main goal of the clergy was to get married and get married, establishing the church form of marriage instead of kidnapping at “merrymaking”. “And those girls are ripe and you should marry them, otherwise you wouldn’t do dashing things. Without a wedding, marriage is lawless, it is both unblessed and unclean,” taught the “Rules on Church Structure,” which were in circulation in Rus' as a guide for priests in the 13th century. But marriage in Ancient Rus', with its inherent elements of conspiracy, the conclusion of a “series,” was a type of ordinary secular transaction, which, despite all the efforts of the clergy, lost the elements of the sacramental (sacramental) rite.
We can find a description of a wedding in medieval Rus', that is, a set of rituals that accompanied marriage in the 11th-15th centuries, both in Russian sources and in the notes of foreigners who visited Rus' at that time. The significance and importance for a noble marriage not only of wealth (merchants could also be rich), but also of “birth”, nobility, family support in the case of a marriage with an “equal” (by social status) was expressed with blunt frankness by the most educated woman of her time, Princess Maria Cantemir - his spiritual mentor younger brother Matveya and sister of the poet Antioch Cantemir. She practically advised the student to marry a woman “elderly and even poor,” but with connections, in order to “always have a patron.” This is exactly how G.R. Derzhavin managed to get married: his first marriage with E. Bastidonova, whom he called Milena, did not bring him a rich dowry, but it provided him with influential acquaintances through his mother-in-law, the nurse of the heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich. S. T. Aksakov’s grandfather married a “poor girl,” but “from an old noble family,” since he “put his seven-hundred-year-old nobility above all wealth and rank.” However, it is difficult to judge what the women who consented to marriage (or, more precisely, who were married off) thought, taking into account the information about the nobility of the applicants: this was almost not reflected in the “women’s” memoirs.
Peasant girls also, as a rule, were married to grooms from families of equal wealth and status. They married the poor out of desperation, realizing that the neighbors would not envy this (“Take from servility - they will laugh”), but a misalliance with a rich bride was fraught with the danger of future disagreements (“Take a noble one - he won’t be able to get a job,” “A rich take it - he will reproach"). The requirement to marry on an “equal level” is reflected in many sayings, proverbs and proverbs, which can be reduced to the apt observation: “Equal customs mean strong love.”
At the same time, many new things appeared in the conditions for marriage in the 18th century. This “new” largely negated the efforts of the clergy to present the combination of marital ties as a divine providence, and the sacrament of wedding itself, while observing various and very numerous requirements, acquired the character of a farce. It is no coincidence that many of the decrees of the reformer emperor were protested by the church (and from the 1930s they were partially repealed).
Since the 10s XVIII century Everyone who gets married - both “male and female” - was required by law to receive at least some education: “You cannot want to be the parents of children and at the same time not know what they should be instructed in.” Hence the requirement to know the mandatory “church minimum” for parishioners and parishioners: the most important prayers (“I Believe in One,” “Our Father,” “Virgin Mother of God”) and the Ten Commandments. According to the decree of 1722, it was forbidden to marry girls “to fools - that is, those who are not fit for science or service.” In addition, with a special addition to the decree, Peter prescribed: those illiterate noblewomen who cannot sign their names “should not be allowed to marry.”
4 About premarital 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 premarital and extramarital sexual contacts:
“When this very holiday comes, not only will not the whole city take up the tambourines and sniffles... And all sorts of inappropriate games like Sotonin’s splashing and splashing. But for wives and girls, the main thing is the nodding and their lips are hostile to the cry, all the bad songs, their wobbling wheezing, their feet are jumping and trampling. Here there is a great fall for husbands and boys, nor for women and girls. The same is true for the wives of husbands and lawless desecration 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. “The one who molested the girl with excess” was supposed 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 focus on issues of sex Special attention.
Bishop Nifont of Novgorod, to whom he addressed, despite his indignation at such violations, “Teach, say, to abstain from fasting from your wives? That is 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 were also instructed to avoid cohabitation in 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 violating this prohibition, parents were given a penance of “two summers.” Such prohibitions were based on apocryphal literature (in particular, the so-called “Commandments of the Holy Fathers” and “Thin Nomokanuns”), so many priests did not consider them obligatory.
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.
Chapter 3. The image of a woman from different points of view
3.1 The image of a woman in Russian literature, painting, philosophy
Metaphorization of the characteristics of the image of a woman in Russian culture is extremely common. This is explained by the fact that metaphorization provides for description and characterization the inseparability of image and meaning.
Already in folklore we see excellent examples of the use of metaphors to characterize women - among the Russian people, a woman is both a “birch tree” and an “indescribable beauty”, a yearning cuckoo (Yaroslavna’s lament in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”), and, perhaps, the most famous Russian metaphor to characterize a woman - a swan.
By the way, these popular views on women are also found in the poetry of A. S. Pushkin - let us remember “The Tale of Tsar Saltan”, where the princess
... Velichava,
Stands out like a peahen
And how does the speech say -
It's like a river babbling.
Let us remember that a peahen is a peacock, and the princess herself appears in the form of a swan.
Pushkin has a huge set of various metaphors for characterizing a woman - more precisely, the most diverse female images ever met by them.
Vivid examples are given to us by the poetry of N. A. Nekrasov. This is who dedicated many immortal lines to the Russian woman. Metaphorization serves Nekrasov to describe the character of a woman, her inner world, characterizes her as a person with all her characteristics.
Speaking about the difficult fate of the Russian woman, Nekrasov in the poem “Mother,” characterizing the heroine’s state of mind, calls her a martyr.
Few Russian writers and poets wrote about women as much as Nekrasov. Perhaps the bitter fate of the Russian woman is one of the main themes in his work. “He will stop a galloping horse and enter a burning hut” - these lines have long become popular. Therefore, most often Nekrasov used metaphors to characterize his heroines, emphasizing the severity of their fate.
The ideal of a Russian woman has been imagined for many, many years and even centuries according to the canons formulated in “Domostroi”: devoted to her husband, selflessly caring for her “children,” a homely housewife, a wordless executor of “her husband’s will.” “A kind, hardworking, silent wife is a crown to her husband,” says one of his postulates. The Russian beauty of the 18th century is bursting with health and is distinguished by her corpulence. It seemed to people of that time that if she was rich in body, then, as a result, she was rich in soul. With the approach of the era of romanticism, the fashion for health ends, pallor, melancholy are a sign of depth of feelings (a similar ideal of spirituality will be characteristic of aristocrats of the early 20th century). From your point of view. Rozanova, as already noted, the “cuteness” of Russian women, those “who are remembered,” combines both external and internal qualities: “short but rounded stature, gentle body build, not angular, soulfully sweet mind, a kind and affectionate soul."
The idea of the ideal is especially clear female beauty(in different periods of development of Russian culture and in different creative imagination) is found in fine arts. “Your wife is not your slave, but your comrade, your helper in everything,” Vasily Tatishchev formulated his attitude towards a woman of the 18th century in his will to his son. Consonant with this formula are the views of the “Scientific Squad”, which in their educational activities, developing new ideas, constantly refuted the idea of a woman as a bearer of sin, all sorts of vices and temptations. From the preaching pulpit, Feofan Prokopovich praised heartfelt love and condemned feigned love. The lyrical poems of Antioch Cantemir and M.M. Kheraskov were devoted to the same topic.
It was at this time that for the first time in fine art, the brush of the artist A. Matveev, in his “Self-Portrait with His Wife,” clearly recreated the idea of a woman as a person equal to man, which was generally consistent with the spirit of the educational ideas of the 18th century. The work presents an image of a woman endowed with nobility, external and internal attractiveness. “...As for the person of the wife, the main circumstances are the beauty of the face, age and gaiety in company, which bring great praise to wives; a circumstance of wealth that seduces many... but don’t look for wealth, look for the main thing... The most important thing in a wife is good fortune, reason and health. According to the combination in your position, there is love for your wife and fidelity to your wife,” wrote V.N. Tatishchev, historian, statesman, active supporter of Peter’s reforms in the book “Spiritual to my son.” It is this “most important” thing that is reflected in the work of the Russian painter A. Matveev.
The works of F.S. Rokotov present female images endowed with a mysterious look, a slight mysterious smile, poetry of inner life, spirituality and hidden feelings. Rokotov’s women with “almond-shaped” eyes, in which “half smile, half cry”, “half delight, half fear” reflect the “souls of changeable signs”, the complexity of the spiritual world of his contemporaries of the late 18th century. Portraits of Smolyans, students of the Smolny Institute of Noble Maidens (the first educational institution for women in Russia), painted by the artist D. G. Levitsky, convey the spirit of the times, which is associated primarily with the transformative activities of Catherine II, with her desire to introduce women to comprehensive education in this complex enlightened age. A talented artist and an amazingly charming person, V.L. Borovikovsky, distinguished by his gentle character, ready to come to the rescue at any moment, embodied in his work, ideas of time (the beginning of the 19th century) about feminine charm, the “sublime sensitivity” of the soul, which is associated primarily with sentimentalism. His canvases depict dreamy and languid girls against the backdrop of “natural” parks, where even cornflowers and rye ears grow next to drooping lilac roses, establishing a new ideal of a tender heart, sublime humanity and nobility.
