Since a person simultaneously exists, so to speak, in three hypostases - as a living, rational and social being, the material is presented in three sections: nature, man and society. Of course, such a structure is largely arbitrary, so many issues overlap with each other. I hope this will not make it difficult to understand further lecture material, and maybe even allow you to create a fairly voluminous image systems of spiritual values of people of Ancient Rus'.
Nature
It seems that our vision of the surrounding reality is the only possible and completely “natural” one. It seems us direct. In fact, it is mediated by many categories that are present in our consciousness in an implicit form and are so familiar that we simply do not notice them. And the less noticeable they are, the more power they have over a person’s perception, the more it depends on them what image of the surrounding world appears to him normal. And the less they are accessible to awareness both by the bearer of these concepts and images and by an outsider. And yet, let us try, as far as possible, to look into the “inner” world of man in Ancient Rus', to see the nature around him at least approximately as he himself saw it.
Quantity and number. Even such an abstract, abstract characteristic as a quantitative assessment of anything had a rather pronounced value significance for ancient Russian people. The idea of the sacred properties of number was widespread and implemented in a variety of areas of human activity. Numbers and numerical relations, as shown by the works of a number of researchers (V.M. Kirillin, V.N. Toporov, D. Petkanova, etc.), had, in addition to practical significance, also a symbolic and theological meaning. They reflected the essence of the highest unknowable truth and acted as a sacred means of understanding the world around us.
In this regard, in ancient Russian literary works, numbers were performed not only in documentary form. -factographic functions(when they determined the real amount of anything), but they could also be filled symbolic(as literary scholars say, tropic) content. In this case, they first of all conveyed sacred information and stated the divine meaning of the events taking place. You can also find in ancient Russian literary sources numbers that performed mixed functions, oriented simultaneously both to the phenomena of earthly life and to their ideal, divine prototypes.
This perception of quantity was based on a well-developed ancient world symbolism of numbers .
So, in the Christian tradition troika was considered a “complete and perfect number” (Augustine the Blessed); it was the number of the divine Trinity and the number of the soul constructed in its image; she was also a symbol of everything spiritual. In the earliest monuments, three appears as a typically epic number. Four was considered a symbol of the world and material things, signifying static integrity, an ideally stable structure. Seven - the number of a person, signifying his harmonious relationship to the world; it symbolized the sensual expression of the universal order, and was also a sign of the highest degree of knowledge of the divine mystery, the achievement of spiritual perfection. In addition, it was used as a symbol of eternal rest. Ten symbolized harmony and beauty. It was considered as the most perfect cosmic number. At the same time, the alchemists used it to designate matter. Number twelve in Christianity it was associated with the idea of perfection and symbolized renewed humanity (apparently through the Old Testament tradition, in which it was associated with the people of God). In addition, it denoted the earthly and heavenly Church. A typically biblical number was fourty . In Christian practice, it was associated with the idea of cleansing from sins and hope. It symbolized prayer and preparation for a new life.
The author was often more interested in actual sizes of the described object, and its symbolic connection - through numbers expressing its dimensions or proportions - with some sacred image, say, Solomon's Temple (20 x 60 x 120) or Noah's Ark (50 x 300 x 30), etc. This is especially important to consider when the source contains “round” numbers. According to the fair remark of D. Petkanova,
“there was no blind faith in round numbers in medieval literature, they were not perceived as documentary numbers, they had to be considered as conditional or approximate, sometimes they could be close to the truth, but in no case were they historically accurate.”
The symbolic interpretation of numbers (numerology) had a wide scope, since most of the letters of the Slavic alphabet, borrowed from the Greek alphabet, could serve as numbers. Consequently, almost every word had a quantitative expression, since it could be considered as the sum of the “digits” of which it consisted. It is enough to recall the already mentioned equation of “Latins” 666 - the number of the apocalyptic Beast (Antichrist). (See Appendix 5: “Could Kyiv be the New Jerusalem?”)
The specificity of the perception of the world by one or another ethnic group, one or another culture, one or another civilization is manifested, first of all, in the peculiarities of the perception of space and time.
Image space - an integral part of a holistic picture of the world. Objectively existing space is subjectively experienced and perceived by people, and in different historical eras and in different countries in different ways. The Middle Ages, both Western European and domestic, tended to endow space with religious and ethical features. Jerusalem was considered the center of the Earth - literally and figuratively - and the Temple of the Lord was considered the center of Jerusalem. The “Navel of the Earth” was surrounded by “righteous” and “sinful” countries. Some of them were “closer” to heaven, others to hell; some - to the world above, others - to the world below; some - to the sky, others - to the earth.
Moreover, this sacred topography could change from time to time depending on the righteousness or sinfulness of the population of a particular land. At the same time, the spiritual center of the world could also change. The “New Jerusalem” could find a very concrete embodiment, theoretically, in any city that took upon itself the care of universal salvation. In practice, it became - for the reasons already mentioned - a city that claimed to be the center of the “Russian” land.
This idea also explains the extremely high authority in national culture. The prince's political activities were aimed at subjugating North-Eastern and North-Western Rus' to the Golden Horde. But his uncompromising opposition to the Catholic world, the defense of the ideals of Orthodoxy from the “distorted” (in the language of a later time) faith of the “Latins” made him a hero who took the entire Orthodox world under his protection.
At the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, after the fall of Constantinople under the blows of the Ottoman Empire, the theory “Moscow is the third Rome” was formed on the basis of these ideas. It was about moving the world Orthodox center to the capital of the Muscovite kingdom. The young unified state, which arose on the ruins of the Western Ulus of the Great Mongol Empire, was perceived as the last stronghold of the right faith: “ two Romes fall, and the third stands, and the fourth will not exist" It is important to note that in this phrase the logical emphasis shifts from the theme of exclusivity (“ the third one is worth") to the problem of high responsibility (" there won't be a fourth") of the Russian state. The consolidation of this idea was embodied in the crowning of the Moscow sovereign, the organization of the urban space of the capital, the construction of the stunning Church of the Intercession on the Moat (St. Basil's) and, finally, in the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate. It is significant that, according to the testimony of foreigners who visited Moscow at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries, residents called the central part of the city Constantinople, and the Church of the Intercession - Jerusalem.
Such sentiments were subsequently reflected in the strange (for our contemporary reader), but symptomatic words that in “The Tale of Magmet-Saltan” Ivan Peresvetov put into the mouths of Orthodox Greeks arguing with the “Latins”:
« Eatwe have a kingdom in waves and a king in waves, the blessed Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, and in that kingdom there is great God’s mercy and the banner of God, holy miracle workers, like the first - such is the mercy of God from them, like from the first.”
Their opponents “agree” with them: “ That is the truth" They supposedly saw for themselves that “ God's mercy is great in that land».
« All the good things that were with you passed through the grace of Christ to us in Moscow»
« We had a pious king, but now he doesn’t. And to that place the Lord God raised up a pious king in Moscow».
No less indicative are the assurances of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich addressed to the Greek merchants:
“I accepted the obligation that if God wills, I will sacrifice my army, treasury and even my blood for them [the Greeks] deliverance».
Why did the Greeks call the king " pillar of faith», « assistant in the Vedas», « liberator", they ask him
“Take... the highest throne of the great Tsar Constantine, your great-grandfather, so that the pious people and Orthodox Christians will be freed from wicked hands, from fierce beasts that eat mercilessly.”
Nikon's church reforms led to the most difficult crisis in the spiritual life of Rus', which entailed a conflict between the spiritual and secular rulers. As a result, the ideas of the “third Rome” as the secular center of the “Holy Roman Empire” and the “new Jerusalem” as the spiritual center of the Orthodox world turned out to be divided. Construction New Jerusalem The monastery, the symbolism of the name of which was continued in the place where it was built (meridian of Jerusalem), and in the appearance of the monastery church (created according to the model of the Jerusalem Temple of the Lord), emphasized what happened.
The final point in the sacred perception of geographical space was set by Peter I, who moved the secular capital of Russia to the north, to St. Petersburg, while Moscow continued to remain the capital of the Russian Orthodox Church. It should probably be emphasized that the construction of the new capital began with the foundation of the Church of St. Apostles Peter and Paul. Let me remind you that it was the appearance in Constantinople of the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul marked its transformation into the capital of the Roman Empire, and the construction of the Cathedral of the Apostles Peter and Paul by Clovis on the left bank of the Seine is perceived by researchers, in particular, S. Le-bec, as evidence
“his thoughtful policy, the policy of a man who took seriously the recent recognition of him by the emperor and intended to surround himself, his family, and his power with an aura of holiness.”
Perception not only of the “geographical” world as a whole, but also of individual cardinal directions was also associated with value characteristics. Thus, in Rus' there was a fairly widespread attitude to the south as to the “God’s chosen” side of the world. For example, in the Old Russian translation of Josephus Flavius’ “The Jewish War,” a fragrant south wind blows over the place of the afterlife of blessed souls; In the Russian Church there has long been a chorus to stichera called “ God is from the south ».
An example of such an attitude would be the mention of “ the spirit of the south "in "The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev." It undoubtedly had a primarily symbolic meaning for the medieval author and reader.
According to the Legend, at the height of the battle, the Tatar regiments greatly pushed back the Russians. Prince Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovskoy, watching with pain the death " Orthodox army ", invites the governor Bobrok to immediately join the battle. Bobrok dissuades the prince from hasty actions, urging him to wait for “the time like” in which “ the grace of God can be" It’s interesting that Bobrok names the exact hour when “ time is like» — « eighth hour"(eight o'clock in the afternoon, according to the ancient Russian clock system). It was then, as Volynets predicted, “ the spirit of the south pulled them from behind».
“sing Volynets: “...The hour has come, and the time is drawing near..., for the power of the Holy Spirit helps us.”
From this, by the way, according to the well-founded opinion of V.N. Rudakov, it follows that the entry of the ambush regiment into battle was not connected with the real events of the Battle of Kulikovo. Bobrok Volynsky, if you follow the logic of the author of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev,” did not at all choose the moment when the Tatars would expose their flank to the Russians (as L.G. Beskrovny assumed), or when the sun would stop shining in the eyes of the Russian regiments (as A. . N. Kirpichnikov). The most widespread opinion in historical literature, that an experienced commander expected a change in the direction of the wind from headwind to tailwind, is also not confirmed. The fact is that the “southern spirit” mentioned in the “Tale” could under no circumstances be a companion for Dmitry Donskoy’s comrades-in-arms (and therefore, help them). Russian regiments on the Kulikovo Field advanced from north to south. Consequently, the south wind could only blow in their faces, hindering their advance. At the same time, any confusion in the author’s use of geographical terms is completely excluded. The creator of “The Tale” was completely free to navigate the geographical space. He accurately indicated: Mamai is moving towards Rus' from the east, the Danube River is in the west, etc.
Another similar example could be the “testimony” of the robber Foma Katsibeev. To him " God is revealed... the vision is great»: « from the east"a cloud appeared (Horde people), " like some bastards, go to the west». « From the midday country" (i.e. from the south) " I got two boys"(meaning Boris and Gleb), who helped the Russian regiments defeat the enemy.
Not only the countries of the world had value content for the ancient Russian people, but also the concepts top And bottom, right And left sides (with a positive and negative sign in both cases, respectively).
Let us explain how this was manifested in the sources using a specific example.
On Saturday night from June 29 to 30, 1174, Andrei Bogolyubsky was killed in his chambers. The so-called “Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky” contains a detailed account of the last hours of the life of the Grand Duke of Vladimir. Here, in particular, it was mentioned how at the end of the tragedy the leader of the murderers, Pyotr Kuchkovich, cut off Andrei’s “right” hand, which allegedly led to the death of the prince. However, when studying the remains of Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1934, doctors discovered that it was not his right hand that was cut off (it was not damaged at all), but his left hand. Experts suggested that there was a mistake in the story or that the chronicler used this detail as an artistic device “to thicken the colors and enhance the effect.” At the same time, undoubtedly, the author of the Tale knew which hand the killers cut off. The miniature of the Radzivilov Chronicle, illustrating the story of the death of Andrei Yuryevich, depicts a woman standing next to the defeated prince and holding a severed hand - namely the left one, not the right one.
What made the chronicler “deviate from the truth” (in our sense of the word)?
The Gospel of Matthew says:
"And if right your hand offends you, cut it off and throw it away from you.” (Italics are mine. - I.D.)
How could the right hand “seduce” Andrei? The answer can be found in the Apocalypse. People who worship the Antichrist
“there will be a mark on right hand" (Italics are mine. - I.D.)
with the name of the “beast” or the number of its name. At the same time, the description of the “beast” itself, seen by John the Theologian, is very remarkable - it is very close to the description in the chronicle of Andrei Bogolyubsky himself. The "beast" has great power, his head
“as if mortally wounded; but this mortal wound was healed"
(Andrei was killed by the killers and his head, but after they left he began to call for help and even tried to hide from his pursuers under the stairs). His mouth speaks "proudly and blasphemously"
“and it was given to him to make war with the saints and overcome them; and authority was given to him over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.”
He "has the wound of the sword and is alive." The description of the “beast” ends with the maxim:
“He who kills with the sword must himself be killed with the sword.”
It was not without reason that before the murder, Andrei’s servant, the housekeeper Anbal, stole from the prince a sword that belonged to St. Boris.
One way or another, the cutting off of Andrei Bogolyubsky’s right hand (according to the Tale) can well be considered as a condemnation of him, if not as the Antichrist himself, then, in any case, as his servant. This is also indicated by the fact that, according to the author of the Tale, Andrei “ having washed his sins with the blood of a martyr "(my italics - I.D.), i.e., the martyr's end seemed to atone for the sins (and, apparently, considerable ones!) of the prince.
As we see, the mention of “specific” spatial details in descriptions of events could and did perform a slightly different function in ancient Russian literature than in modern artistic culture, and this occurred in connection with a fundamentally different value orientation of ancient Russian spiritual culture.
The above examples, among other things, show that in medieval perception space was not separated from time, forming a kind of space-time continuum, which in scientific literature is usually called chronotope.
Time , like space, in the consciousness of ancient Russian people was endowed with moral and ethical value. Almost any calendar date was considered by him in the context of its real or symbolic content. This can be judged even by the frequency of certain calendar references. Thus, in The Tale of Bygone Years, Monday and Tuesday are mentioned only once, Wednesday - twice, Thursday - three times, Friday - five times, Saturday - 9, and Sunday (“week”) - as many as 17! Naturally, this speaks not so much about “love” or, on the contrary, dislike for certain days, how much about their “filling” with events that interested the chronicler and his readers. For example, the foundation and consecration of churches and the transfer of relics usually took place on Saturdays and Sundays.
Contrary to the theory of probability (and modern common sense), events are also unevenly distributed in relation to individual numbers of months. For example, in the Pskov I Chronicle there are calendar dates (January 5, February 2, July 20, August 1 and 18, September 1, October 1 and 26), which account for 6 to 8 events throughout the chronicle text. At the same time, a number of dates (January 3, 8, 19 and 25, February 1, 8 and 14, etc.) are not mentioned at all by the compilers of the code. Such “oddities” of dates are explained by the value attitude of ancient Russian scribes to them.
For example, battles usually took place on Fridays. Mentions of battles were so often associated with the word “ heels"(Friday), that one of the apparently not very educated researchers of the last century even decided that this word denoted the battle order of the Russian troops. In his opinion, it resembled the Roman numeral V. The matter then ended in embarrassment. However, the mythical “order of battle” nevertheless penetrated into fiction and even into the film “Primordial Rus'”. By the way, N.M. Karamzin dated the Battle of Kalka to 1224 precisely because in that year May 31 (mentioned in the chronicles as the calendar date of the battle) fell on a Friday.
How deeply the symbolic content of dates was perceived in Ancient Rus' is shown by the following example. In “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” following the description of the solar eclipse observed by the army of the Novgorod-Seversk prince while crossing the Don, the following text follows:
“The prince’s mind fell asleep of lust, and pity was a sign for him to tempt the great Don. “I want,” he said, “to break the end of the Polovtsian field with you, Russians; I want to lay on my head, but I would like to drink the helmet of the Don.”
Its meaning will not be completely clear if you do not take into account that the eclipse occurred on May 1, St. prophet Jeremiah. In the prophecy of Jeremiah there are words that echo in meaning the “speech” of Igor:
“And now why do you go to Egypt to drink water from the Nile? and why do you go to Assyria to drink water from its river?
They contain a reproach to Igor and, one might say, a “scenario” for the subsequent tragic events. Igor, however, ignored the prophetic warning, which he himself indirectly quoted, and was punished accordingly.
As for calendar dates, their frequent mention or, conversely, the desire to avoid such mention was primarily due to the fact that it was considered given number happy or not. As already mentioned, in Ancient Rus' there was a huge number of apocryphal “false” (forbidden) books - various “Lunniks”, “Gromovniki”, “Astrology”, treatises “On the Chikhir star, what is it worth”, “On the evil days of the moon”, “ About the lunar flow”, “Rafli’s Books”, etc., which described in detail the “qualities” of calendar dates and gave recommendations: is it possible to “open the blood” (one of the main methods of treatment) on this day or, say, start some - the matter is how the fate of the child born on this day will turn out, etc.
In addition, there were clear church calendar regulations, mostly of a prohibitive nature. The most well-known food and behavioral prohibitions associated with fasts: multi-day fasts - Great (seven weeks before Easter), Petrine or Apostolic (from six weeks to seven days - depending on the date of Easter), Dormition or Lady (from 1 to 15 August ), Christmas or Filippov (forty-day - from November 14 to December 24), as well as one-day - on Wednesdays and Fridays (except for the weeks of Easter, Trinity, Yuletide, the tax collector and the Pharisee, cheese), on the Feast of the Exaltation (September 14), day The beheading of John the Baptist (August 29) and on the eve of the Epiphany (January 5). In addition, there were other restrictions. For example, marriages were not celebrated on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, on the days of the twelve, temple and great holidays, as well as during all multi-day fasts, Christmastide (from December 25 to January 7), Maslenitsa, cheese week, Easter, on the days of the Beheading John the Baptist and the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
A very detailed system for regulating sexual relations was developed, filled with various prohibitions and limiting sexual relations to approximately 100 days a year. For example, in Ancient Rus', apparently, it was the practice of parish priests to condemn parents who conceived a child on Friday, Saturday or Sunday:
“The child will be either a thief, or a robber, or a fornicator, or a trembler” .
Annual (chronographic) dates also had symbolic and ethical content. More often, however, this applied to multi-year periods. But there were year numbers that occupied the thoughts of our ancestors in themselves. First of all, we are talking about the date of the “end of time”, which was very intensely expected in Ancient Rus', as well as throughout the Christian world - the second coming of Christ, followed by the inexorable Last Judgment. The Holy Scriptures repeatedly emphasize that the date of the end of the world is in the power of God. Neither people nor angels can know her. Nevertheless, many medieval “promuzki” tried to calculate it, relying either on the prophecy of Daniel, then on the 3rd book of Ezra, then on the “Gospel of Matthew”, then on the “Apocalypse”, or on some apocryphal works that were not accepted Christian canon.
Undoubtedly, the most common “potential” date for the end of the world in Rus' was considered 7000 from the Creation of the world. This point of view was based on the biblical book of Genesis, according to which the world was created in six days, and on the seventh day God rested from work. This calculation was made based on the Old and New Testaments, where it is repeatedly mentioned that one divine day is equal to a thousand “normal” years:
“In Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday when it is past.”
“With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
At the end of the seventh thousand-year “day” the “kingdom of glory” should begin. It was customary to divide even the history of mankind into “six days”: from the creation of Adam to the flood, from the flood to Abraham, from Abraham to David, from David to the Babylonian captivity, from the captivity to the Nativity of Christ and, finally, from Christmas to the Last Judgment. This tradition is reflected in many literary monuments Ancient Rus', including the Tale of Bygone Years.
There were, however, other points of view on the possible date of the Last Judgment. Thus, the first Slavic complete Bible (named after the Novgorod archbishop who translated all the canonical books of the “Holy Scripture” in 1499, Gennadievskaya) ends with the following reasoning:
« And after the renunciation that was spoken [ this implies the release of the devil “for a short time” before the end of the world] let us think: The evangelist said that the devil is bound for a thousand years. How soon would it be possible to bind him? From the entry into hell of our Lord Jesus Christ in the year five thousand, five hundred and thirty-three, and even until the year six thousand, five hundred and thirty-three, a thousand years will be completed. And so Satan will abandon himself according to the righteous judgment of God and deceive the world until the time told to him, which is three and a half years, and then there will be an end. Amen. "
It follows from this that after 6537 from the Creation of the world (apparently 1037 AD), the expectation of the end of the world acquired special tension in Rus'. Let me remind you that it was precisely at this moment that the already mentioned construction of the Church of St. by Yaroslav the Wise in Kyiv was timed. Sophia and the Golden Gate, the monasteries of St. George and Irina, pronouncing the Word about Law and Grace, as well as the creation of the so-called “Ancient Chronicle Code”. According to the Revelation of Methodius of Patara, the years in which the 9th Indictment fell were considered equally “favorable” for the end of the world.
In addition, in Russian literature there were a huge number of descriptions of various signs that should have directly foreshadowed the approach of the “last” time. Some of them also had a calendar form. For example, it was believed that the end of the world would come in the year when Easter falls on the Annunciation (March 25). It is no coincidence that such coincidences were carefully calculated and recorded. Let us remember, by the way, that it was precisely this coincidence (although not entirely accurate: March 25, 1038 fell on Holy Saturday, when the “Word” was read) that Metropolitan Hilarion encountered when he wrote the “Sermon on Law and Grace.”
