What was everyday life like in the 16th century? The life of a Russian peasant woman in the 16th-17th centuries. Secrets of the last sovereigns from the family of Ivan Kalita

In About the fierce beasts of the Corcodiles

“In the summer of 7090... the same summer, the Corcodiles Lutia came out of the river and closed the way, eating many people, and terrified people and praying to God all over the earth. December on the 14th day." Pskov Chronicle. Archive 2nd list.

“Korkodil is a water beast, and whenever there is a man to eat, it cries and sobs, but does not stop eating.”
ABC book of the end of XVI, "Tales of the Russian people", vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1849. Pictures from a_dedushkin spied.

This is what Sigismund Herberstein, who visited Russia in 1526, wrote about the sacred animals of Lithuania:

“This region (Zemaitija - G.B.) is replete with groves and forests, in which you can sometimes see ghosts... There are still a lot of idolaters there who feed in their houses (like penates) certain snakes on four (short) legs, reminiscent of lizards , with a black fat body, no more than three spans in length; they are called giwoites... On set days they perform cleansing rites in houses and, when the snakes crawl out to the food provided, the whole family worships them with fear until they, having had their fill, will not return to their place. If any misfortune happens to them, they attribute it to the fact that they did not feed and receive the household deity (snake) poorly."

Certificate of 1589 from the agent of the English Trading Company, Jerome Horsey. He was traveling from Poland to Russia and on the way he encountered a strange phenomenon:

“I left Warsaw in the evening, crossed the river, where on the bank lay a poisonous dead crocodile, whose belly was torn by my people with spears. At the same time, such a stench spread that I was poisoned by it and lay sick in the nearest village, where I met such sympathy and Christian help for making a wonderful recovery"

“The Legend of Princes Sloven and Rus” “Chronograph” 1679.
"The eldest son of this prince Sloven - Volkhov, a besotted and sorcerer, then became fierce in people and created demonic tricks and dreams and transformed into the image of a fierce beast of a korkodel and lay down the waterway in that river Volkhov. And devouring those who did not worship him, devouring them and drowning them."

“Our Christian true word... About this accursed sorcerer and sorcerer - as if evil was broken and strangled by demons in the river Volkhov and the dreams of demons, the accursed body was quickly carried up the river Volkhov and cast out on the shore opposite the sorcerer’s town, which is now called Perynya. And with much weeping from that unknown voice, the accursed one was quickly buried with a great filthy funeral feast. And the grave was piled high over him, as if he were filthy. And after three days of that accursed funeral the earth sank and devoured the vile body of the korkodelov. And his grave awoke. over it, the depths of hell are piled up, and even to this day, as they will tell, the sign of that pit stands, do not fill up."

"In the summer of June 1719, 4 days. There was a great storm in the district, and a tornado and hail, and many livestock and all living creatures died... And the serpent fell from the sky, scorched by God's wrath, and stank disgustingly. And, remembering the Decree of God by the grace of our Sovereign All-Russian Peter Alekseevich from the summer of 1718 about Kunshtkamora and the collection of various wonders for her, all sorts of monsters and freaks, heavenly stones and various miracles, this serpent was thrown into a barrel of strong double wine.

The length of this monster from the mouth to the end of the tail is ten arshins and five vershoks, and the teeth in its mouth are like those of a pike, but, moreover, they are crooked, and in front they are even more than two vershoks, and the wings are leathery, like those of a bat , and one wing from the Zmiev ridge is already nine arshins and ten vershoks long, and the tail is very long, already four arshins and five vershoks, the paws are bare, with claws, like an eagle and more, and the paws on the wings are four-fingered with claws, and the eyes are faded, but very fierce"
The paper was signed by Zemstvo Commissioner Vasily Shtykov, archive of the city of Arzamas

Baba Yaga rides on a pig to fight in a corcodile. Russian popular print.

At the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th century, the formation of the Russian state was completed, which developed along with world civilization. It was the time of the Great geographical discoveries(America was discovered in 1493), the beginning of the era of capitalism in European countries (the first bourgeois revolution in Europe of 1566-1609 began in the Netherlands). But the development of the Russian state took place under rather unique conditions. There was a process of development of new territories of Siberia, the Volga region, the Wild Field (on the rivers Dnieper, Don, Middle and Lower Volga, Yaika), the country did not have access to the seas, the economy was in the nature of a subsistence economy, based on the dominance of the feudal order of the boyar estate. In the second half of the 16th century, Cossacks (from runaway peasants) began to appear on the southern outskirts of Russia.

By the end of the 16th century, there were approximately 220 cities in Russia. The largest of them was Moscow, and the most important and developed were Novgorod and Vologda, Kazan and Yaroslavl, Kaluga and Tula, Astrakhan and Veliky Ustyug. Production was closely related to the availability of local raw materials and was of a natural-geographical nature, for example, leather production developed in Yaroslavl and Kazan, and leather production was carried out in Vologda. a large number of salt, Tula and Novgorod specialized in metal production. Stone construction was carried out in Moscow, the Cannon Yard, the Cloth Yard, and the Armory Chamber were built.

An outstanding event in the history of Russia in the 16th century was the emergence of Russian printing (the book “Apostle” was published in 1564). The church had a great influence on the spiritual life of society. In painting, the model was the work of Andrei Rublev; the architecture of that time was characterized by the construction of tented churches (without pillars, supported only by the foundation) - St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow, the Church of the Ascension in the village of Kolomenskoye, the Church of John the Baptist in the village of Dyakovo.

The 16th century in the history of Russia is the century of the reign of the “talented villain” Ivan the Terrible.

At the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th century, Ivan III, the great-grandson of Dmitry Donskoy (1462-1505), ruled. He called himself "Sovereign of All Rus'" or "Caesar". He adopted the double-headed eagle in Rus'. The two heads of the eagle indicated that Russia was turned to the East and to the West, and with one mighty paw the eagle stood in Europe, and the other in Asia.

Ivan III believed that Moscow should become the third Rome, and all the Russian lands that were previously part of Kievan Rus. Ivan the Terrible typography Rus'

In 1497, Ivan III published the first Russian Code of Laws, a set of basic laws of Rus'. The Sudebnik fixed the position of the peasantry (peasants had the right to change their place of residence on St. George’s Day (November 26), but in fact the peasants were attached to the land. For leaving the landowner, they had to pay “elderly” - payment for the years lived. It amounted to about a ruble, but Since for a ruble in the 15-16th century you could buy 14 pounds of honey, it was not easy to collect it.The code of law established how a peasant becomes a serf (having borrowed money, the debtor had to work off the interest until the death of the master), i.e. in the 16th century, almost all peasants became serfs.

Ivan III overthrew Mongol-Tatar rule (1480) and did it as an experienced politician. He stopped civil strife in Rus' and created a professional army. So, a forged infantry army appears, dressed in metal armor; artillery (Russian Unicorn guns were the best for three hundred years); squeakers (squeakers - firearms, but it hit not far, at most 100 m).

Ivan III overcame the feudal fragmentation of Rus'. The Novgorod Republic, together with the Moscow Principality, remained an independent entity, but in 1478 its independence was liquidated, in 1485 Tver was annexed to the Russian state, and in 1489 Vyatka.