Yu.M. Lotman identifies three stereotypes of female images in Russian literature, which are included in girlish ideals and real women’s biographies [see. Annex 1.].
The first (traditional) is the image of a tenderly loving woman whose life and feelings are broken, the second is a demonic character who boldly destroys all the conventions of the world created by men, the third is a typical literary and everyday image - a female heroine. A characteristic feature is involvement in the situation of contrasting the heroism of a woman and the spiritual weakness of a man.
So the first type, TRADITIONAL, is treated gently loving women capable of self-sacrifice for the sake of others, who “always have both table and home ready,” who sacredly preserve the traditions of the past. In the concept of “traditional” we do not include the traditionality, mediocrity, ordinariness of women of this type, but the usual approach to defining a woman in general: compassion, the ability to sympathize, empathize, and self-sacrifice. This type, it seems to us, can primarily include the “woman-housewife,” as well as “cross sisters” (according to Remizov’s definition, “sacrifice in the name of another”) and “humble women.”
The next type represents the FEMALE HEROINE. This is, as a rule, a woman who constantly overcomes any difficulties or obstacles. Close to this type is the warrior woman, an irrepressible activist, for whom social work is the main form of activity. Housework and family are far from the most important thing in life for her. To this type we also include Sovietized women, Russo-feminists, Western-type feminists, according to the terminology of K. Noonan. In this type we also included “hot hearts” (the term was first used by A.N. Ostrovsky) and the so-called “Pythagoras in skirts”, “learned ladies”.
The third type of women, as it seems to us, is the most diverse and heterogeneous and to some extent polar, truly combining both “Madonna” and “Sodomite” principles - DEMONIC (Yu. Lotman’s term), “boldly violating all the conventions created by men " Here, in our opinion, we can include a woman-muse, a woman-prize, as well as escapists (Noonan’s term). In our opinion, women who are distinguished by their “demonic character,” the so-called “femme fatales,” are also of interest. This “literary-everyday image” is the least studied in scientific literature in comparison with the type of female heroine (at least in domestic literature), with the exception of individual magazine and newspaper versions.
In this type of women, in turn, one can detect other subtypes, considering the stereotypes of female images of a later period, compared to those studied by Lotman. These, according to the terminology of Russian classics, are “shameless” and “jumpers” (we read about “shameless” from A. Remizov; “jumpers” are well known from the famous fable by I.A. Krylov and the story of the same name by A.P. Chekhov).
In Russian philosophy and Russian literature one can hardly find a definite ideal of a woman. The judgments are extremely contradictory, built on antinomy, which is quite natural, no matter how dissimilar and by no means the same type the authors of these judgments are (something that the ideologists of the Soviet and long post-Soviet period tried to overcome in any way).
Emphasizing the idea that the most different types female images, female faces can be found both in life and in literature, S.I. Kaydash notes: “Looking into the past, we see the Russian woman not only bending over the cradle - before us are warriors, interlocutors, revolutionaries, creators and guardians of noble morality , which have accumulated the moral energy of society.”
Naturally, with the passage and change of time, value orientations cannot maintain their stability. In the course of the social reorganization of society, stereotypes and orientations of female behavior undergo changes, and assessments of reality and perceptions of the environment are transformed, which leads to the evolution of the woman herself.
It is clear that the Russian woman, if we proceed from the trace that her image left in Russian culture, is many-sided and varied, incomprehensible and unique. Each of the writers saw it in his own way, and each used different metaphors to emphasize the characteristic features of the image that he wanted to show.
As a result, the Russian woman appears before us both as a swan, and as a Muse, and as a “living fire of snow and wine,” and as a “child,” and as a “fleeting vision,” and as a “black-browed savage,” and as a “genius.” pure beauty”, and as “sweetheart soul”, and “lily”, and “weeping willow”, and “decrepit dove”, and “Russian princess”...
However, if you continue, the list will be almost endless. The main thing is clear: metaphorization of the characteristics of a woman in Russian culture serves to most vividly and figuratively show and emphasize certain features of various female images.
3.2 The image of a Christian woman in Russian culture
Each culture develops its own idea of what a person should be - a man and a woman. In Russian culture, a Christian anthropological ideal is set, in which man is the image and likeness of God. Both men and women have priceless gifts within them that should only be realized in personal experience, actions. In “Fundamentals of the social concept of Russian Orthodox Church“It is said that “man and woman are two different ways of existing in one humanity.”
The special purpose of a woman is emphasized, which consists “not in simple imitation of a man and not in competition with him, but in the development of all the abilities given to her by the Lord, including those inherent only in her nature.
According to F. Dostoevsky, despite the unsightly, “bestial” image of the Russian people, in the depths of their soul they bear another image - the image of Christ. “And, perhaps, the most important pre-elected purpose of the Russian people in the destinies of all mankind is only to preserve this image for themselves, and when the time comes, to show this image to a world that has lost its ways.”
A woman also has certain traits within herself, an inner hidden power that allows us to talk about her messianic destiny. Moreover, it is more correct to start the chain “Russia - people - woman” with a woman, because she is assigned a special mission in the spiritual revival of both men, and the people, and Russia, and the whole world as a whole “... a woman will take place in spiritual motherhood, power, then she, being essentially a new creation, gives birth to God in destroyed souls.”
Such women's ministry is based on the Christian faith, and the expression feminine ideal is the Virgin Mary - the first Christian woman who became “the holy crown of all women of the world in the history of people and an example for them to follow. What She did with her humility, patience and love for the salvation of the human race is beyond the power of any husband in history, but any woman can do it in her own way and at her own level.” The Mother of God transformed the image of the Old Testament Eve, whose name means Life and whose purpose is physical motherhood and, through the birth of the Savior, revealed new image a woman capable of “giving birth to Christ in our souls.”
“The Blessed Virgin is the first; She goes ahead of humanity and everyone follows her. She gives birth to the Path and represents right direction And pillar of fire leading to the New Jerusalem."
In Her person motherhood is sanctified and the importance of the feminine principle is affirmed. With the participation of the Mother of God, the mystery of the Incarnation is accomplished; thereby She becomes involved in the cause of salvation and revival of humanity.”
The image of the Mother of God became a model for a Russian Christian woman, whose behavior and life combined all the virtues of the Virgin Mary: chastity, piety, purity, meekness, humility. The Mother of God, with her life, gave an example of a special combination of Virginity and Motherhood, being the Ever-Virgin and the Mother of God at the same time. For many Russian women who embraced this ideal, a combination of chastity in marriage was characteristic, which was reflected in the image of a pious wife, with motherhood and many children. Often, by mutual consent, spouses took monastic vows or lived as brother and sister; after the death of her husband, the woman most often became a nun, completing her journey from wife to bride of Christ. The image of a Christian woman took shape through spiritual education, Christian books, instructions, and was revealed directly in the person of a virgin, wife, mother, nun, saint - that is, in all aspects of a woman’s life, path and service. With the adoption of Christianity, the family and the role of women in it acquire special significance. The family has become a union of two people blessed by God, a small church, a semblance of the Church of God. In “Domostroy” the husband was given a decree so that he “sought not only for himself before God,” but also “introduced everyone who lived with him into eternal life.” A man was responsible before God for his family, his household, and his role was assessed as that of an elder, a guardian over his wife and children. The world of a man and the world of a woman were correlated as great and small, but small does not mean worse or less valuable, but, on the contrary, in it, as in a small center, the main life functions were concentrated: birth, upbringing, maintenance of the house and household. But, perhaps, the most important value of marriage was a new understanding of love as primarily spiritual, chaste love. The moral principle of marriage becomes “holy love, self-giving to the point of self-sacrifice, veneration of one’s neighbor as an icon (the image of God), and most of all, one’s betrothed husband.”
A religious and aesthetic canon of a righteous, faithful wife is emerging, for whom a pious life according to the Christian faith was characteristic. Chastity of marriage is the main feature of female righteousness, where the main thing was “unconditional obedience to the will of God and unrequited meek submission to the husband (the highest virtue of the wife), which was conceivable only because the female soul humbled itself before the mystery of life and accepted its fate, happy or unhappy, - like some kind of lot given to her from above.”