Since the end of time did not come at any of the “designated” dates, society experienced a colossal ideological crisis. Disappointment in the never-coming “Kingdom of Glory” led to significant changes in the system of existential values and became the mental basis of the ideological and political upheavals that our country experienced in the 16th and early 17th centuries.
In particular, the horrors of the oprichnina were to some extent explained as follows: Ivan the Terrible, until a certain moment, could not imagine that he would stand at the Last Judgment next to his victims. Moreover, he assumed the role of representative of God's court on earth. The justice of the punishments “generously” distributed to them was affirmed by the thought that God punishes sinners not only in the underworld, but also on earth, not only after death, but also during life:
“I confess and we know that not only there is torment, even for those who live evil, who transgress the commandments of God, but here too, God’s righteous wrath, for their evil deeds, they drink the cup of the Lord’s wrath and punish the tormentor with manifold punishments; after the departure of this light, the bitterest condemnation is acceptable...”
The sovereign considered his power to be the instrument of such just retribution on behalf of God himself. In his letter to Kurbsky, he wrote about the need to condemn villains and traitors to torment and death, referring to the authority of the Apostle Jude, who ordered to save people “by fear” (Jude 1.22-23). Following tradition, the king confirmed his thought with other quotations from the Holy Scriptures, including the words of the Apostle Paul:
« If anyone is unlawfully tortured, that is, not for faith, he will not be crowned»
Space and time did not exist for the people of the Middle Ages on their own; they were inseparable from the land on which man lived. Accordingly, it also acquired value content and was comprehended.
"Created World" in general, was perceived by our ancestors primarily symbolically. The worldview of the inhabitants of Ancient Rus' was based, in relatively later language, on “silent theology.” That is why in Rus' we do not find theological treatises of the Western European type. The Orthodox believer sought to comprehend divine revelation not through scholastic reasoning or observation, not with reason or “external” gaze, like, say, a Catholic, but with “inner eyes.” The essence of the world cannot be understood. It is comprehended only by “immersion” in veracious texts and canonical images, approved by the authority of the church fathers and enshrined in tradition. That is why the hesychasm of George Palamas found such distribution here.
In Ancient Rus' we do not encounter images that strive for illusoryness, photographic accuracy in conveying the external features of the visible world, like Western European painting. In Russia until the end of the 17th century. dominated both painting and literature icon- a special figurative perception and display of the world. Everything here was strictly regulated: plot, composition, even color. That is why, at first glance, ancient Russian icons are so “similar” to each other. But it’s worth taking a closer look at them - after all, they are designed for a person to look at them during daily prayer for several hours - and we will see how different they are in their inner world, mood, feelings, laid down by nameless artists of the past. In addition, each element of the icon - from the character’s gesture to the absence of any required details - carries a number of meanings. But in order to penetrate them, you must master the language in which the ancient Russian “icon” (in the broad sense of the word) speaks to the viewer. This is best expressed in “open” texts, which directly explain to the reader what is meant by each specific image. Let's give a few examples.
This is how some animals and birds were described in Ancient Rus'.
Physiologist and about the lion. Three natures imate lion. Whenever a lioness gives birth, she is dead and gives birth blindly [the cub], seditje and watches until the third day. After three days a lion will come and blow in his nostrils and will come to life. So about the faithful pagans [about the converted pagans] . Formerly baptisms are dead, but after baptism they are enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
Second nature lvovo. When he sleeps, his eyes watch. Such is our Lord’s speech to the Jews, as if: “I sleep, but My divine eyes and my heart are vigilant.” >
And the third nature is lvovo: when the lioness runs away, she covers her feet with her tail. Yes, the catcher cannot catch [find] a trace of him. So, too, man, when you do alms, your left hand does not sense what your right hand is doing, so that the devil does not forbid the work of your thoughts.”
"About the Tawny Owl [Pelican] . The tawny owl is a child-loving bird. Peck my wife[female] ribs with your chick. And he[male] comes from its feeding[with food] . They peck their ribs, and the flowing blood revives the chick.
So is our Lord from the Jews [the Jews] led him through with a copy of his rib. Blood and water came out. And revive the universe, that is, the dead. The prophet shared and said this, as if he were like the tawny owl of the desert
Already from the given examples it is clear that in the system of traditional folk ideas about the world around us, animals simultaneously appear as natural objects, and as a type of mythological characters. In the book tradition there are almost no descriptions of “real” animals; even in “natural science” treatises the fabulous element predominates. It seems that the authors did not seek to convey any specific information about real animals, but tried to form in the reader some ideas about their symbolic essence. These ideas are based on the traditions of different cultures recorded in written sources.
Animal symbols are not “doubles” of their real prototypes. The indispensable presence of fantasy in stories about animals led to the fact that the described animal could bear the name of an animal or bird well known to the reader, but differ sharply from it in its properties. From the prototype character, often only his verbal shell (name) remained. In this case, the image usually did not correlate with a set of features corresponding to given name and forming the image of an animal in everyday consciousness, which once again confirms the isolation from each other of two systems of knowledge about nature: “book” and “practical”.
Within this description of the animal, the following distribution of real and fantastic properties can be noted. Often an object is described according to its biological nature; Such texts are most likely based on practical observations. For example:
Oh foxes. The physiologist talks about foxes having a flattering belly. If you are hungry and want to eat, you will not find it bohma [will not find anything at all] , looking for a vezha[outbuilding] or spittoon[a barn where straw or chaff is stored] and lie down, as a sign of attracting the soul within you, and lie down as if you were dead. And if the bird thought it had died, it would sit on it and begin to peck at it. You then jump up soon, grab me and carry me away
The story about the woodpecker is based on a description of the woodpecker’s ability to chisel trees with its beak; in the description of the cuckoo, the emphasis is on the habit of this bird of laying eggs in other people’s nests; The amazing skill of the beaver in building a dwelling, and the swallow in constructing its nest, is noted.
Sometimes a real object was endowed with only fictitious properties. In this case, the connection between the character and the real animal was preserved only in the name. This is how, say, the relationship of the name “ beaver" and descriptions " Indian“a beaver, from whose entrails musk is extracted, as well as some kind of predatory animal (possibly a tiger or wolverine; in any case, in the miniatures it was depicted as striped and with huge claws). " Ox" could mean not only the pet bos bubalus, but also " Indian» an ox, which, afraid of losing even one hair from its tail, stands motionless if its tail catches on a tree, as well as a mythical sea predator. In addition, it was believed that in India there were huge oxen (between whose horns a person could sit), oxen with three horns and three legs, and, finally, oxen " reserves", whose long horns do not allow them to move forward. Salamander is the name of a lizard, as well as a poisonous snake and an animal the size of a dog that can extinguish fire.
So, depending on the semantic content, the same animal name could mean either a real animal or a fantasy character. A set of properties that, from the point of view of the modern reader, have no basis in reality, were often correlated with the names of animals from distant countries and determined the ideas of the medieval reader about them. Thus, in the “Physiologist” it was said about the elephant that in order to give birth to offspring, he needed the mandrake root, and when he fell, he could not get up, since there were no joints in his knees. It was also said here that panfir(panther, leopard) has the ability to sleep for three days, and on the fourth day to lure other animals to itself with its fragrance and voice. Velbudopardus(giraffe) seemed to be a cross between a pard (lynx) and a camel.
The most widespread descriptions were those in which the animal was endowed with both real and fictitious characteristics. Thus, in addition to the raven’s predilection for carrion and the custom of these birds forming mating pairs, ancient Russian descriptions included the story that the corvid does not drink water in the month of July, because he is punished by God for neglecting his chicks, as well as evidence that a thief can “revive "boiled eggs using a herb known to him alone. It was believed that the bird Erody(the seagull) is able to distinguish Christians who know Greek from people " other knee" There was a story that enudr(otter) kills a sleeping crocodile, reaching through its open mouth to its entrails. Given a fairly accurate description of the dolphin's habits (it comes to the aid of people drowning in the sea, etc.), the author of such a treatise could call it zelfin bird, and on ancient miniature a pair of dolphins is depicted ( two delphimon), saving Saint Basil the New, in the form of two... dogs.
The coincidence of characters that arose as a result of the redistribution of characteristics was eliminated by assigning one of them (most often the one in whose description fabulous properties predominated, or it correlated with a “foreign”, exotic region - India, Ethiopia, Arabia, etc.) unusual (foreign language ) name. This, as it were, removed the possible discrepancy between any properties of the object and the usual set of features, united under “its own” familiar name. So, " Indian"The beaver also had the name " muskous (musk, mus, mus))».
It should be borne in mind that the free application of attributes to the character’s name played an important role in the symbolic interpretation of its properties. The most authoritative specialist in the study of animal symbolism in ancient Russian literature, O. V. Belova, notes cases when a set of characteristics completely passed from one name to another, and an object bearing a name that took on someone else’s characteristics received a new property. Thus, having first found themselves united in their characteristics, the hyena and the bear subsequently “exchanged” their names. In ancient Russian alphabet books the word owena along with the meanings “a wild beast imitating a human voice”, “a mythical poisonous beast with a human face, covered in snakes”, “a feline beast” it has the meaning “bear, she-bear”.
From the point of view of medieval bookishness, such descriptions were not examples of pure fiction. Any “natural science” information was taken for granted, being supported by authoritative sources.
“Whether there is truth or falsehood, one does not know. But you found this in books and were forced to write it here. The same is true of animals, and of birds, and of trees, and of grass, and of fish, and of stones.”
- notes the compiler of one of the alphabet books. For a book “scientific” description of animals, the real-unreal attribute is not decisive.
The names of animals were regarded as originally given by Divine Providence. The article “On the naming of cattle and beasts and creeping things” tells:
In the days of the first-created man Adam, the Lord God came to earth to visit her and all his creatures that he himself had created. And the Lord called all the livestock of the earth and all the birds that soar, and brought them before the face of Adam and set them with him, and called the name of all. And Adam called the names of all the livestock of the earth, and beasts, and birds, and fish, and creeping things, and bogeymen [ insects ]
Moreover, these names were given so successfully and so accurately reflected the essence of all creatures that God did not consider it possible to change them even after the fall of the first people.
All animals and all their properties, real and fictitious, are considered by ancient Russian scribes from the point of view of the secret moralizing meaning contained in them. The symbolism of animals provided abundant material for medieval moralists. In The Physiologist and similar monuments, every animal, be it a supernatural creature (unicorn, centaur, phoenix), an exotic animal from distant lands (elephant, lion) or a well-known creature (fox, hedgehog, partridge, beaver) is amazing. All " Chodesti and Letestii“creatures appear in their hidden function, accessible only to spiritual insight. Each animal “means” something, and there can be several meanings, often opposite ones. These symbols can be classified as “dissimilar images”: they are based not on obvious similarities, but on difficult-to-explain, traditionally fixed semantic identities. The idea of external similarity is alien to them.
In the context of the culture of Ancient Rus', a living creature, deprived of its symbolic meaning, opposes the harmonious world order and simply does not exist in isolation from its meaning. No matter how interesting the properties of the animal being described may seem, the ancient Russian author always emphasized the primacy of symbolism over the actual description. For him, the names of animals are the names of symbols, and not of specific creatures, real or fantastic. The compilers of “Physiologists” did not set themselves the goal of giving more or less complete characteristics of the animals and birds they talked about. Among the properties of animals, only those with the help of which it was possible to find analogies with any theological concept or draw moral conclusions were noted.
Old Russian scribes perceived them in approximately the same way. stones , their nature, properties and qualities, color.
« 1st like Kamyk, called sardion[the ruby] is Babylonian, and is marked in the image, like blood. Those who travel to Asyria find lands in Babylon. It is transparent. There are healing powers in it, and swellings [tumors] form in it. ulcers caused by iron are anointed. This Kamyk is likened to Reuben the firstborn[Israel] , as strong and strong as you are, you will do better.”
« 3rd Kamyk Izraragd[emerald] is green. They dig them into Indian peas. There is light, you can see a human face in it, like in a mirror. This one is likened to Leugias [the son of Israel] - it is fitting for the saint and the priestly rank, who should not be ashamed of a human face»
Expanded symbolic system individual elements of “created nature” were embodied in derivative texts and images. So, on the icon “Miracle of St. George about the serpent” was depicted by St. George, sitting on a snow-white horse, in a red cloak fluttering in the wind, with a spear in his hand, striking a dark red serpent writhing under the horse’s hooves. In addition to the literal “illustration” of the corresponding hagiographic text, this icon is filled with many symbolic meanings. For example, St. himself George symbolizes the entire army of Christ, which, relying on the right faith (symbolized by the white horse), wages an irreconcilable and tireless struggle against the devilish forces (the serpent is a stable symbol of the devil, and the spear in the hands of the saint is a symbol of the overthrow and victory over Satan). These images are complemented and developed by the symbolism of color. The white color of the horse is the color of purity, a symbol of the all-conquering Holy Spirit. The blood red color of St.'s cloak. George corresponds to the color of the ruby (the necessary characteristic can be found in the text just quoted from “The Tale of the 12 Stones”). The dark red color of the serpent was associated with the color of the seventh stone - uakiif (yakhont), corresponding to the son of Jacob Dan, from whose line the Antichrist would be born.
When analyzing the symbolism of the color characteristics of objects in ancient Russian works of literature and art (with all the conventions of using these terms for Ancient Rus'), it should be remembered that the names of colors could differ significantly from the modern “generally accepted coloristic nomenclature”. If you lose sight of this point, you can find yourself in a very awkward position. Let me give you an example. In the Old Slavonic translation of the Pandects of Antiochus of the 11th century. we read the mysterious phrase:
« Whose eyes are blue, are they not in wine, and are they not watching the feast?»
Here the models of ethical and color spaces are fundamentally different from those familiar to us. A modern person will never understand what connection there can be between “blue” eyes and a tendency to abuse alcoholic beverages, unless he takes into account that at the time when this text was written, the word “blue” meant “dark, dark red (cherry ), brilliant". Without this, by the way, it is not clear why many icons have red(“blue, shiny, shining”) background.
Deviation from the established canon was not perceived by the medieval Russian reader. He was not interested in new stories. He preferred to reread already known works. Therefore, the composition of ancient Russian “collections” of literary works could remain unchanged for centuries, and each new chronicle collection necessarily included the texts of previous chronicles.
The most general and universal expression of Russian ideas Orthodox man about the world around him has always been Orthodox church . He kept that one image(not a model!) of the world, which was “theirs” for the people of Ancient Rus'.
The word “temple” itself, along with the words “church”, “cathedral”, means a special building for worship. Here, over the centuries, the most important Christian rituals and actions have been performed and continue to be performed today. In the temple, according to Christian ideas, a believer can enter into direct communication with God. Here a person turns to Him in prayer, enters into dialogue with the highest of the imaginable entities. This is the “number of prayer”, “ earth's sky", "house of God".
For our ancestors the temple was unique mirror the world in which they lived and of which they themselves were a part, and a very unique mirror. It reflected not an external appearance, but an internal image, hidden from the uninitiated. The image of the invisible icon(which is what “image” means in Greek). The phenomenon of the inexpressible. The temple was (and remains for believers) an “instrument” not even of knowledge, but of the sensation of truth through earthly, auxiliary images. Such figurative development proceeded from what was accessible to the “external” gaze to that which could only be comprehended by the inner gaze.
At the same time, the “pure meaning” of earthly things, phenomena and events could be transmitted both through “similar” (“similar”) images and through “dissimilar” (“dissimilar”) images.
“Similar” images, “for the sake of the weakness of our understanding” (John of Damascus, c. 675-753), in a certain form reflect prototypes (“archetypes”). “Dissimilar”, although they have a sensory-figurative “shell”, do not so much reflect, but rather denote the truth in certain signs and symbols, which require special decoding for a modern person. Their external form and what they are a sign of have nothing in common with each other. The correspondence between the appearance and content of the image is established through some kind of agreement (convention) between people. Therefore such symbolism sometimes called conventional. To the uninitiated, the meaning of such images is unclear. The sign doesn't tell them anything. Therefore, we find ourselves unable to “hear with our eyes” the voice of those who left these signs.
Which of us, say, would come to mind while looking at the fancy griffins (an image that came from the Ancient East) or good-natured lions sleeping with their eyes open on the walls of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, the Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir or the St. George Cathedral in Yuryev-Polsky, What are before us - unlike images of Jesus Christ?
And the less understandable to us is the “flow of metaphors and symbols pattern”, which is every ornamental motif decorating a temple without exception: from “ herbs marking" (a highly stylized image of a grapevine), symbolizing, metaphorically depicting and idea paradise, and the universe (being in a state of continuous creation, and therefore eternal), and the ideas of cyclicity, the rhythm of nature, the change of seasons, the alternation of day and night (i.e., all the basic patterns of living life), and concept human- microcosm(particular correspondence to the entire system of the universe - macrocosm), and the great sacrifice, which became for humanity the path to salvation and immortality, to the endless alternation of extremely generalized images of a flower and a fruit - a symbol of cyclically renewed eternity, or the repetition of stylized images of fan-shaped palm leaves - palmettes, inscribed in intersecting circles - a theme known as called "eternal return".
At the same time, earthly beauty, brought to the simplest, primordial forms in which the idea of the temple is embodied, became the path to the knowledge of absolute beauty - the beauty of those meanings that are embedded in idea temple.
The creators understood the Christian temple as harmonized cosmos. This image was formulated and developed by theologians of the early Middle Ages - Eusebius Pamphilus (264-340), Basil the Great (c. 330-379), etc. In their works, the concepts of the world and the temple flow into each other as artistic divine creations: the world is the temple of God's creation, the temple is the world of God.
The “Temple-Cosmos” was created and perceived as a symbolic, artistic and ideological “image of the world.” The classic image of its embodiment is the Constantinople Church of St. Sofia. This image of a harmonized cosmos turned out to be so universal that after the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks, the Hagia Sophia was converted into a Muslim mosque.
The original idea of the temple was supplemented and developed over time, complicated by new meanings. The development of the contemplative character of Eastern Christian spiritual life led, in particular, to the formation of the idea of the temple as “ symbolic image person" (Maxim the Confessor). The image of the external world (macrocosm) merges in the temple with the image of the inner world of man (microcosm). Moreover, their merging was not simple. Moreover, both of these images were in the insoluble - and constantly resolvable! - contradictions. Their unity formed the basis of the image of the ancient Russian temple.
The idea of a temple was further developed in Byzantium during the period of iconoclasm (8th - first half of the 9th centuries), when the idea of a “temple-cosmos” was transformed into the idea of a “temple - the earthly sky in which God lives and abides.” According to Patriarch Herman, now the temple is
“The divine house, where a mysterious life-giving sacrifice is performed, where there is an inner sanctuary, a sacred den, a tomb, and a soul-saving, life-giving meal.”
The temple, thus, also turned into a facet (border), separating and, at the same time, like any facet, connecting man and God, man and the Universe, which surrounded and at the same time filled his bodily shell (soul). The temple becomes not only a place of communication with the deity, but also an instrument (mediator) for a person to comprehend his own divine essence, the eternal, imperishable Self, a means of becoming consciousness.
For this, however, the idea of the temple had to be embodied and specific forms that would fully manifest (reveal) these meanings, make them accessible to the direct perception of the sense organs,
How ideas the temple is embodied in image temple?
The visual image of the temple is based on two elementary image-symbols that were formed in the East and came to the Christian world in different ways:
— cross(“earth”, a symbol of death and victory over it, resurrection, immortality, Christ) and
— dome, resting on four supports (palace - “visible, earthly sky”).
That is why churches are called cross-domed.
The combination of these symbols created an extremely complex multidimensional and multi-valued image, a complete “deciphering” of which is hardly possible.
The center, the core of the image is the God-man Jesus, whose death on the cross threw (as Christians believe) the only bridge of salvation across the abyss that lies between sinful man (“earth”) and holy God (“heaven”). This is the key that reveals to us the basis of the system of the external and internal appearance of the temple, its constituent elements and their interrelation. This structure had developed in Byzantium as a whole by the 9th century. and at the end of the 10th century. was transferred to Kievan Rus.
Let's go to the temple.
The temple is the first thing we see when approaching an old Russian city or village. Its dome is noticeable when the roofs of other buildings are not yet visible. And this is not only because the temple is the highest of them. The point is also that for its construction the architects selected a special - harmonious - place, the most advantageous for construction, clearly visible from different points. The subtly found harmonious consistency of architecture and nature enhanced the impact on the viewer. The temple seemed to grow out of the earth that gave birth to it. The image of “the temple - heaven on earth” received visual embodiment.
With rare exceptions, outwardly a Russian church (especially an early one) produces a very modest, often even ascetic impression. The decorations of its white stone facade (construction with bricks was prohibited by biblical norms), if there are any, never develop into decoration. There is no in vain, idle beauty. Everything is subordinated to one idea. Everything has its own meaning, or more precisely, meanings.
In each element and consisting of them holistic image contains several meanings, at least four: literal (it was, however, also divided into overt and secret), moral, symbolic and allegorical:
“Be aware that, according to a fair teacher, there is betrothal: in other words, in morals, in construction, in secret and in reality.”
The total number of meanings extracted (“read”) from a particular image could even reach several dozen.
The external appearance of the temple was intended for city-wide contemplation and therefore should have most directly expressed the idea “the temple is the earthly sky” embedded in it. This was achieved, first of all, due to the orientation of the temple to the cardinal points: the central axis of symmetry of the temple is located in the east-west direction. The entrance (or main entrance) to the temple is located on its western facade. From the east, the space of the temple is limited by semicircular, faceted or rectangular altar projections - apses. At the same time, the west symbolized the earth, death, the end of visible existence (the “dying” Sun at the end of the day), and the east symbolized the sky, life, rebirth and, finally, Jesus Christ, often called in prayers “ Sun of Truth», « East».