In 1510, during the reign of Ivan III’s son, Vasily III (1505-1533), the Pskov Republic ceased to exist, and in 1521, the Ryazan Principality. The unification of Russian lands under Vasily III was largely completed. According to the German ambassador, none of the Western European monarchs could compare with the Moscow sovereign in the completeness of power over his subjects. Well, the grandson of Ivan III, more than anyone else in the grand ducal family, deserved his nickname - the Terrible.

When Ivan was three years old, his father died in 1533, Grand Duke Vasily III. Mother, Elena Glinskaya, the second wife of Vasily III, did not pay attention to her son. She decided to eliminate all contenders for the Russian throne: the brothers Vasily III - Prince Yuri Ivanovich and Andrei Ivanovich, her uncle Mikhail Glinsky. Prince Ivan Fedorovich Ovchina-Telepnev-Obolensky became Elena’s support. When Ivan was 8 years old, his mother was poisoned (April 3, 1538). Over the next eight years, the boyars (Shuisky, Glinsky, Belsky) ruled in his place; they fought for influence over Ivan, but did not particularly burden themselves with caring for the child. As a result, Ivan becomes paranoid; from the age of 12 he takes part in torture, and at the age of 16 he becomes the best master of torture.

In 1546, Ivan, not satisfied with the grand ducal title, wished to become king. In Rus' before Ivan the Terrible, the emperors of Byzantium and Germany, as well as the khans of the Great Horde, were called tsars. Therefore, having become a king, Ivan rose above numerous princes; showed the independence of Rus' from the Horde; stood on the same level as the German emperor.

At the age of 16, they decide to marry Ivan. For this purpose, up to one and a half thousand girls were gathered in the tower. 12 beds were placed in each room, where they lived for about a month, and their lives were reported to the king. After a month, the king went around the chambers with gifts and chose Anastasia Romanova as his wife, who smiled at him.

In January 1547, Ivan was crowned king, and in March 1547 he was married to Anastasia. His wife replaced his parents, and he changed for the better.

In 1549, the tsar brought closer to him Alexei Fedorovich Adashev, Sylvester, archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral, Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky, who entered the so-called Elected Rada. They helped initiate reforms.

In 1556, Ivan IV abolished the feeding of the boyars at the expense of funds from land management, which came to their personal disposal after paying taxes to the treasury. Ivan introduces local self-government, the entire state was divided into provinces (districts), and the head of the province was at the head of the province. The governor could be elected from among the peasants and nobles, and he could be influenced.

The elected Rada replaces (duplicates) the boyar duma, and orders are submitted to it. An “instruction” order turns into an institution order. Military affairs were managed by the Razryadny, Pushkarsky, Streletsky orders, and the Armory Chamber. Foreign Affairs was in charge of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, state finances - the Grand Parish Prikaz, state lands - the Local Prikaz, and slaves - the Serf Prikaz.

Ivan begins an attack on the boyars, limits localism (he himself seated the boyars on benches around him), creates a new army of noble cavalry and archers (nobles serve for pay). This is almost 100 thousand people - the force on which Ivan IV relied.

In 1550, Ivan IV introduced a new Code of Laws. The nobles received equal rights with the boyars; it confirmed the right of peasants to change their place of residence on St. George’s Day, but the payment for the “elderly” increased. For the first time, the Code of Law established punishment for bribery.

In 1560, Anastasia dies, the tsar becomes insanity and begins a reign of terror against his recent advisers - Adashev and Sylvester, because It is them that the king blames for Anastasia’s sudden death. Sylvester was tonsured a monk and exiled to the Solovetsky Monastery. Alexey Adashev was sent as voivode to Livonian War(1558-1583), where he died. Repression also fell on other supporters of Adashev. And Ivan IV introduces the oprichnina.

The oprichnina period is the second half of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Oprichnina terror was declared unexpectedly for both supporters and enemies of Ivan the Terrible.

In 1564, at night, the tsar disappeared from the Kremlin with his retinue, children and treasury. He went to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and declared that he no longer wanted to rule. A month after his disappearance from Moscow, the Tsar sent two letters:

• -one Boyar Duma, the Metropolitan, in which he accuses them of betrayal and unwillingness to serve him;
• - the second to the townspeople, in which he announced that the boyars were offending him, but he had no grudges against ordinary people, and the boyars were to blame for everything.

Thus, he wants to show the people who is to blame for all their troubles.

With his sudden departure, he ensured that his opponents were afraid of the uncertainty, and the people went crying to ask the king to return. Ivan the Terrible agreed, but with conditions:

• 1) division of the country into two parts - zemshchina and oprichnina;
• 2) at the head of the zemshchina is Tsar Ivan the Terrible, and at the head of the oprichnina is Grand Duke Ivan the Terrible.

He allocated the most developed areas and boyar lands as oprichnina lands. Those nobles who were part of the oprichnina army settled on these lands. The population of the zemshchina had to support this army. Ivan IV armed an army and for 7 years destroyed the boyars with this army.

The meaning of the oprichnina was as follows:

• - establishment of autocracy through the destruction of the opposition (boyars);
• - liquidation of balances feudal fragmentation(finally conquers Novgorod);
• - forms a new social base of autocracy - the nobility, i.e. these were people who were completely dependent on the king.

The destruction of the boyars was a means to achieve all these goals of Ivan the Terrible.

As a result of the oprichnina, Moscow weakened; the Crimean Khan burned the Moscow settlement in 1571, which showed the inability of the oprichnina army to fight external enemies. As a result, the tsar abolished the oprichnina, forbade even mentioning this word, and in 1572 transformed it into the “Sovereign Court.” Before his death, Ivan IV tried to reintroduce the oprichnina, but his oprichniki were dissatisfied with the tsar's policies and wanted stability. Ivan the Terrible exterminates his army and dies at the age of 54, in 1584.

During the reign of Ivan IV there were also merits. So, the red brick Kremlin was built, but the builders were killed so that they could not build such beautiful buildings and temples anywhere else.

The 16th century is the century of the rise of socio-political thought, reflected in journalistic writings. But we most often know them - if we know them - only in later copies. Until now, not a single autograph of Ivan the Terrible has been found, yet contemporaries wrote that he was “satisfied with the science of book teaching and extremely eloquent”!

Russia of the 16th century! How often do we unwittingly try to replace these words with others: “Russia of Ivan the Terrible.” The figure of the formidable king, who occupied the throne for half a century, seemed to obscure Russian society XVI century. Even books about Russia in the 16th century were often called simply “Ivan the Terrible,” although they were devoted not to the biography of the first Russian Tsar, but to the history of Russia as a whole.

Ivan’s life, full of dramatic events, was of interest to many historians. Karamzin wrote in 1814 about his work on “The History of the Russian State”: “I am finishing Vasily Ivanovich and mentally looking at Ivan the Terrible. What a glorious character for historical painting! It would be a pity if I told the story without this curious reign! Then she will be like a peacock without a tail.” Ivan himself is a mysterious figure. The sovereign, who did so much to strengthen the centralized state, to exalt Russia in the international arena, the patron of printing and the writer himself, he with his own hands destroyed what he had done, persecuted those to whose talent and intelligence he owed state reforms and victories over the enemy.