Many Russian wives preserved love and fidelity to the end, embodying on earth the image of heavenly marriage: book. Olga, wife of the prince. Igor, book. Ingigerda-Irina (Anna Novgorodskaya), wife of Yaroslav the Wise, Prince. Anna Kashinskaya, wife of Mikhail Yaroslavovich, St. Fevronia, wife of Prince. Petra, book Evdokia, wife of the leader. book Dmitry Donskoy and others, many of whom later became glorified as saints. Another feature of female righteousness was the inconsolability of widowhood, a special widow's rite. Monasticism allowed the widow to bear the difficult path with dignity, which over time became the natural completion of monogamy. Examples here are the widow of Yaroslav the wise, tonsured Anna, the Widow of Timothy, Prince. Pskov schema-nun Maria, Prince. Anna, tonsured Anastasia, widow of Theodore Chorny, Prince. Yaroslavsky. The feat of the pious wife and widow provided “new and diverse forms of female asceticism: religious populism, Old Believer confession, church-educational and charitable service, pilgrimage, eldership.” Along with the feat of marriage and widowhood, there was also the feat of virginity - entering a monastery. A striking example of such a monastic path is the Venerable Euphrosyne of Polotsk, who “leaving the temporal glory and earthly betrothed and despising everything worldly, disgraced herself to the most beautiful Christ of all.” Motherhood and raising children was also one of the exploits of a woman who now had the important responsibility of raising “new citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven.” True motherhood is “the beginning of that life-giving light, that affection and warmth that gives beauty and joy to human life, teaches the knowledge of God and His holy will.”
The special significance and veneration of the word in Christianity placed on the woman the task of teaching the child the Word of God, moral laws, and language in general. Therefore, a woman’s virtue was considered to be laconicism, wise words, and sedate speech. Any language is built on a hierarchical basis, which corresponds to 3 levels: high - the language of prayer and spiritual poetry, medium, reflecting the “elevated mental state of society”, and low, which is represented by everyday speech. Despite the illiteracy of most women, this did not prevent them from actively using all three levels of language. Everyday language - “the language of a child”, full of tenderness and love for one’s children, a word addressed to one’s husband and loved ones - was supplemented with songs, special women’s folklore, reflecting all spheres of life, accompanying both in joy and sorrow, and crowned with the highest word of prayer, “which does not stop before any life test, before the “evil spirits,” before death itself.”
The woman saw her calling in endless prayer for her family, loved ones and children. The power of such prayer is expressed in the proverb “a mother’s prayer can reach you from the bottom of the sea.” Special importance was attached to the upbringing of the girl. From childhood she was prepared for married life, for work, taught her various handicrafts, raised in the spirit of chastity, and taught piety. Throughout the history of Russian culture, there have been various “institutions” of education. “Domostroy”, with a special charter of life; governesses and teachers; gymnasiums and the “Institute of Noble Maidens,” whose goal was to educate “a new breed of people”; moral books, often foreign. The girls were taught good manners foreign languages, refined taste, etiquette, but the most important thing was that they continued to be taught the Law of God, faith and fidelity, chastity and love for one’s neighbor, which was more important than all other knowledge. Examples of the Christian life of Russian women helped during the period of secularization, when “the ideal of spiritual beauty of Christian femininity was replaced by the aesthetics of secular education, salon culture, fashion and grace.”
Despite the fact that the ideal of a new Europeanized woman, “suffering from emancipation,” is being born, the image of a Christian woman remains unshakable, giving birth to new models, embodied both in literature and in concrete life. An example here can be Pushkin’s Tatiana, Turgenev’s, Chekhov’s heroines. One of the brightest and most tragic images were the royal martyrs - Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, Grand Duchess Elizabeth, Empress Alexandra, whose deeds of mercy, humility, faith were and remain a model for the life of a Christian woman.
Conclusion
Based on a study of literary sources, legal acts, articles in periodicals and the Internet, the work proposes the main characteristics of the position of women in Rus' in the 9th - 15th centuries. The results of the study made it possible to formulate and substantiate the following provisions:
In Slavic society, at the beginning of the period under review, the position of women was high, and by the time the first legislative acts appeared, traces of matriarchy remained, which, due to socio-economic changes, with the allocation of privileged classes and the negative influence of the Tatar-Mongol conquerors, were replaced by a patriarchal system of law.
The Christian Church had a significant influence on the position of women in the period under review, although it cannot be assessed unambiguously. Externally, the actions of the church were aimed at the elevation of women and largely contributed to this, since the church fought against the remnants of paganism that humiliated women, such as polygamy, concubinage, marriage in the form of theft and purchase of a bride. At the same time, the church tried to drive every individual, both men and women, into a certain social framework, subordinating the woman to the authority of her husband and obliging the husband to take care of and protect his wife. In this regard, we can come to the conclusion that a woman rather lost more than she gained from the adoption of Christianity in Rus', because the church, having deprived a woman of the opportunity to self-realize in public and political life, ultimately did not provide her with ways to independently protect her rights from men , under whose authority the church placed her, and the clergy were unable to protect the interests of women due to the fact that the privileged strata had significant power and did not want to give up full rights to a woman, and sometimes more than one, and the subordinate strata of society for a long time did not recognized the importance of church sacraments, and adhered to a greater extent pagan traditions.
The property legal capacity of women was very significant compared to the legal capacity of their contemporaries in Western European states, but it cannot be considered equal to the legal capacity of a man, since a woman in the family was under the authority of her father or husband, and men could, with their power, nullify all the advantages provided for Old Russian women in legislation. In cases where a woman was not under the authority of a man, for example, being a widow, she had practically equal property rights with men.
When considering the relationship between a woman and her children in an ancient Russian family, it can be argued that the woman mother enjoyed great respect in ancient Russian society and her personal and property rights in relation to children were not limited either at the time of her marriage or after the death of her husband, except case of remarriage.
In general, analyzing the legal acts of Ancient Rus' from the 9th to the 15th centuries, the legal status of women can be assessed as equal to men, but taking into account law enforcement practice, it should be concluded that women occupied a more degraded position. This was primarily due to the fact that the ancient Russian state, while providing women with rights in the personal, property and procedural spheres, did not develop mechanisms for protecting these rights and left it to men. Only when a woman left the power of men and her family could a woman take a leading position in society, and this gave her the opportunity to fully enjoy the rights granted by the state and realize herself as a full-fledged individual.
Bibliography
Baidin V. Woman in Ancient Rus' // Russian woman and Orthodoxy. - St. Petersburg, 1997
Balakina Yu. History of state and law - 2000 No. 1- <#"justify">Annex 1
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Old Russian society was a typically male, patriarchal civilization and woman in ancient Rus' occupied a subordinate position, subjected to constant oppression and oppression. At the same time, women from the upper classes had serious influence and actively participated in the social and political life of the country. Chronicles mention many women who played a serious role in the history of the country. These are Princess Olga and the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise, one of whom, Anna, became famous as a French queen, also the wife of Vasily I, Grand Duchess Sofya Vitovtovna of Moscow, Novgorod mayor Marfa Boretskaya, who led the fight of Novgorod against Moscow, Princess Sophia and many others.
Any ancient society is dominated by men, and if we step back from the history of Ancient Rus', then, for example, Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, the Ancient East or Greece, were also built according to social principles in which women were given a secondary position. Regarding the situation women in ancient Rus', then, for example, in the ancient chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years” there are five times fewer messages related to representatives of the fairer sex than those dedicated to men. Women and children in ancient Russian society are viewed as complements to men. It is for this reason that in Rus', before marriage, a girl was often called by her father, but not as a patronymic, but in a possessive form, for example, “Volodimerya.” After marriage, in the same “possessory” form they were called by husband, meaning “husband’s wife,” that is, “belonging to her husband.” Women in Ancient Rus' were limited in their rights, as in all ancient societies. However, this does not mean that women were excluded from participation in government affairs. A striking example is Princess Olga, the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise and the granddaughter of Vladimir Monomakh, who were quite socially active and bright personalities.
Princess Olga (circa 890-969) was the first Christian Kyiv princess. Being the wife of the first Grand Duke of Kyiv Igor (reign: 912-945), after his death she ruled the state until the coming of age of their son Svyatoslav. The custom of blood feud, which existed in early medieval Rus', forced Olga to punish the murderers of her husband. Princess Olga combined energy, extraordinary intelligence and rare statesmanship qualities. For the first time, she created a system of governing the principality, waged a successful fight against the neighboring tribe of the Drevlyans, who often threatened her state, and also sought to expand Rus'’s ties with the strongest powers of that time - Byzantium and the Ottonian Empire. Olga, in fact, carried out the first financial reform in the history of Rus', establishing a fixed amount of tribute, the procedure for its collection and their systematicity
Historical documents indicate that the princesses took part in state affairs. This is how the princesses’ signatures appeared on the most important legislative documents of that time. The signature of the wife of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich (reign: 980-1015) Anna was on the Church Charter. Moreover, without her signature, the document would not have had legislative force, since Anna, being the sister of the Byzantine emperor, acted on behalf of the Byzantine clergy. Another example is a document of a later time (XV century) - the Charter of the Novgorod Prince Vsevolod, where, along with the signatures of the most influential persons of Novgorod, there was also the signature of the prince’s wife, “Princess Vsevolozha”. The participation of princesses in the activities of legislative and executive power is an indicator of the high level of development of the state, social, legal and cultural systems of Ancient Rus'.
The chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years" mentions the sister of Yaroslav Vladimirovich (Yaroslav the Wise) - Predslava, who was an active participant in the struggle for his accession to the Kiev throne in 1015-1019.