At the head of the dome, perpendicular to the axis of symmetry of the temple there is a cross. The upper end of the sloping lower crossbar points to the north - “ midnight countries" The number of heads of the temple is usually also considered symbolic (for example, a five-domed temple - Christ and four evangelists, a 13-domed temple - Christ and 12 apostles, etc.), but early sources do not make it possible to assert this with complete confidence.
The axis of the temple does not always coincide exactly with the geographical cardinal points. Obviously, this is due to the fact that in the absence of a compass, the builders used the points of sunrise and sunset on the day of the founding of the temple or on the day of the holiday to which it was dedicated as a guide.
The next important element of the external appearance of the temple is the decoration of the facade. Apparently, the external images divided the surface of the temple into three tiers, or registers. Each of them carried its own content. They symbolized the levels of ascent from sinful earth to heaven.
The lower tier symbolized the earth itself. At first, images here filled mainly the portals (entrances) and the lines of the consoles (protrusions in the wall supporting the cornice) of the arched columns of the frieze. These images meant evil forces, which were prohibited from accessing the interior of the temple and the upper parts of its walls. Subsequently, the lower tier of the walls was sometimes filled with images of the plant world.
The frieze that separated the lower tier from the middle one was a cosmitis - “ the dividing line of earthly and heavenly paradise", or (possibly) a symbol of the heavenly arcade (a series of identical arches supported by columns or pillars).
The second tier was identified with the world of the Divine in its unity with people. Here the pictures of the earthly mission of God unfolded - himself or through messengers. It is in this tier that we find the most “narrative” images. The characters here are God himself, people, animals, and sometimes the most fantastic “creatures” (griffins, whale-race centaurs, sirens, etc.), which, as we know, had symbolic meanings.
The upper, third tier is the sky itself. At first it remained empty. Then they began to fill it with images of God and senior figures of the church hierarchy.
Thus, moving along the walls of the temple from bottom to top, the images embodied a special view of the world - gradualism, representing a gradual transition from the world of plants and demonic faces through the images of people and animals to the image of God, which grew into the central, highest and most capacious symbol of Christianity, crowning the dome of the temple - the cross.
Moreover, the higher tiers are inaccessible to a person who has not entered the temple. He is doomed to remain at the plant level; of the earthly world, being himself only a “moving plant.”
In contrast to the external (very laconic) design, which is associated with modesty, unpretentiousness and austerity of the external life of a Christian, the complex internal structure and magnificent decoration of the interior of the temple, sometimes bordering on luxury, symbolizes the richness of the spiritual life of a believer.
The internal appearance of the temple is three-part in its structure. Its space is formed by walls, pillars supporting the dome, and special barriers. In the horizontal plane, the temple is divided into a vestibule ( narthex), ship ( nave) and altar ( konhu).
Narthex- the western part of the temple, separated from the middle - the temple itself - by a blank wall. Not only “true believers” could enter the vestibule, but also people who were prohibited from entering the main part of the temple - Gentiles and heretics. It symbolized the earth (Zephanios, Patriarch of Jerusalem).
Ship- the central part of the temple - was a prototype of the visible sky. Its somewhat strange name is associated with the idea that the church, like a ship, in the image of Noah’s Ark, draws the believer along the sea of life to a quiet haven in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Altar- the eastern part of the temple, separated from the nave by a special barrier. An iconostasis is usually located on the altar barrier. The altar is the throne of God, the most important part of the temple. Here, in the altar, lay people, as a rule, are not allowed (for women this is generally excluded). The altar is built on a raised platform, which has not only a symbolic, but also a practical meaning; everyone should be able to hear the service and see what is happening in the altar. The interior of the altar is covered with a curtain, which opens and closes during the service.
In the middle of the altar is located throne- the main accessory of a Christian temple. It is a rectangular table covered with two blankets (“ clothes"). It is believed that God is invisibly, secretly present on the throne as the King and Ruler of the church. Before communion and the consecration of the new church, they place on the altar antimens- a quadrangular linen or silk board with images of the position of Jesus Christ in the tomb and the four evangelists. Particles of the relics of saints are sewn into its corners (at first, Christian services were performed at the graves of saints).
During the service, the altar Gospel and cross, tabernacle and monstrance are placed on the antimension. The sacrament of communion is performed near the throne, and divine services are held.
The throne of the temple is consecrated in honor of some saint or event in Sacred history. This is where the temple gets its name. Often in one temple there are several altars, which are located in special altars - aisles. Each of them is consecrated in honor of its saint (event). But the entire temple is named after the main, central altar. Only the priest can touch the altar.
Behind the throne are the seven-branched candlestick and (behind it) the altar cross. At the very eastern wall of the altar there is a sublime high place, symbolizing the upper (higher) world. To the left of the throne, in the northern part of the altar, stands altar, where gifts for the sacrament of communion are prepared. On the right (south) side of the altar there is a sacristy, in which sacred vestments, church vessels and liturgical books are kept.
There are three doors in the altar barrier: "Royal" and deacon's(southern and northern) gate. It is believed that Jesus Christ himself, the “King of Glory,” invisibly passes through the Royal Doors in the Holy Gifts. Only a priest in full vestments can enter the Royal Doors. They contain images of the Annunciation and the Evangelists. Above them is the icon of the Last Supper.
The dais on which the altar and iconostasis stand protrudes forward into the ship. This elevation in front of the iconostasis is called salty. Its middle is called pulpit(which means “edge of the mountain, ascent”). From the pulpit, the deacon says litany (prayers), reads the gospel, and the priest reads sermons. Here the believers are given the sacrament. Along the edges of the salt, near the walls, they arrange choirs for readers and singers.
The central part of the temple, the sanctuary itself, is divided by pillars into so-called naves(ships). Vary central(limited by two rows of central pillars) and side ones - north and south(formed by pillars and a corresponding wall) - naves. The transverse nave is called transept. The semantic center of the nave (the space between the altar and the vestibule) is the crossing formed by the central nave and transept. Here, so to speak, is the vertical “semantic vector” of the temple.
The porch, corresponding to the courtyard of the Old Testament temple, where all the people were, has now almost completely lost its original meaning, although gravely sinners and apostates are still sent here to stand for correction.
Well-known symbolism was also contained in the trinity of the transverse division of the central-domed temple (central and side naves, altar, altar and deacon; Royal and Deaconal Doors), but it, apparently, was derivative and not system-forming.
In accordance with the semantic division of the horizontal plane of the temple, the cycles of paintings were distributed in it. The western part was reserved for Old Testament (“historical”) subjects. They partially occupied the walls of the main room, but only up to the pre-altar pillars on which the Annunciation was depicted. Here was the limit that separated pre-Christian and New Testament history.
Time thus acquired horizontal extension. A person entering the temple, as he moved towards the altar, repeated the entire path of humanity - from the creation of the world to the Nativity and the sufferings of the Savior on the cross, from His resurrection to the Last Judgment, the image of which was on the western wall of the central nave.
However, there was also cyclical time, into which the entire life of a medieval person fit. In the XI-XII centuries. In Rus', the Byzantine tradition of arranging temple Christological paintings was widespread. She invited the “spectator” to a circular movement in the interior of the temple, which was entirely consistent with the “cyclical-temporal” symbolism of the central domed structure. The Gospel story, according to this tradition, originates at the northern end of the central cross formed by the central nave and transept. Then the narrative moves to its southern, and from here to its western ending,
Thus, the semantic and chronological sequence of images unfolds clockwise. In order for the worshiper to see all the Gospel episodes in turn, he had to make three circles within the central cross. First, the images on three vaults were “read” (“Nativity of Christ”, “Candlemas”, “Baptism”, “Transfiguration”, “Resurrection of Lazarus”, “Entrance into Jerusalem”). The second circle consisted of images above the choir arches (“Christ before Caiaphas,” “Denial of Peter,” “Crucifixion,” “Descent from the Cross”). Finally, the final episodes of the gospel story were placed in the walls of the lower tier (“Myrrh-Bearing Women at the Holy Sepulcher,” “The Descent into Hell,” “The Appearance of Christ to the Myrrh-Bearing Women,” “The Assurance of Thomas,” “Sending the Disciples to Preach,” “The Descent of St. . Spirit"). In the altar part there was an image of the “Eucharist”.
We find this sequence of paintings in the churches of St. Sofia in Kyiv and Novgorod. However, this Byzantine canon of the arrangement of gospel images in Russian churches was most often violated. But even there, cyclical, eternally repeating time continued to be present in the texts of the liturgies. All the events of Sacred history mentioned in them have been updated. They are happening (judging by the verb forms that are used in the spoken texts) right now, but in some other dimension.
It is interesting that the entire “path” of someone who comes to the temple covers not only the history that has happened at the moment, but also what will happen in the coming end of time. In other words, a person sees his life path as already completed; everything has already happened, has become unchangeable, eternal. However, the present moment (“today”) is not here. He is the man himself, standing in the temple and deciding “ last questions being" (or - focusing on the "last human" - current issues of his mortal life), deciding and re-deciding his fate. Such a unique mental dialogue between a person living and experiencing this state, and him, but who has already completed his life’s journey, between the momentary and the eternal, temporary and timeless, transitory and enduring, gave rise to a special emotional and moral tension in the “force field” which the formation of the believer’s consciousness and his personality took place.
The original focus of the horizontal vector of the “energy field” of the temple was the Deesis (Greek “prayer”) - the icons located in the third (considering the second the icon of the “Last Supper” above the Royal Doors) row of the iconostasis. They depict Jesus Christ in Glory with forthcoming figures. Christ in bishop's vestments sits on the throne. Standing before him is the Mother of God (on the right, “ right hand"from Him) and John the Baptist (left, " awesome"). They act as mediators between God and people, praying to Christ for the forgiveness of human sins. Deesis embodies the idea of intercession ( intercession) for the “Christian race”.
Another semantic vector of the temple is the vertical structure of his paintings. The lower (“earthly”) register is assigned to the organizers of the “earthly church” - the apostles, saints, and church fathers. The second tier is Christological. Proto-evangelical and evangelical scenes, which have already been discussed, are located here. The third (“heavenly”) register is dedicated to the “heavenly church,” embodied in the images of angels and crowning the inner space of the temple of Christ the Pantocrator (Pantocrator, often in the image of the “ancient of days,” that is, in old age, which is an incomparable image of God- Father), depicted on the central dome.
So, the vertical structure of the interior of the temple also symbolizes the ascent from the “earthly”, transitory - through the repetitive, cyclical - to the timeless, eternal, universal level, consolidating the semantics: “cross - Universe”.
The external and internal images of the temple corresponded not only to the macrocosm, but also to the microcosm. Since the 14th century the idea of microcosm gradually becomes dominant. The focus of attention is shifted to the person, his inner world. At the same time, the appearance of the temple also undergoes some changes. By the beginning of the 15th century. he is clearly becoming more and more “humanoid”, anthropomorphizing. Its proportions change, the vertical axis of symmetry shifts somewhat. The image of the temple is becoming more and more “human”.
Obviously, these metamorphoses were associated with certain changes in the value system. In particular, apparently, it became clear that the inner world of man is a universe that generally coincides with the external Divinely harmonized world. And therefore, everyone carries within themselves their own “temple” - the images of the microcosm merged with the images of the macrocosm. The temple becomes a place (and “tool”) for the harmonization of a person’s internal and external world, where he realizes himself and his place in this world, and finds the meaning of his existence.
The idea of harmony between internal and external is perhaps most clearly manifested in the descriptions a person's appearance, which we find in ancient Russian literature. The material and corporeal were then perceived as visible beauty, testifying to the beauty and purposefulness of the invisible, spiritual world. The dialectical combination of the visible (material) and the invisible (supersensible) became the core of medieval Christian aesthetics, which understood man as two-pronged creature (« animal mixed"). He is one of the most beautiful phenomena of the surrounding world, in which the creative idea of the Eternal Builder comes off. The invisible and visible worlds are the creation of God. Everything created by God is beautiful. The source of beauty and goodness is in absolute beauty and absolute goodness.
On the contrary, the source of the ugly and evil is outside of God, in free will. Satan was the first to fall away from God. Man was created in the image and likeness of the Creator. In the act of the Fall, Adam and Eve lost similarity, the primitive ideal state of man. Dmitry Rostovsky wrote:
“God create a man who is kind, virtuous, carefree, sorrowless, illuminated by every virtue, adorned with all blessings, like a kind of second world, small in the great [microcosm] , Another angel... the king of beings on earth[equal to the Angel, king over everything that is on Earth] .. .»
Spiritual improvement of man ( after the coming of Christ into the world) is the way to restore the original harmony. Target - deification of all creation. Myself a person bears full responsibility for his actions, because he is endowed with “autocity”, the freedom to choose between good and evil. In the interaction (cooperation) of the will of created beings and the ideas-wills of the Divine ( synergy) is the guarantee of perfect union with God.
The ideal image of a prince (and we don’t see anyone except princes or people from their closest circle in ancient Russian literary works) was built on the combination and interpenetration in the “bodily temple” of the beautiful material and the beautiful spiritual. Here, for example, is how the author of “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” describes one of his heroes:
« About Boris, as soon as I'm alive[what was the view]. Behold, the faithful Boris is a good son, obedient to his fathers, repenting in front of all his fathers. The body is red, tall, only round, the shoulders are large, the shoulders are tall, the eyes are kind, cheerful, the beard is small and the mustache is still young. The king’s crown lights up, his strong body is decorated in every possible way like the color of flowers in his youth, in his army he is brave, in his world he is wise and reasonable in everything, and the grace of God blooms upon him.”
Such a laconic portrait description of Boris contains holistic concept of man, representing in an undivided form the system of moral and aesthetic views of a medieval scribe on man. By the way, it was continued in Russian classical literature of modern times. Let us at least recall Chekhov’s textbook: “ everything should be perfect in a person..." Corporeal " good-naturedness" (goodness) directly indicates the inner enlightenment of a person and " the limit of wisdom”, to the fact that a person (in this case, the passion-bearing prince) during his lifetime achieved a high degree of perfection in humility, obedience, and meekness.
Old Russian culture deeply adopted the Christian medieval ideal of asceticism, which was expressed in the so-called ascetic aesthetics. The latter contrasted everything material, earthly and carnal with the spiritual.
The monk withdraws from the world and preaches abstinence, pacifying his passions, and mortifies the body through various deprivations and self-torture. From the point of view of modern man, there is nothing aesthetically valuable here. However, the logic of early medieval hagiographers (compilers of hagiographies, biographies of saints) was different. So, for example, the creator of “The Life of Simeon the Stylite”, carried away by the extremes of monastic asceticism, asserts a peculiar “ aesthetics of negation", the essence of which is to highlight the ugly and disgusting. The writer compares the worms that eat the flesh of an ascetic with precious pearls, the pus of an ascetic with gilding. From Simeon's body
« an unbearable stench emanates, so that no one can stand near him, and his bed is infested with worms...»
— these details become the object of specific pleasure, admiration and contemplation.
A modern person can understand such a “philosophy of beauty” only if he tries to adequately reveal its moral and religious meaning. The answer is in the primary source, the Gospel instructions of Jesus Christ about the Pharisees. The Pharisees (representatives of the Jewish sect) ascribed to themselves exceptional holiness and despised “unclean” people (including tax collectors - publicans). In Christian medieval literature, these proud and deceivers became the personification of the vicious human nature: they are pious only in words, but their true essence is in slavish dependence on the material goods of “this world”, in the worship of false idols. Christ reproaches the Pharisees:
« Still, they do their deeds so that people can see them.”
comparing the wicked to "painted tombs"
“Which on the outside seem beautiful, but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and all uncleanness.”
For the Christian ascetic, the whole worldly life has become a “painted coffin”, in which people die from vices and satiety of the flesh during their lifetime. The more beautiful and tempting the sinner’s appearance, the more terrible his inner essence. And vice versa, the disgusting side of the earthly “dying” of the flesh (the monk and his mortal body have the name die for the world) becomes a symbol of inner perfection. Such symbolism, built on the contrast of sign and signified, is typical of medieval thinking.
Paradoxical logic is very consonant with the sentiments of a person who seeks the salvation of the soul, rejecting earthly pleasures. This is the explanation for the “absurd” behavior of holy fools, who “returned” to the world in order to expose it. By their actions they demonstrate contempt for generally accepted moral standards. The holy fool eats meat during Lent and dances with harlots. His behavior seems ridiculous, but in fact it is full of deep meaning. Moscow holy fool of the 16th century. St. Basil, walking through the streets, threw stones at the corners of those houses in which they prayed, and kissed the corners of those houses in which they indulged in debauchery, drank wine and sang shameless songs. He interpreted his actions as follows: demons should be driven away from pious people, and kissing corners is a greeting to angels leaving a bad home. However, the extremes of the aesthetics of negation did not conflict with everyday life. One thing - ideal, completely different - code of Conduct.
How is the ideal revealed? Should we strive for it? The ancient scribes answered these questions, guided by the commandments of the “Holy Scripture.” The Christian teaching about man contrasts the “body” with the “flesh”:
“He who sows to his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
Old Russian writers, brought up on patristic teaching literature, understood well that sin has not material, but spiritual nature(the satanic principle is realized in the action of evil spirits). Speaking about the high dignity of a person, they defined it as the measure of things. Consequently, not only the rational part and the highest element of human nature is the “spirit” ( pneuma), but the body itself, with its inherent expediency and beauty of proportions, received a place in the hierarchy of spiritual values.
The beautiful - material and visible - contains information about absolute beauty - “spiritual”. This concept turned out to be a natural organic element of the Christian system of ethical and aesthetic ideas. It received its justification from Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. The natural cause of the multitude of blessings and beautiful visible and invisible creations was the “one good-and-beautiful.”
V.V. Bychkov, based on the texts of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, establishes the following hierarchy of beauty in Russian spiritual culture:
1. Absolute Divine beauty. The model, the cause of all things, the source of expediency and harmony.
2. The beauty of heavenly beings.
3. The beauty of the phenomena of the material world, everything visible and corporeal.
So, earthly beauty served in medieval aesthetics as a symbol of spiritual beauty. Consequently, everything supersensible could receive material expression in symbols and even in naive-naturalistic (unsimilar) images.
Human
The family was the center of human life in Ancient Rus'. The extensive and detailed terminology of kinship relationships is one of the best confirmations of this. Unfortunately, written sources cover this aspect of the spiritual life of our ancestors very sparingly. However, even indirect data allows us to draw quite interesting conclusions.
Apparently, the most significant connections were considered, firstly, between brothers and, secondly, between parents and children. The “depth” of ancestral memory rarely went beyond these two generations of relatives. No wonder the nouns “ Brother», « brothers"More often than any other words are used by chroniclers. Thus, in The Tale of Bygone Years they occur 219 times (i.e., on average 4.6 mentions for every thousand words of text; for comparison, the most used noun in the Tale is “ summer" - encountered 412 times - gives 8.8 mentions for every 1000 words, and the next most frequently used is " son" - met 172 times, - correspondingly 3.7 mentions). In general, children were of little interest to the chronicler. Words denoting the younger generation (“ youth», « child», « child"), are found in The Tale of Bygone Years ten times less frequently than nouns referring to adult men. Male related terminology makes up a little less than a third of the entire complex of chronicle nouns, despite the fact that in general “related” vocabulary makes up 39.4% of all nouns used by the chronicler. It should also be noted that the older generation (father - mother; husband - wife) occupies a subordinate position in the chronicle compared to the younger (son - daughter; brothers - sisters; children - children); 353 and 481 mentions respectively. Moreover, the problem of “fathers and sons” in the Russian Middle Ages took the form of a problem of “sons and parents”; the relationship between sons, on the one hand, and parents (father, mother), on the other, gives 355 mentions.
Approximately the same trends can be traced in the material of East Slavic anthroponymy, when analyzing the proper names that people bore in Ancient Rus'. These include personal names, nicknames, nicknames, patronymics and surnames.
Personal names are the names given to people at birth and by which they are known in society. In ancient Rus', canonical and non-canonical names were distinguished.
Canonical name- the “true”, “real” name of a person, enshrined in the traditions of the Christian religion. In domestic sources, canonical names usually include Orthodox names taken from the church calendar, where the names of canonized saints are listed by month and day of their memory (the so-called calendar, or hagiographic, names). In the early stages of the development of feudal society, as a rule, only godparents (baptismal, church), monastic (monastic) and schematic names were canonical.
Godname given to a person at baptism. It was usually chosen by the priest from the church calendar in accordance with the name of the saint whose memory was celebrated on the person's birthday or baptism. There are also other motives for assigning a person a particular name.
The baptismal name is rarely mentioned in early sources, usually only in reports of the death of a given person or in texts written after his death. Perhaps this was due to superstitious ideas about the need to hide the “true” name, which connected a person with a heavenly patron, patron, guardian angel, in order to protect its bearer from “damage” and the “evil eye.”
In Ancient Rus', it was popular to designate the baptismal names and patronymics of customers of icons, works of small plastic art and jewelry, owners of hanging seals (until the 15th century) by depicting saints on these objects that were directly related to family patronage (the namesake, say, of the owner or the customer, or his father, etc.). Thanks to the images of patronal saints, when compared with genealogical data, the baptismal names and patronymics of the owners of Old Russian seals can be restored and many artistic works of Ancient Rus' can be attributed.