The 18th century historian Shcherbatov wrote, not without confusion: “Ivan IV only in different types it seems that he is often not a single person.” And in works of art dedicated to Grozny, one can see a frank desire to show something out of the ordinary: the tsar is the culprit in the death of his daughter (in Rimsky-Korsakov’s opera “The Pskov Woman” based on the drama Meya), the tsar is near the corpse of the son he killed (in Renin’s film), a tsar who reads the funeral prayer at the tomb of his wife and immediately exposes high treason (in the drama by A. N. Tolstoy). And in scientific works, and works of art seem to continue the polemic between Ivan the Terrible and the boyar Kurbsky, who fled from the tsar’s wrath to Poland and sent accusatory messages to the tsar, and then wrote the pamphlet “The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow.” Ivan IV responded with frantic “biting words” - a message in which the main provisions of the ideology of “autocracy” were formulated. The dispute is natural, and its persistence, even its bitterness, is understandable - but hasn’t this pushed other, more important mysteries, more significant problems of the history of the Russian 16th century away from us?! Soviet scientists have done a lot in recent decades to identify these problems.

After all, the 16th century was a time of unusual expansion of the state. In the 16th century, the word “Russia”, “Russian”, which appeared at the end of the previous century, gained a place in official documents and was used in the royal title. Gradually, “Russian,” as academician M. N. Tikhomirov clarified, becomes the definition of a nationality, “Russian” means belonging to the state. Was this state already centralized at the turn of the 15th–16th centuries, or was centralization a long process that did not end with the unification of Russian lands at the end of the 15th century? We know that “class struggle, the struggle of the exploited part of the people against the exploiting part lies at the basis political changes and ultimately decides the fate of such transformations.” We are well aware of these provisions formulated in Lenin’s works. But they are known to us - people of the 20th century, enriched by the creative experience of Marxism. In the 16th century, history was reduced to the history of sovereigns and the state; in official chronicles, the facts of mass struggle were obscured, hushed up, and the independent role of the actions of the masses was simply not recognized. How to identify and summarize data on popular discontent? How many were popular uprisings? What is their scope and features? What are their consequences?

The 16th century was, as it were, a turning point. This is both the Middle Ages, but also the threshold of a new period. The reforms of the Chosen Rada (the circle of Tsar Ivan’s associates, which was actually the government at one time) determined for many decades to come domestic policy, and the mid-century victories over the Tatar khanates and the successful start of the war for the Baltic states - foreign policy great power.

For the 16th century, the rise of crafts, the identification of particularly delicate and complex craft professions, the development of local markets, the growth of cities, and the involvement of the countryside in market relations are undeniable. But can this be considered a sign of capitalist relations?

In the 16th century in Rus' there were many heretics who were brutally persecuted. In the 16th century, individual progressive thinkers became familiar with foreign humanistic thought and expressed judgments that differed from official dogmas. But is it possible to talk about the development of humanism as a certain ideological direction of social thought in Russia at that time? Are the socio-economic conditions ripe for its intensive development? After all, humanism is accompanied by the growth of bourgeois relations, but is there any serious reason to see them in Russia in the 16th century?

The 16th century is the century of the rise of socio-political thought, reflected in journalistic writings. But we most often know them - if we know them - only in later copies. Until now, not a single autograph of Ivan the Terrible has been found, yet contemporaries wrote that he was “satisfied with the science of book teaching and extremely eloquent”! In the 17th century, they did not hesitate to update the text when rewriting, to introduce their own interpretation, to eliminate the incomprehensible and unpleasant - it is not without reason that these works are published in academic editions with abundant, sometimes mutually exclusive, discrepancies in meaning! The writings of the noble ideologist Peresvetov are still being debated: is this a heartfelt project of a brave political thinker, who in 1549 managed to anticipate in detail the most important reforms and foreign policy measures of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, or a later attempt to justify and explain what he had done, hiding behind the name of a little-known petitioner?

The historian Klyuchevsky argued: “The triumph of historical criticism is from what people of a certain time say, to overhear what they were silent about.” But what if they often just don’t talk? The people are silent for the historian in the literal sense of the word - they still did not have enough literacy, and there was no interest in writing about everyday, ordinary things, and rarely did anyone dare to express dissatisfaction with the existing system in writing.

We learn about the feudal economy mainly from monastic documentation - not a single archive of a secular feudal lord has survived. We judge the life of peasants mainly from documents about the so-called black-sown (that is, unenslaved) peasants, and even from the northern regions of the country, but most of the peasants lived in the central regions, and the majority were enslaved to one degree or another! As a result, we have little idea of ​​the life of working townspeople (townspeople) and peasants, we know little about how corvée was expressed in practice (how many days a week did the peasant work on the land of the feudal lord, who owned the livestock and tools that were used to cultivate the land of the feudal lord, what The actual peasant plowing was equal to exactly how much money the peasant paid the feudal lord). The widely quoted words of the then publicists: “Rataev (peasants) are tormented for the sake of silver” is a true, but not concrete evidence of the severity of oppression.

And is it any wonder that so few documents have reached us! It’s worth remembering at least how many times Moscow burned in both the 16th and 17th centuries... So we have to talk about mysteries, “personal” mysteries related to the fate of prominent people of that time, and about the mysteries of public life.

Secrets of the last sovereigns from the family of Ivan Kalita

There is a lot of unclear and mysterious even in the biographies of the last Rurikovichs on the Moscow throne.

We very vaguely imagine the image of Vasily III, as if pushed aside from the great historical arena, obscured by the high-profile acts of his father and son - Ivan III and Ivan IV. But an observant foreigner, an educated humanist, the ambassador of the German emperor, Herberstein, argued that Vasily achieved greater power than any of his contemporary sovereigns. During his reign (1505–1533), the Ryazan Grand Duchy and the Pskov Land finally became part of the Russian state. These are the years of large stone construction (it was then that the main ensemble of the Moscow Kremlin was completed), the years of increased translation activity (the famous thinker and scientist, an expert in ancient languages, Maxim the Greek, was invited to Moscow) and political journalism. Alas, so far not a single serious monograph has been devoted to the reign of Vasily III, and perhaps we are simply out of habit viewing this time as a twilight interval between two bright reigns?! What was he like, Vasily III? Whom did he more closely resemble—his wise, prudent and tough father, whom Marx aptly described as “the great Machiavellian”? Or the temperamental, addicted, frantic and uncontrollable son of the first Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible?

However, was Ivan the Terrible the legal heir and son of Vasily? The birth of Ivan was accompanied by strange rumors, ambiguous hints, gloomy predictions... Vasily III, “for the sake of childlessness”, in the name of procreation, twenty years after the wedding, he decided to divorce - in violation of church rules - his wife Solomonia. The Grand Duchess deliberately and energetically resisted her husband for a long time, blaming him for her infertility. But she was forcibly tonsured a nun and sent to the Intercession Monastery in Suzdal. And the Grand Duke soon, in January 1526, married the daughter of a Lithuanian immigrant, the young princess Elena Glinskaya, and even, deviating from ancient customs, shaved off his beard for the sake of his young wife. However, the first child from this marriage, the future Tsar Ivan, was born only on August 25, 1530. The second son, Yuri, who remained a semi-degenerate until the end of his days, was born two years later. The grand-ducal couple's frequent "trips" to monasteries continued for four years - it can be assumed that Vasily III prayed for childbearing. Meanwhile, rumors spread in Moscow that Solomonia, tonsured under the name of Sophia, became a mother. An investigation was urgently launched; the mother announced the death of the baby, who was buried in the monastery. But the boy was allegedly saved by “faithful people” and, according to other legends, he became the famous robber Kudeyar (whose treasures were recently sought near Zhiguli). The legend about the birth of a boy, which seemed, as historian N.N. Voronin writes, to be an amusing fiction, unexpectedly found archaeological confirmation. In 1934, in the Intercession Monastery, near the tomb of Solomonia, a 16th-century tombstone was discovered, under which, in a small wooden block, there was a half-decayed bundle of rags - a skillfully made doll, dressed in a silk shirt, and a swaddling bag embroidered with pearls (these things can now be seen in the Suzdal Museum). It was not without reason that Tsar Ivan, 40 years later, requested the materials of the investigation into Solomonia’s infertility from the royal archives.