The daughter of Yaroslav the Wise - Anna Yaroslavna (years of life: about 1024 - not earlier than 1075) married King Henry of France. She was the ruler of France during the childhood of their son Philip. Knowing Latin (the official language of the time), Anna had the privilege of putting her signature on documents of national importance, which was unique for the French royal court of that time.
The granddaughter of Yaroslav the Wise, daughter of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vsevolod Yaroslavich, Anna Vsevolodovna, founded in 1086 at the Kiev St. Andrew's Monastery the first school for girls known in the history of Rus'.
Women in Ancient Rus' those belonging to the princely class or having clergy (in particular, abbess) became the founders of monastic schools. The chronicles mention the names of many boyars and princesses who took part in the political life of individual principalities, as well as those who ruled individually.
The Horde yoke significantly changed the overall picture of the social and legal status of women in the Russian appanage principalities. Russian chronicles of the mid-13th century make almost no mention of women's participation in political life. The wives and daughters of Russian princes are mainly presented as objects of capture, violence and captivity. However, even during this period, one can cite as an example the wife of Dmitry Donskoy - the Suzdal princess Evdokia, who played a big role in the history of the Moscow principality.
However, only women from the privileged class could play such a prominent role in history; they could be full representatives in their fiefdom or principality, holders of personal seals that symbolized their power, as well as regents or guardians. Nobles women in ancient Rus' They were distinguished by a high level of education and culture at that time; this is what allowed them to participate in government affairs and management activities. Moreover, the princesses had very serious property rights; they sometimes owned entire princely volosts, which they could dispose of at their own discretion, including deciding what of these lands would go to their sons. As for representatives of the lower classes, the meaning of women was significantly different.
Many historians write about the despotic order that reigned in the ordinary ancient Russian family. The husband, the head of the family, was a slave to the sovereign, but at the same time he was a full-fledged sovereign for his family in his own home. All household members were completely subordinate to him, and above all this concerned the female half of the house. Woman in Ancient Rus', being not yet married, did not have the right to independently leave the boundaries of her parents’ estate. Her parents were looking for a husband for her; she did not see him before the wedding. After marriage, her husband became her new “master”. Woman in Ancient Rus' could not leave the house without her husband’s permission, including going to church. A woman also had to make acquaintances, have conversations with someone, give gifts and generally communicate outside the home only after asking permission from her husband. The share of female labor in Russian peasant families has always been unusually large; a woman even had to take up the plow. The lot of the youngest daughter-in-law in the family (the wife of the youngest brother) was very difficult, who, having moved to her husband’s family, remained a lifelong servant in the house.
The unwritten laws of society dictated certain behavior of the husband and father. His duties included “educating” his family, which consisted of systematic beatings of his wife and children. In ancient Russian society it was believed that if a husband does not beat his wife, then he “does not care about his soul” and will be “ruined.” Only in the 16th century were attempts made to somehow protect the wife and limit the arbitrariness of the husband. In particular, “Domostroy” (a monument of Russian literature of the 16th century, which is a collection of advice, rules and instructions in all spheres of human and family life) introduces some restrictions into the established system of domestic violence. It is recommended to beat your wife “not in front of people, to teach in private” and “not to be angry in any way” at the same time, and “for any fault” (because of little things) “not by sight, not in the heart with a fist, not a kick, not a staff do not hit, do not hit with any iron or wood." Apparently, in everyday life women in ancient Rus' were subjected to serious beatings, since the author of “Domostroi”, giving advice to treat wives more gently, explains that those who “beat like that from the heart or from the bones have many stories about this: blindness and deafness, and a sprained arm and leg and a finger , and headaches, and dental disease, and in pregnant wives (which means they were beaten too) and in children, damage occurs in the womb.” That is why advice was given to punish a wife not for every, but only for a serious offense, and not with anything or at random, but “take off your shirt, beat it politely (gently) with a whip, holding your hands.”
At the same time, it should be noted that the woman in Ancient Rus' pre-Mongol period had a number of rights. Before getting married, she could become the heir to her father's property. The highest fines, according to ancient Russian legislation, were paid by those guilty of “bruising” (rape) and insulting women with “disgraceful words.” A slave living with the master as a wife received freedom after the death of the master. The appearance of such legal norms in ancient Russian legislation testified to the widespread occurrence of such cases.
Broad property rights woman in ancient Rus' received after the death of her husband. Widows were highly respected in ancient Russian society; they became full-fledged mistresses in their home. In fact, from the moment of the husband's death, the role of head of the family passed to them. Property rights of women in Ancient Rus', especially in the privileged classes, was very significant compared to the legal capacity of their contemporaries in Western European states. However, it cannot be considered equal to the legal capacity of a man, since a woman was in a family under the authority of her husband or father, and men could, with their power, nullify all the advantages prescribed for ancient Russian women in legislation. In cases where a woman was not under the authority of a man, for example, being a widow, she received property rights almost equal to men.
Anyone who is at all familiar with Russian history from sources or works of art has own performance about the place and role of women in it. As N.L. Pushkareva, a well-known researcher of this historical problem, notes in her work, these ideas are to one degree or another polar. Imagining the initial period of Russian statehood, some mentally picture a “temple recluse” who was in a subordinate position in the family and had very limited social rights. Others, on the contrary, see socially active individuals in the images of Princess Olga, who took revenge on the Drevlyans for the death of her husband, or the Novgorod mayor Marfa Boretskaya. The question of what Russian women were like is very important not only in itself, but also for the general idea of the Russian social, political and cultural history of those centuries.
Creating a holistic picture of the position of women in the family and society of Ancient Rus' allows us to deeply penetrate the world of medieval man, family history, and imagine the social, legal and family life of Russian society from the 10th century. before the formation of a unified Russian state, to trace the gradual feudalization of life, the elimination of pre-class and pre-state remnants or their transformation in new historical conditions. Major social changes that accompanied the change in formations entailed changes in the position of women. We are talking not only about strengthening class differences in the position of representatives of various groups and strata, but also about changes in the family, legal, and social status of all ancient Russian women.
Numerous memoirs of foreigners who appear in Rus' from the end of the 15th century tell about a woman and her position in Russian society. But many researchers believe that statements about the higher position of Western European women compared to the “back-door Muscovite” were influenced by the preconceived views of foreign travelers who aimed to contrast their “developed” and “cultural” country with barbaric Rus'.
Despite the fact that already in the 10th century. (since the time of Olga) Rus' recognized and, one might say, recognized the activities of a female ruler; there were no such examples in Russian history until the 18th century. For many centuries, the Russian woman was almost always in the shadow of a man. Perhaps it is for this reason that today we have to talk about the scarcity of sources that would help to create a clear picture of the life, way of life and morals of women in Rus'.
For convenience of review, Pushkareva N.L. in her monograph systematized published and handwritten sources describing the position of the ancient Russian woman in the family and society into two large groups.
The first group unites normative acts of secular origin, mixed jurisdiction and canonical, containing norms, rules, measures of people’s behavior in society, as well as those sources that can only conditionally be classified as normative: in them the requirements for a person are not strictly binding, but at the same time they are a desirable model, an ideal. Secular monuments make it possible to speak with greater certainty about the socio-economic aspects of the problem of law, while church monuments more clearly characterize the norms of morality, ethics, and the specifics of relations between spouses.
Among secular normative acts, the most valuable sources are all-Russian documents, and from the XIV-XV centuries. national jurisdiction, primarily the Russian Truth and Code of Laws of 1497. The legal norms of these all-Russian legislative codes had a significant impact on the social life of Rus' and determined the presence or absence of opportunities for social activity among women of that time, depending on their social class affiliation.
The second group of sources helps to study the relationship between standards and the actual position of ancient Russian women in the family and society, and to identify changes in this situation. It combines non-normative sources, evidence of living historical reality: narrative, historical and archaeological-epigraphic monuments.
The first subgroup includes mainly chronicle evidence. The second includes numerous acts of feudal land tenure and farming. The third subgroup is epigraphic and sphragistic material, which provides an additional opportunity to study the real position of women in the family and society of Ancient Rus'.
Despite the apparent limited legal status of ancient Russian women, this did not mean that they were excluded from participation in government affairs. A striking example is Princess Olga, daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, granddaughter of Vladimir Monomakh.
The participation of princesses in legislative and executive activities is an indicator of the high level of development of the state, legal, social and cultural systems of Ancient Rus'.
It should be noted that only women of the privileged class showed themselves in the political, diplomatic and cultural fields. These women are full-fledged rulers in their principality or fiefdom; owners of personal seals, symbolizing their power in principalities and kingdoms; regents, guardians. Women of the privileged class in Rus' were distinguished by a high level of education and culture for those times, which allowed them to take part in government affairs and in management activities.
The fact that women entered the political arena (like Olga “successor to her husband’s power at the head of the principality”), this concerned only the highest echelons of society and was an exception to the rule. A significant proportion of women did not participate in political life. Political activity was, as a rule, the prerogative of men.