An indirect basis for restoring the baptismal name of the prince may be a certificate of the construction of a church or monastery, since among the princes there was a custom to build church buildings in the name of their holy patrons. Thus, the construction of the Church of St. by Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich. Andrei, under whom the monastery was founded by his daughter Yanka, is considered by V.L. Yanin as an indirect confirmation of the baptismal name Andrei belonging to this prince. And the message of the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 882 about the construction of the Church of St. on the grave of Askold. Nikola gave reason to some scientists to assume that Askold was a Christian and bore the baptismal name Nikola. For similar reasons, Yaroslav the Wise is credited with the founding of the Yuryev, or St. George, monastery three miles from Novgorod.
It is important to emphasize that in Rus' there was a custom of giving children names (both pagan and baptismal) in honor of their grandfather or grandmother, which emphasized (especially before the appearance of surnames) their belonging to a given family. Based on this custom, V. A. Kuchkin suggested that the sister of Vladimir Monomakh was called not Catherine, as recorded in the Laurentian Chronicle, but Irina (a reading preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle). The researcher justified his choice by the fact that the name of Vladimir Vsevolodovich’s daughter most likely repeated the baptismal name of Vsevolod’s mother, Princess Irina, the second wife of Yaroslav the Wise.
Sometimes members of the same clan can trace a certain connection between the traditional pagan family names and baptismal names. So, for example, the Chernigov princes were characterized by a combination of the Christian name Nikola, which was extremely rare for the princely environment (St. Nicholas of Myra was revered in Rus' almost on a par with Christ) with the pagan name Svyatoslav.
Until the second half of the 15th century. In the overwhelming majority of cases, baptismal names can be established only for representatives of the feudal elite - princes, members of their families and boyars. The bulk of the population of that time - peasants, artisans, traders - usually preferred non-calendar, pagan names. Consequently, the mention of a baptismal name in the source (or, conversely, its absence - although with less justification) can be considered as a sign that indirectly indicates a person’s social affiliation,
Monastic name was the second canonical name that a person received when he was tonsured a monk. It replaced his former worldly name. Usually, the tonsured person received the name of the saint whose memory was celebrated on the day of tonsure, or a calendar name that began with the same letter as the secular name of the monk or nun. Thus, the Novgorod I Chronicle mentions the boyar Proksha Malyshevits, who took the name Porfiry at tonsure, the monk Varlaam, in the world the boyar Vyacheslav Prokshinich, the Novgorodian Mikhalko, who took tonsure under the name Mitrofan, and others.
Schema name given to the monk at the “third baptism” (acceptance of the great schema) instead of his monastic name. It was also given to Moscow kings and boyars, many of whom, according to tradition, took the schema before death (which ensured their inclusion in the rank of angels). Often schema-monks, and sometimes monks, were given rare calendar names that were rarely used in the world as baptismal names (Sakerdon, Melchizedek, Akepsios; Synklitikia, Golindukha, Christodoulos, etc.). Such names can also be considered as an additional basis for determining social status their carriers.
Over time, canonical names gradually replaced non-canonical ones in everyday life and began to be used as the only name of a person. At the same time, they often took a non-canonical form in pronunciation and spelling. At the same time, a number of pagan, non-calendar names of secular and religious figures of the Russian Middle Ages, canonized by the Orthodox Church, became calendar names (for example, Gleb, Boris, Vladimir, Olga, etc.). Their use as canonical names could only take place after the canonization of a given saint.
In some cases, the canonical name gave an idea of the religion of its bearer, since many calendar names of the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christian churches differ from each other in form, and the days of remembrance of the same saints are often celebrated on different days.
Non-canonical (secular) name usually not associated with religious traditions. It was the second, optional name of a secular person. In Ancient Russia, a worldly name, as a rule, served
function of the main name, since it was more famous and common than the godname. First, this is a non-calendar, pre-Christian name, not associated with the name of any saint. It,
as a rule, it had an “internal” meaning and was supposed to endow its bearer with some useful qualities in life. Later, in the same capacity, along with pagan ones, Christian names begin to be used, usually in their folk, colloquial, non-canonical form, for example, Mikola and Mikula instead of the canonical form Nikolai, Mikita instead of Nikita, Gyurgi instead of George, Nefed instead of Methodius, Nero instead of Miron, Upolon instead of Apollo, Fedosia instead of Theodosius, Ophimia instead of Euphemia, Ovdokia or Avdotya instead of Evdokia, etc. The replacement of pagan names with Christian ones was especially active in the princely and boyar environment.
Sources often use diminutive or disparaging derogatory (pejorative) forms of non-canonical names. Restore by them full form the name is quite difficult. This is especially difficult to do when it comes to homophonic (coincident in pronunciation and spelling) forms of different names. In such cases, an incomplete (ellipsed) name can correspond to two or more full ones. For example, the name Elka could be formed both from the name Elisha, and from the name Elpidifor, or Elizar, and perhaps from the non-calendar name El; Zinka - from the name Zinovy or Zenon; the abbreviated Alyosha could correspond to both Alexei and Alexander; Mitka - Dmitry and Nikita, etc. At the same time, the source may contain various variant forms of one name (allonyms). Let's say such names as Stekhno, Stensha, Stepsha are non-canonical variant forms of one name - Stepan.
Nicknames , unlike names, always reflect not desirable, but real properties and qualities, territorial or ethnic origin, place of residence of their bearers and thus indicate the special meaning that these properties and qualities had for others. Nicknames could be given to people at different periods of their lives and were known to a fairly limited circle of people.
Nicknames should be distinguished from pagan Old Russian names. However, this distinction is not always easy to establish. This is due, in particular, to the custom of giving children names derived from ethnonyms, names of animals, plants, fabrics and other objects, “protective” names. Apparently, he wrote about such nicknames at the beginning of the 17th century. English traveler Richard James in his dictionary-diary:
“(Prozvishshe), a nickname given by the mother along with the name of the godfather, and this is the name they [Russians] are usually called.”
Many of these names sound offensive and therefore can be perceived by modern people as nicknames. For example, even among the nobles of the 16th century. there are names Chudim, Kozarin, Rusin, Cheremisin, Mare, Shevlyaga (Nag), Stallion, Cat, Goat, Beast, Cow, Woodpecker, Grass, Sedge, Radish, Zhito, Cabbage, Velvet, Aksamit, Izma-ragd, Shovel, Chobot , Rag, Ignorant, Unsettled, Bad, Malice, Uninvited, Unloving, Thief and even Grimacing (Snotty) Face, etc. Many of these nicknames existed in individual families over several generations, thereby emphasizing a person’s belonging to a given genus. They were often used in official documents along with non-calendar names.
An important clarifying part of a person’s name in Rus' was and remains surname(patronymic nickname), usually used together with personal names and formed from the name of the father. The patronymic directly indicated the origin and family ties of the person. Along with the traditional names for a given family, it was one of the most important “external” indicators of a person’s belonging to a particular clan (at least, before the advent of surnames).
At the same time, in the old days in Rus', the patronymic also indirectly indicated a person’s social affiliation, since it was considered an honorary name. If representatives of the highest feudal aristocracy were called by the so-called full patronymic ending in — hiv, then the middle classes used less honorable forms of patronymic nicknames - semi-patronymic names ending in - ov, - ev, -in, and the lower ones generally did without patronymics.
First names, patronymics and nicknames have been known since ancient times, but surnames appeared in Rus' quite late. Surnames - these are inherited official names indicating a person’s belonging to a particular family. As we have already noted, for several centuries, “ancestral memory” in Rus' made do with two generations of relatives: fathers and children. This was reflected in the increased (compared to other kinship terms) frequency of mentions of brothers, on the one hand, and fathers and mothers, which were not realized by the author of the source. This is also confirmed by the fact that naming a person with his father’s nickname as a family nickname was considered quite sufficient, and therefore the so-called grandfatherhoods (personal nicknames formed on behalf of the grandfather) were used extremely rarely. Now (apparently with the development of private land ownership) a “deeper” genealogy was required, recorded in generic nicknames common to all family members. They appeared only in the 15th-16th centuries, and even then at first only among the feudal lords.
Particular attention should be paid to female non-canonical names. They are almost unknown to them. This alone is an important indicator of the attitude towards women in Ancient Rus'. There are even a number of names that cannot be clearly classified as female or male. In particular, we are talking about the names: Gostyata, found in a Novgorod birch bark document of the 14th century. (No. 9); Uncles (author of graffito No. 8 in Novgorod Sofia), Omrosiya (author of Novgorod birch bark letter No. 59, first half of the 14th century), etc. If these are female names, then we receive indisputable evidence of a fairly high level of education of ancient Russian women and their struggle for their rights (mentioned Novgorod birch bark document No. 9).
Woman's position. Women are rarely mentioned in chronicles. For example, in The Tale of Bygone Years there are five times fewer messages related to the fair sex than “male” ones. Women are considered by the chronicler primarily as a “predicate” of men (as are 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 - according to her husband (in the same as in the first case, “possessive”, “possessive” form; cf. turnover: “husband’s wife”, i.e. “belonging to her husband”). Perhaps the only exception to the rule was the mention of the wife of Prince Igor Novgorod-Seversky in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - Yaroslavna. By the way, this served as one of the arguments for A. A. Zimin to justify the late dating of the Lay. A quote from worldly parables", given by Daniil Zatochnik (XIII century):
“Not a bird among the birds is an owl; nor in the beast the hedgehog beast; neither fish in fishes cancer; neither cattle in cattle goats; neither a serf to a serf, who works for a serf; neither is the husband among husbands who listens to his wife"
The despotic orders that became widespread in ancient Russian society did not bypass the family. The head of the family, the husband, was a slave in relation to the sovereign, but a sovereign in his own home. All household members, not to mention servants and slaves in the literal sense of the elephant, 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 only leave her new home, not excluding visiting church, 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, “ doesn't build his own house" And " doesn't care about his soul", and will be " ruined" And " in this century and in the future" Only in the 16th century. society tried to somehow protect the woman and limit the arbitrariness of her husband. Thus, Domostroy advised beating your wife “not in front of people, to teach in private” and “ no way to be angry" wherein. Recommended " for any reason“[because of trifles] “don’t beat me by sight, don’t hit me in the heart with your fist, or kick me, or hit me with a staff, or hit me with anything iron or wood.”
Such “restrictions” had to be introduced at least on a recommendation basis, since in everyday life, apparently, husbands were not particularly constrained in their means when “explaining” with their wives. No wonder it was immediately explained that those who
“It hits so hard from the heart or from the torment, there are many stories from this: blindness and deafness, and dislocated arms and legs, and fingers, and headaches, and dental disease, and in pregnant wives and children, damage occurs in the womb.”
That is why the advice was given to beat your wife not for every, but only for serious offense, and not with anything or any way, but
« soya shirt, politely with a whip[carefully ! ]to beat, holding hands": "and reasonable, and painful, and scary, and healthy»
At the same time, it should be noted that in pre-Mongol Rus', a woman had a whole range of rights. She could become the heir to her father's property (before getting married). The highest fines were paid by those guilty of “ bruising"(rape) and abuse of women" shameful words" A slave who lived with her master as a wife became free after the death of her master. The appearance of such legal norms in ancient Russian legislation indicated a fairly widespread prevalence similar cases. The existence of entire harems among influential persons is recorded not only in pre-Christian Rus' (for example, among Vladimir Svyatoslavich), but also at a much later time. Thus, according to the testimony of one Englishman, one of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich’s close associates poisoned his wife because she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that her husband kept many mistresses at home.
At the same time, in some cases a woman, apparently, could become a real despot in the family. It is difficult, of course, to say what influenced the views of the author and editors of the popular “Prayers” and “Words” in Ancient Rus', attributed to a certain Daniil Zatochnik - childhood impressions of the relationship between father and mother or their own bitter family experience, but in these works a woman does not look at all as defenseless and lacking in rights as it might seem from the above. Let's listen to what Daniel says.
“Or say, prince: marry a rich father-in-law; drink that and eat that. It’s better to be sick with shaking; shaking, shake, he will let go, but the evil wife dries to death... Fornication in fornication, whoever takes advantage of evil is the wife of the profit, or the father-in-law, of the rich. It would be better for me to see an ox in my house than for an evil wife... It would be better for me to weld iron than to be with an evil wife. A woman is wicked, like a comb [combed place] : it itches here, it hurts here».
Isn’t it true that the preference (even if only in jest) for the hardest craft - iron smelting - over life with an “evil” wife says something?
However, a woman gained real freedom only after the death of her husband. Widows were highly respected in society. In addition, they became full-fledged mistresses of the house. In fact, from the moment of the death of the spouse, the role of head of the family passed to them,
In general, the wife had full responsibility for running the household and raising young children. Teenage boys were then handed over for training and education " guys"(in the early period, indeed to uncles on the maternal side - yum), considered the closest male relatives, since the problem of establishing paternity, apparently, could not always be solved).
Parents and children. The despotic order that reigned in the family could not but affect the position of the children in it. Spirit of slavery, " covered with the false sanctity of patriarchal relations"(N.I. Kostomarov), dominated the relationship between children and parents in Ancient Rus'.
The subordinate position of the child and adolescent to the family is perhaps best confirmed by the fact that in the overwhelming majority of terms denoting socially unequal segments of the population, they initially referred specifically to the younger members of the family or clan. So, the word " man" was formed from the noun " husband" (“an adult free, independent person” and at the same time “spouse”) with the addition of a diminutive suffix — ik(literally “little husband”). " Youth” (“child, teenager, youth” and “younger warrior”, and also, at the same time, “servant, slave, worker”) literally meant “non-speaking”, i.e. “not having the right to speak, the right to vote in the life of the family or tribe." " Serf"("enslaved, unfree person") is associated with the word " lad" - "boy, boy, guy" and may have come from the root * сhol-, from which the Old Russian adjective “ single, single”, i.e. “unmarried, celibate, incapable of sexual activity” (by the way, this is why in “Russkaya Pravda” another word is used to refer to dependent women - “ robe»). « Servants"("slaves, slaves, servants") originally, apparently, referred to the younger members of the clan, family (cf.: Proto-Slavic * cel "ad"- “herd, clan”, related to Irish clan- “offspring, clan, clan”, and Olonets “servants” - “children, boys”, as well as Bulgarian “ servants" - “offspring, clan, children”), Finally, the word “÷åëîâåê” means “a person in the service of someone; someone's servant" came, according to most modern etymologists, from a combination of two stems, one of which was related to the Proto-Slavic root just discussed cel- (“clan, clan, tribe”), and the second - to the Lithuanian word vaikas- “child, cub, descendant, boy” and Latvian vaiks - “boy, young man”.
To what has been said, we can add that in ancient Russian miniatures and icons beards were depicted only on people over 30 years old. However, this rule applied only to the privileged classes. Representatives of the urban and, especially, rural “lower classes”, regardless of age, were depicted as beardless. From here it is clear why, for example, in “Russkaya Pravda” for “ trespass For a beard or mustache, an incredibly high, in the opinion of the reader of the late 20th century, fine was 12 hryvnia (the same as for a stolen beaver and only three times less than the fine for killing a free person). The persistent mention that St. Boris " beard is small and mustache(but there is!) - still young" The absence of a beard served as evidence of a person’s incompetence or inferiority, while pulling out a beard was an insult to honor and dignity.
The constant shortage of labor led to very ugly phenomena in peasant life in Rus'. The hunger for labor penetrated into the very way of life of the peasant family. Therefore, children from the very early age used in various jobs. However, since they were clearly inferior workers, parents often married their sons at the age of 8-9 to adult women, wanting to get an extra worker. Naturally, the position of a young wife who came to her husband’s family under such conditions could hardly really differ in any significant way from the position of a slave. This disfigured family relationships, giving rise to such phenomena as daughter-in-law, etc.
Beating children for “educational” purposes was considered the norm. Moreover, the authors of many ancient Russian instructions, including the famous “Domostroy”, recommended doing this systematically:
« Executions[punish] your son from his youth, and he will give you rest in your old age and give beauty to your soul; and do not weaken when beating a child: if you beat him with a rod, he will not die, but he will be healthy. You beat him in the body, and deliver his soul from death... Loving your son, make his wounds more frequent, and rejoice over him, execute your son from his youth and rejoice over him with courage... Do not laugh at him, playing games: in If you weaken him a little, you will suffer a lot [you will suffer] in grief... And you will not give him power in his youth, but crush his ribs, he will grow stronger, and, having become bitter, he will not obey you and will cause you annoyance, and illness of the soul, and futility of home, destruction estate, and reproach from neighbors, and laughter before enemies, before the authorities, payment [fine] , and the vexation of evil»
The norms of attitude towards children, declared in the 16th century, were in effect half a thousand years before the lines just quoted were written. The mother of Theodosius of Pechersk, as the author of his “Life” repeatedly emphasized, tried to influence her son using precisely these methods. Each of his offenses, be it an attempt to engage in a task unusual for a person of his class, or secretly wearing chains to “depress the flesh,” or escaping from home with pilgrims to the Holy Land, was punished with extraordinary, in the opinion of a person at the end of the 20th century, cruelty. The mother beat her son (even with her feet) until she literally fell from fatigue, put him in shackles, etc.
Marriage and sexual relations . In medieval society, “depression of the flesh” was of particular value. Christianity directly connects the idea of the flesh with the idea of sin. The development of the “anti-corporeal” concept, found already among the apostles, follows the path of “diabolization” of the body as a container of vices, a source of sin. The doctrine of original sin, which actually consisted of pride, over time acquired an increasingly distinct anti-sexual orientation.
In parallel with this, in official religious attitudes there was an all-out exaltation of virginity. However, the girl’s “purity” was not preserved until marriage; apparently, it was initially valued only by the top of society. Among " simpletons“, 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 " merrymaking", which provided the opportunity for pre- and extramarital sexual contacts:
“When this very holiday comes, not all of the city will take up tambourines and sniffles... And with all sorts of inappropriate Sotonin games of splashing and splashing. For wives and girls, the head is swayed and their lips are hostile to the cry, all the nasty songs, their wobbling with their groans, their feet jumping and trampling. Here there is a great fall as a man and a youth, nor a woman's and girl's vacillation. The same is true for the wives of married men, who are immediately subject to lawless desecration...”
Naturally, the participation of girls in such “ games" led - and, apparently, often - to " molestation" 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 preservation of the custom of marriage in Christian Rus' “ withdrawal", by kidnapping 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. " Molested a girl too much"should have married 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 the girl to have intimacy " cunning”, promising to marry her: the deceiver was threatened with nine years of penance (religious punishment). Finally, the church ordered that the raped girl continue to be considered a virgin (albeit, provided that she resisted the rapist and screamed, but there was no one who could come to her aid). 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 this ethics was marriage, which, although perceived as a lesser evil than debauchery, was still marked by 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 “ aka the sin of sodom" The emphasis on sexual abstinence and moderation was supported by religious and ethical arguments about the sinfulness and baseness of “carnal life.” Christian morality condemned not only lust, but also individual love, since it supposedly interfered with the fulfillment of the duties of piety. It may seem that in such an atmosphere sex and marriage were doomed to extinction. However, the gap between the instructions of the church and everyday everyday practice was very great. That is why ancient Russian sources pay special attention to issues of sex.
According to the Questioning, spouses were required to avoid sexual contact during fasting. Nevertheless, this restriction was apparently violated quite often. No wonder Kirik was worried about the question:
« Is it worthy to give him communion, even in Lent to have sex with your wife?»
Bishop Nifont of Novgorod, to whom he addressed, despite his indignation at such violations
« Do you teach Qi, speaking, to abstain from fasting from your wives? That's your sin!»
was forced to make concessions:
« Even if they cannot [abstain], but in the first week and in the last»
Apparently, even the clergy understood that it was impossible to achieve unconditional compliance with such instructions. Bishop Nifont of Novgorod, to whom he addressed, despite his indignation at such violations
Singles " on Great Day[for Easter], Let us preserve the purely great fasting", it was allowed to give communion despite the fact that those " sometimes we sinned" True, first it was necessary to find out with whom “ sinned" It was believed that fornication with " a man's wife“There is 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 appropriate reprimand, while the woman was subject to rather severe punishments. Sexual prohibitions established for women may not have applied to the stronger sex at all.
Spouses, in addition, were instructed to avoid cohabitation on Sundays, as well as on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, before and immediately after communion, since “ in these days a spiritual sacrifice is offered to the Lord" Let us also remember that parents were forbidden to conceive a child on Sunday, Saturday and Friday. For violation of this prohibition, parents were entitled to penance " two summers" Such prohibitions were based on apocryphal literature (and in particular, on the so-called “ Commandment of the Holy Fathers" And " Skinny Nomokanunians"), so many priests did not consider them obligatory.
Even an “unclean” dream could be a worthy punishment. However, in this case, it was necessary to carefully determine whether the person who saw the shameful dream was susceptible to lust for his own flesh (if he dreamed of a woman he knew) or whether he was tempted by Satan. In the first case, he was not allowed to receive communion, but in the second, he was simply obliged to receive communion,
« for otherwise the deceiver [ devil] will not stop attacking him at the time when he should partake»
This also applied to the priest:
« More damn [“unclean” dream] be from the devil in the night, is it worthy to serve at dinner, having rinsed yourself, taking up prayer? - If, as a matter of fact, you were devoted to the thought of your wife, then you will not be worthy; else…. seduce soton, although leave the church without [without] service, then rinsed off to serve»
Interestingly, woman was seen as a greater evil than the devil, since natural carnal desire and the erotic dreams associated with it were declared unclean and unworthy of the priesthood (or a person in general), while the same dreams caused by supposed diabolical influences deserved forgiveness.
It is worth paying attention to the fact that the compulsory marriage established by the Orthodox Church for the white clergy brought the priest closer to his flock in everyday life. And the life of a married clergyman" put forward essentially the same questions that the priest then had to solve in relation to his"children"" (B. A. Romanov).