In response to the late marriage of Vasily III, there were predictions that the son from an illegal marriage would become a tormentor sovereign. They wrote about this later, during the years of the oprichnina: “And cruelty was born in crime and in voluptuousness.” And when, after the death of Vasily III, Elena became regent for her three-year-old son, rumors spread that Ivan IV’s mother had long been in intimate connection with the boyar, Prince Ivan Fedorovich Ovchina-Telepnev-Obolensky, who has now actually become its co-ruler. This boyar was killed immediately after the death of Elena in 1538 (also, according to some reports, she died not by her own death, but from poison). And is it a coincidence that in January 1547 young Ivan brutally dealt with the son of this boyar - he ordered him to be impaled and his cousin to have his head cut off on the ice of the Moscow River?! Did the sovereign get rid of people who knew too much about the dangerous details of court life?

Fratricide, perjury, and cruel executions accompanied the activities of almost the majority of medieval sovereigns (let us recall, for example, England of the 14th-16th centuries, if not according to the textbook, then according to the famous Shakespearean chronicle dramas of the times of Richard and Henry!). Machiavelli, who put “state interest” above all else, clearly formulated the position at the beginning of the 16th century that “the sovereign must use the techniques of both beast and man.” But the scale of the bloody deeds of the first Russian Tsar struck the imagination of both his contemporaries and descendants. The executions of Ivan the Terrible, his “ferocity”, which became a legend, is this a common phenomenon on the eve of absolutism, a kind of historical pattern? Or is it a consequence of the morbid suspicion of a sadistic king who has achieved uncontrolled power? Do we dare, in assessing the activities of Ivan the Terrible, to abandon the moral ideas we have firmly internalized, to consign to oblivion the thought so clearly expressed by Pushkin: genius and villainy are incompatible?

Historian R. Yu. Vipper wrote: “If Ivan IV had died in 1566 at the time of his greatest successes in western front, his preparations for the final conquest of Livonia, historical memory would have given him the name of a great conqueror, the creator of the largest power in the world, like Alexander the Great. The blame for the loss of the Baltic region he conquered would then fall on his successors: after all, only Alexander’s premature death saved him from a direct encounter with the collapse of the empire he created. In the event of such an early end, in the 36th year of his life, Ivan IV would have remained in historical tradition surrounded by the glory of a remarkable reformer, organizer of the military service class, and founder of the administrative centralization of the Moscow State. His vices, his executions would have been forgiven him just as posterity forgave Alexander the Great for his depravity and his atrocities.”

The life of the Terrible Tsar was a tragedy, he tormented others, and suffered himself, tormented by fear, loneliness, remorse, from the consciousness of the impossibility of carrying out his plans and the irreparability of the mistakes he made...

The fate of the king's sons was also tragic. The eldest son, Dmitry, drowned in infancy, falling from the hands of a nanny while crossing the river. Ivan, who was born after him (apparently similar in character to his father), was killed by Ivan the Terrible in 1581, as the famous painting by Repin recalls. Was he killed by accident, did the king forget himself in anger, or was he killed on purpose? Contemporaries explained this murder in different ways. Some believed that the prince wanted to stand at the head of the army defending Pskov from the troops of the Polish king Stefan Batory, and reproached the king for cowardice. The king thought about peace and was afraid to entrust the army to a dangerous heir. According to others, Grozny demanded that the prince divorce the third wife his father-in-law liked.

The third son, Fyodor, having unexpectedly reached the throne, tried to distance himself from state affairs. Tsar Fedor “has no concern for anything worldly, except for spiritual salvation.” But during the years when he was king (1584-1598), decrees were issued on the enslavement of peasants, fugitives united in Cossack colonies on the southern outskirts of the country, trying to oppose themselves centralized state, cherishing the naive dream of a peasant kingdom headed by a “good” king,” fortified cities were erected in the Volga region and near the southern and western borders, and the economic development of the Trans-Ural lands began. And we still imagine Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich more from the drama of A.K. Tolstoy than from contemporary historical sources. Was Tsar Fedor incapable of government activities, weak in mind? Or, on the contrary, was he smart enough to be afraid of power? How can we explain that this God-fearing tsar did not have time to accept the schema before his death, according to custom, and was buried in royal vestments, unlike his father, who was laid in a coffin in a monastic robe (this is how the dying Ivan the Terrible hoped to atone for his sins)? Did Fyodor die his own death?

Finally, the youngest son, also Dmitry (from Ivan’s last, seventh wife Maria Nagoya), died in Uglich in 1591. Died at the age of nine under strange circumstances. Either he ran into a knife himself during a game or an epileptic attack, or was he killed? If killed, by whom and why? Was it at the instigation of Godunov, who sought to achieve the throne? Or, on the contrary, those who wanted to interfere with Godunov in his intentions, spreading the version about the murderer ruler and clearing the way for themselves to power? And was it Dmitry who was killed, or did he also escape, like the son of Solomonia, and then turned out to be the toy of foreign and domestic political adventurers? All this takes not only the masters fiction, but also historians!

Was localism evil?

This question was asked by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin.

Localism! The word has firmly entered our colloquial. Who doesn’t know that to be parochial means to oppose narrow egoistic interests to general ones, private ones to state ones? But in the 16th–17th centuries, localism regulated service relations between members of service families at court, in military and administrative service, and was a feature of the political organization of Russian society.

This name itself came from the custom of being considered “places” in the service and at the table, and the “place” depended on the “fatherland”, “fatherly honor”, ​​which consisted of two elements - pedigree (that is, origin) and the service career of the serving person himself and his ancestors and relatives. A serving man had to “know his limits” and make sure that his “honor” was not “wasted”, calculating below whom he should serve “instead”, who was “a mile away” from him, that is, “equal”, and to whom “ in the fatherland” there were not enough places with him. This calculation was made based on previous recorded “cases,” and each parochial “find” promoted all the relatives of the service person, and each “loss” lowered them all on the parochial ladder. Those dissatisfied with the appointment “beat the sovereign on places,” “looked for the fatherland,” and asked to give them “defense.” This is exactly what Pushkin wrote about in an excerpt from the satirical poem “The Genealogy of My Hero”:

“The boyars were famous for their pride;

For an argument, now with this one, now with another.

With great dishonor we deduce

Been there for the royal meal,

But again he went under the royal wrath

And he died, reseeding the Sitskys.”