It should be noted that the main regressive factor inhibiting the rise of the socio-political status of the ancient Russian woman was the emergence of the “terem system”. Seclusion was a consequence of “strengthening the tsarist autocracy and the boyar elite,” as it allowed them to “control the political connections of large clans and families” (limit the circle of acquaintances, marry in accordance with the objectives of dynastic and political connections, etc.).
The position of women in ancient Rus' is often presented as complete subordination to men. Women, apparently , were deprived of any freedom and forced to live in eastern isolation. It is true that the Moscow queens and princesses of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries led reclusive lives in their own apartments ( towers) in the royal palace, and that the same custom was also practiced in boyar and merchant families, although less strictly. But this was how things stood in the later Middle Ages. Even in relation to the Moscow period, the traditional view of the subordinate position of women in Russia cannot be accepted unconditionally.
In relation to the Kyiv period, such a view would be absolutely unfounded. Russian women of this time enjoyed considerable freedom and independence, both legally and socially, and demonstrated a spirit of independence in various aspects of life. We see a woman ruling Russia in the mid-tenth century (Princess Olga), another founding a school for girls in the convent she founded in the eleventh century (Yanka, daughter of Vsevolod I).
The princesses send their own representatives: to foreign countries (as we know, two members of the Russian peace delegation to Constantinople were women). It is to the woman (the step-mother of Vladimir Monomakh) that the people of Kyiv turn to restore peace between the princes (in the case of the emerging conflict between Svyatopolk II and Vladimir Monomakh in 1097).
If we turn to folklore, a female warrior is a popular heroine of ancient Russian epic poems. Polyanytsya("steppe adventurer") of Russian epics reminds us of the Amazon in the classical tradition. And, of course, from a geographical point of view there is a complete parallel, since both performed their exploits in the same region - the lower Don and the Azov region. As we know, the myth of the Amazons reflects an important fact in the social history of the Don and Azov tribes in the Scythian and Sarmatian periods: the predominance of matriarchal forms of clan organization.
The possibility that matriarchy was the basis of social organization among some Proto-Slavic tribes and, in particular, the Antic clans should not be discounted. If this is so, then the relatively independent position of women in Kievan Rus can be explained, at least in part, as a consequence of such a tradition. It is perhaps no coincidence that in the earliest version of "Russian Truth" among relatives who have the right - and must - to take revenge for the murder of a fellow tribesman, "sister's son" is mentioned together with "brother's son."
In general, the Old Russian clan, according to the description of “Russian Pravda” and other sources, obviously belonged to the patriarchal type. At the same time, however, women were guaranteed certain rights. Let's start with the weregeld - a symbol of the social value of a person at that time: a woman had Wergeld, but in quantitative terms the fine for her murder was equal to only half of that paid for the murder of a man belonging to the middle class - twenty hryvnia instead of forty.
A woman, even a married one, had the right to own property in her own name. Following the Byzantine example, Russian civil law recognized both dowry, in the sense of money that a woman brings to her husband in marriage, and “prenuptial gifts” (propter nuptias donatio), that is, the gift of property by a man to his bride, which in English is also is called "dowry".
In Russian there are two different terms used, namely: dowry- in the first sense and vein- in the second.
In addition, a married woman could have any other property bequeathed to her by her parents or acquired by her. The usual source of income for a woman, including a married woman, was the results of her needlework. According to the so-called “Church Code” of Yaroslav the Wise (copied in fact not in the eleventh, but in the thirteenth century), a man who stole hemp or flax grown by his wife, or any linen and fabric made by her, was subject to a fine.
According to Russian Pravda, after the death of her husband, if he died first, the wife had rights to the property left to her and to other property that he might have owned. Moreover, the widow was recognized as the head of the family if there were children, and she was entrusted with the management of her late husband's estate. When the children reached adulthood, each had the right to claim their share of the estate, but if they did so, they had to give a certain part of the estate to their mother for the rest of her days ( belongings).
Speaking of children, it should be noted that daughters inherited property along with their sons, with the exception of Smerd families.
In the pagan era, property relations between spouses largely depended on the form of marriage. Wives who married through marriage enjoyed greater freedom of property rights in their husband's house. This was associated with bringing a dowry into the house. Wives could dispose of movable property, in particular women's clothing and jewelry, things acquired by the wife’s labor. Each of them had the right to dispose of their property, both during the life of their spouse and after his death, “Wives acquired through purchase and sale, theft and robbery as spoils of war, according to pagan law, were under the authority of their husband, and apparently did not have property rights "
The bought and stolen wife was herself the property of her husband and most likely did not have ownership of the property; at the same time, it is impossible to extend ideas about things completely to ideas about a person. In any case, K. Alekseev claims that among the Slavs, women have always been independent owners of their property. Although the Russian Slavs never had a community of spouses' property, it must be assumed that initially, in pagan times, the wife's property was lost in the common family property, in the possession of which the wife participated jointly with her husband and children. It is clear that under such conditions a woman’s property status could not be independent.
The oldest mention of women's authority to own certain property that has come down to us is already contained in one of the earliest legal monuments - the treaty of 911 between Oleg and Byzantium, which approved the right of a woman to retain part of the property common to her husband even if the husband committed murder and stood trial. before the law: “What if: the one who committed murder escapes, and the wife of the murderer also gives up a share.”
In the property that the wife of the criminal received “according to the law,” there was also her own allocation, a “part” that follows her according to the law. The concept of “part,” to which a woman had the right and disposal, entered legal life along with the first codification of laws. But if we follow the literal meaning of the article in the treaty, then the ancient Russians apparently had a law, which has not reached us, that regulated the issue of inheritance for women and provided her with a certain part.
She is mentioned in the articles of the Extensive Truth about the property rights of women in families of smerds, “free husbands” and the privileged class. One of the most important aspects when analyzing the legal status of women in Rus' from the 9th to the 15th centuries. is the question of a woman’s ability to act as the owner of property, as well as the subject of civil transactions.
This problem is very important not only because, within the framework of my research, it shows the evolution of property legal capacity in Rus' during the period under review, but also, first of all, because without familiarizing ourselves with the legal acts that lay at the origins of consolidating the basic provisions of the Old Russian family and inheritance law, as well as regulations that provide for liability for property crimes in the family and household sphere, it is impossible to trace the main trends in the development of the unequal position of women in the family and property sphere at further stages of the development of Russian society.
The position of women in ancient Russian law was much higher than in ancient German and Roman law, in the face of which a woman, daughter, wife, mother always needed a guardian and did not have legal capacity. In Kievan Rus, on the contrary, a woman in marriage retained all her property, which even after the death of her husband was not included in the common inheritance: the widow became the full head of the family: “If a wife remains a widow after the death of her husband, then give her part of the property, otherwise What her husband gave her during his life remains to her beyond that...” Own property began to appear, apparently, very early with the decomposition of large clans into separate one-household families and the emergence of trade.
Due to the fact that trade had already contributed to the emergence of a wealthy class, and women could have personal property, prominent historians of ancient Russian law insist on this. Even in Ancient Rus', women had the right to a dowry, inheritance and some other property. Even in the pre-Christian period, wives had their own property, princesses and other noble women owned large fortunes, cities, and villages. Thus, “Princess Olga owned her own city, her own bird and animal hunting grounds.” Husbands often depended financially on their wives. Such “property emancipation” was not allowed by any European legislation,
In this regard, we need to analyze the legal acts of the 1X-15th centuries. and determine whether such a situation was rare or the rule.
It should be noted that the most famous examples from the history of ancient Rus', characterizing the position of such women as Princess Olga, who carried out financial reform in Rus', Russian princesses who married foreign rulers, cannot be assessed as a rule, but they also give a certain idea of the position of women at that time. It should be borne in mind that the ancient acts do not contain the slightest indication that the wife was in any way limited in the right to dispose of her property.
A woman, even a married one, had the right to own property in her own name. The saga of Olaf testifies that the Russian princesses even had their own separate army, which they maintained at their own expense. This is confirmed by Russian epics; Prince Vladimir's wife, Princess Aprakseevna, even competed with her husband in this case and wanted to recruit braver and stronger heroes into her squad. Not only noble women, but also ordinary women had a certain economic independence. In the birch bark charters we see many examples of women freely managing large amounts of money and property; women spent money, inherited property, or lent it.
There are enough examples of this in birch bark letters - Yaroshkov’s wife was included in the list of debtors, owing someone 9 veks (letter No. 228); Efimya paid someone half a ruble (letter No. 328; Smolig’s wife paid a fine of 20 hryvnia for her husband (letter No. 603), etc. “Studying birch bark letters, we find many examples when a woman was engaged in some kind of activity and received would profit from this. Often such activities went beyond the scope of her family and household duties. Birch bark letters give us many examples of when Novgorod women were engaged in some profitable business.
Women were engaged in both moneylending and crafts.
For example, in charter No. 125, Maria, Gyurgiy’s mother, could be a dressmaker. Perhaps she was sewing expensive clothes to order, for which reason she asks her son to buy her expensive silk fabric brought from Bukhara. Therefore, sending her son money for fabric, she asks him to make the purchase very carefully. But not every woman sought a livelihood by producing something. Providing the services of a matchmaker was quite profitable for a woman.