Society
Team and personality . Russia is a country with deep and lasting traditions. They are her wealth. The stability of the social structure of Russian society and state forms, life and spiritual culture are amazing and deserve the deepest respect. Generated largely by the relative isolation of the country, they themselves become a component of it.
Continuation and at the same time ensuring traditionalism Russian spiritual culture has become its collectivism. In Ancient Rus', the peasant community (mir, rope) had unquestioned and inviolable authority. For centuries it remained the most general conservative principle in the life of society. It was the collective and its memory that were the bearers of tradition and its defenders. In the city, collectivist tendencies were embodied in the people's council.
Collectivism, inherent in our spiritual culture, has given rise to a number of features that characterize Russian society from ancient times to the present day.
First of all, this is - denial of the value of the individual. How deep it is is shown at least by the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in Ancient Rus' are anonymous - if not literally, then in essence. Even when naming names, sources tend to retain almost no information about their personal qualities. With great difficulty, and even then not always, it is possible to find their biographical information. The personalities of all turn out to be “absorbed” by one Personality - the sovereign. Our ideas about many outstanding figures of Russian history are clearly “mythological” in nature.
The tradition of “depersonalization” was reinforced by economic factors. Throughout Russian history, collective forms of land ownership dominated: communal, monastic, state. Private property, as already noted, did not receive such distribution and “weight” here as in the West. European countries.
Power and personality . Collective property and the authority of “public meetings” in Rus' gave rise to the idea that only some external force, standing above everyone and not subordinate to anyone, could control the life of society. The basis of such ideas lay, strange as it may seem at first glance, in the specifics of the collective form of social management itself.
Despite the fact that the legends about the first steps of ancient Russian statehood as descriptions of specific events are hardly trustworthy, nevertheless, they preserve memories of some real facts. In particular, it is possible that among the first East Slavic rulers, foreign warriors predominated (as in Slavic Bulgaria, Frankish Normandy and many other European countries) - sometimes invaders (Kiy), sometimes specially invited for this (Rurik). Inviting princes “from outside” seemed quite normal (if not natural) in the conditions of state formation.
Veche orders made it possible to resolve issues only of a certain degree of complexity. The interests of small territorial associations, represented at the veche meeting by the heads of families and communities, stood against the general interests of the nascent community. Therefore, as such a community expanded, the danger of collective decision-making escalating into open conflict between communities became greater. Let us remember that the Novgorodians, who had expelled the Varangians at one time, were forced to ask them to return due to internal conflicts. With the veche order of solving common problems, a large society carried the danger of great conflicts, irreversible disorganization, and catastrophe.
A special institution that stood above the interests of the constituents could prevent the conflict. People who were not part of any of the cells that formed the new social association were able to become the spokesmen of non-local, but general interests to a much greater extent. The state, represented by such a group of people or one person, became a powerful institution that consolidated society, capable of “ judge by right", organize joint actions of individual clans (tribes) to defend their lands or to develop new territories or control trade routes (which acquired special importance in Eastern Europe).
Alienation of power functions from society led to further denial of the role of the individual “ordinary” person. Accordingly, the individual’s need for free will also faded away as a value realized and accepted by society. Moreover, relying on collectivist traditions, society actively suppressed attempts at such expression of will, if they did appear. So, all members of ancient Russian society, except the ruler himself, were denied freedom. As a result, this led to the personification of power - the identification of power functions with the specific person performing them. Becoming a ruler, a person stood out from society and rose above it. Similar tendencies found a definite expression in the activities of Andrei Bogolyubsky, who tried to become the first of the ancient Russian princes to become a “self-ruler.”
However, despotic personified power represented the most serious danger for its bearer. The same Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky paid with his life for attempting to establish it. If the vigilantes could " drive off” from an undesirable prince, with whom they were in a contractual vassal-suzerain relationship, then the “merciful people” were completely deprived of such an opportunity. They were not equal to him in status, they did not travel with him to Polyudye, but were servants who received stipends. They could only get rid of the despotic master in one way - by physically eliminating him.
Personality and freedom . The concept of freedom in Russian spiritual culture had a special meaning. In practice, it has always been perceived as non-dependence, freedom from something or someone. The Proto-Slavic word itself *sveboda related to Church Slavonic freedom or property — « persona", in which the root *svobь came from svojь(cf.: “ mine") and denoted the position of an independent member of the clan, independent of elders.
The place of personal freedom (in the “European” sense of the word) in Russian spiritual culture was taken by the category will. It is interesting that in Russian this word denotes both “power, the ability to control” and “freedom, the ability to fulfill one’s desires.” The words “command”, “dominate”, “allow”, “power” are derived from it.
It is curious that the central figure ancient Russian culture, ancient Russian self-awareness often became not a winner, but a victim. It is characteristic that the first saints of Ancient Rus' were the victims: “ innocent people"brothers Boris and Gleb, whose entire merit was that they did not resist their own murder. True, it was organized by their elder brother, who, naturally, should have been obeyed unquestioningly! Yaroslav the Wise, who avenged their murderer, was not given such an honor, although his own contribution to the development of Russian statehood, and to the development of domestic legislation, and to the Christianization and enlightenment of Rus' is undoubted.
Many “messianic” assessments of events in Russian history in Russian chronicles are also closely related to the category of sacrifice. They seem to justify in advance the sacrifices that were made in the name of collective interests. In addition, the need for such a sacrifice removed from the agenda the issue of lack of personal freedom, and at the same time the responsibility for unjustified losses. As soon as one realized the need for sacrifice, voluntary consent to one’s slaughter turned into the highest freedom.
Personality and law . In the early stages of the development of ancient Russian society, a purely natural (pagan-mythological) understanding of the essence of man freed moral assessments from the sense of human justice, that is, from the consciousness of guilt. As we know, “myths do not teach morality.” The moral law of epic consciousness protected the right of individual arbitrariness of the “strong personality.” Consequently, the goal, duty and main virtue of the epic hero was the unconditional exercise of his individual right. In other words, personal valor was put at the forefront, but not conscience, which, it seemed, inevitably had to lead to arbitrariness.
Relations between people in society were regulated by folk custom. Customary norms were treated as inviolable, sacred institutions, which enjoyed the greater respect and authority the more ancient they seemed. " Old man“custom gave him strength. Of course, in reality the custom has transformed over time. However, the content of the custom was gradually corrected, reflecting changes in the life of the tribe, mostly beyond the consciousness of the people. In their memory, the custom seemed to remain the same. Radical changes in the accepted norm were not allowed. And the way of life of traditional society, which changed more on the surface than in essence, excluded any serious changes in law. Common law is conservative law.
However, as social life became more complex, it became necessary to regulate those relations that went beyond the framework of customary law and did not obey it. “Strong personalities” (the prince and his squad) had to first of all formulate the norms of their relations with the townspeople and communal peasants, from whom they received tribute and whom they protected (including from themselves!). Thus, they not only consolidated the emerging new social traditions, but also guaranteed compliance with certain norms that limited their own arbitrariness. The creation of such legal acts protected both those who paid for the failed raid and those who collected such payment.
How relevant this was is shown by the conflict between Prince Igor and the Drevlyans. As we remember, an attempt to re-collect tribute led to the murder of the unlucky “racketeer”. The immediate consequence of the tragedy was a series of legislative measures taken by his widow, Princess Olga. As the chronicler writes, she had to travel through tribute-paying territories, “ establishing regulations and lessons».
To replace the vital-egoistic principle of “I want” in the relationship between those who stood above society, and society itself followed the conscious-volitional principle of “must”. The implementation of this principle had to be based on a certain system of values, which until that moment were apparently absent in society (at least in an explicit form). Customary law, which had previously regulated relations between people for thousands of years, was now supplemented by written law, which came not only from oral and ritual tradition, but also from written tradition. The custom was reinforced and developed in the “Holy Scripture”, from where (along with the monuments of Byzantine legislation) new legal norms were primarily drawn.
The first monument of such “paper” law that has reached our time was “ Russian Truth" Its very name included the word (“truth”), from which almost all modern legal the vocabulary is “right”, “justice”, “rightness”, “rule” and even “righteous”. Meanwhile, its original meaning, in which it existed in Ancient Rus', differs significantly from our understanding of what stands behind the word “truth”. Hence the everyday idea of the injustice of that world. What did it mean?
Root *pro- apparently Proto-Indo-European. Plunging into the depths of time by comparing related languages, etymologists found that its earliest meanings were “strong, outstanding (in strength or abundance)”, later they were joined by “active, courageous, standing in front”, then “endowed with power, having right" and, finally, "kind, honest, decent." In Ancient Rus', the first of these meanings was most likely dominant. By the way, that's why gum the hand, which is stronger in most people, is called in our country right. The idea of law and truth is traditionally associated within the meaning of with the concept of force, violence.
The establishment of righteousness among the peoples of traditional cultures, including our ancestors, was closely related to the idea of divine justice. The main thing was not so much to establish who is guilty and who is not, but to find out whether a person’s actions received the sanction of higher powers, whether they correspond good, inaccessible to direct human perception and understanding. Therefore, the solution to legal issues was often based not on a legal norm precisely formulated by man, but on whether this or that action was performed by God’s permission, “permission” or not. Hence the widespread practice of resolving litigation through “God’s judgment”: testing by iron, water or legal combat (“ field"). The winner clearly proved whose side God was on, and therefore was right. He was given “ right» a letter is a court decision. The one who suffered defeat (“ killed", according to the terminology of the 15th-16th centuries) was found guilty or lost. The practice of judicial duels existed in Rus' at least until mid-16th century V.
Even the role of witnesses (“ Vidokov" or " rumors) was reduced to testifying not so much “about a fact” as about “ good fame» the person on whose side they acted in court. Thus, their function apparently consisted primarily of providing “moral” support to the plaintiff or defendant. And such support was not conditioned by knowledge of the truth and the desire to demonstrate it, but by connections with the person who attracted them to participate in the legal battle on his side. The purpose of the process was not to clarify and prove the facts - they seemed self-evident or became so as a result of taking the appropriate oaths and performing the necessary actions. The court, as an authority designed to establish the truth, obviously did not exist in Ancient Rus'; It was replaced by the process of competition between litigants. The court was called upon to monitor their strict and unwavering compliance with the “rules of the game.” I. Huizinga’s idea that among ancient peoples litigation to a large extent represented a competition in the literal sense of the word, which gave the participants a feeling of moral satisfaction in itself, regardless of its outcome, can be fully attributed to ancient Russian legal proceedings.
Another distinguishing feature ancient Russian systems it was right that " right[loyal] court"could only be so if it occurred with the strictest adherence to all procedures. The slightest deviation from the “standard” was fraught with failure. Strict adherence to all detailed instructions of the procedure was considered absolutely mandatory. The explanations of judicial procedures and customs offered by modern researchers, reflected in the “Russian Truth”, “Standards of the Righteous”, “Helmsmen’s Books” and other similar legislative sources, inevitably have a rationalistic character. An integral need for the thinking of a person of our time is the desire to find some kind of interpretation of certain human actions, based on “common sense”. However, the norms that we find in ancient Russian legislative acts are organically connected with consciousness, which differently perceived and mastered the social world. There is no certainty that for the participants in the legal procedures themselves everything in them was completely clear and they could reveal the meaning of each symbol or symbolic action. Apparently, they did not need such an explanation at all, and a rational explanation, familiar to a person of modern times, would not actually explain anything to them. The effectiveness and legitimacy of normative rituals was not related to their understandability for performers. As already noted, the main thing was to comply with the “old times”.
A characteristic feature of common and early written law was its publicity. The system of such law, based on a detailed formalism and comprehensive ritualization of its norms, represented a kind of mechanism for the “inclusion” of the individual in society. The subject of social activity was the group to which the individual belonged, performing the traditional functions prescribed to him, following the categorical imperatives of behavior. A man of Ancient Rus' is a man of a group, an organic collective in which he was born and to which he belonged throughout his life. Only as a member of this collective could he enjoy legal capacity.
All of the listed features of the ancient Russian legal system, to a greater or lesser extent, continued to exist in subsequent times. Over the course of several centuries, the laws in force on Russian lands were only supplemented, remaining fundamentally unchanged. Thus, “Russian Truth” of the 12th-13th centuries. was based on the “Russian Law”, mentioned at the beginning of the 10th century. It, in turn, was repeated by the Code of Laws of 1497 and 1550, and they were repeated by the Cathedral Code of 1649.
Ethnic identity . One of the most important characteristics of a person in any world, including Ancient Rus', was and remains his idea of his own involvement in a certain community (ethnic, political, confessional).
“When studying the processes of ethnic development,” writes B. N. Florya, “for a long time the prevailing tendency was to establish “objective” characteristics of certain ethnic communities (the presence of a territory of compact residence, unity of language, etc.). However, as the research progressed, it became increasingly clear that all these “objective” signs represent only some conditions for the development of a process that takes place primarily in the sphere of social consciousness. What makes a particular community of people an ethnic group is the presence of a special ethnic self-awareness, which is characterized by a clear awareness of the differences between the ethnic group “one’s own” and “alien.” Therefore, it is by tracing the history of the development of ethnic self-awareness that one can establish the main stages in the development of a particular ethnic group. “Everything that has been said fully applies to the history of the Slavic ethnic community.”
The sources make it possible to establish, at least in general terms, to which community and how the Old Russian people identified themselves. Chronicle data is of primary importance in this. They allow us to believe with a high degree of confidence that for the compiler and potential reader of the chronicle, the most important was the involvement, firstly, in the descendants of Adam, secondly, in the heirs of Japheth, thirdly, in Christians, fourthly, in the Slavs, fifthly, to a specific branch of the Slavs (including the descendants of one or another tribe of the Eastern Slavs) and, finally, sixthly, to the inhabitants of a certain city or territory adjacent to it.
In "The Tale of Bygone Years"
“First of all, there is a noticeable commitment to the category of “universal”, without expressively distinguishing between “one’s own” or “alien” ethnic groups, separating them by borders.”
“to find for each people a major geographical landmark of settlement, and not to pettyly draw ethnic boundaries... The chronicler himself formulated the principle of connecting peoples with noticeable places, which led to the problem of “ours / not theirs”: “on the ground... where you sit in which place:... on the river ...", "I live every... in my own place... on the mountain" and so on.... However, in general, the principle of subject-landscape orientation, rather than differentiation, prevailed... In general, the principle was maintained: people + a large geographical feature, implying “ours / not ours.”
These were not precise political, legal or linguistic categories of “us” and “alien”, but relatively vague feelings and emotional-figurative ideas, which were not manifested in terminology or in uniform statements. At the same time, one feels that the chronicler was constantly looking for some formal criteria for separating “us” and “strangers.” For him, such a source, or at least a very significant feature, was language. Here is what B. N. Florya writes about this:
“One of the important signs of the unity of the Slavs as a special ethnic community for people of the early Middle Ages was that all Slavs speak the same “Slavic” language, common to all of them. The conviction that all Slavs speak one, common language for them and that therefore all Slavic peoples can use both writing and translations made by Cyril and Methodius is expressed with greater force in the Long Lives of Cyril and Methodius and in other texts of the Cyril and Methodius circle "
However, as is not difficult to notice, in this case we are talking primarily about written language, the language of bookish, primarily Christian, culture. The own language of one or another part of the Slavic world became an ethnic “marker” at a later time. According to B.N. Flora,
“In the early Middle Ages, all Slavs believed that they spoke the same “Slavic” language, but by the 13th century. the situation has changed. In the second half of the 12th century. We meet the first mentions of the “Czech” language, in the beginning. XIII century - about “Polish”, in texts of the 13th century. The “Bulgarian” language also begins to be mentioned in those contexts where the “Slavic” language was previously spoken of. From that time on, it was their own special “language” that became the main sign of a special nationality. Before the “Slavs” of the Byzantine cultural circle, for whom in the 13th century. The Old Church Slavonic language remained the most important means of mutual communication; the question arose about how this language, common to many (and not only Slavic) peoples, relates to the actually existing, distinct languages of individual such peoples.” (Italics are mine. - I.D.)
In the meantime, the factor of language served only as a sign of belonging to an extremely broad, and therefore largely ephemeral, Slavic-Christian community. This criterion was neither strictly ethnic nor political in the consciousness of ancient Russian people.
Much more concrete for him was his involvement in a certain rather narrow urban locus.
“It would seem,” writes A.P. Motsya, “mentions on the pages of ancient Russian chronicles of “Suzdal”, “Rostovtsy”, “Novgorod”, “Smolyan”, “Ryazan”, “Chernigov”, etc. allow us to talk about complete the ephemerality of the existence of a pan-East European (or rather East Slavic) community and its replacement by self-awareness at the level of the land-principality. Of course, ethnocultural ties in each specific microregion strengthened horizontally and vertically. But, in our opinion, even during times of fragmentation in Rus', the nationality continued to exist at certain levels of public consciousness. This was due to the peculiarities of socio-economic relations in Rus', and first of all they consisted in the struggle between centrifugal and centripetal tendencies, as well as in the specifics of the feudal holding throughout the entire ancient Russian period.”
At the same time, however, the problem arises of identifying those features that would still make it possible to isolate on the pages of written sources the idea of an ancient Russian person about his belonging to a certain single “nationality.” Until such a formal criterion is found, we will have to agree with the opinion of the author cited above that
“In the Middle Ages, in general, a very significant population was often non-ethnic.”
This applies primarily to representatives of the “lower classes” who are not covered by the “elite” book culture:
“The broad masses at that time,” says A.P. Motsia, “participated very weakly in the integration processes. It is difficult to imagine the high awareness of their unity among the Smerds sitting (for example) near Galich and Pskov - their “world” was real and occupied a much smaller size.”
The question of identifying the elements of self-awareness of the “popular masses” itself is extremely complex. First of all, it has still not been possible to determine the range of sources in which their self-awareness would be reflected quite adequately. It may be objected that such texts are known. This is primarily folklore, in which a special place is given to epics. In particular, according to B. N. Flory,
“it seems...possible to compare the system of ideas about the place of one’s country and people in the surrounding world reflected in epics with the system of ideas that we find in chronicles and other literary monuments of Kievan Rus. The ideas reflected in epics and chronicles have in common a feeling of deep patriotism: the main feat of the epic heroes is the defense of Kyiv and the Russian land from its traditional enemies - nomadic neighbors. For this reason, they leave feasts in the princely gridnitsa in order to stand at the heroic “outposts” for many years. As in the chronicles, the nomads in the epics are contrasted with the inhabitants of “Holy Rus'” as “filthy” who do not honor Christ and do not worship icons. However, the pathos of a “holy war” against the infidels, characteristic of historical monuments of early feudal society, is alien to the creators of epics. If the author of the introduction to the Primary Code of the second half of the 11th century. praised the “old” princes and their warriors for the fact that they not only “reclaimed the Russian land”, but also “made other countries subservient to them”, and in general “feeding, fighting other countries”, then the creators of epics, although they are confident and the superiority of their heroes over the heroes of other nations, the theme of aggressive campaigns is also alien. All these comparisons indisputably speak of only one thing: the lower classes had their own views and ideas, which did not entirely coincide with what we find in the official tradition.”
This thesis is acceptable, if, of course, we ignore the fact that this leaves an open question; On what basis are the texts telling about “ heroes" And " heroic outposts", can be attributed to the history of Rus' in the 10th-11th centuries? After all, these words themselves appeared in sources no earlier than the 13th century. " Bogatyrs”, which are described in epics, is a rather late borrowing from the Turkic languages (M. Vasmer). The earliest mentions of it are recorded in the Ipatiev Chronicle (South Russian code of the late 13th century) under 1240, 1243 and 1262. It is characteristic that in the first articles mentioning “heroes” we are talking about the Mongol invasion (in particular, under 1240 it is present in the combination “ Bouroundayi hero"). The word " outpost“was first mentioned in the same Ipatiev Chronicle in 1205 in the meaning of “ambush”, and in the meaning of “a detachment left to guard some routes”, “border outpost” - and in general in the 17th century.
In addition, the names and patronymics of most of the heroes of epics ( Ilya, Alyosha, Mikula, Dobrynya Nikitich etc.) - Christian, calendar. Along with mentioning the usual forms of female patronymics for us ( Amelfa Timofeevna, Zabava Putyatichna, Marfa Dmitrievna) this gives reason to suspect a rather later (not earlier than the 16th-17th centuries) origin of the “old times”, at least in the form in which they were written down.
Consequently, if East Slavic folklore sources (and all of them, I repeat, are preserved only in modern records) are used to reconstruct the mental structures of the early history of Rus', then their use should have a powerful theoretical justification. It must explain, in particular, what, in fact, allows us to date these texts to a time earlier than the words of which they consist? How did it happen that lexical changes to the basic vocabulary of oral works (what else do the earliest Russian epics talk about, if not about heroes and heroic outposts?) did not affect the content of “old times”? And, finally, on what basis are the restored mental structures dated not from the time of existence (and recording) of the data? folklore works, and the time of their origin? Without resolving these issues, any reconstruction of the ideas of the ancient Russian “lower classes” based on epic materials can apparently be considered only as working hypotheses.
For now, it remains to agree with the opinion of A. S. Demin, who writes:
“It can be assumed that in the Tale of Bygone Years, especially in its first half, the chronicler of the early 12th century. looked at the world of the past as a world full of attractions and mysteries and almost completely not “foreign”, although with many “not our own” ethnic groups. The chronicler expressed an active, unobstructed, optimistic outlook and, in essence, continued to live with the sentiments of the 11th century. The bitter division of peoples into “us” and “strangers” arose quite recently and concerned only modern times, first with the compiler of the “Initial Code”, and soon with Nestor.”