Historians could not ignore localism - this phenomenon is too striking when getting acquainted with the history of Russia of the 16th–17th centuries! - but localism was judged, as a rule, only on the basis of the few surviving facts of local documentation or even arbitrarily selected examples. The idea of ​​localism, consolidated by the authority of Klyuchevsky, spread as a “fatal hereditary arrangement” of service people, when “the official position of each was predetermined, not won, not deserved, but inherited.” And to the localism of the 16th century, when the hereditary aristocracy was in power, ideas were transferred late XVII century, when many noble families were already “passed away without a trace.” Localism was assessed as a purely negative phenomenon, which always interfered with the centralization of the state. But then why did neither Ivan III nor Ivan IV seriously fight with him?

Yes, because for them localism was not so much an enemy as a tool. Localism helped to weaken and divide the aristocracy: what they could not achieve to weaken the boyars by “bringing on little people” and executions during the oprichnina was achieved with the help of local arithmetic. Localism was characterized not by clan, but by service-family seniority - noble origin had to be combined with the merits of their ancestors: families, even the most noble ones, whose representatives did not receive official appointments for a long time or “lived in disgrace”, found themselves “in ossification.” Treason, “rebellion,” and the official “loss” of one member of the clan “crushed in the fatherland” the entire clan and forced the princes themselves to restrain each other. Service was recognized as more valuable than “breed”. They acted according to the proverb “Whose clan is loved, that clan rises.” And the family was “loved” by the sovereign!

Not in spite of localism, but thanks to it, people like Alexei Adashev and Boris Godunov rose to the occasion. Let us remember that the “locals” - even the most honored and well-born - humiliatingly called themselves serfs in their petitions to the Tsar: “The sovereign is free to choose his servants as whomever he grants,” “God and the sovereign are free in that; whom great and small will do.”

Is there an involuntary displacement of antiquity and novelty in the minds of historians? Do they not introduce the concepts of honor and dignity that came to us with the “Age of Enlightenment” into the ideas of the oprichnina’s contemporaries?

Localism was not only the defense of the aristocracy from the central government, as V. O. Klyuchevsky believed, but in the 16th century, to an even greater extent, the defense of the autocratic central government from the then strong aristocracy. It contributed to the establishment of absolutism and became unnecessary for established absolutism.

In the 17th century, localism became outdated not only from the point of view of the central government. In some places, even ordinary service people, even clerks, began to compete, and for the aristocracy it became humiliating and painful. It is no coincidence that one of the initiators of the abolition of localism was the noble boyar Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, who is so well remembered by us all from A. Tolstoy’s novel “Peter the Great”.

The history of localism essentially awaits further research.

Against Ivashki and Matfeek

Even as children, we learn that in December 1564, Ivan the Terrible suddenly left Moscow, heading “who knows where” along with his family and large retinue. And a month later, two royal letters arrived from the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (a hundred miles north of Moscow). One - to the Metropolitan, the other - to the merchants and “all Orthodox Christianity in the city of Moscow.” In the first of them, “the betrayals of boyars and governors and all sorts of officials are written.”

In response, a delegation went to the king, and then a lot of people to beg the king to return to power.

Ivan condescended to the requests with the condition that from now on he would rule “as is fitting for him as a sovereign.” (And here you will inevitably remember one of the most famous scenes of S. M. Eisenstein’s famous painting “Ivan the Terrible”: a dark chain of Muscovites stretches across the snow towards the royal residence, and in the window above them is the predatory profile of the king.)

All this information is taken from completely official sources of that time. But... was that all true?

Let's start with the fact that the crowd, excited and frightened by the tsar's departure, simply could not penetrate the Alexandrovskaya Sloboda: Ivan locked himself there as if in a military camp, and the guards did not immediately allow even two clergy of the highest rank to see him.

And the tsar did not address his message to all “Orthodox Christianity.” Just on the eve of the introduction of the oprichnina, the Zemsky Sobor was created - it was, apparently, the addressee of the message.

Sudden departure? But before that, the tsar spent two weeks touring Moscow monasteries and churches, selecting valuables. Lists of people whom the king took with him were compiled in advance.

Well, why did Grozny need this departure himself? For a very long time it was explained by the danger from the boyars. only if? 1564 is a year of crop failure and fires, a year of severe military failures, a year of conspiracy against the king of the Crimean Khan with the Polish king. The Tsar's commander, Prince Kurbsky, flees abroad. The boyars protested (though timidly) against the executions that had begun, and Grozny, who did not expect this, had to temporarily resign himself. This year, Ivan thinks a lot about death and allocates a special chapel for his grave in the Archangel Cathedral. The painting of the chapel, as historian E. S. Sizov established, allegorically conveys the biography of Ivan the Terrible with an emphasis on his “grievances” from the boyars. And parallels immediately arise between this painting and Ivan’s angry response message to Prince Kurbsky.

In a word, the idea of ​​the oprichnina has been gestating for quite a long time, although it is becoming increasingly clear that not only Grozny determined the course of events - he himself was frightened by their social intensity. Was oprichnina necessary? Did it serve progress? To solve this, you need to find out who it was directed against.

What a question! Of course, against the rebellious boyars - the feudal aristocracy - this seems to be clear...

But then why, during the years of the oprichnina, did the worst enemies of this aristocracy die - the clerical elite, who actually controlled all the orders? But these “arty clerks” could not defend the boyars.

The nobility suffered greatly, but the elite survived; The most notable Rurikovichs have also been preserved - the Shuisky princes and the most notable Gediminovichs (descendants of the Lithuanian Grand Duke) - the Mstislavsky and Volsky princes.

Oprichnina was the opposition to the boyars of the serving nobility? But there were many very noble people in the guardsmen, and they fell into disgrace great amount nobles

Monasteries suffered greatly from the oprichnina. But this was hardly planned, so to speak: in its first years, the monasteries received direct benefits from the oprichnina.

Ivan’s associates and he himself made a lot of efforts to embellish the oprichnina in the chronicles and show that it allegedly enjoyed widespread support. And many mysteries associated with it owe their existence to direct falsification. Others are the result of incomplete documents. Still others, perhaps, are explained by the inability of people of the 20th century to penetrate into the spirit XVI century. But besides these mysteries, we also have facts.

“... Ivashka was tortured by the oprichniki, and his cattle were slaughtered, and his bellies (property) were robbed, and his children fled... In the same village, the bow (unit of taxation) is empty Matfika Pakhomova, Matfika of the oprichniki was killed, and his cattle were slaughtered, his bellies were robbed , and his children ran away unknown... To the same village...” and so on. This is from the officially dispassionate list of objects subject to taxation - an inventory of the Novgorod lands shortly after their defeat by the guardsmen. On the Kola Peninsula, after the guardsman Basarga, “yards and empty courtyards and barns and all sorts of land were desolate.”

In the sixties of the 16th century, the road from Yaroslavl to Vologda went among rich villages; twenty years later the roadside villages were empty.

The Moscow center and north-west Russia were depopulated. And Ivashki and Matfeiki could not possibly have been involved in the conspiracies of the nobility.

The people also had their say about the guardsmen: in the twentieth century, the guardsmen were called the tsar’s punishers.

If the oprichnina contributed to the centralization of the country, then at what cost!

And, apparently, at least one of the riddles associated with the oprichnina can be answered clearly: it brought Russia, first of all, harm.

Sigurd Schmidt

Source "ZS" No. 10/1969

The church had a huge influence on the development of culture in the 16th century. But also, along with church dogmas and teachings, pagan traditions played a significant role, which had not yet had time to assimilate into the life of Russian society and played a significant role in everyday life.