For example, to the matchmaker Yarina (letter no. 731), the mother of the groom Yanka promises a good reward in case of a successful outcome of the matter: “and where there is bread for me, there it is for you.” A woman could also own land, from which she could earn income different ways: “feeding” on the harvest from it, or by renting out the land, or by selling part of the land. This woman usually received this land by will, and could also bequeath it to one of her children.
The most important for us is the fact that a number of letters indicate that it was the woman who was the owner of the land, and not her husband or sons, and therefore she could dispose of it at her own discretion. On behalf of the woman, an agreement on the transfer or sale of land was drawn up, the original of which was kept by her.
An important issue that determines the property legal capacity of women is the question of whether women had rights to land property.
The legislation of Ancient Rus' answers this question positively. Even Russian Pravda, limiting the rights of the daughters of smerds, provided broad inheritance rights, including in relation to land ownership, to boyar daughters. Belyaev, comparing these provisions of Russian law with German legislation of the same period, explains this different approach as follows: Among the Slavic peoples in ancient times, land did not have such a character, it could be inherited by both men and women, if it was the full property of the owner, and when belonged to him as a member of the community, the right of inheritance was limited to his sons only.
Therefore, in in this case We see not a restriction on the property rights of women, but restrictions on the property rights of entire clans belonging to the category of simple smerds. Here is how she evaluates the legal status of women in Rus' with the adoption of Christianity: “In legal terms, a Russian woman, having become a Christian, still retained her rights; she was still considered by law to be an independent person; with the right to own property and dispose of it at her own will, she was considered by law as equal to her husband and even had some advantages.” Having analyzed the legal acts, we can come to the conclusion that after the adoption of Christianity, the wife’s personal and property rights even increase: in addition to the rights to a dowry, she is granted the right to participate in the management of family property.
In order to outline the property relations of spouses in the Christian period, it is necessary to dwell first on the social status of women, which, apparently, is associated with the formation in this period of a society with a clearer division into dependent and dominant strata of society.
Also during this period, the family status of a woman became of great importance, since the positions of a girl, a married woman and a widow were different. It should be remembered that at this stage of the development of society, the personality of a woman could still matter. It cannot be considered that married status limited the property capacity of a Russian woman, as some authors do, for example, M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, who defines the property rights of spouses during the period under review as joint property, when the wife’s property is owned by the husband.
It should be noted that this opinion contradicts the article on a property dispute between spouses, which already existed in the Charter of Prince Vladimir: “Between husband and wife about the belly.” There are also indications of civil transactions carried out between spouses, for example, the exchange of estate between husband and wife , which is also meaningless in this case, since it represents the husband’s deal with himself. This is also evidenced by Article 94 of Russian Pravda.
The property that belonged to the first, deceased wife of the person who left the inheritance is inherited by the children not from the second, but only from the first marriage. This also applies to her property, which after her death he gave to his second wife, i.e., their stepmother. An example confirming that a wife has her own property that belongs only to her is the Novgorod birch bark document No. 9, which also contains evidence that the wife could claim her property from the illegal possession of her husband, which is also impossible if this property is indivisible. Other articles of Russian Pravda can be considered as an example, for example, Art. Art. 93, 103, 106 Lengthy edition, which talks about the special property of the mother, as well as articles of the Charter of the book. Yaroslav, providing for liability for the theft of a husband from his wife.
According to prof. Sergeevich there are indications from the 14th and 15th centuries that the property of spouses was separate, and wives sold their lands to their husbands. It is necessary to determine the property to which the wife had ownership rights. It was not homogeneous and, as a rule, consisted not only of a dowry. CM. Shpilevsky, comparing the husband’s rights to his wife’s property under Russian and German legislation, draws the following conclusions: “Among the Slavs, compared with the Germans, the husband’s rights to his wife’s property seem more limited: the husband had the right to use and manage only his wife’s dowry, and not all of her property, as it was with the Germans."
N.L. Pushkareva, defining the scope of women’s property rights in Ancient Rus', also distinguishes dowry and other property, using the term “paraphernal” property to define it: “Women’s property ownership, called “part” in Russian Pravda, probably included dowry and those not included in it some paraphernalia."
At the same time, using the term “paraphernal” property, she talks about property that is the property of the wife, is not completely connected with the property of her husband, and which she can dispose of at her own discretion. Subsequently, the wife's paraphernalia property was transferred to the husband only on the basis of a power of attorney, and a legal mortgage on the husband's property in favor of the wife served to ensure the integrity of its management.
The dowry was not lost in the general property of the new family to which the woman moved. If the connection connecting a woman with this family was broken, then the dowry had to be separated from common property. In the event of the death of a mother, the dowry goes to her children, even if her husband has children from another wife, they do not inherit such property. The existence of a dowry in the most ancient period of the history of Rus' was proven back in the 9th century, although the Russian Truth and other normative acts of that time do not know this term, “Even if there is a sister in the house, then do not take that ass, but give her in marriage to the brothers, as “they can,” says Russian Pravda.
The dowry was already well known at the time of the chronicler Nestor, SM. Shpilevsky pointed out: “The Slavs mentioned dowry very early; Nestor talks about the dowry, describing the most ancient custom of life of the Slavs; it is about the glades that he says: “a son-in-law does not go after a bride, but I bring the evening, and tomorrow the bride brings an offering for her, which
The chronicler's testimony (“...and tomorrow the Shah will bring for her what is given”) indicates the existence of a dowry in ancient customary law, which allows one to doubt the correctness of the statement that the institution of the dowry was a borrowing of Byzantine legal norms. Ownership of a dowry, according to Russian Truth, is inherent in people from almost all classes and social groups of feudal society, including smerds. The term itself appears in acts no earlier than the end of the 15th century. The first series of dowry agreements were found only in the middle of the 16th century.
Following the Byzantine example, Russian civil law recognized both dowry, in the sense of money that a woman brings to her husband in marriage, and prenuptial gifts, i.e. the gift of property by a man to his bride, also called a “dowry” in English. In Russian, two different terms are used, namely: dowry - in the first sense and veno - in the second. In addition, a married woman could have any other property bequeathed to her by her parents or acquired by her.
CM. Soloviev points out that the very concept of dowry appeared for the first time when Dmitry Shemyaka mentioned it in an agreement with Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, talking about his dowry, which was indicated in the spiritual charter of his father-in-law and which was captured by his brother Vasily Kosoy. As for evidence of a non-normative nature about the purpose of a dowry, very little of it has reached us from the time in question, but there is no doubt about the existence of a dowry. The more difficult question is whether the woman owned anything other than the dowry. There is no direct information in Russian monuments about the existence of the wife’s paraphernalia in her first marriage.
True, one should pay attention to the penalty for the theft of “wedding” and “garden” items specified in the Charter of Prince Yaroslav. The first term is relatively clear: it is what the bride received at the wedding. “Ogorodnoye” is a less clear term. It is written differently in different lists of the Charter and has not been explained to this day.”
The existence of a marriage agreement in Russian legal life suggests that (“garden garden”) was either one of the components of the dowry, or part or even the paraphernalia itself, brought by the wife to her husband’s house. The structure of the “part” that a woman owned in connection with her second marriage seems more understandable (“the husband invested in the nude”, “what the husband gave”). Apparently, this is, first of all, the same dowry, in relation to which ancient Russian women had the right not only of ownership, but also of disposal.
Otherwise, the emergence of independent property of a woman in marriage would be inexplicable, and yet the Charter of Prince Vladimir considers “a dispute between husband and wife about the belly,” that is, a dispute over property, to be fundamentally possible. The same Charter assumes the possibility of a conflict between a widow and her brothers, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law and her own children over the “belly”. This shows the high independence of a married woman in the area of property relations and especially after the death of her husband.
The property wealth of married women can be confirmed by the fact that financial liability the wife bore the husband's debts only in the event of his death, and in this case she acted as an heir and we are faced here with an example of universal succession, which was characteristic of ancient Russian law, as well as any other.
Naturally, it should be noted that this institution, aimed at protecting the property interests of women, was drawn from Byzantine legislation. Russian Truth, as is known, provided for, in the event of a husband committing a serious criminal offense, “flow and plunder” for his wife and children. Even in the Russian Truth of Yaroslav it was determined that he was appointed; after her, the property and property given to her by her husband will pass to her children, and not to the children of another wife.
In addition to the dowry, a woman could own everything that was bequeathed to her by her parents or acquired during marriage. A woman’s source of income could be things created by herself and, first of all, these should be the results of her handicraft. “The funds received as a dowry were used for land acquisitions,” Consequently, everything that the wife acquired with her money became only her property, she could carry out any civil transactions permitted by law with this property.