It is characteristic that these new “painful ideas,” says A. S. Demin,
“were expressed scatteredly, in isolated cases and only at the end of the “Initial Code”. They were not developed by Nestor, who, in the new beginning of the chronicle, narrated the history of the habitats of peoples and various sights, without at all touching upon the question of “ours” or “theirs.” Nestor wrote about neutral route landmarks intended for each and every person along his path, without the feeling that the border between “us” and “stranger” was being crossed. The whole world is “not a stranger.” This attitude of the chronicler was apparently associated with a phenomenon that historians, with reference to B. A. Rybakov, called “hybridization”, “international syncretism” of culture as a special qualitative characteristic of early feudal society.
For such an open worldview, it was natural to blur the distinction between ethnic poles. Indeed, who did the chronicler initially classify as “his own” based on clan, confessional, or other group affiliation, and who did he definitely classify as “strangers”? This can be seen from the use of the words “we” and “our” in the author’s speech (not in the characters’ speeches!). The chronicler considered Christians in general, their entire community, “his own,” and he proclaimed this at the beginning of the “Tale of Bygone Years”: “We are Christians, the entire earth, who believe in the Holy Trinity and in one baptism, in one faith, for which there is one imam.” The chronicler repeated this further: “We, the peasants of existence ...” (under 1015), “we ... accept book teaching” (under 1037), etc. Both Nestor and his predecessors thought so.
Of course, “ours” was another large whole, in which the chroniclers included themselves - Rus', the Russian land: “we are. (under 1093). It was natural for the chronicler to address the princes of Rus' as “our princes” (under 1015), to the united army of Rus' as “ours”: “ours rode with joy on horseback and walked” (under 1103), “ours more of the slaughter" (under 1107). The Russian land was also implied in the chronicler’s frequent condemnations of “our malice” and “our sin” (under 1068, and many others). He could blame “ours,” but they remained “ours.”
However, there was no coherent system of “ours” and “strangers” in the chronicle... The category of “alien”, that is, “foreign”, sharply opposed to “ours”, was not actually used by the chronicler while he was narrating about past times... The idea is really about “strangers”, absolutely not belonging to “ours”, was expressed only at the end of the “Tale of Bygone Years”, when the chronicler, once again talking about the Polovtsians, suddenly started talking about “our enemies”: “ours fled before the foreigners and fell ill before our enemies " (under 1093), "our persecution... we ran away from the foreigners... many enemies of ours that fallen" (under 1096). The chronicler began to emphasize the separation of “them” from “us” with additional designations: “foreigners”, “sons of Ishmael”, “stranger people”, “the crafty sons of Ishmael... we are betrayed to be in the hands of the language of the countries” (under 1093).
But until the chronicler felt acutely the “strangers,” he was focused on a vast transitional area: on ethnic groups and individual people, not absolutely “strangers,” but not entirely “our own,” but psychologically foreign to “ours” or strange to “ours.” ... There is a certain alienation between them.”
It is noteworthy that the division into “us” and “strangers” proposed by A. S. Demin exactly corresponds to the question we have already discussed about what the category of “Russian land” is in ancient Russian sources. If we remember that “Russian” (i.e. “ours”, in the terminology of A. S. Demin) is “Christian”, “devout believer”, then the “sudden” transformation of the Polovtsians into “our enemies” (read: enemies Christians) exactly corresponds to the general eschatological
orientation of the “Tale of Bygone Years” in articles 1093-1096. In them, the Cumans are described as “Ishmaelites,” whose invasion should have immediately preceded the arrival of the peoples of Gog and Magog, “riveted” by Alexander the Great somewhere in the north until “last times”...
From this a very important conclusion follows for us: in all likelihood, the self-awareness of the inhabitants of Ancient Rus' (more precisely, the elite self-awareness) did not have a strictly ethnic or political character. Rather, it can be attributed to ethno-confessional ideas. Apparently, this should not be forgotten when it comes to ancient Russian patriotism and love for the “Russian land”.
I. N. Danilevsky
From the book “Ancient Rus' through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (IX-XII centuries). Lecture course"
national character, Great Russian, Old Russian people.
Annotation:The article examines and analyzes the features of the national character of Old Russian people. Based on the study of scientific literature on this topic, factors influencing the formation of the national character of Old Russian people were also identified and answers to the following questions were obtained: a) What are the features of the Russian national character? b) What factors had the main influence on the formation of the national character traits of Old Russian people? c) How did Europeans see Russians?
Article text:
“National character is something so elusive, so vague and indefinite, that only with great difficulty can it be placed as the basis of distinction” (1:6). The category of national character includes the most diverse manifestations of the material and spiritual life of the people. However, when it is necessary to explain what is common that distinguishes representatives of one nation from another, they resort to the terms “national” or “ethnic” characteristics, “national mentality”, “national” character. This suggests that the semantic cell for this concept is present in the consciousness of every people. (8). D.S. Likhachev put it perfectly on this matter: “National characteristics are a reliable fact. There are no unique features peculiar only to a given people, only to a given nation, only to a given country. It's all about some of their totality and the crystalline unique structure of these national and national features. To deny the existence of a national character, national individuality means to make the world of peoples very boring and gray.” (8).
National character is what connects an individual with his culture. “The “society within us,” which exists in the form of reactions of the same type for people of the same culture to familiar situations in the form of feelings and states, is our national character.” As a person grows up, he consciously (and unconsciously) assimilates the values of his culture, psychological and behavioral characteristics that are typical and most characteristic of people belonging to this culture. At the everyday level, national character is usually associated with the painting of the French, the neatness of the Germans, and the mysterious Russian soul.
Like any people, the Russian national character is an indefinable phenomenon. Essentially, the character of a people is, first of all, its merits, the continuation of which can be disadvantages. Much has been said on the topic of the mysterious inconsistency of the Russian people, but, as a rule, this topic is mythologized. Some features of the character of the Russian people are often exaggerated in an attempt to explain many of the cataclysms of Russian history. But some real contradictions in the Russian character reflect the relationship between innate qualities and Orthodox upbringing.
The character of the ancient Russian people was formed as a result of the influence of various factors - these, in our opinion, are geographical conditions, Byzantine and Scandinavian cultural influence.
In the early Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire, the heir and successor of Greek culture and the state-legal organization of the Roman Empire, was the most cultural, strongest and most economically developed European state. It is quite natural that its influence was decisive over a fairly large period of Russian history. But the main influence of Byzantium on the Slavic world was carried out through its Christianization. Penetrating gradually into the soul and life of Russian society, Christianity, with its teachings about love and mercy, produced profound moral change. The change primarily affected the princely family itself, or rather its best representatives. It also served as the ideological basis for the unification of the Slavic tribes into a single Russian state. The spiritual direction in the development of Russian culture received significant advantages over the state one.
The ancient Greek historian Herodotus argued that the development of a people and the course of historical events are subject to natural conditions. The same idea was shared by prominent Russian historians Solovyov and Klyuchevsky. The conditions in which the Russian people were formed were unique. Not a single people in the world has developed under such difficult conditions and created a great state. (7). That's why he's different from others European peoples. He is neither better nor worse, he is different. Greek and Roman sources, speaking about the ancient Slavs, ranked them among the developed peoples, because our ancestors built houses, led a sedentary lifestyle and fought on foot. The Greeks, connoisseurs of beauty, admired the slenderness of the Slavs, their strength and dexterity. The Slavs paid attention to the strength of the body, but they could appear in public dirty and torn. Appearance didn't matter to them. They treated luxury with contempt; they often simply buried jewelry captured in the war in the ground. The Tale of Bygone Years mentions an incident when Prince Svyatoslav received Greek ambassadors. He despised gold and gladly accepted weapons. Seeing this, the Greeks did not dare to fight such a prince and agreed to pay tribute (7).
In battle, the ancient Slavs were brave and persistent. The number of enemies did not matter to them; they continued to fight even in a hopeless situation. Once captured, they bravely endured the torment. These qualities were very highly valued at that time, and the ancient Slavs were willingly accepted for military service. They could be found even among the Vikings. Their cruelty in war was also noted. At the same time, they treated the slaves very well. Slaves ate with their masters at the same table, a period of slavery was set, after this period the slave received freedom and could live among his former owners. (7).
Our ancestors were distinguished by exceptional hospitality. The guest was sacred for the ancient Slavs. To insult a guest meant to insult the entire tribe. In the Slavic lands there were practically no robbers, and among the Slavs there was no theft, but if, due to poverty, a person could not receive a guest well, then he could even commit theft. The morals of our ancestors allowed this. Traders loved to visit Slavic lands. They noted the chastity of Slavic wives and the devotion of Slavic husbands. The Slavs did not know how to read and write, but they knew counting. They divided the year into 12 months, and called a century a century. They loved music and took instruments with them to war. Bagpipes, whistles, pipes and harps have long been known to our ancestors. The Slavs loved fist fighting, wrestling, and running. Various crafts were developed among the Slavs. (7).
The Greeks admired the ability of the ancient Slavs to endure the hardships that nature presented to them. They could go without food for a long time, find food where no one else could, hide in swamps, rivers, and forests. They bravely endured cold, heat, and bad weather. These were our ancestors who lived in the Dnieper region, and from whom the Russian land came.
Genetically, the Russian person is endowed with an emotional, passionate, indomitable nature, a quick-witted mind, endurance, firmness - everything that was required for survival East Slavic tribes in harsh historical conditions. Ancient Rus', with its forests, swamps and swamps, presented the settler at every step with thousands of small dangers, unforeseen difficulties and troubles, among which he had to find himself and with which he constantly had to fight. This taught the Russian to vigilantly monitor nature, look both ways, walk, looking around and feeling the soil, not to venture into the water without looking for a ford, developed in him resourcefulness in minor difficulties and dangers, as well as the habit of patiently struggling with adversity and deprivation. In Europe there is no people less spoiled, accustomed to expect less from nature and fate, and more enduring (9).
Amazing powers of observation are revealed in ancient Russian folk signs. Here all the characteristic, often elusive phenomena of the annual turnover of Russian nature are captured, its various climatic and economic accidents are noted, and the entire annual routine of the peasant economy is outlined. All seasons of the year, every month, almost every day of the month appear here with special aptly outlined climatic and economic physiognomies, and in these observations, often obtained at the cost of bitter experience, both the observed nature and the observer himself were clearly reflected. Here he observes his surroundings and reflects on himself. The signs of the ancient Russian man include his meteorology, his economic textbook, and his everyday autobiography. In them he was completely reflected with his life and outlook, with his mind and heart. In them he reflects, and observes, and rejoices, and grieves, and he himself laughs at his own sorrows and joys. (9).
The folk signs of ancient Russian people are capricious, just as the nature of ancient Rus' reflected in them is capricious. She often laughs at his most cautious calculations, and the waywardness of the climate and soil deceives his most modest expectations. Having become accustomed to these deceptions, he often chooses the most hopeless and imprudent decision, contrasting the whim of nature with the whim of his own courage. This tendency to play with luck is the Russian maybe. The ancient Russian man is sure of one thing - we must cherish a clear summer working day. Nature allows him little convenient time for agricultural work, and the short summer can be further shortened by untimely, unexpected bad weather. This forces the Russian peasant to rush, to work hard in order to do a lot in a short time and get out of the field just in time, and then remain idle throughout the fall and winter. So he got used to excessive short-term strain on his strength, got used to working quickly, and then resting during the forced autumn and winter idleness. No people in Europe are capable of such intense labor for a short time, but nowhere in Europe is there such an unaccustomed attitude to even, measured, constant work as in Ancient Rus'. On the other hand, the properties of the region determined the order of settlement (9).
Life in remote, secluded villages with a lack of communication, naturally, could not accustom the Great Russian to act in large alliances, friendly masses. The man did not work in an open field, in front of everyone, like an inhabitant of southern Rus': he fought with nature alone, in the depths of the forest with an ax in his hand. It was silent, menial work on external nature, on a forest or wild field, and not on oneself and society, not on one’s feelings and relationships with people. That’s why he works better alone, when no one is looking at him, and has difficulty getting used to working together together. He is generally reserved and cautious, even timid, always on his own mind, uncommunicative, better with himself than in public, better at the beginning of a business, when he is not yet confident in himself and in success, and worse at the end, when he has already achieved some success and will attract attention: self-doubt excites his strength, and success drops them. It is easier for him to overcome an obstacle, danger, failure, than to withstand success with tact and dignity; It’s easier to do great things than to get used to the idea of your greatness. He belongs to that type of smart people who become stupid from the recognition of their intelligence (9).
It must be that every nation is naturally destined to perceive from the surrounding world, as well as from the destinies experienced, and to transform into its character not just any, but only certain impressions, and from here comes the diversity of national patterns, or types, just as unequal light sensitivity produces variety of colors. In accordance with this, the people look at their surroundings and what they experience from a certain angle, reflecting both in their consciousness with a certain refraction. The nature of the country is probably not without participation in the degree and direction of this refraction.
The inability to calculate in advance, figure out a plan of action in advance and go straight to the intended goal was noticeably reflected in the mentality of the ancient Russian man, in the manner of his thinking. Everyday irregularities and accidents taught him to discuss the path traveled more than to think about the future, to look back more than to look forward. In the fight against unexpected snowstorms and thaws, with unforeseen August frosts and January slush, he became more cautious than prudent, learned to notice consequences more than set goals, and cultivated the ability to sum up the art of making estimates. This skill is what we call hindsight. The saying that a Russian man is strong in hindsight belongs to him by right. But hindsight is not the same as hindsight. With his habit of hesitating and maneuvering between the unevenness of the path and the accidents of life, he often gives the impression of insincerity. Rusich often thinks in two ways, and this seems like double-mindedness. He always goes towards a direct goal, although often not well thought out.
After all, “you can’t break through a wall with your forehead,” and “only crows fly straight,” say Russian proverbs. Nature and fate led the Russian in such a way that they taught him to take a roundabout route to the straight road. He thinks and acts the way he walks. “It seems that you can come up with a crooked and more tortuous Russian country road? It was as if a snake had slithered through. But try to go straighter: you will only get lost and end up on the same winding path” (3:28). This is how the action of nature affected the economic life and character of ancient Russian man.
During the era of Kievan Rus, compared to later times, Russians had better houses and food. Without a doubt, in those days the average Russian person ate more meat than the peasant in Tsarist Russia. As a result, the Russian people seem to have been healthier and fitter than their nineteenth-century descendants. Despite the growth of cities, they were not yet as overpopulated as in our time. On the other hand, the medicine of that time, and not only in Rus', was unable to cope with epidemics, and when they arose, people were helpless and viewed them as a sign of the wrath of God. For common illnesses, people expected help either from learned doctors or, especially in rural areas, from healers and wise men.
However, the basics of hygiene were supported more by common sense and folk tradition than by witchcraft or science. Here one cannot fail to note another important feature of the ancient Russian national character - cleanliness. Elementary cleanliness of the body was achieved by the regular use of steam baths, at least in the northern part of Rus', where a bathhouse was a mandatory part of every estate. In the south, the steam bath was less popular, but nevertheless widespread. The Tale of Bygone Years contains a characteristic story about the legendary journey of the Apostle Andrew to Novgorod. “Believe it or not,” he says, “I saw the land of the Slovenians, and while I was among them, I observed their wooden baths. They heat them until very hot, then undress and, having anointed themselves with alum, take fresh rods and whip their bodies with them. In fact, they whip themselves so violently that they are barely alive. Then they douse themselves with cold water and come to their senses. They can do this every day, and, in fact, voluntarily subject themselves to such torture" (1:326).
And so, we examined the features of the national Russian character within the framework of this article and made the following conclusions:
Not a single people in the world developed in such difficult conditions and did not create a great state, which is why the ancient Russian people differed from other European peoples: exceptional hospitality, the ability to endure cold, heat, bad weather, regularity, courage and originality. The ideology of the Great Russians became common to all peoples inhabiting this great state, and began to be called the “mysterious Russian soul.”
Literature.
1. Vernadsky V.G. Kievan Rus. M.: Publishing house. Agraf. 2004 – 448p.
2. Kasyanova K. About the Russian national character. - M.: Institute of National Economic Model, 1994 - 267 p.
3. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. Op. in 9 vols. Part 1. M., 1987.
4. Levchenko, M.V., Essays on the history of Russian-Byzantine relations / M.V. Levchenko Essays on the history of Russian-Byzantine relations. M., 1956
→CREATION
SCHOOL ESSAYS
Portrayal of a hero in ancient Russian literature
“The first historical works allow the people to realize themselves in the historical process, think about their role in world history, understand the roots of modern events and their responsibility to the future.”
Academician D. S. Likhachev
Old Russian literature, which includes epics, fairy tales, lives of saints and (later) stories, is not just a cultural monument. This is a unique opportunity to get acquainted with the life, everyday life, spiritual world and moral principles of our distant ancestors, a kind of bridge connecting modernity and antiquity.
So, what is he like, the ancient Russian hero of literature?
The first thing that should be noted is that the depiction of man in general in ancient Russian literature is very peculiar. The author deliberately avoids precision, certainty, and detail that indicate a specific character. Professional activity or belonging to a certain social category determines personality. If we have a monk in front of us, his monastic qualities are important, if a prince - princely, if a hero - heroic. The life of the saints is depicted specifically outside of time and space, being a standard of ethical standards.
The character of the hero of the story is revealed through a description of his actions (deeds, exploits). The author does not pay attention to the reasons that prompted the hero to this or that action; the motivation remains behind the scenes.
Old Russian hero- an integral and uncompromising person who lives by the principle: “I see the goal, I don’t notice the obstacles, I believe in myself.” His image seems to be carved out of a granite monolith; his actions are based on unshakable confidence in the rightness of his cause. His activities are aimed at the benefit of his native land, for the benefit of his fellow citizens. The epic hero, for example, is a collective image of the defender of the Motherland, albeit endowed with certain supernatural abilities, a model of civil behavior.
Whoever the hero is, he is courageous, honest, kind, generous, devoted to his homeland and people, never seeks his own benefit, an Orthodox Christian. This is a strong, proud and unusually stubborn man. Obviously, this fantastic stubbornness, so superbly described by N.V. Gogol in the story “Taras Bulba,” allows a person to achieve the task he has defined for himself. For example, St. Sergius of Radonezh flatly refuses to become a metropolitan, Fevronia, despite her social status, becomes a princess, Ilya of Muromets not only defends Kyiv, but in his own way destroys the enemies of the Russian land.
A characteristic feature of the hero of ancient Russian literature is the absence of chauvinism, a humane attitude towards people of different nationalities. Despite all the patriotism, there is no aggressiveness. Thus, in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” the fight against the Polovtsians is seen as the defense of the Russian people from unexpected predatory raids. In the epic “The Tale of the March of the Kyiv Heroes to Constantinople” “...they release the young Tugarin to Constantinople and teach him to conjure so that they will not come to Rus' for centuries.”
Saint Sergius of Radonezh, blessing Prince Dmitry for the battle with Mamai, says: “Go against the barbarians, rejecting great doubt, and God will help you. You will defeat your enemies and return healthy to your fatherland.”
Female images of ancient Russian literature convey creativity, the warmth of the family hearth, love and fidelity. These are unusually subtle and intelligent representatives of the fair half of humanity, who know how to achieve their goals not by force, but by reason.
The man of ancient Rus' is inextricably linked with the nature around him. And even though in ancient Russian literature there is no description of the landscape in the familiar understanding of this word to modern people, the presence of living, animate forests and fields, rivers and lakes, flowers and herbs, animals and birds create the impression of an inextricable connection between people and the living world around them.
The description of nature is most clearly expressed in “The Lay...”, where natural phenomena and the animal world empathize with the hero:
"...The night has passed, and the bloody dawns
They announce disaster in the morning.
A cloud is moving in from the sea
For four princely tents....."
In all other works, the landscape is drawn extremely poorly, sometimes there is almost no landscape at all.
However, St. Sergius seeks solitude among virgin forests, and Fevronia turns tree stumps into large trees with branches and foliage.
In general, we understand the language in which ancient Russian works of literature were written, because, although it is ancient, it is still Russian!
There are certainly outdated words there (guni - outerwear, eliko - only, monk - monk, adamant - diamond, span - measure of length, incense - incense), the meaning of which is difficult to guess right away, but in the context of the work you can understand their meaning (prayer - worship, zegzica - cuckoo). Old Russian literature uses very bright, lively and figurative language. There is a lot of dialogic speech, and colloquial vocabulary is used accordingly, making these works unusually folk. In ancient Russian literature there are many epithets (silver shores, pearly soul) and comparisons (galloped like an ermine, swam like a white goldeneye, flew like a falcon, ran like a wolf like a cuckoo, calls to the Jurassic). Literary works are melodious, musical and unhurried due to the large number of vowels and sonorous sounds.
It is worth mentioning that the author does not use such an important thing as a portrait, without which we cannot imagine modern literature. Perhaps in those days the idea of a particular hero was general, and there was no need to describe his appearance, since it (the idea) was unspoken.
Also, a means of artistic expression is epic hyperbolization and idealization.
The technique of hyperbolization is widely used in epics; the capabilities of many heroes and objects are exaggerated, enlivening and emphasizing events. (For example, the description of Idol Skoropeevich in “The Heroic Word”:
"And he is tall, not according to custom,
Between his eyes the arrow goes well,
Between his shoulders there is a large fathom,
His eyes are like bowls
And his head is like a beer cauldron.)
The technique of idealization is a method of artistic generalization that allows the author to create an image based on his ideas about what he should be (saints are ideal, family values are unshakable).
All elements of the composition (Prologue => Plot of action => Development of action => Climax => Denouement => Epilogue) are present only in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, and in epics, stories and lives there is no prologue, and the starting point of the action is the plot.