Development of literature

In the 16th century, the folklore genre of literature began to develop even more. The culture of society includes historical songs that glorify significant events for the people or outstanding personalities.

The emergence of journalism as a literary genre can also be considered a significant breakthrough in the development of literature. Writers in their works begin to express between the lines their opinions about the political system of Russia, about what mistakes the tsars make in governing the state.

In the middle of the 16th century, a journalistic work was created “ Conversation of the Valaam Elders", in which the author opposes the invasion of church politics into secular life.

The traditions of the chronicle are replacing historical and literary works. An alternative to " Messages from Vladimir Monomakh to children"becomes the work of the monk Sylvester" Domostroy": the author gives advice on how to properly raise children and treat your wife, how to lead household.

Education and science in Rus' in the 16th century

In the 16th century, the literacy rate of the Russian population, regardless of social status, was approximately 15%. Moreover, the children of peasants were significantly more educated than the children of urban residents.

Children were educated in private schools attached to churches and monasteries. However, the most important science Church literacy remained, it pushed arithmetic and grammar into the background.

The most important breakthrough in science and education was the beginning of printing. The first printing houses opened in Russia. The first printed books were Holy Bible and the apostle.

Thanks to the professionalism of the father of Russian book printing, Ivan Fedorov, books were not only printed, but also significantly edited: he made his exact translations of the Bible and other books into Russian.

Unfortunately, printing did not make books more accessible to ordinary people, since mostly literature was printed for church ministers. Many secular books were still copied by hand.

Life and culture of the Russian population in the 16th century

The life of the Russian population in the 16th century depended primarily on material well-being. The food at that time was quite simple, but varied: pancakes, loaves, jelly, vegetables and cereals.

Relatively inexpensive for those times, meat was salted in oak tubs and kept for future use. Also especially loved were fish dishes, which were consumed in all possible variations: salted, dried and dried.

Drinks were represented by non-alcoholic fruit drinks and compotes. Low-alcohol drinks were very similar in taste to modern beer; they were made based on honey and hops.

In the 16th century, fasts were strictly observed; in addition to the main four fasts, people refused fasting food on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Family relationships

Family relationships were built on the basis of complete subordination to the head of the family. For disobedience of the wife or children, corporal punishment was a common practice of that time. Corporal punishment was even applied to boyars' wives and children.

Young people got married mainly at the will of their parents. This was especially common among the boyars, who, by marriage unions their children tried to increase their well-being and strengthen their positions in society. Peasant youth were given the right to choose their own future spouse.

LIFE OF A RUSSIAN PEASANT WOMAN INXVI- XVIIFOR CENTURIES

Koronova Liliya Romanovna

student of the Faculty of History and Law of the EI K(P)FU

E-mail: lilia -92@ yandex . ru

Krapotkina Irina Evgenevna

Ph.D. ist. Sciences, Associate Professor EI K(P)FU, Elabuga

The history of everyday life is one of the most promising areas that has been developed in national historiography since the end of the 20th century. The topic is relevant against the backdrop of increased activity at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. interest in researching the status Russian woman V modern society, which requires studying and understanding the economic and socio-political position of women in Russia over a long historical period.

According to the first general census of the Russian Empire in 1897, the peasantry was the largest class and made up 77.1% of the population, and peasant women made up 38.9% of the population. general population all Russian Empire.

What is characteristic of a peasant family of the 16th-17th centuries is that the spirit of mutual assistance reigned in it; responsibilities were strictly distributed. The authority of family life was very high among the people.

A Russian peasant family of the 16th century consisted of an average of 15-20 people. It was a patriarchal family in which three or four generations of relatives lived together. However, already in the 17th century there were no more than 10 people in families, representatives of only two generations.

Peasant marriage was concluded for economic reasons: the feelings or desires of the young were not taken into account - the landowner could marry the serfs at his own discretion. In addition, it was not common among the people for young men and girls to marry themselves.

When choosing a bride, preference was given to healthy and hardworking girls - this was due to the fact that after marriage, housekeeping, raising children, and working in the garden and field fell on women’s shoulders. Girls who did needlework had a greater chance of getting married successfully.

Married in XVI-XVII centuries entered very early - girls from 12 years old, and boys from 15. And there was also a ban on marriage with relatives up to the sixth generation and with people of other faiths. One could enter into marriage no more than three times, and “Stoglav” speaks about this: “The first marriage is law, the second is forgiveness, the third is a crime, the fourth is wickedness, since the life of a swine is.”

The creation of a new family was necessarily accompanied by a wedding celebration. A Russian wedding contained two elements: Christian (wedding) and folk ("fun"). It was customary to take place in the fall or winter - this was the most successful time, since all agricultural work was completed. Before the wedding, there was always matchmaking, during which the bride’s parents decided whether they should marry their daughter to this groom. If they agreed, then a “conspiracy” took place: the groom and his father came to the bride’s parents’ house and the parties agreed on wedding expenses, timing, the size of the bride’s dowry and the groom’s gifts. Having come to a common decision, they began preparing for the wedding.

“Domostroy” taught parents to collect a dowry for their daughter from birth, saving “from all profits.” The dowry included pieces of linen, clothes, shoes, jewelry, dishes - all this was put into a box or chest.

After all the preparations were completed, the wedding took place at the agreed time. A peasant wedding of the 16th-17th centuries was accompanied by many rituals: scratching the head with a comb dipped in honey, putting the hair under a kika, showering the newlyweds with hops, treating them to bread and salt - these rituals were aimed at attracting happiness in family life to the newlyweds. However, there was a custom that determined the woman’s future position in the family: the groom put a whip in one of his boots and a coin in the other. The bride’s task was to remove the boots from the groom’s feet one by one; if the boot with the coin was the first, then she was considered lucky, and family life happy, and if the boot with the whip was the first, the husband would demonstratively hit his wife with it - thus the husband showed character further relations in family .

The position of a married peasant woman in the 16th-17th centuries was freer than that of women of the upper classes: she could freely leave the house to do household chores.

Peter Petrey notes that peasant women worked in the fields and at home along with their husbands. At the same time, the woman had other things to do, such as cooking, washing, needlework, that is, making clothes for all family members, and they also carried firewood and water to the hut. In addition, the foreigner notes that husbands often beat their wives.

However, the woman had great authority in the family. It especially increased after the birth of a boy - this was due to the allotment of land only to men. Peasant women of the 16th-17th centuries were constantly busy with business, even during pregnancy, and therefore childbirth could take place anywhere - in a field, in a hut or in a stable. In Russian medieval society, the hospital was replaced by a bathhouse and, if possible, they tried to give birth there. Domostroy ordered that children be taught respect for their parents. The child was taught an appropriate craft with early age. The mother taught her daughter how to run a household and do needlework from an early age: at the age of 6 she began to master the spinning wheel, at the age of 10 - the sickle and sewing. At the age of 14, girls already knew how to weave, mow hay and bake bread. At the age of 15, peasant girls worked in the fields on an equal basis with adults.