Apparently this case illustrates the article from the Code of Prince Yaroslav: “and if they have purchased estates, they are free to sell their estates, or give them away without money to whomever they want.” Based on this article, we can conclude that the husband’s consent was not required in this case. Thus, legislative monuments of the X-XV centuries. make it possible to assert that a socially free woman who belonged to a privileged class and who remarried could have, in addition to the dowry, some paraphernalia that could have appeared to her over the years of either married life (as a result of free disposal of her dowry) or widowhood during the execution of guardianship functions,
The development of the norms of guardianship law is evidenced by the presence in Ancient Rus' of the institution of female guardianship, which the Western European Middle Ages did not yet know. The similarity of the institutions of guardianship in Byzantium and Ancient Rus' was determined by the proximity of the systems of the socio-economic system, and not by the borrowing of legal norms. Based on Russian Pravda, it can be argued that noble women, after the death of their husbands, became authorized guardians of young children and managed the household by right of seniority, using the earnings (property) and being responsible for losses only in the event of a second marriage.
Even when the wards became adults, for the work of raising them, the widowed mother was given the right to stay in the house of her children even against their will, while maintaining her allocation for the maintenance of the “part”. Judging by the Pskov Judicial Charter, it was later established that refusal to support an elderly mother should lead to the confiscation in her favor from an unworthy son of the entire part of the property he inherits, which the father and mother acquired jointly. If a woman remarried, then she returned to the wards all movable and real estate accepted for guardianship, including the offspring of slaves and livestock. If this property (“product”) of the ward was put into circulation, then the profit went to the benefit of the guardian’s closest relative, “he fed and grieved with them.” This “buy-in” (profit) apparently also compensated for damage to the property accepted by the guardian after the death of the testator.
Following the conversion of Rus' to Christianity, marriage and family life were placed under the protection and supervision of the Church. And again, during the Kiev period, women's rights were not forgotten. According to the cited “Church Code”, the husband was subject to a fine in case of adultery. The daughter's rights were also protected, at least to a certain extent. If parents forced their daughter into marriage against her will and she committed suicide, they were held responsible for her death.
Taken from here - Kievan Rus. Table of contents.
Russian Truth, unlike similar codes of the West Slavic lands, does not introduce into legal life the concept of male co-guardians for widows, giving women significant independence. The basis for the widow's right to guardianship was not only her participation in the rights to common family property, but also the principles of parental authority, the authority of the mother in everyday life, which made her (albeit for a period limited by her second marriage) the sovereign head of the family. “So, if before the adoption of Christianity a man and a woman were relatively equal in their civil rights, then with its adoption, the civil rights of women undergo changes in the direction of derogation compared to the rights of men.”
But even in such a situation, customary Slavic law shows us particular resilience and does not limit the rights of the spouse in marriage as radically as was customary in Byzantium. According to the sources of Russian medieval law, even in such a situation, the influence of the Byzantine tradition on the nature of rights is limited; married women in Rus' have a wider range of rights than in Byzantium.
It should also dwell in more detail on the right of women to inherit from their husbands and fathers. Consideration of this issue in more detail is required in order to understand the possibility of women being the owners of their ancestral property. The inheritance of a wife was determined by the legislation of that period as follows: “If a wife marries, then she gets a share, and her children take a share; and what the husband invested in the nude is the mistress, and she doesn’t need her husband’s ass; whether there are children, then the children will take their mother’s first wife, whatever they put on the wife, they will take their mother either.”
Based on this passage, we can conclude that upon the death of her husband, the wife had the right to the same share in the inheritance that all sons received, unless the husband did not allocate part of his property to her during his lifetime. At the same time, D. Belyaev points out that if the husband, during his wife’s lifetime, registered part of his estate for her, then she no longer has the right to inheritance. In his opinion, in this case there is an attempt to reconcile the Slavic custom and the Nomocanon brought by the church.
According to the Nomocanon, if a wife did not have her own property or property registered for her by her husband, then she received a share from her husband’s inheritance the same as each of the children. A feature of inheritance according to Nomocanon was that the wife received her share not as property, only “for subsistence” in the presence of children and in full ownership in the absence of children. A. Kunitsyn, analyzing the rights of inheritance of wives, pointed out that the wife to the husband, according to the law of Russian Pravda , does not inherit. At the same time, he noted, “the husband can assign to his wife a part of his property as he deems good,” and the wife became the complete owner of this property.
For example, in the spiritual document of Ivan Kalita, along with other instructions, there is also an order that “the new village purchased in Kostroma, together with the purchase of grandmother Kalitina, the wife of Alexander Nevsky, the village of Pavlovsky, the testator refused to his wife.” L. Rudnev points out that the husband always assigned a share of the property to his wife and had to do this according to custom. This was an important change in a woman’s rights, according to Russian Truth, to the property she received; the woman became the full owner of this property and could dispose of it at her own discretion. “If previously a wife received a share from her husband’s estate only for living expenses, according to Russian Pravda she received such a share in full ownership, and if she married a second time, then after her death the children of her husband’s first wife did not have the right to her property if she She herself, of her own free will, did not refuse them her property.”
Over time, in the XIII-XIV centuries, women were equal in civil rights with men, which is reflected in the legal monuments of such important political and cultural centers as Novgorod and Pskov. According to V.A. Ryazanovsky's wife, when inheriting from her husband according to ancient Russian law and, accordingly, according to the Russian Pravda and the Pskov Judgment Charter, received a part of the property of the deceased husband in the amount of the part of each of the children.
According to Russian Pravda, it was also provided for the removal of a sister from participating in the inheritance of the estate after her father if there were brothers. It is compiled on the basis of Russian social customs. G.M. Danilova points out that “Russkaya Pravda directly considers the prince to be the direct heir of the deceased smerd. But if the smerd has unmarried daughters, then they also receive part of the inheritance (ass, as “Russkaya Pravda” calls it). If the daughters get married, they lose the right to inheritance according to “Russkaya Pravda”.
There is no such article in the Judgment Law, but, according to Belyaev, it is found in all Slavic legislation, according to which the sister was not allowed to participate in the inheritance; only the brothers had to arrange it according to their means. According to the Pskov Charter, there were no restrictions on the inheritance of daughters; according to it, both sons and daughters were recognized as full heirs, both among the boyars and peasants. This situation in inheritance law was very progressive for the period under review; it did not exist throughout Europe.
When inheriting according to Salic Truth, women were excluded from inheriting land, and when inheriting movable property they also had certain restrictions. But in the Burgundian and Visigothic truths, women had not only significant property rights and therefore property independence, but also the right to divorce.
According to the Visigothic truth, daughters had completely equal rights with sons in the matter of inheritance; the wife had broad rights in the custody of children and in the management of property, both premarital and joint. The order of inheritance in which the sister did not have equal rights to inheritance with her brothers should not be attributed, in my opinion, to norms that indicate the degraded position of women in Ancient Rus'.
In this case, P. Tsitovich’s indication that the basis for limiting inheritance is that a woman must eventually leave her home after getting married is justified, and this makes her “alien to those property interests that are linked into one whole by belonging to this family.” In this case, it should be recognized that the opinion is justified that “it was not so much gender itself that excluded the sister and brothers from participating in the inheritance, but the fact of her leaving the family, no matter whether this fact had already happened.”
It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that inheritance according to Russian Truth is inheritance by law, and it is quite possible that this order of inheritance could be changed and the father could leave an inheritance to his daughter, equal in share to his sons, or even bypassing the rights of his sons. In Russian Pravda, according to K.A. Nevolin, we will not find “a prohibition for any of the persons of free rank to draw up spiritual wills.” Therefore, everything that the husband transferred to his wife in the will could become her property.
Ostafiy Ananyevich Svoezemtsev wrote in the spiritual in 1393: “And my wife, who reigns supreme in my belly, is otherwise given to my belly; or she gets married, otherwise she will be given ten rubles.” According to this will, if the wife does not remarry, she becomes the full owner of all property. According to the Pskov Charter, all relatives of the same degree of kinship were given exactly the same rights to inheritance - both men and women (married and unmarried). Regarding the inheritance of a husband after a childless wife and a wife after a childless husband, Pskov law believed that one or the other received the estate only for lifelong possession and before entering into a second marriage.
Art. 89 of the Pskov Judicial Charter clearly regulates this issue; “...And a man’s wife dies, without handwriting, and her fatherland will remain with her, otherwise her husband will own that fatherland to his belly, only he will not marry, but will marry, otherwise there is no food for him.”
The issue of the widow's inheritance is also resolved. V. Nikolsky explains the lack of rights of a husband to inherit after his wife by the fact that the wife, who, in his opinion, herself acted as the property of her husband, could not have her own property. It is difficult to agree with such an opinion, since the article of Russian Pravda, containing, for example, the husband's responsibility for stealing from his wife would be completely meaningless if women could not have their own property.
In Russian Pravda, the issue of the right of inheritance of a husband after his wife was not regulated, but from the content of Art. 106, we can conclude that the husband received his wife’s property for lifelong use, and after his death, this property was inherited by his children born to this woman. The law established the order of inheritance for children after their mother. The mother, as stated, could have her own property: dowry, gift, etc. Russian Truth contains the following instruction: “...and children do not need motherly parts, but to whomever wants motherhood, give it to him: should it be given to everyone, to share everything; whether to die without a tongue, then whoever was in the yard was dead, and whoever fed her, he will be taken.”