The spiritual values defended by the heroes of ancient Russian literature are still relevant today, almost a thousand years later. National independence, cohesion and unity of the nation, family values, Christian values (= universal human values) are close and understandable to every citizen of Russia. The connection of times is obvious.
First moral writings, socio-political essays, clarify social norms of behavior, allow wider dissemination of the ideas of everyone’s responsibility for the fate of the people and the country, cultivate patriotism and at the same time respect for other peoples.
The richness of the Russian language is the result of almost a thousand years of development of Russian literature.
In Ancient Rus' there was beauty of moral depth, moral subtlety and at the same time moral power.
To become familiar with ancient Russian literature is great happiness and great joy.
Bibliography:
B.A. Rybakov "World of History" 1984
D.S. Likhachev "Anthology of Old Russian Literature"
The family was the center of human life in Ancient Rus'. The extensive and detailed terminology of kinship relationships is one of the best confirmations of this. Unfortunately, written sources cover this aspect of the spiritual life of our ancestors very sparingly. However, even indirect data allows us to draw quite interesting conclusions.
Apparently, the most significant connections were considered, firstly, between brothers and, secondly, between parents and children. The “depth” of ancestral memory rarely went beyond these two generations of relatives. It is not without reason that the nouns “brother” and “brothers” are used more often than any other words by chroniclers. Thus, in “The Tale of Bygone Years” they occur 219 times (i.e., on average, 4.6 mentions for every thousand words of text; for comparison: the most used noun in “The Tale” “summer” - found 412 times - gives 8, 8 mentions for every 1000 words, and the next most frequently used - “son” - was found 172 times, correspondingly 3.7 mentions). In general, children were of little interest to the chronicler. Words denoting the younger generation (“youth,” “child,” “child”) are found ten times less often in The Tale of Bygone Years than nouns referring to adult men. Male related terminology makes up a little less than a third of the entire complex of chronicle nouns, despite the fact that in general “related” vocabulary makes up 39.4% of all nouns used by the chronicler. It should also be noted that the older generation (father-mother; husband-wife) occupies a subordinate position in the chronicle compared to the younger one (son-daughter; brothers-sisters; children-children): 353 and 481 mentions, respectively. Moreover, the problem of “fathers and sons” in the Russian Middle Ages took the form of a problem of “sons and parents”: the relationship between sons, on the one hand, and parents (father, mother), on the other, gives 355 mentions.
Approximately the same trends can be traced in the material of East Slavic anthroponymy, when analyzing the proper names that people bore in Ancient Rus'. These include personal names, nicknames, nicknames, patronymics and surnames.
Personal names
Personal names are the names given to people at birth and by which they are known in society. In ancient Rus', canonical and non-canonical names were distinguished.
The canonical name is the “true”, “real” name of a person, enshrined in the traditions of the Christian religion. In domestic sources, canonical names usually include Orthodox names taken from the church calendar, where the names of canonized saints are listed by month and day of their memory (the so-called calendar, or hagiographic names). In the early stages of the development of feudal society, as a rule, only godparents (baptismal, church), monastic, (monastic) and schematic names were canonical.
The godname was given to a person at baptism. It was usually chosen by the priest from the church calendar in accordance with the name of the saint whose memory was celebrated on the person's birthday or baptism. There are also other motives for assigning a person a particular name.
The baptismal name is rarely mentioned in early sources, usually only in reports of the death of a given person or in texts written after his death. Perhaps this was due to superstitious ideas about the need to hide the “true” name, which connected a person with a heavenly patron, patron, guardian angel, in order to protect its bearer from “damage”, “evil eye”.
In Ancient Rus', it was popular to designate the baptismal names and patronymics of customers of icons, works of small plastic art and jewelry, owners of hanging seals (until the 15th century) by depicting saints on these objects that were directly related to family patronage (the namesake, say, of the owner or the customer, or his father, etc.). Thanks to the images of patronal saints, when compared with genealogical data, the baptismal names and patronymics of the owners of Old Russian seals can be restored and many artistic works of Ancient Rus' can be attributed.
An indirect basis for restoring the baptismal name of the prince may be a certificate of the construction of a church or monastery, since among the princes there was a custom to build church buildings in the name of their holy patrons. Thus, the construction of the Church of St. by Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich. Andrei, under whom the monastery was founded by his daughter Yanka, is considered by V.L. Yanin as an indirect confirmation of the baptismal name Andrei belonging to this prince. And the message from the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 882 about the construction of the Church of St. on Askold’s grave. Nikola gave reason to some scientists to assume that Askold was a Christian and bore the baptismal name Nikola. For similar reasons, Yaroslav the Wise is credited with the founding of the Yuryev, or St. George, monastery three miles from Novgorod.
It is important to emphasize that in Rus' there was a custom of giving children names (both pagan and baptismal) in honor of their grandfather or grandmother, which emphasized (especially before the appearance of surnames) their belonging to a given family. Based on this custom, V.A. Kuchkin suggested that Vladimir Monomakh's sister's name was not Catherine, as recorded in the Laurentian Chronicle, but Irina (a reading preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle). The researcher justified his choice by the fact that the name of Vladimir Vsevolodovich’s daughter most likely repeated the baptismal name of Vsevolod’s mother, Princess Irina, the second wife of Yaroslav the Wise.
Sometimes members of the same clan can trace a certain connection between the pagan and baptismal names traditional for a given family. So, for example, the Chernigov princes were characterized by a combination of the Christian name Nikola, which was extremely rare for the princely environment (St. Nicholas of Myra was revered in Rus' almost on a par with Christ) with the pagan name Svyatoslav.
Until the second half of the 15th century. In the overwhelming majority of cases, baptismal names can be established only for representatives of the feudal elite - princes, members of their families and boyars. The bulk of the population of that time - peasants, artisans, traders - usually preferred non-calendar, pagan names. Consequently, the mention of a baptismal name in the source (or, conversely, its absence - although with less justification) can be considered as a sign that indirectly indicates a person’s social affiliation.
The monastic name was the second canonical name that a person received when he was tonsured a monk. It replaced his former worldly name. Usually, the tonsured person received the name of the saint whose memory was celebrated on the day of tonsure, or a calendar name that began with the same letter as the Minsk name of the monk or nun. Thus, the Novgorod I Chronicle mentions the boyar Proksha Malyshevits, who took the name Porfiry at tonsure, the monk Varlaam, in the world the boyar Vyacheslav Prokshinich, the Novgorodian Mikhalko, who took tonsure under the name Mitrofan, and others.
The schematic name was given to the monk at the “third baptism” (acceptance of the great schema) instead of his monastic name. It was also given to Moscow kings and boyars, many of whom, according to tradition, took the schema before death (which ensured their inclusion in the rank of angels). Often schema-monks, and sometimes monks, were given rare calendar names that were rarely used in the world as baptismal names (Sakerdon, Melchizedek, Akepsia; Synklitikia, Golindukha, Christodoula, etc.) Such names can also be considered as an additional basis for determining their social status carriers.
Over time, canonical names gradually replaced non-canonical ones in everyday life and began to be used as the only name of a person. At the same time, they often took a non-canonical form in pronunciation and spelling. At the same time, a number of pagan, non-calendar names of secular and religious figures of the Russian Middle Ages, canonized by the Orthodox Church, became calendar names (for example, Gleb, Boris, Vladimir, Olga, etc.). Their use as canonical names could only take place after the canonization of a given saint.
In some cases, the canonical name gave an idea of the religion of its bearer, since many calendar names of the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christian churches differ from each other in form, and the days of remembrance of the same saints are often celebrated on different days.
A non-canonical (secular) name was usually not associated with religious traditions. It was the second, optional name of a secular person. In Ancient Rus', the secular name, as a rule, served as the main name, since it was more famous and commonly used than the godfather name. First, this is a non-calendar, pre-Christian name, not associated with the name of any saint. As a rule, it had an “internal” meaning and was supposed to endow its bearer with some useful qualities in life. Later, in the same capacity, along with pagan ones, Christian names begin to be used, usually in their folk, colloquial, non-canonical form, for example, Mikola and Mikula instead of the canonical form Nikolai, Mikita instead of Nikita, Gyurgi instead of Georgiy, Nefed instead of Methodius, Nero instead of Miron , Upolon instead of Apollo, Theodosius instead of Theodosius, Ophimia instead of Euthymius, Ovdokia or Avdotya instead of Evdokia, etc. The replacement of pagan names with Christian ones was especially active among princes and boyars.
Sources often use diminutive or disparaging derogatory (pejorative) forms of non-canonical names. It is quite difficult to reconstruct the full form of the name from them. This is especially difficult to do when it comes to homophonic (coincident in pronunciation and spelling) forms of different names. In such cases, an incomplete (ellipsed) name can correspond to two or more full ones. For example, the name Elka could be formed both from the name Elisha, and from the name Elpidifor, or Elizar, and perhaps from the non-calendar name El; Zinka - from the name Zinovy or Zeno; the abbreviated Alyosha could correspond to both Alexey and Alexander; Mitka - Dmitry and Nikita, etc. At the same time, the source may contain various variant forms of one name (allonyms). Let's say such names as Stekhno, Stensha, Stepsha are non-canonical variant forms of one name - Stepan.
Nicknames
Nicknames, unlike names, always reflect not desirable, but real properties and qualities, territorial or ethnic origin, place of residence of their bearers and thus denote the special meaning that these properties and qualities had for others. Nicknames could be given to people at different periods of their lives and were known to a fairly limited circle of people.
Nicknames should be distinguished from pagan Old Russian names. However, this distinction is not always easy to establish. This is due, in particular, to the custom of giving children names derived from ethnonyms, names of animals, plants, fabrics and other objects, “protective” names. Apparently, he wrote about such nicknames at the beginning of the 17th century. English traveler Richard James in his dictionary-diary:
“(Prozvishshe), a nickname given by the mother along with the name of the godfather, and this is the name they [Russians] are usually called.”
Many of these names sound offensive and therefore can be perceived by modern people as nicknames. For example, even among the nobles of the 16th century. there are names Chudin, Kozarin, Rusin, Cheremisin, Mare, Shevlyaga (Nag), Stallion, Cat, Goat, Beast, Cow, Woodpecker, Grass, Sedge, Radish, Zhito, Cabbage, Velvet, Aksamit, Izmaragd, Shovel, Chobot, Vetoshka , Ignorant, Unsettled, Bad, Malice, Uninvited, Unloving, Thief, and even Grimacing (Snotty) Face, etc. Many of these nicknames existed in individual families for several generations, thereby emphasizing a person’s belonging to a given clan. They were often used in official documents along with non-calendar names.
An important clarifying part of a person’s name in Rus' was and remains o_t_ch_e_s_t_v_o (patronymic nickname), usually used together with personal names and formed on behalf of the father. The patronymic directly indicated the origin and family ties of the person. Along with the names traditional for a given family, it was one of the most important “external” indicators of a person’s belonging to a particular clan (at least, before the advent of surnames).
At the same time, in the old days in Rus', the patronymic also indirectly indicated a person’s social affiliation, since it was considered an honorary name. If representatives of the highest feudal aristocracy were called by the so-called full patronymic, ending in -vich, then the middle classes used less honorable forms of patronymic nicknames - p_o_u_o_t_ch_e_s_t_v_a_m_i, ending in -ov, -ev, -in, and the lower ones generally did without patronymics.
Surnames
First names, patronymics and nicknames have been known since ancient times, but surnames appeared in Rus' quite late. Surnames are inherited official names that indicate a person’s belonging to a particular family. As we have already noted, for several centuries, “ancestral memory” in Rus' made do with two generations of relatives: fathers and children. This was reflected in the increased (compared to other kinship terms) frequency of mentions of brothers, on the one hand, and fathers and mothers, which were not realized by the author of the source. This is also confirmed by the fact that naming a person with his father’s nickname as a family nickname was considered quite sufficient, and therefore the so-called grandfatherhoods (personal nicknames formed on behalf of the grandfather) were used extremely rarely. Now (apparently, with the development of private land ownership) a more “deep” genealogy was required, recorded in generic nicknames common to all family members. They appeared only in the 15th-16th centuries, and even then at first only among the feudal lords.
Particular attention should be paid to female non-canonical names. They are almost unknown to us. This alone is an important indicator of the attitude towards women in ancient Rus'. There are even a number of names that cannot be clearly classified as female or male. In particular, we are talking about the names: Gostyata, found in a Novgorod birch bark document of the 14th century. (N9); Uncles (author of graffito No. 8 in Novgorod Sofia), Omrosiya (author of Novgorod birch bark letter No. 59, trans. Half of the 14th century), etc. If these are female names, then we receive indisputable evidence of a fairly high level of education of ancient Russian women and their struggle for their rights (mentioned Novgorod birch bark document No. 9).
The position of a woman.
Women are rarely mentioned in chronicles. For example, in “The Tale of Bygone Years” there are five times fewer messages related to the fair sex than “male” messages. Women are considered by the chronicler primarily as a “predicate” of a man (as are children). That is why in Rus', before marriage, a girl was often called by her father, but not as a patronymic, but in the possessive form: “Volodimerya,” and after marriage - by her husband (in the same way as in the first case, “possessive,” “ possessive" form; cf. phrase: "husband's wife", i.e. "belonging to the husband"). Perhaps the only exception to the rule was the mention of the wife of Prince Igor Novgorod-Seversky in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - Yaroslavna. By the way, this served A.A. Zimin as one of the arguments to justify the late dating of the Lay. A quotation from “worldly parables” given by Daniil Zatochnik (12th century) speaks very eloquently about the position of a woman in the family:
“Not a bird among the birds is an owl; nor in the beast the hedgehog beast; neither fish in fishes cancer; neither cattle in cattle goats; neither a serf to a serf, who works for a serf; neither is the husband among husbands who listens to his wife.”
The despotic orders that became widespread in ancient Russian society did not bypass the family. The head of the family, the husband, was a slave in relation to the sovereign, but a sovereign in his own home. All household members, not to mention servants and slaves in 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 only leave her new home, not excluding visiting church, with her husband’s permission. Only under his control and with his permission could she meet anyone, have conversations with strangers, and the content of these conversations was also controlled. Even at home, a woman had no right to eat or drink secretly from her husband, or to give or receive gifts to anyone.
In Russian peasant families, the share of female labor has always been unusually large. Often a woman even had to take up a plow. At the same time, the labor of daughters-in-law, whose position in the family was especially difficult, was especially widely used.
The duties of the husband and father included “teaching” the family, which consisted of systematic beatings to which the children and wife were to be subjected. It was believed that a man who does not beat his wife “does not build his house” and “does not take care of his soul,” and will be “destroyed” both “in this age and in the future.” Only in the 16th century. society tried to somehow protect the woman and limit the arbitrariness of her husband. Thus, “Domostroy” advised beating your wife “not in front of people, to teach in private” and “not to be angry” at the same time. It was recommended “for any fault” [because of little things] “not to hit by sight, not to hit in the heart with a fist, not to kick, not to hit with a staff, not to hit with anything made of iron or wood.”
Such “restrictions” had to be introduced at least on a recommendatory basis, since in everyday life, apparently, husbands were not particularly constrained in their means when “explaining” with their wives. No wonder it was immediately explained that those who
“It hits so much from the heart or from the torment, there are many stories from this: blindness and deafness, and a dislocated arm and leg, and a finger, and headaches, and dental disease, and among pregnant wives [that means they were beaten too!] and children, damage occurs in womb."
That is why the advice was given to beat your wife not for every, but only for serious offense, and not with anything or any way, but
“Take off your shirt, beat me politely [gently!] with a whip, holding your hands”: “and reasonable, and painful, and scary, and healthy”!
At the same time, it should be noted that in pre-Mongol Rus' a woman had a number of rights. She could become the heir to her father's property (before getting married). The highest fines were paid by those guilty of “beating” (rape) and insulting women with “disgraceful words.” A slave who lived with the master as a wife became free after the death of the master. The appearance of such legal norms in ancient Russian legislation testified to the widespread occurrence of such cases. The existence of entire harems among influential persons is recorded not only in pre-Christian Rus' (for example, among Vladimir Svyatoslavich), but also at a much later time. Thus, according to the testimony of one Englishman, one of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich’s close associates poisoned his wife because she expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that her husband kept many mistresses at home. At the same time, in some cases a woman, apparently, could become a real despot in the family. It is difficult, of course, to say what influenced the views of the authors and editors of the popular “Prayers” and “Words” in Ancient Rus', attributed to a certain Daniil Zatochnik - childhood impressions of the relationship between father and mother or their own bitter family experience, but in these works a woman does not look at all as defenseless and lacking in rights as it might seem from the above. Let's listen to what Daniel says.
“Or say, prince: marry a rich father-in-law; drink that and eat that. It’s better to be sick with shaking; shaking, shake, he will let go, but the evil wife dries to death... Fornication in fornication, whoever takes evil will share the wife's profit or the father-in-law's wealth. It would be better for me to see an ox in my house than for an evil wife... It would be better for me to weld iron than to be with an evil wife. A woman who is evil is like a comb [combed place]: it itches here, it hurts here.”
Isn’t it true that the preference (even if only in jest) for the hardest craft - iron smelting - over life with an “evil” wife says something?
However, a woman gained real freedom only after the death of her husband. Widows were highly respected in society. In addition, they became full-fledged mistresses of the house. In fact, from the moment of the death of the spouse, the role of head of the family passed to them.
In general, the wife had full responsibility for running the household and raising young children. Teenage boys were then handed over to “uncles” for training and education (in the early period, actually uncles on the maternal side - uys, who were considered the closest male relatives, since the problem of establishing paternity, apparently, could not always be solved).
Parents and children.
The despotic order that reigned in the family could not but affect the position of the children in it. The spirit of slavery, “covered by the false sanctity of patriarchal relations” (N.I. Kostomarov), dominated the relations between children and parents in Ancient Rus'.
The subordinate position of the child and adolescent in the family is perhaps best confirmed by the fact that in the overwhelming majority of terms denoting socially unequal segments of the population, they initially referred specifically to the younger members of the family or clan. Thus, the word “man” was formed from the noun “husband” (“an adult free, independent person” and at the same time “spouse”) with the addition of the diminutive suffix -ik (literally “little husband”). “Otrok” (“child, teenager, youth” and “junior warrior”, and also, at the same time, “servant, slave, worker”) literally meant “non-speaking”, i.e. “not having the right to speak, the right to vote in the life of the clan or tribe.” “Kholop” (“enslaved, unfree person”) is associated with the word “lad” - “little boy, boy, guy” and, possibly, came from the root *chol-, from which the Old Russian adjective “holost, unmarried” arose, i.e. e. “unmarried, celibate, incapable of sexual activity” (by the way, this is why “Russkaya Pravda” uses another word “robe” to designate dependent women). “Chelyady” (slaves, slaves, servants) originally, apparently, referred to the younger members of the clan, family (cf. Proto-Slavic *cel'adь - “herd, clan”, related to the Irish clan - “offspring, clan, clan”, and Olonets “servants” - “children, boys”, as well as Bulgarian “servants” - “offspring, clan, children”). Finally, the word “man” means “a person in the service of someone; someone’s servant” came, according to most modern etymologists, from a combination of two stems, one of which was related to the just discussed Proto-Slavic root *cel- (“clan, clan, tribe”), and the second to the Lithuanian word vaikas - “child , cub, descendant, boy” and Latvian vaiks - “boy, young man”.
To what has been said, we can add that in ancient Russian miniatures and icons beards were depicted only on people over 30 years old. However, this rule applied only to the privileged classes. Representatives of the urban and especially rural “lower classes”, regardless of age, were depicted as beardless. From here it is clear why, for example, in “Russkaya Pravda” for “tracking” a beard or mustache, an incredibly high, in the opinion of the reader of the late 20th century, fine was imposed - 12 hryvnia (the same as for a stolen beaver and only three times less than the fine for killing a free one). person). The persistent mention that St. Boris “has a small beard and a mustache (but there is one!) - he’s still young.” The absence of a beard served as evidence of a person’s incompetence or inferiority, while pulling out a beard was an insult to honor and dignity.
The constant shortage of labor led to very ugly phenomena in peasant life in Rus'. The hunger for labor penetrated into the very way of life of the peasant family. Therefore, children were used in various jobs from a very early age. However, since they were clearly inferior workers, parents often married their sons at the age of 8-9 to adult women, wanting to get an extra worker. Naturally, the position of a young wife who came to her husband’s family under such conditions could hardly really differ in any significant way from the position of a slave. This disfigured family relationships, giving rise to such phenomena as daughter-in-law, etc.
Beating children for “educational” purposes was considered the norm. Moreover, the authors of many ancient Russian instructions, including the famous “Domostroy,” recommended doing this systematically:
“Punish [punish] your son from his youth, and he will give you rest in your old age and give beauty to your soul; and do not weaken when beating a child: if you beat him with a rod, he will not die, but he will be healthy. You, beating him in the body, and delivering his soul from death... Loving your son, increase his wounds, and rejoice over him, execute your son from his youth and rejoice over him with courage... Do not laugh at him, playing games: if you weaken yourself in a small way, you will suffer more [you will suffer] in sorrow... And you will not give him power in his youth, but crush his ribs, he will grow stronger, and, having become bitter, he will not obey you and will cause you annoyance and illness of the soul , and vanity of home, destruction of property, and reproach from neighbors, and laughter before enemies, payment [fine] before the authorities, and the annoyance of evil.”
The norms of attitude towards children, declared in the 16th century, were in effect half a thousand years before the lines just quoted were written. The mother of Theodosius of Pechersk, as the author of his “Life” repeatedly emphasized, tried to influence her son using precisely these methods. Each of his offenses, be it an attempt to engage in a task unusual for a person of his class, or secretly wearing chains to “depress the flesh,” or escaping from home with pilgrims to the Holy Land, was punished with extraordinary, in the opinion of a person at the end of the 20th century, cruelty. The mother beat her son (even with her feet) until she literally fell from fatigue, put him in shackles, etc.