In their free time from field and household work, women were engaged in weaving. I. E. Zabelin writes that linen business in peasant farming was exclusively in women's hands. In addition to this, sewing and spinning were also the occupation of women and girls for a long time. winter evenings. Sewing shirts was a very troublesome task: the preparation of flax fiber took place in the summer, then it was soaked for several weeks, then the stems were crushed, ruffled and combed with combs - the result was raw material for spinning. Having finished spinning, the peasant women wove canvas; for this, a loom was brought into the house from the barn. In the summer, when the linen was woven, it was whitened in the sun, spread out in the meadow. Only after all this was the fabric ready for cutting and sewing. In the 16th-17th centuries, girls did needlework, gathered together in the light of a torch; evenings were spent in conversations.

Since ancient times, clothing was intended not only to hide nakedness, but also to emphasize a person’s wealth. In addition, it was believed that clothing was designed to ward off evil spirits.

Thanks to the information from foreign guests, it is possible to create a description of the outfits of Russian peasant women. The clothing of men and women was very similar; It was not pleasing to the eye and was sewn at home. Peasants worked in old clothes Having finished their work, they changed into casual clothes, and on holidays, to church they put on smart clothes. Clothes were often inherited, carefully stored in cages and chests and cleaned after each wear. The main item of clothing in the 16th-17th centuries was a shirt, made from wool fabric, the so-called hair shirt, and linen or hemp, but due to the complexity of the manufacturing technology, linen shirts were less common.

According to Russian medieval mores, a woman was not allowed to emphasize her figure, so the shirt had a loose fit, did not lie close to the body and reached the knees. Since the 17th century, they began to wear a sundress over a shirt, that is, a sleeveless dress that fit the chest and widened downwards or across the skirt - a blue or black woolen skirt with a decorated bottom.

In the clothing of peasants until the 16th-17th centuries, the belt played the role of a talisman, but by this period this meaning was lost and it became simply a traditional part of the costume.

Special attention in the 16th-17th centuries, women's headdresses were focused on, since there was a clear distinction between girls' and women's hats. Before marriage, girls were allowed to bare their heads; after marriage, this was considered indecent behavior. Girls wore bandages - decorated strips of fabric that wrapped around their heads with a hoop, "nakosniki" - decorations on a braid, and married women- volosniki (household attire), podubrusniki (soft hats worn with an ubrus or scarf), ubrus (festive attire), kokoshniks (worn from marriage to the birth of the first child and on holidays) or kiki, that is, they twisted their hair and hid it them under the cap.

Peasants' outerwear was made from sheep skin, which had a specific smell. On the feet of the peasant women were bast shoes, which were made on their own farm from bast mixed with pieces of fur or coarse cloth. In winter, felt boots and woolen socks were worn. There were no stockings - they were replaced by pieces of linen that were used to wrap the legs.

It is typical for peasants that they always kept their elegant dresses clean and stored them in chests, taking them out only on holidays and for going to church. Often items of clothing were passed down by inheritance.

Women of the peasant class of the 16th-17th centuries could not afford to purchase expensive jewelry items, so clothes were decorated with embroidery.

The girl began in advance to make clothes that would be her dowry, since this required very long and painstaking work. For a wedding, most often the bride wore a beautiful, that is, red dress.

I would like to note that peasant women did not care about grace, taste or color combinations. All the clothes were made with their own hands and therefore they were treated with great care; new clothes were worn in exceptional cases and, taking care of their safety, they were put back into the chests where they were stored. In the 16th-17th centuries, clothing was worn until it became completely unusable. Another feature of peasant clothing in Russia during the period under review is that there was no clothing made specifically for children - they were forced to wear adult clothes, and if clothes were sewn on them, it was “for growth.”

In other words, the clothes of Russian peasant women of the 16th-17th centuries were not distinguished by a variety of shapes and materials, so they tried to decorate them with embroidery and other methods. The main purpose of clothing was protection from the cold and covering nakedness - and homespun clothing coped with this.

The peasant table of the 16th-17th centuries was not very diverse and was based on custom. The basis of the diet was black bread, cabbage soup, porridge and kvass; many dishes were similar to each other.

“Domostroy” advised the housewife to take an interest in the tricks of cooking from “good wives.” The nutrition of the peasants was closely connected not only with religion (strict observance of fasts), but also with what the peasant farms themselves produced.

The observance of fasts in the 16th-17th centuries was given special meaning every Orthodox Christian. For this reason, the table of the Russian peasant was divided into fast and fast (meat-eater). During fasting days the consumption of meat and dairy products was prohibited, but on meat-eating days all this was allowed. IN Orthodox calendar There were four main multi-day and many one-day posts. Thus, the number of fasting days in total took about 200 calendar days. In addition to major fasts, Wednesday and Friday throughout the year, with the exception of Christmastide and continuous weeks, were also fast days. Religious norms and Domostroy regulated the consumption of certain products during the four main fasts.

The first to go Lent, which lasted 40 days, Lenten bread, fish, porridge with it, pea porridge, dried and boiled saffron milk caps, cabbage soup, pancakes, jelly, pies with jam, onions, peas, turnips, mushrooms, and cabbage were served at the table.

The next one was Peter's Fast, which began a week after Trinity Day and ended on Peter's Day, that is, July 12. During this Lent, Orthodox peasants ate fish, fish soup seasoned with saffron, onions and garlic, pies with millet and peas, mushrooms, and cabbage soup.

Next came the Assumption Fast, which lasted from August 1 to August 14. At this time, fish food was served to the table: sauerkraut with fish, fish seasoned with garlic, in gravy with seasonings, fish jellies, fish soup, fish balls, pastries, sour pies with peas or fish.

And the final major fast was Christmas, which lasted 6 weeks from November 12 to the Nativity of Christ. Here peasants of the 16th-17th centuries ate boiled and fish stew, seasoned with garlic and horseradish, fish jellies, fish soup, loaves. At the end of the Nativity Fast, peasants tried to serve dishes made from the meat of piglets or ducklings on the festive table.

The largest one-day posts are the day of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Christmas Eve. On these days, grain porridge, peas, baked turnips, cabbage soup and rassolnik were served.

The basis of the peasant diet was rye bread, and baked goods made from wheat flour were placed on the table only on major holidays. Not a single meal was complete without bread. Moreover he played important role and in various rituals: religious (prosphora for communion, Easter cakes), wedding (the newlyweds were greeted with “bread and salt”), folk (pancakes for Maslenitsa, gingerbread for welcoming spring).

Bread was baked once a week in a special wooden tub - a kneading bowl, which was rarely washed because it was constantly in use. Before putting the dough, the housewife rubbed the walls of the tub with salt, then filled it with warm water. In the peasant economy of the 16th-17th centuries, a piece of dough left over from previous baking was used for sourdough. Next, add flour and mix thoroughly and leave overnight in a warm place. The housewife kneaded the dough that had risen in the morning until it began to lag behind both her hands and the walls of the kneading bowl. After which the dough was again put in a warm place overnight, and kneaded again in the morning. The dough was now shaped and placed in the oven. The baked bread was stored in special wooden bread bins. A woman who knew how to bake delicious bread was especially respected in the family. In lean years, peasants were forced to add quinoa, tree bark, ground acorns, nettles and bran to flour, as a result of which the bread acquired a bitter taste.