This article indicates the full testamentary capacity of a woman, the ability of a woman to dispose of property among her children at her own discretion: the mother could bequeath her property to whomever she wanted, both her sons and her daughters; if she died without declaring her will, then the share of her property was taken by the one in whose house she lived and died, no matter whether it was a son or a daughter.
The legislation also established a special procedure for inheritance by children from two fathers and one mother. The children of different fathers each succeeded their own father; but they did not divide the estate of their fathers before inviting witnesses who knew the estate of both fathers and in whose presence the estate of their mother’s first husband was handed over strictly for safekeeping. These witnesses testified that such and such things constituted the estate of the first father, and some of the second. If at the same time there was no certain part of the first father’s estate, then it was replenished with an equal share from the estate of the second father, who had squandered his estate. When all this was accomplished, the children of the first father divided their father's estate, and the remainder was divided among the children of the second father.
This legalization was probably borrowed in its main provisions from the Eclogue of Leo the Philosopher, according to which the stepfather, accepting the estate of his wife’s children from her first husband, was obliged to provide him with his own estate, whereas according to Russian Pravda such provision was not required. As already noted, according to the Pskov Judicial Charter, the transfer of inheritance to daughters no longer existed only among the boyars, but also among the common population, while women also received the right to dispose of the land as they saw fit; she could draw up a will and independently determine her heirs.
We see an interesting example showing a woman’s right to dispose of land property when we get acquainted with the spiritual Aquilina; “her husband, Prince Fyodor, receives seven households and half of the mill as a feeding place, and the village on Kebi, a cage and a courtyard in the city - as an oderen; after the death of her husband, his feeding passes to the Monastery of the Assumption.” In this case, we see that the wife is the full owner of quite a large property, which she received either in the form of a dowry or by will or by civil contract.
In this case, it is clear that one cannot talk about a woman as a person excluded from civil law or having serious restrictions in the property sphere. If usually we are faced with the transfer by the husband of his property to his wife for use until her death or until remarriage, then here we are faced with the opposite example, the wife transfers property to her husband “for feeding”.
The norms of Russian Pravda also help to characterize the property capacity of women, which regulate the issue of inheritance of property by children from one father and two mothers: “...whether there will be children from (the second wife), then the first wife, then the children of their mother. Whatever you put on your wife, they will take it to your mother.” From this passage it follows that children from two wives divide the father’s estate equally, but the estate belonging to each of the wives was divided only between her children.
This division order was also borrowed from the Eclogue, since according to the Eclogue, a father who entered into a second marriage should not have denied the property of the first to his second wife. G.M. Danilova, having generally characterized the hereditary legal capacity of women, defines it as very developed: “Consequently, in “Russian Pravda” the land inheritance of a woman, especially from among feudal lords, is recognized as completely legal. The articles of “Russian Pravda” seem to complete the path of struggle for land inheritance that women went through during the genesis of feudalism both in Russia and in the West.”
To show in more detail the position of women in Old Russian society, it is necessary to dwell on the position of the widow. The Church called for such a woman to be considered as a person requiring care and guardianship from other persons. In the Charter on church courts, widows, along with other wretched persons and orphans, were associated with bringing a dowry into the house. Wives could dispose of movable property, a number of features. Since the introduction of Christianity in Rus', the order of guardianship was determined according to the Nomocanon, but with the victory of Russian legal customs over Roman-Byzantine customs, new laws on guardianship were issued.
According to the law of Russian Pravda, the following guardianship order was established: guardianship over young children and property belonging to them was assigned only if they had neither father nor mother alive, or when their mother got married for the second time. If she did not enter into a second marriage, then in relation to the children she completely replaced her husband, and had all his rights and became the head of the family - the children could not leave her obedience even if she left the house of her first husband and got married a second time , but then either the father’s relatives or the second, the mother’s husband, were appointed guardians.
This is apparently largely due to the important role that a woman played in society according to the customs that existed in Rus' before the adoption of Russian Truth, D.I. Belyaev writes in his work “Children, according to the old Russian custom and law, cannot escape complete obedience the widow’s mother until her death, for them he completely takes the place of the father.”
According to Russian Pravda, the position of a woman when she becomes the head of the family is described by P. Tsitovich as follows: “In this case, the mother has complete, no longer limited, family authority; the family will not fall apart if the mother does not want it; she will hold back her husband's house as a whole, i.e. and the former family personnel and the former set of property relations, linked together by their belonging to this family, the head of which was formerly a man, and now is a woman.”
At the same time, according to Russian Pravda, the mother is not responsible for the property to the children. Only upon entering into a second marriage did the mother have to compensate for the property losses that the children suffered during her guardianship. “Even if a wife grumbles about turning gray after her husband, and loses her earnings and marries her husband, then pay her everything with children.” When a widow married and the property of the deceased was transferred to guardians, such transfer was carried out in front of witnesses who were appointed from the society itself.
Guardianship ceased when the wards reached such maturity when they themselves became “pechelovati.” At the end of guardianship, when the children grew up, the guardian was obliged to hand over this estate, also in front of witnesses, and if any of it was spent by the guardians, then the guardians were obliged to pay for what was lost under guardianship . But until the end of the upbringing of the children, during the management of their estates, the guardians enjoyed all the income received from the land and from the entire estate.
An interesting example of the behavior of a stepfather, a squanderer of his stepson's property, is contained in birch bark letter No. 112 (ХШ); “Whoa Lar ou, bore my heifer, the heifer the water of my tribe, or the heavy weight, and go to the city of the horsemen on that charter of the Lord.” The explanation given by L.V. Cherepnin, comparing the text of the letter with the norms of legislation, quite convincingly proves that the letter is talking about a guardian, who is most likely either a close relative or most likely a stepfather, since along with him “master” is mentioned - “madam”, apparently a mother who got married a second time.
In practice, the norms of ancient Russian legislation, judging by the fact that we see in document No. 112 an appeal for the protection of rights to judicial and administrative bodies, were in effect. This provision supplemented the Judicial Law, which dealt only with guardianship and testamentary inheritance; there was no mention of legal guardianship.
The laws on guardianship, drawn up in addition to the Judgment Law, are borrowed from ancient Russian customs. Guardianship of young children was assigned according to Russian Pravda only in the Case when their mother remarried; According to Roman laws, guardianship was assigned over the mother herself. This order existed throughout Western Europe, where a woman was constantly under the guardianship of her father, husband, or eldest son, and the legislation of Western European states in their view of women differed sharply from ancient Russian legislation.
In Italy, men often included in their wills provisions for the loss of all property bequeathed to a woman if she remarried. Naturally, this situation, and the attitude towards the issue of remarriage of widows and widowers on the part of the church, complicated the opportunities for women to remarry. At the same time, a woman’s position largely depends on her personal characteristics, her income and social status.
And if, as a rule, speaking about the position of women in Italy in the 10th-13th centuries. we dwell on the fact that these are women who do not have full legal capacity throughout their lives and are under the guardianship of fathers, brothers, husbands and even adult sons, yet we see examples when women defend their property rights, and even leave their property in inheritance to the husband until “as long as he protects my bed.” At the same time, if we are talking about Portugal in the 12th century, then the laws here express an unambiguously positive attitude towards entering into a second marriage, both for widowers and for widows.
It should also be remembered that, in accordance with Russian Pravda, the widow herself could determine her heir, and it could be either her son or daughter, both from her first marriage and from the second, and in some cases her lateral relatives or even other persons. Important features of the legal status of women in Ancient Rus' can be seen if we consider the fact of the adoption of Timoshka by the widow Theodosya. The widow Fedosya, with the blessing of the church, adopts Timoshka and then makes him her heir and the heir of her deceased husband. This example shows the high social and legal status of a woman, giving her the opportunity to independently adopt and actually independently control the fate of her property, as well as the property left after the death of her husband, if he did not leave specific instructions in this regard, or the wife increased the family property after the death of her husband .
Women are considered in chronicle sources primarily as a predicate of men, as well as 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: Volodymerya, and after marriage - by her husband in the same possessive form as in the first case; Wed turnover: husband's wife, i.e. belonging to the husband.
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 the literal sense of the word, were under his complete subordination. 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 “educating” 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. So, “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 that “for any crime” (because of little things) “do not beat by sight, do not hit in the heart with a fist, or a kick, or a staff, or 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. It is not for nothing that it was immediately explained that those who “beat like this from the heart or from the torment have many stories from this: blindness and deafness, and a dislocated arm and leg, and a finger, and headaches, and dental disease, and for pregnant wives (that means They beat them too!) and in children the damage occurs in the womb."
That is why the advice was given to beat a wife not for every, but only for a serious offense, and not with anything or at random, but “on your shirt, beat it politely (gently!) with a whip, holding your hands.”
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 young children. Teenage boys were then handed over to “uncles” for training and upbringing (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).