Marriage and sexual relations.
In medieval society, the “depression of the flesh” was of particular value. Christianity directly connects the idea of the flesh with the idea of sin. The development of the “anti-corporeal” concept, found already among the apostles, follows the path of “diabolization” of the body as a container of vices, a source of sin. The doctrine of original sin, which actually consisted of pride, over time acquired an increasingly distinct anti-sexual orientation.
In parallel with this, in official religious attitudes there was an all-out exaltation of virginity. However, a girl’s preservation of “purity” before marriage, apparently, was initially valued only by the top of society. Among the “simple people,” according to numerous sources, premarital sexual relations in Rus' were looked upon condescendingly. In particular, until the 17th century. society was quite tolerant of girls visiting spring and summer “games”, which provided the opportunity for pre- and extramarital sexual contacts:
“When this very holiday comes, not all of the city will take up the tambourines and sniffles... And with all sorts of inappropriate Sotonin games of splashing and splashing. For wives and girls, the head is swaying and their lips are hostile to the cry, all the nasty songs, their wobbling with their groans, their feet jumping and trampling. Here there is a great fall as a man and a youth, nor a woman's and girl's vacillation. In the same way, lawless defilement is also given to married wives right there...”
Naturally, the participation of girls in such “games” led - and, apparently, often - to “corruption of virginity.” Nevertheless, even according to church laws, this could not serve as an obstacle to marriage (the only exceptions were marriages with representatives of the princely family and priests). In the village, premarital sexual contacts between both boys and girls were considered almost the norm.
Experts note that ancient Russian society recognized the girl’s right to freely choose a sexual partner. This is evidenced not only by the long-term persistence in Christian Rus' of the custom of marriage by “abduction,” by abducting the bride by prior agreement with her. Church law even provided for the responsibility of the parents, who forbade the girl to marry of her choice if she “does something to herself.” Indirectly, the right of free sexual choice of girls is evidenced by the rather severe punishments of rapists. “He who molested a girl with excess” had to marry her. In case of refusal, the culprit was excommunicated from the church or punished by four years of fasting. Perhaps even more curious is that twice as much punishment was expected in the 15th-16th centuries. those who persuaded a girl to have sex with “cunning”, promising to marry her: the deceiver was threatened with a nine-year penance (religious punishment). Finally, the church ordered to continue to consider the raped girl a girl (though, provided that she resisted the rapist and screamed, but there was no one who could come to the rescue). A slave raped by her master received complete freedom along with her children.
The basis of the new, Christian, sexual morality was the renunciation of pleasures and bodily joys. The biggest victim of the new ethics was marriage, which, although perceived as a lesser evil than debauchery, was still marked with the stamp of sinfulness.
In Ancient Rus', the only meaning and justification for sexual life was seen in procreation. All forms of sexuality that pursued goals other than procreation were considered not only immoral, but also unnatural. In the “Question of Kirikov” (XII century) they were assessed “like the sin of Sodom.” The emphasis on sexual abstinence and moderation was supported by religious and ethical arguments about the sinfulness and baseness of “carnal life.” Christian morality condemned not only lust, but also individual love, since it supposedly interfered with the fulfillment of the duties of piety. It may seem that in such an atmosphere sex and marriage were doomed to extinction. However, the gap between the instructions of the church and everyday everyday practice was very great. That is why ancient Russian sources pay special attention to issues of sex.
According to the Questioning, spouses were required to avoid sexual contact during fasting. Nevertheless, this restriction was apparently violated quite often. No wonder Kirik was worried about the question:
“Is it worthy to give him communion, even during Great Lent to have sex with his wife?”
Bishop Nifont of Novgorod, to whom he addressed, despite his indignation at such violations
“Do you teach Qi, speaking, to abstain from wives during fasting? It’s your sin!”
was forced to make concessions:
“Even if they cannot [abstain], both in the first week and in the last.”
Apparently, even the clergy understood that it was impossible to achieve unconditional compliance with such instructions.
Singles “on the Great Day [Easter] who kept 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 appropriate reprimand, while the woman was subject to rather severe punishments. Sexual prohibitions established for women may not have applied to the stronger sex at all.
Spouses, in addition, were instructed to avoid cohabitation on Sundays, as well as on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, before communion and immediately after it, since “on these days a spiritual sacrifice is offered to the Lord.” Let us also remember that parents were forbidden to conceive a child on Sunday, Saturday and Friday. For violation of this prohibition, parents were entitled to penance of “two summers.” Such prohibitions were based on apocryphal literature (in particular, the so-called “Commandments of the Holy Fathers” and “Thin Nomokanuns”), so many priests did not consider them obligatory.
Even an “unclean” dream could be worthy of punishment. However, in this case, it was necessary to carefully determine whether the person who saw the shameful dream was susceptible to lust for his own flesh (if he dreamed of a woman he knew) or whether he was tempted by Satan. In the first case, he was not allowed to receive communion, but in the second, he was simply obliged to receive communion.
“For otherwise the tempter [the devil] will not stop attacking him at the time when he should partake.”
This also applied to the priest:
“If a plague [an “unclean” dream] comes from the devil in the night, is it worthy to serve at dinner, having rinsed yourself and taken a prayer? - If, in a speech, you were diligent with the thought of your wife, then you will not be worthy; If... if you want to tempt someone, even if you leave the church [without] service, then serve after rinsing yourself.”
Interestingly, woman was seen as a greater evil than the devil, since natural carnal desire and the erotic dreams associated with it were declared unclean and unworthy of the priesthood (or a person in general), while the same dreams caused by supposed diabolical influences deserved forgiveness.
It is worth paying attention to the fact that the compulsory marriage established by the Orthodox Church for the white clergy brought the priest closer to his flock in everyday life. And the life of a married clergyman “raised essentially the same questions that the priest then had to solve in relation to his “children”” (B.A. Romanov)
The connection between the characteristics of the heroes and their actions in both cases is the most direct. Another thing, let’s say, in the obituary description of Vsevolod Yaroslavich: “This noble prince Vsevolod was mockingly loving of God, loving the truth, providing for the poor, giving honor to the bishop and presbyter, loving the monks and giving their demands. He himself abstained from drunkenness and from lust..." etc. Nothing in this characterization follows from the facts cited about him in the chronicle. The characterization of Vsevolod Yaroslavich here performs a purely etiquette function: it is a conventional funeral word, noting his Christian qualities at the moment when these Christian qualities needed to be remembered.
Consequently, another difference between the epic style in the depiction of people and the prevailing medieval monumentalism is that the diversity of the hero, appearing each time in a new guise appropriate to him, is absent in the epic style: here the hero is closely connected with one or more of his exploits, his characteristics are uniform, unchangeable, attached to the hero. The characteristics of the hero are like his coat of arms; it is short and unusually expressive, like the shield of the Prophetic Oleg on the gates of Constantinople.
In general, the epic style in depicting people precedes the monumental style in stages, just as the oral creativity of a written people precedes it. But with the advent of writing, oral creativity does not disappear; the influence on literature of this epic style in the depiction of heroes also does not disappear. It manifests itself in those works that are associated with oral folk art.
In fact, something in the depiction of the characters in the chronicle suggests a relationship with folklore.
Folk art, obviously, goes back to the chronicles and other works of literature in the characteristics of the characters based on their one major act. This is how, for example, Prince African is described in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon: “Prince African, the brother of Yakun Slepago, who escaped from the golden moon, fought in a regiment in Yaroslav with the Fierce Mstislav.”
Before us is a reminder of a well-known feat, deed or incident. This is how, in particular, some of the characters in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” are characterized: “... to the brave Mstislav, like the dawn of Rede-dupred pylkykasozhiok”; "...until today's Igor, who has suffered through his own selfishness and sharpened his hearts with courage, filled with the military spirit, brought his brave tears to the Polovtsian land for the Russian land."
It is remarkable that in the chronicle many of the famous Polovtsian khans are introduced to the reader in this way: “...Kontsak, who also demolished Sula, walked walking, carrying a cauldron on his shoulders”; “...Sevench Bonyakovich... also said: “I want to be slaughtered at the Golden Gate, just like my father””; "... Altunopu, like the word courage."
They also have a national character General characteristics residents of any area. The people of Kiev called the Novgorodians “carpenters.” Residents of Rostov, Suzdal and Murom say about the residents of Vladimir: “...then these are our slaves, stone workers.” The people of Vladimir noted their “pride” in the Novgorodians. Following these folk characteristics, the chronicler says about the Pereyaslavl people that they are “daring.”
Adjacent to these same characteristics is the description of the Kurdish people - “knowledgeable marksmen” in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” All these characteristics are interesting in that they are conveyed by the chronicler as known to everyone, as popular opinion and as “glory” about certain residents. In all of them one can feel the reliance on real popular rumor.
The characterization of the “Kuryans” in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, in its principles of artistic generalization, coincides with the characterization of the “Ryazan army” in “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu” - those “dares and frolics” of Ryazan, of whom “one fought with a thousand, and two with you." Both in the “Word” and in the “Tale” we have a description of the army, in which not a word is said about the feudal loyalty of the soldiers to their prince, but everything is aimed only at revealing the military virtues of the fighters - the defenders of the homeland.
Characteristic phenomena are found in the XII-XIII centuries. in the same monuments when creating the image of a national hero, the image of a defender of the homeland. This hero exaggerates his strength and courage, he seems to grow in size, his enemies cannot defeat him. However, the concept of hyperbole can be applied here with great restrictions. The impression of hyperbole is achieved by the fact that the exploits of his squad are transferred to this hero. So. for example, Vsevolod Bui Tur in “The Tale of Igor’s Host” shoots arrows at his enemies, rattles his Haraluz swords against their helmets, and the Avar helmets are “scratched” by his red-hot sabers.
It goes without saying that Vsevolod shoots at his enemies with the arrows of his squad, fights with their swords and sabers: Vsevolod himself could only have one sword or saber. We see the same transfer of the exploits of the squad to the prince in the Lay and in other cases. Svyatoslav of Kiev “pulled away” the treachery of the Polovtsians “with his strong plakas and haraluzhny swords”; Vsevolod of Suzdal can “pouring the Don with helmets” - not with just his helmet, but with many, of course, helmets of his warriors.
The image of Evpatiy Kolovrat in “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu” is created in the same way. The exploits of his warriors and their fighting qualities are transferred to Evpatiya. It seems to combine the features of the entire Russian army. Without mercy, he cuts down Batu’s regiments so that the Tatars become “like drunk or frantic.” When Evpatiy's swords became dull, he took Tatar swords and cut them with them. Again, this plural is characteristic: “... as the swords became dull, and the Tatar swords were cut and they were cut.” There can be no doubt that, speaking of Evpatia, the author had in mind not just him, but his entire squad. That is why it is further said: “... the Tatars are mnyash, as if they were dead.” We are talking specifically about the dead, about many resurrected fighters. That is why further, without any transition, it is said about the Evpatiy regiment: the Evpatiy regiment and Evpatiy himself are united. Thanks to this, Evpatiy grows to heroic proportions: he is “giant in strength”; the Tatars manage to kill him only with the help of “numerous vices” - battering machines.
The death of Evpatiy is a kind of birth of the first hero in Russian literature. We clearly see how the image of Evpatiy combines the qualities of his squad. It is not the hero who is strong - it is the army that he embodies that is strong. Artistic generalization follows the path of creating a collective image of a hero who embodies the qualities of all Russian soldiers. This path led to the development of the image of the epic hero, who over time began to fight alone, without an army, for the Russian land against a huge army of enemies. This path, not yet trodden and only weakly outlined, will in the future lead to literary generalizations of a new, more perfect nature. This path, as we have clearly seen in other cases, was associated with a violation of the narrow class, feudal literary stereotype in the depiction of people. These violations were especially frequent in the depiction of women. Women did not usually take their place in the hierarchical ladder of feudal relations. She was a princess, princess, noblewoman, hawthorn or merchant's wife by her husband or father. And this weakened the definiteness of her class characteristics.
The works of ancient Russian literature reflected few of the character traits of women in ancient Rus'. In great state concerns, ancient Russian writers rarely had to turn their gaze to the daughters, wives and mothers of the heroes of Russian history. However, short and few lines of Russian secular works are almost always written about women with sympathy and respect. The “evil wife,” so typical of ascetic church literature, is a rare guest in works of secular literature: in chronicles, in military, embassy, and historical stories. And even in those cases when she appears in secular works, as, for example, in the “Prayer” of Daniil Zatochnik, she is devoid of any femininity: she is “rotasta,” “jawed,” “old-looking.” Young women are attractive without exception. With what touchingness Vladimir Monomakh writes in a letter to Oleg Svyatoslavich about the widow of his son Izyaslav, who was killed by Oleg; the chronicler remembers the mother of Monomakh’s young brother, Rostislav, who died untimely in Stugna. Rostislav's mother mourned him in Kyiv, and the chronicler sympathizes with her grief: “And crying for him, his mother and all the people pitied her little by little, for his loss.”
He knows ancient Russian literature and heroic images of Russian women. Princess Maria, the daughter of the Chernigov prince Mikhail who died in the Horde and the widow of the Rostov prince Vasilko, who was tortured by the Tatars, worked hard to perpetuate the memory of both. At her direction (and perhaps with her direct participation), the life of her father Mikhail of Chernigov was compiled and touching lines were written about her husband Vasilka in the Rostov Chronicle.
Touching and beautiful in “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu” is the image of the wife of the Ryazan prince Fyodor, Eupraxia. Her husband sacrificed his life defending her honor in Batu’s camp. Hearing about the death of her husband, Eupraxia “abby rushed from his high temple with his son and Prince Ivan into the middle of the earth, and became infected to death.”
Although stingy in everything that concerns the personal feelings of its characters, the Russian chronicle nevertheless notes that the Suzdal prince Vsevolod the Big Nest was “sorry” for his “dear daughter” Verkhoslava. Vsevolod gave “a lot of money for her, countless gold and silver,” richly presented the matchmakers and, releasing her with great honor, accompanied her to three camps. “And her father and mother cried for her: she was sweet even when she was young.” The chronicler did not forget that unknown woman who, mistaking the blinded Prince Vasilko-Rostislavich Terebovolsky for the dead, mourned him and washed his bloody shirt.
Describing the death of the Volyn prince Vladimir Vasilkovich, the chronicler did not fail to mention his love for his wife - “dear Olga”. This was the fourth daughter of the Bryansk prince Roman, but she was “dearest” to him. Roman gave “his dear daughter” to Vladimir Vasilkovich, “he sent with her the son of his eldest Mikhail and many boyars.” Subsequently, her brother Oleg visits her. With her help, on his deathbed, Vladimir Vasilkovich settles his state affairs, and calls her “Princess Moa Mila Olgo.” Vladimir and Olga were childless. Vladimir’s dying concerns are directed “to arrange the fate of her and their adopted daughter, Izyaslava, “like the Milovs, like his dear daughter.” Vladimir Vasilkovich allows his wife to do after his death as she pleases - live like this or go to the monastery: “I can’t get up to see what someone is doing to my stomach,” he says.
The gentle, thoughtful appearance of a woman-mother was also brought to us by works of Russian painting of the 12th century. They embody the care of a woman, her love for her deceased son.
There is a story about the impression these works left on the audience. The proud prince Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky, who never bowed his head to anyone, a brave warrior who was always the first to rush at enemies in battle, was amazed by the image of Our Lady of Vladimir. “The Tale of the Miracles of the Vladimir Icon” speaks of the deep impression that the icon of Our Lady of Vladimir made on Andrei Bogolyubsky. Seeing her for the first time, he fell to his knees in front of her - “falling to the ground.” Subsequently, he and his chronicler attributed all his victories over enemies to the help of this icon.
In all these few references, the woman invariably appears in the charm of tender caring, soulful understanding of the state concerns of her husbands and brothers. Daughter, mother or wife - she always helps her father, son or husband, grieves for him, mourns him after death and never inclines him during life to cowardice or self-preservation at the cost of shame. She takes death in battle with enemies for granted and mourns her sons, husbands or fathers without a shadow of reproach, without a trace of discontent, as warriors and patriots who have fulfilled their duty, without being horrified or condemning their behavior, but with quiet affection and praise for them courage, their valor. Love for a husband, father or son does not dull their love for their homeland, hatred of enemies, or confidence in the rightness of the cause of their loved one.
The Russian women of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” embody the same traits that, although meagerly, were quite clearly conveyed to us by the chronicles and military stories of the 12th-13th centuries. We can confidently imagine the ideal of a woman in ancient Rus' of the 12th-13th centuries, which will be the same both in the chronicle and in military stories, and in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”; only in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” the image of a modest, caring, faithful and loving woman, worthy of the wife of her hero-husband, appears with even greater clarity and greater charm. The ideal of a woman of the 12th-13th centuries. contains few class features. The feudal class did not develop its own ideal of a woman, which was sharply different from the popular one. Even among feudal lords, a woman was devoted to her cares as a wife, mother, widow, and daughter. Large government responsibilities were not her lot. And this is precisely what contributed to the convergence of female images - feudal and folk. That is why Yaroslavna in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is presented in the image of a lyrical, song-like Russian woman - Yaroslavna.
The epic style in depicting people never fully embraces a literary work. Even in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” this epic style is combined with the style of medieval monumentalism. As we have already seen, elements of the epic style are clearly felt only in the initial part of the Tale of Bygone Years, and subsequently in the images of women. It is reflected in the Ipatiev Chronicle (characteristic of Roman Galitsky), in the “Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land”, in the Life of Alexander Nevsky (in the characteristic of the six brave men of Alexander Nevsky), in “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu” and in some other works. Such episodicity in the manifestations of this style is quite understandable: this style was mainly expressed only in oral folk art, and in literature it was reflected from time to time under the influence of the latter. Since oral folk art The Kyiv period is known to us in scant remains among written works; many features of this style remain unclear to us.
The epic style was almost not reflected in the visual arts. This is understandable: fine art was much more “expensive” than literature, but individual elements of the epic style still penetrated into fine art through direct executors of the will of the feudal customers. Here is what M.V. Alpatov writes about this: “The art that was created in Kyiv by the people for themselves has not reached us. The Smerdas had to live in semi-dugout type chicken huts. But they composed songs about heroes, the voice of protest of the common people sounded in the cities at the assembly. Working people had their own ideals of life and their own concepts of beauty. The Kyiv buildings with their magnificent decoration were created by the hands of these people. That is why echoes of folk artistic ideas are felt in many of the grand ducal monuments."
Chapters: “Folk poetic creativity during the heyday of the ancient Russian early feudal state (X-XI centuries)” and “Folk poetic creativity in the years feudal fragmentation Rus' - before the Tatar-Mongol invasion (XII - early XII century)." in the book: "Russian folk poetic creativity", vol. I, M-L., 1953.
Stories about Nikola Zarazsky - Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature (ODRL) of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, vol. VII, 1949, pp. 290-291.
Stories about Nikola Zarazsky - Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature (ODRL) of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, vol. VII, 1949, p. 293.
Stories about Nikola Zarazsky - Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature (ODRL) of the Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, vol. VII, 1949, p. 294.
The Tale of Bygone Years, vol. I, p. 144.
Due to the fact that the portrait of the prince was always facing the viewer and painted for the viewer, those features that were most dear to the viewer who acted as the customer for the work were easily visible in it. In the vault of the Rostov princess Maria, in the description of her late husband - the Rostov prince Vasilko Konstantinovich - not only praise is clearly felt, but also an expression of the grief of loss: “Vasilko is red-faced, bright and menacing in the eyes, handsome beyond measure for a hunter, light in heart, The boyar is affectionate, but no one from the boyars, who served him and ate his bread, and drank his cup, and had gifts, is in no way possible for another prince to be for his love; lively, but the truth walks with him. He was smart and able to do everything, and in good health he was on his table and his days" (Lavrentevskaya Chronicle, under 1237, p. 467). This lyrical portrait, in which such great importance is attached to the external features of the prince, can only be compared with the portrait of the Volyn prince Vladimir Vasilkovich, compiled by the Volyn chronicler, who was also especially attentive to the fate of the widow of this prince - “sweet” Olga. Volynsky: Rostov chroniclers - both wrote for the widows of their princes, both, to some extent, reflected their feelings. “This blessed prince Volodymer,” writes the Volyn chronicle, “was tall in age, had great shoulders, had a red face, had curly yellow hair, a trimmed beard, and had red hands and feet; his speech was thick and his lips were thick, he said It is clear from the books that he was a great philosopher and a cunning hunter, good-natured, meek, humble, kind, truthful, not a bribe-taker, not a deceiver of thieves, but he did not drink his drink from his childhood, but he had love for everyone, especially for his brothers, in the kiss of Christ, standing with all the truth, unfeigned" (Ipatiev Chronicle, under 1289, p. 605).
Proceedings of ODRL, vol. VII, p. 289.
Ipatiev Chronicle, under 1187, p. 443.
Ipatiev Chronicle, under 1264, p. 569.
Ipatiev Chronicle, under 1274, p. 577.
Ipatiev Chronicle, under 1287, p. 595.
Ipatiev Chronicle, under 1287. Vladimir says about Izyaslav: “God did not allow me to give birth to my own, for my sins, but I was like a horn from my princess, I took you from my mother in swaddling clothes and nursed me” (p. 593).
The Legend of the Miracles of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. Ed. IN. Klyuchevsky. Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing, vol. XXX, 1878, p. 30.
M.V. Alpatov. General History of Arts, ///. M., 1955, pp. 60-61.