In the 16th-17th centuries, peasants baked not only bread from flour, but also pies, pancakes, pancakes, and gingerbread cookies, but all this was present exclusively on the festive table. Pancakes can be considered the most popular flour dish: they were prepared for Maslenitsa, fed to a woman in labor and in honor of the deceased. Next came pies - they were prepared from yeast, unleavened and puff pastry, and they could be baked in oil (spun) or without it in the oven (hearth). Pies were filled with eggs, fruits and berries, meat and fish, cottage cheese, vegetables, mushrooms, and porridge. Another flour dish of the Russian peasant holiday table were gingerbread cookies of various shapes. When preparing the dough, honey and spices were added to it - hence the name. Kalachis were baked from a mixture of rye and wheat flour.

Among the peasants of the 16th-17th centuries, cabbage soup and porridge were very widespread, and any soup was called cabbage soup. Porridges were cooked from cereals in milk or water with the addition of butter. Porridge was an attribute of many folk rituals, for example, it was cooked for christenings, weddings and funerals. If a woman knew how to cook delicious cabbage soup and bake bread, then this was already a reason to consider her a good housewife. Shchi was prepared from fresh and sour cabbage, often with the addition of turnips and beets. In general, turnips were considered second bread. Cabbage soup was cooked both in meat broth and simply in water.

In lean days, on the Russian medieval peasant table one could often find milk soups and porridges from various cereals, flavored with butter or lard, cheeses, cottage cheese, sour cream and meat dishes. There was plenty of meat on Russian soil, but the peasants ate little of it; each type of meat was supplemented with garden crops (turnips, garlic, onions, cucumbers, peppers, radishes). From spring to late autumn, meat dishes were prepared mainly from lamb; in winter - from beef (since a large amount of meat did not spoil in the cold), before Christmas - from salted or smoked pork.

However, not everything on the peasant table was grown by the peasant family itself. Ukha, made from river fish caught on communal lands, was widespread. The fish was also consumed salted, boiled, smoked and used to prepare cabbage soup, pies, cutlets, and served with buckwheat, millet and other cereals. Poultry dishes (raised at home or caught on the hunt) were well seasoned with horseradish and vinegar.

A special feature of Russian table dishes is that they were richly seasoned with onions, garlic, pepper, mustard and vinegar, but peasants could rarely afford salt due to its high cost.

The most common drinks among peasants of the 16th-17th centuries were kvass, fruit drink, and in April - Berezovets, that is, Birch juice. Beer, honey, and vodka were also widely used.

Kvass drinks were available to many, and many dishes could be prepared on its basis, for example, okroshka, beetroot soup, and tyuryu. A good housewife knew how to prepare a wide variety of kvass: from barley or rye malt, from honey and berries (cherries, bird cherry, raspberries, cranberries) or fruits (apples, pears). In addition, kvass, like cabbage, was an excellent means of preventing diseases such as scurvy. Beer was brewed from barley, oats, rye and wheat. The original and best Russian drink, famous among foreigners, was mead; all travelers unanimously recognized his dignity. Honey was brewed from berries (raspberries, currants, cherries, lingonberries, bird cherry), with yeast or hops.

In the 17th century, vodka appeared and became widespread among the peasantry. Typically, Russian vodka was made from rye, wheat or barley, but there was an exception - this was women's vodka, which was made with the addition of molasses or honey, which made it sweet. In addition, when making vodka, they often infused various spices (cinnamon, mustard) and aromatic herbs (mint, St. John's wort, juniper) and made liqueurs with various berries.

Alcoholic drinks were widespread - they were usually consumed various holidays and reasons, but foreign travelers note that drunkenness was a common occurrence among the Russian people in the 16th-17th centuries. “Domostroy” forbade women from drinking intoxicating drinks, but Jacques Margeret notes that women and girls often indulged in drunkenness.

Among the peasants, it was believed that food had to be earned, so they rarely had breakfast. A peasant family of the 16th-17th centuries rarely managed to dine together: during lean times they ate right in the field in order not to waste time.

Based on the above, we can say that the food culture of peasants of the 16th-17th centuries was fully dependent on religious fasts and products Agriculture. The daily diet of the peasants was extremely unpretentious and consisted of cereals, vegetables (such as turnips, cabbage, cucumbers), meat and fish, that is, their meals were to a greater extent was simple, due to the fact that food was consumed that was grown on its own plot.

To summarize, I would like to note that the Russian woman of the 16th-17th centuries provided full support and assistance to her husband, she worked equally with him; In addition, she was engaged in raising children, sewing clothes and cooking. The peasant family was large, but the income was small, as a result of which the woman could not afford to buy clothes - everything was produced on the farm itself. The situation was also the same with the peasant table - they were forced to give most of what they produced to the landowners. Thus, the peasant family was very close-knit, and the position of a woman in the family depended on her own skills.

Bibliography:

1. Adam Olearius. Description of the trip to Muscovy // [ Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://www.vostlit.info/
2. Jerome Horsey. Notes about Russia XVI - early XVII centuries. / Ed. V.L. Ioannina; Per. and comp. A.A. Sevastyanova. - M.: MSU, 1990. - 288 p. // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://krotov.info/
3. Domostroy / Comp., intro. Art. lane and comment. V.V. Kolesova; Prepare texts by V.V. Rozhdestvenskaya, V.V. Kolesova and M.V. Pimenova; Artist A.G. Tyurin. - M.: Sov. Russia, 1990. - 304 p.
4. Zabelin I.E. Home life of Russian queens in the 16th and 17th centuries. - M.: Printing house Grachev and Co., 1869. - 852 p. // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://az.lib.ru/
5. Zabylin M. Russian people. Its customs, rituals, legends, superstitions and poetry. M., 1880. - 624 p. // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://www.knigafund.ru/
6. Italian in Russia in the 16th century. Francesco da Collo. Report on Muscovy. - M.: Heritage. 1996 // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://www.drevlit.ru/
7. Kostomarov N. Home life and customs of the Great Russian people. - M.: Economics, 1993. - 400 p. // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://lib.rus.ec/
8. Margeret Jacques. Russia at the beginning of the 17th century. Notes of Captain Margeret / Comp. Doctor of History Yu.A. Limonov. Rep. ed. Doctor of History IN AND. Buganov. Translation by T.I. Shaskolskaya, N.V. Revunenkov. - M.: Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1982. - 254 p. // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://www.vostlit.info/
9. Mikhalon Litvin. About the morals of the Tatars, Lithuanians and Muscovites / Translation into Russian by Khoroshevich A.L. - M., 1994 // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://www.vostlit.info/
10. Description of Muscovy in the reports of gr. Carlyle / Trans. from French with a preface and note. I.F. Pavlovsky. - 1879. - T. 5. - 46 p. // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://www.vostlit.info/
11. Petrey Peter. The story of the Grand Duchy of Moscow // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://www.booksite.ru/
12. Travel to Muscovy by Augustine Meyerberg and Horace William Calvucci in 1661. - Reprint edition of 1874 - St. Petersburg: Alpharet, 2011. - 262 p. // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://www.gumer.info/
13. Pushkareva N.L. Women of Ancient Rus'. - M.: Mysl, 1989. - 286 p.
14. Results of the first general census of the Russian Empire in 1897 // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://demoscope.ru/
15. Ryabtsev Yu.S. History of Russian culture. Artistic life and life of the XI-XVII centuries: Tutorial- M.: Humanite. ed. VLADOS center, 1997. - 336 p.
16. Stoglav, the Cathedral that was in Moscow under the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich (in the summer of 7059). - London: Trübner & Co., 1860. - 68 p. // [Electronic resource] - Access mode. - URL: http://dlib.rsl.ru/